Pittsfield board recognizes group‑home use at 24 Ann Drive but rejects proposed parking changes after neighbors object

The Pittsfield Community Development Board on Jan. 20 approved recognizing 24 Ann Drive as a group home under Section 7.733 of the zoning code but rejected the applicant’s proposed changes to onsite parking after neighbors said the plan would not improve safety.

George Dole of Jones Whitsett Architects presented existing, temporary and proposed site plans for Clinical & Support Options, which seeks recognition of the property as a group home. Dole described a permanent plan that would create six 45‑degree angled parking spaces with up to two additional spaces in the middle to reduce on‑street parking.

Neighbors disputed that the proposal would improve conditions. Brenda Kelly said residents had not been informed about the change of use, and questioned whether the city had approved it: “the residents have not been informed,” she told the board. Mark and Kathleen Amusso and James and Katherine Hall told the board that parking along Ann Drive creates safety hazards and blocks sightlines onto Alfred Drive. James Conant criticized the project as “a commercial development of a residential area” and said he strongly opposed the plans.

Board members pressed the applicant on whether the design would make the situation safer. Chair Sheila Irvin said she did not feel the parking issue had been resolved, and board member Matthew Herzberg said he did not see how the proposed layout made conditions safer. Planning staff confirmed the applicant cited an educational use under the Dover Amendment as part of the zoning determination.

After discussion the board approved a motion to accept the existing conditions plan and to reject the proposed parking changes. The motion, made by Herzberg and seconded by Floriana FitzGerald, passed unanimously by roll call. The board’s action preserved the site’s recognition request under the group‑home/zoning review but declined to grant the parking configuration the applicant had proposed.

The meeting record notes specific setback and parking constraints for related nearby proposals: the parcel split for 291–295 First Street would create non‑conforming setbacks (rear yard of 295 reported at 7.5 feet; side yards between 291 and 295 reported at 5.5 feet for 295 and 8.04 feet for 291). The board’s vote on 24 Ann Drive did not include a modification to on‑street parking restrictions or a formal traffic‑safety mitigation plan.

The board approved the action without recorded dissent. The item concluded with direction that the applicant remain subject to applicable federal, state and local rules required by any permit.