Zoning board continues review of 163–165 Pine Street special-permit compliance after revised parking plan and proposed easement

The Gardner City Zoning Board of Appeals continued a public-hearing review of special-permit conditions at 163–165 Pine Street after the permit holder presented revised parking plans, a draft permanent easement for two off‑site spaces at 307 Pine Street and a proposal to construct a roughly 6‑foot retaining wall to reconfigure an on‑site space.

The matter returned to the board for follow-up on a retaining wall that was built in the wrong location and for alternatives the permit holder proposed to restore the number of required parking spaces. Attorney Christine Tree, representing the permit holder MHG 3 Fund LLC (applicant named in the file as Jonathan Bombacci), told the board contractor work to fix an exit landing has a signed contract and that a building permit was pulled in March for that work. Tree said the work must be inspected before the building commissioner can issue the verification letter the board requested about whether other outstanding building conditions remain.

Why it matters: The property is operating under a special permit with conditions that the board must enforce. The dispute centers on whether the applicant can meet parking requirements on site, whether two off‑site spaces at a nearby property can be recorded as a permanent easement and counted toward compliance, and whether changes to off‑site parking would require a separate special‑permit application for 307 Pine Street.

What was proposed and discussed

- On‑site reconfiguration and retaining wall: The applicant proposed shifting one interior (tandem) parking space into the rear parking lot. That change would require constructing a new retaining wall approximately 6 feet 3 inches tall; a previous option would have required a wall about 22 feet high. Attorney Tree said the smaller wall “makes each unit available to use a space without having to worry about the tandem parking issue.”

- Compact‑space dimensions and maneuverability: The plan labels the new diagonal space as a compact space dimensioned at 9 by 18 feet. Tree and board members noted the available maneuvering aisle between space 1 and the proposed space 8 is about 19 feet 6 inches in one measurement and 10 feet in another local cross section; Tree reminded the board of the ordinance dimensions she cited: “A maneuvering aisle for 90‑degree parking is 24 feet,” and lower widths apply for angled parking. The short aisle means the applicant may need dimensional relief.

- Off‑site easement at 307 Pine Street: The applicant proposed recording a permanent easement tying two spaces at 307 Pine Street to 163–165 Pine. The draft easement presented would grant a right to “pass, repass, and park” on two identified spaces, require the 307 owner to maintain paving, lighting, snow removal and related items, and allow proportionate cost sharing from 163–165 Pine for maintenance bills. Tree said the easement would be recorded at the registry of deeds and run with the land.

- Zoning questions about accessory use and intensification: The board and staff debated whether using two spaces at 307 for 163–165 would turn the 307 lot into a de facto commercial parking lot or otherwise change the lot’s primary use. Tree argued the parking-lot definition in the ordinance contemplates accessory parking and noted that only two of the seven surface spaces would be designated off‑site. In response the building commissioner stated he did not see how the special permit for 163–165 could be modified to attach off‑site premises and advised that a separate special‑permit application for 307 Pine would likely be required to authorize an intensification of a preexisting nonconforming use.

Board and public concerns raised

- Access and driveway nonconformity: Staff noted the access driveway at 307 measures about 22 feet 9 inches at its narrowest point while the ordinance calls for a 24‑foot minimum; that makes the driveway a preexisting nonconformity that would be implicated by intensified use.

- Notification to abutters: Board members asked whether abutters at 307 had been or would be notified. Attorney Tree and staff confirmed a modification or new special‑permit application would trigger the normal notice and abutter mailings.

- Enforcement and remedies: Neighbors asked how maintenance and snow removal obligations in an easement would be enforced. Tree said remedies would be contractual and, if necessary, judicial (specific performance or contempt), and that the board could make an easement a condition of a special permit to create an enforcement path through zoning compliance channels.

- Tenant impacts and allocation: Board members discussed how designated compact spaces would be assigned to units and whether landlords could be expected to police vehicle size. Tree said designation would be managed by the landlord through assigned spaces and rental agreements; the easement and maintenance obligations were between property owners, not tenants.

Next steps and board action

Board members asked the applicant to provide revised, dimensioned site plans and a finalized easement draft for staff review, and requested the proposed new on‑site space be staked or spray‑marked so members could inspect turning radius at a planned site visit. The board continued the hearing to the May meeting to allow the applicant to submit the additional materials and to allow the board to conduct a site visit.

A motion to continue the hearing to the May meeting passed by voice vote; the record shows the board voted in favor and continued the matter for further review and a site visit.

Ending: The board asked staff to circulate the revised plan and easement draft to members before the next meeting and to post a site‑visit notice when the inspection date is set.