City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, March 20, 2006 7:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, City Hall

City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA

Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, audio recordings are available at the Division of Planning & Development, 50 Arcand Drive, Lowell, MA

Members Present

George Zaharoolis, Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Member

Joseph Clermont, Member

Thomas Linnehan, Vice Chairman

Mary Burns, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm, with Chairman Zaharoolis welcoming the public watching the Planning Board meeting on television.

Approval of Minutes: February 23, 2006 & March 6, 2006

J. Clermont motioned to APPROVE the minutes from February 23, 2006 & March 6, 2006

M. Burns second the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Friends of Rogers Fort Hill Park - Anne Cavanaugh

Public Hearings

Site Plan: 6-10 Acton Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by John Desilets and The Daly Group LLC for site plan approval for the development of the property located at 6-10 Acton Street. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing structure, subdivision of the property into two lots, and construction of two new 2-family homes. Lot 1A will be 6,488sqft and Lot 2A will be 6,748sqft. The site plan also includes one curb opening, parking for eight vehicles, site utilities, and landscaping on the site. This project is in the TTF (Traditional-Neighborhood Two Family) Zoning District.

In Favor:

David Daly (Applicant): Approximately 6-8 months ago we were before the Board for a similar project down the street. This project virtually mirrors that project. That project has had a lot of success and support in the neighborhood. There are two letters of support from neighbors along Acton Street, including the direct abutter who would be most affected by it. It meets all the zoning requirements except for 8 inches of frontage along Acton Street on one of the lots. There was concern about whether or not it was within 100 feet of wetlands. It is not, and we do not need to go in front of the Conservation Commission. We are required to have 8 parking spots, which we do. The open space is nearly double the requirement. The rear setback is nearly 50 feet, and there is a ground infiltration system on the site. I have also noticed that the Planning Department has used that the project down the street from this one has been shown as an example as a successful development in the TTF zoning district before the Zoning Committee.

Charles Sousa (80 Acton Street): I have the pleasure of living next to another Daly project. I think they did a really good job. The structure fit into the neighborhood perfectly. They have added a lot to the neighborhood and I think it would be a benefit to our neighborhood for another project.

In Opposition:

Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street): I have come before you this evening as a resident and activist. As with Mr. Daly's project, I am here to oppose the demolition of one of Lowell's historic homes. I am a little puzzled how I may be able to fulfill my role as an activist without allowing the public to oppose the demolition of this project, since the house is already torn down. The process is designed to enhance and promote the historic character of Lowell's historic neighborhood. I have focused on Acton Street, which is why I oppose this project.

Discussion:

R. Lockhart: I have one question; wastewater was looking for some additional connections with the overflow. And the engineer had a comment as well. Can you comment on those?

Jack Sullivan (Applicant's Engineer): There are three main questions that have been brought to the Board. There was the question for an easement for access to the infiltration system in case they fail. Dave has no problem with this condition. There is some concern regarding a depression across the street. We engaged a botanist to access the site, and the Conservation found the results of the study sufficient for the questions. And we have no problem accepting wastewater's comments.

J. Clermont: This question is for the developer; these projects will be maintained on separate lots?

Dave Daly: They will be under one condo association, but on two lots.

J. Clermont: And you are seeking a variance for the site as well?

D. Daly: Yes they had to continue the variance because of the continuation of this site plan approval. Currently we are looking for 8 inches of variance for the frontage requirement.

J. Clermont: It is being maintained as one lot, and one lot has 65 feet and one has 64.2 feet?

D. Daly: Correct.

J. Clermont: There was an issue raised regarding the common driveway and the lot line separating the lot as to whether you are close to the lot line.

D. Daly: Yes that is part of the variance. We can shift the buildings as needed and we have applied for that variance.

J. Clermont: Can you explain the infiltration system?

D. Daly: Yes there is an infiltration system for each building. And they are accessed under the driveway.

J. Clermont: Is there any concern over having these under the driveway?

D. Daly: No, there will be a sewer manhole that accesses the system, and there can be an easement over that for the City if the Board would like.

J. Clermont: How about trash removal?

D. Daly: Yes, it will be City trash. May I address the concern over the raising of the property? When we purchased the property, there was a lot of mischievous happenings and vandalism on the site. We were allowed to do this by right, and for the safety of the neighborhood we felt it was necessary to do it sooner rather than later. The neighborhood agreed with the action.

J. Clermont: You are required to get a demolition permit, correct?

D. Daly: Yes, I went through the proper procedure.

M. Burns: I have no questions. I noticed what you did on the other buildings on Acton Street, and I think you did a good job on the rest of the neighborhood. I appreciate your work and I think it will enhance the neighborhood.

T. Linnehan: Can you explain the property line on the left side of the street?

D. Daly: The abutter that is there, that is his back yard. And it starts narrowing down to the property line that is on the plans. His house is located over here, so there is really no abutter there.

T. Linnehan: So, in a way you are not abutting a property, you are just abutting Billerica Street. I see that you have a number of letters of support for properties along the street.

D. Daly: Yes I do.

T. Linnehan: I notice that you have plenty of parking, and plenty of open space?

D. Daly: Yes that is correct.

T. Linnehan: I have no further questions. I think it is a good project.

G. Zaharoolis: I want to thank you for taking the initiative for having someone review the wetlands. I think it was a plus. I have nothing further.

T. Linnehan: I have one quick question before we finish, for the house that was there; you received a demolition permit to tear it down, correct?

D. Daly: Correct.

G. Zaharoolis: What is the pleasure of the Board?

Motion:

T. Linnehan motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan with the following conditions:

M. Burns second the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Site Plan, Special Permit & Subdivision Approval: 86.1 Bernier Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Polaris Engineering Corp. and Women In Transition Inc. for a Special Permit, Site Plan Approval, and Definitive Subdivision Approval for a project located at 86.1 Bernier Street. The project includes the extension of Bernier Street to create required frontage for the development of three (3) residential buildings, with two (2) units each for a total of six (6) units. The property is located in the TMF (Traditional Neighborhood Multi-Family) zoning district. This project requires a Special Permit under Article XII: Table of Uses and Site Plan Approval under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance, and Definitive Subdivision Approval under the City of Lowell Subdivision Regulations.

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street, attorney for applicant): I am here with Kathy Kelly and Matt Hamor, and my son James. We are before you tonight for a definitive subdivision plan, a site plan approval and a special permit. The property is zoned TMF. It was purchased from the City in July through an RFP process to construct what is before you tonight. A condition of that purchase is to use the site for the Women in Transition. We are proposing three buildings with six residential units. Two of the buildings will have two bedrooms, and one of the buildings will have a 2 bedroom and a 3-bedroom unit. We are not seeking any waivers of variances and the development meets all zoning requirements, and all required open space. I will turn it over to Matt for the engineering.

Matthew Hamor (engineer for applicant): We showed this plan before you a couple of months ago and this project has not changed much since then. We are proposing six individual units, five 2 bedroom and one 3 bedroom, shown here with a playground. Each unit will be tied into municipal sewer and water. We will extend Bernier Street with a cul-de-sac. There will be one small detention basin. We have received comments, and we do have a couple small outstanding issues. Apparently the Bunting Club never had the sewer line formally accepted by the City. We will need to provide a couple tests to make sure the water line and sewer line are okay, and we are okay with that. We have been in discussions with the City Engineer to get this done.

In Opposition:

James Tavares (54 Christman Avenue): I have a few questions, one what is the maximum development that can be built on this lot, can anymore than six units be built on the lot with the existing buildings? If this is approved as a development, can one or more lots be sold to separate owners, and what percentage has to be open space by current zoning? What are the size and number of parking spaces? What protection do we have regarding the runoff? Should this be a roadway instead of just a driveway in case of fire/ambulance access?

In Discussion:

T. Linnehan: We received a letter from Mr. Curran, and basically there are five issues listed. Are there any issues with having these covered?

Matt Hamor: We have no issues with these conditions.

T. Linnehan: He talked about the sewer, the meets and bounds of the cul-de-sac, the sewer line, the great valve at the end plug, and the clay brick. You have no problem with incorporating these as a condition of the approval.

M. Hamor: We have no problem with any of those.

T. Linnehan: We have received a letter from the fire department saying that the roadway is set with their requirements. And what about the development on the site? Can there be any future development?

J. Flood: Yes we bought this site from the City, and there is a condition that we must provide 6 affordable units on the site. There will be no more units since this is part of the deed on the land.

T. Linnehan: The parking meets all requirements? And you will contain the run off on site?

J. Flood: Yes the site conforms to zoning. And the site will keep all drainage on site.

T. Linnehan: The only question here is about the sewer line; who owns that line?

M. Hamor: We talked to the Bunting Club, and they said that they did put in the facility, but they were to give it to the City. The City did not accept those lines at that time, but the City is willing to now if we do a couple tests.

T. Linnehan: When you come to the end of Bernier Street, there are two apartment complexes on the site now. Will these be similar in size to those?

M. Hamor: They will be much smaller than both of those buildings.

T. Linnehan: The building to the right, will they be able to see that building?

M. Hamor: I have not been on the Bunting Club property to check that, so I don't know.

T. Linnehan: There is a chain link fence along the property lines. What is going to happen with that?

M. Hamor: We will take the recommendation of the Associate Planner and use a wood stockade fence along that property line.

T. Linnehan: And what about the playground?

M. Hamor: Yes that will be fenced as well. With stockade fencing.

M. Burns: Most of the questions have been addressed. The trash will be curbside?

M. Hamor: Yes.

J. Clermont: This will be six units under separate ownership?

J. Flood: No, these will be owned by the Alternative House and rented to women and families in their program.

J. Clermont: The cul-de-sac will be provided to the City and maintained by the City.

J. Flood: Yes.

J. Clermont: Are you intending to have a landscaped island in the middle of the cul-de-sac?

M. Hamor: No we intended to have it landscaped, but the City did not like that.

R. Lockhart: Is there access to the playground, like walk way from the other units of the project.

M. Hamor: Yes, there will be a walk way here.

R. Lockhart: What about screening along I-495? What are you proposing?

M. Hamor: Yes there is vegetation here, and there is a berm here, there are some existing trees that we are going to leave on the property, and we could also do some planting along here.

R. Lockhart: I would recommend that you do whatever you can along that side. And there was a note about providing a stockade fence.

M. Hamor: We are intending to provide a buffer here with fencing. It may be stockade as well.

G. Zaharoolis: Have you spoken with any of the neighborhood residents?

J. Flood: I have not.

G. Zaharoolis: You mentioned that there will be stockade fencing along the property line? I think it would be nice to work with the neighbors in the area on this buffer area. They might want something else along there as a buffer. To me a wooden fence does not cut it. I think we need to have something a little more aesthetically pleasing. I also have a problem with the drainage. Is there going to be a berm along the edges of the site to keep the runoff on site?

M. Hamor: Right now it is all pitched into the site, so we are not intending berming along the edges of the site.

G. Zaharoolis: Is there going to be any curbing waivers? Sidewalk waivers? If you are going to have children down there, it may be nice to have a sidewalk?

M. Hamor: We are not intending sidewalks, and we can provide whatever curbing the board is comfortable with.

G. Zaharoolis: I think their needs to be some sidewalks in the development. Are there going to be any sidewalks to the house in the back from the street? I think their needs to be some sidewalk there.

M. Hamor: Well there is the driveway for that unit, and that can be used as the walkway. We did not plan on a sidewalk there because of the driveway, and because we wanted to limit the amount of pavement on the site. As it stands, there is quite a bit of pavement with the cul-de-sac, and each unit's driveways.

G. Zaharoolis: I think their needs to be something for the kids. Can you provide a bus stop or a meeting area somewhere on the cul-de-sac? A place where the kids can wait safely for the bus?

M. Hamor: Sure we can make a waiting area. We can either do it here on this side of the road, or on this side.

G. Zaharoolis: And what is the signage going to be? I imagine their needs to be some signage to let people know there will be children in the area.

M Hamor: We can work with DPD on signage.

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan, Special Permit, & Subdivision with the following conditions and waivers:

R. Lockhart seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Site Plan & Special Permit: 200-206 Rogers Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by the Rogers Street Association LLC for a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for a project located at 206 & 200 Rogers Street. The project includes the conversion of two existing buildings on site into 13 condominium units, ranging in size from 900 to 2000sqft of living space with 3 parking spaces per unit. This project requires a Special Permit under Section 8.1 Conversion of Existing Buildings and Site Plan Approval under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in the TTF (Traditional Neighborhood Two-Family) zoning district.

In Favor:

Attorney David Plunkett (applicant's attorney): I am here tonight representing the applicant. With me tonight is Keith Bourgeois, Jeff Cook the architect, and the engineer for the project. This is for the location 200-206 Rogers Street. 206 Rogers Street is the white building where the YWCA offices are located, and the other site is the old gym building or the Rogers School. We are here with the site plan for the site, which is the same as the one approved by the Board for this site in November. This reason for the 8.1 Special Permit is for the adaptive reuse of historic buildings. We are here in front of you tonight, we are not seeking any waivers, no variances, and we meet or exceed the requirements of this district, which is TTF residential. The proposed 4 units at the 206 Rogers Street site, the white house, range in size from 900sqft to 1600sqft, and fully comply with the requirements under 8.1. The gym building has 9 units ranging from 1200sqft to 1800 sqft. The housing will create diverse units, and provide significant variety of housing to the neighborhood and the community. Again, we are not seeking any waivers or variances. In the basement of the gymnasium, the area will become a swimming pool with a community area, and this will be for the entire development. We will have a homeowners association for the whole site, and that is keeping with in line with good development. That in conjunction with the park across the street, and the existing walkways in the area, and that this project is on a public transit route makes this project very desirable. This is a perfect use for the area. The architecture designs will retain the look completely. There is going to be the addition of some dormers or windows, but no major exterior work. As far as the site plan, again there is no real change as to what was approved last time by the Board. The access is on the Hanks Street side. We have provided a traffic report, and again that shows no real increase in parking or traffic. As far as the garbage pick up, this site will be all private pick up. Each unit will have secure garbage lock up so there is no need for dumpsters. The mail will be delivered in the foyer area. So, in essence we have a situation where the purpose of the 8.1 ordinance is being met. We are proposing the reuse of the buildings, in line with what is intended, and with what is in that area. The end result, everyone involved in the project is excited with what will happen. At this point, I would like the have Mr. Cook go through the architecture.

J. Cook (Applicant's Architect): These two buildings are the ones in question tonight. Both have quite a bit of history. They were built in the early 1900s. We will be adding a second means of egress for the one building here. The first floor here is the pool area, with an exercise lounge, and a kitchen. The first floor as a main entrance scenario, with units above. Each unit is a townhouse. This opens them up a bit. This building will remain the same on the outside. There will be a couple of windows added here, in line with the existing windows. All these dormers will be done in cedar clapboard. There will be a couple of windows that will be blacked out, but they will remain in tact. 206 Roger is really strait forward. This building is a clone of where Eisenhower was born and raised. There was an addition off the side here at some point in history. We are trying to retain as many inside walls as we can. The first floor here will be remaining. This set of stairs is remaining. This is a new deck that will provide access to these units. That is pretty much it.

A. Plunkett: One point left, with regards to parking, we will be providing 50 percent more parking than is required by the zoning, which will be 3 parking spaces per unit.

In Opposition:

Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street): I am a vigorous opponent of this project. I oppose any further development on this site. I believe any approvals further or prior insults the nature of the site. I believe any use of this land should be used for what it has always been used for. This is one of the most egregious losses to the architecture of Lowell. I would like to propose to this developer to donate the gym to the JCs. I would also like to note that back when this developer originally purchased this site, the developer was going to demolish the gymnasium. This developer is proposing to use this site for 9 units, this is a two-family neighborhood. I think we can do the Indian giver thing and say that this should be used as a two-family. I think the traffic will endanger the neighborhood. I would also like to offer that this developer has shown complete disregard for the laws of the City. This developer has built hundreds of units of housing in the City, and he has not respected the City. I would like to see this board deny any special permits for this project. The Lowell Planning Board has objective scrutiny powers. But if you decide that you don't want to permanently deny this, I believe he has a lot to live up to a lot in front of the Lowell historic board. I think that by denying until he has finished what he has already been approved, we can see if he will hold up his end of the deal. I hope we can cut through our differences here, and we might be able to deny this project until the rest of the project is complete.

Sheila Goggins (44 Hanks Street): I am an abutter of the property. I have a personal interest in the site. I have also spoken before the Board in the past. I want to restate my concerns about the increased density of the site. I believe this needs increased scrutiny. The volume of cars increased by this plan, I have a gut reaction that the volume of cars in the neighborhood will make the environment very un-inhabitable. The increased number of units will create even more traffic. I have also noticed that there is increased number of parking on street. The issue of the city or private services is a concern. I do appreciate the private trash pickup. I also have a concern regarding the water pressure. I have these concerns because all these have impacts on my quality of life. I am also concerned that if this were to be built, people who have lived here a long time will be willing to move out because of increased congestion.

Anne Cavanaugh (136 Hanks Street): I have several questions. With regards to the gymnasium with new windows how will they be added to the structure, and how may that affect the brickwork. I wanted to know what the materials of the egresses would be, and will all the windows be replaced or retained, and will the decking be replaced or retained, and will they be similar to the ones approved by the first site plan? Will the homeowners association be the ones to maintaining the pool? Those are my main questions, thank you.

Jo Anne Menzia (30 Hanks Street): Right now, the area in which I live is facing the project, and I understand that there will be a new community built there. I think that our neighborhood deserves a little better. I think the part that will be developed does not fit the neighborhood. The area of the first stage of the project has been stripped of all trees. I am concerned about the historical impact that could happen from the second part of the project. I would like the permit denied, and I would like to give the developer a chance to finish the first part of the project before starting the second part. I have not been able to see those plans, so I am not sure what is happening there, but I think the developer should prove that he would do what he promises in the first part of the project.

In Discussion:

T. Linnehan: Could you show how the traffic flow pattern will work on this site?

Attorney David Plunkett: The entrance will be from Hanks Street. There will be parking on both sides of the building. All traffic will be accessed from Hanks Street. The parking plan is the same on that was approved by the Board in November.

Applicant' Engineer: The snow storage areas will be to the left here.

T. Linnehan: These buildings are in the historic district, but do not fall under historic board review, and we have a letter here from the Historic Board, and everything is being complied to their expectations on the first part of the project. With regards to the pool area, how will that be supervised?

Attorney Plunkett: there will be a security card access and each unit owner will have a card. And the rules will be part of the homeowners association that will take care of the rules and regulations of the pool area. The association will also have control of the landscaping as well as the recreational area.

T. Linnehan: The site complies will the open space requirements?

Attorney Plunkett: The open space that is provided is in excess of that which is required in zoning.

T. Linnehan: I see that you need 2 parking spaces and you provide 3 spaces per unit. Going back to the exterior design of the buildings, most of them will be exactly the same, but there was discussion about the windows. Will those alter the building or will they stay the same?

Jeff Cook (Architect): The standard process is to take the existing windows and leave them as they are. We will leave all the windows, but we will have five windows that match up with walls, but we will black out those windows from behind. There are two new windows here. The yellow brick will be re-used so the entire building will remain the same character. There will be no new materials. You are going to look at the building and nothing will be changed.

T. Linnehan: Are the decks going to be on the first or second floor?

J. Cook: The decks will be along the front side for a second means of egress. It is smaller, not really even the size of that table, and it will be the same materials and style as the deck on the front.

T. Linnehan: All the departments said that you comply will their standards. To clarify, those plans were actually submitted to the City, and we send them out internally to each department for comments. Wastewater would like to see the final plans, have you met with them?

Attorney Plunkett: Yes we tried to meet with wastewater and they have not returned our calls, and we also met with the City engineer.

T. Linnehan: Have you heard any comments from the department about this?

J. Errickson: No, the first I heard of this problem is today.

M. Burns: My main concern is parking. I was over there today, and I think there are way to many units for this project. And I think this is a detriment to the neighborhood. I have nothing further.

J. Clermont: Just a couple of questions, as I look at the plan as a whole, it looks like there are 45 spaces on this parcel.

Attorney Plunkett: Some will be used for the other lots in order to have a total parking of 3 spaces per unit over all. The total parking is 3 spaces per unit for the entire project.

J. Clermont: Will the parking be designated to the units?

Attorney Plunkett: Our experience is that two spaces will be assigned per unit, and the rest will be overflow. There will be one homeowner association, and each lot themselves will have a separate condo association.

J. Clermont: Has the Historic Board had any input on this phase?

Attorney Plunkett: No they have not had any input.

J. Clermont: I am looking at a memo to James that the Historic Board does not have review, but does any of the historical design issues come into play at this point of the project?

Attorney Plunkett: We will have a landscaping plan that will be in common overall and approved by the Historic Board. For example, I know there is discussion regarding the fence along the front of the parcel. This will be repaired or replaced to its original character. The buildings will retain their existing materials and appearance as well.

J. Clermont: You are working with the Historic Board on the landscaping?

J. Cook: Yes we are working with the historic board with regards to the site landscaping.

J. Clermont: Ms. Cavanaugh, she mentioned some questions about the decks, the windows, and other materials. Can you go through those details?

J. Cook: Sure, the same siding is being used around the entire site. The scale is exactly the same. This will look exactly the same as it has looked throughout the years. The decking materials will be the same as the existing decking. We have had discussions about replicating the existing windows or keeping the current windows. We will likely keep the current windows, but if we need to replace any, we will replace with windows that look the same.

R. Lockhart: There were some questions about trash pick up for the site. Can you go through that detail?

Attorney Plunkett: Yes, the individual lots that were part of the site plan will have curbside pick up. The buildings being converted will require private pick up, which will be part of the condo fee. For the two buildings, the trash will be stored in a utility closet, and there will be some storage areas for the various buildings. There will be no dumpsters.

R. Lockhart: And the private trash pick up company will have access to those areas?

Attorney Plunkett: Correct, part of the agreement will be a weekly trash pick up.

R. Lockhart: In your project narrative there seems to be a discrepancy between what on the buildings will hold, the total number of units. Can you go through that detail?

Attorney Plunkett: The 206 Rogers building will hold 4 units, and 200 Rogers building will have 9.

R. Lockhart: I noticed that presently most of the perimeters, especially the Aster Street end, are being left wide open.

Roland Mainville (Applicant): There is a fence, but we have not closed the fence on the Aster Street side yet. There will be a temporary fence along that side, when we get started full force

R. Lockhart: I think that is important for the safety of the neighborhood.

G. Zaharoolis: I would like to have a better explanation as to how you determined 13 units in these two buildings using the zoning code. If this is a two-family zone, you have two buildings; you are not going to change the exterior buildings?

J. Cook: Correct.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay, if you are not going to do that, and you have two building on this lot, why not two units in each building?

Attorney Plunkett: The 13 units are in compliance with the zoning ordinance regarding lot area per dwelling unit in the TTF district.

G. Zaharoolis: Under what section? Do you have that James?

Attorney Plunkett: If you were to convert these buildings into two units, you would have 5000sqft units. If you look towards the intent of 8.1 building reuse looks to create more diverse housing. If you create 13 units ranging in size from 900 sqft to 1600 sqft, that would be more of a benefit to the community, and range is price from $236,000 to $328,000, creating a better use of the buildings to the community.

G. Zaharoolis: In a TTF zone, I see two uses, one is singe-family zoning, and one is two-family. I am looking at 8.1.1, and this is confusing to me.

J. Cook: As I understand, we are filing under 8.1 which lets you take a historic building and convert it into an apartment building.

G. Zaharoolis: I just don't know how you can do 13 units in the TTF zone. The zoning is TTF, and it says here one family and two family at uses. So how does this fit into that?

R. Mainville: Correct, the TTF zone does allow single family and two family. But the 8.1 building ordinance is designed to allow for the conversion of a building to be converted into condominiums. The underlying zoning dictates the required square footage, usable open space, and etcetera. And that's how we came up with the number of units.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay, well section 8.1 notes that a building must be an historic building, is this a historic building?

R. Mainville: Yes I believe it is.

J. Errickson: If I may, 8.1 is designed for the conversion of historic mill buildings, education buildings, religious buildings throughout the city, for which the Historic Board has classified these buildings as historic, so there for they can qualify for the 8.1 special permit. Therefore tonight, we look at

G. Zaharoolis: I am just looking at what these buildings are classified as. And I think they are classified as historic buildings that enhance the neighborhood and the city. Now where does it say that these can be converted into 13 condominiums, what article says that?

J. Errickson: Section 8.1 spells that out.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay, section 8.1 says that this provision is designed to encourage the adaptive re use of the building where the reuse of the buildings will enhance the architectural character of the neighborhood. So where does it say these can be converted into condominiums?