8‑unit Pine Street building remains out of compliance after contractor error; board gives applicant time to propose fix

The Gardner Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 18 heard an update on the special permit for 163–165 Pine Street, where the permit holder said construction errors left the property short two of the 11 off‑street parking spaces approved under a prior special permit.

Attorney Christine M. Tree, representing the permit holder, told the board “we are not going to be able to expand the parking area” and said the contractor built the rear parking area short by roughly eight feet, leaving seven spaces in the rear instead of the nine shown on the approved plan. Tree said the permit holder has satisfied most other conditions but cannot comply with the approved parking plan.

Tree said the building commissioner issued a temporary certificate of occupancy for the building but that a final certificate cannot issue until the parking is resolved. She also said the commissioner has given the permit holder until May 20 to submit an amended architectural plan for a required stair landing.

Tree summarized three options the applicant is offering to resolve the shortfall: (1) accept the as‑built condition and formally amend the special permit to require nine parking spaces and an as‑built plan for the site; (2) provide the two missing spaces off‑site at a nearby property the permit holder owns at 307 Klein (about 0.22 miles away), and submit corresponding plans; or (3) reduce the building from eight units to seven so the site would meet a one‑space‑per‑unit requirement.

The permit holder provided letters from contractors saying reconstruction of the retaining wall to gain two additional spaces would be technically difficult and expensive; Tree told the board the lowest written bids she had were about $85,000 and $96,000 and that some oral estimates approached $150,000 to $200,000. She described contractor concerns that removing and rebuilding the existing tall retaining wall could destabilize the slope and equipment, threatening employee and property safety.

Several board members pushed back that the permit holder should have supervised the contractor and that the project’s cost increases do not relieve the owner’s obligation to follow the approved plan. Board members discussed whether reducing units or accepting off‑site parking would be acceptable, and whether additional documentation should be required to ensure a permanent change (for example, deed restrictions or a recorded parking agreement for any off‑site spaces).

Chair Ray LaFana asked Tree to confer with her clients and return next month with a firm proposal. The board then voted to continue the case to the next monthly meeting; the motion to continue passed by unanimous voice vote. The board also recorded in the record that tenants had been notified about current parking assignments and that permanent signage for the two “buddy” spaces on the north side had been installed.

The board did not adopt a solution at the hearing and left the three options on the table. The permit holder must provide whatever plans or recorded agreements the board requires to approve a modification of the special permit or to grant relief if the board elects to reduce dwelling units or accept off‑site parking.

Votes at the hearing

- Motion to continue the compliance review for case 20220901 (163–165 Pine St.) to the next monthly meeting: motion passed (unanimous voice vote).