[Unidentified]: Okay, good evening folks, we are about to get started Dennis if you could please kick us off with the.
[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]: Okay, thank you so much, Dennis. So everyone, before we get started tonight, two of our members, Andre and Yvette, are not here this evening. So I'm going to designate Jamie Thompson, who's the associate to be a voting member for this evening's matters, per section 94-35A of the zoning ordinance. All right, Dennis, why don't we start with the Broadway case, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 595 Broadway case number a dash 2022-12 continued from August 25 applicant and owner that Ellis bridge loan venture is petitioning for variance from chapter 94 city methods only to construct a multiple dwelling building system of seven residential dwelling units and commercial one serving district allowed use. Okay, and usable area front and side yard setbacks off street parking parking space size with them exercise with ventures and access drives this project project also exceeds the maximum allowed height number of stories and spark.
[Unidentified]: Dennis I just lost you. That's OK I hear I'll just read the last bit this project also exceeds the maximum allowed height and number of stories this project is also subject to site plan review and linkage fees it's my understanding that we have a request for a continuance. I'm looking for. I don't see the attorney for yeah.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Where good evening, madam chair.
[Unidentified]: Where am I? Oh, there you are. Sorry, go right ahead.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Michael Barone. I'm an associate with Roberto Israel and Weiner appearing on behalf out of Boston, Massachusetts, 255 State Street, 7th floor, Boston, Massachusetts, appearing on behalf of the applicant. We did appear before you last month and obtained a continuance in order to revise our plans to meet the Community Development Board's requests for some secondary egress, as well as to fix some of the grade issues and some of the parking situations at the premises. We have all of the design work done. However, we are still in the process of finalizing our proposed development plan. our landscaping plan and also need to complete our zoning analysis table. So we would respectfully request an extension to next month's meeting, which I believe is scheduled for October 27th.
[Unidentified]: I believe that's correct. I don't have an issue with that. We'll take a vote on it, but that shouldn't be a problem provided that you folks, I believe last month you waived the 100 day period as long as we'll just keep in writing that that's still in effect.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Absolutely, Madam Chair. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, um, folks. Anyone have any issues or anyone like to make a motion? I would like to make a motion. Sorry, I have too many things open. No problem.
[Mike Caldera]: I'd like to make a motion to continue 595 Broadway to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Unidentified]: Can I get a second?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and I'll do roll call vote. Michael Caldara, how do you vote? Yes. James Trowney? Yes. Jamie Thompson? Yes. And Jacqueline Daugherty, I vote yes. OK, folks, thanks so much, Attorney Broni. You can be in touch with Dennis to get the continuous paperwork over to me for signature.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[Unidentified]: You're welcome. Have a nice evening.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: You as well.
[Unidentified]: OK, Dennis, Zero Bailey Street, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: Zero Bailey Street, case number 8-2022-11, continued from August 25th. Applicant and owner, Cheryl Calvi, is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to erect a structure at 0 Bailey Street. This is map D-12-39 in a single-family, two-zoning district allowed use with insufficient lot area and lot depth.
[Unidentified]: OK. I believe Attorney Desmond, you're here for the applicant.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct. Good evening, Madam Chair board members. I'm joined this evening by my client, Cheryl Calvi and her husband Jim Calvi. The petition before you is a petition for variance to construct a three bedroom single family dwelling on lot 81 Bailey Street Medford. By way of background the subject lot is a vacant lot. Dennis can I am I able to share my screen.
[Unidentified]: We're all set now, okay.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I just want to pull up the area plan. So as you can see, this is currently 81 Bailey Road. Currently it's a vacant lot. The shape of the lot is irregular in that it's kind of wedged between these two properties that are presently owned by the city, and I can show you the area plan. So this is what the lot looks like in terms of shape as compared to the other lots. And both of these lots, lot 82 and lot 80 are owned by the city. The petitioner is, if you look at the zoning evaluation sheet as well, in terms of what it meets and what it doesn't meet, the lot area is approximately 896 be deficient from the 5,000 square feet required. But as you can see, the lot frontage, only 35 feet is required and the lot has 74 feet. The lot width, 50 is required, 83.97 is what the width is. And the depth is short, which is how that lot is particularly oddly shaped in that it's not triangular with the width and the depth would be similar. It meets the front yard requirements as well, because if you take the properties within 150 feet on the same side of the road, and you average the two of them, the required is not the 15 feet, it's 11.3, and 11.3 is provided. The side yard, as you see, is substantial, 17.8%, and 17.8 feet, and the rear yard is 15.2 feet. The lot coverage on a single family, you're permitted to have 40%. The lot coverage on this is 19.2%. The house is designed in such a way so that the density as compared to the lot is in proportion. The height is also well within the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The petitioner is seeking a variance from the lot area mostly because the two lots, the lot is wedged in between two city lots. And I'll get to the circumstances of that in a moment. I think I produced for the board, the Adams versus Broly case, and I apologize for the delay in bringing it forward, but looking at it today, I think it probably has more significance than I originally thought. Both of the lots, which are adjacent to the property, were taken in the mid 1900s when I was born, as my kids like to say. So this lot has been a standalone lot from the time of the subdivision, and I have the plan. So as you can see, this isn't a situation where the lot was subdivided in any fashion. Lot 81 in 1920, it's 1925, was a single lot. In terms of And we're also looking, obviously, for a variance as to lot depth, because the lot is oddly shaped. In terms of the variances that we're looking for, and in particular, the area variance, I think it's significant to note that initially in 2009, Calabrese attempted to purchase the two city lots. This lot itself was tied up in an option to purchase by another individual. And at that time, they were granted the RFP, but the lot, the two city lots couldn't meet the frontage requirement. So that deal never came forward. In 2012, the RFP was put out again. And at that time, this lot was available. Mr. Calvi was awarded in November of 2012, the RFP for the two lots and his intent was to subdivide the lot so that you would have two lots with equal frontage and two single family homes could be built as a right. As the transaction was never consummated, for whatever reason, it wasn't ultimately approved, which left Mr. Calvi with this law, which again, was always a single lot not combined with any other lot. I think that Adams versus Broly is significant in this case, because A lot of what you look for in terms of hardship is whether or not the applicant has caused the hardship in this instance. And I think the intent of the applicant was always to have a conforming lot. When he was awarded the RFP on these two lots and after having a failed attempt, he then purchased this lot, which was available from an estate. to be able to subdivide it and make a conforming lot. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, what he was left with is this lot, which is not conforming as to area. So obviously the shape of the lot creates some, it meets the standard, I believe, for a variance. And the hardship is that, you know, he is left with a lot that's undersized. The proposed dwelling fits, as I showed you on the zoning evaluation sheet, but as you can see here, the proposed dwelling meets all of the setback requirements that are required and provides for the two parking spaces. So, you know, even though it's an undersized lot, which is not atypical in the neighborhood, it does meet the other setback requirements. I can go through the plan so you can see what the structure looks like. So this would be the structure sitting on a lot, it's a three bedroom home.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Desmond, do you mind just zooming in a bit? I think it might be helpful for anyone watching to see it a little more closely.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I get the control on the top to move. That's my problem on getting it to my view. Let me see if I can zoom. Well, that's too big, isn't it?
[Unidentified]: If it's too much, that's OK. I just thought it might be.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, I think I can't. No, let me give it one more college try here. OK. I think if I go to 50%, I can probably zoom it in. I can at least dial down, and you can take a look at it.
[Unidentified]: That's great. Thank you.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So that was the front of the house, the left side elevation of the home, and then the rear of the home. Obviously, where the city owns the other two parcels, in terms of the depth variance, I'd maintain that the two vacant parcels behind it kind of compensate for that depth issue. But essentially, that's what we're looking for. I think in terms of detriment, derogation of the step, the ordinance and detriment to the public good. You know, this, we're not attempting to build a two family. This is a single family. The size of it has been modified so that it fits nicely on the lot. And, you know, we need, Medford has indicated a need for more housing. This would provide a single family home in the neighborhood. which I don't believe Scott Street, as it is developed, is developed all the way through. So this would just be on Bailey Road. So you're not in a situation where you're creating a pass through from Scott to Bailey, I believe. And that's the end of my presentation.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Why don't we stop the screen share? Okay, so before we dive into any comments from board members, for anyone listening, I just wanna give a little overview of what we're looking at. So the petitioner has asked as seeking two variances and the statutory requirements that the board needs to look at for variances, there are five things. The board can grant a variance if we specifically find the following. One, that owing to circumstances relating to soil condition, shape, or topography of the land or structures, especially affecting that land or structure, but not generally affecting the zoning district, meaning it needs to be unique to this parcel, where a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship. The desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and the desired relief will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance from which we would be asked to grant the variance. So that's what we as a board are looking at. I think one thing I appreciate about the project that's in front of us is it looks very appropriate in size to the lot. If you didn't know that it was an undersized lot and you didn't 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- given the size of the other lots and the very unique shape of this lot, I think it's appropriate. And I also think that given the type of lot that we're seeing, the relief that's been requested strikes me as appropriate to that. I did see that someone, I saw a public comment that someone liked to comment. We are gonna, right now the board members are gonna ask some questions. We will open it up to public comments. So anyone who wants to comment will have an opportunity to do so in a moment. I also understand that we do, I believe we have Jeff Fargo on from the building department as well. So, anyone, are there any other board members have any questions or comments either in general or for attorney Desmond? Can you, hi, Jim Turati, could you show where the parking spaces are?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Sure.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So that is on. So the two parking spaces are at what is the rear side of the yard. Great, one and two.
[Unidentified]: So you'd enter from here and... That'd be one curb cut, right? Just in front of those. Okay. Thank you. Mike, did you have a comment or question?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just a couple of questions for Attorney Desmond. So. First of all, on the Adams versus Brawley, my reading of that is that. It primarily applies when there's a government taking, so just wanted some clarification from you, what was the essentially the extrinsic act of a public authority, not within the landowner's control in this case.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So I think that's a literal reading of the decision, but the decision is looking at whether or not the petitioner has in fact created the hardship if they subdivided the lot and then somehow tried to build on a second lot. The difficulty here, in the hardship created is that these were both taken by the city at an earlier time. I know that lot 81 specifically was for tax taking. I've tried to track down exactly what the taking of the adjacent lot 82 was for. I'm sorry, 82 was for, but I don't I don't, I wasn't able to track that either through the assessor's office or through the mass land records. And it may be that it wasn't identified as a city of Medford taking. So you'd have to search all the takings in that timeframe to try and determine what it was. But I think, I think that Adams versus Burleigh also stands for the proposition that you have to look at the intent of the petitioner. And that's why I included that case. The intent of the petitioner initially in this case, and the reason why he purchased this property, was to combine. And he had an RFP at that point that would have allowed him to do that. When the RFP didn't go through, he was left with this parcel. The Adams case also mentions a case Paulding versus Bruins, where variance was upheld with a lot was oddly shaped and did not meet the frontage requirements, but could accommodate a single family dwelling which is what this situation is and that's cited within the decision itself.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. So just one clarifying question about one element of what you said so the. You said the tax taking so at one point was lot 81 in this lot. Those were together or.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I if you look at the subdivision plan and and when I looked at I don't think I put it in my queue but so this is 81 here. And this parcel was owned by Dagestino I see. 79 was owned by the estate, which also owned this parcel. It was, or the owners, not the estate. It was subsequently conveyed out, and that's actually how I tracked down that this was a tax taking, that the city sold off this parcel to a third party. So these were never owned in common ownership, as far as I can tell.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, got it. And then my second question just relates to the hardship from the lot area. So in Mitchell versus Board of Appeals Revere, there was a ruling as I understand it, that lot size deficiency was not owing to the topography of the lot. So can you just speak to specifically what the, kind of what elements of the lot here are the source of the hardship? And are you aware of any other cases that have a different implication?
[Kathleen Desmond]: In terms of the shape of the lot. You know, this isn't typography so much as it is shape, and the way the street, this this portion street I don't believe is later is is is in existence but the way the street this creates a why. So you have the shape here, which is not topography, but essentially shape. And I think what's important here in terms of the hardship is my client has tried on two separate occasions. The first just to obtain these, to make them conforming lots, so that it could be subdivided into two lots. The hardship is that unless the city were going to agree to give him a piece of this land, there's no way to resolve the issue that he now stands with. And he wouldn't have purchased this kind of a but-for argument unless he had already had the RFP approved. And based on when he attempted to purchase lot 82, and 80 and there was a frontage issue when when this event came back on the market out to bid and he was able to acquire this he he was of the assumption I think rightly so based on the prior. History that that this that it wouldn't present any issues, because then you'd have as a right. you'd have two lots as of right. And what he got left with was this parcel, which is... So I guess the point is, Michael, that he didn't acquire the lot with an attempt to take an undersized lot and develop it initially. His intent was, and he had an RFP with the city to purchase the entire parcel and then subdivide it and make it two conforming lots. So the hardship to him is he purchased this with the sense or the understanding based on a contract that ultimately wasn't approved finally by the city that he wouldn't be left with just this parcel, which was unbuildable. And I think that goes to the Adams-Broly case, which talks about the good faith. And he didn't do something with the intent of trying to ram an undersized lot through the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Okay, anybody else? Okay, could I get a motion to open for the public comment, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open the public comment for Zero Bailey. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Denis MacDougall]: Um, I think so the first person we had a problem with bill and it's got another person who also would like to comment, but we'll start with just for anyone comments, please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Unidentified]: We can.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay. Thank you. My name is bill Carroll. I live at eight Scott street. So I'm in, I am sitting directly behind this lot. Um, I want to. I have a few comments to make. I don't know where to start, there's so much here. This property sits elevated above Scott Street, so it's sloped down onto Scott Street. There's been a flooding issue in Scott Street that we have brought up before. This is not the first time this particular lot has come up. And the reason, I know Ms. Desmond said that for whatever reason, it was a failed attempt the last time around. The reason it was a failed attempt is the Scotch neighborhood came to the zoning board or actually a city council and said, look, if they're going to develop that lot, we need to do something for water or water abatement. Cause the only thing that's preventing water from rushing down the street here is all the vegetation that's currently on that lot. And there was a lot of discussion around that at the time. And Mr. Calvi, who was at that meeting basically said, that's not his problem. It's a city's problem. So I'm not very sympathetic to his hardship, to be honest with you, because his concern is to build a property. And I'm not real happy with the fact that he's coming back again in front of this board the second time around trying to do the same thing and avert the fact that we're asking for water abatement. He's saying, I don't wanna do that. In addition, the people that owned a lot before him had the same issue. And Mr. Calvi went ahead and bought the lot anyway, knowing that this was an issue. In my opinion, he's trying to skirt this issue. He's trying to get by and get the variance without doing anything for water maintenance in the Scott Street neighborhood. It's also sitting on a ledge. So there's going to have to be a blasting or a hammering to clear this property. I know the entire neighborhood, as well as people on even Greenhatch, Hickory Street behind us, they're concerned because they're sitting on that same ledge. So there are some issues here. I'm not opposed to him building on the lot. I am opposed to him building without taking some action prevent further damage and problems for the Scott Street neighborhood and other surrounding neighborhoods as well. We're sitting on that same wedge. And again, that was his comment last time. It's not my problem, it's the city's problem. And I sat at that meeting when that happened. I actually took notes on that meeting because I didn't want this to happen. So I'd like to know, is other Calvies willing to take some water abatement concerns put in place to prevent this becoming more of a problem for the Scott Street neighborhood?
[Unidentified]: OK, thank you, sir. Dennis, who is next?
[Denis MacDougall]: We have someone who just is there. Zoom ID name is Citizen, but please, if you wish to speak, please give us your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hi Hello my name is Mike Welsh, I live at 48 Bailey Street and the lot that is essentially adjacent to one or a few of the lots and question here. Bill cover a lot of my questions quite honestly but I was curious mostly to understand the build plan of the lot and the home, if there was going to be blasting involved. You know what safety precautions are being taken place what contractors are being used. Naturally, you know, our lot is in kind of on top of. the hill, if you will, where this lot will be built. There's a lot of trees, a lot of wildlife, and we just have some questions, concerns, if you will, around any blasting that would take place that could affect our home, the trees, any tree removal plans, and just overall effect of the adjacent lots by building out this home.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Dennis, do we have anyone else?
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't think anybody else with hand raised or in the, in the chat. Can I make one more comment?
[SPEAKER_00]: This is Bill again.
[Unidentified]: Sure. If you go right ahead, we'll just keep it brief, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. I mean, the previous speaker just made a very good point, which I didn't even consider, you know, talking about the trees on the two city lots that are adjacent to it. There's a huge old tree sitting over my house. That's growing out of that ledge. I'm very concerned if that's disturbed, that tree's going to come down on my house. So, so at the same point, I'm concerned of, you know, what action is going to be taken or what preventative actions to show it doesn't happen.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much. Um, so if we don't do we I don't see anyone else in Dennis, you don't have any emails. Okay, could I get someone to make a motion please to close the public comment portion and open deliberations.
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, I'm wondering if Attorney Desmond wanted to speak to the question about the... Yeah, I think we should do that during deliberations so that we can ask questions maybe. Okay, I'm fine with that. Then in that case, I motion to close the public hearing for Zero Bailey and open deliberations. Second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Hi. Okay, thanks. So before we ask these questions to Attorney Desmond, I just do want to note to everyone that the criteria that I went through at the beginning are the criteria that we look for. Definitely, we take comments from the neighbors very seriously. But there are certain things that are just sort of outside this board's purview and things that have to do with how construction is going to be handled and whether it'll be done safely. Those are questions for the building department. And there are laws and restrictions for anyone who's going to be doing any developing in the city that they'll have to follow as well. But I will ask Attorney Desmond, and then we also do have some from the building department here, So we may speak with him as well. But Attorney Desmond, could you just address the questions regarding the water abatement and blasting and then also whether this property had come forward at a prior time before this board?
[Kathleen Desmond]: So, this particular property I don't believe came before the board if I can share my screen again. My understanding is that the original and I do know that this was under a option to purchase until 2011. The original RFP was in 2009, and it involved buying the two city lots, which are not the lots that are in question in this instance. The second RFP, this lot became available, and Mr. Calvi purchased that to combine with the two city lots so that there would be two conforming lots that could be built on, arguably, as of right. And that was the one that did not proceed. Neither one of them proceeded. I believe that it came before this board on the city lots alone, and it was denied based on frontage because neither one of these lots have sufficient frontage standing by themselves. I'd also make the comment in terms of trees and whatnot that it's no longer a situation where where we're seeking to construct on lot 81, which is city owned, and lot 79, which is city owned. So as far as the trees, which are within that area, those trees aren't gonna be dealt with, you know, touched essentially, because we're only concerned with the portion which is on the outmost portion of Bailey Street and Scott Street. These two, These two parcels are city parcels and is not the subject of this petition. With respect to the water abatement, just to clarify, my client's having trouble with his computer and his phone. He's on the call, but he can't communicate. He indicated at that time when it came up for the development of all of this area that they would have to submit a water abatement to the city. not that he refused to do anything. With respect to the blasting, most of it can be tripped out, he indicated with a hammer, but I know that the building department has certain provisions that have to be followed. You have to notify, and Jeff Falco can certainly speak to this, you have to notify about your intent to do any type of blasting, contractors, generally do a pre-blast analysis so that they're protected themselves in terms of liability. But certainly, you know, he would attempt to take precautions so that that doesn't become an issue both for the contractors and for himself.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Mr. I thought it was Fargo. I apologize. Is it Falco from the building department? Oh, I'm not sure. I don't think that we've met prior. Jeff Fargo. Jeff, do you have anything that you, do you have anything that you could add on that front regarding blasting issues? I think I see him.
[SPEAKER_07]: Jeff? Jeff Fargo with the building department with the city of Medford. Can you hear me?
[Unidentified]: Yep, go right ahead.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you. As far as any excavating or chipping, that would be monitored and inspected through the building department. And like someone commented, there would be notification to all the neighbors. As far as blasting would go, the blasting permit would go through actually the fire department. And they're also, like someone had commented, there is a monitoring and a observation area that takes place beforehand. and then all of the inspections and monitoring would happen through the fire department for blasting.
[Unidentified]: All right, thank you so much. Yep. Okay, so one other thing that I have, and Attorney Desmond did touch on this, but just for the folks listening is one of the things that we look for when you have an undersized lot like this One of the sort of the classic red flag would be if you have someone who. purchased or owned a larger parcel and then subdivided it, creating the smaller lot so that then they could say, oh, well, I can't develop it unless I'm allowed these variances. That's not the issue that we have in front of us. And then there's also a public interest in not leaving lots undeveloped and developing them, particularly when the relief that's sought is proportional. Okay. And anyone else, what are our thoughts here? Just to go back to the tree question, do we know what the trees on that lot currently look like? Not regardless of the city lots, but that lot specifically.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Attorney Desmond? I can ask my client as to that effect.
[Unidentified]: I guess the plan doesn't show any removals.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, but obviously it's a vacant lot and that that area is treed. Pretty much throughout I was going to take a screenshot I probably should have done that. But there is going to be some necessary clear clearing of trees to place the house on the lot.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Desmond, do you know whether there'll be any trees preserved on the lot?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Mostly there's sumac on the lot right now. I mean, we can certainly... I mean, there's certainly going to be landscaping on the lot that's going to... There is a rather, you know, there's a fairly decent size backyard, so probably you would keep the tree line. There's already a line of privacy from both the properties on Scott Street and Bailey, based on the fact that you've got roughly, you know, 4,000 square feet of treed area behind the property. Mr. Calvi's also indicating that whatever trees that are good that we can save, that he will save.
[Unidentified]: Okay, Jim, Jamie, Mike, any other questions? Okay, does anybody want to make a motion for a vote? How are you feeling?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so I'd just like to explain my thought process. So my concerns with this project are really technical in nature. I think the the actual house that's proposed seems reasonable. It's really more about the land court precedent here. So point taken that topography and shape aren't the same thing. But I don't see how we could reasonably conclude that A lot area deficiency is going to the shape of the lot it's it seems almost like a. An oxymoron sort of. And then. On the point about. The, the issues acquiring the adjacent land from the city. Now I do I do think it sounds like this was not a situation where the, the owner had any ill intent or was sort of trying to do something, you know, underhanded to to squeeze on an additional house or something like that but. You know, it also, it's certainly not clear to me. So when we talk about like, you know, burden of proof, it's not clear to me that the city was just unreasonable and like impossible to negotiate with. Like perhaps the talks broke down for a variety of reasons. And so I just, I don't see, I don't see why this is sort of like some extrinsic hardship here. It's, you know, an undersized lot was purchased. Um, with the intent to merge it, it didn't work out. I just, I have concerns if the interpretation of the law is that basically any exercise lot that you wanted to merge with an adjacent lot did that and were unsuccessful, that therefore, that's a hardship. I just, that's not my interpretation of the law.
[Unidentified]: So if I could, I'm sorry, just one moment. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I basically finished the thought. I don't think the burden of proof for hardship has been met. I don't think the court precedence in favor of the interpretation here. So that's my reservation. I don't think the hardship standard is met here.
[Unidentified]: OK. Yeah, so I think that I was looking at this in a different way in terms of, the. Gosh suit. I'm sorry. I just lost my thought. Um, I'll come back that one second. I'm just seeing a number of people are putting comments in the comment section, folks. We've closed the public hearing because there were no more comments. So please don't add them in the chat function now because technically the public portion of the the hearing has been closed. Um, I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought on that. Attorney Desmond, you can respond to that if you'd like.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'm just wondering if perhaps a memorandum would, you know, with setting forth, because it's a little bit different in terms of negotiating with the city vis-a-vis negotiating with a third party. And in this instance, he had an approved RFP, which means that there was an agreement, but that has to go through the process He was the successful bidder, but that then has to be approved by the political process, which is different than if, if you were dealing with a third party and you wanted to, you know, once you have a PNS that's binding and enforceable, and you move forward to the next step. that's not the case here. And he's kind of locked in with between two properties owned by the city. So there's no real way to go. And he bought that parcel and reliance on the RFP. So, you know, if you'd like a memo on that, then, you know, I can probably I understand what your arguments are. I think I'd like the opportunity to address them in a memorandum. And, and see if that changes the focus for you.
[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, to be clear, so I'd like the board to discuss that idea. But to be clear, if something like this were the strategy here, I'd want to understand not just that the RFP process is different, but if there was any sort of known reason why the RFP process didn't go through what that was, why that was the case, that would help me understand the whole extrinsic government acts angle.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, on that front, I have half of my previous train of thought back. When I was reading through this, I don't know that I necessarily felt that the municipal takings or act or whatever that may have been was actually what was to bear here in the sense of I do think that it's helpful background. When we talk about when I was discussing the red flags you see sometimes where someone subdivides the lot themselves and creates the undersized lot. And but here, I think the issue is that a lot that without this variance, the hardship is that the lot remains vacant and that no one can build on it. And then that's contrary to the public interest of developing lots that could otherwise hold single family homes. But maybe it might be helpful if Attorney Desmond could just let us know. if she finds, because I can't think of it off the top of my head, if she knows if there's any case law regarding, because it's definitely not a topography issue. But I think that it might fall under a little bit of a wider umbrella of the shape issue. But it's possible that I'm wrong on that front. But Attorney Desmond, if you either know that, or if the board discusses and is inclined to say, let's see a memorandum, that might be something that's helpful for us to see.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think that in the Adams versus Burley case, the Paulding versus Bruins, which is cited, where you had a pork chop lot, and that was definitely as to shape only, that they granted that variance based on the fact that it didn't have frontage, but because the house could meet the other setback requirements, that in fact, the variances were allowed. They found that to be hardship, much for the same reason you're indicating, that it otherwise is a vacant lot with no... And that's the hardship, it doesn't, the standard for hardship is a reasonable use of the property. With a vacant lot, the hardship to an extent is obvious because it's not buildable in any fashion.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's my understanding, but I can't off the top of my head cite specifically what that precedent is. Okay, so Mike, Jamie, Jim, how do we feel about continuance for a month and then allowing the applicant to submit a legal memorandum regarding some of these questions that we've asked and that some of the neighbors have asked? Yeah, I'd like to see that. Yeah, so one question I have as well. with regards to that is the layouts. So I know when one of the residents spoke, they indicated that the Scott Street representation on the map was inaccurate, that was not a fully complete road. I think we need to understand what that looks like as well.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So I believe that, so here's the lot in question, this lot, which is a city lot. It doesn't run all the way through. And I think I can show that better. Let me see on the area plan. So here, this lot, but it doesn't run through here. Even though it was taken, and that's part of what the taking was of this lot for non-payment of the Betterment Assessment. This isn't a through street.
[Unidentified]: Where does that street stop?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It ends right about here, I believe.
[Unidentified]: Is there some kind of a barrier between the left and right sides of the street?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's just treed, I believe.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I looked on Street View and that, I looked before this, and that was my takeaway too. It seems like it's completely obstructed by trees.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, and there was a taking here, which was an assessment for the betterment of the laying out, and actually I believe that's how this this parcel became subject to tax taking.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so I think everyone's in agreement in terms of a continuance to next month. So for everyone listening, the applicant is going to submit a legal memo regarding some of the issues that the neighbors and the board members have had a few questions about, and they'll submit that, and then we will hear from them again next month. Well, excuse me, that's what's been proposed. Can I get someone please to make a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to continue, zero. Bailey to the next regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals. Second that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and I'll do a roll call, please. Mike Caldera? Yes. And Jamie Thompson? Yes. Jim Tarani? Yes. And Jacqueline Daugherty? I'm a yes. Okay, Adjournee Desmond, can you just make sure that you get the paperwork to Dennis? I just want to make sure we're always cognizant of that 100-day matter. I think you're on mute, but I saw you say thank you and yes, so that that sounds good. I think we're all set then on that and we will see you next month. OK. Alright, just a second here folks. Okay, so next step we're going to have. One second. Where is my? One second, folks. Here we go. Department announcement. Next up we have, it's either 2022 or 1622 High Street. Dennis, could you kick us off, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 2022 High Street, case number A-2022-13. Applicant and owner SSHN Realty LLC is positioning for a special permit from Chapter 94 City Metro Zoning to convert two commercial units to two residential units in commercial one zoning district. Existing structure is a nonconforming structure. The Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a nonconforming structure in accordance with Metro Zoning Ordinance section 94-5-3. Okay.
[Sean Beagan]: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Sean Biegan, Xero Governors Ave. On behalf of the petitioner SSHN Realty LLC and its manager Mohamed Haroun is also on the call with us as well. Mr. Haroon purchased this building, which is the building located right on High Street in Medford Square, which houses the Lighthouse Cafe on the first floor and the liquor store and the optical shop and has residential apartments above. He purchased this property in March of 2021. Previously, in 2011 the prior owner had successfully converted from commercial to residential use. The second floor of this building and created 12 residential apartments which are currently online and being rented. and leaving at the time two commercial units which were under lease at the time to, I believe, to the then owner of the liquor store that was using those spots for storage, I believe. So it wasn't practical or possible to convert those units to residential use at the time of the initial application. Mr. Haroon is seeking a special permit today to simply change the use from commercial to residential, which would be an allowed use in this zone. The building, any construction or building of the two units is already done. It was done by the prior owner. These two units essentially are look and appear to be residential units, although they were rented for commercial uses up until now. I do have some photographs. I can show you what the units look like if you'd like to see them. I can bring them up. Okay. So, let's see. So this is one, this would be the smaller of the two units. This is a studio unit. This would be the living area. And this would be the common, a shot of the common space kind of standing where the, you'd be standing near where the kitchen that I just showed you was. And let's see. I believe this is a shot of the bathroom. So essentially both units, one is a one bedroom unit. The other would be considered a studio unit, both obviously having a kitchen and a bathroom. This is the kitchen. This would be the kitchen and the, other unit, the one bedroom unit. And this would be the shot of the bedroom space in the one bedroom unit. So as you can see, they're all nicely appointed, really makes much more sense to have these two units as residential units and renting them as residential units. It's actually kind of awkward right now, the fact that they're used as commercial, because you're walking through what is essentially a residential, on the second floor, a residential apartment building, to find a hair salon just kind of sitting in the middle of what is surrounded by residential units. So I certainly don't think that a change of use, particularly where it's an allowed use in the zone, would be more detrimental than the current use. There is no park as if you're familiar with this building you know it's essentially There's no parking available, as is the case with most of the buildings on High Street there. So there would have to be some grant of a special permit for any parking considerations. But these two units, I really don't see. Obviously, they wouldn't be advertised as having parking, because they don't. And they certainly would be more suitable for someone who's taking public transportation, wants to live in the square. And I think it opens up two nice apartments, smaller apartments for people probably with a little less money to spend to be able to get into Medford Square. I know there was recently a lot of news about some apartments, people that were evicted over on Bradley Road. And this would be an opportunity to bring two new apartments online right in the square, which I know there is an overall desire to do on the part of the city. So, I see this as a very good thing and something that I hope the board sees as being a positive for the square.
[Unidentified]: Okay, that's all I have. All right, thank you so much. How do we stop this screen? Oh, you know what, actually, before we go through that, I just said stop screen share. Let me, quickly. So I know we don't have architectural plans because it's not that kind of a project.
[Sean Beagan]: I can show you, and I do have an architectural drawing if you wanna see it of the two apartments.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, actually, yeah, that'd be great. Sorry, does someone have a question? Yeah, you mentioned the stores. Are the stores staying there.
[Sean Beagan]: Yes, everything is staying three this this request storage was this request. Let me, I'll explain a little further maybe I wasn't clear. So, the building. Everything about this building is remaining exactly the same as it currently stands today. Even the work to make these units residential has already been done. It's just the use that would change for two apartments, two units that are on the second floor of this building. So everything on the street is staying commercial and will look exactly the same with the same tenants for the foreseeable future. Anyone walking by this building would not see or notice any change because you simply would have residential tenants living in two units that had previously been occupied by most recently a hair salon and an art studio. Yeah, no problem. Here is, Here's an architectural rendering. And if you look at, let's see if I can make this a little, I don't know if I can make this bigger, I'll try. Good. There you go. So this is an architectural rendering of both units. This is the studio unit. So you have your common area, kitchen space and bathroom. This is the entry. And then this is the one bedroom unit where you have your entry here. Kitchen is along this wall. a common living area bathroom, and a pretty sizable bedroom that's about 13 by 15, it looks like. So those are the two units. As I said, they're already built out and there's no actual work planned.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[Sean Beagan]: you're welcome.
[Unidentified]: Anyone else have any questions for the applicant before we open up to public comment? Okay, could I get a motion to open public comment, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open the public comment for sorry, that's it. I see there's 20, 21 or 16, 20, 20, 20, 20 to open the public hearing for 20 to 22 High Street. A second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor?
[Unidentified]: Oh, by the way, because there's only four of us right now, that's why I'm doing the normal vote just for these and not during roll call. But of course, for the actual votes at the end, we're doing roll call. OK, Dennis, I saw some comments coming through. Do we have anyone folks if you could just hit the button to raise your hand to let us know that you'd like to speak, that would be great. Thank you. If you I know there were some people who who wrote in the chat, so if you can't figure out how to do the hand raise, you're welcome to. make a note in the chat that you'd like to speak and we can get you unmuted. Okay, I'm not seeing any. Okay. Oh, all right. I see Christopher Bader. So folks, once again, please don't send your comments in the chat. Just let us know that you'd like to speak, because if you'd like to participate during the public comment section, we need you to state your name and address on the record. Okay, so Christopher Bader, if you'd like to go ahead.
[Christopher Bader]: Yes, my name is Chris Bader. I live at 298 High Street in Medford. I'm the chair of the Historic District Commission.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry, did you say Historical Commission?
[Christopher Bader]: Hey, I'm the historic district commission.
[Unidentified]: Oh, okay. Thank you so much.
[Christopher Bader]: And I just want to know if there were going to be any changes to this building that will be visible from the street.
[Sean Beagan]: I can, I can address that. Mr. Bader, there's not going to be any changes to this building period. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. I thought you'd be happy with that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, Mr. Breeder, anything further?
[Christopher Bader]: No, that's it, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks so much. All right, anyone else? I am not seeing anyone, and there are no more comments. Okay, could I get a motion, please, to close public comment and open deliberations?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close the public hearing and open deliberations. Second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Okay, folks, what are we thinking?
[Mike Caldera]: So just a procedural thing I want to check on here. So my reading is that this might need a special permit and a finding. So the special permit for the, essentially the, I guess, change to the non-conforming structure and then a finding for the increase of the parking non-conformity.
[Unidentified]: because I just wanted to check if that's consistent with everybody else's interpretation or if I'm... Yeah, you know, I wasn't quite sure exactly what the answer was to that. Attorney Began, did you have a thought on that?
[Sean Beagan]: My reading of the new ordinance My reading of it was that the board can issue a special permit for a deviation of the parking requirements. And I believe that was section 6.1.3, I believe.
[Unidentified]: OK, 6.1.
[Sean Beagan]: I'll bring it up. That might not be the exact correct section. I can bring it up.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, if you don't mind, that would be really helpful. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, so while we're waiting the portion that I think attorney began was referring to for the special permit is 5.3 point one permissible changes, not conforming structures the following types of changes to non conforming structures may be considered by Court of Appeals. One, reconstructed, extended or structurally changed. Two, altered to provide for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner to a substantially greater extent. So I think that essentially we're just simply having more residential Um, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don
[Unidentified]: That would be wonderful, thanks.
[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, sure.
[Unidentified]: Folks, for anyone looking, SPGA, Special Permit Granting Authority, that's this board.
[Sean Beagan]: So it says, by special permit, as the case may be, reduce or waive the requirements of this section, which is section 6.1, addresses parking. a specific site of public safety considerations warrant such a reduction of waiver, no substantial detriment would result.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I'm aligned, thank you. Yeah, I think in my head, I had it as the Community Development Board specific power, but yeah, we're the SBGA here, so I agree we could do it by special permit.
[Unidentified]: I just want to, if you could leave that up for a second, I just want to make sure I have, oh, and Alicia, I think had a, Alicia, do you want to weigh in on that?
[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, yes, I just wanted to confirm the way Attorney Began is reading this, that is the way the planning office understands this new portion of our zoning is that, in fact, it can be done, a waiver of parking requirements can be done by special permit, and that is correct. This is the way we read this section in this portion of the zoning as well, and that this is a correct use of it.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Thank you. That's really helpful, folks. I'm sure most of you are aware we've had some changes to the zoning so the board's just trying to make sure we're doing everything by the book and some of this stuff is new to us so you'll just have to bear with us as we figure this out, but we have some experts from City Hall who can help us with that. Okay, I feel comfortable with what Attorney Began and what Director Hunt have told us. Okay, Attorney Began, I've got that jotted down, so thank you. Okay. Any other comments from anyone on the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, I just like to, yeah, so we can get comments out of the way, but I'd like to make sure we walk through and just speak to all the criteria and 11.6.2. Yeah, for sure.
[Unidentified]: I think I may have the wrong number section when I make like a little template before we start and I put in the criteria. And I think I have the, oh, I think I have the wrong one. Mike, do you have it in front of you? Yeah, I do. Do you mind? Would you just read that? Would you just run us through those?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sure.
[Unidentified]: I just I think I have the old one in front of me.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so 11.6.2, special permits shall be granted by the SBGA, unless otherwise specified herein, only upon its written determination that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the city or the neighborhood in view of the particular characteristics of the site and of the proposal in relation to the site. In addition to any specific factors that may be set forth in this ordinance, the determination shall include the consideration of each of the following. One, social, economic or community needs, which are served by the proposal. Two, traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. Three, adequacy of utilities and other public services. Four, compatibility with the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood. Five, impacts on the natural environment. and six, the proposal's compatibility with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Thank you. And in the new, I'm in the new draft now. Alicia sent it over. What's the new section number? Okay, perfect. Thanks, folks. OK. Got it. OK, anyone have any? So these are all the factors that we need to consider. Anyone have any concerns or thoughts on that?
[Mike Caldera]: One thing I'd like to say is I I walk by this property often, and so it's quite common, as I'm sure some on the board are already aware, for these properties to not have any proper parking. So if the lack of parking is giving folks pause, I do think that what Attorney Began said about how it will be marketed is, is relevant and helpful, but in general, there would be no way for these sorts of properties to have parking. And this building already has a bunch of apartments. So just wanted to explicitly call that out, that that's pretty common for this area.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. And I think another point that bears on this in the sense of There's no construction to be done. There are no changes to the exterior building, and the rest of the units here are residential, and it seems more likely than not that had these previous, the existing leases not been in place, that these units would have been changed over at that time as well. So when we look at the considerations that Mike so kindly read for us, in terms of the social, economic, and community needs, it meets the needs for additional units. And in terms of parking, when we're looking at not having parking there already is not parking for these units when they were used as commercial anyway. I don't see any issues with utilities, public services. I see compatibility with size, scale, design. And I think that it's compatible with the purposes of what the city is really looking for on that front. Okay, anybody else? Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I can encourage Jacqueline. One question I have for Attorney Biegun, and I'm not even sure what the board's feelings are on whether this would be required, but Attorney Biegun, I'm wondering if the applicant would be comfortable with the condition that, in fact, those two units be marketed with it being made clear that there's no parking.
[Sean Beagan]: I don't think that would be any issue. There's certainly no parking on site or no, no tenant parking.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Sean Beagan]: And that could. That is the truth. So I don't see any problem with it being marketed in that manner or statement to that effect that there's no on site. Off street off street parking, I guess would be the term.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. Sorry, Mike, what was that?
[Mike Caldera]: I just wanted to know what folks thoughts are, if it's even necessary to have that in addition or not.
[Unidentified]: I don't know that I think it's necessary, but if, you know, we have a board member who has a question, the applicant's amenable to it, I don't see the harm. I think people in general know that area. I know I grew up in that area. And, you know, there's absolutely no parking that's available. So you might get, you know, many folks that like the transportation and, you know, or they're pedaling a bicycle and using the T. So I'm good with that. Okay. Mike, did you want that as a condition or are you fine with what we've heard?
[Mike Caldera]: I think it's, I think it's kind of common sense. Okay. So yeah, I don't think we need a condition.
[Unidentified]: All right. Sounds good. Um, okay. Are we ready for a vote?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so finding, um, hold on.
[Unidentified]: I think it's granting a special permit and waiving the parking requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, yeah, no. So it's just, uh, sorry. I was gonna, I was in the middle of wording. I think, don't we need to, you know, uh, having found, uh, um, No detrimental impacts in the six areas laid out in the special permit criteria. I motion that we approve the special permit for 20 to 22 High Street.
[Unidentified]: OK. Do I have a second? Second. OK. And Mike Caldera, how do you vote? Yes. OK. Jim Tarani? Yes. Jamie Thompson. Yes. And Jacqueline dirty. I vote yes. Okay, folks, we will have a decision to shortly.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you very much.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Okay, good evening.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so I think now last project is folks. Just give us again. I think it's 54 South Street. Dennis, if you could kick us off, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: 54 South Street, case number A-2022-14. Applicant and owner Ron Buck is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City Method zoning to construct a two and a half story addition to an existing nonconforming 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]: OK. Attorney Desmond, I think you're up again.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I am, thank you. I'm here this evening with the petitioner, Ron Buck of Marsh Builders, and Ben Minix, the engineer on the project, because we also have a Conservation Commission action as well, and he can address the landscaping issues and those types of issues tonight. The matter before you is a petition for variances and or a special permit in connection with the construction of a multiple class dwelling Class A building on the subject property 54 South Street, which is located in the apartment one district. The use isn't allowed use within the district. By way of background, and Dennis, can I share my screen?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, you still.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. By way of background, the parcel itself is a, hold on, okay. is a 16,951 square foot parcel of land on which currently a single family dwelling exists, the drawing was constructed in late 1800s only 19 has hundreds and presently sits on the property. of the project is to, we're seeking to preserve the existing structure and construction addition to the single family dwelling that will provide three additional units making it a multi family unit. So the total number of units will be four units, each of them being a three bedroom unit. What we're looking for in terms of relief. In this instance, is a variance from the side yard setback based on the calculation of height plus length over six which is what's required on a multi the required side yard setback is 15.92 feet. And it's closest point to the existing structure as it currently sits, the side yard is 14.7 feet. So there's a difference of 1.22 feet that we're seeking relief for as to side yard setback. And when you look at the site plan itself, that only pertains to a very small portion of the lot due to this bump out, which currently exists on the existing structure. So at its as closest point is 14.7. We need a variance in this instance, instead of a fine or a special permit, because with the existing single family dwelling The side yard setback is seven and a half and not the 15.92. But if you look over the length of the structure, the majority of the structure meets the setback or exceeds the setback requirement. Again, it's only this instance where you would, where we're deficient. And I've cited in my materials materials to Delprete case, which, which deals with the hardship issue, we could certainly make this conform one of two ways, demolishing the structure and creating a structure that that would be in conformity or demolishing a portion of the structure, but given the fact that it is likely a historical building or have some historical consequence, we're seeking a variance of the 14.7 feet. In addition to that, we're seeking either a special permit or a variance with respect to the access aisle. We do have 24 feet here. but when you reach this point, it's 19.8, it's less than the 24 required. And I believe that's what is cited in terms of the violation. I noted in my brief that I had some question with the building department as to whether or not it was the access aisle. And as my brief indicates, the ordinance does permit for a driveway, an entrance exit driveway of 12, feet in width, provided it's for occasional daytime use, overnight parking primarily, or one way. And in this instance, the building department has determined that where it's occasional use and overnight, because this is simply a residential unit of four dwelling units. As my worksheet further indicates, we have had conversations with the fire department concerning this project and the fire department is okay with the drive as it stands. We need to remove a few trees. We also need to raise the garage in the back so that they can make the adequate turns. We met with them early on in this project because We wanted to keep the existing building and not demolish it. And we were able to reach some resolutions with the fire department. This entire building, including the existing building, will be sprinklered. And we're removing the fence and the trees on this side of the property, raising the garage, so they have adequate access to the back of the property. So those are the two variances. I believe that the parking can be allowed by special permit under that 6.1.10. And I had put that in my memorandum. It doesn't really impact the neighborhood at all. It's basically a circulation for the driveway. And again, it is 19 feet at that point. So again, both items for which we're seeking relief minor in terms of the relief sought. And what our intent was, was to keep the existing building. And I can show you some pictures, the architecturals of it. These will all be three bedroom units. Let me see if I can, I'm sorry, I'm trying to find the Sorry, I thought I had them all put in here when I... No, take your time, it's fine. Here it is. These are the architectural. So the existing will be unit one, then there'll be three additional units, two bedrooms on the second floor and a master suite on the third floor, four units with a breezeway connecting the project together. In terms of the exterior look, trying to keep it somewhat in line with what is existing.
[Unidentified]: Can you show us the existing?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can't show you a picture of the existing. The existing is this portion of the structure. The three additional units are on this side.
[Unidentified]: Are you changing the existing structure at all?
[Kathleen Desmond]: No. No. So we're adding a connector which will match the existing. and that will connect the addition to the three units. I know that there was a question from Anabata as to the definition of this as a multi-family. And if you look at the definition of a multi, one building, building, attached, which is, I think what our claim was, was that this was a row house of single families versus a multi, it can't have any side yard. So it's a principal building separated from another on or both sides, either by vertical party wall or walls, or by a solid contiguous wall or walls without any side yards. And to address that question, when you look at the The plan, there, there is a side yard on this, and it's actually a court. So it isn't a row house it qualifies as a multi dwelling I know that was one of the concerns that was raised, but in essence this is this property about. general residence district. If you look at the size of the lot which is over 16,000 square feet and you just do the numbers on paper. This lot could afford 14 units. Practically speaking, that's probably not where where it's put, but you could probably get if you were to demolish the existing structure. 10 units out of out of this property. It is in the 200 foot riverfront area so there, there are some considerations that would have to be made there but the intent of this project really was to maintain the existing dwelling. And add multi units, it's not an overdevelopment of the area. I think it's a nice transition from what is the general residence next door to the apartment district still has a residential feel. And the relief that we're looking for in this regard is is minimal it's the 1.2 where this bump out on the existing. property, the existing structure exists, and then the access aisle relief. And to make this conform, you'd have to shave off a piece of what's already on the existing structure. And in practicality, nothing's changing with respect to how it currently sits. All the development is on the other side of the property.
[Unidentified]: Good question. Sure. The front of this here, so I'm looking at the front of the house. If I look at The first slide right there, that's the front. Is that the screened-in porch right there?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so that hasn't changed at all?
[Kathleen Desmond]: There's no changes whatsoever to the existing structure. We're leaving that structure as is and simply adding a breezeway, a connector, which is here, and then adding three units to the side. In terms of lot coverage as well, the lot coverage, if you have a single family in this lot, it actually, the lot coverage can be as much as 40%. The lot coverage overall for the entire development is 23.7%. So we're well within lot coverage requirements. On a three-family, the lot coverage is 30%, and this is 23%. In addition, as I indicated, we are in the midst of going to conservation. And we are dealing with the conservation committee as well. Commission I'm sorry, and I'm trying to find the plan which I had. We're needing to remove some trees from this section of the property for fire, but we are going to replant over here and we're in discussions we have one proposal. And Ben can address this as well. So we're losing, we're replanting six trees over on this side, some of them fruit trees, some of them shrubs, some plantings, because this is within the riverfront area. And, you know, part of the reason why preserving the structure and the smaller scape is it preserves, you know, much of the lawn area in this area where a larger development wouldn't do that. But my client is, you know, happy with keeping the project to four units, preserving the existing building and adding three units to the existing building.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, just a clarifying question. I want to make sure I didn't misinterpret you. So the prior thing you were showing us was the area plan. So you had your cursor over something that you called lawn area, but I think it was where the addition goes. So essentially, as I understand it, there's sort of lawn towards the front, and then there's a small side yard, and then the parking to the back. So what we're seeing here, basically, if it's not in the thing called proposed addition, and it's not in the driveway, and that's what the landscaping that you were referring to would be, is that correct?
[Kathleen Desmond]: The landscaping will be all in through here. We're planning to make up for what needs to be removed here so that fire has access. And that's kind of going to be governed by what conservation wants us. We've given them the proposal. with the types of shrubs, the native shrubs and whatnot. But that will all be governed by them because about from here is 200 foot riverfront. So the back portion of the lot is not within any of the conservation area. It's just within the front portion.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Attorney Desmond, we've had a question. We got a I'll just say, I think we've got seven letters from butters opposing this property, but I think one of them had a question regarding the frontage that was required. And I think that we had asked, or Mike had asked that we have the building department on just to clarify this issue in terms of the frontage that was required for the single family home, and then what appeared to be what you're referring to as the proposed addition, which is three, it looks like three townhouses. Did you want to speak to that?
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I tried to, and I probably didn't do it very artfully. So I think the reference that the abutter was making reference to was the single abutter, single family dwelling attached, but the building attached definition provides that and that's a different frontage requirement it, it, I think it comes out to like 113 square hundred 13 feet of frontage, as opposed to the multi which is. 100 feet, but the building attached indicates 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. So, and I went down to building and I had a discussion with building about the definition, if you look at the site plan, again, there are side yards on both sides of this, of the existing portion of the dwelling. So, and there's, you know, if this is a rear yard and this is the front yard, then these are side yards. So it doesn't qualify for the single.
[Unidentified]: But I mean, when I look at this in between the addition, that reads to me as three townhouses because they're, vertical walls connecting them with no side yards between and among those three not just Do you understand that do you understand what I'm saying? So the question is My my concern is this is I want to make sure that we're looking at this exactly correctly um It's it, you know when you when someone comes to us and says we'd like to put an addition on a single family home you often see like, you know, someone adding on a bigger kitchen or adding on something to the main structure. This to me looks like three townhouses connected by what I thought was a walkway, but it looks like it's a solid wall. And you can't, I looked at all the floors, there's not even any common space. Among these, it looks to be three added on making almost four townhouses. Does that make sense?
[Kathleen Desmond]: So yes, but Harrison versus Town of Falmouth, and I had attached that in my materials, deals with the issue where you have an addition where you add on to make it a multi. And the question becomes whether when you do that, and I think that case also dealt with a breezeway, that as long as it's architecturally the same as the building and it's one continuous building, then it's considered one structure. which is what this is. I think the definition of attached buildings I know townhouses, you think that has a separate definition just by virtue of being a townhouse, but when you looked at what it says is attached building, and that definition, it can't have any side yards, and this does so then this makes this a multi a multifamily, not an attached, because for it to be a single family attached, it would have to run all this way, and there would be no side yards between any of the structures.
[Unidentified]: I think that that means that it's no side yards in between those three units, those three townhouses, whatever we're calling them, on the proposed one, you've got one, two, three, and they're joined at the sides, and there's no side yard in between those three.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But this is considered one structure, one building. And that's that Harrison versus Town of Falmouth. And I produced that as part of my materials.
[Unidentified]: Do you know, okay. Do you know what page you're referencing on Harrison? I just wanna take a look at it because that wasn't my reading of it.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Higher case, let me see if I can pull it up.
[Unidentified]: I have the case in front of me.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: Let me see. If someone else has any questions, you can go ahead while I'm trying to figure this out.
[Mike Caldera]: So, I mean, Jacqueline, honestly, I think Attorney Desmond's description is helpful, but I'd really like to hear the building department's interpretation, because I think the residents' question, regardless of what the actual interpretation should be, is that their reading and some others' reading of the Medford zoning ordinance is that essentially the addition itself might be considered three attached buildings because they have the wall in between with no side yard. So basically it could be this compound thing where it's like, what is the addition in relation to the existing building? But then there's also the question about the addition itself. What's the use for that? And so some of these are like very Medford Ordnance specific questions. So I just really think we should get the building department to weigh in on what's their interpretation of the use here.
[Unidentified]: I agree. And Mr. Fargo, could you give us some thoughts on that, please?
[SPEAKER_07]: Do I need to be unmuted? I'm sorry.
[Unidentified]: We can hear you. Go right ahead.
[SPEAKER_07]: Oh, OK, great. Um, I think, in reference to Commissioner monkeys permit refusal. He's talking about the existing structure and constructing a two and a half story addition to the non conforming single family dwelling. And in his opinion, in the refusal, he refers to the structure as a four unit residential dwelling. Um, so it's, it's my opinion that he's, he's addressed that in the permanent refusal. I think part of, um, what needs to be thought of is the building code aspect of it. And I believe that the attached singles or townhouses, so to speak would all, um, have independent egresses from one another. I think there's also could possibly be part of Paul Mulkey, the building commissioner at the time, his interpretation and parent refusal that was written.
[Unidentified]: Are you saying that he, when I looked at these, it looks like these all do have their own, you can't get from the initial single family into the new the new proposed units, that's a solid wall, that's not a door. And then all the other units have independent egress and ingress is my reading. Are you saying that that does or does not change?
[SPEAKER_07]: No, the way I see it is there is a common area in that connector.
[Unidentified]: I didn't see that. Attorney Desmond, could you pull that back up, please? What I saw in that connector is that it's not actually a connector. Two of the units enter there, but they have independent doors, and then they have independent doors on the other side as well. And then two of the other units don't share anything. So the single-family home doesn't share any egress or ingress. with any of the other units, the one closest to the street appears not to share any, and then the two back ones. I have it in front of me, I can... Attorney Desmond, if you could pull up the architectural plan, that would be... helpful. I think even just the first page is helpful on that. So there's a vestibule that goes into units two and three, but unit four is entirely separate. Unit one is entirely separate. And I looked at all the floors for this, and I don't see that unit one can enter any of the others. So unit one and unit four are entirely independent. And then unit two and unit three, it looks like they just have a vestibule entrance, but they have separate exteriors on the other side. Could you, do you mind zooming in on that? Just hit that little plus button up the top or where it says 45 if you could go in a little closer.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Let me see if that works.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Oh, sorry.
[Unidentified]: Up to the plus.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can't hit it because it's in the thing. It's trying to actually manually go live. The share screen is in the way of it.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Sorry to make you do this, but would you mind going in even a little closer? I think it'd be helpful for us all to see what that says.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Attorney Desmond, you can hold control down and scroll with your mouse scroller.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so that's what I'm talking about there. Yeah, if you can just scroll over and down a little bit. Units two and three do seem to have this vestibule. It seems like it functions sort of like almost like a shared porch. If you look at the second and third floors, that's not common space. It's just that little entrance vestibule. And then unit four and unit one are entirely on their own. There's no egress or ingress that's shared anywhere.
[SPEAKER_07]: Right, I see what you're referring to.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so that was a big question mark for me, that part.
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, unfortunately, since the refusal has been written, Paul might be fired from the building department. So to get an interpretation from him.
[Unidentified]: Oh, Attorney Desmond, could you go back to that, please?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Back to what? I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking at the case.
[Unidentified]: Hold on. If you want to stop screen sharing, I can share that if you wanted to look something up. Why don't I do that? Mr. Falco, go ahead. My apologies, I didn't mean to interrupt.
[SPEAKER_07]: I'm good. I'm just going over Commissioner Mulkey's permit refusal. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Anybody else on the board have any thoughts on this?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Or questions? And if I could go back to the ordinance itself, which talks about side yards, I think that, again, the building attached, and if you look at single family dwelling attached, that is, again, building attached, there's no side yards, and this clearly has a side yard. And I think, Jacqueline, in terms of the page on the Harrison versus Town of Falmouth, case, it was page four, I believe that talks about the garage and, and that the unified architectural stance of the building is what qualifies it as one single building. The other thing too, is that if I just want to make sure I'm getting it, could you just say that it's the architectural exterior makeup of the building that makes it one building in a unifying structure? And that's what this does. And so we've had other cases like this, the West Fellsway case where we had the breezeway connecting the two and unifying that as one particular unit. But I think what's defining here too is if you look at the definitions in the code, that you have a court here, which is something you would not have in what's defined as a single family attached with no side yard. So in that sense, it serves as a multi. In addition- I'm sorry, you said we have a what here, a court? A courtyard. And if you look at the definition of courtyard, we'll stop. I can bring up the definition of courtyard if you want. Sure. I can't share.
[Unidentified]: No, I'll stop.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I think it's on this particular one.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So court is an open, uncovered, unoccupied space other than a yard on the same lot with a multiple dwelling or groups of multiple dwellings bounded on two sides or more by such dwelling or dwellings. And if you look at what we have here with the architectural plans, you do have a court, which is not something that you could have if this was a single family attached dwelling because you'd have, you know, a court implies that you have side yards. And if you're calling this your front yard and this your backyard, which you have to do, then these both represent sides.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Desmond, you're not sharing, at least not that I'm seeing. So I think you were gesturing with your cursor.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, so did you see the definition?
[Unidentified]: No, we didn't. Or I didn't at least.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Go back to court. This isn't that, it's the other one. A court is an open, uncovered, unoccupied space other than a yard on the same lot with a multiple dwelling or a group of multiple dwellings, and which is bounded on two or more sides by such dwelling or dwelling units. And if you look at the building again, you do have a court in this area. And the definition of attached building is you can have no side yards. And you've got a side yard here and here, and these are your two front yards.
[Unidentified]: So I don't think it falls within- Court just said other than a yard, but you just called that a yard.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, it is. Well, I suppose it's either a court, but you can't have any sides on an attached single dwelling based on the definition of building. single attached building. So the fact that you have side yards on each of them makes this under the ordinance a multifamily.
[Unidentified]: You know, and- I don't know that I'm comfortable saying that it could be both a court that is exclusive of a yard and a yard, right?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, I suppose,
[Unidentified]: It would have to, if court is exclusive of yard, then it has to be one or the other.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But that talks in terms of multiple family dwelling surrounding the court, which is what this has been qualified as. And actually, the other thing is if my client at one point considered making this a two rather than a single, and then it would take out of that entire piece and we wouldn't be looking for any more relief. I believe it's a multi, based on the definitions and the case law, I don't believe it qualifies.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, okay, I'm listening. I just, I don't wanna belabor the point, I just wanna make sure I'm really understanding because it sounded like, so in order for it to be considered, what I'm understanding from you is that that area is, you're considering that a side yard, but then you're saying based on the definition of it being a multi, that would qualify as a court, but that's exclusive of yards. So that, to me, a little bit feels a bit circular. Does that make sense? I think Jamie had a question. Jamie, you can go ahead. I'll- Yeah, so I was challenged by the multi-dwelling as well, but just from the perspective of we're discussing a side yard between unit one and these other units, but there's no independent side yards between the units two, three, and four.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Those are- Well, there's side yards here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, these are side, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: So this is the rear. I really think so. I mean, I have a question for Mr. Fargo that will hopefully help us out here. I mean, Mr. Fargo, I'm what I'd like to know. So a point taken that Mr. Moki has retired in the intervening months. Who is the current authority, whether interim or otherwise in the city of Medford to clarify what the uses here.
[SPEAKER_07]: So the city actually has an acting commissioner from an abutting town that is filling the duties when need be.
[Unidentified]: And who is that?
[SPEAKER_07]: The Arlington Building Commissioner, Mike Champa, I believe is his name. And we've also heard recently that the city has been interviewing and in the process of hiring a new commissioner. So Mike Champa, the Acting Building Commissioner in Arlington has been filling in.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Fargo, just related question and apologies if this is just a bit naive, but are you as a representative of the building department authorized to kind of give your own interpretation in this meeting or in the period where Mr. Ciampa is the interim building commissioner, do we really need a clarification to come from Mr. Ciampa specifically?
[SPEAKER_07]: Well, I mean, I don't answer on the questions, but I think as far as clarifying the dispute between the multiple dwelling and attack singles, that may be a route to go.
[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah and Mike I think that's an important question and Mr. Fargo I don't want to we don't want to push you to make some kind of make a determination if that's not this isn't the appropriate time so it sounds like that might be that might be a question that the board has. That may need to be addressed at a subsequent hearing or meeting okay. Okay. Um, did anyone else have any questions on this? I the attorney doesn't I may have interrupted your your presentation. I did you can continue if no one else has any questions on this.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think in terms of my presentation, the relief we're looking for is the side yard setback and the access area to the parking. The project seeks to maintain the structure, which may have some historical value while adding on three units, which is a modest addition given the fact that the property is in an apartment one district, the property would support at least 10 units. and the relief is minimal. The access to parking area can be granted by special permit. The decrease in the four and a half feet, I think it is roughly, it's all internal, wouldn't create any kind of substantial detriment to the neighborhood. We've made various concessions to the fire department, including sprinkling the existing structure and the new structure. and making it accessible to the backyard where the parking is and access to the units as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Desmond, I did have a few questions that actually relate to your last point, just clarifying questions. It didn't say one way or the other, so I tried doing some digging, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. As it stands now, the existing structure, has that been designated as historically significant?
[Kathleen Desmond]: No. Because we're not intending on demolishing the structure in any way, we were not required to go through a review from historical because we're not attempting. I suspect that if we were going to demolish the structure that we would probably be subject to some some delay anyway, I don't know that for certain, but that would be my educated guess.
[Mike Caldera]: So if i'm understanding correctly, then so. As it stands right now it hasn't received that designation in the event that the owner. chose to try to demolish it, then there might be a determination. If it was deemed historically significant, there might be a demolition delay imposed, and there might be some discussions with historic commission. And at the end of that whole process, is my understanding correct that the building could in fact be demolished by right and replaced with a completely conforming multi-unit structure?
[Kathleen Desmond]: of what we're proposing certainly for the units. You know this this holds on paper, 14 units, probably practically speaking, it holds 10 to 12. Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: And attorney doesn't know what year was the property built.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I had in the mid-1800s, I think to 1900, which is why I suspect that, you know, that the preservation is worthwhile in this instance. And, you know, my client understands that.
[Unidentified]: I feel like 1835. You said 1835? I don't know where I said 1835. Okay, 1835. Okay. Um, attorney doesn't, I, when I first looked at it, uh, Harrison case, well, I'll just say, I don't, I don't know that I'm seeing what I would consider to be a unified architectural effect. Um, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna hold maybe more thoughts until deliberations. Um, if anyone has any more questions or we can open up, um, for public comment. Anybody have any more questions or someone want to make a motion to open public comment?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open public comment. Still have too many things open. What's the?
[Unidentified]: 54 South Street.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open public comment for 54 South Street.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye. Okay, Dennis, I, oh, folks, public comment. So a couple things. Indicate, hit the hand raise button or raise your hand. We're gonna go through everybody. I know there's a lot of people who are still on. State your name and your address, please, before you begin. And then I mentioned this before, but we did receive several letters from abutters. We have seven letters from abutters. Um, and I think I can address those at the end, but, um, if you are someone who wrote one of those letters, just let us know when you start speaking. All right, Dennis, who do we have?
[Denis MacDougall]: I see, uh, Peter Miller with Santa. I'll just go to him first.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Unidentified]: Yes, Gordon.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, Peter Miller, 28 Corey street. Medford, I'm also on the historical commission. I had a question about the carriage house. I think the previous version of this proposal, when it came before our commission, was not taking down the carriage house. And I believe the current plan shows the carriage house to be raised. So I just, I'm trying to figure out how that is gonna, you know, does the zoning board trump the historical commission in terms of their being us able to review it now that the, it appears that the carriage house is being removed, at least on the current plan, it says garage to be raised, but it is a carriage house. of which they are rare and it is probably historic. So I just wanted to ask that question.
[Unidentified]: One moment first, sir, do you said you're on the Medford Historical Commission?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And you're saying that the this project came in front of the commission?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, We'd looked at it earlier, quite a long time ago. I don't remember exactly if it came before us, but at that point we felt that there wasn't significant demolition going on because essentially it was just adding on to, but that was before I became knowledgeable that the carriage house is being torn down. So that's a different story.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay, if I can speak.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, the plan that was submitted to the board was the plan that was submitted to building. So it was indicated on that plan. If it was somehow missed. We have had discussions with the the the fire department on on that point. And, you know, he would have he would prefer, obviously, that it be demolished. But when we spoke with the fire chief, the current fire chief, he would prefer for his turnaround that it be demolished. But, you know, I could go back on that. We did have some discussions that if it was historical, that he would relent on that point. But it was on the plan that we submitted because we only submitted the one plan through building.
[Unidentified]: So I want to make sure I'm understanding, you're saying that you believe that the plan that was shown to the historical commission is the same one that we're looking at that raises the carriage house?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, it's all part of the initial application that I made to the building. So they go through and the subcommittee reviews the plans that are on file with the building. So those are the plans that were submitted. if in fact that was missed somehow. I just assume that they found that to be not historical. If, if that's some issue, then
[Adam Hurtubise]: you know, I'm kind of just speaking as a sorry, just wait one second.
[Unidentified]: No, no, that's okay. But let's just let attorney doesn't finish. I just want one person speaking at a time.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If there's some issue, that's not anything that we're seeking relief from, from the zoning board. Our issues relate to the the access drive, and the at the point where it comes into the drive, not even actually where the 24 is a plan. So I think the narrowest point is here.
[Unidentified]: So you're not on screen share.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Oh, I'm sorry.
[Unidentified]: No, that's okay. So the narrowest point is where that that bump out is. Would it affect if keeping the carriage house? Would that affect the the access aisle? Do you know back behind the original structure?
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, I don't believe that it affects the access alley. I think that it was only done for purposes of, you know, the chief's position was he would prefer to have that removed if he could, but, but I know we had some initial discussions about it back when we vetted this project with the chief. Okay. And if an issue, then, then that was something that we couldn't work out.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And Mr. Miller, did you just want to finish up your comment? We do need to move along, but I wanted to give you an opportunity if there was just a last thing you wanted to say.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I don't recall the exact process of what went on, so I apologize for that. And I am kind of speaking as a private citizen, but I would assume that if that carriage house gets demolished, then, you know, they'll have to file a request for demolition for that, correct? Yeah, so I guess it will come up at that point. But I just wanted to raise that point because, you know, Attorney Desmond said that there was no you know, no historical structures or whatever being demolished. So, you know, I just want to bring up that the carriage house would, you know, in all likelihood be found historically significant. So just wanted to mention that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much. Okay. Dennis, who's next? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. I was muted, sorry, I muted myself. Sharon Guzik, name and address for the record.
[Libby Brown]: Okay, can you hear me? Yes, go right ahead. Sharon Guzik, 10 Manning Street. I'm a direct abutter. In fact, my yard, the corner of the South Street, of 54 South Street, sort of jumps into my yard. So we have the back corner on two sides. We abutted on two sides. I was the one that raised the point about my question about why this had been considered a multiple unit dwelling rather than a row of townhouses. I still think it should be considered three single family attached dwellings. And I agree with your interpretation, Ms. Dougherty, that the side yards, they're talking about between the attached houses and not on the sides, but the open sides. Anyway, I hope that question gets resolved because then they should have 130 feet street frontage and now they only have 103. Anyway, as a direct the butter, my property will be negatively impacted by the project. The parking lot will be across the back of the property as you've seen in the drawing. And that's practically in my backyard. The back of the carriage house is on my property line, or I should say are my husband's on this as well. And it. Right now provides a barrier between us and that yard. And there's also mature trees and bushes and, you know, that provides additional screening. The presence of eight cars being. Good to them.
[Unidentified]: Maybe cutting out. Hello.
[Libby Brown]: weird.
[Unidentified]: Um, ma'am. I'm sorry. We lost you after you said the presence of eight cars.
[Libby Brown]: Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, I don't know what he did. I don't go right in. Okay, the presence of a cards negatively impact us. We have a patio back there, which we regularly sit out in the summer and, you know, barbecue. and there'll be increased noise, there'll be car fumes right immediately in our backyard. There's negative visual impacts. If the carriage house is demolished, we will completely lose our privacy. Although, I know that the developer and Ms. Desmond will say they're going to put in a fence and some shrubs, but that does not provide the same amount of privacy the carriage house does. I had a couple of points I'd like to raise. Do you think it's admirable that they want to save the original house? but I disagree that the project would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. I think it would be a detriment. This is a historic house, whether the historic commission has already ruled on it or not, but it's pre-1855. It's in a grouping of four houses that are all historic. Three of them are also pre-1855. If you completely fill that open space, I mean, I know there'll be some grass in the front, you will reduce the historic significance of the house in the streetscape. Right now, you can see down the whole side. After that, you'll see a little bit, and it just will not have the same feeling. I also think that even though there's going to be two places for parking for each unit, there will be an issue with parking. There could be an issue with parking. I mean, many houses, single family houses, have three cars. I won't belabor that, but there's only parking on one side of South Street. No. And, you know, that will could complicate things.
[Unidentified]: Ma'am. We do appreciate it. I promise I can just ask you just done. To maybe make one last final point, we do need to move on to see if there's anyone else who has comments.
[Libby Brown]: Okay. I did want to speak to their hardship given on the worksheet. As I said, I admire that they're keeping the building, but I don't believe the fact that it's historic actually qualifies for a hardship, like not moving the building, not touching the building isn't actually one of the things that give it a hardship. Also, maximizing the potential or maximizing the profits is also not a hardship within my understanding of it. They could, There are other reasonable uses of the land, for instance, the one that's used now, or they could build a much smaller project.
[Unidentified]: OK, ma'am, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to give some other people an opportunity to speak, but we do appreciate your comments.
[Libby Brown]: I'm sorry I went too long.
[Unidentified]: That's OK. No, not at all. It's my job to keep this moving along. Thank you. OK, I see a hand for Christopher Bader. Go ahead, sir.
[Christopher Bader]: Yes, I'm Christopher Bader, as I mentioned before, 298 High Street. I'm the chair of the Historic District Commission and I am concerned about the possible demolition of the carriage house, its historic building. I would want that definitely to come before the Historical Commission to consider whether a demolition delay was warranted. And secondly, This is, you know, South Street is, the South Street neighborhood is one of the jewels of historic Medford. And I'm not convinced this would be a useful addition to that, the historical, historic character of that neighborhood. I think the owners might consider having the Historic History Commission as a courtesy uh, just as it relates to us, that is, um, uh, being able to review the design and materials of the building.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Thank you very much. Um, do we have anyone else? I'm not seeing any other hands. Oh, Okay. Karen Hines. Go right ahead.
[Martine Dion]: I just like to comment that, you know, Oh, sorry. 60 Monmouth Avenue. And I I'm not exactly in the neighborhood, but I, I just have a general concern when you replace one family with four, what that does to the traffic. In general, I see this happening in Medford a lot. And I just have concerns with all the growth and the use of public services, schools, roads, traffic, and loss of trees.
[Unidentified]: OK, thank you very much. I see Mi Moi.
[SPEAKER_23]: Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm also a direct abutter to 54 South Street. My yard is literally parallel to what will be eight parking spots. There is a chain link fence, but that's all there is. There is no privacy. Excuse me, sorry, jump in.
[Denis MacDougall]: What is your address for the record?
[SPEAKER_23]: Oh, forgive me, 15 Walnut Street.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_23]: Pardon me.
[Unidentified]: No, no problem. Go right ahead.
[SPEAKER_23]: To put those parking spaces in, they would have to take yard space away. So that's going to be replaced with pavement, essentially. We already have cooling issues here when we have hard rains. Many of our immediate neighbors will have their basements flooded. So Miss Hines brought up a very good point about infrastructure, where within a one block radius of this house, there's been quite a lot of neighborhood improvement, if you will. And where's the infrastructure going? Where's this rainwater going into our yard? You're placing yard space that would absorb rainwater with pavement. Then you're putting another structure, granted, Attorney Desmond, that it will be attached to the principal space.
[Unidentified]: Oh, sorry, just one point. Just make sure you address your comments to me, please.
[SPEAKER_23]: Okay, so then it will be attached the principal building, but again you're taking up a lot of yard space. I don't think that plot design is an accurate representation of what that area will look like much like the design when they had brought it up with Scott Street and Bailey, that was not an accurate design. So that is not an accurate depiction of what the vegetation we will be losing. She's already said that she's going to be taking out the fence along the driveway, along with the trees. Mrs. Guzak brought up a very good point that this is a very lush yard and we have a lot of wildlife come through here. I'm kind of afraid what's going to happen when that structure goes up and we lose all our vegetation in this area, never mind the privacy that Sharon and I, Mrs. Guzak and I will lose with this structure. And yes, this traffic along with all the other development in our neighborhood, which has been quite significant. I've been here for over 20 years. It's kind of shocking that the amount of traffic and whatnot that we will face here, the amount of people traffic alone and the structure hasn't even gone up yet. And I kind of agree. I'm not sure putting a three-story structure up next to this building is really positive for our neighborhood.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, ma'am. Do we have anyone else? I'm not seeing anyone else in the comments. I don't think I see any more. Oh, wait, I see a hand here.
[Pat Hansen]: Hello, my name is Pat Hanson and I live on Toro Avenue number 22. And my husband and I, we are shocked with all the development. Right in our backyard, a one family home turned into this monstrous two family right in the back of our yard. And we love to walk down South Street and we hate the thought of more development happening and it'll ruin that whole beautiful yard and building and the whole historical feeling of South Street. And plus South Street is an emergency artery during the wintertime. And so cars are not allowed to park there. So if there are excess cars, they'll end up on the other streets. So thank you so much for listening.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Okay, and I'm see Lois Grossman.
[Lois Grossman]: Yes. Can you hear me?
[Unidentified]: I can go ahead.
[Lois Grossman]: Lois Grossman 33 West Street. I walk by this house all the time and all the houses on South Street. I just wanna go on record agreeing with all of the people who've spoken against this plan and for all the same environmental aesthetic and moral reasons. And especially because the resulting structure will not bear any resemblance at all to the structure it's replacing. They might as well demolish it if they're not gonna make it be what it is or allow it to be what it is. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Any other hands, folks? Okay. Um, can I get a motion please to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations motion to close the public hearing for 54 South Street and open deliberations.
[Mike Caldera]: Second.
[Unidentified]: All in favor. Aye. Okay, folks, where are we? I'll just start with saying I'm not comfortable taking a vote at this time, or at least if I were to vote, I wouldn't be able to approve it because I think I still have questions regarding the issue of the multi versus the single attached. I'd like to get some confirmation from the historical commission on what exactly we're dealing with. I'd like the carriage house issue to be addressed. Those are the three thoughts that I have. What do you folks think? I agree. I'd like to get more clarification on the multi versus the single attached as well. I just don't feel comfortable right now. Yeah. I agree with regards to the multiple versus attached. And the carriage house as well. what the plans are for the carriage house. I don't have an issue. Attorney Desmond, just wait one second, please. Go ahead, Jim. Well, I'd like to have more clarification on the carriage house. If they're planning on keeping the carriage house, you said something about going up, adding on to it. Yeah, I'd like to get some clarification on whether what was shown to the Historical Commission is the same as what we've seen, whether the Historical Commission thought that it was or was not being demolished, and whether that would have any impact on what we're doing. Attorney Desmond, did you want to comment on the Carriage House?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Or I don't have any issue and I can in the next month go back to the fire chief. It wasn't something that that my client necessarily wanted to demolish. It was just a question of of his ability to get to the back of the building more easily. And, you know, we had discussed it early on. And if it was a historical issue, I think there's some room there. So I can certainly go back to him and see if he has an objection.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, or possibly even if a letter from if he wants to submit something just in writing, we're always happy to review it. Okay, um, Mike, did you have any thoughts on this?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my take is I think the lack of clarity on the use and the dimensional elements alone really requires clarification. So I really do want uh, the interim building commissioner to just, um, essentially hear the- the resident, um, and board questions about, um, kind of why we were uncertain about the prior, uh, determination and just very clearly say one way or the other, you know, here's what the, um, here's what this building or the set of attached buildings should be characterized and why. Um, I think on the, uh, so- so one thing I don't want us to lose sight of, here is that it is quite possible that if the applicant went through a lot of the steps to potentially demolish the principal structure, they may very well be able to do all of this by right. And so I think that it's clear to me from the design that the applicant seems to have taken efforts to try to preserve you know, the historical elements, including, like, making the new addition, you know, bring in some of those elements. What's tricky here is that because the demo permit was never pulled, it never has formally come before the historic You know, historic commission. So, um, I think it really does fall within the applicant's purview, but, um, you know, They may want to, uh, consider, um, trying to come before the historic commission, even though they. They technically don't have to just to, just to at least get, um, some feedback on whether the materials that are, have been chosen for the addition, um, you know, are. in line with the character of the existing structure. I think that when the board does make a ruling on this, that would be pertinent information that currently we don't have. So just wanted to throw that out there. Go ahead, Attorney Desmond, if you wanted to say something.
[Kathleen Desmond]: They review every application that comes in as to whether or not it needs to go before them. Now, the carriage house issue, admittedly, is something that must have been overlooked at some point. And we can deal with that. But with respect to the structure itself, and I have a letter from historical that I can send to you to the board. Okay, they indicated in the past, in the initial past from the to the building permit review, that, in fact, as long as we weren't changing the original structure, that they were not going to make. So as part of the building permit refusal process, they actually review every application that comes in. And you get sent to them in the event that they find it to be something that they want or need to look at. So we did do that piece of it because it came in through the building permit. And I do have from historical that as long as we're not changing the initial structure, that we could move on to the next step without going to them. So that's what we did in this instance.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead, you can finish. I don't want to cut you off.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So with respect to the carriage house, there's a misunderstanding. I can go back to the fire chief and see if that's an issue. And then we can deal with that in the process if my client decides that he wants to remove it. But I don't think that that was critical to him in this process.
[Unidentified]: OK. I also, because of I'd say some of the opaqueness of what we're talking about. I also want to be careful that we're not assuming something can be done by right, because what I've heard repeatedly is that the historical commission said that they didn't have a problem because there was no demolition. So I just want to make sure that we're careful not to say, well, maybe we should approve this because they're keeping the home, even though they're doing this other thing. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.: : And I'm not going to weigh in on the merits of the addition at this time. I'm just saying, I want to be careful. We're not weighing keeping the home versus by right, they could build 14 units. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.: : When I don't have any one from historical commission telling me that this could get approval to be demoed. So I just want to, I want to keep that in mind as well. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.: : When we're HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.: : Talking about weighing these things.
[Mike Caldera]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.:
[Unidentified]: : Actually be done by right.
[Mike Caldera]: HAB-Jacques Juilland, CoB.: : Apologies if I was unclear. And I do, I do agree with you that HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Mo.: : Or perhaps I should not use that wording because I think it's indeterminate right now. We don't know one way or the other. The reason why I brought this up was not so much to advocate one way or the other, just to, I do think that the analysis should consider likely reaction, like, I mean, essentially like the public Substantial detriment to the public good element you know there's there's that factor to like what's the realistic alternative here, I think that's that's a factor so but I agree we don't have. We don't have clarity on that, and so we shouldn't speculate as to that and to attorney desmond's earlier point, thank you for clarifying that I. I'm no longer making that as a specific request because I do also think it's important that applicants have a consistency of process where they're not just asked to do the same thing over and over again. So if the historic commission, I think the related point of clarification surrounding the carriage house, perhaps there was a miscommunication around that. It shouldn't necessarily encompass the entire plan. One last unrelated point, just, you know, a resident did make a comment about concerns about drainage and so on. And so I just was curious if the applicant would be amenable to using impervious materials or pervious materials rather to mitigate that risk.
[Kathleen Desmond]: We're working with the Conservation Commission because we also have an application before them. Ben, do you want to speak to that? Can you briefly?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Sure, I'd be happy to. Thank you. If I could share my screen, please.
[Unidentified]: Sure, go ahead. Director Hunt, did you want to comment on what we're talking about or did you have something else?
[Alicia Hunt]: I just wanted to provide, sorry, I just wanted to provide a clarification of something you had said about the role and the powers of the historic commission, just so that you have that information, like what their role is.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, go right ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: So they have the ability to put an 18 month demolition delay on buildings. They don't actually have the power to prevent demolition of any buildings in the city. And I just want you guys to have that awareness.
[Unidentified]: That's a very helpful clarification. Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. And actually, I have another question. And if you don't have the answer, it's okay. The 18 month delay, it's just that, essentially, it's just a delay. At the end of the delay, the applicant would be able to do the demolition?
[Alicia Hunt]: So the intention is that they use that as a tool to work with the owner to see if there is some way they can preserve the building, come to agreement, preserve portions of the building, and at a last ditch resort, at least document the building thoroughly. It used to be shorter. And frankly, three to six months delay is not meaningful to a developer. that's the process it takes to go through zoning and others. So the 18 months was chosen as a length of time that was considered meaningful, costly enough to a developer that they would want to negotiate and come out with in a mutually agreeable situation rather than having to wait that length of time.
[Unidentified]: Okay, that makes sense. So it's essentially an incentive.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay, got it. Thank you. Benjamin Minix, we cut you off, go right ahead.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: No, thank you. So I can discuss the stormwater portion a little bit more detail. So we have submitted these plans to the engineering department and gone back and forth with the city engineer. And I do have his general approval. You know, we haven't issued this as the building permit application, but as far as conservation submission, we did provide a copy to the engineering department, and I do have the approval as far as what has been designed for stormwater controls and the site layout. So if I could, this back area here, and if someone could confirm you can see my screen.
[Unidentified]: Yep, we can see it.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: So the parking lot proposed is back here. There are existing trees. along the property line here. We are proposing to save these trees. These two aren't on the property, so those would be saved. These two we're trying to keep, and this one would be removed. So I know Ynabutter had an issue with tree removal and some other removal. So this photograph here shows some of the backyard with that existing chain link fence. Those two trees are technically off the property. They are on the Ynabutter's property. So we are posting the parking lot before those trees, and those trees would be safe. Getting back to the site plan. So this dashed line here indicates the area of a proposed stormwater system in the parking lot. And this system is actually oversized for what we would need to meet the stormwater requirements. So we're actually capturing enough runoff for the 100-year event just for this parking lot area. just to prevent any ponding of water. So this is, we have considered that because it is relatively flat across the site. So this stormwater system is pretty large in comparison. And same goes for the front and the sides. We have additional stormwater infrastructure proposed. Now the Conservation Commission did make requests for pervious pavers that was mentioned. Part of that was within. So this line here is the 200 foot riverfront area line. So their jurisdiction is basically the front half of the lot. So they requested potentially pervious pavers in the front of the driveway. There's positives and negatives to that. One negative is the fire department may not allow that because they are They do want to access this driveway with the pumper truck if necessary. Second to that, we are capturing the runoff from the driveway in the system. So whether it's pervious or not, it's still going to the ground in relatively the same area. I think those were the main questions and happy to answer more if you have any.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thanks. That answered my question.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Um, okay. So it's sounding like, um, we have some questions. Um, and before we, um, we take a vote on anything attorney Desmond, um, I think it sounds like you're in agreement, but I just want to make sure, um, would you be, um, in agreement if the board continued to next, um, to next month. And gave you an opportunity to, um, maybe answer some of those questions and also We could see if we could get the interim building commissioner to weigh in on some of the questions that we have. I can't hear you, but I saw that you said yes. Okay, thanks so much. All right, folks, so if anyone has any more questions, go right ahead, or if someone wants to make a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to continue
[Unidentified]: the next regular meeting of the Metro Zoning Board of Appeals. I second. Okay. And I'll do roll call. Mike Caldera? Yes. Jamie Thompson? Yes. And Jim Torani? Yes. And Jacqueline Daugherty? Yes. Okay. So, Attorney Desmond, if you could just coordinate with Dennis, please. I want to make sure we are cognizant of that 100-day waiver. and we will see you folks next month. I'm not sure what you said, but I think I saw a thank you.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Have a good night. Yes, thank you and have a good night.
[Unidentified]: You as well. Okay. Let's see. So administrative updates. Dennis, Alicia, Victor, do we have any administrative updates?
[Denis MacDougall]: I think on my end, and I haven't actually received, I would have told you. We're all set for next month. So I may have one additional filing for next month, but it's a very small one. So we're kind of working on it with the applicant because it's basically just adding a fence. So the paperwork is a much less than a normal file.
[Unidentified]: OK. Get them on for next month, but that would be the only additional one. OK. All right, so next is approval of meeting minutes. Did everyone get a chance to take a look at the minutes that Dennis circulated? Yes. Apart from, I think, just that one date issue, did anyone have any other edits?
[Mike Caldera]: Just my last name.
[Unidentified]: Was it spelled wrong?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Yeah, but if we made those two changes, I'm good.
[Unidentified]: OK. All right, let's just do a vote. I can't remember how we did this last time, but could I get a motion to approve the August meeting minutes, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to approve the August meeting minutes with the date change and the name change.
[Unidentified]: Second. Okay, Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jamie? Yes. And Jacqueline, I am a yes. Okay, and last but not least.
[Denis MacDougall]: I'll fix that. I've made the changes and Mike Paul use I think I was thinking of walking.
[Unidentified]: Oh, perfect. Thanks so much, Dennis. Okay, so then, folks, the next thing we have on the agenda is an executive session. Jonathan Murray, could you just walk me through I need to know the exact protocol for how we transition.
[SPEAKER_03]: If someone would like to make a motion to go into executive session. And I think for simplicity, you just read the agenda language verbatim. That's appropriate. And then you would take a roll call vote.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I have it in front of me. So I'll just, I can read that. So I can make a motion, right? Yep. Yeah. I always ask for a motion, I don't know why, but okay, so I'll make a motion to go into executive session pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation, because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body, and I, as the chair, declare that having a discussion in open session would have that detrimental effect. Okay. Is that good?
[SPEAKER_03]: I would just note the matter that the board.
[Unidentified]: Oh, the next paragraph. OK. We're going to discuss litigation strategy with respect to Sidney Wolfe, trustee of the CC Industries Realty Trust versus City of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals at all Massachusetts Land Court docket number 22 miscellaneous 000458JSDR relative to the appeal of the board's grant of variances and site plan approval for the construction of a laboratory facility at 4060 Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford. The board will immediately vote to go into executive session and will not return to open session. Okay. Can I get a second, please? All in favor. Oh, no. Sorry. Roll call. Jamie. Yes. Jim. Yes.