Gardner ZBA delays decision on 163–165 Pine St. special‑permit modification after parking, retaining‑wall and egress issues

The Gardner Zoning Board of Appeals on May 20 continued review of a proposed modification to the special permit for 163–165 Pine Street, citing outstanding questions about parking, a retaining wall, and the property's second means of egress.

Attorney Christine Tree, representing owner Jonathan Bombacci, presented revised site plans that move the rear retaining wall closer to the rear lot line and that show an additional maneuvering area intended to make “Space 8” usable. Tree said the retaining‑wall change adds about $5,000 to the project and that bollards will be installed near an exterior stairway for safety.

The proposal also includes an offer from the owner of 307 Pine Street to provide up to five off‑site parking spaces about 1,200 feet from the subject property under an easement recorded at the registry of deeds. Tree said the owner of 307 would maintain striping, snow removal, lighting and general upkeep and that any easement would run with the land.

Board members pressed for clarity on several points: whether the retaining wall could be extended to eliminate a jog near a neighbor's tree, the exact distances between proposed parking, retaining wall and lot lines, the amount of impervious coverage (the residential limit is 85 percent), and whether the second means of egress will be designated “emergency use only.” Thomas Zuppa, Gardner's building commissioner, had submitted a written update saying one permit had passed final inspection, another had not, the retaining‑wall work had not begun, and temporary certificates of occupancy had expired on May 20.

Tree told the board she planned to file a formal modification to the special permit and asked members to submit all comments now so they can be incorporated in that filing. She also said the applicant would provide a signed construction contract, price quote and start and tentative finish dates for the wall before construction would begin, in case the board conditions approval on those commitments.

Discussion vs. decision: the May 20 session was a review rather than a formal amendment hearing. The board made no finding or vote on the substance of the modification; it voted instead to continue the matter. Commissioner Ray Lafond moved to continue the case; the motion was seconded and carried without opposition. The case was continued to the June meeting, with the option to go to July if scheduling requires.

What's next: the applicant will submit a formal modification application with updated, dimensioned plans (including a survey staking property corners), the signed contractor documents for the retaining wall, clarifications on impervious coverage and an updated status letter from the building commissioner certifying whether outstanding inspections and code issues are closed. The board requested that Mr. Zuppa provide a letter confirming that all open building code items are satisfied prior to any approval vote.

Background: The item was presented as a continuance of Case 20220‑01‑01, a review tied to special‑permit conditions for a multiunit building at 163–165 Pine Street.