[Denis MacDougall]: On February 12, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law a supplement of COVID-19 fiscal appropriations and an extension through July 15, 2022, of certain authorizations related to public meetings. This new law extends the remote meeting provisions of the Governor's March 12, 2020, executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. In accordance with the 2020 executive order, this meeting of the City of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted totally via remote participation using Zoom, including committee members and the public. The use of Zoom complies with the last requirement to provide live, adequate, alternative means of public access to the deliberations of the public body, instead of holding meetings in a public place that is open and physically accessible to the public. Persons who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by using the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted in the city metro website. If, despite our best efforts, we are not able to provide for real-time access, we will post a record of this meeting on the city's website in the near future at the link provided in the meeting agenda.
[Unidentified]: All right, thanks, Dennis. Did we hear back from Jim Halloran?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I have not, unfortunately.
[Unidentified]: Do we know for the first project, if it's just the three of us, I think we could probably still vote on a continuance, right? Because I think it's just the On a continuance or a finding? On a continuance. Do you know? Yeah, I think that's probably. OK, so we should probably get started. OK, Dennis, what do we have up first? Let's go to.
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, just a suggestion. We might want to take these out of order. Because I think the second item there might be a request. for that to be continued. I think we have at least one person on the call for the second project.
[Unidentified]: Do you think we need four for a continuance?
[Mike Caldera]: Like I said, I think it's three. It's a majority, I believe.
[Unidentified]: Oh, OK. I thought it was three. You want to take the continuing second or first?
[Mike Caldera]: First.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so that's what I thought you were saying.
[Mike Caldera]: Second on the agenda. And I'm just suggesting we do that first.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I agree.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: And I actually had mentioned that to be for the one for for Summer Street as well. We do it this way. So. For forty sixty Mississippi Parkway, Case number A-2022-08. Applicant and owner, Ryse Care of Jeremy Henry, is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a new eight-story structure to be used as a laboratory facility, industrial zoning district allowed use, with insufficient lot area, lot frontage, side and rear yard setbacks, and number of loading bays. This building exceeds maximum allowed height, number of stories, and maximum allowed lot coverage. This project is also subject to site plan review.
[Unidentified]: OK. Folks, who do we have here?
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_13]: Yes, good evening. My name is Michael Parker. I'm with Dane Torpy, and I'm here on behalf of RISE. I'm also joined tonight by the owners rep, Quinlan Locke.
[Unidentified]: Hi, folks.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_13]: Hi. So thank you for taking us this evening. As Dennis mentioned, the project is currently in front of the Community Development Board, undergoing site plan review. We were recently our first in front of the Community Development Board on May 16th, where we received some valuable feedback from the board and other city departments, and we're scheduled to visit them again on June 6th. So should we be fortunate enough to receive community development board approval in June, we'd like to come back to your board at your next meeting on June 30th. So we're here to request a continuance.
[Unidentified]: Okay. So, Dennis, I just want to confirm before we say June 30th, do we know that that is in fact going to be our next meeting?
[Denis MacDougall]: That is our next scheduled date for meeting.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Okay, so we can vote on that. I just wanna let you know, we right now only have three members of the board who are present, but because you're asking for a continuance, you only need a simple majority. So we can still vote on that right now, but I want to, I guess I just wanna make sure that you're aware of that and give you the opportunity if you prefer that we didn't vote on a continuance right now.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_13]: Great. No, I am perfectly happy if you vote on the continuance this evening.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[WpieqDvHvyY_SPEAKER_13]: Perfect.
[Unidentified]: Could I get a motion, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Motion to continue 4060 Mystic Valley Parkway to the next scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in June.
[Unidentified]: All in favor? Aye. Okay, folks, we will see you next month.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: You're welcome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. And just real quick, I wanted just to make a correction, because the Community Development Board hearing is June 9th, I believe. Victor, can you just confirm that? Perfect.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Unidentified]: Perfect. Thank you. OK. Dennis, who's next?
[Denis MacDougall]: 29 Summer Street, case number A-2022-07. Applicant and owner Nicholas Santos is petitioning for a variance Chapter 94, actually it's finding, but finding from Chapter 94 city method zoning to construct a full third story addition to a preexisting nonconforming or family dwelling in a general residence district, thereby requiring a finding by the zoning board of appeals.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks Dennis. And who do we have here for the applicant?
[Denis MacDougall]: Don't actually see any of the people who are on there, but I'm not sure if maybe one of their other representatives is here. So if you are here on this matter, Please let us know.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, maybe turn a camera on or raise a hand or something. And there's nobody in the waiting room, right?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I spoke to them. Why not spoke? I emailed with them recently and they were all set to come, so.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, Ryan was involved. That was one of the people that the historic Oh, it is.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. There we go. Yeah, I wonder if he's having issues.
[Unidentified]: Mostly dealing with Bert. How do you say the last name? Orton's. I'm asking him to unmute but. He may have stepped away when we started the other matter.
[Victor Schrader]: Dennis, it looks like Andrew has unmuted,
[Unidentified]: Andrew. Oh, Andrew Chapman, maybe perhaps. Andrew, is that you? Oh, not Brian. Brian is gone. There's also someone on the phone. Might be having connectivity issues. Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: just going through all the emails to see if he ever includes. Hello, this is Brian Horton.
[Unidentified]: Oh, hi there.
[SPEAKER_06]: Hi, sorry, we're having some issues with logging in.
[Unidentified]: Okay, no problem. Do you need a few more minutes? Are you ready to go?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, so we're not too familiar with the process. So we're presenting the plan That historical has given us to go ahead with. I know my partner has spoken with Dennis. And so we're just looking to see if we're ready to proceed with the plans as presented.
[Unidentified]: Sure. So what would happen is typically you folks would make, you know, either explain your application or make a presentation. You can put up slides. You could put up some of the plans. If you're having connection issues, we could put up some of the plans that were submitted to us, and you can explain the relief that you're asking us for and explain why you think it is warranted. And then we open up to public comment, and then the board deliberates, and then the board votes. But there's also an opportunity for questions in there. So if you folks are ready and you'd like to present the application, you can go ahead. If you need a few more minutes for connectivity issues, let us know. And also if you'd like us to put up the plans so that everyone can be looking at them while you're presenting, just let us know that as well.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, yeah, we're having connectivity issues. We're on a phone right now, it wasn't working on Zoom. So yeah, so just to be clear, so when we're presenting the findings, so what we were understanding was that we were in a multifamily zone And so we were looking to go from two and a half stories to three stories by right. And so that's what we're trying to get clarification on. We're not understanding why we're not able to get the third story by right.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Mr. Smith, are you on Paul Smith?
[SPEAKER_07]: Yes, I am.
[Unidentified]: Hi there. So Mr. Sorry, you know what, sir, I forgot your last name's Hortons. Yeah. Okay, I'm going to ask Paul Smith is from the building department. So I'm going to ask him to give a little explanation as to why, why you, I just want to pull up the letter, why the permit was refused, and that may help a little bit of clarification.
[SPEAKER_07]: Great. Yes. So, in the GI zone, it's only up to two and a half stories, and their house now is two and a half stories, even though it's a four unit structure that they were looking for leaf to go up to the third story, this fully sprinkled in the building. Myself and Paul Moki looked through the zoning and came up with a decision that it is only two and a half stories in that area. And at that point in time, we had to deny them. They actually filed for another permit just to get the job moving with another set of plans. We granted the set of plans and told them that if they wanted to go to the board for relief, that they would have to. go for the third story. But as of right now, they have a full building permit for what they're doing, other than the third story.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much. Sir, did that did that make sense to you?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, so that was explained to us. Yes. Okay.
[Unidentified]: So So basically, what what happens is within the GR district where your property is located, by right, you're allowed to build two and a half stories. And it sounds like your structure from what we've seen already is two and a half stories. So to do that additional third, the back half, I think it was to do that full third story. That's why you would need to get relief from the zoning board. I actually, when I was going through, when I was going through this and if anyone else had a little bit clearer of a picture, I was, so if we look at the worksheet that was submitted, I didn't get a lot of information on that. And I was actually a little bit confused as to why we were being asked about a finding as opposed to a variance. Did anyone else have any more clarity on that?
[SPEAKER_05]: That's how it was explained when we were submitting the worksheet, that it was actually a finding versus a variance. And also that there were other homes on the street that had gone up from two and a half to three. So there was precedence on it as well. So I don't know if that also contributed to why it was a finding versus a variance, but that's how it was explained to us as to what we were actually asking for relief on.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, just a clarifying question. So it's been mentioned that this is a two and a half story house in the plans. I see the front half. There's something described as the third floor area. So is the front of the structure three floors or is it two and a half?
[SPEAKER_05]: It's three in the front. Yes, just the back. That's two and a half. So the other thing, too, is we were just bringing up to level. The back with the front in order to maximize the square footage that we'd be getting in the back two units.
[Unidentified]: Was the is the back so sometimes when you do two and a half you'll have like a sloped ceiling and the. So two and a half, let's say you have a hundred square feet on the first and second floor. That means that by right, you're allowed to put 50 square feet on the third floor. So sometimes you'll see that and it's a sloped ceiling and you've only actually got 50 square feet and it's down the center. Sometimes you'll see it up the front. Am I understanding correctly that the front half of the house is actually a full story and the back half of the house is also partially a full story? on that third floor?
[SPEAKER_05]: Correct.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I want to just double check. So are you, is the house currently at two and three quarters stories? Would that be an accurate way to describe it?
[SPEAKER_05]: Not sure if it's two and a half or two and three quarters, but yeah.
[Unidentified]: By square footage. Does that make sense?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I believe it's two and a half by square footage with the slopes.
[Unidentified]: OK, so I was sort of wondering in terms of the finding, if it's I wonder if that's because it was already a nonconforming structure, but we would.
[Yvette Velez]: Just trying to think if this is.
[Unidentified]: Let me see if I if we have this in the paper, I didn't see the. Do you understand, Mike, do you understand what my question is?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, as I understand it, if it's a two and a half and this renovation would make it a three, then it's creating a new nonconformity rather than extending an existing nonconformity.
[Unidentified]: And I just am wondering, the first thing that's coming to mind is I almost feel like I don't have enough information.
[Yvette Velez]: But that initial house, the first portion, the existing, it does go up. So they're keeping it existing. And now they're extending it.
[Unidentified]: Well, but my understanding is the 50% could be fully heightened. So you could have the front half of the building could be the 50% square footage fully heightened. Go ahead.
[SPEAKER_06]: Sorry, just so I'm understanding correctly. So we're looking to tie in the back roof line with the front roof line. And that's why we're trying to make it a continuance of the front of the building.
[Unidentified]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-
[SPEAKER_05]: Not off the top of our heads. It was all submitted though, all the existing plans and future plans to the board, as well as the building department.
[Unidentified]: So if you have- I don't think I saw that in what was in front of me, but that's not to say that you didn't submit it. It's just that I don't believe that I saw that in the paperwork I was looking through.
[Mike Caldera]: I was struggling to find like an easy aggregate listed, but I mean, the plate, we have the plans. So yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: What was it? Is it on that worksheet? No, I don't think I didn't see it on the worksheet.
[Unidentified]: What I saw on the worksheet was that required is two and a half. And it says existing is three, but I think that's incorrect from, what I've seen and what you've said to us. So I think that that might not be accurate on the evaluation sheet. And then on the worksheet, I believe it said it's two and a half looking to go to three. So either the applicant or Mr. Smith, do we know what the the preexisting nonconformity is, that might help us figure out what we're working with.
[SPEAKER_05]: I do know that there's preexisting nonconformance to the backyard, the distance between the home and the property in the back.
[Unidentified]: Okay, I think I saw a front yard nonconformity as well. Okay, so do you think it's backyard nonconformity?
[SPEAKER_05]: It did the backyard was one for sure, but we weren't changing that footprint. And that's why that was okay. It was really just the going up was the problem.
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Um, Mr. Smith, were you about to say something?
[SPEAKER_07]: Uh, yes. If you look from the front of the street, uh, looking at the house, the front part of the house is two and a half stories. It's two full stories with the roof line. Uh, the back is where they're trying to tie into the, the existing roof line. So the hopes down in by adding that that third That new roof line in the extra story is over there, 50% rule. But in a multi-unit building, you can go up three stories. It's just unfortunate that that building, which is an existing building for four units, is in a GI zone. That was the only reason why I had to deny that. The building stays the same. It's just a carry through. And as long as, at the time, you know, as long as you stayed within the footprint of the foundation, and you were going up, you're really not making it more nonconforming because you're not adding an addition, not adding anything to the outside of the foundation.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: If I may, so I looked up the property card in the assessors database and it lists the living area of the first floor and the second floor as 2032. Now it lists the attic as unfinished, so I'm not sure if that part's accurate, but
[Unidentified]: 2032 total or each?
[Mike Caldera]: Each floor. So each floor is 2032. So, uh, you know, eyeballing it. Uh. The yeah, the existing third floor area is. In the ballpark, maybe a little bit more than half. It's a. 402 square foot for each of the bedrooms and then. existing closets. Yeah, in the existing exactly. So I'd say it's two and a half.
[Unidentified]: Okay. So to the to the applicants, I just want to explain so you understand what we're trying to figure out right now. So there are a couple different ways that you can get relief or that you can ask for relief from the board. One of them is a finding if there's already a nonconformity and we are going to be extending it or altering it. then we would be making, that you'd be asking the board to make a finding that essentially that extension, that alteration isn't going to be like substantially more, this is the one where I always mix up the two substantially, substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, et cetera. If the square footage of the third floor right now were more than 50% of the square footage of the second and the first floors, that would be a prior nonconformity. If it's 50% or less, it wouldn't be, and it would most likely be something where you'd need to come to the board and ask for a variance. And a variance has a different set of criteria in order to be approved. So that's what we're just trying to figure out because we want to make sure that we're applying the right criteria in the relief that you're asking us for. And the other thing I want to bring up is that because we only have three members on tonight, if we were to make a finding, or if we were going to vote on a finding that is a vote by simple majority so the three of us could vote on that. If it were a question of a variance, we'd need to go through those other criteria. And we don't have enough people to vote on that because you need a super majority. So we would need at least four people to vote on that. The other thing that I'm wondering, and if people don't agree, please let me know. I'm wondering if it might be more helpful if we could get a bit more information. if maybe it might make sense to move any vote to next month and get a bit more information about some of the square footages as they exist. That's just a thought that I'm having. I'm open to what other board members think, or of course, what the applicant thinks about that. Yeah, I mean, I'm not quite sure.
[SPEAKER_05]: You know, as it was explained, you know, my conversations through applying, it seemed like it was communicated as a finding. So I'm not sure then what may be bumping it to a variant based on previous reviews. But, you know, we're open to whatever, you know, the board needs, obviously. Yeah, because we apologize, but we would all.
[Unidentified]: No, no need to apologize. I just want to make sure that we're able to evaluate it properly. I don't want us to rush something through and have us not get to the right outcome. That's just why I'm bringing up the question. I think for me, it would be very helpful if we could get confirmation on the square footage of each of the three floors as they existed at the time. I'm, Yvette, Mike, what do you folks think?
[Yvette Velez]: So who within the city gave this, offered this advice? I mean, I feel like folks within the departments are pretty well informed and know what, are familiar with the permit refusal. And so I feel like that would have been, if they presented to the applicant that this is a finding, then I feel like in good conscience and faith that we could move forward with that. But, you know, I would agree with the group if we disagree, but that's not, if we don't all feel that way.
[Unidentified]: Okay. All right. Mike, what do you think? So I'm conflicted.
[Mike Caldera]: I think, so on the worksheet itself, which it's not clear if that was filled out by the applicant or by the building department, it says it's three stories existing.
[Unidentified]: On the evaluation sheet?
[Mike Caldera]: zoning evaluation sheet, yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I saw that. Mr. Hortons, did you, who filled out the evaluation sheet where it says, it's the chart that says, gosh, let me find it. It has a list of like plot area, frontage, width, and then required existing provided. Do you know who filled that out?
[SPEAKER_05]: That was the combination of myself and the architect.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_05]: Based on the plans that we had and the information from the city on the existing square footage.
[Yvette Velez]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. And you know that that third floor, the reason we said three stories is because there were rooms that were done over up there a long time ago.
[Unidentified]: Sure, yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: And lived in a long time. but that was used as an additional floor at some point in the house's path.
[Unidentified]: I don't want to be the person who holds things up. I think the information that I feel like we are missing is the square footage of what was finished used space on that third floor at the time of the application. Does that make sense? If you came back to us and said it was you know, 1,500 square feet, or you came back and said it was 800 square feet, that would be a different analysis for us.
[Mike Caldera]: Just to be clear, though, Jacqueline, so if it's, if it was, if it beforehand was less than half the square footage of the first and second floor, then that would require a variance, is that?
[Unidentified]: I think so, right? I believe so. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Denis MacDougall]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. So this is existing. And so, you know, that's the current existing apartment but there is definitely. We just don't have plans for because this is all we have right now is for existing plans but you know just, there is space here that something. And, you know, just, I'm just sort of, it's not a ton, but it seems like it's a certain square footage. So I think if that square footage of available space in this area could be calculated, we might be able to, I don't know if we can do it right now, but I think that's really kind of what we're looking for is to get that number.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so Dennis, I mean, the property card says that the unfinished attic is the same size as the two floors below. So Mr. Hortons, just to be clear, is the attic on the portion at the rear finished or is it unfinished?
[Unidentified]: At the time you submitted the application. Yeah, unfinished. Okay, thanks.
[Denis MacDougall]: But does, let me just sort of stick on here. So, but does unfinished matter for the calculation of square footage?
[Unidentified]: Well, it would depend on the height of the roof.
[Denis MacDougall]: Right.
[Unidentified]: Right. And what portion of the height of the roof what constituted a livable story. So folks, again, not to sound like a stickler, but whenever we have someone who comes to us and they want to make an expansion to go from a two and a half story to a three in a district where that's not allowed, we have to take a look at the square footage. And I just want to make sure that for every applicant who comes in front of us, they know what to expect and they're being treated the exact same way. Um, so I, I personally don't feel comfortable, um, making a determination, um, as to a finding when I don't actually have the information in front of me. Um, but I, I would be very happy to, to say, if you folks are comfortable, comfortable with it to come back at our next meeting, um, you could get us a bit more information about the square footage. Um, and then we could make sure that we're just giving you the, giving us the appropriate. You know, analysis, um, that it deserves.
[SPEAKER_05]: Does it make a difference that there's precedence on that street for this or no?
[Unidentified]: So, you know, in some ways it does. So when we're making for a finding or for a variance, one of the things we take into consideration is the character of the neighborhood, for sure. That doesn't necessarily change whether we're going to go down the avenue of analysis for the finding or the avenue of analysis for the variance, but it definitely comes into play in our decision based on the appropriateness of the relief that's being requested. Does that make sense?
[SPEAKER_05]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: So I would say, I think it would just be helpful if we got a bit more information, very specifically the square footage of the first floor, the square footage of the second floor, and the square footage of the third floor that is of a height that qualifies as like, I think it might be eight feet or something, that qualifies per the building code to be buildable, livable space that existed at the time that you submitted the application, or rather that was preexisting. I say that because I want to be careful that it's not anything that's been done recently. Does that make sense?
[SPEAKER_05]: Okay. Right. And that's for the back of the home, right?
[Unidentified]: For the entire third floor. So there's that part of the front that it sounds like is already livable, finished space. I think you said there's some rooms up there. So we would need to know, or rather my request would be to be provided with the information for the entire third floor what square footage of that is like was already in existence as like livable square livable space that's, you know, has appropriate roof height, etc. Okay. All right. So, um, yeah, we can provide that information.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, okay.
[Unidentified]: And if there's anything else that you folks want to let us know, also feel free to submit anything else as well in the meantime. I don't want to limit you just to the square footage information.
[SPEAKER_05]: All right, yeah, I guess for many of the other members, is there any other information that would be helpful to you that you don't have now that you'd want us to also include?
[Mike Caldera]: So Mr. Hortons, I don't know the extent to which it's really relevant to the analysis we do here, but oftentimes applicants will submit like a plot plan. So I didn't see anything sort of showing that the entire property, it was just the structure itself. So again, I know you're not changing anything there, So don't interpret that as a requirement, but that was one thing I noticed that wasn't there.
[Denis MacDougall]: And Brian, I can send you an example of that. You and Bert an example of that. So you just sort of see exactly what Mike is referring to.
[SPEAKER_05]: Is this Dennis? Yeah, this is Dennis, yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, I should have said this is Dennis. No, that's all right. Sorry, I'm just on a phone. I just realized as I was speaking, I'm like, you're on the phone. You would not know who's speaking. So yeah. And if any other questions sort of come through, just don't. You know, you can just give me a shout and I'll help you out.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we can work with a wonderful resource for you. Okay, folks, so if you're if you're in agreement, then we can we can vote on on a continuance to the next meeting.
[SPEAKER_07]: Excuse me, this is Paul Smith. Again, I just have one question.
[Unidentified]: Okay, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay, so just for the clients that are coming in looking for the finding, if they produce everything that you're asking for, are you going to make a decision in June that it's going to be a finding or a variance to put them back another month? Or should they try to fill out something different?
[Unidentified]: Oh, God, great. You know, great question. I just, I know. No, no, no, that's a great question. So my understanding is that if we find out that the square footage is more than, the square footage of the third floor is greater than 50% of the square footage of the second floor, then I believe we can proceed on a finding. If we find out in the, you know, if they find out in the interim month that it's less than, that's when we would need the information for the variance. I don't wanna give any form of legal advice. I don't think it would hurt to be prepared sort of with that information, but I think they should be able to figure out which one it'll be based on those numbers once they have those numbers.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. That's all. No, no, that was a great point. Thank you for bringing that up.
[Unidentified]: I didn't think of that.
[Denis MacDougall]: And really, the big difference between that is the worksheet and support, which you all filled out. You had to fill out numbers one and seven. If you're going from a binding to a variance, it's just there's a couple other spaces in there, like questions two through six, that you can just fill out the information in there. And again, I'll be able to help you with working out with that. get you guys in the right direction on those questions.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, and if you come back, so it looks like the second floor and the first floor, I think Mike said, were 2032. So if you come back and the square footage of the third is greater than 1016, then it seems like we'll be proceeding on a finding. So that should help to let you know what kind of information we would need from you.
[SPEAKER_06]: And just to close the loop, would our architect be uh, the source that you guys would, uh, look to, to, to confirm that since he's the one that took off the plans from the, uh, for us.
[Unidentified]: Um, you know, that would be a good question for the building department. Typically we, you know, if the architect can say, Hey, this is what it was, that's definitely, you know, something that we can, we can listen to. Um, but it might be helpful if maybe you or the architect could communicate with the building department just to confirm, um, I think probably those would both be fine sources.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, just so we're understanding, so the building department is agreeing that while it was not sure of what it is, we just need to meet and confirm what it was? Is that what we're understanding?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think it sounds like the only information that we really just need to know is what that square footage is on the third floor. So if your architect can provide that to the building department, or if we have plans that show that, I think that would be great.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, that's helpful.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Okay, so to the applicants. Oh, Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I was just gonna say just to be clear. So our next regular meeting is on June 30. So we would be continuing it to that date. Does that work for you?
[SPEAKER_06]: If there's a possibility to do something in advance, it would be helpful. We were thinking that we would be able to proceed. So if there's something we can do prior to that meeting that you think would it sounds like we have to go to the next meeting either way, is that correct?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we don't have, we don't generally have interim meetings, unfortunately.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, yeah, so we would just meet in the meantime, and then we'll definitely attend the next one, and we'll have a better understanding of if it meets the requirements for a finding.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Yeah, and we really appreciate that. We just want to make sure that all the applicants who come in front of us have to provide the same information so that we make sure that we're doing our jobs correctly.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay. Yeah, we're just we're familiar with that process. So we apologize.
[Unidentified]: Oh, no, no, no need to apologize at all. Part of our job is to try and help people understand how to get through this process because it can be confusing. Okay, so if you folks are okay on that, we can, we can take a vote if someone wants to make a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to continue 29 Summer Street to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in June.
[Unidentified]: All in favor?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Okay, so we're continued to next month. And folks, I just want to, I'm not sure if you've heard this at the beginning, for the continuance, because we have the three members here, we are able to vote on the continuance because we only need a supermajority of the total of the five members. Okay, folks, thanks so much. We will see you next month. And if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out either to Dennis or to City Hall.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, guys.
[SPEAKER_05]: And thanks to Dennis and Paul, for all their help with us on this process. They've been very helpful. So we just we appreciate that. Thank you guys.
[Unidentified]: Yep, they're the best. Okay, thank you.
[SPEAKER_05]: Have a good night.
[Unidentified]: You too. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thanks. Okay. All right, so now I think we need to vote to go into executive session.
[Victor Schrader]: I have a couple of administrative updates if that's on the agenda, I thought.
[Unidentified]: Oh yeah, let's do that first.
[Victor Schrader]: Okay. Great, well, thank you. I just wanted to give you a two quick updates. We know that you have an open position on the board and we have received a number of applications. from what we think are qualified candidates. There's probably a good handful that we're going to vet here over the next couple of weeks and are confident that a candidate will, qualified candidate will rise and that we can have that seat filled in short order. And secondly, as you've all probably been following, the marijuana licensing process continues. And the ZBA is the Special Permit Granting Authority for those licenses. So once an organization, an entity receives a host community agreement from the mayor, they'll be filing for a special permit from the ZBA. So you obviously haven't received any of those yet, but there are a number of applicants in the queue. I know that the Mayor's reviewing the retail applications now. She has issued one host community agreement. And there are three licenses, so potentially two more could be coming. In addition, the Cannabis Advisory Committee has reviewed an application for a cultivation facility on Mystic Avenue and recommended that to the mayor for review. That also requires a special permit from the ZBA. So...
[Unidentified]: Is that a municipal organization, a state organization?
[Victor Schrader]: The Cannabis Advisory Committee. That's the local review organization. It's made up of five department heads from the city of Medford. There is a state licensing commission, the CCC, or an acronym world here, and applicants also need a license from the Cannabis Control Commission at the state level. before they can operate. But the local process happens kind of in tandem with the state process. Then once an applicant's fully approved at the local level, they'll go to the state to finalize their application and receive their license so that they can operate. Um, so I just wanted to put, uh, give you an update and put a little reading material, uh, a little homework for you if, if you're interested ahead of, uh, well ahead of these applications coming in. They do love homework.
[Unidentified]: I think our primary job on this board is reading things.
[Victor Schrader]: It's not a long read, but the ordinance outlining the special permit process is number 854. You can find that on Muny code. It's also now in the new Medford zoning ordinance. We've embedded the marijuana ordinance in the zoning ordinance. If you have a copy of the latest version of that, it's in there. If you'd like, we can certainly send that to you.
[Unidentified]: Um, that's not online, right? The new one or the updated one?
[Victor Schrader]: It is. The latest version is actually on file under the city council papers. I think it's papers or special projects. You can pull it. It's not updated to Muny code. I'm sorry about the darkness here. I'm in a new apartment and there's no light. I'm realizing now there are no lights in this room.
[Unidentified]: That's okay. I'm fading fast.
[Victor Schrader]: It is, that's the latest draft, draft 10 from March. And we're working on a final draft and the clerk is working to update Muni code so that it's current.
[Yvette Velez]: Okay, great. Thank you, we can check that out. You can send it, that would be significantly easier.
[Victor Schrader]: We certainly can.
[Yvette Velez]: I mean, that would be great, thank you.
[Victor Schrader]: All right, will do.
[Unidentified]: I hate making more work for other people, but sometimes it's just really hard to find things on this website.
[Victor Schrader]: No, that's a point and a click for us.
[Unidentified]: I went to go try and find something. I was trying to find our agenda for tonight because we couldn't find it in my emails. And I got on the website and saw that a bunch of stuff wasn't updated. My name was spelled wrong. I had the old chair's address listed as my address.
[Victor Schrader]: Well, you probably also noticed that things have shuffled around on our website. It's not formatting properly these days. And that's a glitch that I know that communications is working on.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think I feel like it's one of those things.
[Victor Schrader]: It's kind of in disarray.
[Unidentified]: It's actually probably quite a nightmare to fix.
[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, it's in disarray at the moment.
[Denis MacDougall]: Actually, funnily enough, Jack, that isn't Scott's old address. I don't know whose address that is.
[Unidentified]: Whose address is that? I don't know. I have no idea.
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't know. Cause I know where Scott lives. I looked at it. I was like, that's what Scott. I'm not.
[Unidentified]: Part of me is like, I'm not mad if my address isn't on the internet. The rules are the rules. And if everyone else's address has to be on the internet, mine should be too.
[Victor Schrader]: Do some sleuthing. Find out who that is.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Thank you, Victor. Do we have any other updates?
[Victor Schrader]: That's all I have.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. We need to make a motion to enter executive session.
[Mike Caldera]: Do we need to read the agenda item first? Or can I just?
[Unidentified]: Oh, yeah, I think we might. I forget, how did we do it last time?
[Mike Caldera]: Last time it was read.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Dennis, do you happen to have that in front of you?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Would you mind reading that?
[Denis MacDougall]: executive session under general law chapter 38 section 2983 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation regarding Medford zoning board of appeals and MVP mystic LLC housing appeals committee docket number 2020-06. Medford zoning appeals board of appeals or CID Fellsway LLC LLC housing appeals committee docket number 2020-07 and Medford zoning board of appeals combined properties incorporated housing appeals committee number 2020-08. votes may be taken, the board will immediately vote to go to executive session and will not return to open session.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so I motion to enter executive session to discuss strategy with respect to this litigation.
[Unidentified]: Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. OK, so we will now, we need to turn off the recording. Just for anyone still listening, Dennis said this, but I just want to be clear, we will not be returning to the public session.
[Victor Schrader]: Dennis, I think Medford Community Media is the only one.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, they are. They are. So I'm just going to remove them. I sent them an email telling them we're going to do this. I have two different mouses here, so I was using the wrong one. Any folks have any questions about this, you can contact the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability.
[Unidentified]: And it's on the agenda for tonight.
[Denis MacDougall]: It is on the agenda for tonight. So thank you very much.
|
total time: 0.19 minutes total words: 43 |
|||