Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 75 Oak 3family topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant for 75 Oak St. seeks special‑permit relief for third unit; ZBA urges clearer plans on parking, retaining wall and drainage
Summary
BCF Investments asked the Gardner Zoning Board to approve converting 75 Oak Street from a two‑family to a three‑family and presented a revised parking plan. Board members and city staff raised questions about driveway setbacks, a retaining wall and drainage; the applicant asked to continue to June and received a one‑time waiver of the continuance
BCF Investments sought a special permit on May 20 to convert 75 Oak Street from a two‑family to a three‑family dwelling and submitted a revised engineering plan that proposes two additional off‑street parking spaces in tandem ("buddy" parking) at the rear of the lot.
Attorney Christine Tree said the building was renovated after purchase, the third‑floor unit is not yet habitable and the proposal relies on the zoning ordinance's provision that a change in use need only provide the additional parking required for the new use. Tree told the board the plan shows about five on‑site spaces overall: three in the long existing left‑side driveway and two in the proposed rear area.
Board members and City Engineer Rob Oliva have flagged several concerns: the proposed spaces come closer than the ordinance's 5‑foot setback from the side lot line; the plan lacks some critical dimensions (distance from driveway to adjacent house, and exact distance from new parking to property line); topography and boulder/retaining‑wall stability; potential drainage impacts on city infrastructure; and whether tandem parking meets the ordinance where the zoning code is silent about a formal definition of a parking space.
Tree said contours and dimensions were included on the site plan submitted to the engineering department and that the applicant is open to adding permeable pavement to address drainage. She also said the proposal would replace deteriorated sidewalk in front of the property in compliance with DPW driveway permit specifications.
The board asked Tree to supply final dimensioned drawings, details on the retaining‑wall/boulder solution, snow‑storage areas, and a response from the city engineer, who had not yet completed a full review. Tree requested a continuance to the June meeting to provide those items; the applicant also asked that the board waive the $150 continuance fee for this filing (the applicant said it had paid the fee several times). The board granted a one‑time fee waiver for 75 Oak Street and continued the case to the June meeting.
Discussion vs. decision: the board did not vote on the special permit; it accepted the revised plan for additional review and sought more complete engineered plans and a written comment from the city engineer before voting. The continuation was approved and the waiver granted.
Next steps: the applicant will submit an engineered, dimensioned plan that shows all required setbacks and contours, retaining‑wall design or alternate solutions to boulders, a snow‑storage plan, and responses to DPW comments. The city engineer's review will be circulated to the board prior to any vote.
