[Unidentified]: Okay, so as everybody's joining, we are going to take things a little bit out of order this evening. We have a couple cases that either have continuances or have a smaller number of issues. And then we have one case that's going to probably take a little bit more time from the group. So we're just going to shuffle around the order a little bit, but Dennis can lead us off whenever he's ready.
[Denis MacDougall]: I took computers here for a second. Uh, let me just read the first, uh, read the notice. Um, on February 12th, 2022, governor Baker signed into a law, signed into law supplemented COVID-19 fiscal appropriations and an extension through July 15th, 2022 of certain authorizations related to public meetings. This new law extends the remote meeting provisions of the governor's March 12th, 2020 executive orders, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. In accordance with the 2020 executive order, this meeting of the city of my third energy environment. Sorry. using another template. This meeting of the City of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted totally via remote participation using Zoom, including committee members and the public. The use of Zoom complies with the law's requirement to provide live, adequate, alternative means of public access to the deliberations of the public body, instead of holding meetings in a public space that is open and physically accessible to the public. Persons who would like to listen or to view this meeting while in progress may do so by using the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the City of Medford website. If despite our best efforts, we are not able to find for real-time access, we will post a record of this meeting on the city's website in the near future at the link provided in the agenda.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Okay, what is our first case?
[Denis MacDougall]: Our first case is the continuation from last month's summer.
[Unidentified]: Is that 29 summer? Correct. Oh, actually, Dennis, should we do the extension first?
[Denis MacDougall]: Or do the extension? We can do that as well.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, why don't we do that first? That would be the fastest.
[Denis MacDougall]: 17 Edward Street, case number A-2020-05. Applicant and owner Elizabeth Stott is requesting a six month extension on a variance of special permit granted by the Board of Appeals with the decision filed on May 28th, 2020 with a certificate of no appeal dated June 18th, 2020. Okay. And who do we have until the extension until sorry extension until December 18 2022 for the removal of roof the construction of the full second floor addition and the conversion of an existing non performing single family dwelling to a two family door.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, thank you, Dennis. Oh, hi there. How are you? Sorry. I'm just my first time with the board. Would you mind just introducing the board members first so I can tell who's who on the zoom?
[Unidentified]: Sure. Sure. You know, we probably should put something on our names. Um, Robin, thanks so much for joining us. Um, I'm Jacqueline Dardy. I'm, um, currently the chair. We also have, uh, Jim Torani. I'm just going off the thing. Can you see him, Jim? Um, we have Mike Caldera and Yvette Velas, who are all members of the board. There are four of us will be voting tonight. And then we do have three new members who are gonna be joining us who aren't yet sworn in. Two associates are here with us tonight just watching Jamie Thompson and Talia Matarazzo. And then we also have one other member whose last name I forget. His name is Andre.
[Denis MacDougall]: But he just came into the meeting now.
[Unidentified]: Oh, OK. And I think Andre is here as well. And he'll be joining as a member once everyone's sworn in. So they'll all be here for the next meeting. Excellent. Thank you. Yeah. If you have any questions, just let us know. Thank you. OK. Who do we have here for 17 Edward Street?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening, chairwoman guardian and board members Kathleen Desmond. I'm here with touchstone law, and my client is here from across the pond list. She's actually traveling in London but I noticed she is signed on. So what we have before you is a request to extend. the special permit, which would have lapsed as of June 18th for a period of six months. Just to go back, this special permit, and actually it was a finding by the board, but it was a finding under chapter 48, section six. So if you look at that and I have that language, if you want me to put it up, it speaks to permit granting authority or the special permit granting authority. can grant a finding under that provision. So I think that even though it was a finding, it probably falls under the special permit purview, even though, you know, in terms of the ordinance itself, there was always a second provision that dealt with special permits and then there were findings of nonconformity. But the request was actually under 48 section six. This special permit finding was granted in the midst of the pandemic. And at that point, there were construction delays. There was also issues, even when we came out of it. with respect to supplies and construction materials, and Mr. was waiting for a period of time to ensure what materials that she could receive, and what materials could be used for construction of the of the renovations. And, and when she was about to pull her building permit she had submitted the plans for building permit there then became an issue with the building department somewhat as to whether or not the variant standard applied which is the one year requirement, special permit requirement under the statute is no more than three years. under the ordinance as recently enacted. And I don't think it's changed, but it's two years that includes the lapse period when you then have to seek good cause. And that would bring our request within that period of time. But there was a concern with the building department that the variance standard applied. And at that point as well, when the building permit went through the analysis, which was not required in 2020, it was tagged by the historical commission for review. So we had been over in the historical commission. We've gone through that process. They have asked us to make certain cosmetic changes that don't affect what was granted by the zoning. They wanted us to keep the front roof. And I have those pictures if you want me to share those with the board. But we're now in a position, I believe, where we can seek the building permit and move forward. So I don't think it's gonna be a six month delay. And if, if you look at the two, the two year period that expired as of June 18, the request was in on June 2, so we're only talking a day or a month, days or months, a month from from attaining the building permit moving forward. There was some work done by Ms. Stott with respect to removing certain asbestos shingles. So there was some work. It wasn't technically under the permit review because it didn't deal with raising the roof and adding a full second story. But there was some work certainly that was in furtherance of the special permit. The building department had taken the position that if the variance standard applied, which was one year, that that wouldn't count. And in that sense, they wouldn't issue the building permit. I did raise this with the building department and basically their position was that we need to bring it before the board, which is what we've done.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much, I appreciate that. Because none of the changes that you've described would require any more relief from us or any further review from us, I don't think that we need to do a substantive review, but I'll leave that up if some of the other members would like to see something, I wanna obviously give them that opportunity. But otherwise, I don't have an issue with granting the extension, it seems reasonable given the circumstances. Um, folks, what are your thoughts?
[Mike Caldera]: Are you confident you can get the work done by the extension date?
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, we are going to start in earnest. I'm not sure we can complete the work within six months. Um, but we're going to do our best to be well underway.
[Unidentified]: And, uh, attorney Desmond, correct me if I'm wrong, but the requirement for the six months extension is That's to get the permit and begin the work?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct. And with respect to the use, the use was allowed in the district, but we recorded the decision in a timely manner. So the decision's been recorded.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Anyone else have any questions or thoughts?
[Mike Caldera]: I make a motion to approve the extension request for 17 Edward Street, six-month extension.
[Unidentified]: I'll second that. Okay. I'll do roll call anyway. Yvette? Yes. Jim? Yes. Mike? Yes. And Jacqueline, yes. OK, everyone, you have the extension all set, folks.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much.
[Unidentified]: Good luck with the project. You're welcome. And Dennis, what's next?
[Denis MacDougall]: So our next item is 29 Summer Street. Case number a dash 2022-seven continued from May 26 2022. Applicant and owner Nicholas Santos stitching for variance in chapter 94 city method zoning to construct a full third story addition to pre existing nonconforming or primarily dwelling in general residence district, thereby requiring a finding by the zoning board of appeals.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much, Dennis. Um, so for anyone who wasn't here last time, this project came before us last month. We had a period for public comment, and then during deliberations, the board had a few questions for the applicant, and the applicant did submit further information to us in that regard. Let me just pull this up quickly. So the applicant, we were asking for some additional information on the square footage of the first story, the square footage of the second story, And the square footage of the third story currently, and then the square footage of the third story proposed, we were trying to make a determination as to whether there was currently less than two and a half stories or whether there were more than two and a half stories. And I believe the numbers that we got. the demonstrated that it was more than two and a half stories. But if the applicant is here, I'll hand it over to you folks, if there's anything that you wanted to say.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Mark, do you want to go or shall I go? If you have the numbers in front of you, my drawing is still opening, so.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes, so it looks like the below floor is 1,911 square feet and the third floor is 1,450 square feet. So well over 50%. Yes. Correct, yep.
[Unidentified]: And then my understanding is that the proposed final third floor is 1760. Is that correct?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay. That's great. You know, I have a question actually procedurally. Does anyone know this? Do we need to open for public comment again, Dennis?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so Jacqueline, I actually had a question about that. My memory might be failing me, but I wasn't sure. I don't actually recall the point in the process where this question came up. I thought it might have been earlier in the process than deliberations, but I could miss remembering.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, you know what? Maybe it was. Either way, why don't we open then for public comment just to be safe. Is that what you're suggesting?
[Mike Caldera]: My recollection, and again, I was hoping to refresh my memory and I wasn't able to get to it before the meeting. So I think that the applicant and maybe the applicant can actually speak to this. I think they gave the presentation and then very early in the board asking some clarifying questions was when there was this confusion about the, whether we would need to apply the variant standard or the finding. And I'm not.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that sounds right.
[Mike Caldera]: Questions actually.
[Denis MacDougall]: That sounds right. Also, I believe the only people who are on the meeting at that point were members of the, were the applicants and the members of their team. I don't think there were any other members of the public on.
[Unidentified]: Oh, and maybe everyone else had dropped off for other ones. Okay. All right. So then let's just proceed like normal. So I guess we can just leave it to the applicant. If there's anything else that you'd like to. Um, let us know and then we'll go through the normal process with public comment.
[SPEAKER_06]: I don't think so. Um, you know, we spoke to Paul Smith. Once we submitted that document with the confirmed square footage and confirmed it with him Paul Smith from the building department. You know, he then. spoke about it with Dennis, uh, to, um, discuss and confirm it with Dennis as well. So as far as I knew, that was the, um, you know, one kind of open item. Um, the board was wondering about, um, and they felt it was confirmed at that point. So, um, yeah, I, I, I. I think it's just up to a decision at this point. I don't know.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, and so maybe and I can just for anyone listening at the last meeting and I thank you both for reminding me, we were making a determination or we were not sure whether we should be making a determination to proceed. with the applicant requesting a finding that the third floor was more than 50% of the floors below it. And therefore it was more than two and a half stories. And this was a finding that it was already nonconforming and that that nonconformity was being expanded in a manner that was not detrimental to the neighborhood or whether we needed to proceed on a variant standard which is a stricter statutory standard. I'm satisfied with the information that's been provided to the board that we would be proceeding on the finding. Does everyone agree on that? Okay. So if the applicant doesn't have anything else they want to add at this time, why don't we open up?
[Mike Caldera]: So Jacqueline, actually before we do that, I did have a question for the applicant that wasn't related to this kind of procedural question. Oh yeah, go right ahead. So we received a letter from the historic commission in support of this project and and also just as a like a very quick recap for members of the public who weren't able to tune in. This is an existing, I believe it's a four unit dwelling. And so the extension is to two of the units in the back to add some space to them. And so, yeah, we received this letter in support from the Historic Commission. It mentioned that there were some elements from the historic structure that you had agreed to preserve or, what's the right term? Incorporate. Yeah, yeah. So can you just speak to the specific elements that as part of the agreement you've chosen to keep?
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Sure, I can do that. This is Mark Scriver, the architect. So basically, we had initially expanded the, like you are aware, the back two units. And we were basically wiping out the gable and creating dormers off the back. And Basically, the historic commission wanted us to keep the side gable, even though we were adding the dormer so basically coming off of the house, a foot out with with both eaves so you see that gable and either side of the building. And then we enhance the corner boards to more of a historical value if you will. So those are the two primary elements that we recreated for them. And additionally, there was originally a round window and the front gable of the front roof. We are keeping the gable but we had not intended on putting that round window back in, in the historic commission wanted that added so those are really the, the three elements, the gable and the, you know, enhancing the corner boards and then the round window those are the primary three elements. Yeah. Yes, it's an 18-inch round window that was originally on the structure back, you know, turn of century. And when the house was sided over in the 1950s or 60s, that was covered over, so you actually couldn't see it. So we're, in a sense, recreating that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great, thank you.
[SPEAKER_06]: One other change as well, Mark, was originally we had had I think two sets of windows on both sides of the building and they wanted that to be reduced down to the original number of windows in the front to keep that front facade the same.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Correct, yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then, so the only other question I have about this. I've got too many things open so I apologize if I mistake this but I believe in the, the form that historic commission use they called out that front entryway as like a. typical of the Italianate architectural style. It looked like maybe you're keeping that from the plans, but I couldn't tell. Specifically like the staircase for the entrance.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, so basically we're recreating more of a historic front door entry into each unit, and we're rebuilding that front porch, porch co-chair, whatever you want to call it.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, okay. The siding though, it will still be vinyl, is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right, thanks. I've asked all my questions.
[Unidentified]: Okay, Jim or Yvette, any questions?
[Yvette Velez]: No additional questions.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks so much. So we should, let's move into public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Open the public hearing for 29 Summer Street.
[Unidentified]: Can I get a second?
[Mike Caldera]: A second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Dennis, do we have anyone who wants to speak about this project?
[Denis MacDougall]: If anyone wishes to speak, what we're asking you to do is just in the Zoom call, just do a little reaction thing similar to that. And if you do that, we will come get you. Or conversely, if someone is watching on, public access, you can email me at, I'm putting my email address up. It's D Mac Dougal at Medford. It's hard to type and speak at the same time. So it's, it should get there right now. So it is D M a C D O U G a L L at Medford dash ma.gov.
[Unidentified]: I'll just give everybody a few seconds. This is a good time for everybody to get a glass of water. Okay. I suppose we might have a longer wait for emails, It's a tough one. I think we should probably, if Dennis, if we don't have anybody raising their hand, we should probably proceed. Could I get a motion please?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close the public hearing and open deliberation.
[Unidentified]: Second. All in favor? Aye. Jim Trani, you're on mute, but I saw you said aye. Aye, yep.
[Robin Stein]: Okay. Sorry, Madam Chair. Just as a reminder, all the votes in remote session need to be roll call.
[Unidentified]: Oh, thank you. That's not a reminder. We did not know that. Well, let's do that correctly then. Mike, how do you vote? Yes. Yvette? Yes. Jim? Yes. And I vote yes. Okay. Thank you, Robin. or attorney's time, pardon. Okay, so deliberations, what are people's thoughts? I can go first then. I think when we looked at it last month, I really liked the project. I think particularly in keeping the roofline the same in the front, it looks like a great use of this building. My concern last month was, I wasn't sure that we were gonna have appropriate grounds for a variance, but once we saw the calculations regarding the fact that the third story living space is already non-conforming to a pretty great degree, I think the relief that's being requested is actually quite minimal. The percentage of extra floor spaces is quite minimal. So I'm in favor.
[Yvette Velez]: agree. I thought it was a nice addition. Well, well put on the existing building. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So I think the project makes the space for the back units more functional. It's not really fundamentally changing the how the property is going to be used. I think it sounds like from the historic commissions letter that a prior prior to to these discussions, there was some concern that that potentially the changes to the historic character of the building might be a detriment, but it seems that those issues have been resolved to their satisfaction. So yeah, from my perspective, I think it clearly meets the not substantially more detrimental standard. And so those are my thoughts.
[Unidentified]: I feel the same way. Also with the windows, I kind of like that, keeping the gable ends. In the round window. I think that's going to add a lot of character to the building also. Okay, great. All right. If someone wants to make a motion then on the finding.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. I motion that we find this project for 29 Spring Street is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than it should be allowed. Just 29 Summer Street. Oh, sorry. 29 Summer Street. Sorry. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: And could I get a second? Second. OK, and I'll go roll call vote. Jim? Yes. event.
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Mike?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline, I am yes. Okay, folks, you got it. We will, we will endeavor to get that decision out to you quickly.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you very much, CBA. Much appreciated. We're very excited for this project. And I think it is gonna, it's gonna be a good one. In the end, we're really happy with how it turned out with the design with historical And, you know, I think it's going to be an add to the neighborhood. So thank you.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. And thank you. We're always really happy when, um, when people come, come to us and they're trying to collaborate with the city and the historical commission. So we appreciate that as well.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thanks everybody.
[Unidentified]: Bye. Okay. Dennis, what do we have next?
[Denis MacDougall]: Uh, zero spring street case number eight dash 20, 22-Oh nine. Applicant and owner Kenneth Alaska is positioning for variance in the chapter 94 city and effort zoning to erect a structure a lot be one Spring Street. Assessor's map p 13 dash 62 between 20 and 26 Spring Street in a single family to zoning district allowed use insufficient a lot with.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Dennis and we have here for the applicant.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening Madam Chair and board members Kathleen Desmond. of Touchstone Law Offices. I'm here this evening with the applicant, Kenneth Velasca, his wife, Joanna Anselmo, and the engineer, I believe, George Zamboris is on the call as well. The petition before you seeks a variance or a fining special permit as to the width deficiency of the law. By way of background, the petitioner proposes to construct a three bedroom single family dwelling on the proposed lot and allowed use within the SF two district. The proposed structure includes a one car garage and additional one parking space to the rear of the house, but for the lot with. The proposed dwelling meets all of the dimensional requirements in the SF2 district. The proposed lot is significant in size, approximately 6,994 square feet. The lot area is nearly 2,000 square feet more than is necessary to construct a single family dwelling in the SF2 district. The lot is narrow and long in shape. Dennis, if I can share my screen, I can put the site plan up.
[Denis MacDougall]: You're all set.
[Kathleen Desmond]: OK. So this is the site plan, so you can see the lot. The lot is long and narrow in space. As you can see from the zoning about the depth of the lot, it's only three times what the required is. It's about 133 feet, I believe. Let me get that up. Yes. So the lot depth is 144.48 feet, which is nearly three times what's required in the SF2 district, which is 50 feet. The lot width is 48 feet, the required is 50. So this is deficient by approximately two feet, which would be de minimis. I believe it's 4% of the total width requirement. Petitioner is seeking by way of relief of variance or a finding special permit to construct this single family dwelling. With respect to the requested variants, the size and the shape of a lot as shown on the site plan is long and narrow and skinny. And in addition to being long and narrow. Again, this is a very generous size lot lot is almost 7000 square feet, which is nearly the requirement for a single family home in SF one district. The width violation itself is de minimis in nature is only two feet or 4% of the required with, and it does not impact any the other dimensional requirements. variance or finding that we're seeking with regard to this project relates to the width. The substantial hardship that results is obvious as without a variance or a finding, there is no use for this lot, let alone a reasonable use. Further, the petitioner is seeking to construct a single family home in the district, which is a favored use in the district, which shows, again, an intent that it will not derogate from the bylaw and is within the public good. In terms of a finding, I think that may lie in this instance, because we're not going from a single family to a two family where you have an increase in the width requirements. The width requirement in the zoning for a single family is 50. So I think that's existing for the lot. It's not something that's being increased in terms of nonconformity. So it may be that a finding is appropriate here, and a special permit, but certainly, there would be no detriment to the neighborhood is again, this is a use that's permitted in the zoning district. It's a favorite use within the zoning district. and the lot is a substantial size, and it meets all the setback requirements of the zoning district. So that's, and the intent is Mr. Pulaska is currently renting with his wife in Marblehead, and this was a family-owned parcel. He's gonna purchase it from his brother, and he will then own it with his wife, and they'll have a single family home.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Okay, does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
[SPEAKER_20]: Hi, I have a question. Oh, excuse me, just sorry, just a second.
[Unidentified]: I wasn't clear, I meant board members. We're gonna open it up to public comment in a moment. Okay, I can just tell you, so this to me appears to be something that could probably proceed under either a finding or a variance. My preference generally is if that's the option to go with the variance because it's a little bit stronger and you can be a little bit more clear about it, but I'll leave that up to you folks. My thoughts on that are this is an issue of shape of the lot and it's not a situation where this deficiency could be cleared by building a smaller house or something, 48 feet is 48 feet. So I think it's appropriate. The relief that's requested is, as Attorney Desmond said, de minimis. And we'd be building something that's exactly in character with the neighborhood. Anyone else have any questions or thoughts?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, yeah, so my question, it's just an understanding question. I should know this stuff, but apparently I don't. It's a little surprising to me that a vacant lot having a new structure built on it that the binding standard would apply. So I just, um,
[Kathleen Desmond]: Unless I'm missing something fundamental, I would also kind of prefer to go the various route but I didn't know we could go to finding out in situations and, and to be honest, I'm not certain you can, but I you're not changing anything and and a buildable lot is. 50,000 square, I'm sorry, 50 feet for width. And so this is just a nonconformity that already exists and you're not really increasing it at all. So I don't know. I think it's a fair question and I think maybe a variance is more appropriate, but I kind of put that out there because I do think that maybe a finding or special permit is allowed because you're not changing anything. It's not like going to a two-family where you go from 50 to 60.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's an interesting point. And I guess my first thought was because the actual nonconformity isn't changing, but I guess I think, Mike, actually, to your point, you may be right, because by building the home, we're creating the actual nonconformity of it. The lot just sitting as it is, maybe it doesn't. But either way, it sounds like the variance is probably the right way to put it.
[Mike Caldera]: And unless I'm missing something fundamental here. No, I don't think you are. No, you're not. Yeah, I'm not missing anything. Yeah, if there was a structure that was non-conforming, then. Right. So I think variance is the correct rep.
[Unidentified]: OK, great. OK, Yvette or Jim, do you have any questions or thoughts about proceeding under variance?
[Yvette Velez]: I don't have any questions and I just wanna confirm that where the new structure will be placed, all the other, I'm reading this correctly, right? Everything else conforms in regards to the distance from the houses next door and whatnot.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. So the distance of that is seven and a half. So on on your left hand side, it's eight and on the right hand side, it's 12. So we're within the requirements on that. Right.
[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, we as a board have had the luxury of kind of reading all the materials in advance, but I know there's members of the public here. I'm wondering if maybe you wanted to present anything about the architectural plans themselves.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So this is a modular home and a lot of the detail that they give you, their plans are kind of it's everything that comes from the builder. So if I can scroll down here, because it looks like, hold on, maybe I can get to, I think it's 19 shows the actual structure itself. So this is what the structure will look like. It's a garage under, it's three bedroom with a slider off the back, and there's the elevations. Typical, floor plan layout, you've got a garage, dining, living room, bathroom, kitchen, and then three bedrooms on the second floor.
[Yvette Velez]: And I noticed that the existing driveway is significant and takes up a big portion of the lot currently. And so that looks like as well as not changing. So your permeable versus not permeable seems to be it appears to be about the same, am I correct?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, and actually it's not. I asked my client this because I had looked on, I had actually looked at it on Google. It's gravel for the majority at this point, which I believe is pervious, as opposed to pavement or tar at this point. So the majority of that is gravel. And I believe that's what they intend to maintain, I'm not certain. of that. Certainly if the board has some preferences, we can discuss that.
[Yvette Velez]: And will they be adding anything additional like fencing or things of that nature to the property as well?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Um, in terms of fencing of the driveway is approximately 12 feet I believe that there is a fence and some bushes that are along the right hand side. The left hand side, I believe there's also a fence in that they'll, they'll be landscaping I would assume in the front as well. You know the difficulty with this is with the modular plan. it doesn't provide as much detail in terms of architecture. And we actually, this has been sitting on my desk for some time because even getting the plans from them was difficult and to expedite it was a ridiculous sum of money. So I hope that helps. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, if there are no further questions, Okay. Then could we get a motion, please, to open the public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open the public hearing. Second.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And for votes.
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Jim. Yes. Mike.
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline. I am. Yes. Okay, great. Dennis. Do we have anyone on this matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: So again, as before, you know, For those, I think everyone's on here, but I'll just put my email in the address again, but I think there was someone who did wish to speak, so.
[Unidentified]: Dennis, am I remembering this correctly? Did we get a letter of support on this case, or was that the previous case?
[Denis MacDougall]: I believe that was previous case. I don't recall getting anything on.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm just using my folder. I don't have anything. OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm just doing a search under Zero Spring and nothing's popping in.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, no, I think you're right. I just double checked. I downloaded all the documents and I listed the other one. Okay, if we don't have any public comment, could I please get a motion to close?
[SPEAKER_20]: motion to close the public hearing and sorry I don't I just wanted to ask a question I didn't hear you guys oh yeah go right ahead could you just um say your name and your address please before you yes it's uh laurianne wood at 26 spring street so we will I was wondering how far away did you say it would be from uh 26
[Unidentified]: I believe that I'm not sure if I don't see.
[Kathleen Desmond]: It is 26 looking at the property to the left or to the right if you're on the street.
[SPEAKER_20]: If I was stepped outside, it would be on my right.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So it's 12 feet.
[Unidentified]: Attorney does enough in the property line, correct?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right.
[Unidentified]: So just to be clear, it's 12 feet from the property line is what we're saying, not 12 feet from the house next door. So it's 12 feet house to the property line, and then the property line has a number of feet before the next house.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct, and that varies somewhat. Certainly if it's to the right, the whole front portion of the house is, so it's probably the last maybe 20 feet that it would be 12 feet from the property line. Well, it's because you've got that open space. So this is set back a distance more than the house is adjacent to it. I think this is 21 feet. So it's set back a little bit, so it wouldn't be as close or feel probably as close to that property either.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Ms.
[SPEAKER_20]: Wood, did you have anything else you wanted to add? Yes. Where would the house sit? Would it be to like the right of the gravel driveway?
[Unidentified]: To the left. Could you maybe zoom in on the picture?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, let me see if I can do that.
[Unidentified]: That might be helpful. If you put your cursor towards the bottom. Yeah, we got it.
[SPEAKER_20]: Let me just do this.
[Kathleen Desmond]: See if I can get it to, see if 75 is too much probably, but maybe not.
[Unidentified]: Let's see if I can. If you scroll down, that should be it.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, yeah. So at the closest point, it's 12.5 feet to the property line. And then it sits back 21 feet.
[Unidentified]: And I think to that question, the driveway is, if you're looking at the house in the center, folks, the driveway is to the right.
[Mike Caldera]: Correct. And also to the earlier question, it looks like it's a concrete driveway proposed.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe, is George on the call?
[SPEAKER_13]: He can answer. Madam Chair, George Sanboros, engineer for the project. What we had proposed is a bituminous concrete driveway to service the new garage. The existing driveway on the property, it was paved at one portion. The first half was actually paved. It's fairly well broken up. The back last three quarters is all gravel. There's not much pavement left at all. And if the abutter on the right hand side wants to know what 26, Her building is about 18 feet from the property line.
[Unidentified]: So the buildings would be about 30 feet from each other?
[SPEAKER_13]: The two buildings will be separated by about 31 feet, yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Ms. Wood, did you have anything else? No, thank you. Okay, thanks so much. Um, I see that I'm somewhat Andre LaRue has raised your hand under you are a board member.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, I am. But I'm not sworn in yet. So I'm a member of the public tonight.
[Unidentified]: Okay, well, welcome. Did you want to speak on this matter?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I just have, my name's Andre LaRue, 264 Riverside Ave. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm just looking at this on the Google satellite image. Isn't this driveway that's currently there the access to 28 Spring Street? And is that property gonna be landlocked? I feel like I'm missing something obvious here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: There's an easement on that property, which will remain. So it's a shared driveway, Andre, for both lots.
[Andre Leroux]: For both lots being?
[Kathleen Desmond]: The zero springs and 28, correct.
[Andre Leroux]: So there will be?
[Kathleen Desmond]: The access will remain. It's in the deed as it stands now, is an access easement to 28.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Desmond, could you maybe pull up the area plan and that might make it a little bit easier for people to see where each of these are?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure.
[Unidentified]: Where each of these is.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So the 28 is at the rear of this and the deed has an easement in it which provides access to that lot. And it's actually shown on the survey
[Andre Leroux]: You pull that up. I'm just not, I'm not clear like how with the house there. So there's, so that is an access road right next to the house between the house and the property line.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, it's a, it's a driveway and it's shared between this, this building and, and the, and 28.
[Unidentified]: Oh, that picture.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And that was in the deed previously. So this, this deed is subject to that right of access this property.
[Yvette Velez]: Attorney Desmond, I don't know if you want to point your pointer and like- Sure.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So, right. So this is the access. So it runs along the strip and there's a shared access to the driveway. So this is a driveway for both properties. There's one parking space actually in the back for the zero plus the one under.
[Yvette Velez]: And that existing driveway is going to stay the same, or is it going to expand?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's going to stay the same.
[Yvette Velez]: Great.
[Unidentified]: OK. As a member of the public, I'll address you as Mr. LaRue. Mr. LaRue, did you have anything else you wanted to add?
[Andre Leroux]: No, I think it's an unusual configuration. I don't have anything to add at the moment.
[Unidentified]: OK, thanks so much. Do we have anybody else? OK. Attorney Desmond, would you mind taking on the screen check? Yes, sure. Thanks so much. OK, Dennis, there's no one else?
[Denis MacDougall]: There is not.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close the public hearing and open deliberation.
[Unidentified]: I'll second. OK, and folks, Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Yvette? Yes. And Jacqueline, I'm yes. OK, so folks, what do we think?
[Yvette Velez]: It's nice to see a single family being built in a relatively conforming size lot. Um, two feet is very small. Um, and the property proposed, um, looks clean and conforming to the area. Um, and the gravel, if it changes to concrete, I think is actually an improvement for probably the easement and the neighbors next door. Um, and that's all I got for now. Okay. Thanks. Anybody else?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, yeah. So from my perspective, I think that it has established that the shape of the lot is, um, unusual and, um, really that's, um, what's driving the dimensional violation here. I agree is the minimus. So, um, so yeah, if we were to literally enforce, couldn't build a house at all on a lot, it's otherwise perfectly suitable for a house. So, um, So then the question just comes to substantial detriment. And I'm not seeing any here. It seems like it fits the neighborhood. It's not going to lock the house behind it. So yeah, I think it's meeting all of the criteria for the variance, as I see it.
[Unidentified]: Jim, any comments? I agree with that. I think it's going to complement the neighborhood as well. Yeah, I agree. I think this is exactly the kind of project that's contemplated by, with the need for variances. I'm just echo everything that my fellow members have said. Okay, I think if we're all ready to vote, if someone could make a motion, please.
[Mike Caldera]: So I am, I vote to approve the width variance for, let me make sure I get my streets right, zero Spring Street. I'll second.
[Unidentified]: OK. And for the vote, Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Mike?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Jim?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline, I'm yes. OK, folks, you got it. Thank you very much.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Have a good evening. Have a great fourth, folks.
[Unidentified]: You forward the draft decision.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, absolutely. Have a nice Fourth of July weekend, folks.
[Unidentified]: You as well.
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you so much. Have a good night.
[SPEAKER_20]: Good luck. Thanks, folks. Congratulations, Kenny. I don't know who said that, but congratulations. Oh, it's Lorian. He knows me.
[Unidentified]: Oh, no. No worries. OK. And Dennis, our last case, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, my glasses are in the sweet spot of being working and not working. 4060 Mystic Valley Parkway. Case number A-2022-08, continued from May 26, 2022. Applicant and owner of Rise Care, Jeremy Henry, is petitioning for a variance from the Chapter 94 City Method zoning to demolish an existing commercial structure and to construct a new eight-story structure to be used as a laboratory facility in an industrial zoning district, allowed use with insufficient lot area, lot frontage, side and rear yard setbacks, and number of loading bays. This building exceeds the maximum allowed height, number of stories, and maximum allowed lot coverage. This project is also subject to site plan review.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Okay, and who do we have for the applicant?
[Zac Bears]: Madam Chair, Quinlan Locke with RISE Developments.
[Unidentified]: I'm for the applicant. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much for having us.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, okay, so if you have a presentation that you'd like to do, please go right ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Yep, I'm just gonna share my screen. I think I might need screen sharing. I just got to make you a co-host. Thank you so much.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And hopefully everybody can see this here. Just want to confirm that. Perfect. So thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the board. Thank you for your time this evening. I appreciate you having us on. My name is Quinlan Locke. I'm a project manager at Rise out of 12 Erickson Street in Georgester, Mass., working on the project at 4054 Mystic Valley Parkway, otherwise known as 4060 Mystic Valley Parkway. For those of you who aren't familiar with the site, you can see the outline in red to the left of your screen here. The project sits just on Misty Valley Parkway in between Commercial Street and Wellington Circle, right across from the Tober McDonald Park. We're excited to be here with you this evening, presenting our life science project. You'll be hearing from many members of our team this evening, who I'll introduce in just a moment, and we're happy to answer any questions that you may have fall on the presentation tonight. Um, so we'll, we'll be starting with, uh, some zoning variances that the project will be seeking and how our team got here this evening is, is really where I'm I'll be starting. So about a year ago, rise partnered with the moderate. So family to reimagine this site. Uh, the family has owned the site for decades and is excited to be working on bringing a project such as this to the city of Medford. As we continue working with the Matarazzo family, we realized quickly we needed a truly special project team to bring life science into the city of Medford. So for architecture, we have Cube 3 and Jacobs. For civil engineering, as well as permitting and transportation, we have VHB. And for our landscape architects, we have MDLA. And this team was really thought out very well by the project team here, because a lot of these team members have experience in the city of Medford. but also are the experts in their field in the life science industry. So we really think we have a great team here, all of whom are on the call tonight as well. And once the team was assembled, we began researching the site's history and what was going on in the area today. The site has been primarily marshlands up until the 1930s when it became a commercial use as Ralph's Potato factory and laboratory. In the 1990s, Bertucci's took over the site and still operates there today. Around the site, we saw many ongoing initiatives in the city. The Wellington Circle study was and is working on ways to make significant improvements in the intersection just down the street. Local nonprofits are working to improve access and connectivity to the Tobrick MacDonald Park across the street from us. And as we all are aware, the city of Medford is working through a comprehensive planning initiative that will shape the future of the neighborhood. And for these reasons and more, the project team landed on life science as the best use for the site. Life science allows us to protect the allowed commercial use of the site while supporting important local and regional initiatives and boosting economic development for the city of Medford. And after we landed on that, and as the project team started designing the best use for the site, really what we've done over the past year is meet with numerous city and state agencies and local organizations. You can see here a long list of meetings. This is really just a short list of the meetings. I actually couldn't fit most of them on here, but we've worked through multiple different processes and with multiple different through the MEPA process and began conversations with MassDEP and MassDOT. We've had community meetings and conversations with groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Mystic River Watershed Association, and Medford High School. And just last week, we wrapped up the Medford's Community Development Board process, who issued their order of conditions and recommendations thereafter. All of this work resulted in many improvements and benefits that we've been able to add to the project. We're implementing important civil engineering designs that will significantly improve stormwater management on our site and to surrounding sites. Our design team continues to progress toward efficiency and sustainability goals. Traffic improvements and TDM measures will mitigate impacts and support connections within the surrounding area. We're providing new public realm improvements and community space at the front edge and on the ground floor of the project. And we're continuing to work with Medford Vocational Technical High School on partnerships to support their student body and we're hoping to start those in the fall of 2022 this year. Really excited initiative there. The project today and its benefits to the city of Medford were all made possible through these collaborations and processes with these groups and organizations and are truly going to transform this site into its best use. We're excited to continue working with these groups and the ZBA tonight to bring this project to life for Medford. And with that, I'll turn it over to our zoning team at Dean Torkey. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_21]: Thanks Quinlan and and Madam Chair and board members thank you again for your time to present. I'm Timothy Fraser, I'm an attorney at Dane Torpy 175 Federal Street, Boston. And I guess what I want to do now is kind of talk to the zoning variances that are required for the project. which, as of now are essentially three, and we ended up these three with these three variances based on the extensive collaboration that Quinlan had mentioned throughout the process with the C offices, particularly the planning and community development boards as part of the site plan review for the project. When we began the project and we first presented it, the design triggered a number of zoning violations, and those were particularly related to the setback requirements. Because of the narrow shape of the lot, which we'll see in a second, and there's also a chapter 91 waterway restricted portion that's facing the street side, we previously had side yard violations on both sides and a rear yard setback violation. And you'll see that actually in the description that's on the project agenda. So we were before the board in May 2022 and then we continued the matter and during that time, we continued the discussions that we were having with the planning and the community development boards were able to work through our design to eliminate those setback violations while still providing for the access road and some of the other design features that will also get to. So at this time, we now present to the board a design that triggers three variances as you see there on the slide for lot coverage, loading bays, and height. And particularly, with respect to loading bays the zoning ordinances call for five loading bays are designed, excuse me our design has three loading bays. With respect to lot coverage the ordinances require a 50% use ratio, our project is over by just a half a percent we're at 50.5%. And then with respect to height, we're actually seeking to variances essentially for both height and number of stories. The ordinances set the height limit at 30 feet, we're at 165 feet, and for stories the ordinances set the limit at two stories and we're at eight stories with the mechanicals penthouse. So with respect to those variances we of course analyze the city's zoning ordinances and also the comprehensive plan. So essentially, you know, on one hand you have the currently enacted zoning ordinances which are more suited to low rise manufacturing facilities and warehouses and distribution centers that were envisioned at that time. But on the other hand, you have the comprehensive plan, which is, we think more forward thinking and designed to be that to attract these types of new innovative business like this life science building that we're proposing. But to develop that type of life science building on this site or a site such as this, and particularly a life science company, they require certain design components to ensure that they're functional and that they're expandable and flexible and in line with the modern life science activities. So without these variances being granted, or at least in our case, the property owners would be compelled by the zoning ordinances to make the site available for use that is not really a ties to best use. So that's our hardship for the applicant on this site. And I believe I've provided the board in a letter yesterday, a copy of the Rashi lead case, which stands for that proposition that this site, based the substantial hardship to the developer. But in addition to that highest and best use hardship, the site's narrowness itself and its topography, which we'll also get into, and some of the other characteristics also present challenges to developing the site. And so I think we just have following just a few slides that illustrate those challenges and how slide deck, you can hit the next slide. Great. So here is the site restrictions, it really illustrates some of the difficulties that we encountered with the narrow shape of the lot. And just for reference on the, on the left side of your screen, that's Mystic Valley Parkway it's headed west up towards the top of your screen. So, and I think the most prominent note on this slide, you'll see is that 61 foot chapter 91 waterway restriction setback. I think Quinlan mentioned a long time ago that this site was marshlands. So we sort of carved the design in the front of the building around. That, that chapter 91 setback and it allowed us to fill out the front of the lot, but still incorporate a nice publicly accessible Plaza in a walkable area that's open to the public and we'll have chairs and other gathering items, and it creates a nice urban streetscape along the along the parkway. And then you'll see the red dash that kind of surrounds the building there. That's how the field building footprint was kind of modified as a result of our discussions and collaborations to fit within that 15 foot boundary setback so that we don't have any setback violations anymore, where we still have the access we're going around. Great. This is a slide that you can see here the emergency access road that was required around the building, as well as to the bottom of the screen, the loading bays, and also towards the top right, you see the ramp leading to the underground parking. And again, it was the lot's narrowness that really exacerbated the need for that emergency access road because, you know, without the access road really couldn't be put without triggering a setback, but through our conversations, we were actually able to achieve that. And obviously we considered safety and also traffic flows. So you'll see that traffic flows only in one direction. We maintain the existing curb cuts, and then it leads to the underground parking at the rear of the site. And actually, with respect to that underground parking, it not only provides us with the ability to create the adequate number of parking spaces on the site, but it also required and allows us to actually raise the building, which lets us put the stormwater systems and stormwater maintenance systems underneath the building, which we'll get to in a second. And so that's also contributing to some of the height. You wanna go to the next slide? So here and I don't want to get over my skis with the, with the, the way the stormwater management works but you can see that in our design, you know, not only paid specific attention to the damage to the surrounding topography, but we actually developed a stormwater plan that improves on the current stormwater plan. Currently, right now, as you're familiar with the site, it's a big parking lot, it's an impervious parking lot that flows when it rains, the water flows just right to the wetlands, right next to the vehicle fluids, etc. And our site significantly improves that and we do have members of our team here who worked on the stormwater plan if you have any details technically about how that was achieved. And then the next slide is, these are really here to give an understanding of the design of what a modern lab looks like. And if, I don't know, Brian, do you want to jump in and just kind of give us a little bit of detail on how a lab or a modern day lab would fit on this site?
[SPEAKER_15]: Sure. So thanks everybody and good evening board. My name is Brian Cook. I'm a principal of architecture at Jacobs. So we thought it would be a good opportunity in three or four slides, quick ones, to give it a description of what a lab building is in comparison to an office building. And, you know, we've really simplified it in a perfect world. We'd love these things to be bricks, these perfect little rectangles, because they'd be easy to lay out for all the scientists and all their equipment inside. But as you can see by the constraints of our site, 4060 Mississippi Parkway, that this shape wouldn't be ideal. However, labs work on a module. So what you can see here in the Goldilocks zone, kind of in the middle and to the bottom of the page, the 45 foot lease steps with the core, the building core, where your elevators and stairs are in the center, 45 to 55 feet is kind of the Goldilocks zone for lab modules these days because of the number of benches and the number of different types of equipment they need. In the other direction, Quinn, if you go to the next slide, these buildings work on a very strict, 11 foot module. And the way you get that 11 foot modules, you have two work benches and a five foot aisle between each sets of columns, right? So all of the lab equipment that's made is based on that type of modularity. So as you go into these spaces, if they have to take out an old piece of equipment, put a new piece of equipment, you don't even think about it, you know, it's going to fit. So that's how all lab lab case work works. Next slide, please. So as you get and figure out your plan and how that fits on the site, the next thing is the floor to floor height. So office buildings, we could do 13 foot floor to floor all day long. There's a number of these in Medford. Lab offices really need 15 feet. And that's because the amount of air that we move in and out of these buildings that are required by code. So the interstitial space, what's above that ceiling is incredibly important in lab buildings. And that's why these are taller floor to floor heights. The next slide, please, Quinn. And the other big difference, which I'm sure you've seen, is the penthouse, the mechanical penthouse. So we just talked about all that air that gets moved through, but there's a lot of equipment that goes up into these. A lot of the times, it's about the size of the floor plate of the building itself, and then another two floors, plus or minus, about 40 feet tall. But that was old labs. New labs these days, with all of the high-end energy efficiency and really trying to get carbon reduction, carbon neutrality, and where we're all going as a design community, these are even getting more packed. And as we try to get more efficient, these types of machines get bigger and bigger and bigger. So that's why these lab buildings have such a tall hat. And you'll see in the team when they go through some of these things that we've disguised this in a way to make it blend in and not be so intrusive. Next slide, Quinn, I think it's back to you.
[SPEAKER_21]: I guess before we open up in questions, I'll just say in closing that, or at least for the variance portion of the presentation, we're requesting from the board variances for the loading bay, the lot area ratio and height in both feet and stories. And based on our analysis, we feel that the variances are not detrimental to the public good. In fact, we have good that come along with the project, improvements to the streetscape, providing a public area with outdoor furniture and the like. There'll be a new six-foot sidewalk that runs along the south frontage of the site. And it also improves, as discussed, the stormwater management. That's from a huge improvement from what's currently there. The variances, if they're granted, would still be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinances and not injurious to the neighborhood. request from the board to grant the relief, and I'm happy to have questions addressed to me or to any of the specific members of the development team.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Thank you so much, Attorney Frazier.
[SPEAKER_21]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: I think that Victor Schrader has a question, so maybe we'll let him jump in before we start asking our own. Mr. Schrader?
[Victor Schrader]: Thank you, Chair. This is Victor Schrader, Economic Development Director for the city. I actually just have a short bit of background on the project that I think might be valuable to the board. I've been working with RISE for about a year, and knowing projects like this come to communities you're never quite sure how they're going to be received. This is a pretty new use for Medford. Modern Lab is of a specific size and scale and use that is unique and we don't really have any buildings like this in the city. In addition, this project was pretty highly publicized from day one both locally and regionally. RISE held a A neighborhood meeting last fall that was very well attended. They've also held three hearings before the city board recently. And I think it's worth noting that there really has been no opposition to this project at all. In fact, I've been doing this job similar to this for in order of 12 years, and this has probably been the least controversial project I've ever been a part of. It's pretty amazing. And I think credit for that goes to the RISE team. They've been a great partner. They've really gone above and beyond in terms of design and working with the community and being responsive. They see an opportunity for the site. And that's similar to that the city does. But I think also we'd like to credit the community. We've just heard a lot of positive responses from the community. regarding this project, the types of mitigation the project will be contributing, the design, the need for this type of development. Even in addition at a recent visioning process or visioning session for the comprehensive plan, the response from the community, there were probably 30 or 40 people on that call, was for dense mixed-use development with quality design and uses that bring life and vibrancy to the street. So that really encompasses this project. It's accomplishing all of these objectives in our mind. But Unfortunately, Medford zoning doesn't make approving these projects easy, as we know, it's the variance processes is challenging and as we've seen with a couple of what we think are really strong projects on Boston Avenue, Cummings and 590 Titan gas. you know those projects weren't approved and we're not sure if they're going to come back. I mean costs are going up these projects just get more and more challenging as time goes on because delays are poses significant risks. It makes projects really expensive and challenges feasibility. I think the moral of the story here is and we've heard we've heard this from the community and and from the CD board as well, is that the city recognizes that we're really playing catch up when it comes to planning and zoning reform. We're working on that. When projects come to the city that are strong like this one, we wish we had a kind of an easier process than the variance process for them. to take advantage of and I hope in the future that we do. But tonight RISE is here to present their hardships and we just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the merits of the project and that the city and community are really supportive. So thank you.
[Unidentified]: Great thank you so much. Okay so board members does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, actually, before we get into questions, we received that letter from the mayor. Oh, yeah.
[Unidentified]: You know what? We've got a couple. We have a couple letters. So let me. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: So one of them is from the also from the Chamber of Commerce. And I saw Carol on here earlier. So I don't know if Marty wants to speak during the.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's a great point. So I saw, I think we have Community Development sent a letter in favor, the Mayor sent a letter, Chamber of Commerce sent a letter, and I think I'm missing one, but I'll double check. We've got a couple.
[Mike Caldera]: Those three I remember, yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so if anyone from those, if those groups, but Maury, if you'd like to start off, go right ahead.
[Victor Schrader]: Chair, before Maury starts, I just want to mention again that Robin Stein is on the call from KP Law for your reference, the board's reference on this item. So I just wanted to reiterate that.
[Unidentified]: Great. Thank you so much. And Maury, if you weren't planning to speak, don't feel any pressure. But you're welcome to if you have anything you wanted to add.
[Maury Carroll]: You know, I just kind of want to reiterate the chamber's position on this project. This is something that the city of Memphit desperately needs, not only in tax revenue, but in recognition to other cities and towns and to developers like this, to get a project going like this, that, you know, Medford open to this and it's in the perfect location. You're not, you're not, infringing on any residences, the traffic over there, it is what it is, it's been like that. I'm almost 70, it's been like that for 90 years, you know. So, I mean, this is just a fabulous project and I think my letter from the Chamber of Commerce speaks to that and what it does for employment. And what I like about this project is they've included the community into it. They've made it publicly accessible. They have an area that's a community room. They have a space that's available for people to just sit down and relax and walk around. And so, I mean, it's a no-brainer. I mean, this is just something that we need to do. And I appreciate it, Jackie. Thanks.
[Unidentified]: Oh, you're so welcome. Thank you so much. Okay, um, let's see. So why don't I Let me just pull up I was gonna pull up the mayor's letter. to see, I don't believe there are any requirements. The mayor just wrote that she was in favor of the project, thought it was a great project for the city, is the best of my recollection. And then we also do have in the letter from, let's see. Yep, we've got the letter from the Community Development Board, and I'll just read this into the record so that everyone can hear what they've said. It's a little long, so bear with me. So the Community Development Board voted to recommend that the Board of Appeals approve the special permit for site plan review on this matter with a number of conditions. And actually, quick question to the applicant. You mentioned that you were talking about the variance. Were you gonna do any separate presentation regarding site plan review or anything to that effect, or are we all set to proceed if I read this through now?
[Zac Bears]: That's a great question, Madam Chair, thank you. We do have further slides that go through some of these special permit criteria. We're happy to do that now, or we can have a further discussion, whatever you think is best.
[Unidentified]: Why don't we take it in pieces then? So I'll just leave it if any of the board members want to ask questions on the variance right now, then we can do the second set of slides and I can read in the conditions as questions before we open it to public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sounds good. Jack, we did get the mayor's letter pulled up if you want to get into that.
[Robin Stein]: Oh, we have it. Do you want to read it?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sure.
[Robin Stein]: Excellent.
[Mike Caldera]: So it says, dear Chair Doherty and Zoning Board of Appeals, I write in favor of the RISE development located at 4060 Mystic Valley Parkway being proposed on Mystic Valley Parkway and the zoning relief they are requesting. The project has been fully reviewed by our Planning, Development and Sustainability Office. RISE has fulfilled our request to have a public meeting open to all to gain feedback and answer questions. The meeting went extremely well and there was little to no opposition. The project would be a benefit to our community and allow us to attract more life science and manufacturing business, which will in turn bring in much needed revenue to the community. I plan on writing in support of many projects in the future, especially the ones that have been worked on by City Hall staff for months and have had a community input process to make sure they are a good fit for the neighborhoods in the community. Sincerely, Mayor Brianna Longo-Kohn.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Okay, so board members, anyone have any questions for the applicant about the variance aspect?
[Mike Caldera]: I have a few, but I think I went first on some of the last one. So if anyone else has one, you can go ahead.
[Unidentified]: I liked your last, so that's why I always open it to you folks.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Sufficiently awkward pause. I can go. So I think some of these questions, probably most of these questions are for Attorney Frazier, but made people to hop in. So one is, you mentioned, Attorney Fraser, that the stormwater management plan added some height to the building. And it wasn't clear to me if that was in feet or stories or both. And I was wondering if you could just speak to how much height the stormwater aspect ended up adding to the building.
[SPEAKER_21]: Thank you, Mr. Caldera, I'll actually pass that back to Quinlan he can feel that to the to the actual design team, as far as actual people or stories. I can tell you in general, that the parking underneath required the building to be raised
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm actually, I'm actually gonna, sorry, pass the baton one more time. We do have Mark Jungens, who is the civil engineer for VHB on the call tonight. Mark, I'm gonna go ahead and put this slide up just, I think it'd be helpful for you to talk through the stormwater plan there.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_15]: Like a lot of things, it's a complicated answer. We have a few things driving the way this building meets the ground, which, you know, sort of sets part of its side, a small portion of it. We started when we looked at this project at the front of the building. We wanted to meet Mystic Valley Parkway as well as it can and be accessible, and that's where our driveways are. But we also knew that in order to create a drainage system for this site that actually does something, because right now there is no drainage system on this existing site. All the trash and oil and sand and everything just flows on into the wetland. There's no pipes or catch basins or anything. So we end when you get to the end of the site, you're a little bit above the wetland, but not enough that you can generate that depth that you need for a drainage system to capture it and control it and treat it. So we also have a different parameter, which you can see on these sections here is the blue line is essentially a 1% 2030 flood line. And so If you start at Mystic Valley Parkway, it's elevation nine and it flows to the back of the site to about elevation four. So this flood elevation is about 1135. So the other thing driving kind of where we set the bottom of the building was coming up from Mystic Valley Parkway high enough that we can get the finished floor as close or above this, that hundred year flood elevation or the 1% flood elevation. quickly and then set the building somewhat level so that if we do have a storm event we can protect the building and that's driving kind of where that first floor is and at the same time that gives us the height that we need and we have to fill in the site around the building if you would. It gives us that depth that we need to install drainage infrastructure and a subsurface detention facility and a subsurface treatment facility so that when this thing is complete, we're going to limit the peak runoff from the site to less than what goes there now. We're going to treat the stormwater and we're going to have all the facilities to control grit, floating oils and gases and trash. And so that kind of brought, if you look at it from Mystic Valley Park where you just see this gentle slope up, which is less than 5% of course, so it's accessible and it's a plaza. But because the site drops away as you move to the back of the site, you see that height that we're using to make all those things happen.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and so Mr. Triggins, I know you said it's complicated, but if I'm understanding you correctly, we're talking like on the order of five to 10 feet.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_15]: Is that how much the man- I think it's seven or eight feet at the back. Okay. You don't really see much of anything in the front.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it's about, and Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, at the front of the property, it's about a two foot raise, right, from nine to 11 feet.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, that's correct.
[Mike Caldera]: It looks like we have Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. Good evening, board members. If you don't mind, I actually thought it would be helpful as part of this question to comment on climate change and sea level rise. And our zoning doesn't speak to that at this time. They've also had to go through the MEPA review that does. And as part of their presentation, to the community development board. They shared with us storm level, sea level rise and storm surge maps that I am very familiar with because they were exactly the same as that we are looking at with the city. And so they do actually need to manage water, potential water on this site up to 2050 hundred year flood levels. And the cost of making their building resilient to that water that is going to hit this property does add to the cost of the building, which would need them to then build a larger building to be able to make it cost effective and recoup their costs. I am not in position to monetize that specifically, but there are a number of things that they need to do. And as a municipality, it is one of the things that we are looking to put into our future zoning because we do not want to be rescuing buildings and having to deal with buildings that have been trashed because of storm surge and sea level rise. I assume the board is familiar with the fact that at some point the Amelia Earhart Dam is going to get overtopped if we don't do something about it. Therefore, we have to act as if it's going to get overtopped, even though we are trying to do something about it. And there will be, I think the number for this location, I don't have the map in front of me, was 10 feet of sea level rise above ground level or of water above ground level. And so that's not just, oh, the building needs to be 10 feet higher. It means that the bottom floor of the building needs to be protected to manage being inundated with 10 feet of water, which makes it a more expensive building. And they may, VHB may be in a better place to speak to some of that than I actually am.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_15]: Well, thanks for bringing that up. If you see the red, the red blocks on the sections, we provide additional treatments on the building that provide that water tightness above even that initial flood elevation. So this is still a work in progress. We have a lot of experience in this working on projects elsewhere in the greater Boston area that are dealing with, you know, future flood level elevation. So this is nothing new. And as this project moves forward, we have to do it for the people that are going to be in it and financing it and owning it. And if the town has their own regulation at some point, I think that's great.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Thanks so much. Mike, did you have any other questions?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I did. Thanks. So a couple more. So this one, maybe Mr. Locke is the correct one to address it to. So we'll try. So the loading bays, it looks like they're interior to the building. That's one of the areas you're requesting a variance. Can you maybe just share some details as to sort of the the impact to the project, if we, for whatever reason, did need to enforce that, and whether you got any comments or concerns from the CDB about that particular aspect of the project.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely. I'll touch on that. And we do have Cube 3 on the call, who is the architect behind designing the loading bays, if they want to hop in after me. But it's a great question, Mr. Caldera. Thank you so much. So the loading bays themselves, we do provide three onsite and the requirement is five. Right now they're accessed from the right-hand turn all the way back here. VHB did help us with providing some turning radiuses for trucks, making sure that they can fit in there and that there wouldn't be any conflicts. So we do have that as well. Really what was driving the three loading bays is the actual need for the loading bays. that a typical lab market, and Jacobs is also on here, who can touch on this if needed, but in the lab market, really for a building such as this, three loading bays is what is needed to support the building. That's what is being designed to this building. Five loading bays would really take up a lot of area on this site and really take away from things on the ground level that we are providing, such as these bike facilities that you see here. which are really part of the transportation management program, as well as some of the other ground floor space that's going to be needed to support the building. I'm happy to turn it over to CUBE3 if they want to talk a little bit through the design. But before I do that, just real quickly, we believe that three loading bays are the appropriate amount of loading bays for this site. If there is a need, or if there are for any reason at all, which we don't believe will happen, a fourth truck or a fourth vehicle coming to the site for the loading. The good news is we have areas that we can manage that on the site so that it is not affecting Mystic Valley Parkway. You know, this ring road is accessible all the way around the site. And most of these items that are being delivered to the site are things you could take right off the back of the truck. You don't really need any sort of pallets or anything like that and take right into the building. So I'm happy to turn it over to Cube 3 at Jacobs, if they want to elaborate a little bit more on that and give a little bit more of an expert answer. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
[SPEAKER_09]: Hi, everybody. Steve Presage on here, senior job captain at Cube 3 on the project. Not really much to elaborate on beyond the great outline Quinn just gave. I think all we would say is, as you can see on screen here, we're planning for three loading bays, two of which are kind of directly serving the loading dock central to the lab building, the third containing the trash compactor where a trash pickup would happen. And as Quinn mentioned, we've studied the turning radii of the trucks using a WD-40 chassis. So they would essentially come down the one way from page bottom here from left to right. They would stop and back into the loading dock. And we've kind of cut our curbs and given those the proper radius for trucks to be able to maneuver in and out. And then they would just pull straight back out to leave the site.
[Unidentified]: Great, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you. Yeah. So just to kind of paraphrase what I'm hearing, it sounds like, um, the need for additional loading days is not really there given the use, and then it would be costly in some dimension. Like there'd be a, something would be something material would be given up if we had to have more loading days. Is that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Maybe go ahead, Brian. Yeah. Maybe I'll add to it is there. There's a couple of things fighting for the ground floor and in a lab Typical lab building, easily half of the ground floor would be considered back a house and it would be a chemical storage. It would be all of your ancillary, you know, tenant mechanical, electrical, the transformer room, everything else. One of the design missions that RISE had on this project was to really give a good portion of the floor to the community side facing Mystic Valley Parkway, which really limited the space that we could put the stuff essential to a lab building. So one of the things that we did, which you're not seeing here, but I think it's important to share, and it's also part of the resiliency, is to take some of that really sensitive infrastructure, like the electrical vault, which is a large room, and it's actually up on very valuable floor space up on the second floor, in order to make sure we preserve as much of that community site as possible. And the other way we did that was to, you know, get it down to what is efficient for this building to work, which was the three loading bays as shown.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then my last question, at least at this time, is definitely for Attorney Frazier. So I just wanted to check my understanding of kind of the argument you're making in the application. So it sounds like the crux of the argument as I understood it was, that this type of project in the current zoning, the current zoning doesn't really gel with this type of project. So modern lab space, especially on a lot of this size, you're gonna need much more than the two stories allowable by right. And so, So yeah, so it sounded like that was part of the argument that essentially this is the best use, but the current zoning doesn't allow it. And then you referenced the Marshallian case, which for those who aren't familiar with it, basically says that the existence of a kind of lesser use alone isn't grounds to deny a variance. And so as I understood that case, there was kind of a determination about of the other available uses, which ones were and weren't economical. And so I just wanted clarification from attorney Fraser about the applicant stance on these other uses and why. So clearly this is highest and best use, but why other alternatives aren't appropriate for this lot.
[SPEAKER_21]: Thank you, Mr. Caldera and the question that you asked actually goes to the heart of the Mount Rushmore case, which is that just because there are other ways that the lot could be used. It doesn't mean that there's not a hardship. So, so sure they know in that case there with the plaintiff argued that the lot could be used for this or the lot could be used for that, so that there's no need to grant the The court said in that case was that was exactly the proposition that you're stating is that even though the lot could could be used for for other purposes. It can still be considered a hardship if you can't be brought to its highest and best use.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, I my understanding is similar and disclaimer I'm not a lawyer so I'll kind of take your interpretation over mine but I did get the impression that it went a step further and so it wasn't just that the. plaintiff's argument was kind of struck down. It was that the other uses that they proposed were in fact not economical. So I just was seeking clarification. Is it your stance that other uses are not just not highest and best, but are also not economical for this lot?
[SPEAKER_21]: Not economical for the lot, and also because of the character of the lot, which is another criteria that was used in that Marsharp-Braxley case, as far as topography and other characteristics of the lot also created a hardship in that case, as they do here. So that would be our second argument as well.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. I've asked all my questions at this time.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Mike. Jim, are you back? I don't have any at this time. I have no questions. Okay. Um, so I, um, I usually have a lot of questions, particular, particularly for larger projects like this. Um, but I guess just to start, I want to say that I really appreciate that the application that we've gotten is quite comprehensive. Um, and in reading through that, a lot of my questions, um, were answered. I even think, um, When I first read through some of the answers, I was a little concerned because I wasn't seeing reference to the conditions that are required for us to even go through the structural and the statutory analysis for variants, but that was addressed in Attorney Frazier's letter that we received as well. So I don't really have any questions that are still open, but I just wanted to sort of check in with everybody who may be watching. We talk about this all the time, but as a refresher, going through for a variance, we need to make sure that as the board, we're looking at some statutory criteria. There need to be circumstances relating to soil condition, shape and topography. We've heard the applicant speak regarding the narrowness and width of the site, topography and slope. We've also heard about wetlands and storm surges. Those circumstances need to be particular to this parcel, unique to the parcel, where the literal enforcement would create a hardship, which we've heard the applicant speak to some of the issues regarding the way that modern labs are built, the shape of them, the modularity of them. the restrictions that we have. I'm particularly compelled when I look at this project that this is, you know, Marcelline gets to our hardship issue, right, not to our condition issue, but our hardship issue about the highest and best use, but particularly that this is an allowed use, but the modern use of it would not really be otherwise economical or feasible. Unless as the applicant pointed out in their application, you had a lot, I forget what the number was something like eight or nine times the size of this one, which really isn't feasible to be asking any applicants to come in and it would almost prohibit the use of this, or rather the construction of this use at all. I always forget the exact language in the last one, but that the relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or without nullifying the bond. So for anyone listening, those are the four criteria that we need to take a look at. And in this, there are separate criteria for site planning we'll get into in a moment. But from what I'm seeing, I'm quite pleased both with what's been provided, the thoroughness of the application. And also I particularly wanna call out the community engagement that we've seen on this. Mr. Schrader was right. You don't often see projects that come in this lotted by City Hall, by the public, neighborhood meetings where there's almost no opposition. This project comes to us and I can tell that the planning and development of it has been very thoughtful and particularly just appreciate that engagement with the community. So those are my thoughts where we are on the hardship portion. I think it's probably appropriate now if the applicant wants to run through their presentation on site plan review.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Absolutely. We're going to go ahead and get started with the special permit criteria. So there are seven special permit criteria that we've been focusing on. And I'll have the teams run through each one of them individually. We're going to go ahead and start with our transportation team. Ryan White should be on the call from DHB.
[Unidentified]: Oh, and you know what, actually, before you do that, just as an explanation to everyone listening again, so site plan, this project, they need to get a couple of variances, which is what I was just explaining that criteria. Site plan review has a whole other set of criteria. And the board has the power to make that finding provided that the seven criteria we can approve the site plan unless we find that some of the seven criteria are in play. So it sounds like they're about to go through those seven. Pardon the interruption, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As said, I think Ryan White is on the call to start us off with some of the transportation items that you see here.
[HK3G1-bENjA_SPEAKER_06]: Sounds good. Thanks, Quinn. And hello, members of the board. My name is Ryan White. I'm a project manager and senior transportation engineer with VHB. And I led the transportation and traffic elements of this project. I personally am going to talk to two of the elements really regarding site access to this parcel. So first, let's talk about criteria one. and the proposed improvements to the site that will really improve safety and access from the existing conditions that are out there today. This includes eliminating one site curb cut while the other two are both narrowed and both become one way rather than full access. A site distance study was conducted to ensure that there's ample visibility between both vehicles and pedestrians, which was included in the project's transportation impact study which has been reviewed by the city's traffic engineer. Parking has been moved from the existing surface lot that's there to the underground parking garage. Loading, as we mentioned, will incur internal to the building and will be accessed directly from that one-way loop road. Additionally, as mitigation, the project has committed to working with MassDOT to study And if feasible, design and construct a mid-block crossing here and initial concepts on the right to better connect this parcel with the park and hopefully with Wellington Station in the future with other projects planned by the city. DOT was generally receptive to this improvement during the initial site permitting meetings, but we'll have to do more in-depth studies. to validate this concept is obviously Mystic Valley Parkways under DOT jurisdiction. To improve bike conditions and access to this building and site as well, the proponents working with the city to sponsor Blue Bike Station on or near the site, and we'll again work with DOT about the possibility of a bike facility along Mystic Valley Parkway. Quinn, could you go on to the next slide? Just in an interest of keeping presenters consistent, I'm going to fast forward and talk about criteria six while I have the screen right now. And really what I want to focus on as part of this discussion is the one-way loop road itself. First of all, by making it one-way loop road, we will decrease the number of vehicle conflicts with the sidewalk, as well as simplify driver expectations along Mystic Valley Parkway, hopefully creating a much safer condition than what's out there right now. The onsite drive aisle will provide vehicular access for all portions of the site, the drop-off area, the loading docks, the parking garage, But additionally, and probably most importantly, the loop road has been designed for emergency and fire access, and has been designed, as previously mentioned, to allow a Medford city fire truck to fully access all sides of the building. And with that, let me hand it over to my colleague, Mark, who will talk more about some of the other criteria related to the onsite infrastructure.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_15]: All right, I'm gonna rewind to criteria two, which talks about the configuration of the project and its paved areas, whether it has a detrimental effect on adjacent properties or the infrastructure. We talked a little bit about the drainage system previously, that we're taking a site that has no drainage controls and providing kind of all the latest and greatest drainage controls, including the last piece of our drainage system is a filter. It's a filter with replaceable cartridges that kind of polishes the stormwater before it goes out to the wetland. We feel that the drainage system will not only control the peaks off the site, you know, bring it back to something a little more reasonable, but it will also greatly increase the water quality going into the wetland, because this wetland that's behind the site is, you know, an important piece of the local ecosystem. And we recognize that. The site does not have wetland resource areas on it, just adjacent on the other properties. And we've designed around that and we will be going to the Conservation Commission to have a discussion about our proximity to that. And I'm sure they'll have some things that they want to make sure that we're doing. And I think we're in a good place on that. We have water services, two water services available out front in Mystic Valley Parkway. and we have a reasonably large collector sewer available in Mystic Valley Parkway as well. So access to those utilities is easily achieved without impacts to our neighbors. And the other thing about the drainage on the site is it is all self-contained. We don't go through someone else's site to access that low area. So we're not going through an existing drainage pipe and changing that parameter as part of this project. So well served by utilities because we have pretty much everything we need in Mystic Valley Parkway or on the site. Criteria four talks a little bit more about the relationship to natural resources. And maybe this is a little bit of repeating here, sorry, because not only does the drainage not have impacts on our neighbors, it also doesn't have impacts on the existing resources, which in this case are the wetland areas, which I kind of touched on already. So where our site is pretty much paved right now, there's only a slight change, if not exactly the same impervious area in the proposed condition as the existing, so we're not really impacting on site natural resources, if you want to call you know sort of the existing landscape that's out there actually will have great improvement on the landscape and we're done. And I think that covers criteria for next is criteria three which will be handled by landscape architect Mike.
[HK3G1-bENjA_SPEAKER_10]: Thanks mark. Hi, my name is Mike Rettmeyer. I'm a landscape architect at Michael D'Angelo Landscape Architecture. I'm going to hit on criteria number three and five. Criteria three is in regard to landscaping and protection of the neighbors. There's been some general discussion about site design and what's being proposed for the landscape, but starting at Mystic Valley Parkway, our goal is to preserve and enhance the public realm and street furniture along the parkway. So we're keeping the existing street trees as well as adding a new street tree to continue that rhythm. The lawn shoulder is being renovated as well as a new concrete sidewalk. with the new public entry plaza that leads to the main entry, the community space on the ground floor, as well as the cafe space. The focus was for the community and for it to be open to the public. There's a generous landscape buffer with shade trees, perennial shrubs, as well as rain rain garden for stormwater management. The plaza is designed with flexibility in mind for, you know, with different seating options, whether it's for the cafe or people spilling out from the community space or within the lab building itself. But with all those seating, the seating being flexible, it also allows for events to be held in this public plaza as well. The planting design in general does consist of native and adapted plant materials to help increase biodiversity, provide shade. and seasonal interest throughout the year. Along the perimeter of the site is a retaining wall that's been mentioned earlier in the presentation. As that wall gets higher towards the back of the site, a guardrail is required. And with keeping in mind the views from neighboring properties, we'll be designing that wall and the guardrail in a decorative way to make sure any views looking onto our property are positive to represent the rest of the project and the architecture. At the north part of the site, we've maximized the amount of planting in that area. This is all along the wetland buffer as well, just to add back as much green space and habitat creation as we can. And again, in terms of circulation, there is along the loop road and the side property lines, we are providing decorative paving along the outer curb line for pedestrian use, and as well as to emphasize the decorative paving at the main entries coming off of Mystic Valley Parkway. Next slide, Quinn. is criteria number five, which is in regard to the exterior lighting. All of our site lighting, and it's all downward-directed light to limit light pollution. We have run photometrics for this project, and there's zero light spill over the property lines. There's three different types of fixtures that we've included. The fixtures that are directly mounted, they're building mounted fixtures around the perimeter of the building to safely illuminate the loop drive as well as the pedestrian sidewalks on the building. The entered plaza includes bollard lights and then decorative light poles. Again, just to create safe light levels for pedestrians visiting the site. And I do want to note that the existing parkway streetlights are to remain. So that'll function as currently designed along the parkway. And with that, I'll turn it back to Quinn.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mike. And for the last criteria, criteria number seven, really focusing on waste management on the site. We did want to present both construction waste management plan that will be created in parallel with some of these soil management plans. Haley and Aldrich, our geotechnical engineer has been working on the project and is helping us come up with plans to remove any debris and soil from the project necessary in accordance with MassDEP and local and other state regulations. So all of that will be handled by our construction team. And then for the operational side, I know we touched on it briefly earlier, but just as a reminder, we do have the trash compactor located within the loading bays for ease of disposal. Uh, trucks would be coming right in off the ring road, taking a right into the loop road, going right into the trash compactor that you see there in the middle of your screen and loading bag. Um, and from there coming right back around all the way around the road and taking the right onto Mystic Valley Parkway. Um, all of this waste management operationally will also be handled in accordance with, uh, local and city regulations, Massachusetts hazard waste management regulations as well. and Jacobs, who is one of the architects on the project, will be helping us with that plan as well. And with that, we just wanted to say thank you so much for your time tonight. Again, all of us from the project team are here to answer any questions you may have, and we hope you enjoyed the presentation. Looking forward to working with you. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you so much, folks. Much appreciated. So I have a Question before we jump into some of the substantive questions. Have you folks seen the letter from the Community Development Board with their recommendations and requests for conditions?
[Zac Bears]: We have. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Um, so I think you've probably addressed some of these, um, but did you have any objections that might be the easiest way to go through it? Um, or any comments, um, about, I think there are 14. Conditions that were proposed by community development. Did you folks have any, um, anything you wanted to add about that or objections to any of them, or are you perfectly happy if we. put them in whole packager.
[Zac Bears]: I will let our zoning attorney override me if needed, but we do not have any objections to any of them. And we appreciate it working with them on those recommendations. We look forward to implementing them.
[Unidentified]: Oh, okay, great. All right, thanks so much. I'll just check in with attorney Frazier. He said he wanted to just defer to you. You're good on that front as well.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes, Madam Chair.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. All right. Thanks, folks. So I'll just read these in. So just bear with me for a second, folks. Okay. So the Community Development Board voted on January, pardon, on June 22nd to recommend that the Board of Appeals approve the special permit for site plan review with the following conditions. The conditions was the applicant has just said they don't have any objection to and they've worked with Community Development Board on. So one, that the board defers to the order of conditions imposed by the Conservation Commission for protection of the wetland resource areas should they conflict with any of the conditions mentioned herein. Two, that the project systems be designed to be electric ready. Three, that available roof space be evaluated as to feasibility of installing PV cells or a green roof system. Four, that the building be LEED Gold certifiable. Five, that the proponent commit to joining the Lower Mystic Transportation Management Association. Six, that the proponent, to the extent reasonably possible, comply with the mitigation efforts proposed in the Director of Traffic and Transportation Memo from Todd Blake, dated May 12, 2022. That there be showers and lockers on site. That there be at least 10 outdoor and 42 indoor bike parking spaces. Nine, that 10% of all parking spaces are to have electric vehicle charging stations. 10 that the programming space be available to the public and for scheduling and hosting community groups at reasonable hours and frequency. 11 that the proponent work with city staff to determine an appropriate number of visitor parking for the retail location. 12 that the proponent make a best effort to connect with the abutter to remove the asphalt and providing and provide landscaping on adjacent property as a landscaped buffer and wildlife passing corridor. 13, that there be compliance with recommendations by the following department heads and letters addressed to Jacqueline Daugherty, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, John Friedman, Fire Chief, Mary Ann O'Connor, Director of Public Health, and Timothy J. McGivern, Commissioner of Public Works, and Owen Wartella, City Engineer. 14, that this project be subject to the city's solar ordinance and linkage fees. Okay, thanks everyone for listening to me on that. Okay, so board members, any questions or comments for the applicant on site? Thank you.
[Yvette Velez]: I don't have any questions, just a general comment of I appreciate that they spoke with the community and they're being proactive with the community relationship with the high school and possibilities of relationships perhaps other institutions in the area.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, agreed. Mike or Jim?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll add I really appreciate everything the applicant has done to work with the various stakeholders to improve the project and meet the city's needs. I think there are some really great elements of the project. And so one thing I just wanted to to check in with the applicant about before we get to the public comment portion. Because I know at the time you started talking with the city, the recent zoning changes hadn't even really been contemplated, other than that we knew we needed to change the zoning. And so I just wanted to make sure the applicant was aware that there are a couple of additional avenues under the new zoning for projects seeking height relief. So if a request was made to the City Council and granted to rezone this to O2, I believe you could get height relief by special permit through the Community Development Board. And then also there's something called a planned development district, I believe is what it's called, which again, would be applicant driven, approved by city council where you could propose as part of that application various elements of pipe relief. So I'm not commenting on the merits of this case or the decision process required for the variance. I just wanted to make sure the applicant was generally aware that there are a few avenues available outside of the variance process before we be kind of headed into delivery.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Calderia. We're aware of those other avenues. We're hoping that that will be able to succeed before this illustrious board before having to exercise any of those options.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Good. Okay. Um, and yeah, I don't have any additional comments, uh, really apart from what I've just said. Um, I just want to make sure that for anyone, um, listening members of the public who are on, um, what the applicant has just done is run us through the seven, um, different categories that the board uses for its analysis, um, on whether or not to grant site plan review. And so there are seven that are laid out in our bylaws and they've just gone through each of those seven. So unless the board were to make a finding that they found any of those issues existed, the site plan review would be approved. So that's where we are. Okay, I think we're good. If I could get a motion, please, to open the public portion of the evening.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open the public hearing. Second.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and for the vote, Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Jim?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Mike?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline, I would say yes. OK. So Dennis, who do we have? If anyone. Actually, I'm not sure. Mr. Locke, would you mind sharing your screen? I don't know if I know how to do it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, I was muted. I was literally just asking Quinn when to do that. Yeah, no worries. Again, as I mentioned earlier, if anyone wishes to comment, they can just give their reaction and let us know that you wish to speak, and we will take people in the order that I see them.
[Yvette Velez]: If there are no hands, this will be the first time I see a project of this size without any public comment.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And Dennis, you don't have any emails?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm just switching over to my emails now. And nothing has come in.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Could I please get a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberation. I'll second.
[Unidentified]: And for the vote, Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Yvette? Yes. And Jacqueline, I'm yes. Okay, folks, what do we think? Or what else do we think? I think it's great to see, you know, something like this coming to Medford instead of Cambridge or Waltham. My daughter is involved in a project now over in Waltham that's similar to this. And I was watching all that goes into it. And I myself like the way everybody's been working together. I've done a lot of reading and listening, and I just think the project is a wonderful project. I'm looking forward to it. Yeah, I couldn't have said it better myself. Yvette or Mike, any other thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: have no additional comments. I think everything's been well put together.
[Mike Caldera]: I think it's a great project. It's exactly the sort of project the city of Medford needs. I think the economic impacts there, I think the community elements there, lots of thoughtful touches. I don't really, kind of to Mr. Carroll's point, I don't really see like risk of some big negative impact to the neighborhood. It's very well situated, the lot. I will say I'm not thrilled with the path being taken here. I think just when we think about sort of the avenues for relief, especially on the height element, there are some ones there that are a bit cleaner in the sense that who's in charge of zoning? City Council, not us. we can grant relief when the zoning's problematic. And I do think that the applicant has made some good points in that dimension. So regardless of, like, there's potentially a path here to a variance, but I do just want to say kind of on record, I think that probably the happy path or like the cleanest thing in the current zoning would just be say, hey, you know what, 02 is, Um, office slash R and D. It allows this use. It has the provision for the height, like it's cleaner. But with that being said, I do find the arguments related to the, uh, Marshall Ian precedent to be compelling. I do think that if you were to restrict the height to the the two stories I mean that's going to be a massive massive change in the economic liability of any project for any use and then furthermore wasn't referenced by the applicant, but There is another case, North Cross Virginia Board of Appeals, Boston, essentially where a height variance was upheld for a hotel that exceeded the height limits of the area on a high value parcel. So I'm not really going to speak to the full applicability of that case, but I do think there's some precedent out there for this. Yeah, and then let's see. Lastly, so I just want to make sure we touch on all the variances. So very clear to me from the applicant's petition that The loading requirements would be unnecessary for this type of building, very costly to add those additional loading spaces that they don't seem to need. They do, as they called out, have sort of a way that in the unlikely event that they exceed their loading needs at any given point in time, you don't have trucks lined up on Mystic Valley Parkway. We didn't really talk too much about the The lot area coverage element, but it's such a small deviation and the lot is certainly weird in many aspects. Its shape, its size, the wetlands element, you know, it's de minimis, the violation. And I know in the, I don't think it was said out loud today, but in some of the materials in the application, there was mention of some of the dimensional requirements for the life sciences building to even be marketable. So you've got to sort of have certain dimensions to get the lab space in there. So yeah, on the balance, kind of those are my thoughts. Like I said, not thrilled about the height one. I think there's probably a better path for that, but I do think there's a case either way.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, and you know, Mike, I appreciate always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments on that. I'm not of the same mindset in terms of the path. Normally when I see a project that comes in and we've seen projects before where someone's looking for something of this effect, where you have eight stories coming in on something where you're allowed to. And my question is always, even if you have the unique condition that creates the hardship, how do you get to this? size, this volume, how do we get from two stories to justifying eight? How come you couldn't do three or four? And that's always my question. But in this instance, given what the applicant has provided us in their materials, and then also presented on today, given the nature of a modern lab, and all of the other issues, I won't reiterate everything I said before. But for all of those reasons, I actually think this is one of those unique times where a variance is actually quite appropriate and that the scope of the relief requested is actually quite appropriate, even though on its face, eight stories may seem to be a lot more than two, given sort of the totality of the evidence and the uniqueness of this type of use and this type of property, I think it's actually quite appropriate. But I agree, there are often multiple avenues. Okay, does anyone else have any, actually, let me just take a quick second. Okay, so we explained to everybody, we've got the three variances and we went through the statutory criteria on those. We're also gonna do site plan review vote and we have a criteria for those. I don't think there's anything else that we should explain to folks. I think I'm probably ready for a vote if everyone else is.
[Mike Caldera]: Maybe just to cover our basing should we Some of us at least speak to the whole seven criteria on the site plan review. I know we kind of talked through them and the applicant argued that in fact they're met, but I will say, I tend to agree with the applicant that they meet those criteria. Beyond record is saying one way or the other, so.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so what I was thinking we could do, great point. What I was thinking we could do is I have section 94-335 pulled up. So I was thinking what we could do is we go through the vote And I'll read off specifically what it says for how we're allowed to approve it. And then we could read off each one and just vote. We could vote either on each one or vote all together, but I think we should read it off for the vote, was my thought. Okay, great. Okay, so why don't we start, for a clean record, let's just take the time and go through each one of these individualists, do the three variances, then we'll do the site plan review. So could I please get someone to make a motion regarding variance requested for lot coverage?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to approve the variance requested for lot coverage.
[Unidentified]: Second. Okay. You know what, give me a second. I'm just gonna make my notes a little bit easier. Okay, Mike. Sorry, for the vote, Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline, yes. Okay, can I please get a motion? Sorry, the variance for lot coverage is approved. And also folks, I should note, and I should have alerted the applicant to this, We currently have four voting members on the board right now. So for a variance to pass, all four members have to vote yes. Just so everyone's clear on that. Okay. Could I please get a motion regarding the variance for height? Let's just do it separately. We'll do height and then we'll do number of stories. For height, please.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Motion to approve the variance requested for height and feet.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Well, yeah, that's fine. We can do height and feet together. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Jacqueline, just to clarify, as I understood it, they need a variance for height in feet. So there's height, parenthesis, feet, and then there's height.
[Unidentified]: Oh, sorry. I was saying height in stories. Yeah, that's fine. All right. So height, we'll just do height, feet, and then we'll do height in stories.
[Mike Caldera]: We can do it together. I can amend that.
[Unidentified]: We could also. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her, she-her,
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, we're not doing my amendment. Okay, sounds good. Yes.
[Robin Stein]: Yes. Can I just clarify, I think Mike's motion was to vote height feet and stories at once. Is that what you're voting on?
[Mike Caldera]: Are you just my original motion? My original motion, which I'm just trying to sort of mirror what Jacqueline wanted to do, was that we voted them separately. I have since attempted to amend that to vote those two together, but I don't know if it has a second. So I think if we want to toss it, I can withdraw the amendment.
[Robin Stein]: I just want to do it.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Stein, thank you. Let's do it one more time. We're having the most fun. Mike, would you mind doing it one more time for me?
[Mike Caldera]: You want me to re-motion, is that right?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, let's withdraw the motion and then let's just start over.
[Mike Caldera]: I withdraw my motion. And would you like me to do a one-by-one motion or a compound motion? Do you have any preference?
[Unidentified]: I don't. Go right ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. I motion to approve the variances for height in feet and height in stories.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second that.
[Unidentified]: OK, so vote on height in feet and stories, Mike. Did you freeze?
[Mike Caldera]: I froze, yeah.
[Unidentified]: OK, Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: OK, Yvette? Yes. Jim? Yes. And Jacqueline, I'm yes. Okay, well, that was fun. Okay, can we get, please, a motion regarding the loading bays?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to approve the variance for loading bays. Second.
[Unidentified]: Okay, vote. Jim? Yes. Yvette? Yes. Mike? Yes. And Jacqueline is yes. Okay, so now site plan review. Let me just read this in folks. So section 94-335 says the special permit granting authority, this is the board, shall approve a site plan unless it makes one or more of the following written findings with respect to the proposed development. So I'm gonna read through all seven of them and then board members, we can vote. If anyone does make a finding, we can have that discussion. So one, the provisions for vehicular loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and into adjacent public streets and way will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities which could be avoided by modifications in the plan. So if we find that we don't approve site plan. So the next one, Two, the bulk location or height of proposed buildings and structures and paved areas and proposed uses thereof will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water distribution system or similar public facilities which could be avoided by modifications in the plan. Three, the provision for onsite landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development that could be avoided by adequate landscaping. Four, the site plan fails to provide for adequate protection of natural resources or soil and drainage problems that the development will give rise to. And it is feasible to prepare a site plan that will provide adequate protection of natural resources and will avoid drainage and soil problems. Five, the provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site. or such provisions will damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. Six, the proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site or to the buildings on the site for emergency vehicles. And seven, the provisions for the handling of refuse do not provide for adequate protection to neighboring properties. It could be avoided by adequate handling of refuse. So again, if the board finds, um, that any of these issues exist, then the board could not. But if the board does not find them, then it states that the board shall approve the site plan. Okay, so folks, are we comfortable voting on all seven of those in one vote, or would you like to go through them individually?
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, I'm wondering if we could just have a quick deliberation about whether anyone has... Well, to discuss any of the seven areas as a potential finding and then based on that we could figure out how to motion it sure.
[Unidentified]: I think the applicants presentation I didn't in reviewing this with the application materials I didn't have any particular concerns on this front. But I wanted to hear that and I feel that they've adequately addressed all of them, particularly given some of the conditions that are in play in their coordination with the Community Development Board. Anyone else.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so of the seven, none of them stand out to me as being areas of concern with this project.
[Unidentified]: Jim or Yvette? I feel like they've explained it well. I agree. OK, great. So are we all comfortable voting for all seven together? Yes, I am.
[Mike Caldera]: yeah okay and, and this one, I think it's going to be a mouthful so i'll need to check me yeah okay so let me.
[Robin Stein]: Can I just ask a question I don't want to change how you normally do things sure. But the way I read these, it says that you're gonna approve the site plan unless it makes one of these findings. So if no one on the board wants to make a motion to find any of those things, is it proper to just have a motion to approve the site plan subject to the conditions on the community development board?
[Unidentified]: That's what we're doing. So we, right now, no one has said that they have it. So right now we're gonna vote that we don't find any of the conditions and approve the site plan.
[Robin Stein]: Gotcha, okay, thank you. Just wanted to clarify. No, you're so welcome. Just as a reminder to open those conditions from community development or any other conditions that you want to add?
[Unidentified]: No, I don't believe the board has any other conditions that we wanted to add. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. No, thanks so much. Appreciate the help.
[Mike Caldera]: Just one clarifying question, and I think this could be a Jacqueline or Turnstein question. So these are statutory conditions. What do we call them?
[Unidentified]: These are from the Medford zoning ordinance. It's section 94, 335A, 1 through 7.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, so they are statutory conditions.
[Unidentified]: Pardon?
[Mike Caldera]: They are statutory then?
[Unidentified]: I guess I just always say statutory when I need the state. I say this is for the municipal agreements, or their, their bylaws, and they are, they are legal requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: I would like to motion that finding none of the seven conditions enumerated in Medford ordinances that we approve the site plan review subject to the 14 conditions proposed by the Medford Community Development Board.
[Unidentified]: That was flawless. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, and for the vote, that we do not make any of these findings and that we approve it subject to the 14 conditions, Mike? Yes. Yvette? Yes. Jim? Yes. And Jacqueline, I'm a yes. Folks, you got a project.
[Zac Bears]: Madam Chair, Representative Warren. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, really appreciate your time and your diligence on this project tonight. I know it's almost 10 o'clock. So I really appreciate it. All of us in the project team are excited to bring this project to life in Medford and hoping that we can share updates with you as we move along. So thank you so much.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we're really excited to how it goes. And I can't say this enough times, we just really appreciate the community engagement that you folks have had on this and the thoughtfulness that you brought to the project.
[Zac Bears]: We'll continue to do that, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.
[Unidentified]: Yep, you're welcome. All right, good luck, everyone.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, board. Jess, do you want to ask them to do... Oh, this is the best part.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Frazier, this falls to you. Would you mind providing us with a draft opinion?
[SPEAKER_21]: Absolutely.
[Unidentified]: Whenever we vote in your favor, we ask for that. It makes our lives just a little bit easier. My pleasure.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, thank you so much. Chris, can I just, before you, actually, before you jump off of that, what is your plan for filing the written decision? Because this one does have a somewhat tight turnout. Will you be reviewing it at another meeting or do you just review it and file it?
[Unidentified]: No, they just send us a draft and then we draft it up. We review it internally and sign it the way that we do all of our other decisions.
[Robin Stein]: So you're just gonna take care of it?
[Unidentified]: Mm-hmm.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, all right.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks. Thanks, folks. Dennis, do we have anything else on? Oh, we need to close deliberations. I know we voted, but we need to close, I think.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, okay. I motion to close deliberations.
[Unidentified]: Or wait, do we need to close?
[Mike Caldera]: I don't think we need to.
[Unidentified]: I don't think we need to. We need to vote to close the meeting. Sorry, Dennis, do we have anything else on?
[Denis MacDougall]: What was that? Sorry, I think I heard a couple people talking.
[Unidentified]: Do we have anything else on? Sorry, folks, I'm a little out of it today with the procedure.
[Denis MacDougall]: So we have Robin here, and there was sort of talk earlier about Robin sort of helping doing like a training with some of the newer members. And I figured since we're all sort of on the call, if people wanted to sort of discuss it now, we can do that.
[Unidentified]: Sure, yeah, OK.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, we could pick a time and day to do it. Would you folks want to do a training in person, especially now you have three new members. So it would be great if we get the whole, the whole board on the alternates and we can do a training.
[Unidentified]: Um, that's fine with me. I, yeah, we've, we've had some conversations about that. I think it'd be greatly helpful.
[Denis MacDougall]: That'd be great. All right. Um, then, so maybe, oh, excuse me.
[Unidentified]: We're all set. If you folks want to drop off, you don't have to stay on for the scheduling portion of it. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Good night. Thanks so much. Thank you so much. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: It goes without saying that like everybody knows, sorry, I missed the beginning of the meeting. I'm actually, can I brag? I'm in Florida watching my daughter swim in synchronized swimming junior Olympics. And I was literally watching her team compete. They did very well this evening, but that's why I was late to the meeting. So I don't know if you introduced the two new alternates and the new member who have been appointed, but haven't actually been sworn in yet.
[Unidentified]: I did at the very beginning.
[Alicia Hunt]: Great, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Well, at Robin's suggestion, she asked everybody was.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, and because I would like them to be part of the training.
[Robin Stein]: Yes, so I don't know. You guys can let me know or if you want to work on dates and get back to me, but I'm happy to take a date and get on the calendar. If it works for folks, I think it would be helpful to do it in person. I think it would be probably more useful.
[Unidentified]: I'm comfortable with that. I find that even we've been doing this for two and a half years and it's still sometimes difficult to run the meetings virtually.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, so I'm happy to come over if we want to pick a night in July or August, whatever works for you. I can, you tell me.
[Unidentified]: Do people want to do that right now or do you want to do it by email? I'm kind of up in the air.
[Robin Stein]: You can start getting dates around and then I can confirm with Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, yeah, that's just to get. Well, we got everybody. I've assumed that evenings would be best for everyone though. I'm just sort of, you know, getting a sort of a side for folks. So what I'll do is I'll send out a sort of a little poll tomorrow, just like, you know, Monday through Thursday, which nights work best.
[Robin Stein]: And then Mondays are definitely best for me, but we can make it work, figure it out.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Thank you, Dennis. Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: If Mondays are best for you, then that, that, that helps too. Cause that's why I have meetings almost every night. depending on the week. So, but I can make it work. We'll figure it out. So, but- Yeah, we'll get it worked out.
[Unidentified]: Just let me know. Yeah. I have a kind of random question. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on this. Typically at the meetings, I try to refer to people by their like formal names, but I don't want to be guessing at anyone's gender. Does anyone know of a good word to use instead of saying Mr. or Ms.? First names are fine with me. Yeah, I mean, maybe I don't need to be as formal. I just usually refer to like the neighbors who come in or anyone from the city by their, their like, I guess, proper names.
[Yvette Velez]: Preferred pronouns are usually just asked. So if you have anybody's question, it always best practice to ask versus kind of a lot of Yeah, I just realized tonight when I was talking to people, I was saying Mr. or Ms.
[Unidentified]: Then I was like, I don't know if that's even Maybe I'll just have to use first names. I'll get used to being informal. You can always offer them in there.
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah, in their signatures as well. You can always offer at the beginning of the meeting if folks wanna input that in their name change at the bottom.
[Unidentified]: Oh, good idea. Okay.
[Yvette Velez]: That's a great suggestion.
[Unidentified]: I don't have anything else.
[Yvette Velez]: Talk about things like that more at the training too. So that being said, I think it would be a good idea if folks in-house just automatically did that being prompted, so changing it in your profile on the Zoom account might be good practice. And to set an example so you wouldn't have to remind folks at the beginning of the meeting if you forgot. Great idea.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so we do have two items on the agenda that may be things we just pass through. Cause maybe there's not a whole lot there, but there's. I'm going to hop off.
[Robin Stein]: If you guys don't need me, I'll coordinate. Nice to meet you. Thank you for your assistance. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so yeah, there's administrative updates. I just wanted to check if there's any of those, I didn't see meeting minutes, but there's approval of meeting minutes. So I just want to make sure we. we've burned through the agenda before someone motions to adjourn.
[Victor Schrader]: Mike, I have a quick update on the 40B, which I believe we can now talk about in general, the general meeting. the housing appeals court has formally accepted the remand. I think there's a legal term for that. And the applicant Mill Creek is working on finalizing their amended application. I spoke with the representative Tim Alexander. earlier this week and he thinks they can they will be submitting that to the city by the end of July and then there's a 30-day turnaround for the board. Dennis said I spoke briefly because of the strict 30 days it may mean that you're off your regular meeting and You need to hold a special meeting for that, but we'll keep in touch with them. And as it gets a little bit closer and we get a better feel for the range of dates, we'll be sure to reach out to everyone.
[Unidentified]: OK, great. Thank you. I feel a lot better about this going forward now that we have seven people, which is great.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, especially seven people who need a training, too. So that's even better.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, seven people who love to see training.
[Mike Caldera]: Not just figuring it out as you go.
[Unidentified]: And I get into these meetings every time. And there's something procedural that I forget every single time, but we're doing our best.
[Mike Caldera]: Just one clarifying question. So I mentally prepare myself. So is it 30 days to get through all of the, uh, multiple, um, hearings related to it or 30?
[Denis MacDougall]: It's just to open the hearing. So basically we get it, we have to have it. And so, and with the issue with, uh, like legal notices and mailings and things like that, it pretty much pushes us to, you know, the timing wise, it's very, very tight window as to when we can actually have the hearing. So, I mean, you know, I was sort of hoping, hopefully we could maybe talk to them and have them actually submit it on a day that would actually allow us to have it on our regularly scheduled hearing, but that may not be possible.
[Unidentified]: That would be amazing if it happened though.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, yeah. And we're also completely unrelated. Oh, sorry.
[Victor Schrader]: Sorry, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Apologize. No, this is genuinely just for my own sanity. Anyone else living near Redford Square hear fireworks for the last half hour? Okay, good. All right. Yeah, it's been going on for a while. And so I'm just making sure that there wasn't something else happening.
[Victor Schrader]: So that is I'm in Cambridge and I'm hearing them. I think it must be okay. Maybe it's encore.
[Unidentified]: Oh, okay.
[Victor Schrader]: Okay, good. Back to the 40Bs, we are planning to invite the state's kind of 40B zoning consultant to do a quick education for the board on the 40 B process and your role. Um, so I think that'll happen at this same time as the hearing. Um, but Alicia, I know you've had more with this, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: So last time we did this two and a half years ago and there were different members of the board. So it seemed to us, we really ought to do another training. because the 40B process is different from regular zoning board stuff. And that's why they do separate training for it. So we have a consultant that's paid for by the state to guide us with it. We also have legal counsel from KP Law. So the lawyer who's been the lawyer all along on this has a ton of experience with 40Bs, not just fighting against them, but working with them and helping them work through the system. And she and the consultant have actually done this together many times. So they're basically saying they think they should do another training. What we did last time was that it was a one hour training and then we had the meeting. And in that case that ZBA never heard the case they immediately voted to put to invoke glam. Obviously the whole point of the remand is that we are not invoking glam we are actually hearing the case this time. So I actually don't necessarily recommend doing it on a regular board night because you don't want to have other hearings. You don't want to have other cases that night because it would make sense unless you want to do the training completely separate on a completely separate night and then have the hearing. But you basically they're going to want to present a large project. What is extremely typical and what the consultants will tell you is that we would then hire peer reviewers to peer review traffic, all the various things, rather than just using our own in-house people. The applicant has to pay for those peer reviewers, so it's no additional cost to the city. And there are a number of peer reviewers who do this frequently for 40B projects specifically. And so the consultants already have, like our consultants have recommendations on what firms to use for those peer reviews. So the typical process would be that the first night you'll hear They'll present their project. It'll actually be the first time they present it to the public. You may want to ask some clarifying questions or just generally understand it, but you won't be asked to make any decisions immediately. What we would, what would be recommended to you is that you'll say, and now we would like our peer review consultants to look at it. And I've been told that usually you would give the peer reviewers two months to do that. And so you would then also schedule for a date certain that's about two months later, at which point you'll have back your peer reviews. And that's when you'll start to actually think very critically about the project. Is that helpful in setting a timeline and expectations?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, very much so. So I guess we'll just have to see when it comes in and then maybe everyone can just sort of think about in terms of how we want to structure it, training, regular meeting, separate meeting, together, different.
[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, why don't we send out an email once we have a better idea of the date. And if anyone has any opinions, please let us know. We can work this however would be most helpful for you all. But once we have a better idea of the timeline, then we can start to build in what happens when.
[Unidentified]: I mean, and possibly if we're just doing the training for the board, maybe we do the training with Robin and on the 40B at the same time. I don't know. That might be. Well, wouldn't we want to get the training with Robin done before the next meeting? It doesn't sound like he's going to be in for the July meeting. Just thinking in terms of I know summer scheduling can be tough for people, but I don't have a particular preference.
[Mike Caldera]: I think we should tie out over email summer as called out summer scheduling is tough. Yeah, you know, I'd be happy to actually have. each of them be distinct things, as long as we planned enough in advance. But if we want to consolidate, that's fine, too. I agree. Ideally, if we could find a time before our next meeting to help our newer board members, those of us who haven't experienced it before, I think that would be great. Yeah, I tend to share Alicia's sentiments that it probably makes sense for that first 40B hearing to be its own standalone just so we don't have what happened today where it's like there's some smaller projects that we have to take out of order and then it's going to eat up you know however many minutes or hours and then you go into it right so if it's a special meeting it's standalone It's a little odd to me that would consolidate the training with that, but I don't have a strong preference. So I think we can just maybe discuss over email, see what dates work and figure it out.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, let's do email. We'll just try and figure out what's easiest for people to schedule.
[Victor Schrader]: And just an update on one of the other 4BBs, the Davis Company's proposal for Fellsway, they will be holding a neighborhood meeting on July 11th. We've asked them to just hold a meeting, walk the community through their project. We have not been talking to them other than to request that they do this, and that's on July 11th. So you're certainly welcome to attend. We're robocalling the entire community about this and firing abutters, 400-foot abutters as well. So we're really trying to push the word out that this is happening.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Sounds good. Okay, do we have anything else to go over? Or should we vote to adjourn?
[Yvette Velez]: I don't think we actually- Can we confirm our next meeting? Oh, good call. If it's on the 28th, I'm out.
[Unidentified]: Good news. We have associate members now. Or we will have people sworn in by that time. Yeah, 28th is fine with me.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm pretty sure it's fine with me.
[Victor Schrader]: Jamie and Talia, not every meeting goes to 1030. They go later.
[Unidentified]: No, just kidding.
[Victor Schrader]: They go later. 1230, grab some coffee.
[Unidentified]: When I first got on the board, I feel like we were going into like after 10 every time and I was like, what have I done? Yeah, I don't know about that. I feel like I had the same experience.
[Alicia Hunt]: I will say that this board is scheduled meetings and meets very specifically. but for some boards like the CD board was having trouble with it was just too late and they couldn't make smart decisions. So we asked them if as members, they preferred more meetings that were shorter or to keep to once a month and longer. And they decided that they would prefer to have two meetings in a month if it meant that each meeting was a shorter meeting. and they weren't going really late at night. So I'm not necessarily suggesting like that at this point. It may frankly become necessary with 40 Bs if those meetings tend to be long. But it is at the discretion of the board if you would prefer to meet more frequently in order to not have them go so late.
[Unidentified]: Tell me anything about... You know, if we come to that point of necessity, I'm obviously I'll do what's best for the board. Thursdays are kind of tough. It seems like we got the last day available for these meetings of all after everyone else got the pick. So having two Thursdays a month, I think would be a bit tough for me, but we'll do what we need to.
[Alicia Hunt]: And they can move around too. I mean, the CD board has been bopping between Tuesdays or Wednesdays and Thursdays. They recently had one Monday, that's when they could make it work. I don't think the day of the night is codified anywhere about this either. It was more about what's available. I think a little bit is that Dennis is staffing a bunch of boards, but I would say that OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Michael Leccese, he's a paid clerk for this board and for some of the others he mostly just manages their zoom and stuff and we could arrange to have a different planner in the office staff a meeting if he needs to be at this meeting.
[Unidentified]: Okay, um I have a recollection I don't know if it's specifically codified but. It was somewhere that I think these meetings are supposed to be on Mondays or like a couple of years ago, they were on Mondays.
[Denis MacDougall]: And then we started on Tuesdays and then city council asked us to move because we were conflicting with them, even though we were in the same building. And it actually was good for the council because the council would come and speak at our meetings, but they asked us to move. So we moved to Mondays and then we did Mondays for about a year. And then, and then the school committee asked us, could we move from Mondays because we were conflicting with them and. I staffed the concom, which meets on Wednesdays, so that pretty much led us to having meetings on Thursdays.
[Alicia Hunt]: And here we are.
[Denis MacDougall]: Right.
[Alicia Hunt]: I guess that's a good point. It's interesting if the school committee and the city council care that you're at the same time, right? I've been thinking more logistics, like possible, like what can we make it work?
[Yvette Velez]: Sorry, my job is whining.
[Alicia Hunt]: We did when we did the rezoning. One of the things we were very, I was very careful about is that we did not put anything as specific as number of times or dates or days of the week. into zoning, because I feel very strongly that that's not something that should be in an ordinance, it should be in a rule or regulation. It should be votable by the board and not by law. Even the city council's meetings are in their rules and regulations and not in the ordinances.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it's a problem.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Well, something to think about. I definitely would be up for it being any other night. I'm usually traveling on Thursday nights. But anyway. I just want to think about that.
[Mike Caldera]: Check in meeting minutes. I know there's a lot going on, but is there a strategy to get caught up on those? Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: I've got a few sort of in the works, so I'll get them to you, and we'll have them for the next meeting. I think I had a few that I may just not have sent to you. So I will get them to you.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thanks. Yeah, I think the last one I recall approving might be fed. It was Jan or fed.
[Denis MacDougall]: So I definitely know I have March and April.
[Unidentified]: So similar and different. I have been writing all the opinions. I think that's just because the last chair and I used to write all of them together or split them. And I'm getting a bit of a backlog. So if folks are OK with this, I was hoping that going forward, I could assign them on a rotating basis and then people, a different member, voting member for each case could be in charge of drafting up the opinions and then send to me and I can do the final review before we sign them if folks are cool with that. Good practice. OK, great, so not hearing any no's.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I just, you know, I want to be a team player. I think maybe at a minimum, we'd want everybody trained beforehand. I just, I know that the opinions are very kind of baked in the law of it all. And so just because you're the lawyer doesn't mean you get to forever do all the opinions. But I do think that you probably should at least give people a primer as to.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, and you know, I'm happy. Yeah, that's a good point. I'd be happy to, particularly the first couple of times people write an opinion, work with them on it. I also have a template that I use for certain things, so we can definitely go over all of that. But just especially with what I'm expecting is a busy fall, it would be helpful to me if I didn't have to write all of them every month. Because then it's constantly emailing me and being like, do you have decisions yet? And I'm like, I'm working on it. Something we can all talk about and figure out as we go forward, and I'm happy to work with people. Alicia, what was that?
[Alicia Hunt]: I just want to throw this out there, Jacqueline, that I'm pretty sure we could have KP law help with decisions as well.
[Unidentified]: I'd rather not do that if it's all the same. I don't think I would feel comfortable with that, but I do appreciate that.
[Alicia Hunt]: OK. I know that other boards use legal counsel to write the decisions. So in fact, our former chair, Alan, not Alan Arena, Alan Arena's father, Mr. Arena, used to write decisions for other boards as part of his legal practice. So that's why I'm putting that out there.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. I would prefer not to use KP Law, just personal preference, but anyway, something we can all think about. Okay, should we vote to adjourn?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to adjourn. Second.
[Unidentified]: I'll do roll call because it said we need to. Jim, vote. Yes. Mike. Yes. Yvette. Yes. Okay. Oh, and I'm a yes. Thanks folks, we'll see you soon.
[Victor Schrader]: Thanks so much. Have a great fourth.
[Unidentified]: Have a great fall.
[Victor Schrader]: Be safe. Nice meeting everybody.