[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, which, among other things, extends the expiration of the provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31, 2023. Specifically, this extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The act does not make any new changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15, 2022 to March 31, 2023.
[Unidentified]: All right, thank you, Dennis. So first up, we have Zero Bailey Street, which is continued from the September 29 meeting. Dennis, could you read that for us, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: Zero Bailey street case number a dash 2022-11 continue from September, September 29 applicant and owner Cheryl Calvi is petitioning for variance in Chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to erect a structure at zero Bailey street assessors map D dash 12 dash 39 a single family to zoning district allowed use insufficient lot area in depth.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Did I say something sure do we have everybody automatically on mute. You're really supposed to come in. I thought I saw a couple people come in without it. I just wanted to double check.
[Denis MacDougall]: I'll check the settings for next time, but I don't think I can change it now.
[Unidentified]: So folks, just to give you a sense, we are going to hear from the applicants first, then we'll open to public comment. So please make sure that you don't comment during the presentation by the end.
[Mike Caldera]: So Jacqueline, we actually already did the public portion of the hearing. So I think we're in
[Unidentified]: Oh, right for this. I meant I meant in general, but yes. OK, so Attorney Desmond.
[Kathleen Desmond]: What do you want me to give a brief overview or or just kind of OK, so whatever you think is best, you can you can go ahead. OK, so what we have is a vacant lot of land. Approximately 4104 square feet in an SF two district. The area is 896 feet less than what is required. The petitioners seeking to construct a modest single family dwelling that will comply with all of the other requirements setback height. Lock coverage, depth and area are the only issues depth is 15 feet. It's 40 feet that requires 55. those are 2 dimensions that, of course, you can't do it design away. So, this is a situation where the lot. is what it is. It's oddly shaped in that there's a y shaped intersection. The width is 83.97 feet, and the depth is 40 feet. In addition to the, the shape of the lot, which I would maintain is. a circumstance that causes the hardship. There is also a special circumstance here and I raised that in the initial meeting and I did provide a brief that dealt with shape as well as circumstance. The circumstance in this instance is there was an RFP originally placed out for the two city lots that surround the Kelby parcel. Mr. Kelby, as far as we know, there were three bids, that's his recollection. The first in 2007, and I gave you that RFP. Medford Engineering had that, I wasn't able to obtain the RFPs from the city. He may have bid on the 2007, he doesn't recall, but he was not The successful bidder he doesn't recall whether there was a successful bid in 2010 there was a bid at that time he bid on the two. city lots only, and he was a successful bidder on that RFP. He then went to the Board of Appeals, and I've attached the Board of Appeals minutes from 2010, which show that he was at that point seeking to construct a duplex, which would have required a variance both as to use. Width was also an issue, so it would have required a width variance. That was rejected. At that point, he had paid and this isn't in my brief but my client and indicated he had paid 5000 as a deposit. In conjunction with that RFP, plus the legal and engineering and all of that to go to the Board of Appeals to move forward with the duplex, the RFP if you notice from 2007. indicated that the city would accept either two single family lots or a duplex to be built on those particular lots. He then in 2012, another RFP was put out. He again was a successful bidder on that. But having gone through the appeals process, he didn't want to be in that situation. I think I had mentioned at the last hearing that up until 2010, there was an option to purchase on lot 81. That option had expired, and he had the opportunity to buy lot 81. So at that point, he had three lots, 81, 82, and 80, approximately 12,000 square feet, that would have been able to, he would have been able to construct two single families as a right. He went through the process he was a successful bidder, but as indicated in the documents that I gave you the city council ultimately didn't act on it, it died in committee. So as a result, he has been left with this parcel of land which is 4100 square feet oddly shaped and you know he's surrounded by land owned by the city so at this point the hardship is that he can't build anything on that lot without a variance. I think it's significant to note, and I mentioned in my brief that even if the city lots were bought separately, they would require a variance because number one, you can't put a duplex on the property without a use variance. You're gonna have a width issue as with when he tried to build the duplex. And if you attempted to put two singles on the property, maybe not then, but under the new ordinance, you can't put two principal structures on a lot. Under any circumstances, all three of these lots would require some kind of zoning relief move forward. I think this falls really within the Crowley-Allen case, I think I have that right, where there's some circumstance by a third party which causes the hardship. And I attached that case. I mean, in that case, it was a situation where there were two neighbors, there was going to be a land swap. When the land swap was about to occur, the MDC came in and took a portion of that lot, thereby kind of frustrating the purpose of the land swap. I also put Kavanaugh in the materials. And Kavanaugh, in that case, There had been a commercial use that had been permitted for some years, there was a rel reliance on. that use, and there was a reliance here based on the fact that he had gone through the Board of Appeals hearing previously, and this would have been as of right, that he was a successful bidder. He didn't anticipate that there would be a problem getting it approved. And on that reliance, he purchased that third parcel so that he could do it as of right. It's analogous to that situation because in Kavanaugh, The commercial use was retroactively voided and at that point, they had a piece of property that they had intended to use. for commercial use that was a non-conforming use. And that was frustrated by the retroactive zoning change. So this is a situation where there was a frustration of purchase and purpose and special circumstance. And the cases say that in Kavanaugh particularly says that zoning regulations can be relaxed in those instances where you have a special circumstance. There is a hardship and I produced all the cases on hardship and what hardship constitutes. And this is a lot that can't be built upon without some kind of variance relief in terms of public good. Unlike what he initially tried to do with the duplex, this is a single family home in an SF2 district. It otherwise conforms to the dimensional requirements. And I believe I put cases in there as well. that indicate if you have lots which are not conforming to size or smaller or whatnot, that that leans towards not derogating from the substance of the ordinance, because the derogation has to be substantial. So I think this is a special circumstance. And the fact that he doesn't have area or depth is kind of mitigated by the fact that he's surrounded by two vacant lots at this point. And if you look at what could possibly happen with those two lots, the maximum build on that would be one single family. And that would require zoning relief as well, because those lots are merged, because they're both undersized. One's 4,100, I believe the other's 48. So under any circumstance, those three lots would have to be. would require variance relief. And the other cases also deal with the isolation of the lot. This lot is one of the only undeveloped lots in that area. I produce cases where there's overgrown trees and whatnot, and it's unsightly. And certainly a house in this position would be commensurate with the neighborhood. Right now, you've got a lot covered in brush. And in terms of landscaping, I went up and I took a look at it myself. And there really isn't much in terms of trees. It's a lot of brush at this point. So this would give the opportunity to landscape a piece of parcel and clean it up. And that's what the substance of my brief deals with.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much, Trina Desmond. So does anyone have any questions for the applicant before we go into deliberations? Go ahead. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Hi, Attorney Desmond. First off, I just want to say thank you for the very thorough brief. I did have an opportunity to read through it beforehand, and I just had a couple of clarifying questions. So first of all, I think it was exhibit D where you shared the essentially the letter from Mayor McGlynn and then the outcome at City Council. It looked like Mayor McGlynn had recommended the sale at the time and then City Council referred it to committee, but then I didn't really get any details beyond that. So do you know what happened from there?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It never came out of committee. And I think at the last meeting, there were about us who may also be here this evening. And we heard that they had concerns about drainage, which my client said they would have done whatever needed to be done in that respect. But I think there was some opposition just as there was at the Board of Appeals. I don't know for certain, my client's foggy on it, but essentially didn't have the votes if it came out of committee to pass, because otherwise it would have come out of committee. and he would have been able to purchase the properties.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, because we did receive a letter from Anna Butter that had mentioned something about city council requesting certain drainage improvements or something of the sort. And that that was potentially the reason why it didn't make its way out of committee. And I just would like to know if you have any information on that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, that that arose at the last meeting as well. I think maybe that about it was there at the time. And my client. At that time so that he would have done you know whatever the city required from engineering in terms of drainage issues. I had some front my client unfortunately isn't available to see me but I did have some. further discussions with him about it. And it was, you know, there was a lot of negotiation on this, this last RFP, and he had actually agreed to provide one, the abutter I believe to the left of his property with a piece of the land that he was going to acquire so that he could put a driveway in and then that gentleman was going to give him a piece of his law in the back. So, he had he had worked as much as he could to work this out. But there had been opposition, some of it by the gentleman who had the prior option to purchase. on lot 81, so I don't know if that was a factor at the time. I don't know if he was interested in purchasing it, but in any event, it didn't occur and all I could find at City Hall was what I gave you. I looked under both the address and then they were able to pull it from the book.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks. So my other question, so you may recall at the last meeting I had made the claim that I wasn't clear how a lot size deficiency could be owing to the shape of the lot. And so I was looking through the memo and I noticed you cited this Osborne versus Meany case. which it was about, in the case they were deciding a matter of standing, but essentially the variance in question, which was granted related to an undersized vacant lot. And so in your write-up, you say the court, while deciding on the matter of standing, upheld the grant of the variance. And so I just wanted to double check. Did the court actually uphold it, or did it just get dismissed before that really became a relevant consideration?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It dismissed it on standing. But quite frequently, they go beyond the standing issue and give you what they think on the merits. And they have held it. And the reason why I include it is because, you know, area gets treated differently. And I get it to an extent, but it is still just a dimensional aspect like frontage, like width, like depth. And, you know, I mean, I think if you look at a lot of those cases, too, you'll see that there's a lot of cases where they deal with other undersized lots and indicate that, you know, you have to Especially when looking at a substantial derogation from the ordinance that you have to give some deference to the fact that you have that. And in this neighborhood there's, you know, a multitude of undersized lot.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks. And then last one so I had also mentioned. Mitchell versus Board of Appeals Revere, which was about a lot size deficiency that was ruled not owing to the topography of the lot in that case. And so I was just wondering if you had, so I know you mentioned last go around that topography is not shape, but do you have any other, comments on why you think that precedent wouldn't apply in this case?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, I think so in that in the case of Pauline versus Brown, you know, it talks about special characteristics other than dimension. So, you know, and they kind of categorize them as to where they go. So in this case, you clearly have shape. Right, because it has that why and that that circle at the bottom. In addition to that you have what occurred and why he ended up with that oddly shaped space that he has and the fact that it's isolated and they can't do anything without an invariance, as it you know, pertains to all three of those spots. So I lot. So I think, you know, collectively, that then gets you to a position where there's a special circumstance. And one of the criteria is shape, because certainly there is a shape issue with this slide.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: And to make to the point regarding, um, HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she- When you're looking at undersized it that really falls more under when you're saying whether or not it would like fit in essentially with the rest of the neighborhood. So if you have a number of parcels that are undersized in the neighborhood, then this would fit from it and it would be keeping with the character. And that doesn't count against you in terms of uniqueness, because it's not as though This was this was something where there was a development and every single lot is 4000 square feet and you're trying to build something different. So it, it, it's allowed under, under that sort of framework if that makes sense. And I think with respect to that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: With respect to the Osborne case, I think that's why I included it, to show that courts are, and Jacqueline will tell you this, a lot of times they go beyond the question that they dismiss it on, just to tell you what they think about the rest of it. So that there must have been something in here that the shape wasn't wasn't an issue for them in terms of and you only really see the cases on appeal where, you know, quite honestly, you get the cases that are not that you have some issue with. So it's kind of hard to to find the exact case that says that shape controls in this case. But certainly the Osborne case is evidence that an undersized lot can be a variance, can be upheld or not challenged.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so just to be clear about my earlier comment. So, I mean, I read it. I believe I read every word in the decision and there seems to be no reference to the lot area other than perhaps that, hey, a variance was granted where the lot area was locked. So I didn't read a single word where the judge actually said, oh, well, actually, this variance was fine. It was just, hey, you don't have standing.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I guess my point is they usually do if they have something more to say about it and and I just pointed it out to say that you know it's that that there are cases certainly where shape has been upheld and and as to frontage and as to with and and it's just another dimension really lot area.
[Unidentified]: You know, thank you. Yeah, not to further complicate it, but, and I can't think of a case off the top of my head, but I think it's similar to sometimes when we can consider that the positioning of an existing building in a weird, if it's in a weird place on the lot, like all the way to one side, that actually sometimes will fall under shape too. Okay, anybody else have any questions? for the applicant. Okay, could I get a motion, please, to open deliberations?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to reopen deliberations for Xero Bailey.
[Unidentified]: Second. Okay. And then, sorry, I should have said this while we have this motion pending. We have I'll explain this in a second, but we have, I'm voting, Mike Caldera's voting, Andre Lebreau is voting, and Jamie Thompson will be voting on this matter. So Andre, so all in favor, I'll do Andre. Aye. Jamie. Aye. Mike. Aye. And Jacqueline, I'll say aye. Okay, thanks. I should have explained this at the beginning. So we have, because some of these matters, all of these matters were continued from last month, two of which we'd already had presentations and public comment on. And so they had been continued after we'd already started deliberations. For those matters, the people voting tonight will be Mike Caldara, Jamie Thompson, and Andre LaRue, and myself. Jamie, Mike, and I were all present last month, and Andre has read through the filings and read through the meeting minutes, so he's up to speed to vote on this. So we'll have the four of us will be voting on this. South Street as well as Bailey Road. And then Yvette will also be voting on the Broadway matter, provided everything gets to a vote. Okay, so folks, what are we thinking? Any thoughts?
[Andre Leroux]: I'll jump in. I would not be inclined to support this variance because For a couple different reasons I mean it's surrounded by two other city lots and regardless of kind of the politics all around it I feel that there is there should be opportunity to expand this lot and make it a more conforming lot. And my sympathies with the property owner if he's not able to do that, but it's not necessarily justification for, I think, granting the variance. I also just have some concerns because I feel like to even adjust the proposed development to such a small lot, which is significantly undersized, right? I think it's not a little bit. It's, you know, 4,000 square feet instead of 5,000 square feet. We, you know, the house needs to be diagonal and narrow, and I just think that it's, in all cases, it's kind of a poor outcome. So that's where I stand on it right now.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Anybody else? I'm so under made a good point about the city lots of budding the property, you know, there is an opportunity there to, as he said, expand this lot, if that can be procured from the city. We know that during the RFPs that was attempted. The question is, is there an opportunity for marginal take expansion of that lot? I'm leaning as Andre due to the size of the lot being almost 900 square feet under definitely hinders what can be developed and there's an opportunity to expand that.
[Mike Caldera]: So for me, I have two concerns which I've sort of telegraphed in some of the questions and I asked in comments I made last meeting. So First of all, my interpretation of the precedent and the law is that the lot area can't be owing to the shape of the lot. It's mathematically the shape of the lot doesn't affect the area. And the The second thing, which, so even, you know, I'm willing to accept that perhaps, you know, we, as a board, we don't all agree on that element, but I just don't think the applicant has met the burden of proof to establish that this was in fact a hardship caused by Medford City Council rather than something self-inflicted. So, you know, there's two narratives out there. I have no information to, The African hasn't presented any information to contradict the one out there that in fact a request was made and that's the reason the sale fell through. And so ultimately, like, you know, say it was one of us instead of the city of Medford, you know, refusing to sell property to someone when you had a tentative agreement in place isn't really an extrinsic action that would where I think Adams versus Brawley would apply. So yeah, for those reasons, I don't think applicant established that in fact, this was an extrinsic hardship caused by the government, where Adams versus Brawley would apply. I don't think the lot area is owing to the shape. And so I have concerns as well.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Um, you know, last, last week when we were, pardon, last month and we were looking at this, I was, um, I guess I would say probably more inclined in the sense, um, just in terms of talking about, uh, shape and lot area. Um, and I, I think that even if we take lot area out of it, perhaps we can see something there on shape, but, um, What concerns me when I give this more review is the matter of reliance. And I would agree with what I'm hearing in terms of, I don't know that the applicant has demonstrated that, you know, when we talk about reliance, it needs to be something where you're relying on something that's more of a given perhaps, or, you know, some government action that's akin to a taking. So I think that when I have a question mark about whether or not the hardship has been self-created, I don't think that it's fair to anyone coming in front of the city for us to just assume that it wasn't self-created. I don't think we can make that assumption. So for me, the reliance issue is a bit of a question mark.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Can I address those points?
[Unidentified]: sure go ahead actually before you do that director has her hand raised so I just asked she could go first.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you madam chair, I wonder if you would so because some of the members speculated on the potential of the city. Selling the adjacent lots I'm wondering if you'd like me to comment on that. Topic.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, please go right ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. So I will tell you that this particular individual location, I had not personally looked into, I have heard of it. I've actually a year and a half or two years ago, spoke to Mr. Calvin in very, very hypothetical sense, but not in this level of detail. That said, there are some lots in the city where people have approached the city about buying a lot adjacent to them. And those are things that our housing planner has been looking at each of those individually and contemplating whether or not it would be in the best interest of the city to do that. This particular one is not one that I believe she has looked at. Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong, because I would expect at this point she would have said so because she's not raised this one to me. Our housing production plan, which has actually been adopted by the city council and sent to the state for approval includes in it an idea that we should be investigating using undersized lots to create affordable housing. with the idea that one might say that if a lot is undersized, you could build housing on it as of right, if you include an affordable deed restriction, and that the city might use some of our own, the undersized lots that we own to create affordable housing. We have not done this study, we've not looked into it in detail, but it is an idea that we are contemplating. So I don't wanna give anybody the idea that we are gonna do this next week or next month, but it is something we're looking into. And I'm not sure that any of that information sways you one way or the other on this case, but I thought that you ought to have the full picture that this idea is something we're looking at And I did just want to clarify, I remember, I didn't just pull up the plans, but from last week, isn't one of the lots technically, a quote, it's a lot, a plot of land that could be used for homes. And the other is actually an undeveloped part of a way. So I thought that one side of it was actually not what we would consider ever a buildable lot, but we would consider reserved in the event that the city wanted to create the way we would call it a way parcel. and we would think of it differently than a lot that might be available for development. Correct me, attorney, if I'm wrong. Attorney, that's wrong.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No. In fact, the taking was taking to lay out the street. The land was taken and the street was never laid out. There's that. The lot itself is there. It was a taking to better the street, but the street was never developed. I think it's the one which sits on Scott Street.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, Attorney Desmond, is that, that's the portion that's lot, I think 38, number 38. So I think this was the question we had last time about where exactly that road went, because I understood from some of the abutters that the drawings that we had looked like a through way and it's not. And I think that's what you're referencing.
[Kathleen Desmond]: That's correct. And that was taken on the maps. for purposes of development, but never developed. That parcel, they owed for the portion of their lot that was taken, I think it was $300, but they didn't actually get their money's worth because the road never really went through, but their lot was taken for not paying the tax on it, on that parcel. That's neither here nor there.
[Alicia Hunt]: If I could just, I would, I was my only point with that is that it's not clear to me that the city would ever consider that a lot for sale for building a house, because it's been designated, I believe there'd be many more groups we would have to step jump through. in order to stop considering that a way parcel, because it's laid out on our maps. And I will say that I've never been involved with doing something like that, so I don't know the intricacies, but it comes up because one of the parcels somebody has been asked, has asked to purchase is a way parcel, and that's making things much more complicated, so.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Council itself is in a way parcel as I can see from the title. But, but I would say to that in terms of those parcels, they're both undersized. And they both have with issues, which merges them under law unless you have something in your ordinance, which says that they're not merged. So, you know, those two parcels are considered one lot. And, and when my client first went to purchase that just the two lots and build a duplex on it with was an issue and it would have been an issue. to put two houses on that lot for much the same reason, although at that point under the old ordinance, I think you might've been able to do it, but under the current ordinance, it would only support one. To the point about the unfairness of not having him out to bid, I'd suggest that my client has bid on it twice, and he bought that parcel, and I included the Lamb versus Zoning Board of Appeals, case in my notes to indicate that the fact that he purchased it and he knew it was not conforming can't be held against him because. especially in this instance, he didn't buy it for purposes of putting a house on the lot as it existed. He bought that property to combine with the other two properties so that you would then be able to put two as-of-right properties on the lot, because they would both be over 5,000 feet, they would both have the required width at that point, and two lots could be put on it. And he did have a successful RFP, and he was the only individual who bid on the RFP. So I think it was reasonable for him at that point to purchase the lot, because he only purchased the lot after the RFP, for purposes of being able to build as of right. Because each time he He made a bid on an RFP. There was a $5,000 charge that he was charged on refundable deposits. So there was $10,000 that he paid in an unrefundable deposit to the city. In the first instance, in addition to that, because he was seeking a variance, he had all the variance costs associated with that and was rejected on that bid. So by purchasing the middle lot, What that did was allow him to build as a right. And frankly, without his lot, unless there's some ordinance change that allows undersized lots at some future point, there's no ability to build on that lot without the lot he has because of the width issue, because both lots are undersized and because they're merged. Any lot that was a city lot would require a variance as to width, because, you know, he went through that once with one one dwelling. And it was, if you look in the minutes of the zoning board meeting it wasn't close it was 24 feet. So, you know, I do think this is a special circumstance because, in fact, he bought this lot for purposes of, you know, making both lots conform. And it's significant, I think, to note, and it's in the notes from the Zoning Board of Appeals, that one of the most vocal opponents to this, and I had this and I have it somewhere, had an option to purchase on the lot, which he acquired in 2013. So, you know, I think he brought this in good faith under circumstances that he'd be go through with the RFP, he wouldn't need to spend any more money on lawyers or engineers to come before a Board of Appeals to get further zoning board relief. He could build as of right and that his lot was the piece that made that work. And as I point out in my memo, You know, unless there's an ordinance change that allows for for undersized lots that this lot, those two city lots no matter what you do would require zoning relief without the lot that he currently owns. So, I think it is a special circumstance and I think shape if you take shape. In special circumstance, and you know what, and I don't know and I you know I don't mean to offend anybody but I don't know that what the city may want to do in the future with undersized lots is a consideration for the board in terms of whether it's a hardship. and whether it's a circumstance of hardship. Certainly it's hardship because a lot's unbuildable without a variant, but so are the other two. And, and so, you know, that's where I think the special circumstance comes in and shape, and it fits within the cases in terms of You know, at most, you're going to be able to put another single on those lots if someone were to acquire the city lots. And then you'd need a variance certainly to do that, but you'd have two dwellings. No one's going to be able to make it work as a right. Anybody who comes through and buys the city lots is going to have to need a variance as well. And he did this in good faith in an attempt to avoid that situation. So, that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, director hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I will say that, as I'm looking at the plot plan lot at could not be built on by the city without having lot at one. The best case scenario in the near future, near term, couple of years from the city, would be that we would allow undersized lots to build affordable housing. And if the developer, the owner wanted to do a house with affordable housing restriction on it, that opportunity might become available in the near future, but we certainly could not build on lot 80. because of the way it is landlocked and trapped back there. So the city couldn't alone build that one. So I just am sharing that for your information.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, thank you.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Both lots would have to be combined and you'd need a variance on it. because they merged at this point, the two separate owners owned by the city, and they're both nonconforming, both is to area and to whip.
[Alicia Hunt]: Are you referring to 81 and 80 or 80 and?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, because 80, yes, I mean, they're all undersized at this point, both 80, 81 and 82.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I thought missing. I thought your client owned at one and the city. He does.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. But you would have to sell those together because they emerged.
[Unidentified]: I think maybe the confusion is the merged. They're currently under separate ownership. One and 81 by the client. When you're saying merged, what are you referring to?
[Kathleen Desmond]: to any 80 are both owned by the city. So they're merged. So any sale of those, you know, it's one lot at this point for purposes of zoning.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Attorney Desmond. Thank you, Director Hunt. So folks, just in terms of our conversations, I think my concern is still the same. When we talk about reliance, I can appreciate when someone buys a property and, pardon, something's wrong with my contact. When someone buys a property and in good faith with hopes that something's gonna occur, but I don't think that you quite get to reliance upon something unless that's something that's, you know, allowed by right or something that's determined. It's still sort of speculative until you get there. And then I think, you know, Andre, to your point, if this were something we're looking at, you know, 250 square feet, that's a little different from 900. Okay, so folks, what do we wanna do?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. I motion to approve the variance for zero Bailey road.
[Unidentified]: To approve them. We have two variances. I think it makes. Well, yes. That's my motion. Okay. All right. I just want to be clear on. lot area and one variance for lot depth. Just let's, why don't we split them up just to be clear. Sure, I'm amenable to that. Yeah, thanks. Okay. Did you want to make a motion on one of them first?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to approve the variance on lot area.
[Unidentified]: Do I have a second? Okay, I don't have a second. So this has never happened before, but I think that means that the motion fails.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to deny the variance for lot area.
[Unidentified]: Okay, do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second.
[Unidentified]: Okay. So to deny the variance for lot area, I'll go in reverse alphabetical. Jamie, how do you vote? To deny this is a motion to deny. I. Pardon. I am just concerned that we've got a motion on the table that wasn't secondary we didn't actually does it just.
[Mike Caldera]: dry I withdrew it I should have said. So I was.
[Unidentified]: Problem I. Thank you. Yeah, the motion. Okay, so. Mike has made a motion to deny the variance for lot, area, and Andre has seconded. So Jamie, yay to deny or nay? Yay. Okay. Andre? Oh, Andre, I didn't hear you. Aye. Aye to deny. Yeah, I didn't, that's a better way to say it. Okay, Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye to deny.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline, I'm the same, aye to deny. Okay, and then regarding lot depth. Do I have a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: Do we even need to vote on it? I mean, that kills the whole.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, it does. I think just for buttoning everything up in case there's an appeal, we should probably vote on both. so that there's a substantive decision? Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So then I don't know if we did it justice in our discussion. So I think that there's plenty of precedent, much of which Attorney Desmond cites in the memo provided that the shape of the lot or sorry, the hardship related to the lot width can be owing to the shape of the lot. In this case, this is a weirdly shaped lot. So I don't have the same concerns with that one. And so if we're doing this, I'll motion to approve the variance for lot width.
[Unidentified]: I think it's depth. Sorry, lot depth. Yeah. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, so Jamie, this is to approve the variance for lot depth. Aye or nay? Aye. Nay, no? I just didn't hear you. I say yes. Yes. Yes. So I. All right. Sorry, Andre. I OK, and Mike, I and Jacqueline, I'm OK. OK, attorney doesn't we will have a decision to you shortly. Thank you so much. OK, so, folks, we are going to call instead of calling HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she or her HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator
[Denis MacDougall]: 54 South Street, case number A-2022-14, continued from September 29th. Applicant and owner Ron Buck is petitioning for a variance from the Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to construct a two and a half story addition to an existing non-conforming single-family dwelling and convert the structure into a four-unit residential dwelling in an apartment one zoning district allowed use, with insufficient side yard setback and width of access aisle to parking spaces.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much. Attorney Desmond, I think that you're up again. Oh, you're on mute. Just trying to pull up my exhibits. Oh, yeah.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Take your time. It's OK. I think I can pull them up as as needed. I'll just exit the full screen. So so the matter before the board is a The proposed building is a four-unit residential unit. The present structure sits, which is a single family, on approximately 16,951 square foot lot of land. It's in the apartment one district that allows for multiple dwellings as of right. The project proposes to retain the existing structure and construct in addition to create four-unit residential building. In terms of relief that's been requested, the side yard setback is deficient by 1.22 feet. The single family which currently exists has a second set back of 14.7. The required is 15.92. It originally met the requirement for a single family which is only seven and a half. Practically speaking, nothing's going to change on the ground in terms of. And, you know, building moving closer or increasing the deficiency. In addition, that deficiency only relates to this seven foot area where there's a bump out on the existing structure. We'd argue that it's de minimis and that we would need to demolish a portion of what's an existing structure based on its shape to comply with the side yard requirement. The other item which we were cited for at the time is the width of the access aisle. It appoints measures 19 feet up where the parking area is Again, we've had discussions with the fire department and in terms of where we left off on this. At the last hearing, there was an issue with the garage and whether the garage was going to be demolished. In the beginning of the year, when we had discussions with the fire department about the width of the access road, we were able to work out with the fire department an agreement that we wouldn't need to widen it to the 20 feet, that we would sprinkle the existing house remove the fence on the side of the yard and remove some brush on that point. Last meeting there was a conversation with one of the members of historical as to whether or not. the garage was being raised and whether there'd be a requirement to go to the historical commission. I spoke to the chief yesterday. I thought I might have something in writing from him today. I don't, but he has reviewed the turn radius and has indicated that he's okay with the garage remaining on the property. We did agree, currently there are eight spaces in the back of the lot. Dennis, if you want me to share my screen, I can.
[Unidentified]: We're all set. OK. Let me get back in.
[Kathleen Desmond]: This is a little disjointed. Oh, it says I'm disabled. Maybe I'm not now. OK, so here's the site plan. So the garage will not be raised any longer. The garage will remain on the property. Because of the change in the zoning ordinance, when we first drew these plans, we had two vehicles per dwelling unit, two parking spaces. That's been reduced to one and a half under the new ordinance. So we've discussed with the chief and we will remove space one and two. So there will be six spaces, which will still meet the ordinance requirement without the need for a variance, but we'll give the fire department a little more room in the back of the structure. So the two variances relate to access aisle and also to the side yard requirement. Last time there was a discussion concerning whether this was a single family dwelling attached under the ordinance or whether it was a multi-dwelling under the ordinance. I had a conversation with the building inspector. He was gonna review it. I don't know what his position this evening is with respect to that question. If in fact, it was determined to be a single family dwelling attached, we would require a frontage variance. But this Paul Mulkey, the prior commissioner had deemed it to be a multi-dwelling, which when you're looking at the definitions, the definition of residential attached and single building attached indicate that there's no side yards. And certainly in this instance, there are. And I think if you look at the dimensional requirements and particularly the increased frontage requirements, that's based, it would appear to me because it's 35 for each end unit, and 25 for the middle units to be based on a row house type design. And these aren't row houses. So I would think that given the dimensions for frontage based on what would be a row house, in addition, if you look at the dimension table, it only indicates the requirement of one side yard at 10, 10 feet. So I think that supports the argument that it's a multifamily but certainly that's up to the building commissioner. And you know, and I'll defer to what his position is on that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, before we before we speak with Commissioner 40. Was there anything else that you wanted to let the board know?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, you know, we talked about hardship in terms of you would need to demolish a portion of the structure to meet the access aisle and also the side yard requirement on this side of the property. And I enclosed in my material it's a Del Creek case, which indicates that hardship is certainly caused by demolition as it's obvious that it's waste. In terms of substantially derogating from The intent of the bylaw. It's an apartment one district. It abuts a general residence district, the property itself is 16,900 square feet, just straightly on the map not accounting for things like drives and and landscaping and open space. The number of units that could be put on this. on this property or 14,000 just based on a straight calculation of dwelling per unit. Realistically, it could probably hold 10 to 12 units. This is a smaller development. It's a transition certainly from the general residence to the apartment one district. It preserves two structures which from the prior meeting we know are important to the historical commission both the existing single family and and now the garage in speaking with the chief that does not need to be raised so it certainly you know meets the public good in this not not a substantial derogation from the statute I think that the hardship is de minimis, it's only 1.22 feet on the side yard and nothing's changing. Same thing with the access area, if we're talking about the access to the parking aisle, it's 19.8 at the start of that. I think that the petitioner is not looking for substantial relief in this instance, that what he's looking for is to create a nice building and he's willing to preserve the existing structures that are important to the city of Medford, and I would ask that it be approved.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Trina. Okay, Commissioner Forty. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Is it Forte or Forty?
[Bill Forte]: Yes, 40 Madam Chair, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. So Attorney Desmond alluded to this a little bit. I just wanted to be clear about, so the board had some questions last month regarding this issue about whether or not these qualified as side yards. My understanding was that it was side yards in between the units and that these were more akin to a row house. Anyway, I won't color that too much, Do you have, could you help us out with that, that issue a little bit, we would just want to make sure we're analyzing this under the correct framework.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is William 40. I'm the city's new appointed building commissioner. It's a pleasure to be here. And I look forward to serving the city in this capacity. And being kind of brand new to this ordinance. I've, you know, I certainly want to be reserved in my comments until I get a good foothold. But I did look into the specific issue regarding an email that was sent by a constituent or concerned citizen regarding the required frontage. And after looking at the definitions in the zoning ordinance, considering how the former commissioner, Mr. Moki made this determination, it appears to me that that in part, Attorney Desmond's interpretation is agreeable and correct. It doesn't really look to me, at least at this point, that the intent of the ordinance is to have this section of the frontage requirement applied to an addition, whether that addition is three townhouses in a row, or if it's attached to another single family. Mr. Moki was clear in his determination that it only needed side yard setback relief under table 6.3 and the width of the access aisle to the parking spaces under section 94-191B5B. I don't see, if I had to make this determination on my own and I was brand new, I would probably agree with Mr. Moki's determination that this was not something that would really require that front, you know, that minimum width per unit. I think it does kind of speak to the intent of having a row house and so that the side yard setback wouldn't appear to be encroaching or at all derogating to the setback requirements for the neighborhood. And so I'm inclined to say that I believe that my predecessor's determination is correct and accurate.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much. Okay, so Mike, did you wanna comment?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I just had a clarifying question for Commissioner 40 because we got really tangled up in this issue at the last meeting. So there were basically three different interpretations being thrown out there. So one was that it's basically a single building. The other was that it's two attached buildings were kind of the side yards in between, which is kind of how I was interpreting your, what you just shared. And then the third interpretation I just wanted to get your take on was that essentially was labeled as units two, three, and four. are actually each in and of themselves attached buildings. So essentially it's like four attached buildings. And so just wanted to get your take if, which interpretation is the correct one as you understand it? And is the absence of a side yard separating units two, three, and four problematic in any way?
[Bill Forte]: In my experience with chapter 48 and with the zoning ordinance of past cities that I've worked for, I'm not concerned so much about the configuration of each unit. When we're talking about a multi-unit building, although the style may be a townhouse style, My understanding is that a, a contiguous roof connector of a building would constitute it as one structure. So, I'm of the opinion that it is a contiguous structure, regardless of the style if you will. there is no requirement there for it to have common hallways. It's not mentioned in the zoning ordinance that it must be connected with common hallways and that they all need to share the same four exterior walls or anything like that. And so I don't see that the language for multiple dwelling is restrictive. I think that it's broad and I think that this project is covered by itself.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think I also provided the board early on. I may not have, but I thought I did with the, it's, I don't recall the specific case. I was trying to look for it. My materials, the Falmouth case, which, which talks about additions and, and buildings and they all have to be architecturally, um, you know, Yeah. Okay.
[Unidentified]: We got that. Thank you so much. Um, so, um, commissioner 40, I, um, on that, I'm, it concerns me when we say that. It's not contained in the ordinance. So just I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. So. In the zoning ordinance, dwelling comma multiple is defined as a building or structure designed for or containing three or more dwelling units, or a building or structure designed for or containing one or more dwelling units in addition to a non-residential use, but not including a group of three or more attached single family dwellings, et cetera, et cetera. So when we do have three or more attached single family dwellings, it disqualifies a building or structure from being a multiple dwelling. So then if I look at the definition of a dwelling comma, single family comma attached, what I see is an attached residential building intended and designed to contain or containing one dwelling unit. So if both of those aren't really saying I'm this unless I'm that, I'm a little bit concern about us interpreting this in a way to say that this could qualify as a dwelling, even though when I look at this and I look at it's structured like a row house, there are no side yards in between them, because what I don't, what we can't do by law is interpret any portion of our zoning ordinance in a way in which a portion of it then becomes, HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she- the specific language that says, but not including a group of three or more attached single family dwellings, that line becomes inoperative and has no legal meaning and no legal thrust. So I'm very hesitant to say that we can call something that looks like three attached single family homes, not that, simply because of, Mike, go ahead, maybe you can help me out.
[Mike Caldera]: I was raising my hand because I have a slightly different interpretation and it might be one of those situations where punctuation matters a lot so my read of dwelling comma multiple and the ordinance. is that it's a list and the colon is the separator for the list because there's also compound clauses. So dwelling multiple is a building or structure designed for containing three or more dwelling units or a building or structure designed for containing one or more dwelling units in addition to a non-residential use, which is not the case here. But not including.
[Unidentified]: Not including is modifying the second.
[Mike Caldera]: In fact, I would go as far as to say, I mean, I. I wasn't listening when they were drafting this part, but I think the reason the colon's in there is precisely to disambiguate. So. So the. It's only modifying the second item in the list as I. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Semicolon. Okay. Was that you?
[Bill Forte]: No, that was me. I'm sorry.
[Vasudevan]: Oh, sorry.
[Bill Forte]: I just wanted to interject and maybe elaborate a little bit more on Mr. Caldera's saying here. The way I read this, when I look at it, it excludes a group of three or more attached single family dwellings. IE townhouses, I think what they're talking about is that as being a standalone structure and nothing else on the lot. And so that's why I kind of dismissed that as a determining factor, because I believe that what they're talking about here is that if there were nothing else on the lot and there was a row of townhouses, then it wouldn't be classified as a multiple dwelling. And specifically in the building code, it's also separated. It goes from an R2 classification in the state building code from, you know, three or more dwelling units along with townhouses are specific R3 use in the state building code. They go back to an R2 after so many stories, but here, you know, it is a different classification in the building code as well. So I don't I don't think that the intent of this is to be is to say that this is this is more of an addition than it is a role of townhouses specific.
[Unidentified]: Could you explain a little bit more what you mean about the art to what the difference between our two and our three.
[Bill Forte]: Sure. So an R2 is a multifamily dwelling in accordance with the state building code. That would be a building containing three or more dwelling units. Side-by-side townhouses are individual units separated by firewalls that are distinct, separate single-family homes. And so the R3 use group, when houses are townhouse style, that's how they're defined. is a group of single family homes connected together by common party wall or firewall.
[Unidentified]: Okay so what would prevent someone if you're not allowed to build townhouses from saying okay well I want to build three townhouses and then on the end I'm going to attach this other unit that looks a little bit different as a way to sort of pretend these others aren't townhouses. What would prevent them from doing that? And the reason I say that is when I look at the plans that were submitted, the architectural plans, it looks to me as though you do have distinct, I don't know if those are firewalls, but they certainly look like exterior walls in between units two and three and in between units three and four. And then as well between unit one and the vestibule. Does that question make sense?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I just, I don't know that because, you know, distinctly, it, it is more in addition than it is a role of separate separate condominiums I mean I just don't see. I mean maybe it's the eye of the beholder but I honestly. Don't see this so much as a as a role of townhouses as I do in addition with, you know, with individual units on it. The fact that multi units are allowed, you know, speaks to the fact that it isn't allowed use but I don't I don't really see the relevance of how. The addition to the existing building is configured in such a manner that violates, I just don't see that it violates the intent of the zoning ordinance. I think that the intent of the zoning ordinance is to discourage a group of three or more attached single family dwellings in row fashion, and more so for new construction and development rather than existing. It's just how I read it.
[Unidentified]: Sure, yeah, no, that's helpful. How that, what would prevent someone from, from saying, well, I'm going to attach, you know, nine townhouses to the side of my building and I'm going to call it an addition as opposed to qualifying it as townhouses, I guess. Is it like, like, what is it? Because the, the germination comes from, we have one structure that's not a townhouse. And if, if that, if you can't answer that, that's fine.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I don't know that I want to reach that deep into it because I'm not experienced enough with the zoning ordinance. I would say if there was restrictive language in there, then I you know I would have pause. But, but here, I just see no restrictive language that that, you know, requires that, that, in addition to a building or purposes of adding units. Um, is restricted to, you know, simply in our two years, you know, that's, that's kind of how I read it here. So in this specific case, not as a precedent, um, because I'm not experienced enough with your zoning ordinance to, um, you know, make a opinion that, that, that wide, you know, Sure.
[Unidentified]: No, that's, that's very helpful. Thank you. Um, okay. Uh, board members, anyone else have questions or, Oh, wait, sorry. Um, Mike, your point regarding the semi-colon.
[Mike Caldera]: What I'm hearing from Commissioner Forty is at the end of the day, we should be considering this to be multiple volume. So I'm satisfied with that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. I am. Yeah, I mean, semi-colon is not a comma. Okay, Andre, Jamie, what are we thinking? Or do you have any comments you wanna add? Are we in deliberation?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Jacqueline, it might be worth just mentioning out loud kind of what happened with this last time around. So we did open a public hearing, we closed the public hearing, entered deliberations.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we should go back into deliberations.
[Kathleen Desmond]: PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, 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 that we submitted from them, 750 feet of landscaping that's required in the riverfront area and pavers along the walkway. So that has been approved by the Conservation Commission and the landscape plan, which we have, will be coordinated with what conservation requires.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great, thank you so much. All right, does someone wanna make a motion to reopen deliberations?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll motion to reopen deliberations for 54 South Street.
[Unidentified]: Seconded. Okay, and how do you vote, Andre? Or all in favor, I guess, Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. And Jacqueline, I say aye. Okay. Jamie, I think you were gonna say something before. Yeah, so this one, I've looked at the zoning on this one. Attorney Desmond brings up the point about the apartment one zoning and the by right opportunity to build on the slot. And I really take that into consideration in how I see this as retaining the historical property as the neighborhood wants to see it retained, as well as retaining the carriage house. As we've discussed, this could go a very different way. And I think this does what the neighborhood is looking for by retaining the existing structure. And the developer is doing an excellent job with the water mitigation as well. I think there's, I think this is an opportunity for the developer to look at a return on their investments, as well as keeping the development in line with the design of the existing structure without removing it off. Okay. Andre? Well, I agree, the fact that it is in an apartment one district.
[Andre Leroux]: You know, sort of. Kind of controls things here, in my opinion, and I think, although I have to say it looks like three townhouses to me, it feels like that. But with the building commissioners, you know, opinion and the fact that, you know, in an apartment one district, you could. You know, you could do more. Anyways, I feel like it's not, you know, a hill to die on. you know, this is, having come from the community development board, this is sort of, this is where a site plan review, I feel could be very helpful in getting the best possible outcome for the neighborhood, because it is a beautiful parcel of land. And I am a little disappointed by the architectural design and the fact that it, I think the new addition is not equal to the existing structure. So I'll leave it there. I don't think I can fight it on zoning grounds, but I will leave that comment there.
[Unidentified]: Okay. One thought, not to try and change your mind on anything, but One of the five prongs we're looking at is that, you know, we're looking at the relief can be granted without detriment to, you know, the public good, which, you know, is in terms of what things, I think that encompasses in part what this looks like. And then the fifth prong is the intent. I'm in Andre, this isn't specifically directed to you. I'm just sort of mulling this over. I am always concerned when we have a proposal in front of us. And what we're essentially being, or part of what we're being asked to do is say, we're proposing something that's not allowed. But you should let us do this because by right we can do something that you're going to like a lot less. And while we can't pretend that that's not part of our consideration, it concerns me because I don't think that we as a board should be saying that something that's not allowed by the zoning is better than something that the city council and the bylaw specifically allows. So I'm not saying I'd love to see this old home torn down and have, you know, 12 unit apartment building put up by right. But I'm, I'm always hesitant when we're told, well, we could build 10 or 12 units by right, and instead, we want you to give us this other thing. So that that's my hesitation there. And I agree with what Andre is saying in terms of if If we're really struggling to say how come these aren't townhouses it's because they look like townhouses and the way that they're situated on on the lot sideways it feels very tacked on and I don't I don't know that I would say that what I'm seeing in terms of the plans. is really in keeping with what, you know, neighbors or residents or the public would want in terms of the historical preservation. I haven't fully made my mind up on. If I can answer that question. Attorney doesn't just please wait. Because we're in deliberations now. So I'm just. Yeah, so I'm I'm I'm conflicted on on that front. I don't know that the way that I see this drawn up that I could necessarily support it. Attorney Desmond, did you want to add something?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. I think at the last meeting, the historic district commissioner was here and asked if in fact my client would be willing to go through materials with him. And he's certainly willing to do that. My client has dealt and Ron is on the call. speak to you certainly. He's dealt with historical properties in the past. It was important that he came in with this project intending to preserve the existing structure, which is what he's trying to do in this instance. He's willing to work with them in terms of materials if there's something that they want or need in terms of In terms of look, he's certainly willing to discuss that but you know this is his own board of appeals case. And, and I and I and I didn't put that out as a threat, certainly, that that you could understand you weren't making any threats. No, and it's significant that it abuts a general residence district. And this project is only four units as opposed to what could be placed here. And certainly it has more of a house feel. If you look at the front picture, I'm going to share my screen, but I don't know if I have it. Let me see.
[Unidentified]: I have the filings in front of me. So let me just, I think I pulled it up. No.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't know if I have the landscape plan out because I had to take them all. Let me see if I can.
[Unidentified]: Do you know which, which filing it was in? I may be able to pull it up.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I haven't my presentation. Hold on one second. Let me just.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I have the architectural plan at page six.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I think I think PDF page five architectural plans.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. So here's the renderings on it.
[Unidentified]: So, you know, I don't think you're not sharing your screen.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'm not sharing my screen. Great. So now we have to attempt to do that at this point. Okay. I should be able to do that. Sorry, with the two back-to-back, it was a little difficult. There's the rendering. From the front, it doesn't look like townhouses, certainly. It's a bigger building, certainly, but the back has the doors and it keeps maintaining the porch that exists on the house. And then a front area and certainly if there was something that historic commission wanted to do in that instance, my client would be open to it but you know what we're looking for in terms of zoning variances are very de minimis I mean you've got. 1.22 feet on the side yard requirement, and the access with, I think it's 19 and it's 24. So, you know, the side yard is de minimis we're not looking for a lot of relief here. you know, the intent of my client was to preserve the existing structure. And, and we've worked it out with the fire department, which will be difficult to also maintain the garage in in the back of the unit. So, you know, we've done a lot of background work here to try and make it work so that the structures can be maintained. My client can get some units on what's a 16,000 square foot parcel. And, you know, he's assured me, he's assured that the design, you know, that the neighbors will like the design of the property. It also, in terms of, in terms of lot coverage, I think it's like 23%. So someone could, you know, put a, someone could put a single family house that's bigger on this lot. It doesn't, it's not mammoth to the property. You know, it's under what's required for lot coverage. It meets all the requirements it's not, it's not a 5050 foot building, sitting next to a general residence area which is also permitted. So there was a lot of thought that went into this in terms of the transition from the general residence to the apartment one district. You know, we did have conversations with the chief right at the outset to try and keep both structures without having to deal with it. And the access to fire to the back is an issue. The other thing that there's a benefit here is that you're also gonna have that single family sprinkler, which it currently isn't sprinkled. So you're gonna have further preservation of that structure by virtue of the fact that as a condition, and I put that in my worksheet that we're willing to commit to that that that that single family that structure will now be sprinkled with the rest of the building. So, you know, My client proposed this with the intent of preserving the property, adding on, not derogating from the neighborhood. And I think you could probably design something as of right that would not necessarily look like this, and it would have to go through site plan review. But then again, that's not design review, because there is no design review in the city at this point. And so I think that's something to be mindful of as well. And I'm not pointing that out to bludgeon you with it. I'm just simply pointing it out. There isn't design review at this point. Site plan review, you know, if there were tweaks to this that wanted to be made and the historical commission has or the historical commission has tweaks that they want to the design and they want to know what the materials are, my client's comfortable with that. So it's not a situation where we're not trying to work with the city, certainly.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks. Andre, out of curiosity, if you know, if you could have anything in terms of, or I guess, Jamie or Mike too, if you could have anything in terms of the facade or what it looks like, what would you want to see here, I guess, on this structure? If the structure were essentially the same, what would you want to see that would make you happier in terms of the cohesiveness of it, if you know?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm just wondering whether, you know, instead of this kind of, you know, up and down vertical type of, You know, of what feels like row houses to us could be made into something that's a little bit more like three units in a, in a building that's maybe more horizontal. And, but that that side of the building that's facing South Street and the river. maybe have some more architectural details, maybe have a second porch on that side. Maybe could even, if it were done that way, be a little narrower. Maybe you wouldn't even need to have that side yard relief on that side. I am just curious.
[Unidentified]: I think the side yard relief is on the existing building. There's a little bump out on the existing building. Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: And just out of curiosity, are that all the row of mature trees that are along that side of the property, are those all coming down?
[Kathleen Desmond]: So I can share the screen and show the landscape plan. Give me one second.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, the landscape plan does identify what trees are being removed. Ben, do you want to address that? I can. Sure. Well, while we're doing that, one of the things that concerns me about the way that this looks like townhouses or row houses is, and this sort of relates to the trees, is I think you're gonna end up with three units that essentially have three backyard spaces where people are going to live and grill and do all those things. You're gonna end up with three backyards facing you know, the next door neighbor side yard facing into the side of that house.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, agreed.
[Unidentified]: And, you know, a backyard is very distinct from a side yard.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, part of the difficulty is how the initial, the existing structures on the lot. So that kind of governs what you can do in that respect. Because if you put this portion of the lot back here somewhere, then you're going to have- Would you mind just zooming in on that a little bit?
[Unidentified]: Excuse me? Could you just zoom in on that?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Let me see. Okay. So if you were to move this in the back, you would then have parking and what's the riverfront area. And this is the line the 200 foot buffer. So, we've tried to keep you know there's a lot of variables in this project there's the zoning, which is the least of the difficulties I think the. the preservation of the existing structure, which we tried to maintain, and then the line of the riverfront line. So we've put all of the parking in the back. If you move this structure any way, based on where this structure is, if you move this, then you're going to have to move your parking to the front and then you're going to have to get around there because there's also a there's a bike there's a crosswalk here and then there's a telephone pole over here so you know if you start moving that around then you've got your parking in the riverfront area. You probably have to change this entrance exit drive to somewhere over here where there's a. a telephone pole. And right now we're not disturbing what's already existing in the riverfront area in terms of entrance, exit, drive. And only a portion of the structure is in. We're adding these three trees and then a tree here and here, and then there'll be trees in the back.
[Unidentified]: So the trees that have the dark dots in the center are staying?
[Kathleen Desmond]: That's correct, right, Ben?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yes. That's correct. So Kathy, if you follow your cursor down. Who do we have? Sorry, this is Benjamin Minix with Eagle Brook Engineering.
[Unidentified]: Oh, there you are. OK. Yep. Yep. Go ahead. I just want to be cognizant that we're in deliberation. So just technically, you should just ask if you can go ahead. But go ahead, sir.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: So Kathy, if you could follow your cursor down to the bottom of the river front line. The 200-foot riverfront, right there where you were, right in the middle of the sheet. OK. Yep, right about there. There's an existing tree just on the 200-foot riverfront line. That one will be removed. Other than that, the one to the left of the cursor. So it's not shown on this sheet, but where that proposed tree is in the middle, just below your cursor, Kathy.
[Unidentified]: Oh, oh, the proposing, got it. Yep.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: So just to the left of your cursor there in the middle unit.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Okay. And then, sorry, Mike, you can go ahead. You don't have to raise your hand for this.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I was just queuing up. It's a unrelated topic, so I'd rather finish.
[Unidentified]: Oh, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: All right.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: And so the other trees that are darkened, those are existing trees that are remaining. The one at the corner to the bottom left of the proposed addition, that one's kind of on the edge, whether it'll be, we can keep it or not, but the other ones are planned to remain.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. This obviously will not be lawn and trees because we're going to keep the garage. Our conversation with conservation was if we're able to keep the garage, then we would do that. If fire required that it be pulled down, then this would be lawn area and tree area, but the garage is remaining.
[Unidentified]: When I'm looking at this, it looks like you have three patios and three, essentially, backyards of the units that look like townhouses with three fences is that correct. Three fenced in essentially backyards.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe that is, is what the current plan is that you know if that's something that's an issue we can change it but You know I think when we look at multi-family dwellings, you also have to have room for usable space and frequently on these cases, we don't have usable space and we're always looking for a variance of that. In this particular instance, we're not because we actually have the usable space that's what's intended under the ordinance for use.
[Unidentified]: Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: yeah so okay so just one clarifying question so attorney Desmond my recollection from last week was that. In the plans were the. garage slash carriage house was being demolished, that there was at least some changes that were required to the fencing, because I think that structure might basically be sort of a continuation of the fence. With that demolition no longer part of the plans, on the exterior, is the fencing all the same or are there new fences being put up?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Can you speak to that defenses there's no fencing here per the fire department requirements, so that they can move through certainly fencing is to this point if if you know I don't think there's any objection to that. That that's a small asking if it's not already there, but I my recollection is is that there was some fencing which began at the end Ben do you.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: That's correct there, right where your cursor is now, I believe it's chain link fence ends and then wood fence starts going towards the garage house garage to the left. And then it picks up again after the garage going around the back.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then also, I don't recall if we discussed last week. the location for the trash barrels.
[Unidentified]: In this design, where will those be located?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't know that we've necessarily thought about it at this point. For zoning, I would assume they would be probably somewhere to the rear of the building where the parking is, where there's sufficient area to store them.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, you're saying you think it would be kind of by the deck.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't, I don't know if there's an inside place to start because he's on there's no garages to them, but I would anticipate that they would probably be stored somewhere to the rear of the building and put out for collection because it's only four units.
[Unidentified]: Right. Okay. Okay, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: I have a question about the garage. Right now, the garage has, it's a two-door garage. I assume that there are two cars that can fit in there. So if that structure is staying, is that not going to be considered parking?
[Kathleen Desmond]: We designed it without that being considered parking. It certainly I believe it would be available for parking I don't know if it wanted, you know data for storage, you know, storage, rather than that storage units I'm not sure what the intent is but it is a garage. So, you know how that's going to be used is. There haven't been that many discussions about the garage simply because the intent was to demolish it. We understood that not to be a preference of the historical commission and the fire chief did agree with that. There would probably be some use for the garage, whether it be storage or vehicles. It's not required to have eight spaces. Six is now the requirement and that's what we'll abide by to give the chief some room here.
[Unidentified]: Does this whole calculus change if you only need four additional parkings? If there are two spots in that carriage house and you only need six and you only need four other spots, would that potentially change the calculus of where this building needs to be?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, no, well, because you still have to put your parking here. I mean, you couldn't.
[Andre Leroux]: And then why is that? Because I want to follow up on this. This is sort of what I was getting getting at. If you took the the the two spaces and eliminated them, that's at the bottom of your screen. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB – David Ensign – He, Him, His PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB – David Ensign – He, Him, His and that ample front yard and have a unit in the back that has a little bit of more of a backyard without those two spaces and eliminate those backyards in the side.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, and just to maybe even put that whole side part could be farther back. So if you have two spots in the carriage house and then you just need those first four spots or whatever that might be, the whole quote unquote addition could be farther back on the lot in a way that I think just to give you a sense of part of what I'm worried about when I look at this is you've got these three units where you've got that sort of flat sort of brutal line along the side yard and then the front just I don't think it looks very appealing or I think it could be done in a way that's more historically significant I think to Andre's point, if you only actually need to find four parking spaces. That's very different than when these drawings were actually made and they were trying to find eight.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: I think, Kathy, if I could speak to that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, go ahead.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. This is Ben Minix again. Yeah, I think part of the fire chief's review is access to the rear of the structure. So if that structure moves any farther to the rear or if those parking spaces, you know, are centered or a little more centered, the fire truck can't access around to the other side of the structure. So the way that we have the truck turning right now is that truck would actually be able to pull all the way up to those existing trees we're keeping towards the bottom of the plan. Now, I don't know what he would say if we did come back with another site layout, but I believe that is what he was looking for with access to the back.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I do think I know what he would say. You know, it was, it took a long time to get to here. And he was very cooperative. And sometimes, you know, I think he was kicking himself that he was, you know, but he said, I can do it because he knew that we were trying to not touch this structure. and maintain that. And when we went through conservation, there was also the discussion about pavers, and they were understanding of the fact that we just can't do that in this instance, given what the fire access is. Because, you know, I mean, the prior chief would never have gone off of the 24 feet, and he had his reasons, and that's fine. But we would have been in a situation where you would probably have to demolish.
[Unidentified]: You'd have to demolish just a small portion of that bump out you mean.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, I, you know, under the prior chief, I think you'd need to, to, by the time you got finished with what he would want for an exit exit drive I don't, I think you'd have half of the existing structure probably. I haven't measured it out. because he would want this widened. And there isn't any ability to do an entrance exit on this portion.
[Unidentified]: Oh, widened at the front, you mean? Correct.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Here you have a bike crosswalk now, and there's telephone utilities here. So there isn't really another way to configure this so that you have, other than this entrance exit, maintaining the structure.
[Unidentified]: I don't know. Okay. So this is to Mike again. I have, I want to make sure I'm paying attention to this correctly. So let's say that, that this is back to the semi-colon question. So if we're looking at the semi-colon, let's say that, cause that makes sense to me. If a semi-colon is there, it's not a comma. So that means that we then have, The two possibilities are multiple dwelling, which is a building or structure designed for or containing three or more dwelling units, or single family attached, which is an attached residential building intended and designed to contain or containing one dwelling unit. And what I am not understanding is, or I'm struggling with is, how can you say that a structure is one but not like how can we determine that a structure is one but not the other? Because it almost sounds like those two definitions. If this isn't a single family attached, then what is? If these three units, if these four units aren't single family attached, then what would qualify as a single family attached when you have this number of units? would this number of units always become multiple dwelling? Does that make sense?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I could provide an example.
[Unidentified]: I was asking that to Mike. Okay. So Jacqueline, I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at.
[Mike Caldera]: So you're saying that if we use my interpretation of what the colon semicolon means, what's the.
[Unidentified]: Oh, yes. Let's say let's say that that's correct about the semicolon, which I think you might be. But so that means that this building that we have. So under multiple dwelling, there's two options because of that semicolon relating to non-residential use, the second option is not a possible definition here, which means we're left with either the first definition under multiple dwelling or single family attached. And those two options are multiple being building or structure designed for containing three or more unit dwelling units or a single family attached residential building intended and designed to contain one dwelling unit. And so, Since single family doesn't say that's only when you have one or two attached, it's any number. What I'm trying to figure out is how could anything ever be characterized as single family attached? Couldn't everyone just say, oh no, it's actually just multiple. What would differentiate us if these houses or these units, these dwelling units that look like single family homes that just are sharing a firewall what if they're not single family attached, what would be?
[Mike Caldera]: So, I mean, I agree with the proposition that it's either one or zero items on the list. And I also acknowledge that, you know, we are the board that if someone wants to challenge a building commission or determination can make those determinations. In this case, I'm personally, comfortable with the building commissioners interpretation. So I think you raise a good question, but maybe that's a clarification that we don't need to decide this case and that we could just make offline.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could give an example.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, just one second. Jamie had his hand up. Jamie, was it on this issue? Yes. So let me just jump in on one thing. I think there's one key item that we're not taking into account. in addition to non-residential use. So, or building designed for or occupied by one or more families in addition to a non-residential use. So, your semicolon is then followed by building designed for or occupied by one or more families in addition to a non-residential use or mixed use. but not including a group of three or more attached single family dwellings. So I believe that's in the event where there isn't a non-residential use included there. Yeah, yeah. So I think that's the point of the semicolon is what Mike was saying. So I think that disclaimer of the three or more attached might not. That might not get us out of it on that side. Attorney Desmond, do you want to add something?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. I think the single attach is intended to be the row house where you have a front and back. It's similar on Foster Court in the public housing, you have that. They're just straight across each building in a row. That's not what this is. There are four dwellings. the structure in the middle to bring it together. It's not four in a row if you take a look at the design. If it were a- Yeah, but it is three in a row. Right, but it's an entire building with a unified structure. When you look at this, And, and the back. It doesn't look like a row house, which is I think what that definition pertains to, especially where you have the frontage frontage requirements where you would have a front in the back, and your side yard is one at 10. So, I think that's the distinguishing feature. Because if you look at this from the back or from the exterior, it doesn't look like a row of townhouses. It does on the flat plan, certainly. And certainly you could dress this up so it doesn't look like it's an end of that.
[Unidentified]: If you're gonna add in, if you're looking at it from, if you look at view two, and you look at it from that side and you've got three yards and three patios It starts to look like row houses.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, but that's, I mean, when we go through site plan review, quite often, almost always, right, we're looking for deck and open space and usable space, and we don't have it. In this particular instance, you've got usable space, which is, you know, yard area for use by by individuals and yard area is usable, you know, side yard isn't a place where you can't use that it's, you know, roped and cordoned off.
[Unidentified]: Looking like a row house, you know, it's going to start to look like a row house, I think, if you're looking at it from that side. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she- there's adequate drainage. And then there was the concern about the demolition of historic buildings, which neither has been officially ruled on, but we have reason to believe perhaps both are the carriage houses now being preserved, the original buildings being preserved. There's the call out about perhaps that, some of the design choices aren't as good as they could be. I do think, even though it wasn't really a focus, I do think that it's a bit worrisome to me that there isn't a trash plan for four units, and it's just sort of like we're gonna pile them at the back. I mean, there's gonna be eight large bins. it seems, I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity to address that. It doesn't seem like a big change would be required, but I'm just not, I do anticipate that, you know, when thinking about impact to the neighborhood, you know, if there is sort of trash all over the place, that that would be one potential, you know, negative impact that a trash plan could address.
[Kathleen Desmond]: We could use the garage area for trash storage.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, I can't hear you. It looks like you are talking. But yeah, I think I could hear you very faintly. Now I can hear you better.
[Kathleen Desmond]: You could use the garage area for storage of the trash barrels where we have the parking where if that makes sense. You know, if we're not putting vehicles in it, that that's an area for storage apart and away from the structure, certainly they would fit in that area. I think there's ways to manage trash. That's certainly one way that it could be managed. The trash files could be stored in the garage.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and so would the owner be amenable to having a trash plan that governs?
[Kathleen Desmond]: We could have a trash plan governed by the Board of Health. That's not an issue.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: And Kathy, again, this has been mixed with Eagle Brook. There is some space behind the garage between the property line and garage where you could create a fenced in area for trash to at least block it from view from the neighbors, but also keep it out of the garage if that's desired.
[Kathleen Desmond]: My client doesn't want it in the garage, so I just resumed.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, I turned it when I didn't catch the last part.
[Kathleen Desmond]: My client would prefer not to commit to the use of the garage for trash.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But certainly willing to commit to a trash plan.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Before I ask this of the applicant, let me ask the board members, do you folks feel that you are ready to vote on this? Are there things you'd like the applicant to provide or What are you folks thinking?
[Andre Leroux]: I just have another small question, which is how high is the fencing on the side facing the butter? With the little yards?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: The existing fence or the proposed?
[Andre Leroux]: Proposed. And I don't know, I mean, I don't know if anybody else got the landscape plan, but I didn't have, I didn't see that in the filing, so.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, there isn't, for the filing for the Zona Board of Appeals, that isn't required as part of the, we did that as part of the Conservation Commission plan, and it was done in the last meeting, which is why I'm providing that to you tonight, but we're, you know, the conservation has laid out pretty strictly what they're going to require in terms of of plantings, and we actually have to notify them of the intent of construction 30 days prior so that we can select what plants they want in terms of native plants.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, no, you don't have to go into detail. I just wanted to have it. Sorry, Ben, could you?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: No, sure. I don't think we've specified a fence height at this time, but most likely six feet. standard six feet it wouldn't it wouldn't be a high eight foot fence but um i'm anticipating a six foot fence at those um in that side yard space and the materials are undefined yeah undefined i was just like into the architect's planes i don't i don't see it on there so undefined
[Mike Caldera]: Just, sorry, one other question is just coming to mind. So it looks from the plans like all structures will be painted the same color, is that, or rather it's a single structure, but the entirety of the structure, the addition, the original part, looks like currently the carriage house is the same color as the principal structure. So will that be maintained as part of the addition?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think it's hard to say at this time, I would expect that it would be uniform. It's going to be one building. So it will be uniform in terms of of, you know, construction material so that it matches as close as it can existing. So, you know, the intent is to have it all match and look like one one uniform building.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. I think I will just ask a question to back reinforce that. If the, since these units would be multiple owners that the association plan requires that they maintain the same colors for the property.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Again, I don't, I don't know that my client necessarily has an issue with that but, and I don't have an issue with it but but this is a little bit different than a situation where we're at site plan review and there is no design review. So I just, you know, to have some requirement in condo docks at this point to deal with designing in color, you know, my client's gonna do a first rate job and he's willing to sit down with the historical commission director to go over what materials are. And that's more than what's required with a four-unit building under the zoning, because there isn't site plan review in this instance. And I'm not, you know, he's willing to do all that you're asking him to do, certainly. But to go that step in terms of condo docks and whatnot, I just, I'm a little nervous about that, to be honest.
[Unidentified]: Mike. Thanks, Attorney Desmond, that certainly addressed my question. It looks like Commissioner Forty wants to say something. Oh yeah, sorry, I was just looking at the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Forty had
[Bill Forte]: Yes, madam chair just just one more comment that I have about the site plan itself. I didn't see a zoning chart on there, you know, basically depicting the law coverage. I know that there's no open space requirement, but, but I was concerned that there was no law coverage. And usually most, you know, most zoning plans will have a zoning chart on there. So I just wanted to make sure that I have that calculation as part of the approved plan. So if there is an approval, then perhaps that should be added there. Usually parking counts are on there too. Anything that's, ah, I see, okay. All right, very good. I did not see it on the plan itself. So that's where I'm used to seeing it, but that's my only comment. Yes, thank you.
[Unidentified]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she- Andrea, I didn't hear you, but I think you said me too.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, I would prefer to see, you know, it more feel like a, you know, a little bit more design work, a little bit more like a multi unit building. But this might be the best we're going to get, especially given the fire chiefs input.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. I mean, perfectly welcome to ask the applicant if they would consider making any changes on that front.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think with return exterior design, I think I've indicated that my clients want to do that. I think the square footage of the units is important to them. So I think when you were discussing possibly units on top of another, that's not something that he wanted to do. He wanted to do it. These are all three bedroom units, which there's not a lot of, honestly, in Medford. That's something that's needed. So these units are somewhat bigger. And I think he wants to retain the square footage. In terms of exterior design, I know he's open to comments and to, you know, within reason, obviously, to design to make it somewhat more appealing. He's going to work with the historic commission to do that. And Chris Bader, I believe it was, was here at the last meeting. And we spoke about that after the meeting. And he's certainly willing to discuss it with them.
[Unidentified]: Is that something that you folks would be willing or interested in doing a continuance for a month to see what kind of design reworking could be done to make this not appear so much to be like the row houses?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think my client, just because this is squarely based on zoning, I mean, he's willing to do all of that, but to come back for another meeting on design, it's not within the zoning ordinance on this issue. And I don't wanna vote negative for that effect, certainly, but I just think that he'd like to get on and understand that he's got an approved project in terms of zoning variances.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I will I will say, you know, we, we look at the zoning in terms of whether it's just zoning, it's, it's not, it is zoning, but it's not just strictly the the numbers, you know, there's the second part of that talking about, you know, essentially, is going to be something that's like an appropriate character for the for the neighborhood for what we're looking at. So it's not It's not just, you know, numbers.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't think there's any cases that deal with design, Jacqueline, on that point, substantial detriment. It has to be substantial detriment to the neighborhood under the ordinance. It's not, you know, detriment has to be substantial and would have to be out of character. And quite honestly, you know, this this project, when it was put together, was I thought, in my opinion, doing this for a bit, that it was a good transition from an apartment to a general residence, because you're not even at the 50 feet that could be permitted in terms of a structure in an apartment, one district. These are all 32. They actually fit height-wise with what you find in the general residence, as opposed to if you were dealing with a different type of multifamily dwelling. So I mean, this doesn't look like an apartment, which is what the other alternative on this is. I'm not saying that in a bad way. I'm just saying in terms of the character of the neighborhood, you're carrying a residential feel at least with with the way this is structured. And, and so I'm a little I'm a little nervous about the design piece of it, because there is, you know, I don't, I don't want to be in a situation where we can't PB, Lisa Smith-Miyazaki, she-her, hers, this is a zoning not a design review.
[Unidentified]: I guess what I'm trying to get at is if there's a way, I think it sounds like I might be the lone holdout on this, but I'm still concerned with characterizing this not as, even taking into account that semicolon, I'm still concerned with characterizing this as multiple dwelling as opposed to single family attached, which would mean that there's a frontage issue and a pretty big one. And so what I'm trying to see is if there's some, and maybe design's not the right way to get there, but if there's some way to do this so that I don't have that concern about it being single family attached. I mean, to me, it looks like you could take each of these three units and move them apart 10 feet from each other. And each one of them could stand alone as a single family home. And the only thing attaching them is that they just happen to share a wall. So I still and if I'm if I'm wrong, or there's some case law on that, I'm happy to look at it. I just I don't, I'm not comfortable with the way I'm reading it. And I appreciate that, you know, the commissioners weighed in on this. I'm not comfortable with the way that I'm reading it saying that these are single family attached.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, the alternative would be to have him go back and cite me for that, and then we'd have a frontage issue. And then we'd kind of be forced at that point, right? To make this look more like a multi, which means that we wouldn't, You know, in that instance, if you've got a frontage issue, the only way to get away from it, there's two ways. The first way is to design an apartment building. I suppose the second way would be to create a second unit in the existing dwelling, which my client had thought about at some point. And then it's not a single family attached.
[Unidentified]: To do what Andrea was proposing and to not make them like three row houses. to make something that actually feels more like a cohesive building.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But then I think he loses the square footage that he's looking for on this and that then, you know, if you're gonna do that, then it doesn't make sense necessarily from a development standpoint to limit it to four units.
[Unidentified]: I don't understand why that would necessarily limit the square footage.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Because then I think if what Andre said is that then you're gonna have You've got to kind of combine the units somehow, upstairs, downstairs, whatnot. And we're limited on this footprint.
[Unidentified]: I don't instruct you, but I don't think he said combine the units. I think he was saying reconfigure the units.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: May I jump in for a second to just share something? Sure, go right ahead. Thank you. May I share my screen?
[Unidentified]: Yep, if you don't have it.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: I'll get a photograph. Okay, should be able to see a picture of the property.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: So to the right, you can see my cursor, that's the existing home. The proposed addition would be kind of like this box here. And then where this rhododendron is would be the fence. So I know there's some concern that if you're standing on the street, it's going to look like a row structure. But you're really only looking at the one face of the addition. And then you're going to have a fence, presumably a six foot high fence. So unless you're taller than six feet, it's not going to look like a row house because you're only going to see the one fence. You know, if it was flipped 90 degrees, it would look like a cookie cutter, you know, row house. I agree with that. But with it only facing with one fence in one side of the addition, I just don't think it'll look like a row house from the street, which is the view of concern. But that was it.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I can appreciate that because it is in part the way that it looks. But just for really full transparency is what I don't want to do is to ignore the definition of something because I wanna get a project approved or because I'm afraid of what might be built by right or because we're saying, oh, well, it's not that bad. If I'm reading something and the definition doesn't work for me, I don't feel comfortable bending that. And I guess I just, I don't see how this could be anything other than single family attached homes really.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think that Falmouth case deals with that. It dealt with a duplex, but it was the same sort of attachment and the uniformity of one building.
[Unidentified]: And so, you know, I don't, I don't think... Didn't that, wasn't that the issue we talked about with the court? That was that
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'm forgetting exactly what we were talking about that for last year has to be uniform in in appearance, which is which is what you know this, this is. And that makes it then the one structure under that case that that's not the court that was the definitions and and Mike, you wouldn't have been when they drafted that multiple dwelling because it's the old definition from from way back which is part of the problem those definitions haven't really changed so you know that. That definition of single attached which, you know, from the, if you take it and look at the dimensionals. It appears to be a row house but but those haven't been updated those definitions those definitions the definitions from back in the 1920s for the most part that are in the zoning ordinance. Those definitions weren't revised in any manner. They're word for word, I'm pretty sure.
[Unidentified]: But I guess if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, if they haven't been revised, then we have to understand that that's what is intended by the legislative body in the city, which is the city council.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, but I think it was a row house with that single attached. And, you know, if you if you drive down with the public housing is those, those are all houses where there's no there's no corners is nothing it's just straight row after row block after block of row houses and whether you have the definition of frontage we have 2535 3535 25 whatever that that implicit on that is you need that frontage because they're all facing the street, right? Because that's where your frontage is. And that would be the need for the increased frontage.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, although I hear your point. But it doesn't say anything in terms of that it's single family attached, if the front doors all face the street, but it's not single family attached if they don't.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But if you looked at the building attached, which is, I think what you have to look at, because it says residential building attached, and then you have single attached. If you look at residential building, that's when you get into that.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, OK, I just want to make sure I'm following it. And folks, I don't mean to belabor this. I just want to make sure we get it right. So you're saying which definition, residential?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Building attached is the definition.
[Unidentified]: All right, I'll scroll to that. building attached, a principal building separated from another principal building on one or both sides, either by a vertical party wall or walls or by a solid contiguous wall or walls without any side yards. And so what's the application of that to this?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think it's the whole side yard piece. These buildings aren't all front back. It's not if you're looking from the street at the front on all of them, and the back rear is the rear on the structure. These have sides which are not contiguous necessarily to another structure.
[Unidentified]: But the three of them do, and they don't have side yards between them. So that would be those buildings attached.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean if you if you pull that that breezeway up forward and part of the reason why that, you know, probably wasn't considered was because you've got the porch then, then you've got, you know, then it doesn't, and two and three. their doors are within that breezeway, I believe, as part of that attach. So it's not as if they have one entrance on the back, but I believe that their entrances, the doors go into that breezeway area. So I don't, I think we either need a variance for frontage, if that's how you would determine it, and then we'd need to continue to do that, I guess, and see what the board's,
[Unidentified]: Yeah, like the other board members I don't think that they're, I'm not I think the other board members are comfortable with. Oh, Commissioner 40, do you want to say something.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you Madam Chair, I'm just just one suggestion. A couple of things. First, we had the same problem in my former municipality in the city of Waltham, where we had the same debate. And because multiple dwellings were really not defined, they were actually putting these things in. These are actually called sideways condos. And it was a problem in residency zoning districts there. And they developed basically, what they did was they developed a requirement that that the side of the house looks like the front of the house, that there had to be a front entrance to give it the appearance on the outset of the very front of the house, that it was not considered looking like a townhouse or a row house. That's more of a simple solution to a much bigger problem and probably didn't resolve much because it didn't change anything. But I would just make a suggestion that I know that we don't have a city solicitor in place, but we do have KP law that perhaps maybe a recall to them for a legal opinion on the plain language of the of the ordinance to see if they, in fact, think that the words say what they say, if it if it's a question of, you know, the the you know, the plain language of the section of the ordinance, I think it's usually left to the hands of the attorneys to, you know, kind of interpret that. Because, again, I just want to be clear. I'm making no interpretations tonight. The only thing that I did was I affirmed the decision of my predecessor to be correct, yeah.
[Unidentified]: No, I appreciate that. And maybe we're going round and round in circles and maybe what you're suggesting is the correct thing that we should do. And maybe we should just get a legal opinion on it to advise the board on this. Okay, thank you, Commissioner. Other board members? What are your thoughts on asking for a legal opinion on this? On the interpretation of that piece? Jamie, yes? Yes. Mike, what do you think?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so for me personally, I could go either way. But I do think it would be unfair to the applicant for us to rule on this with the board not aligned as to the interpretation. I think we either need a legal opinion if that's what we think it'll take to get us there or maybe we as a board vote whether to proceed with former Commissioner Moki and Commissioner Fordy's interpretation before we actually weigh in on the application itself. I just think if the rationale for any difference in votes is boiling down to the board can't even agree on the ordinance, that's a bad situation which I'd like to avoid.
[Unidentified]: Andrea, what do you think?
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I guess, yeah, I could go either way. I am, I think, satisfied by this point with the, you know, the building commissioners input on it. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, David Ensign --"I guess I would say that it would make more sense as a single multiple dwelling unit kind of property for all of the kind of entrances to face a central courtyard. That seems more coherent to me than facing in different directions." But again, I think if you feel strongly that there should be clarity on the definition, certainly willing to go along with that to get the legal opinion.
[Unidentified]: OK. And I appreciate everybody on this. Attorney Desmond, does the applicant have a feeling in terms of if the board would like to request a legal opinion on this just to make sure that we're aligned before we vote. Attorney doesn't unmute.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't want to go down in flames on this, you know, because there's a dispute as to to whether or not I need another variance or not. I mean, that was kind of the question that arose at the beginning of this discussion, whether or not that was going to be the case. I guess depending on how that comes back, then I guess my client will need to decide at that point how he wants to proceed or what makes sense. For him. But yeah, I think if, if, if, if, cause there's only four of you voting as well. Correct.
[Unidentified]: That's correct.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So it has to be unanimous.
[Unidentified]: So what I, what I would like to avoid for the applicant is if my concerns are not. Founded. And I won't tell the applicant what to do, but I would think it would be better to have a delay for one month to get a legal opinion than for the application to fail and us to file something and have to appeal it through the courts would be my thought process. I'd like to avoid that because if this can be cleared up, if there's a case I'm unaware of, or there's something in the zoning ordinances that we're missing. If that can be cleared up, I would suggest that a continuous might be the best, but I'll leave that up to you if you prefer, if we vote.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, I agree with that.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Okay, so is everyone... All right, so just to be clear, applicant is okay if we continue until next month and request a legal opinion on this matter?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. I'll make a motion to continue this matter to next month's meeting and to seek a legal opinion on this matter. Second. Okay. And then by vote, Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. Andre. Hi. And Jacqueline. Okay. Thanks folks. I appreciate the time on this one. I know we spent a lot of time on this attorney Desmond. Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you. Just jump in.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, Dennis, go ahead.
[Denis MacDougall]: The thing for November. If we had it on our usual time, it would be Thanksgiving, which we're not going to have. Great. So did you guys discuss that? Sorry, I was kind of. Yeah. Right. Okay. Just, yeah. I don't know if we probably will need to say it during this meeting when it would be continued to.
[Unidentified]: All we said was all I said, I believe my motion was to next month's meeting. So next meeting will be. Would it determine what is determined to be.
[Denis MacDougall]: We need a time certain date.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. You need to continue to a time certain for anybody who's watching who wants to come back and watch it without us having to re advertise.
[Unidentified]: That's why you need to say, Oh, I thought we would just re advertise. Okay, sure. That's fine. Let's do that now.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, I mean, we could re advertise them and don't send out legal notices and like to a butters and things like that. So it's usually just preferable to make.
[Unidentified]: Okay, no, let's do that. Um, so I guess it would be December 1. Does that sound right? Usually, yeah, we go to the Thursday afterwards. So just, yeah. Okay. Board members, does December 1st work? That works for me. Okay, thank you. December 1st. Yes. Perfect. All right. Um. Okay, folks. So specifically, it'll be continued to December 1st.
[Denis MacDougall]: And the log in for the zoom information will be exactly the same. It will be on the city's website. Approximately for the meeting with all the other information, but it will be on the same zoom account. Same zoom account number that you are not tonight's meeting will be
[Unidentified]: Alicia. Okay, Attorney Desmond, thank you so much. Have a good night, folks. You too. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Last but not least, 595 Broadway. Dennis, could you read the announcement, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 595 Broadway, case number A-2022-12, continued from September 29th. Applicant and owner, Fidelis Bridge Loan Venture, for the applicant. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We- Hi, good evening. Mr. Barry Barnoski, there you go. Okay, yep.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Adam Barnoski. I'm with Roberto Israel & Weiner Law Firm at 255 State Street in Boston. I'm an attorney for Fidelis Investors, the property owner and proposed developer. With me is my colleague, Attorney Mike Barone, and project architect Milton Yu from Peter Quinn's office, as well as our project engineer, Carlos Caraviello. We're here relative to the application for construction of a seven-unit multifamily residential building below-grade parking and bike storage at 595 Broadway. I would like to give you an overview of the property, the proposal, and the project history, then turn it over to the design team before discussing the relief that we're seeking before the board tonight. The property consists of 7,000 square feet situated on a rectangular lot in the commercial one zoning district on the north side of Broadway between Albion Street and Alfred Street. This is a split lot. The front portion is located off of Broadway. Approximately 40% of the lot is located in Somerville with the rear 60% of the lot located in Medford. As I'll elaborate in a few minutes, due to location in Somerville, this to the approvals by the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals, which have been fully approved and recently extended. The premises is currently improved with an existing wood frame single-family residence with minimal other improvements or landscaping. The proposed development will raise the existing structure and construct a new four-story building. measuring approximately 9,200 gross square feet with approximately 7,600 net square feet. There will be seven residential units on the first through fourth floors, eight parking spaces below grade, bicycle storage facilities on site, and significant landscaping and beautification of the site, including paver walkways, solid treated woodwork fencing, new trees, bushes, and native landscaping throughout the site. The residences will include one one-bedroom unit and six two-bedroom units. The project was designed in coordination with neighbors. Prior to the initial submission on this project, the original developer met with neighbors from both Medford and Somerville. And to address the comments of the neighbors, the project design at the rear of the building was adjusted to reduce shading impacts and add additional screening for privacy. We've also changed the plans to address some comments from the Community Development Board. You might recall or some on this board might recall that a similar proposal came before the board after receiving the unanimous approval by the Community Development Board and after a site plan review recommendation in March of 2020. The project was subsequently withdrawn from zoning without prejudice. and did not seek or complete the necessary reviews, sorry, the approvals needed for construction. The property is now owned by Fidelis, which took over the property project from the prior owner in 2021. And while this project was already approved by the Community Development Board in 2020, when it was revived earlier this year, it was suggested that we reapply and go through the site plan review process before proceeding with the zoning approvals before this board. The Community Development Board did unanimously approve the project at a hearing on August 25th. And the board asked for a few modifications to the plans which were made and which will be detailed by Milton during his presentation. It's also worth noting the approvals on the Somerville side of the property. This proposal was approved by special permit in October 2018, and the permits on the Somerville side were recently extended unanimously by the Somerville ZBA through February of 2023. Now, before turning it over to the design team, I wanted to provide my colleague, Mike Barone, with an opportunity to detail the list of variances required on this project, and it should be noted that we were able to eliminate certain variances, and in other instances, we are compliant with other areas that were cited on the refusal letter. So with that, Michael.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. So we are seeking a number of variances tonight. As Adam mentioned, some of them have been Eric Howard, he or hes.: : rendered unnecessary as a result of some of the plan revisions we made to accommodate those requested conditions and recommendations of the Community Development Board. So first on the list, we are seeking a variance for insufficient lot area. The C1 district requires 10,000 square feet, whereas our lot totals only 7,000 square feet. Of that 7,000, 4,227 square feet are located in Medford. The balance is in Somerville. And there is no change in the current plans to that. Similarly, we're seeking a variant for minimum lot area per dwelling unit. So I understand from conversations with Milton and other members of the architect firm that there was some difference of interpretation as to what the total square footage was necessary. So we had that listed as either 5,500 or 6,500 square feet. Again, because our lot in Medford is only 4,227 square feet, we thought it appropriate to apply for that as well. We are also seeking a variance for lot width. The lot itself is only 70 square feet, whereas 100 square feet, I'm sorry, 70 feet wide, whereas 100 feet in width is required. The next variance we are seeking is minimum landscape open space. So this is one that was actually cited on our initial denial letter. However, we believe we complied with our first set of plans and continue to comply with this set of plans. C1 requires 10% minimum landscaped open space. We are providing 12% landscaped open space across the entire lot and 22% in the Medford area. And I believe that's detailed more specifically in the plans. For minimum usable open space, we are seeking a variance. We require 50% or rather the code requires 50% and we are providing zero. That is not to say there is not open space at the site, we just don't have it set up in a fashion that would meet the dimensional requirements of open space, which I believe is 15 feet from the lot line as well as 15 feet from the building exterior as well. And unfortunately, just because of the layout of the lot, we don't have much that follows that 15 by 15 area. We also require setbacks, variances for the front yard setback, the left side yard, and the right side yard. For the front side yard, we are seeking a proposed front yard setback of 11 feet, whereas 15.5 is now required in our initial application. 15.03 was required, but given a slight change in the height due to raising the ceiling height of the basement parking area. We had to switch our setbacks a bit. So again, we're seeking a variance of 4.5 feet, which is still more compliant than the existing zero foot setback. For the side yard, that increased from 17.5 feet to 18.1 feet, again, because of the slight increase in height. So now we are seeking a variance of 12.1 feet because we are providing a six-foot setback. For the right side, we have a required setback again of 18.1 feet. We are seeking a 15-foot setback, which would require a variance of 3.1 feet. The next several variances are the ones that have changed the most given the revisions to the plans. For off-street parking, we had initially submitted under the old zoning code, which was, or the unpublished, the then published zoning code, which called for two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. In the time since we've applied, the new zoning code provides that because we are within a half mile of a mass transit, we are only obligated to provide eight-tenths of a parking space per dwelling unit. by our calculations for all seven dwelling units, that requires six spaces. For the four dwelling units located in Medford, that requires three spaces. We are proposing six standard spaces and one subcompact space. So we believe that that variance is no longer required as a result of the reconfiguration of parking, which was a recommendation of the Community Development Board.
[Unidentified]: Excuse me, Attorney Brown, I don't want to interrupt you. I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right thing. Do you know if an updated worksheet was submitted along with the updated plans?
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: We did send one earlier this evening. It was not provided with the plans on Monday or Tuesday, but was provided this afternoon.
[Unidentified]: OK. Dennis, did you get that? Do you know? I don't think I've seen it because the worksheet I'm looking at, has the old numbers.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: So we did circulate a matrix that outlines the required figures, the existing conditions, our original proposed, and our revised proposed, and then indicate any notes or comments outlining why there were those revisions.
[Adam Barnosky]: Oh, I'm sorry. If you need that.
[Unidentified]: Maybe Dennis can look for that. I still make sure to miss it. You go right ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
[Denis MacDougall]: I sent it to all you shortly before the meeting started.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I think I missed it. All right. The attorney broom go right ahead.
[Denis MacDougall]: So I'm going to put it up on the screen.
[Unidentified]: Well, I'll find it in my email. Go ahead.
[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, just for anybody else might want to see it. Although anybody watching at home, I'm going to throw it out.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, go ahead.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: It is a bit of a doozy. So back in there with the parking, again, because it was recommended that we reconfigure the parking from community development, we were able to eliminate the need for the parking space size variance. So the code requires angled parking be nine foot by nine, no smaller than nine foot by 19 feet. We are now proposing six spaces measuring nine feet by 19 feet. And one, what we're referring to as a subcompact space, and that's seven and a half feet by 17 feet. And while that space is substandard and does not meet the 19 by 19, the nine by 19 standard. That subcompact space is actually serving as access space for in the event we ever need to use one of the additional spaces as a handicap space. So that is immediately adjacent to what's labeled a space number one on plan a 1.0. Moving on, we had previously requested a variance for parking access aisle width. We had provided 20 feet where 24 feet was required. With our reconfiguration, we have been able to provide an access aisle width of 25 foot 10 inches, thereby satisfying this code. for width and entrance and exit drives. The code provides that a one-way drive could measure no less than 12 feet and a two-way drive should measure no less than 20 feet. We'd initially proposed a 10-foot wide drive. We are now proposing a 12-foot wide drive. In that case, it's worth noting that the code does provide that the minimum width of entrance and exit drive shall be 12 feet for one-way use or for driveways providing access primarily for overnight parking with only incidental day use. As you can probably tell from the plans, our ramp is not necessarily unidirectional. However, it is going to be used for both entrance and exiting. But we do believe it fits within the driveways, providing access primarily for overnight parking with only incidental day use. Moving on again maximum height was a matter that was cited in our denial letter by the former building commissioner. We do propose a height of four stories and 42.2 feet. I'm sorry, four stories 44.1 feet which is an increase of 1.9 feet over the original proposed that still complies with section 94 dash 172 F three, which requires that structures within 100 feet of the cited. zoning districts, which we are within 100 feet of, must be no taller than four stories or 50 feet, as opposed to the typical 75 feet, six stories. Again, we believe we are compliant with that based upon our reading both of the standard requirements and that special requirement in 172F3. As a note to anybody viewing from home, On the first page of the matrix that's currently on the screen, please note that the minimum landscaped open space where it says 13% entire under revised proposed should actually read 12% entire. The total gross floor area for the entire building is actually 10,223 square feet. not 9,243 square feet as initially shown there.
[Unidentified]: That was a slip up on the math there. Great. Thanks, Mike.
[Adam Barnosky]: And now if the chair will allow for Milton Yu to go through the renderings for the board.
[Unidentified]: Sure. Go right ahead. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yep.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Perfect. So good evening, members of the board, Madam Chair. Thank you, Adam, Michael, for the introduction. So just wanted to situate ourselves, for those who aren't familiar with the, I'm sorry, I should probably give you my name for the record. Milton Yu, Peter Quinn Architects, Davis Square Somerville, representing the architects. So the map I just pulled up to situate ourselves with the location of the lot for those unfamiliar. We're just squarely between Tufts Park and Trump Field right along the city lot line here. And I just wanted to give you an overview before I dive into the specific requests and revisions that we made in response to the Community Development Board. So as mentioned, we're proposing seven units and below building parking on the site. And this is a good introductory view as to the sort of the overall aesthetic. We have different materials and colors to sort of break up the mass of the building. And here's the drive along the right side.
[Andre Leroux]: Excuse us, Mr. Yu. I'm only seeing on the screen the Google map still.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Oh, I'm sorry. Let me reshare.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Is that better?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Okay, thanks. So this view, as I was saying, was just a good introduction to the project in terms of the seven-unit building with multiple materials and colors to sort of break up the mass. drive along the right side of the property. We also have civil drawings in the set, and landscape drawings in the set, if you want to go over that. But I won't be covering that in the overview. Let's start at the basement. As mentioned before, we do have six parking spaces, one, two, three, four, five, six. These are standard size parking spaces. Directly in response to the Community Development Board recommendations, we actually had 10 before, so we reduced the number of parking spaces. And also comment addressed from City Board was to have more user-friendly spaces that are non-compact. We have six all standard spaces, including a wider backup space here. And also they wanted to look at the overall configuration of the spaces laid out in the basement to make it more user friendly. And I'll go over that later after the overview. First floor, ground floor, you can see the overall scheme. So we have parking ramp down under the building. It's open, but it's under the building. And we have ground floor, first two units of the building. And that's giving that, I'll also go over later in terms of how we reacted to and revised the backyard and side yard. Second floor, we also have two units. Each unit will have its own outdoor space. Third floor we get three units, also spaces connected to the outside. But here we have the unit start having two levels. So the units on this floor also extend up to the third. And we also have outdoor spaces for them too. Here's some views from the front elevation. That also gives us the idea of the type of materiality we're dealing with, breaking up the mass, focusing on parts, and then continuing lines across the top level to bring down the height visually. Left elevation, we change material and colors. If we go back, same idea. I'll go over, in detail how we met some of the comments also regarding this area, specifically from the city board. Here's the right elevation. So you can see the parking going under the building and also how we also address some concern about opening up the view here as cars come in and out. you can have more visibility coming out the corner. Here's our building section. Regard to the changing of the, raising of the first floor elevation, that was mostly when I was reviewing the sets, there was a ceiling height issue that I noticed that we had in this drawing before. It was labeled as seven feet, so that clearly, that's not realistic, so I went ahead It wasn't from the Community Development Board, but it's just more workable. You get an idea of some of the materials. We're dealing with metal siding, different exposures, cedar siding, and aluminum fenestration. It's just a general view of the context of where the site is. This is the existing new one here, two and a half story, single family house. These views were done in reaction to neighborhood meeting comments to have some views from neighbors here and here. We also did a shadow study for the requirements, which you may or may not have questions for me later. But I would like to go over the specific comments from the CD board and see how we address this. One was, as mentioned, to reduce the number of parking spaces. So we went from 10 to six. We've done that. Another comment was to have no compact spaces. Although these are all standard spaces that are required, we have a space here next to this space that If Attorney Barnoski has mentioned this, where if we do end up needing to provide a handicap space, we can use this space for the access aisle. And if not, it's just labeled as something, you know, maybe a motorcycle or some other way of using the space, but it's not required. Another request was to incorporate electric vehicle charging station. Let me show that here. This part is actually worth noting. It's actually below the building, so it's not like out in the rain, out in the weather here. It's covered by the building. This is the dash line of the building above. Another specific comment in from the fire chief in terms of being able to access the parking area aside from driving down the ramp on the off, chance that car gets stuck here, they won't be able to come down. So we went ahead and incorporated stairs down to the basement to grade. And then another comment was to, you know, to reduce the number of parking spaces and perhaps be able to gain back some of the floor area to landscaping. So that's where this comes in. In the previous in the previous scheme looked like this. It really wasn't a sizable place for usable space, whereas now we do. And that's probably better seen in the landscape drawings.
[Unidentified]: And what's the dimension of that space now?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Sure.
[Unidentified]: I thought I saw 25 by...
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: One second. 25 is to the building, so that's the setback. 25 by, I don't have it mentioned here, but it looks like a square, 25 by 25. Okay, thanks. And picking up a comment that Mike Brown had was the usable open space. It's not that we don't have usable open space, but 10 feet from the property line ends up here and 10 feet from the buildings here. This is the only zone that meets those two offsets, but it's clearly not 50 by 50. Were there any specific... I think those are the... main points that we used to address from the Community Development Board, which resulted in the changes to the entire set, to incorporate into the entire set. If you had specific questions about the building, please let me know.
[Unidentified]: Thank you so much.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: You want me to keep sharing this?
[Unidentified]: I'll leave it up to Attorney Bernoski.
[Adam Barnosky]: No, I think you take the screen down for now, Milton. Thanks. So as discussed, the proposal does require certain dimensional variances and pursuant to section 48, section 10, we can demonstrate the elements for the approval of this project. First, regarding the shape and the size of the lot. So this is a split lot between Medford and Somerville. You're able to see where that split occurs in review of the plans. just now. So unlike other lots in the C-1 zoning district, the majority of which are narrow rectangular lots with pre-existing non-conforming residences or compliant oversized lots, both of which have frontage on a public way, the Medford portion of this property is square, it's undersized, and it's landlocked without frontage. The split between the two municipalities is unique and does not generally affect the zoning district. The split lot with no frontage affects even less properties. There's only a small handful of lots in the C1 district or in the city for which this applies. Further, and more importantly, the split lot creates a general non-compliance under any section of the zoning ordinance. Now, as was touched upon in one of your earlier hearings tonight, It's true that variances are normally not available to remedy deficiencies of frontage alone, and further size does not equal shape. And that's from the Chico and Berlin line of cases. Now, the current circumstances. are differentiated and unique here. It is the square Medford portion of the property in conjunction with the property being situated in two municipalities, which creates this issue of shape. But for the municipal boundary line, the shape and size of the lot would be exactly like the others in the zoning district. That is, they would not be square. It would be long and rectangular, which would avail itself to numerous other configurations under the Medford zoning bylaw. Look at the lots in Allian, Alfred, Williams, and Clayton. They're all long rectangular lots. But the shape of this lot is technically square. And what is unique is that it's only square for the purposes of this zoning review. The actual shape of the full property is long and rectangular like the others in the district. but when viewed through the lens of the city's zoning code the shape of the lot is square and the circumstance which create both the shape and the size of the lot are extraordinarily unique here. So the split renders both the Medford portion and the Somerville portion of the property dimensionally insufficient for nearly any proposed permitted use in their respective zoning districts. Which brings me to the next prong of substantial hardship suffered without relief. So the Medford C-1 district prohibits detached, two-family, and detached or attached one-family districts. And as a result, the only options for this property would be, one, a multifamily dwelling unit, or two, a commercial or industrial building. Now, the multifamily, as discussed, the multifamily can't get built without dimensional variances from the board. It's a noncompliant lot. Literally any multifamily building would trigger relief in this instance. Second, a commercial use would be inconsistent with the streetscape and the abutting properties, both of which are multifamilies. And an additional challenge here is that the proposed use in Medford has to be harmonious with the uses allowed in Somerville's urban residential district, which is intended to be almost entirely residential. And it's characterized by multi-unit residential buildings with lax dimensional regulations. have smaller setbacks, we're missing a lot of coverage, overall it's a lot easier to build a building like this or even a significantly larger building in this urban district. So essentially if you stack the permitted uses and dimensional requirements in the Medford C1 district against the permitted uses and dimensional requirements in Somerville's UR district, the net result is we're here before the board. Any project that you're trying to do in tandem with those two districts, it's going to require relief, which is why we are here requesting a multifamily within the multifamily district. And while relief is needed, it can be granted without substantial detriment of public good, which is the third prong here. So Proposed multifamily, multifamilies are allowed in this district as a right. Dimensional variances requests are limited and the design was made in conjunction with the concerns of the neighbors and with input from the community development board. There are other split lots on Broadway with multifamily buildings. In some instances, those buildings are on smaller non-compliant lots, including the neighbors at 597 Broadway and 599 Broadway. Overall, multifamily residential buildings dominate the immediate neighborhood and the zoning district. And the proposed building with only seven units is both in character with the neighborhood and significantly smaller, as I mentioned, than what can be built by right in the UV zoning district. And certainly the proposal is much more attractive than the existing aged house. This project will add residential units to the housing market in Medford, which is greatly needed and in high demand. And lastly, the project will contribute to the Broadway streetscape with a modern facade and landscaping. And finally, fourth prong, which is the relief will not nullify or derogate from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Again, the use is compliant with both Medford and some of those zoning ordinances, it's complimentary to the neighborhood and some of those urban residential and mid rise districts as well Medford's adjacent GR and apartment two zoning districts. And it is fundamentally in step with both the present character of the neighborhood, in addition to future needs of the community. And so for these reasons, we feel this project meets the threshold requirements for a variance under the law. And we do respectfully request that the board approve this proposal. And we are happy to answer any questions the board may have.
[Unidentified]: Thank you so much. Okay, could I, hang on, I just wanna see what this chat is. This is, oh, that's from earlier. Okay, could I get a motion to open public comment, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, I had a couple of questions before we do that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, oh, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, so I turned around and asked you, I know given the, nature of this lot and the two municipalities, it's sort of complicated to answer this, but one thing I'm trying to wrap my head around is, so as I understood it, this also went before the Somerville ZBA, and basically was approvable by special permit. What I'm trying to understand is of the, dimensional deficiency that would require a variance here. If this was just all in Somerville, what are the things you needed a special permit for versus could do by right? I'm trying to get a sense for the setbacks and things like that in Somerville. Is this consistent with what you can do by right or are there areas where you needed that special permit anyway?
[Adam Barnosky]: So I'll have to pull up the zoning decision to get you the specifics on that. But I can tell you that the approvals for this project in Somerville went through in 2018. And there were no variances required. They were all under the special permit review. Since that time, like Medford Somerville has updated their zoning, and it's my understanding that this would be a by right project in its current form under Somerville's updated zoning regulations, but the reason why we went back this past February and asked for an extension of those special permit was that if we failed to do so, even though this would be a by right project, we would have to go through the building permit approval process. It's just easier to preserve the permits that we had in hand. So I can look, I kind of have to do it on the fly because it hasn't been a bit since we got this, but I can tell you that this project on the Somerville side would be by right.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I think the explanation you already gave is satisfactory for my purposes at least. So thank you. And then my other question, it was just a little hard for me to tell from the plans. So there's the below grade parking, and then I can't tell like what that looks like from the surface. So it looks like it's not green space. So what is it exactly?
[Unidentified]: So Milton can you can you walk through that question with your plans up.
[Adam Barnosky]: Maybe you can. So, so is your question, if I can, if I can elaborate. interior or how do you enter because the, the parking is below grade you go in, you enter from Broadway in the Somerville side, you approach the rear and then the, the parking is not visible from the street it's below grade, I think that, yeah, right.
[Mike Caldera]: hopefully in a very clear manner. So I'm trying to understand if I'm standing by the tree that's in the top left corner as it's currently oriented, and then I'm looking at what underground is the parking, what does that look like from the surface?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: So just to give you an idea of the, so the ramp goes down around 14% slope, the sidewalk, but here's a 102 elevation. Okay. And then the garage level is at 95.75. So this portion where the pointer is now is at minus six, I think. Okay. And then we have a fence that So this is all fenced, so you wouldn't actually be able to look down into it.
[Unidentified]: I see.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. Similarly, from the front, you have the cars coming down, and then a pedestrian wouldn't be looking down into it.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. So if I'm understanding correctly, then it's slightly above the grade of the lawn. So it would just be sort of like a little upward bump sort of thing. But it's the parking itself is below ground.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. Right. Yeah. So this is just kind of a way for convenience to check out what the shape of the building is. But yeah, you wouldn't be able to look down unless you were standing straight in front of the The driveway.
[Unidentified]: OK, thank you. Those are my two questions.
[Yvette Velez]: I just want some clarification regarding like no parking in the front is being removed because you basically maintained where essentially the current existing driveway is. And then I had a question regarding the couple of questions. the parking for the bicycles. I know it's enclosed and that's great and it's easy parking for bicycles but am I reading that correctly it's only eight spots for bicycles and it's seven units so that's pretty limiting for folks that have roommates and things of that nature and I say it from a personal perspective there's no parking for bikes in my own building and it's a struggle and it's now all bikes some bikes are on the balcony and it doesn't look good so just especially in that area where biking is actually pretty predominant and so accessible to the train, is there possibilities of additional bike parking? I know outside is not necessarily ideal, but if the tenants needed that, where would that be?
[Adam Barnosky]: I think the I think if I can answer at least how we came to this, the design, you know, originally we did have 10 spots. There was from the Community Development Board, an interest in reducing the number of spots which does seem to be. to reduce, to promote alternate forms of transportation. And that's where this came out. So the idea was, all right, we'll have more than one parking spot per unit, we'll have more than one bike parking per unit. I don't know about redesigning on the fly. And certainly I think if there was a, if there was a will and we're certain we're compliant with parking now. So, I mean, I think that that could be part of this conversation if the board would be willing.
[Yvette Velez]: I'm sorry, to clarify, I meant the parking in front of the building for the public. Like was that parking the same? I'm not talking about the parking for the building. I see that clearly and that's fine. And I understand that the parking in the front of the building on Broadway Street, like that's not,
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, oh yes. And I'm sorry, I was answering your second question. So yes, you're correct. Yeah, so to your first question, correct. It's a trade of the existing curb cut will be the same curb cut. So there will be no reduction in off street, I'm sorry, on street parking. But to your second question, currently we're compliant with the parking requirements. And I think that, I mean, if there was an interest in the board in allowing for an additional variance for a reduction in parking to provide more spaces for bike parking or bike storage, I think that's certainly something we could consider. I don't know how to deal with the logistics of that approval without the plan, but I think it's certainly something to take under consideration.
[Unidentified]: Since we're doing some questioning now, Attorney Bernofsky, could I ask you just to elaborate a little bit more on the split lot issue as it pertains to, what's this question? You know, the circumstances condition giving rise to the hardship?
[Adam Barnosky]: Yeah, absolutely. So, so the issue that I was talking about was that this is the, the shape of the lot here, the shape of the lot, subject to the approvals before the board tonight is a square law. And it's square law is created by virtue of the municipal municipal boundary line that cuts the parcel. So while the property is a long and narrow property like the title to the property is long and narrow, which is like, almost, I would say 75. specific zoning district. But by virtue of the split, it is now a square lot, and the square lot is viewed under the confines of the zoning bylaw. And that makes the shape unique to the zoning district and the circumstances which surround the creation of that shape, particularly with no frontage and no access to a public way when you're looking at it kind of as an island, which is unfortunately the way that it has to be viewed when you're looking at a lot that's subject to two municipal codes.
[Unidentified]: So I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So essentially, HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.: : What you're saying is that the board should be making the determination as if HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.: : Though, as if it were a square back lot and then on a different sort of that the Medford portion is its own lot you're you're saying in terms of the shape HAB-Jacques Juilland, Mo.:
[Adam Barnosky]: : Yeah, exactly. Because that is the way in which the building commissioner has to review the plans that's up it's reviewed only under the confines of the portion of the property in Medford and so that property is this square lot and by its nature and the creation of this square lot is is unique And it has circumstances, which are characteristic to it, which are unique to others in the zoning district. I mean this is a you know there are not other lots there are only a few other lots and zoning district in the city, which have a of a municipal boundary line that cuts through it. And it's only because of that shape and municipal boundary line that creates the hardship here, which is that you can't do anything because of it. But for the municipal boundary line, and therefore, but for the square shape of the lot, the entire property, the deeded property, would have available to it larger setbacks, larger dimensions, and with that, the opportunity to build more in line with the other properties in the zoning district.
[Unidentified]: If the whole parcel, not just the portion in Medford, but the whole parcel were entirely contained in Medford, would the relief, would the same relief be needed?
[Adam Barnosky]: That's a good question. I think, honestly, I think that some of the relief would be needed for this parcel. But what I think would happen in reality is if all of this property was located in Somerville, this would be a buy-write project. If all of the property was located in Medford, you'd probably have what I would anticipate would be a reconstruction of a pre-existing non-conforming that's there currently, and it would probably, you know, try to seek relief via, you know, that whole line of cases of extensions of nonconforming uses. So I assume that if the building was all in, I'm sorry, if the property was all in Bedford, you'd have a different project before you get to that.
[Unidentified]: You mean just because of the location of that building?
[Adam Barnosky]: Because the location of the current building and because of the confines of the zoning bylaw. I don't know that you would have the same you wouldn't have the same uniqueness in the shape and all of those characteristics if the entire property was located in the city.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. And if the whole property, sure. If the whole property were in Medford and let's say nothing were built on it, I guess I'm just, I'm trying to get a sense of dimensionally, does something, does the relief being requested change dimensionally if we remove that boundary line, the split lot issue?
[Adam Barnosky]: Does that make sense? It does make sense. I've got to do some calculations on the fly.
[Unidentified]: If you want to take a minute to do that, I'm sure that'll come up again in deliberation. I just want to make sure I'm understanding what the grounds would be. So you don't have to answer that right now. Does anyone else have a question for right now, or do we want to move to public comment?
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to open public comment for 595 Broadway. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And then all in favor, Yvette? Aye. Andre? Mike? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Chaplain is aye. Okay. Dennis, do we have anyone who wants to speak?
[Denis MacDougall]: Even that there is nobody on this call, but the members of the board, members of the team or members of city staff, I think we're probably.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and you don't have any emails?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I received no emails about this.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Could I get a motion, please, to close public portion of the hearing and open deliberations?
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And all in favor of that. Hi, Andre. Jamie. Hi, Mike. Hi, Jacqueline. Okay, folks, what do you think?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so for me personally, I, I find the hardship argument to be compelling. Um, at the end of the day, uh, there doesn't seem to be many combined or uses that would be consistent with what each of the communities are trying to, um, accomplish. And while I acknowledge that, I am at least not aware of a very clear precedent as to sort of what the procedure should be in situations like this in terms of what, you know, which zoning bylaw should sort of take precedent here. But I mean, the entrance to the buildings in Somerville, it's, It's basically just a island in Medford with no access, you know, without that piece. And so, yeah, I think uniqueness has been established. I think we could talk about some of the specific, you know, dimensional elements and what the right consideration is there. But overall, I think the project's in good taste. I don't see this as an attempt to derogate from the intent of the bylaws. It's just an unfortunate situation where the property is in two different jurisdictions. And then also, we'll talk about it at some point in this discussion, but I do value the recommendation made by the CD board. I know they're looking at something a little bit different than we do. We have department heads in support. When I think about the impact on the neighborhood, I don't see a lot of risk in approving some of the dimensional variances here to support the project.
[Yvette Velez]: I would just add that I like the look of this building and in this space and the neighborhood that it's located in, it's fitting and it does actually upgrade in the surrounding area. I appreciate that the various materials that were used. So it doesn't just look like a rectangular box completely and that there's balconies and the parking underground. is appreciated without taking away from parking from the public in the front.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. When I first was looking at this project, I wanted to make sure I understood the The impact of the split lot, which I feel like I have a better handle of that now. It's funny. I feel like when I look at this and I see the like this long list of variances that are being requested. But So sort of on their face, it seems like it's a lot of relief, but when I actually look at the project, it doesn't seem as though the relief being requested is very dramatic. My concern was mostly when I'm looking at, you know, do we have those initial conditions and the situation created by that split lot, I, if I'm understanding correctly what Attorney Bronski has said and what I've seen in the submissions, I think that that is satisfied. And I also think that it, I'm understanding essentially the Venn diagram of between Medford and Somerville, what could be built here by right. It's like two circles that don't touch each other. And there's certainly a public interest in Um, not having properties where nothing could be done by right or it could be nothing could be done. Um, I think the. The scope of what's being asked for seems appropriate for the neighborhood, keeping in character with what we've seen in the neighborhood as well. It looks like a thoughtful design.
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline just 11 thing to add. So so like in terms of the uses, um. So the multifamily is an allowed use for us as well in the C1 district. And then, yeah, if it was essentially a commercial use, well, the entrance to that business would be in Somerville, in a neighborhood where they don't want any commercial, really.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: the intent for both bylaws, it's clear, you know, there's an attempt to stick with it in the sense that, you know, this is the one use that's kind of consistent across them, even if the dimensional requirements are a bit different.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. So maybe the center of the Venn diagram is the, um, the, what am I doing? The, uh, multiple, sorry, folks, it's late. I'm losing my vocabulary. Um, the, What's the exact use that we're looking at right now? Sorry. Attorney Bronski. Thank you. Yeah, so maybe that's the center of the Venn diagram, but just for relief needed. Anyone, any other thoughts?
[Andre Leroux]: She'll say that. We'll go ahead. I'll just say no issue with granting variances on this project. It's understandable with the split lot. And I think that we are getting a really quality project here that's consistent with development at the neighborhood. So there's no adverse impact that I see.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I was just going to say, so I think it's worth mentioning, especially for the public, that the CD board has reviewed this. And so there's seven different standards they're supposed to assess. And they found that those were all met. And they did impose eight conditions. I don't know if we want to read those all. One of those conditions pertain to complying with the recommendations of some of the Medford City Department heads as well. So yeah, before we vote, I think we certainly need to make it clear that this would all be subject to those conditions, but I just wanted to mention that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, agreed. And they're a little bit, like you said, they're sort of referring to each other a little bit. So I have them, I can just go through them so we have them on the record. The letter from the Community Development Board said that in accordance with the Medford zoning ordinance, the Community Development Board found that the standards that are listed in section 11.7.10 to site plan were met provided, or rather that that conclusion is premised on satisfaction of these conditions. The conditions are one, that the proponent install electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the parking area on the ground level of the building. We've seen that that's been done. Two, that the proponent strongly consider reducing the number of parking spaces offered at the building in accordance with Medford's current zoning for transit-oriented development areas, making each remaining space larger to accommodate vehicles on site and then replacing to the fullest extent practical the resulting extra impervious surfaces with natural landscaping. I believe that we've seen that that's done as well. Three, that the proponent work with the engineering division to provide soil testing to the reasonable satisfaction of said department to demonstrate that the infiltration system located in Medford will function as intended regarding the proposed infiltration rate and the elevation of the system as it relates to the estimated seasonal high groundwater table. Four, that the proponent construct and install a second means of egress by way of a step-out on the west side of the project to allow people to exit the project, even if a vehicle is blocking egress in the driveline to the right and southeast of the building, unless it is determined by the proponent and the Medford building department not to be feasible. Five, that the proponent ensures that the wall height at the sidewalk and the vegetation height slash canopy at the sidewalk and driveway are within the acceptable range of providing good, quote, driver height sight lines. Six, that the proponent comply with the recommendations of Fire Chief John Friedman, subject to the response memo from Peter Quinn, Friends, August 17th, 2022, and subsequent understandings reached between Chief Friedman and the proponent seven, that there be compliance with recommendations by the following department heads and letters addressed to Jacqueline Dardy, Esquire, Chair of Zoning Board of Appeals. And those department heads are Marianne O'Connor, Director of Public Health, Friends, August 11, 2022 correspondence, and Owen Wartella, City Engineer, and Todd Blake, Director of Transportation. And that's correspondence from August 11, 2022. we'll get to those in one second. And then eight, that the project is subject to the city's linkage fees. So those are the recommendations from the Community Development Board. Just to clarify my understanding, the applicant is amenable to all of those conditions, Attorney Bronski? Or Noski? Yes. Okay, perfect. All right, that's seventh one, the recommendations from the department heads. And this was Director of Public Health. And let me just see, I think I have these. Ready to go as well. Let's see. Just bear with me for a quick second. Okay, so from Marianne O'Connor, Director of the Board of Health. Let's see. This is quite long actually. So maybe what I'll just do is ask you this. You said that the applicant is amenable to including all of those conditions, including the, has the applicant had a chance to review those letters that I mentioned?
[Adam Barnosky]: Madam Chair, are the letters that you mentioned, were they included in the recommendation from the community development board or have they been subsequently provided to the zoning board?
[Unidentified]: They're included in the letter from the Community Development Board, specifically cited in that letter. They're from August 11th, and the Community Development Letter is August 24th.
[Adam Barnosky]: No objection to their inclusion, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. So we're all set on that front. Okay, anything else that folks wanna chat about, or are we ready for a vote? Ready for a vote? Okay, does someone wanna make a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I motion to approve the requested variances. By the way, I did look through, I don't think any of the remaining relief required is special permit based, so I think it is all variances, I just want to say that. So I motion to approve the requested variances for 595 Broadway, subject to the eight conditions proposed by the Community Development Board.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and just I'll just say, and, um, these are the ones that I have minimum lot area, minimum lot, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot with minimum usable open space, minimal front yard setback, minimal side yard setback left, not minimal, minimum, minimum side yard setback right. entrance and exit drives to the applicant, is that correct?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, that is correct, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Perfect, all right, do we have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Okay, given our discussion, I'm not gonna break these down. It sounds like people are okay with that. So I will do by roll call vote. Hang on, let me just write everybody's names down. Okay, Yvette? Aye. Jamie? Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, Attorney Warnofsky, we will have the decision to you shortly.
[Adam Barnosky]: Thank you very much.
[Unidentified]: You are very welcome. Appreciate it. Yeah, absolutely. Have a nice night, folks. Thanks for waiting. You folks are all set. The board has to go through a few more things, but you folks are all set. Okay, so next we have administrative updates. Dennis, do we have any administrative updates apart from the fact that we have a wonderful new building commissioner? That is the lead.
[Denis MacDougall]: We are expecting to receive the 40B application very shortly.
[Vasudevan]: Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. So, um, I don't know when it could be as soon as tomorrow. You're just, they were working on it and they're, they want to get it to us as quickly as they can. So, um, It's very possible that that may, if it does, we will let you know, and we'll have to set up just the initial meeting, which will be just basically a very, pretty much opening meeting, which will have to be done within 30 days. So that sort of puts a bit of a time crunch on it for us, but.
[Unidentified]: You know, it's, it won't be a, this is only this first step so we've got a while to go with this so this is as they sort of said this is just going to be, we open it up, and then set a schedule for other meetings. Okay. All right. So we'll, we'll look to see that when that comes in.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. And aside from that, there's really nothing else new.
[Unidentified]: OK. Meeting minutes? Yes. Yes. So I saw you sent those out. I didn't have any edits. Did everyone get a chance to review those? But I wasn't there, so I believe I have to abstain. I think you had a question. Um, so I just need to correct my name to Jamie from James. Oh, okay. So it's James. Um, can we approve with three people? Yeah, I would think so. It's just a variance where we have to have four, right? Mike, do you know? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, uh, Mike, any edits?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so my name was correct in the front, but I think there's at least one reference that's so.
[Unidentified]: Oh, you should have seen I was trying to do something. I can't remember. And I spelled Andre's name like five different ways within one thing. And I was just like, oh God. So yeah. Okay. So pending corrections to Jamie and Mike's names. Do we want to, can I get a motion to approve?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to approve the meeting minutes.
[Unidentified]: subject to the updates to the two names. Okay, and all in favor, Mike? Yes. Jamie? Aye. Jacqueline is yes. Okay, folks, that is our wild and fun meeting. Bill, we don't usually run this late. I was gonna say, it's way past my bedtime. really fun, long-meaning welcome.
[Bill Forte]: No, that's great. It was a pleasure being here. And I, this is where you learn, you know what I mean? Is really where the rubber hits the road here. So, you know, it's great. We're done by 1030.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Oh, good to know. Yeah. That's great. It really is a pleasure to meet you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you so much for joining. We really appreciate it.
[Bill Forte]: Great. Terrific. We'll see you next time. Anytime, please feel free to reach out. I'm learning, you know, tons by the day, but you know, it's gonna you know it's a it's a big zoning on that you know. It is yeah I mean it's smaller it's smaller than the one that i'm used to but it's bigger because I don't know where anything is it's like.
[Vasudevan]: it's like. Did you get a copy of the. The word document. I just find that that one's easy.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I sure did. Yeah. And I'm just trying to decipher which is the correct version because I don't want to be ruling from, you know, some of the older versions of the newer ones and I try to get it from the city clerks couple times and I got a couple different versions so the old zoning audits I think currently we're under the uh, zoning ordinance that was voted in on March 22nd. Correct. That's right. That's the one we're following. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm going to have some recommended changes as time goes on, you know, and certainly, um, you know, I may have some recommendations for you as a, as a board as well, maybe some housekeeping stuff, you know?
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Great. We're, we're, um, we're all happy to hear whatever you've got for us.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Well, thanks so much.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you for your hospitality.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. All right.
[Bill Forte]: I'm going to bed. That's it.
[Vasudevan]: All right.
[Bill Forte]: Take care.
[Vasudevan]: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Motion to adjourn, please.
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn.
[Vasudevan]: Okay. All in favor. Hi, everybody.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. Thanks, Dennis. Yep.