[Denis MacDougall]: On February 12, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law a supplement to COVID-19 fiscal appropriations, an extension through July 15, 2022, of certain authorizations related to public meetings. This new law extends the remote meeting provisions of the governor's March 12, 2020, executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. In accordance with the 2020 executive order, this meeting of the City of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted totally via remote participation using Zoom, including committee members and the public. The use of Zoom complies with the laws requirement to provide live, adequate, alternative means of public access to the deliberations of the public body instead of holding meetings in a public place that is open and physically accessible to the public. Persons would like to listen or view this meeting while in progress may do so by using the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the City of Medford website. If despite our best efforts, we're not able to provide for real-time access, we will post a record of this meeting on the City's website in the near future at the link provided in the meeting agenda.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Dennis. Folks, before we get started, just wanted to let everybody know we are a five-member board. One member is not here tonight, but we do have four members, so we have a quorum and we're able to hear and deliberate and vote on these issues. With four of us on a variance, for a variance to pass, all four members would need to vote in the affirmative. Okay, so Dennis, what do we have up first?
[Denis MacDougall]: Before port street based number a dash 2022 dash oh five applicant and owner 64 Court Street LLC is petitioning for variance in the chapter 94 city methods owning to construct a second story addition and perform renovations to an existing non conforming single family dwelling and convert the structure to a two family dwelling in the general residence district allowed use with insufficient lot area lot with inside yard setback.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And see the applicant. Oh, attorney does.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes. Yeah. Good evening, Madam Chair, board members. Okay, the petition before you seeks relief by way of findings or variances to construct two modest second floor additions and convert the existing four bedroom, single family dwelling to a two family dwelling and allowed use within the district. I have with me this evening, john light body, the petitioner manager of 64 Court Street LLC, and the project architect john Lloyd of JPL consultants in Revere. By way of background, the subject property 64 Court Street is located off of Salem Street in the Glenwood neighborhood. Court Street is a public one-way street, and 64 Court Street is situated at the lower end of the street beyond the Roberts Elementary School and closer to the George Hicks Playground. The subject dwelling sits on a 4,940 square foot parcel of land, the existing lot area being non-conforming by approximately 60 square feet. The conversion to a two-family dwelling will increase the deficiency by 1,000 square feet. The structure is also presently nonconforming with respect to width, front and side yard setback. With respect to front and side yard setback, those will remain existing and there will be no increase in the nonconformity. The existing side yard setback is deficient by approximately 6.4 feet. And I can, Dennis, if you allow me to share my screen, I can put up the site plan. Can everybody see that?
[Unidentified]: Okay, so.
[Kathleen Desmond]: The existing deficiency on the northerly side is 6.4 feet. You can see here that the distance from the existing house to the side lot is 1.1 feet. In great part, this is caused by the fact that the house is not centrally positioned on the lot. And so you have 13.2 feet as a distance from the house to the southerly lot line. The front yard setback at its closest point is 10.1 feet. And so that is a deficiency, although, and I didn't have the surveyor's measure, but in looking at the area plan, I think this would fall within the exception of 94-172, because all the houses are within that 10 feet, within 150 feet, they are close to the street, probably 10.1 feet. So whether or not that's deficient, I guess is a question, but we're not intending to increase that nonconformity in any way. The width of the lot is presently constituted is deficient. The required width for a single family lot is 50 feet and the width is 40. The conversion to a two family will increase that nonconformity of lot width by an additional 10 feet. However, the lot as you can see is narrow and deep in shape. The depth of the lot is actually twice as what is required or 120.53 feet. There is presently a shared driveway, and he's been for for the adjacent owner to use the driveway, and that leads to the parking area and as you can see on the site plan. We do have the four required spaces and the parking spaces meet both the requirement in number and size. I think it's significant to note, because we all know that the city council has passed the revisions to the zoning ordinance. It hasn't been signed yet by the mayor, but that would reduce the required spaces to three spaces. So we have the required four spaces at this point, But if the required spaces were to to decrease, and they weren't needed, then you would have more green space. The dwelling itself is generous in size containing four bedrooms in approximately 1793 square feet of gross floor area. The structure has not been maintained over the years needs significant interior work, the intent to renovate the property. The intent is to renovate the property and market it as a two family dwelling. With respect to the conversions, and I'll let john light body take you through those. The plan proposes to small second floor rear, a small second floor rear addition over the existing roofline of the first floor, and a small addition on the southerly side, adjacent to the common area where again you have a roof line on the first floor with no second floor. What this essentially will do is create a full second floor. In terms of lot coverage, it's gonna increase by 1%. Currently the lot coverage is 22.3%. The maximum required is 35. And I think it's significant to note too for single that that lot coverage increases to 40%. We're also the height as well within the requirements, I believe, I thought I had it here I know it's on the zoning eval, I think it's 22.7 feet, and the maximum height is 35 feet. So, excuse me.
[Unidentified]: Oh, I said it is 22.7.
[Kathleen Desmond]: 22.7, okay. So, you know, what we're dealing with here is a nonconforming lot and structure. We're not creating any new nonconformities. They're all existing. There is, however, an increase in nonconformity. as to lot area and width. And with that, I'll turn it over to John Lightbody. He can take you through the plans in more detail, and then I guess we can wrap up with what we're requesting for relief and what the standard is that would apply. John, are you there?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes, Kathy, actually John Lloyd here. I think you wanted me to do that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay. Good evening, members of the board. If I may maybe share my screen, I could just go through the floor plans and elevations. Um, and just go through sheet by sheet. Go ahead.
[Denis MacDougall]: You can go ahead and share.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_06]: Can everybody see this A1.0 sheet?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_06]: OK. Just wanted to make sure I was on there. So this is just the existing basement. It's an unfinished basement. And it's going to remain an unfinished basement with utilities and storage. You'll see these are the existing plans. The first floor is essentially gonna be remodeled, slightly different layout to include an additional bedroom for that first unit that we are proposing out of the two units. You can see the second floor plan, you can see the roof. areas that are not developed and when you see the elevations you'll see how the roof line a lot of the space on that second floor is probably below a habitable height to not allow a lot of living space And you'll see why we're proposing the full second floor. So we're still keeping this within a two and a half story structure for that matter. Here's the proposed first floor. Again, it's the same footprint. We just rearranged some areas to get a two bedroom unit here. The unit size livable space is 933 square feet. I can go through the actual gross square footage existing and proposed at the end of this, if you would like. So I'll just continue going through what we're doing. That's okay. Okay, so the proposed second floor, you can see we are proposing an addition to the rear here. This is probably about 278 square feet of addition over the existing footprint. And then there's an area in this area on the first floor that we're gonna infill. to include floor area for that second floor unit number two, which would be about a thousand square foot total of livable space up there. I think that might be a little calculation issue with that, but that's why I will go through existing and proposed gross square footage so you could see what we're doing after this. This is just another option on floor layout for the owners on developers to see what we could do for a floor plan, still the same footprint. This is a roof plan with attic space showing you how we're gonna pitch the roof. This is the existing front and rear elevation. You can see how the roof lines are low to that second floor, which did not give a lot of headroom on that second floor to give you much floor area. This is the left side, the driveway side. you'll see a lot of the addition on the proposed sheet that is for this left side elevation as we get there. So this is the proposed front and rear. On the front, you can see we're just going up on the same footprint with a, you know, a gable roof and similar to what was there, but again, taking up the full width of the footprint. This is the rear second floor addition. This area on the right here is beyond, and that would be the area that we're infilling from before. This would be an egress, second egress for the second floor unit. And here's that left side, looking at it from the driveway. where we infill this area. We kept this open because there's a bulkhead access at the first floor to get to the basement. And this is the second floor addition to the rear of the house. So that's it for the floor plans and elevations. If I can, the existing footprint of the first floor is 1,076 square feet. We're proposing 1,076 square feet for that first floor. The second floor, the existing footprint is 717 square feet, and we're proposing 1,147.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, could you say those two numbers one more time for me?
[SPEAKER_06]: I'm sure, I'm sorry. The second floor?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, please.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, the second floor existing is 717 square feet. And we're proposing 1147. Okay, thank you so much. So I guess the existing total is 1793. The proposed total is 2223.
[Unidentified]: So we're adding 430 square feet.
[SPEAKER_06]: of second floor addition. As I mentioned, about 278 of that is the rear and 152 is on the front driveway side of the building.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_06]: I can leave this up for during questions if you want, or if you want me to unshare, I will.
[Unidentified]: I think for right now we can we can take it down and we can always put it back up if we need to. Sure, thanks so much. Attorney Desmond, did you have anything else?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, in terms of, I think, and I guess I'll defer to the board on this, but this is a situation where under Diedrich and also under Belalta, we're not creating any new new violations. And so I think I can go through the variance standards if you like, but I think this calls for a finding under chapter 48, section six, based on the increase in nonconformity.
[Unidentified]: Sure. So I think maybe that might be a good idea. Taking a look at this, I think that that's correct. For everybody listening, we have two options that have been proposed here. One is the applicant has said that they believe that this petition, this application is appropriate for a finding, which would mean that the board would need to determine that the proposal, the addition, the expansion, the alteration is increasing a non-conforming aspect or aspects of the structure that already exists. So we have to make a determination, we have to identify the specific non conformities which is what the applicant and Council have been discussing, then we have to determine what this new proposal be increasing the nature of those non conformities or potentially adding more non conformities which they've stated it has. And then the determination by the board would be a finding as to whether or not the increase or the addition of these nonconformities is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So that's what we're talking about right now. And that's a different analysis that we make as opposed to when we go through the steps for the variance and we discuss the four prongs for the variance. So this is a distinct legal analysis that we would be making. Okay, so I think this is appropriate for a determination on a finding. Everyone else on the board, do you agree? Do you want to have Attorney Desmond go through the variance standards? What do we think?
[Mike Caldera]: So my point of uncertainty is surrounding how with the proposed structure, some of the dimensional requirements change. And so Attorney Desmond mentioned Dietrich and Vellalta. I'm not sure if in either of those cases, the proposed new structure kind of like, for example, in this case, the lot area requirement for one family is 5,000. for a two family is 6,000. And so that's the part I'm unclear on. And so I wasn't sure if Attorney Desmond's aware of any precedent specifically surrounding those cases.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, Belalta and those cases indicate that you first look at what you have, whether you have, and Diedrich as well. And up until Belalta, that was the standard. And the standard was whether you're creating any new and separate non-conformity. And in this particular case, the lot area as it currently stands is 4,960 square feet. So it doesn't conform to what's required for lot area. So it's already non-conformity. Under Balalti, after you make that determination, you then determine whether the increase is detrimental to the neighborhood. Actually, this is similar to a case that we had back in October, Mr. Caldera, before you were with the board. It was a little bit different in the sense that in that particular case, it was the same thing with regard to structure and lot size. But with parking, we couldn't accommodate the four spaces, so we only had three spaces. So in that instance, we required a variance with respect to the parking area and the parking plan, but with regard to the structure and where the use was allowed, it only required a finding.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Attorney Desmond, specifically the thing that has me uncertain in this case is that, so hypothetically, let's say the lot was, I think it's 60 square feet larger. then this would no longer be an existing nonconformity, and so a variance would be required. And so I was just curious if these prior cases involved scenarios where like the actual threshold is changing as well, because it seems a bit funky to me how you could have a larger lot and require a variance, but because a lot smaller than it qualifies for a finding. So that was the only thing. I totally understand for the other ones, but for the two dimensions where it goes from 5,000 to 6,000 and then from 50 to 60,
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I think Belalta is that case, but in a different sense. So in other words, in that instance, there was a dormer, I believe, if I recall correctly. And while that case is a little bit different, because in that case, actually, it created an additional nonconformity. And Belalta said, we don't care either way. And that hasn't You know, I think that's where the case law is going on that, but in that case, it clearly created a new nonconformity. It wasn't a extension of an existing nonconformity and cases. And I believe a lot of says, cause I think there's a dissent on that case. And if I didn't include it, I apologize. I thought I did, but you know, I've relied on it so long that I, you know, and I should have thought of that. If it didn't, then I can provide it.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Desmond, I think you're right. And just to pause, I just want to make sure everyone listening understands, folks, what we're talking about is that there's an appellate court case in Massachusetts that has a set of standards that we need to apply when we go through this finding. So that's what we're trying to make sure that we're applying the right standard. Attorney Desmond, I think that Belalta, if I'm remembering correctly, Belalta said that it still can be subject to a finding, even if you are creating new nonconformities, provided that the board determines that either the increase in nonconformities or the addition of nonconformities, the overall nonconforming nature the increases or additions to that are not substantially more detrimental.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And this was a Supreme Judicial Court case. It was an SJC case, not an appellate case. And there had been a split between the appellate cases with Diedrich and Gale as to what applied. And everyone had been applying Diedrich, which said, if you've got a new nonconformity, then that requires a variance. If you don't have a new nonconformity, then that doesn't. And there's a dissent, I think it's in Balalta, which says basically we don't care. And I don't mean that in a harsh way, but we understand that if you have a conforming lot, that you need a variance, but we're not gonna require, and this is related to single and two-family homes, we're not gonna require that with a non-conforming structure. So yeah, that's the way it plays out, that's the way it is.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thanks for clarifying. In that case, I'm fine proceeding as a finding.
[Unidentified]: And then just one other thought on that, Mike, and also Attorney Desmond, I'm not aware of any cases that say that if the, I think Mike, to your point, it was, if we're going from a single family to a two family and the requirement is changing, the 5,000 to 6,000 or the 50 to 60, I'm not aware of any cases, and Attorney Desmond, correct me if I missed something, that say that that changes the analysis that we're doing under Belalta? Nonconforming nature is still the nature of the structure, not necessarily the requirement around it, right?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, right. And that case dealt with a dormer. And the only thing that they didn't do in Belalta was strike down Diedrich, because the question wasn't before them specifically. So they didn't specifically deal with it.
[Unidentified]: They do love to do that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, they do.
[Unidentified]: Um, okay. So I think, um, and you know, we still, if we, if we, um, if we find, um, if the determination is not in the applicant's favor on the finding, um, you did apply also you in the application, you did, um, go through the steps of the variant. So we can always revisit that if we need to. Um, but I think it sounds like the board is in agreement that we can proceed at the moment on the finding.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So in terms of more substantial detriment to the neighborhood. The plan maintains, although on the on the newer plans, it in the existing it shows a den if you look at the assessors. It shows that it's a four bedroom and that one on the first floor clearly has a closet area so it could be a four bedroom and we're not changing that. And, and both units will only have one bath. So, both units are two bedrooms, one bath. They're modest in size. It's 1000 square feet and change on the second floor. and 933 on the first floor. It's not likely to increase the congestion a density to a purchase a renter going from a single to a two, because again here, you have four bedrooms, and we're not changing that we're not increasing it so that you have an additional bedroom where you may have more individuals residing in the property. As indicated, the structure will comply comfortably with lot coverage. I think it is significant to note that on a single family, if you wanted to do an addition on this property, your lot coverage could go up to 40% of the existing lot. This is 23% of the lot coverage, because we're not really changing the footprint of the structure. In terms of height, again, the maximum height is 35 feet, and we're keeping it within 22, which is well under what is permissible. With regard to parking, we have the spaces for parking. I think it's significant to note that this is a one-way street and that it's on the lower end of Court Street beyond the school area, close to the park. I have Dennis, can I share my screen? I pulled the walkability. Let me see if it's this one, I hope it is. Yeah, so you can go online and find these and I'm not so sure exactly what the science is and that it's not an expert certainly, or maybe it is, I don't know. But they score these and your walk score in this particular area is 71%. Your transits 47, there are a number of bus lines off of Salem road which is walking distance. I think there were five bus lines within point two miles of the property so there's not necessarily and you're near the shopping center and I think there's Let me see, go down here. Most errands can be accomplished on foot. There's 37 restaurants, coffee shops in that particular area. I think you also have the Target Plaza, which is probably within walking or biking distance. In terms of density and increased traffic, I think there's a lot more options here and it's a good score from the perspective of walkability. If you look at the apartment one, the area plan as well, you'll see in the neighborhood outlined in red, those two families, in the area. It's an allowed use, but you'll also see that many of them are on lots less than 5,000 square feet. And many of them take up a great portion of the lot in comparison to this lot. You can see the narrowness of this lot and the depth of it allows us to have the parking that we wouldn't otherwise have. The other thing that I've been thinking about Is it under the new code, you also have the success story dwelling availability, which parks your unit. at 900 square feet for a single family can add as an accessory dwelling unit. And this, you know, we're within 30 square feet essentially of what would be allowed on an accessory unit. So theoretically under that situation, even if this were to remain a single family as opposed to a two, you may have that option in that regard because it is, again, it has gone through city council, It hasn't been approved by the mayor, but I think this project would fall possibly within that, but that's in a single family residence zone that that's even going to be allowed. And this is a two family zone. So, I think that this comfortably meets the requirements and isn't detrimental to the neighborhood in terms of moving this to a two family unit. The use is allowed in the district. I think it makes sense in this instance. With respect to the structure itself, and maybe that's two separate questions, and I think it probably is, with regard to the additions, they're nothing that would be extraordinary in the sense of even a single family unit. They're two small additions, 430 square feet total over the existing roof lines of what is essentially a one and three quarter. Um, Story house as opposed to a two. Um, so I don't think that anything here is, is going beyond what's required for the district. Um, and we have the parking, which, um, again, um, I know that in these cases, cause I've been doing it for quite some time that the parking and the traffic, um, are the things that cause the most angst among neighbors and, and it wouldn't be any need for, um, on street parking in this instance. even under the more conservative four parking spaces versus three, which is, I believe, where this is going in a general residence district.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Okay, do we want to open up for public comment? Can I get someone to make a motion? Can never remember if we formally do it, but let's just formally do it.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open the public comment portion of the hearing for 64 Court Street.
[Unidentified]: Can I get a second?
[SPEAKER_03]: Second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor?
[SPEAKER_03]: Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. OK. Dennis, who do we have?
[Denis MacDougall]: If any folks wish to speak, you can just either like raise your hand or give a, there's little reactions on this where you can, you know, do that or something along those lines, just to let us know. So I believe I saw Barb, you put your hand up. So we'll start with you. And all we ask is that you give your name and your address for the record.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hi, thank you. My name is Barbara Siftar and I live at 59 Court Street. So that's on the opposite side of the street and two houses over. I agree that the modifications asked for are pretty modest in terms of what I've seen going on in this neighborhood, which are some kind of pretty big behemoths going up. And my only comment about the impact to the neighborhood is that I think single family dwellings anchor a neighborhood better with longer term residents that allow for folks with families that would stay longer and be able to use this very unique area, which is within super close and safe walking distance to an elementary school, and then a park at the end of the street. And I don't think you find that in many places. And I think it would be a little bit of a waste to go to a two family where it's gonna be mostly couples or someone with very small children or an older couple or something like that, which doesn't really anchor a neighborhood in the same way. I think there's also possibility of, even if a single family dwelling would have the opportunity to put in a garage and still allow some green space you know, in a deep lot where kids can play and you can continue to have livable space. So that's my only comment about that. So anchoring the community with families in this particular neighborhood with such good access to school and park. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Dennis, who's next?
[Denis MacDougall]: I didn't see anyone else and no one else put up a little symbol.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, if I could just address that comment with respect to short. So as I indicated, the petitioner intends to market this as a as a two family not condos. And so you know, this isn't a situation and I do a lot of real estate and it's no secret what the market is in terms of affordability. And certainly something of this nature where you could rent the one of the units and maintain it as owner occupied. It certainly gives someone starting out the ability to probably qualify for mortgage in the first place and also the ability to make the mortgage payment. And I think there's been a recognition by the city council in that sense, in that we're moving or the city's moving towards allowing accessory dwellings and in single family units for that very purpose so that people have the ability to take on a mortgage, maintain their home, buy that home. Because while I appreciate what your comment is with regard to single families for many, and I have two 20 somethings and they're both living here. It's something that gives them people affordability you know, to enter the market. And that's something that's also important. And even with condos, it gives people the ability to enter the market and then build some equity. And maybe they can afford at some point another single home in the community. But the affordability aspect of this and the ability to be able to bring in additional income, I think is important. And this isn't unlike what is going to be permitted in the SF districts with the accessory dwelling unit.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Okay, could I get a motion to close the public comment and open deliberations, please? Motion to close the public comments. Second. Second. Second. Oh, so Mike has second. Okay, all in favor?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Okay. All right, so before we go into it, Mr. Malerba, did you have anything that you wanted to, I forgot to ask you this before we went to public comment, that you wanted to add?
[SPEAKER_08]: No, I am familiar with the property. I've been there before. I do think the proposed design with the roofline is a good idea. better than how it looks now. As far as in all conformities, it's an undersized lot, but they're just staying within the existing footprint. They have the parking in the rear, so I don't see any major issues.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Thank you so much. All right, folks, what do we think?
[Yvette Velez]: So I have a question, is the parking in the rear that is going to be created or is the blacktop already there? And then my follow-up question, of course, is like, where does the trash go? If it's, you're moving more cars in the spaces and you've extended the, you know, where I think the trash was or would have been, previous to this upgrade. And then my final question and thought is in regards to with the increased parking in the back, if the fencing would be addressed, or if there's gonna be additional greenery so that the abutting properties wouldn't see the cars, or if there hasn't been any discussion with neighbors, whether or not that would affect them in any way, or if they're comfortable with you with the design that's been put forward, if you've heard anything.
[Kathleen Desmond]: John Lightbody is here, and he has spoken with both of the adjacent neighbors, so I can let him speak to that issue. There is not, I do not believe that there's pavement there now, Yvette, and I know the board has conditioned in past cases that we use the pavers instead, and actually that would allow for a patio area in the event that there's no need for four vehicles. I know I had a client recently in Somerville who indicated that he went to great lengths to survey the property to make sure that he had the required parking spaces. And then he went to the visit the people after he moved in and they had no cars. So he went crazy trying to make sure that there was parking. available, and in the end they didn't need it. So the pervious pavers would give us the ability to set up a patio area in the event that the occupants didn't require that. With regard to trash, and I'll let John speak to this, but there is the intent to keep a shed, which is located at the back portion of the property behind the parking area. And if I can share my screen, I can show you. Site plan, maybe I can't. All right, I'm just gonna hit things until I know. Nope, I can't. I'm sorry, I can't get to the... No, no, take your time. Yeah, well, that's not gonna help me, because I can't get below the... No.
[SPEAKER_06]: Kathy, you want me to put the site plan up where there was?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, that would be great, because the US screen sharing is in my way, and I can't manage to move it. Can you put it up, John? So there's the shed here, and I would assume that would be available to store trash containers. And there's also the bulkhead area, so I don't know if the basement area is another option. John, can you address that?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, this area is covered. And the bulkhead is pretty much flush with up on a on a step I mean you probably could. put barrels, I don't know if someone would want them there. There's also some area under the stairs. Again, for the second floor unit, you know, being near the first floor unit store, I mean, maybe the best place to do it would be back here in the shed or in some kind of a enclosed area. I don't know what people normally do if they have good barrels that are locked shut to keep the critters out, but there's plenty of area to put your, there are a couple barrels. It's only the two families, so I would imagine there's a recycle and a trash for each unit.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And John Lightbody is here. He can address the neighbor question. The only comment that I'll make is that, you know, there's a necessity of keeping the driveway easement open unless the neighbor wanted to somehow readjust that. John, can you address your conversations with the neighbors?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes. Yes. So the neighbor to the right of the front, her only concern was just to clean up the shrubbery along the property line, which we said, we actually started to do that already. And the, about it to the left, he had no problem at all with the, property being addressed his issue was just if the parking the driveway was going to be extended and we said everything was going to stay the same other than we're going to repave everything for him and go to the back of the parking lot with the actual asphalt for the parking john you would have no objection to pavers pervious pavers though if that were what the board chose to do no no
[Kathleen Desmond]: And with respect to the fencing, can you answer the question?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, we are putting, we'll probably put a white nylon fence, and obviously we'd be shrubbing around the property also. It'll be a six foot fence. And that's gonna go from the front of the property line to the right, all the way around to the abutters. And it's gonna go halfway down into where you would, where the dry parking spots would start. So it's gonna be closed into all the abutters in the back of the property.
[Unidentified]: It's gonna, so if I'm looking at the house from the side, the fence would be in front of the parking spots or it'll end before the parking spots?
[SPEAKER_04]: It's gonna come straight down more towards, probably where the first spot would start and the fence would end because there's an easement going into the neighbor's driveway.
[Unidentified]: Oh, right, right, got it, got it, got it, okay. Okay, thank you. Jim, Mike, any thoughts?
[Mike Caldera]: So for me, so the two nonconformities that are being intensified, the lot area and the lot width, my read is when you think about impact, it's really like, But a big portion of its footprint related or bedroom related. And so here, footprints not changing number of bedrooms isn't even changing so. So yeah, I think that. that in this case, with some of the design decisions that were made, I think they kind of helped to mitigate some of the concerns you might otherwise have with intensifying those nonconformities. And really, it's not even a true intensification, it's just a different standard for the different use. So I think the decision to keep the footprint the same, to keep the bedrooms the same, that kind of mitigates a lot of the potential negative impact that you might have by trying to add a unit on a lot that's smaller than zoning code permits. So yeah, I think the arguments made as to why this works are compelling.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I agree. Oftentimes when you start to get concerned about making a finding, I feel like is when you have something that's adding a lot of bulk or that's dwarfing the structures nearby. And particularly the way that the design has handled the roofline, it really does seem like a lot of thought was given to the impact on the neighborhood. And I agree. I was a little bit back and forth when I was first reviewing this about, you know, if you look at it just based on the numbers, like Mike, what you were saying in terms of to go from the nonconformity of 60 feet to 1,060 feet sounds like a lot, but in reality, it's not actually changing because the footprint isn't changing. And a similar thing with the width issue. So yeah, when I look through it, I'm pleased with the design and I agree the issue with the bedrooms. I had a similar question as a vet in terms of in the back, are you just gonna be looking at this big black top? You've got driveway on the side right up against the house and then black top in the back. My concern was kind of for the green space, but I think with the pavers, that seems like it'll mitigate. It sounds like there's gonna be a nice fence and the greenery. So I'm in agreement on that. Okay, Jim, anybody else have any other thoughts they wanna before we, okay. So the last time that we voted on a finding, Scott was the chair and I don't remember exactly how we structure this, but I believe we only have to do the vote on the determination because we've already identified the nonconformities We've identified the increases in the nonconformities. We're not creating any new nonconformities. And we have determined that the addition here, the expansion would increase them. So now we go to the question. Our vote is whether this increase in the nonconforming nature of the structure is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
[Mike Caldera]: I think we also need to decide when doing that vote if it's with or without the condition of the pervious pavers.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I agree. I just want to double check. Attorney Desmond, my understanding is you said that there's no objection to the condition of the pavers?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct, in the parking area. We have that easement on the drive, so I'm not so sure that we can do that without the consent of the neighbor. in the parking area, yes.
[Unidentified]: Specifically in the place of the four spots and where they'd be pulling in and out. Correct. Okay, so folks, we can talk about whether we want to add the pavers or if someone wants to. I'm inclined for the pavers. I think that we want to make sure that we're not creating something that's just this large expanse of asphalt. So that's my thought, we can talk about it more, or if someone wants to make a vote, or us, pardon, make a motion with the conditions, I'm happy to go forward on that.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I'd like to make a motion, and I think the correct one is I move, that the board find that the proposed modifications to 64 Court Street will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, subject to the condition that the back parking area have pervious pavers instead of asphalt. Does that?
[Unidentified]: I think that was perfect.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, cool.
[Unidentified]: Okay, do I have a second? Okay, um, all right, so we'll do we'll just do roll call always going forward, so we'll start backwards off of that. Yvette, how do you vote?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline, I vote yes. Okay, thank you.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I will get you those cases through Dennis so that you have them. I apologize if I didn't include them. Yeah, no worries. Yeah, okay.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and Attorney Desmond, could you send over a draft?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, absolutely. Okay, great, thank you.
[Unidentified]: And I just wanna double check, we don't have any issues in terms of deadlines on this, so I think we're all set. So just send the draft whenever you're ready. All right, thank you so much. Good night, folks. You as well. All right, Dennis, could you call the next case, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 86 Sherwood Road, case number A-2022-06. Applicant and owner Danielle Wellnitz is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to construct a two-story addition to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling in a single-family two-district allowed use with insufficient front and side yard setbacks.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Hi, folks. Hi. All right. So since you don't have an attorney, what we can do first is if you just want to let us know, you can give us a little bit of a presentation. It can be very informal. Let us know what you're asking for and why. And then we can kind of go from there.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm nervous.
[Unidentified]: But don't worry, don't be nervous. And I'll just start you off by letting you know that there is no one here on this board who hasn't made a mistake live in these meetings. It happens to everybody. So just take your time and you're gonna be fine.
[Jenny Graham]: All right. So I am a lifelong resident. Can you I'm a lifelong resident of method. We bought this house almost five years ago. Um, we just welcomed our third little girl to the family. So we are in need of a big renovation, big renovation to fit everybody. Um, we, um, got plans made up to put an addition on to the back of our house, 15 feet by 24 feet. And because we are a corner lot, we won't be in the 15 foot frontage, because it's a double frontage. We will be 12 feet by 12 feet, eight inches from the corner. I can put up the survey of our land and it shows the proposed addition.
[Unidentified]: Okay, go right ahead.
[Jenny Graham]: Do I just click it? No.
[Unidentified]: Unfortunately, I might not be the person to help you with that, but I got it.
[Jenny Graham]: I got it.
[Unidentified]: I got it.
[Jenny Graham]: OK, do you see it? Yes, OK, so the red part of the addition is the back of our yard and you can see on the corner. of the addition, it's 12, I misspoke earlier. It's 12 feet, two inches from the corner. We, yeah, it's approximately three feet deep. So basically the new addition would be kitchen. We only have one bathroom right now. So we would add a half bath down there, mudroom for all the kids stuff. And then we would build up and we would add a bedroom with another bathroom. Okay. We spoke to all of our neighbors. I attached all emails that I, they all wrote emails supporting this addition. And we want to stay in MedFed and this is our way to kind of do it. and we would appreciate.
[Unidentified]: I'm going to walk you through some of the things that we need to do as the board. One thing I just want to double check. Dennis, I didn't see a worksheet. Is there a worksheet with the application? Do you know?
[Denis MacDougall]: There was. I talked to Danielle, and she said she submitted it, and then I was trying to find it.
[Unidentified]: I may have just missed it. So if that's the case.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I may have not sent it. I was looking for a copy serve and having some issues.
[Unidentified]: Didn't I tell you that we have to do a lot of things on the fly here? So while we're just double checking on that, so for you folks and then also for everybody listening, so what is in front of us is a petition for a variance. So unlike the case we just were listening to, that was an issue of a finding. A variance has a different basically legal structure that we have to go through. The way that it works is there are essentially four prongs. We need to make a determination that there is a condition of the property, which is an issue of shape of the property, soil condition, or topography, which is like, you know, if it's really steep or something to that effect. and we have to make a determination, is there one of these conditions? Is it unique to this property as opposed to, is it in every property in the district? Does that create a hardship whereby you aren't able to build essentially what your neighbors can build because of this issue of the shape or the topography of the soil condition? And then after we make that determination, the relief that you request, which is the variance, is that, 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- Anyway, we can get to that in a second. So what we need to do first is make a determination as to whether or not you have one of these conditions. So as I'm looking at this, and we can maybe ask Mr. Malerba if we have any questions, what I'm seeing is an issue of shape. So you have essentially a trapezoid for the lot. So when I took a look at the map, it looks like most of the other lots in the neighborhood are your typical rectangles. So when I look at this, what I see is you have a point in the house where on the left side, see how there it's 15 feet. And it even looks like that little bump out is 15 feet from the side. If that left slanted lot line were straight up and down like a rectangle, then this addition very likely would remain 15 feet from the lot line and you wouldn't have this issue. So that's the type of thing that we look at. So here we're saying, because this lot has a funny shape to it, you aren't able to build essentially what you otherwise would be able to build under the zoning ordinance, or you can't build like what your neighbors would be able to build under the zoning ordinance. So that's the first question. I want to be clear as we go through this. I'm not making a determination right now. I'm just saying this is what I'm seeing, because we always have to make sure we meet the conditions. So that would be the question of, you could say, hey, we have a funny-shaped lot. If the lines were straight, we'd be able to build this. But it's creating a hardship that we can't build the house we'd otherwise be able to build. This shape of the lot is unique to your parcel. what you would be saying the contention that you would bring to the board is, and this is causing us a hardship. And then you want you, when you say we spoke to the neighbors, everybody likes this, it's in keeping with the character, that's the determination we make as to, are you like, essentially, would this go against what the intention of the zoning ordinance was, which was to make sure that, you know, maybe it was to make sure that people weren't building crazy houses on their lots that are enormous, that type of thing. doesn't seem like it would, and would it be, Mike, do you remember what the phrasing I'm forgetting is?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I apologize. I was trying to answer your question, and then I was just on mute.
[Unidentified]: No, that's okay, but I've just been forgetting this specific phrasing.
[Mike Caldera]: So the standard is that granting this variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public good.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Nor will it substantially derogate from the purpose of the zoning bylaws.
[Unidentified]: There we go. Thank you so much. When you're doing not substantially more detrimental, I couldn't get to, gosh, Mike, sorry. Can you just say it one more time?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Not cause substantial detriment to the public good. That's one thing. And then not derogate, not substantially derogate from the bylaws purpose.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, there we go. Okay. So that aside, folks, did that make sense what I was just saying? Okay, all right, so that's my thought on that. Is there anything else that you wanna let us know before we open it up for public comment?
[Yvette Velez]: The siding's gonna match maybe?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, everything's gonna be plus. from the sides of the house to the roof of the house. So it's really not going to be something huge and outrageous in the back. We want to obviously give the same structure, siding the same. We want it flush. I mean, if you just look at our house on Google Maps, the paint's falling off, and we're just trying to update this to match. and better with our neighborhood. We're the eyesore of the neighborhood. And when we went around to our neighbors and said what we're doing, they were very supportive on our actions. And we're very happy to know that we're going to be updating. And knowing that we're going to stay in this neighborhood with our whole family is something that they're very supportive again. The structures stay in the same except obviously from left to right and up and down.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so I just have a question I just want to make sure that I'm, I'm clear on it so that the petition is for everybody listening, what they're doing this edition it's an allowed use it's staying a single family, it would be staying a single family home. So it's insufficient front and side yard setbacks and maybe this is a better question for Mr. Miller but. The front yard setback is because it's a corner, we have two fronts. And I think that's the issue we just addressed with this, the slanting line on the side of the house. But the side yard setback, am I correct in understanding that that's what we're looking at on the right side, where it's the 6.1 feet, and that's already in existence, but it would be because the structure would be continuing back we'd have that continuing, is that correct?
[SPEAKER_08]: Correct. The side yacht setback is seven, the required side yacht is seven and a half feet. So they're, you know, they're at six one.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Okay, so for everybody listening. Wait, that's a denial? Pardon?
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, I thought that was, okay, I was confused.
[Unidentified]: Oh, no, no, that's okay. Did you have a question?
[Jenny Graham]: No, no, no.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so for everybody listening, a little bit earlier we were talking about the front yard setbacks. So when you have a corner lot, you're considered to have two front yards. So rather than have the seven and a half that's required for a side, they need to have the 15 on both. So that's what we were talking about with that slant. On the right side of what's on the screen right now, you can see that the house is positioned, it's not centered on the front where that porch is. it's a little bit off to the side. And so that existing 6.1 feet or six feet, one inch, that is the nonconformity. So it looks like on that side, your nonconformity, if the variants were granted, the nonconformity is about one and a half to two feet. And then on that side, and then on the other side, it's a little bit under three feet. Is that correct?
[Jenny Graham]: I was just under the impression that we got the refusal of the variance for just that quarter for the side where it's the 12.2, that that's where we got denied, not the side where, to my neighbor. That's what I was under the impression of, that that's what our denial was for.
[Unidentified]: Let's check with Mr. Burbett. So what I'm thinking, and we can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I was thinking is because the addition would be extending on that side. That may be where they're saying that it's both as opposed to one. Mr. Malerba, do you know if it's both or if it's one?
[SPEAKER_08]: I don't have the permanent refusal letter in front of me that the commissioner.
[Unidentified]: I can pull it up. The letter says front and side yard. Okay. So I think folks, I don't know that that necessarily changes the analysis because of the positioning of the house that is positioning of the house and the shape of the lot. But I do think that because the permit refusal says that it's front and side yard setbacks, that we would need to vote on both.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and my understanding, if I'm interpreting the plan correctly, is that what's triggering that second part is that in the proposed version, PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB – David Ensign – He, Him, His PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB – David Ensign – He, Him, His
[Unidentified]: because of the addition would be a new area where you're not meeting, and I think we would have to anyway, but I think you're correct because of the 5.7. Okay, so. All right, so that's good. So folks, that's fine. If we have any other questions, we can ask about that in a little bit, but why don't we, could someone make a motion to open the public comment section of the portion of the hearing? make a motion to open for public comment. Okay, thank you. And a second.
[SPEAKER_03]: Second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Okay. Um, and, um, ma'am, miss, uh, well, wellness, would you mind just taking on your screen share for a moment? Thanks so much. Okay. Uh, Dennis, who do we have?
[Denis MacDougall]: If anyone wishes to speak, you can either, as I said before, raise your hand or do a little reaction thing. I don't see anyone making any motions.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Could I get a motion, please, to close the public comment section portion and open deliberations?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close public comment and open deliberations.
[Jenny Graham]: Can I get a second? All in favor?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Jenny Graham]: Can I just mention one last thing? Sure, go right ahead. There is an existing deck right now. So we're just doing the addition out until where the deck is. So the structure is there where It's the 5.7, I think we saw.
[Unidentified]: Okay, all right, thanks so much.
[Jenny Graham]: All right, folks, what do we think?
[Yvette Velez]: Should we do an addition?
[Mike Caldera]: Go ahead, Yvette, sorry.
[Yvette Velez]: No, I was merely commenting that the addition would be an improvement to the property and that it would look, you know, match what everything will be updated. So I see it as not detrimental to the area and the side lot having two fronts. It would be an improvement.
[Unidentified]: I agree with that. I know the area very well, and I think it would really look nice. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: I concur, and then It's pretty clear just looking at the lot plan that the shape is what's causing the problem in terms of the dimensional violation on one of the front yards. And then I also think it's pretty clear from the plans, it looks like they're just sort of extending so the houses must not be quite flush with the property line. And so the, you know, the four inch change in violation on the side yard is minimal. So, and I think it's worth saying, I don't know if it was, well, it was sort of referenced by Ms. Wellness, but the board did also receive letters from some of the neighbors. And as far as I could tell, they were all supportive of this as well.
[Unidentified]: Oh, yeah, good, good point. Thanks for bringing that up. Yep, your neighbors are definitely in support. Yeah, I agree on all of that. And for the reasons that we just walked through, I think that all of the statutory conditions are met, and I think it looks like a great project. Okay, would someone like to make a motion, please? Don't everybody jump at once.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, sure. So motion to approve the front yard and side yard variances for 86 Sherwood Road. Second.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And we'll do reverse alphabetical again. Yvette Velas.
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Jim Tarani.
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Michael Caldara.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline Doherty, yes. All right, folks, you have your addition. We will get, congratulations, we will get a decision out to you and you'll get some information from City Hall in terms of what you do and there's a certain waiting period and all of that, but you'll get that information from us. Okay. All right. Thanks so much. And then I think the only other thing we have up tonight, Dennis, is just the minutes from January. Is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: Correct. Thank you. Mike made some mention of the edits that he wanted to make, but does anyone, did anyone else have any edits or changes that they requested?
[Mike Caldera]: And Dennis, I went in and made those. It was just changing a spelling for one word. So I motion to approve the January meeting minutes.
[Unidentified]: Jim, I think you said second. Second. OK. All right. All in favor. Okay, great. So the minutes are approved. And then let's take a look. Do we have our next meeting scheduled? It would be May 26th, right? Does that work for everybody?
[SPEAKER_04]: It works.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I think we're all set then.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just to let you all know, that one will involve a site plan review. It's a fairly large-scale project, so I've got the information, and I'm going to get it to you sooner so you can have a little more time to review it. There might be one or two other filings as well, but that's the big one is that it's a big project.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Well, thank you, Doug.
[Denis MacDougall]: But that one may get delayed because they're going to before the community development board first. And if that meeting gets continued, then they'll ask us for a continuance until the June hearing. So it's with these types of projects, it's kind of always a little up in the air. It'll be on the agenda, but it may not be heard due to community board stuff.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. All right, well, that sounds good. Okay, so that's it folks. Can I get someone to make a motion to close the meeting?
[Yvette Velez]: Make a motion. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Oh, and now we're all making motion. We all want to go. Can I get a second? Oh, go ahead.
[Yvette Velez]: Nope.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second.
[Unidentified]: All right. All in favor.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. All right. Good night, folks. Thank you, Dennis. Thank you, Michael. Bye.
|
total time: 3.14 minutes total words: 393 |
|||