AI-generated transcript of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals 07-28-22

[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16th, 2022, the governor signed into a law supplement COVID-19 fiscal appropriations and an extension through March 31st, 2023, of certain authorizations related to public meetings. This new law extends the remote meeting provisions of the governor's March 12th, 2020 executive order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting. 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 law's requirement to provide live, adequate, alternative means of public access to the deliberations of the public body. Instead of holding meetings in a public 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 on the City of Medford website. If, despite our best efforts, we are unable to arrive 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. Just I'm double checking everyone heard that because I was staffing the bicycle commission meeting and I got about three words in and they might cut out and I had to do it again. So.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, thank you, Dennis. OK, should we take the maybe out of order? Should we take the request for the extension first?

[Denis MacDougall]: I think so, that usually I don't want to jinx anything, but those are usually fairly short. So I think that's probably a smart move, because there's usually much less deliberation on those. So 590 Boston Ave, case number A-2020-07 amended. Applicant and owner, Anteleto Brothers Incorporated, are requesting a six-month extension and a variance and special permit granted by the Board of Appeals with the decision filed on July 30, 2021, with certificate of no appeal dated September 12, 2021, until January 12, 2023, for the demolition of an existing gas station, car wash, construction of a five-story multiple dwelling consisting of 40 units and 1,343 square feet of retail space.

[Unidentified]: Thanks, Dennis. Attorney Baranski, did you want to address the board at all? Oh, you're on mute.

[Adam Barnosky]: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Baranski, here on behalf of the board. A long time coming I think we've initially filed the building application in 2019 and we're given approval last hearing last July, there have been a lot of changes. economic conditions, and we are looking for some period of time to start the project. The applicant is still very much interested in moving forward with it, but we do need a little bit more time to put a few pieces together on this one. With that being said, we did ask for a six-month extension, and six months from when the decision was issued, I believe the January 30. If the board is inclined to to provide a year extension to next summer or nine month extension HAB-Michael Leccesereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Unidentified]: That was one of them. My question was going to be whether or not you felt that six months was enough time. We're starting to see that people are having issues with supply chain and other things related to COVID. So it's not uncommon. And, you know, we definitely appreciate you coming to us in advance. So I don't, I don't have a problem with the extension. I think I think I'm probably amenable to the niner to a year, depending on what other folks think. Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry. I just should mention before we get going that we have a couple new members and I can do that introduction in a second when we're not in the middle of this, but just to let you know that we'll be voting and Yvette Velez, who is a voting member is absent tonight. So Jamie Thompson, who is an associate will be sitting in and be appointed to vote in her stead. I just wanted to give that heads up. Okay, so other board members, did anyone have any questions or thoughts?

[Andre Leroux]: Andre, go ahead. I think it's evidently reasonable to ask for a year-long extension given the unsettled conditions right now. So I would be in favor of that.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's a good point. Anyone else?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, my question was just for Attorney Bernowski, which one is it? Does the applicant want nine or 12? I understand 12 gives more flexibility, but what's the official request you're making here?

[Adam Barnosky]: We would ask, if the board was inclined, we wouldn't make a request for a year. Thank you. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Okay. Chairman Jamie? No question. questions.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so I'll motion to grant a 12 month extension for the 590 Boston Avenue project.

[Unidentified]: Okay, and I'll do roll call vote. Mike, how do you vote?

[Adam Barnosky]: Yes.

[Unidentified]: See, sorry, I'm trying to go alphabetically. Andre, how do you vote? Yes. And Jim? Yes. And Jamie? Yes. Thanks. I don't know why I go athletically. I just sometimes do. And then, oh, Jacqueline, I vote yes. So you have the extension.

[Adam Barnosky]: Thank you all very much.

[Unidentified]: OK. Thank you, Attorney Ronski. Good luck with that, folks.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Good luck.

[Unidentified]: Okay, so before we jump into the next one, just for anyone watching, I'd like to introduce some brand new members. We have Andre LaRue, who's a new voting member, welcome. And then we also have Jamie Thompson, who is a new associate member, and he's gonna be sitting in for Yvette Velez, who is absent tonight. And then we also have one other new associate member, and her name is Talia Matarazzo. I hope I said her last name incorrectly, but she's not here, with us in future meetings as well. Okay, Dennis, what's up next?

[Denis MacDougall]: 5 Russell Street, case number A-2022-10. Applicant and owner, Danielle and Elena Pierkowski are petitioning for a variance in the chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to renovate a detached garage accessory to existing nonconforming single family dwelling at 5 Russell Street in a single family two zoning district allowed use and convert the structure to a workshop. This project will require the relocation of an off-street parking space to be located in the front yard setback, not allowed, section 6.14, number three.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Okay, folks, so I think I have the applicants with us here. I just wanted to go over a little bit procedurally, typically what we do. If someone has an attorney, often they've done this before, so they know where to go. So what we'll do is you folks can, if you have any kind of a presentation, you're welcome to make that. You can also let us know just verbally what the relief is you're looking for. If there's anything you want to highlight, members of the board may ask you questions as we go through that. We may ask questions of the building department and make sure we understand. Then we'll have a portion where we let the public make any comments, then we deliberate and then we vote. So is there anything that you wanted to highlight to the board or a presentation you wanted to make, or if you just wanted to kind of let us know what the project is, you can go right ahead.

[SPEAKER_17]: Sure, I think everything I would say is a repeat of what's already in the submissions. You may have already heard all of this. So we have a detached fieldstone structure on the property, which we are looking to renovate into a workspace. And I guess that's sort of it. We've been told that because it's theoretically a garage, that we can't move that parking space without having somewhere on the property to park that's not within the setback. The existing driveway is a short but wide driveway where the parking is within the setback. I think that's all I'm going to say there.

[Unidentified]: How long has that driveway been in existence?

[SPEAKER_19]: Decades.

[Unidentified]: You've owned the property 17 years? Yes.

[SPEAKER_17]: I guess I a little bit regret ever calling the structure a garage. It may have in theory at one point been used as a garage, but the neighbors have lived in this house since 1975 and they've been in their house since 1975. And they've reported that for as long as they've lived here, the residents of this house have parked their cars in the driveway. So if it was ever used as a garage, it was quite some time ago.

[Unidentified]: So I kind of had a question when I was going through the application and Dennis McDonald, I see you're on from the building department. You may be the right person to help us out here. The existing driveway, I guess I was looking as I saw we have an application for a variance. I wanted to make sure that we were looking at it correctly if it was a variance. I didn't know if maybe we wanted to look at this as a finding that it was already nonconformity. So I guess from the building department is the issue here that the driveway isn't long enough so that the cars are parked within that front, I think, 15 feet?

[SPEAKER_14]: That is correct, yes. The SF1 zone is no 15 feet parking within the first 15 feet, that's correct.

[Unidentified]: Okay, so the way that the driveway is now, is there room for any cars to park outside that, beyond that 15 feet?

[SPEAKER_17]: It's a 21 feet wide by 25 feet deep. So I don't, I can't imagine unless you had maybe a smart car or something. I can't imagine a car fitting.

[Unidentified]: Yeah. What the minimum, the minimum length, I think the car is something like 14 feet. Right. So I guess on that front, I'm wondering, and if anyone else has an idea on this, if currently, if that, let's say that that is a one car garage. And currently the driveway has two spots, but neither of them is fully beyond that 15 feet. Does the existing driveway count as two non-conforming existing spots? Because 17 years is well over the 10 year mark. Does that make sense? You know what might be helpful? What if we do this? Why don't I share my screen and bring up the picture? Oh, Dennis, could you make me a host, please?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. I'm doing it now. Sorry.

[Unidentified]: So Dan and shoot, is it Elena? Alana. Yeah. Alana. Dan and Alana. What I'm wondering is there a couple of different ways that the board can look at what's in front of us and make a determination. One of them is through a variance. And I'm not weighing in on whether you may or may not qualify for that specifically, but another way is to make a finding that there's a nonconformity and what you're doing isn't going to be exacerbating that in a way that's detrimental. So I just wanna make sure that we're making the right analysis is all that's happening here. Okay, so let me share my screen and see if I can figure this out. Awesome, okay. So here we go. So can everyone see this cursor I have right here? Yeah. So this is 8.3.

[SPEAKER_17]: That's the distance from the sidewalk to the front of the porch.

[Unidentified]: Oh, the porch, okay. So I guess my question was, if there are two parking spots here, Right. And technically, the driveway to be two parking spots should have been way back here. Would these qualify as existing nonconforming spots? And by removing this one technical spot, would we be saying that this is an existing nonconformity and that's just a finding, or maybe we just go on a variance. I just was a little confused on this front. I didn't know if anyone else had any thoughts on this.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Jacqueline, I have questions as well, slightly different questions, but still related to that.

[Unidentified]: Maybe your questions will help answer mine.

[Mike Caldera]: Well, so let me first attempt to address yours. So my understanding is that because the driveway itself is not considered a structure, it being short doesn't render the driveway, like basically the spots can't be non-conforming. So I think they just count as zero spots. That's my understanding. And then my question is related though, because it could still affect the path, which is so this- Oh, I see what you're saying.

[Unidentified]: Yes. So I see what you're saying. So technically there's one spot in that garage. The nonconformity is the one. I see what you're saying. Right.

[Mike Caldera]: So I think the lot, as I understand it so far, and I'm going to ask a clarifying question to verify this, but essentially the lot, doesn't conform in the sense that it has one spot where I think it should have two, but the driveway itself isn't what's non-conforming. It's the, it's like the overall lot.

[Unidentified]: No, I think that's, yeah, I think I was thinking more that the lack of the real spots with conformity, but I think the way you're framing it, that makes more sense. So it is,

[Mike Caldera]: So my question is more pertaining to the existing garage because I wanted to make sure that in fact that actually by our zoning ordinance is a spot. So first of all, there's just a dimensional question. Like on the interior of this structure, does it actually meet the definition of a spot, but then also it looks like it has an existing door that I mean, I would venture a guess modern cars would not fit in there, even if you tried. I don't know, maybe if 1,900 cars did, but yeah, I'd like clarification. Is this a non-conforming lot with one parking space or zero parking spaces? Because I think that affects the analysis.

[Unidentified]: I think that would be the difference between the variance or the finding actually.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Well, and I would add to that is, I mean, the driveway doesn't actually connect to the garage from what I'm seeing here.

[Mike Caldera]: So, yeah. So, Andre, I looked it up on Street View, and it looks like there's essentially two curb cuts.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: One for the driveway and one for this structure on the other street.

[Unidentified]: Yeah. Do we. So maybe Dan and Alana, you could. Is do you have the dimensions of the garage or maybe that might be.

[SPEAKER_17]: The interior dimensions of the garage is 10 feet by 20 feet. I don't have the dimensions of the door. I don't think to measure that.

[Unidentified]: Let's see, Dennis McDonald. I know a driveway is supposed to be what, 12 feet. Would a 10 by 20 interior qualify as an off-street parking spot?

[SPEAKER_14]: So on a new driveway today, we'd ask it to be 12 by 34. So as minimum, it needs to be nine feet with a buffer of three feet wide.

[Unidentified]: So 12, so that 10 feet is not sufficient to be a spot then.

[SPEAKER_14]: Depending on the size of the vehicle.

[Mike Caldera]: Well, so yeah, so I mean, this kind of goes back, Dennis, to my earlier comment. So so as the applicant pointed out, they can park two cars in the existing driveway, but it's too short and thus counts as zero spaces. And so if what I'm hearing is that the existing interior of the garage doesn't meet the current requirements of the zoning bylaw to be considered a parking space, then my understanding is essentially this is a lot with zero parking spaces and thus converting the garage would actually not require a variance because it would just be maintaining the existing nonconformity of the lot of essentially you're converting the garage and you're going from zero parking spaces to still zero parking spaces. Is that consistent with your understanding? I just want to make sure we're doing the right thing here. I think, like my read is, if officially this counts as a parking space, then we're supposed to go the variance route. If it doesn't, then I think we can go the finding route.

[Unidentified]: What, so okay, well, if it's nine feet with a three foot buffer, and that has 10 feet. So Dennis McDonald, you said currently we would ask for this. I guess I'm just wondering is, how do we make a determination whether or not the garage spot qualifies as a spot? I think that's what Michael's asking.

[SPEAKER_14]: Okay. So as of right now, we have two non-conformity parking spaces, the one up front in the garage. So they want to remove the garage and turn that into a workshop space. So what the building department is asking, if that's the case, we now need to make your driveway conforming with being nine by 34. The homeowners at that time did not want to encroach into the back of the yard. That's why we cited them to go in front of the ZBA. That make sense?

[Unidentified]: Oh, so you're saying the driveway counts as one spot currently?

[SPEAKER_14]: Well, correct, yes. But you need two spots because they're changing the given in the garage. So to have some spots, it has to be basically nine by thirty four.

[Unidentified]: Right. And you're saying that the. You're saying that the garage you think does qualify as a spot, even if it's undersized.

[SPEAKER_14]: Correct.

[Unidentified]: OK. Um, so when I was trying to figure this out, I looked up some of the bylaws that applied and then, um, 94 dash one 93 B3. It was saying that, um, It was talking about when parking's in the front yard, you can do buffer strips and planting materials or fences, et cetera. And you could also, 94-172-B1 was saying that the parking space is not enclosed in a structure, could be provided anywhere in the yard, provided they're not in that front setback. So would it have to be the nine by 34 or could they, would it have to be random like that? Or could they be side by side?

[SPEAKER_14]: They could be side by side if they do not include you within 15 feet. Okay. That's the issue here. They don't have it. So they go in front of the board asking for relief on that 15 feet.

[Unidentified]: Right. So I, okay. Next question. If the front of the house, if the setback is actually 8.1 to 8.3. And that, let's just say correctly that that is a prior nonconformity. Does the yard, does the rest of the yard still have to have the 15 foot setback?

[SPEAKER_14]: No.

[Unidentified]: Does this setback count for this lot?

[SPEAKER_14]: Yes. So that 8.3 feet, so they're technically six feet in the negative. That makes sense.

[Unidentified]: Yep. So they need to be able to park two cars that are past the 8.3. And I'm sorry, Dan and Alana, what was the depth of the driveway? The length of it? 25. So 25 minus 8.3 is like 17-ish feet. And if we had cars that are tandem side by side, they would need to be how big, do we think?

[SPEAKER_14]: So we're asking right now on a lot would be nine and nine, which is 18 feet. That's the minimum. So the buffer zone will be 12 and 12, which is 20 feet. It's 21 feet wide? Correct. Yep, 21 feet.

[Unidentified]: So it's 21 feet wide, so it's wide enough for side by side.

[SPEAKER_14]: Correct.

[Unidentified]: And then it's 17 feet long from the front of this house to the back of the driveway. And how long would they need it as a minimum if they're side by side? Or how long do you need it for one car?

[SPEAKER_14]: For one car? So take the, hold on one second.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, take your time.

[SPEAKER_14]: So you're 34.

[Unidentified]: It's a lot more math than I ever thought I would be doing as an adult. So it's a 34 minus 15 comes out to 19 feet. Divide that by two is 9.5 per vehicle. The length, the length. Correct.

[SPEAKER_14]: So we asked for a driver to be 34 feet long.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_14]: On that 34, you minus 15 feet. That's the first 15 feet, right? It comes out to a 19 feet. So that's two pocket spaces minus the 15 feet divided the 19 by two. So that's 9.5 per vehicle.

[Unidentified]: So if they're side by side, the driveway only needs to be 19 feet by 18 feet. Sorry, 9.5 by 18. Correct. So.

[SPEAKER_14]: If they are.

[Unidentified]: Eight point feet off the street. Yeah. then they're left with 17 feet. So they've got, after their 8.3 foot setback, they've got 17 by 21. So they might have two spots then, right?

[SPEAKER_14]: I don't have the dimension from the 8.3 back to the line. Do we know what that is?

[Unidentified]: So I think the total they said is 21. So for me, sorry. 21 wide, but it's 25 deep. Yeah, so the total is 25 in length.

[SPEAKER_17]: So if we take the 8.3 off, we're at 17 point, no, 16.7. Is that math right?

[Unidentified]: So if the driveway is 16.7 by 21, and that's behind their nonconforming 8.3, they may have two conforming spots then, right? Correct. So then we can get rid of the garage and they might, if that 8.3 is there, then they might not need relief, right? Correct. But I think you might have two conforming spots. Is that making sense to everybody, what we just did? Let me see if I can, let me see if I can, So what we're saying is that this lot has an 8.3 setback, nonconforming to the required 15 foot setback, correct? Yes. And in that case with a side-by-side parking, you need nine and a half feet after that 8.3, which they have more than that. Yes, exactly. So can everyone see this little gray, unfortunately it's gray square I just made? So that space, given the math we just did, is 21 feet wide, where they would need a required 18. And it is, I'm gonna forget, 16.7 feet deep, and they would need 9.5. So I think because of that 8.3, you folks are lucky that that porch is there. I think because of that 8.3, there's two conforming spots.

[Mike Caldera]: So Jacqueline, my main question, I agree with the analysis. I'm just a little concerned for the applicants, because they already pulled a building permit and got denied.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I agree. I think we have to, I'm not sure the exact mechanism. And maybe what we do is we, if everyone is in agreement that that math makes sense, then maybe what we do is, some kind of a finding that the the deficiency in the setback is an existing nonconformity and that removing this, now I think technically third spot that's in the garage is not in any way going to increase the nonconformity because the house location is staying the same, the setback isn't changing and the two parking spots are behind the setback. Would that make sense? That might work.

[Mike Caldera]: If the boards amenable, I would feel most comfortable if we did a finding that the lot is non conforming and that the conversion wouldn't make the non conformity it any worse. I'm, I'm honestly. not confident we know how many parking spaces officially there are aren't so like i'm getting conflicting information on the garage conflicting information on the. The front spaces, I think safe if we just had a finding that the lots non conforming and the conversion. you know, meets the standard for a finding, then I think we're set, or the applicant's set no matter what. So I would be most comfortable with that if the board's amenable.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, let me, I'm not opposed to that in any way, and that might be the best way to go. I just want to think about, because I hadn't thought about this until we just got in front of it and started doing the math. Can I ask a question? Yeah, go right ahead. Is this a certified plot plan? Yes, it is. Let's see if this will tell me what this is called. It's not letting me see the name of this because my screen share keeps getting in the way. Let me see. There we go. It's just called plot plan, right? Let's see, this is. I mean, it looks like it's a prepared in a survey. You know, I don't I don't know, the applicants may know.

[Alicia Hunt]: Wait, Dennis, what makes it certified? It's by it's stamped by an engineer and right there, it's got to be signed by the engineer.

[Unidentified]: Also, it's like a signature there. Is that what makes it a certified plot plan?

[SPEAKER_14]: Well, it says right on it.

[Unidentified]: It's going on a little bit. That's as far down as it goes. I can scroll up though.

[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah. Yeah, says I didn't see right below it civil engineer, land surveyor.

[Unidentified]: Yep.

[SPEAKER_14]: Right there.

[Unidentified]: Okay. And then yeah, so then we've got to seal a professional land surveyor and the signature. So yes. Okay.

[SPEAKER_14]: So in defense of the building department, I'm looking at the online application right now. This certified plot plan was never part of your permit. Oh,

[Unidentified]: Well, and also no need to defend the building department. They're doing a great job. We were all trying to figure this out as we go along. And also, I think that for you folks, I don't know if you could have, I mean, in terms of the nonconformity, the 8.3 is the difference, right? Not that 15. Okay, so Mike, to your point in terms of we need, if we found that the lot is the non-conforming, what is it that you would be finding about the lot that is non-conforming, I think, as opposed to the setback being the non-conformity?

[Mike Caldera]: I'm already gonna backtrack on my idea. I think it's the, so the, I think, so the garage is nonconforming, right? Like it's, it violates setback at a minimum. So parking aside, it's a nonconforming structure, right?

[Unidentified]: Yeah. And it's, it sounds like it's nonconformity in terms of size as well.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So, um, Yeah, so I think it, I think if we go the finding route, it would be. So they're trying to renovate or convert the non conforming accessory structure so so the finding would be regards to that. I think that if this was a situation where the entire property had all the parking spaces required, and then this conversion created a new nonconformity, that's a scenario where a variance make sense, but regardless of the math we're doing here, either they have enough spaces or they don't have enough spaces. I don't think the garage conversion is the thing that puts them from one category into the other. I guess, actually, if the garage space counts and you could fit one car, then that would be the, one car in the driveway, that's the issue, so yeah. I think it's a little tricky. I would be comfortable going the finding route, but I just want to make sure we do the right thing for the applicant.

[Unidentified]: So yeah, for sure. Um, I that yeah, the more that we're talking about this, I'm leaning towards the finding is related to the fact that the The property is already non-conforming because the setback doesn't meet the 15 foot requirement. Because of that existing non-conformity, there are these two HAB-Charlotte Pitts, COB.: : conforming spots that conform because this nonconformity exists and therefore removing the garage spot that in and of itself sounds like it also might be conforming still doesn't put them below the requirement yeah I mean it is a little weird but that.

[Andre Leroux]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, PB --"That way it's very clear. We just say there is two parking spaces, we recognize those two parking spaces, they're functional, they meet the dimensions, and we're very clear about that."

[Unidentified]: COB, Allison Crump --"Yeah, you know, I don't see why not. I think we just need to be clear that that is because of the existing non-conformity of the setback."

[Mike Caldera]: I mean, I think- Andre, as I understand it, we could make a finding like that, but it would ultimately be the building department's choice. So it wouldn't be, that finding wouldn't be a special permit of any sort. So if the building department disagreed with what we found, then a permit could still be refused again.

[Unidentified]: I think that's why we need to say that the finding is related to the setback. Right, because the, so if we say that the garage spot is the nonconformity, but the other two spots, we aren't relating to the setback, they don't technically exist then. And even if we're removing a nonconforming spot, we're still removing a spot. But if we're saying that we're finding that removing this spot does not in any way exacerbate the existing nonconformity of the setback, right? So here, so I guess the thing is, anytime, so here, this might be helpful. Let me go through what you need to do when you have a finding. And the proposed extension, alteration, change, whatever you're doing, can't be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformity. I think everyone is in agreement that that is not substantially more detrimental. So then you're looking at, is the change that you're requesting going to increase the non-conforming nature? No, because the non-conformity here is the setback. So removing the garage spot doesn't increase that non-conformity. We then have to identify the particular nonconformities, which is this diminutive setback. Determine whether this alteration or addition or change would intensify them. We're finding that it wouldn't. And then if you do find that it would intensify them, you have to find whether it's detrimental to the neighborhood. So I think that if we look at the setback and say that removing the garage Does that make sense? I think we're defining that due to the non-conforming setback, there are two existing spaces. By converting the garage, they're not changing, they're not removing a space that's required on the property. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Although Mike, to your point in terms of whether that's special permit is a good question. Yeah, so- I haven't seen something quite like this.

[Mike Caldera]: So I'm just- So I think we're supposed to be making findings about structures, alterations to structures. So in this case, what's getting altered? The garage. The garage is non-conforming. And we all agree that there's at least one dimension in which the garage is non-conforming. Yeah, so, so, so we could make issue findings about the garage, then the what you walked through Jacqueline is is absolutely right. And so I think the area where potentially you could argue, you need a variance is if in fact the conversion worsens the parking situation.

[Unidentified]: Right. The applicant. Technically the parking situation isn't non-conforming because I think technically they have three spots. Are we stuck on the parking situation because that's why the permit was declined? Yes. Although wait, Michael, I guess what you're saying is we could make a finding that this alteration to this structure will not will not enhance or increase.

[Mike Caldera]: Exactly. So here's my understanding. So say this was a commercial property with an accessory garage. Converting the garage, even if there's not a parking issue, would require a finding. The only reason why homeowners don't have to do that all the time is because they get extra protections. So in this case, One might argue, do they need a finding at all? But we could absolutely find that a non-conforming structure converting from a garage into a workshop, it is non-conforming, right? It didn't make anything worse. That could be our finding. And we could have a finding regarding the effect on the neighborhood. And even in a scenario, whether they had two parking spaces or zero, that's, You could still do the finding so so yeah that that's my proposal, I think we should. We should talk about the neighborhood elements and get to a point of comfort on the impact on the neighborhood, and I think we could issue a finding without commenting on the. the parking situation, as long as we are confident that it's not going to make parking, exacerbate an existing parking non-conformity.

[Unidentified]: We could also, I mean, I'm always in the interest of more transparency in our decisions about what we're doing stuff. We could also just put in the decision that these are all of the things that we considered.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah. So we could say, for example, so we still have to discuss other elements if we go the finding route, but we could say the rationale for our finding is that we believe the applicants already have conforming parking spaces or know that the garage doesn't actually count as a space or, you know, we could have whatever rationale we conclude there. And then you get transparency. Sometimes rationales are wrong. I don't think we're wrong here, but I think we're supposed to make the best determination with the information we have. And so we have reason to believe that there's enough parking spaces. So we could issue a finding surrounding this non-conforming structure once we weigh in on the impact on the neighborhood.

[Unidentified]: I feel comfortable in that. Dennis McDonald, quick question. If they do this conversion, does the city then, so the curb cut that's existing in front of this current garage, if they do this conversion, does the city then remove that curb cut?

[SPEAKER_14]: No.

[Unidentified]: No, okay. Would people then be able to park there?

[SPEAKER_14]: Technically, no. but it's not the city's responsibility. Any type of curb cut done is done by the applicant. It's not done by the city. So if in case, let's go back to the front of the house. If they wanted to widen that driveway, it would be up to the applicant to widen it.

[Unidentified]: Provided they had permission, okay.

[SPEAKER_14]: I would really suggest something here. I asked the applicant this. If you look at this plot plan, I don't have a dimension on that existing driveway. Okay. So whatever decision is made tonight, I would put an amendment on that, that, that driveway. It's shown on the plot plan. I know we're being told it's 21 by 25. I'd feel more comfortable if I get questioned on it. That we have a plan. That makes sense.

[Unidentified]: No, no. I think that's a great point. Maybe, I mean, we have a couple options. We could, if that would make you feel more comfortable, we could ask the applicant to get that information certified and come back next month. We could also make it potentially a condition of the decision, if it's voted in favor, that they have to provide that information to the building department. I think that's a great, I would be amenable to something to that effect. We can also ask the applicant if they have a preference on that. I guess I could just ask you to the applicants. Sorry, Dan and Alana. Did you understand that question? So do you see this area here where we just don't have the measurements? We have the 8.3. And then I understand that this is 25, but we don't, just because we don't have that listed. We're trying to figure out how do we get a certified copy of this where this these dimensions are also listed. So I guess I just would ask if you folks had a preference. We could make it a condition if we voted to approve. We could make it a condition that you need to submit this before you could get the permit. We could also, if you wanted, you could potentially come back next month with it. Did you have a preference on that?

[SPEAKER_17]: My only concern about the next month is just the timing, getting the surveyor to come back out and whatnot before next month. I don't know if they would be able to do that.

[SPEAKER_14]: Sure. Through the chair, I could be the conduit on that. I can work with the homeowners. So if the board approves it tonight, with a stipulation of we get a dimension of that existing driveway, the homeowners can then work with me, submit an application with me. I can upload it to the portal and then make it the legal document. That's stating it is 21 by 25.

[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah, and yeah, that makes sense. So and I can, we kind of can ask the other board members, but we could have that it needs to be that they need to submit a certified plot plan with those dimensions. And they would just need to be whatever the statutory minimum is, or more than it sounds like we think they have more in that way. If it comes in, as long as it's more than that, they're fine on that front. Okay.

[Mike Caldera]: I'm not trying to extend this or be difficult here, but if it's essentially a finding that's conditioned on them already having two legal parking spaces, they don't need a finding at all. So I don't know if that actually helps the applicants at all.

[Unidentified]: In relation to what do you mean?

[Mike Caldera]: To the conversion, right? They could convert this By right is my understanding because it's a residential single family non conforming structure it's a small project so I don't think they need a finding just to turn a non conforming on the side setback garage. into a workshop. So if what we're saying is that we'll issue a finding and say, well, if you had two parking spaces already, then the findings valid. But if you didn't, then it's not valid. Then the applicant doesn't need anything, right? We're just saying, come back and let us know if you actually have two legal spaces.

[Unidentified]: Well, I think the issue there is that what Dennis is saying is because we don't have those, we have the numbers submitted to us. We don't have it certified that because we don't have that, we actually can't determine whether or not they have two spots yet officially.

[Mike Caldera]: Right. Yeah. So I would say that thought process essentially means that it would make sense for Dennis, thanks to Dennis offering and the applicants to work together to verify the actual state of the parking situation and then come back. I don't think making a conditional finding does the applicants any good here because if Dennis and they find that there's two parking spaces already, they could do this by right. If they don't, then we're putting in a condition that would basically invalidate the findings. So why not just in that scenario, if we wanna truly like get it all confirmed and validated beforehand, which I respect that stance on things, why not just have the building department and the applicants work together? And if there's two legal parking spaces, I believe they could do this by right. They could just withdraw the application Otherwise, they come back and then we do whatever the appropriate analysis is the following month.

[Unidentified]: I agree. I'm. It's like Jamie had to go. Sorry, go ahead. Sorry, I think just to clarify the member statement is that. Based on our current analysis and Dennis's input, the applicant can go back to the building department to clarify this information and possibly by right proceed with the building department without us having a time limit. Yeah, I think that's exactly what he's saying. Yeah, so I think that's a good point. So it sounds like, you know, this is right, but to get this approved by the building department, it sounds like we just need them to have the certified dimensions that they didn't have when they did their first analysis. Correct. Okay, um, yeah, Mike, that's a great point. I'm comfortable with that if, if Dennis McDonald and the applicants are comfortable with that.

[Mike Caldera]: It looked like the applicants had something they wanted to say.

[SPEAKER_17]: I just had a question to make sure I understand. So, um, what, what we PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB – Harmon Zuckerman. PB – Harmon Zuckerman. PB – Harmon Zuckerman. So our sort of our target here is eight foot three inches plus nine and a half. So seven to 18 feet.

[Unidentified]: Right. And it sounds like you have, you, you know, that you have the 21, but the building department just didn't have that certified information.

[SPEAKER_17]: So, yeah, I apologize for that.

[Unidentified]: No, no, that's okay. And you know, I think you can probably tell from the way that we're all doing is every time, you know, you can, you can learn this stuff and know it cold. And then every time something comes in front of you, each property is a little bit different. So each time there are always things that we're all trying to figure out and we're all just kind of working together make sure we understand that we're doing what we're doing and trying to do it right so don't don't worry on that front in any any fashion. But I it sounds like I think Mike's point is a great point if you folks are comfortable with that and if Dennis McDonald, I just keep saying McDonald because we also have Dennis McDougal here. So if Dennis McDonald and and both of you are comfortable with that, we could, we could continue this until next month. And then in the meantime, if you folks get all of that sorted out, you can just withdraw the petition.

[SPEAKER_14]: Through the chair to the applicant. So what we're looking for through the building department is as of right now, you have an existing plot plan. I need a proposed plot plan. So what that means is I need to show the dimensions of that driveway with the vehicles in there, and then the setbacks on those vehicles from the sidewalk in. That makes sense?

[SPEAKER_17]: Okay. So, okay. Include the vehicle in the plot plan.

[SPEAKER_14]: Correct. Yes. So right now you're an existing plot plan. I need a proposed plot plan showing the vehicles, the setback from the sidewalk and the width of the driveway and the length of it.

[Unidentified]: Okay. In that proposed plan, put workshop and not garage.

[SPEAKER_17]: Correct. For what it's worth, we only actually have one car. So is it okay if we just have one car in the proposed plan? No, you're not going to do, your survey is going to do that. No, I understand, but.

[Unidentified]: Well, they just need to draw the two cars to show that they fit.

[SPEAKER_17]: Oh, the nine and a half foot long spot.

[Unidentified]: Yes, yep.

[SPEAKER_17]: So nine and a half feet long by nine feet wide. Yep. Is that, okay.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, so all that you'll have them do is, the driveway that you have, they'll mark off the actual dimensions of each of the sides of the driveway, and then draw in the space where two cars would appropriately fit.

[SPEAKER_17]: I see, okay.

[Unidentified]: After the 8.3 space.

[SPEAKER_19]: Okay. Do we also have to have specific dimensions for the cars?

[SPEAKER_17]: A generic car, I think they're saying is 9 1⁄2 feet.

[SPEAKER_19]: Okay, so that's just the car. Yeah, and so just to be clear for the applicants, so the board here hasn't

[Mike Caldera]: made any determinations about the viability of a finding or a variant. So in the event that you go through this exercise and it turns out you do need relief from the board, you would just come back and we would talk through it. It's right now, we think there might be a path where you don't actually need any relief granted. And so this period of time is just to validate that.

[SPEAKER_18]: Okay. And we don't need any sort of an extension, like to request an extension to give us the extra time to put in.

[Unidentified]: I think we should be all set. Cause Dennis, this was just filed this month, right? Uh, Dennis McDougal. So we have a time for when you file with us, we have to issue a decision within a certain amount of time, but I don't think we're, we're, we have any issues on that front before next month.

[SPEAKER_17]: And if it's about five or six weeks ago.

[Unidentified]: Okay, so we're fine if they continue to next month, right?

[Mike Caldera]: So I think the question was about what if it didn't come back in time. So in that scenario, you would either come to the next meeting or you would write us a letter requesting to continue things further. And then we might have to, as a board, get your permission to extend it further.

[Unidentified]: Oh, I see what you're saying. It is the survey doesn't come back in time. Right. Yeah. Great. Okay. Yes. So what Mike said is correct. And typically what happens is that timeframe of the, I think it's a hundred days is a requirement that's placed on the board. So if you folks agree to give us more time to issue a decision, then Dennis just sends you a little piece of paper that you sign saying that. So that that's not an issue. If, if that becomes an issue you can just let us know before the next meeting and but hopefully you'll be able to get that sorted and you won't have to see us again. Okay, so let's get quickly before we do anything, any other board members, anyone else wanna add anything in? Okay, could we get a motion to continue this matter until the next meeting, please?

[Mike Caldera]: I motion to continue the application for five Russell Street to the next regular meeting of the Medford zoning Board of Appeals. Okay, and a second, which is which would be August 25.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Can I get a second, please?

[Denis MacDougall]: I'll second that.

[Unidentified]: Okay, and we'll go reverse Jamie. Yes. Jim? Yes. Andre? Yes. Mike? And Jacqueline is yes. Okay, folks, thanks for being with us while we figure all this stuff out. And Dennis McDonald, thanks for your help on this.

[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Good luck. And thanks for everybody working together.

[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you all for your time.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Good luck. Oh, just a quick question. Are you making a workshop like an art studio or anything?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, I do stained glass.

[Unidentified]: Oh, how cool. Well, good luck.

[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you.

[Unidentified]: You're welcome. Okay, so Dennis, are we now, oh folks, you can hop off. You're all set. Thank you. Dennis McDougall, are we closing the public meeting and then doing training or are we, what's, let me stop sharing my screen.

[Denis MacDougall]: I'm not sure what the actual specifics would be in terms of I don't know if we should be closing the public hearing or just continuing on with the training. We've got Robin here, so maybe we can check with her.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think we should probably, my gut would be, we should probably close the meeting and then we're just doing a training, not because we're not deliberating anything. Hi, Robin. Good to see you again.

[Robin Stein]: Oh, go ahead. It's your call. You did put it on the agenda as part of the meeting.

[Unidentified]: Oh, then let's just keep it open. That's fine.

[Robin Stein]: I don't have so you know, and I had discussed with Alicia before kind of the pros and cons of that. So I just assumed that you wanted to do it as part of the meeting. That's fine. I'm happy with that.

[Unidentified]: We're gonna we want to make it available to anyone anyway. So it doesn't it doesn't really matter. Okay.

[Robin Stein]: So let's see, am I able to share my screen, Dennis?

[Denis MacDougall]: Give me one second and you're good to go.

[Robin Stein]: Excellent. And then I will hopefully do it correctly.

[Unidentified]: Can everyone hear me OK?

[Alicia Hunt]: So as you're doing that Robin I just I know that I'm Andre knows you and that Jackie and Mike do and Jim. Jamie's new enough. Jamie, so you know, Kate, Robin is with KP law, which is a firm that the city's contracted with. And so we realized that the zoning board really hadn't had any training on zoning board in anybody's memory. So not that anybody on this board had ever had. So we felt with the addition of new members, this was a really good time to ask the lawyers the city hired to do some training. And this is Robin's area of expertise.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I know Robin welcome her appearances at the city council.

[Alicia Hunt]: Great. So and frankly, that was an introduction for the public who might be watching this on TV or the later recording. In which case, I'll just say for the record that I'm Alicia hunt. I'm the city's director of planning, development and sustainability. So we've been working to try and smooth things through. And I'm Victor Schrader who's our economic development directors also here, because he often works with a lot of the big applicants to make sure that they know what to expect and, and have everything in order before they come as they go through all the permitting process. So, hi everybody good to see you all are behind me.

[Robin Stein]: All right, let's see if I can get this to work.

[Unidentified]: I'm screen sharing, but I still see me.

[Mike Caldera]: We see your screen.

[Unidentified]: We see the presentation. OK.

[Alicia Hunt]: We do not see it in presentation mode. We see your full PowerPoint.

[Robin Stein]: Yes, so in one second, I'm going to remember how to fix that.

[Denis MacDougall]: If you go down to the little bottom right, there's a little thing that looks like a slide thing. Oh, you're almost there. One, two over. Right, no, right to the right.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Robin Stein]: Excellent, thank you. I knew I forgot something. Um, okay. So right now you're just seeing the one slide?

[Mike Caldera]: No, we're seeing, um, your presenters view. It's got the notes in the next slide and all that jazz.

[Robin Stein]: Sorry about that. I don't know that I've done a PowerPoint on zoom yet.

[Alicia Hunt]: I was going to say, I thought that once you were in that PowerPoint mode, you could choose under display settings, like switch screens or something. Do you have two screens going?

[Robin Stein]: I do. Hold on. I think that's the issue actually.

[Alicia Hunt]: Let me see.

[Unidentified]: Is that better? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm sure that you do more presentations than I do over Zoom, so I appreciate it.

[Robin Stein]: All right, well, thank you again everyone for having me tonight. We always appreciate the opportunity to come out and talk with boards and do trainings. My name is Robin Stein. I work at KP Law and land use is definitely my area, as you heard, so. I've put together kind of a basic just land use presentation for you I've tried to work in some specifics from your ordinances as well. But I'm happy for this to be more discussional so if folks have questions feel free to interrupt or ask as we go or you can save questions to the end but, you know, I'm happy to just just take things up as they come and people have questions. So this is the main case. So the most important part of the presentation is the next slide, that as a lawyer, this is our disclaimer, that we're just providing information and not providing legal advice, particularly when this has been done in a public meeting and broadcasted. We just want folks to understand that if they have legal questions, they should consult with their own attorneys. And when you all have legal questions about specific questions you'll come to me but this is definitely just meant to be informational and obviously as as Council for the city we don't provide legal advice to members of the public, we're here to help the city so there you go. So, I'm sure you are all familiar with after 48, sometimes just referred to as the zoning act. It has a long history in Massachusetts law, just for a bit of background it dates back to the 1920s. It was codified as Chapter 48 in 1954 and then there was a major revision to the act. 1975 that really gave us the modern version that we see today. And there have been changes since then from time to time, but it really formed what we look at today. And often when we're doing research and looking at cases, at least I know I keep an eye out for kind of the pre-1975 cases versus the post-1975 cases, because there are some differences and sometimes you just want to make sure that what you're relying on still works under the new act. So we'll talk a little bit now about the purposes of the act. I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with this, but I figured I'd just kind of cover the basics that the purposes of the act, the purposes of zoning are to give us consistent statewide frameworks for regulating land uses. And zoning encourages the adoption of modern ordinances and compliance with the constitution to provide standards and procedures to administer local zoning and to give communities the ability to work at a local level to preserve character and encourage land uses the way that the city, the policy makers in the city find most appropriate. Major purposes of zoning are, as you all know, health, safety, public convenience. So the way the goals of zoning are achieved is through having uniform districts with specific boundaries, specific and clear uses of lands and structures in each of those districts, clear dimensional requirements, and then conditions under which different uses may be permitted. And this is really important, and I know it's really important to your board as well, because when people try to do projects or come forward or look at your ordinances, they want to be able to clearly understand what they can and can't do and what types of uses may need relief and such things. So being as clear as possible is important. So administering the act, adoption of a zoning ordinance, when you adopt obviously your zoning ordinances, and then they will specify the types of permits that can be used and who grants them. And so one thing that's a little different in cities than in most towns is that, and it is common in Medford as well, is that your city council under the ordinance has special permit granting authorities, which we sometimes see in cities It's more rare to see, at least in my experience, slack boards have special permit granting authorities it's usually vested with planning boards and Board of Appeals in town, but not uncommon in cities, and Medford is right in line with that. So, on this slide. Administering the act and I do have an asterisk at the top and there are a couple items that are asterisk because they are things that are technically outside of the zoning act, but that sometimes are under the purview of the zoning board so I just wanted to keep them in there, so that you know folks are generally aware of them. Zoning Board of Appeals grant variances. Your zoning ordinance explicitly allows for the granting of use variances, and so you're allowed to grant those. If a zoning ordinance or bylaw doesn't explicitly authorize granting use variances, then only dimensional variances are permitted, and that comes right out of Chapter 40A, Section 10, which is the variant section of the Zoning Act. Your Board of Appeals also, you do your findings under 40A, Section 6. You handle appeals and decisions of the building commission zoning enforcement officer, um, the zoning board and Medford grant some special permits. And then you also would be here any comprehensive permits under chapter 40 B and you have some site plan review authority, um, as well, I think, depending on. If there's other relief required relative to that particular project. So those are kind of the areas in which the zoning board and Medford Other people as I mentioned that are other boards that administer the app in Medford the city council grants special permits and I believe there's some involvement with site plan review as well. And then the Community Development Board does a and our plans and acts under the subdivision control law, they would make recommendations on zoning amendments. and they also have site plan review authority. And the reason I asked for a site plan review is while that has become a zoning concept, it doesn't live in the zoning act itself. It's usually a product of a local bylaw. And so while it's in our ordinances, it doesn't have a corresponding section in chapter 48, the way special permits and variances and findings and non-conforming uses do. So again, feel free to jump in if you have any questions. Obviously a big part of zoning are dealing with uses. You have to have, you know, obviously ordinance, you need to identify and define what uses are allowed by right or prohibited, exempt, perhaps will be defined in the bylaw, allowed by special permit, and then subject to site plan review, if any. I think most communities at this point do have some form of site plan review, but again, it's not something that is required under the act. So by right uses, are uses that are allowed without any kind of discretionary review, like a special permit or a variance. They sometimes will need a building permit. They may need site plan review. Section 94-148 is an example. In your bio, that's the table of uses. And as of right, uses are designated with the word yes. And then article six of your bylaw arms for your ordinance. I'm used to towns like you keep calling your Bible but you're, it's an ordinance article six of your ordinance dresses site plan review. In contrast, we have prohibited uses. Zoning warrants can also prohibit certain uses of land in certain districts. And there's language in your bylaw about that as well. If you look at section 94-141A, talks about prohibited uses. And then when you go down to the table again in 94-148, prohibited uses are designated with the word no. building bylaws also go with nonconforming uses and structures. And those are uses or structures that would have lawfully begun. Excuse me for one second. Sorry, my dog would like to join in the presentation. So she just came over to visit for a second.

[Unidentified]: We would love to have a dog joining us.

[Robin Stein]: So I'm kind of just going to lean over and pet her a little so she doesn't whine. So non-conforming uses and structures would be uses and structures that lawfully existed either prior to zoning at all or prior to the adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance that may have prohibited them or otherwise limited them. And so long as they lawfully existed at the time they came into being and they continue in that same use or dimensional size, they can continue. Protections for those uses can be lost if someone makes a significant change without obtaining the necessary relief. Article six division five of the city's zoning ordinance specifically deals with nonconforming uses just for your reference. And then nonconforming uses are also governed by chapter 48 section six, which is a pretty lengthy section. of 40A and that also provides special protections for single and two-family uses. Can I ask a question, Robin?

[Unidentified]: Sure. On that slide, the... Do you want me to go back? Yeah.

[Robin Stein]: Hold on one second. Go ahead.

[Unidentified]: So on the protection can be lost for purpose, quality, or character. The quality, is that based on a dollar value investment? Sorry, was that the last year that was that based on a. Yes, the protection can be lost, based on nature and purpose quality or character is the quality covered by a specific dollar value investment.

[Robin Stein]: Not necessarily, these tend to be very fact-specific analysis and you really look at, you know, would that change been one that required relief? Was it significant enough? And there's a test, it's the power test that we usually look at to see if relief would be needed, but it's not necessarily just monetarily based. There can be different factors that play into whether or not you've really made a change.

[Andre Leroux]: Robin, I have a question. This is Andre. I'm assuming that all of your references are reflect the changes that have been made recently to the zoning ordinance. Is that correct? And also, if that's the case, can we get a new kind of clean version of the new reformed zoning ordinance?

[Robin Stein]: So, I was working off the version of the zoning ordinance that's in your code online. If that's not up to date then my references are not up to date. How you would obtain the new one, which I wasn't aware of.

[Unidentified]: I'm not 100% sure and actually Lisa might be the better person for this. Yeah, I know that I saw that there were some changes that are online, but I don't know if everything has made it, but I don't think I've seen something. Well, Alicia, you would probably know better.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. We've been waiting for a new version from the city clerk and the attorney that they hired for the recodification to provide us. So we have been working from our office in the building department off of the last version that was presented to the city council because that was the final version. But there are There were clear typos, misspellings and stuff and like typos like commas and stuff that we were working to get fixed before it got uploaded to the city's website. And we are more past time that we should have that. So we're gonna have to go back and request that again to have the updated version. Robin, they're referring to the recodification that the city council just did.

[Robin Stein]: I'm going to be honest, I was not aware that they just did a recodification.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, I'm very sorry. No problem. In my world, that was so all-encompassing for the full 18 months that it just doesn't occur to me that other people weren't.

[Robin Stein]: I've only been working with the boards more recently, so I apologize for the miscommunication. The references I have in here are to what's on there now. And I'm sure when the new one gets published, we can take a look at that and revisit it as well. And there may be some items that have changed as well that we might wanna come back in the future and maybe do a more detailed discussion just on the specifics of the ordinance as opposed to zoning in general.

[SPEAKER_06]: Robin?

[Robin Stein]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: Can we get a copy of this presentation afterwards?

[Robin Stein]: Sure, I'll email it to Dennis.

[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, thank you.

[Robin Stein]: Happy to. All right, any questions on what's up now before I jump on to the next slide? So like I said, non-conforming single and two-family residential dwellings get special protection under Chapter 48, Section 6. And there's a good body of recent case law, even in the last five or seven years, that really provides us good guidance with how the section is to be interpreted. 48-6 is, I think the cases have referred to it as cumbersome and other challenging words. The section basically allows for an alteration, extension, reconstruction, or structural change to a non-conforming single or two-family residential structure if it does not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure. And if it does increase the non-conforming nature of the structure, then those changes are allowed, but it requires a finding. And under your ordinance, unless it's changed, the Zoning Board grants findings. And again, some of this may need to be revalidated once I have a chance to go through the new ordinance. I'm going to get into a little bit more detail of what that means on the next slide. Ordinarily the initial inquiry is, is either done by your zoning enforcement officer or your zoning board to identify what ways the structure is not conforming, and then determine if what's proposed intensifies existing nonconformity or results in new ones, and an intensification of an existing nonconformity. doesn't watch it. So if they're intensifying an existing nonconformity, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be found to increase the nonconforming nature, because there's case law and decisions out there to talk about minor changes or minor increases. that could be allowed as a right because even though they're increasing a non-conforming they're not really increasing the non-conforming nature it's like maybe a dormer or small change or something like that so it's not just necessarily a math you know analysis and if the project does not intensify the non-conformity or create any new one then the the applicant of the single or two-family dwelling is permitted to Just go ahead with a building permit, they don't need a finding. If the determination is that it will intensify a nonconformity, then the zoning board makes a finding as to whether the proposed change will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And if they are creating a completely new nonconformity, unless your ordinance chooses to be more beneficial, they would need a variance. So I'm going to switch gears a little bit now to exempt uses, and those are uses that arise under section three of the zoning have chapter 48 section three, it's often referred to as the Dover amendment. It's usually referred to the Dover amendment in the context of educational and religious uses. Mostly, but there are other protected uses such as agriculture and childcare facilities in the act as well. And the language in that statute varies a little bit as to the uses but essentially you can't prohibit restrict or reasonably regulate the uses that are protected. So the act provides that ordinances can't prohibit, regulate, or restrict the use of land or structure for religious or educational purposes. So if one of those uses is proposed, they can't be denied, you can't require a special permit for the use, but you can reasonably regulate and the uses when it comes to certain dimensions which I'll get to in the next slide. So, there's a decent amount of guidance in the case law as well though this can be a challenging area and it is evolving there have been some recent cases on in the last couple years as well. When looking at whether or not. the primary purpose for the land is really a protected use, whether the uses and structures have that bona fide goal, for example, that it's educationally significant, as opposed to perhaps, you know, related to an educational use, but not really the main use of the property. And so oftentimes, these are very, very fact specific analysis, and, you know, really do take some time to gather information from the applicants and make a decision based really on their very particular proposed uses.

[Victor Schrader]: Hey Robin, this is Victor. This is one area of the new recodified zoning ordinance that has changed. In the previous ordinance, we didn't have any reference to how to handle Dover. amendment uses and now we do and there's a site plan review process that runs through the CD board to determine whether the use is covered under Dover and then a site plan review of the use before approval. Those uses used to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals but now under the new ordinance they'll go to the Community Development Board.

[Robin Stein]: All right, great. So again, it may make some sense, you know, and especially after some of the newer folks on the board have a chance to serve for a bit and the final ordinance gets finished up and published for me to take a look at that and come back and we can always have a conversation about some of the changes and going forward using the ordinance if you guys find that helpful.

[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, and I'll jump in as you're going through if there's anything to flag.

[Robin Stein]: That's great, I appreciate it. I appreciate it, thank you. Yeah, we are seeing more and more communities, but limited site plan review and for Dover amendment uses because the uses can be subject to reasonable regulations of bulk and height and parking and. yard areas and lot area and open space and building and it's good to have a process to do that, because sometimes the question kind of comes up is it the building commissioner is it a board you know who's responsible so it definitely advances the goal of zoning to just be clear of applicants about who's responsible and how the process is going to work. So that is the Dover amendment. And I'm gonna move on now to talk a little bit about timelines associated with the different kinds of permits that come before the boards. So for all of special permits, variances and appeals and comprehensive permits, the initial application gets filed with the city clerk. For special permits and variances, the board needs to open the hearing within 65 days of when the application's filed. And then for whatever reason, and someday I'm sure I'll learn the history, but I don't know it now, then the timelines differ after that. So for special permits, the board opens the public hearing within 65 days, and they need to vote and file their decision with the city clerk within 90 days of when the hearing closes, the public hearing. And that is when the hearing closes. So if the hearing's continued, and it stays open, you count the 90 days from the last session when the hearings close and the board votes. For variances and administrative appeals decisions of the zoning enforcement officer, the board needs to vote its decision on the application within 100 days, and they need to get the decision and file with the city clerk within 14 days thereafter. And then comprehensive permits have 40B projects have their own different process. So in that case, the hearing opens with Um, after 30 days, it's closed 180 days after opening and the decision has to be made and filed the city clerk within 40 days. And again, you know, this is informational generally, if there are questions on specific projects, then, um, we do encourage you to reach out and ask us, you know, talk to us about what's going on with them. Um, in addition to timeliness, it's always important to keep in mind the quantum of vote too. And these are all, um, statutory requirements. So in general on chapter 48, section nine, it lays out the voting requirements for a special permit. And it basically says if you have a three member board, then you need all three members. If you have a five member board, you need four fifths. And if you have more than that, then you need two thirds. So for the zoning board acting as a special permit granting authority, it would be a four fifths vote, but for the council it would be a two thirds vote. Findings generally require a majority vote unless your ordinance makes the finding a special permit. So the ordinance as it stands now does not make a finding a special permit. I don't know if that's a change in the new ordinance, but it would be a majority vote unless it's a finding by special permit. It's opposite special permit process. Variances are also a fourth or fifth vote, just like zoning appeals. And then 40D projects are a majority vote. One note, and this sometimes comes up, you know, in most instances, I encourage folks to do an affirmative vote on the application, but if that vote fails, because for example, it doesn't get the required fourth or fifth vote, then the project's deemed denied. It's not necessary to take a vote to deny, you can, but it's not necessary. If it fails, it's deemed in denial. So I'm going to move on now to just some tips we have on reviewing applications when they come in. So some things that are kind of helpful conceptually is to review the nature of the project. Is it residential, commercial, industrial? Identify the type of relief sought, confirm that's the right relief and the complete relief. Good note here, always have the current ordinance and map available. So that is a note to myself as well. Determine the zoning district, review plans for existing conditions and non-conformities. Note the required dimensional controls, if non-conformities will be increased. They're always just kind of a good checklist of things to look for. Not every applicant has counsel and sometimes you'll look at something and maybe just see a different counsel or not with what comes before you. So it's always good to do it when the application comes in. Particular nonconformities that you might look for are structures within setbacks, height issues, structures that exceed lot coverage, structures on undersized lots are considered nonconforming, uses that are no longer allowed, or maybe anything else that runs afoul of the ordinance. And then, you know, obviously, once you have your hearing on this, you're going to write your decision. And we did also have some tips for voting and writing the decisions. It's always good to include in the motion, the applicant and property owner, the full address, the basis for the decision, the ordinance section or the chapter of the act. findings, a fact that are required, either by 48 nine or 10 or by your ordinance itself. All required determinations that need to be made. And, you know that it's good, you know, to include that you're only granting relief that was applied for and that is being granted and it's not meant to necessarily cover the whole project if something wasn't wasn't particularly thought.

[Mike Caldera]: Ernie Stein, just a clarifying question about that. So these sorts of provisions or wording close to them, we do include in the sign decisions that we issue. Should we also be verbally at the time of the meeting, including all of this

[Robin Stein]: I think it's helpful for the record. You know, the mo can just be, you know, I moved to approve the application of so-and-so relative to this property who's seeking this relief for these reasons. Sometimes we'll see it split into two motions. Sometimes a board will just take an up and down motion. This is gonna be an approval or a denial, and they might vote the facts and the findings that go with it afterwards. if it's too cumbersome to kind of put it all in one motion.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, okay, thank you.

[Robin Stein]: Yeah, you can definitely split it out, kind of into just are we approving this or not, and then let's adopt our reasons and our findings for whatever the decision was. And depending on how complicated something is, sometimes that's helpful and sometimes it's not necessary. So, I just have a few slides to talk about the specifics of kind of those findings and what you would look for on the next few slides. So special permits, again, are Chapter 48, Section 9. There's also going to be uses and sometimes specific requirements and findings that relate to those uses in your ordinances. And so I've just listed a couple examples here of some of the special permit language in your ordinance, because you have it both on the use table, but then in separate sections as well. Special permits by statute can be issued only for uses which are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and oftentimes we will see as to particular uses other findings that need to be made for those uses so you always want to refer back to the ordinance as to that particular use and see if there's anything additional that goes with it. And if there's any additional special permit requirements in the ordinance itself. Special permits are discretionary permits, meaning they can be granted but they don't have to be granted. If the board denies. a special permit, then it needs to be for a reason that is based in zoning, whether it's in the act or the ordinance, you know, it would be arbitrary and capricious to deny it for a reason that wasn't founded in the zoning requirements, but it is discretionary. Special permits can be conditioned and that comes right out of 48.9 as well. And that allows, you know, oftentimes to craft projects with a little bit more creativity or flexibility or just some safeguards that mitigate against any concerns. And again, applicants are not entitled to special permits. It is discretionary with the board to review and decide if it's appropriate to grant the permit. And again, your local ordinance will provide standards.

[Alicia Hunt]: Robin, I just wanted to clarify that because so much of what I feel like we see, and actually I guess coming from the planning board side, so much, we can't just say no, but you were saying that while you're saying it was discretionary, you can't be like, well, I'm just gonna make something up that's very, ridiculous, right? Like say you needed a special permit for a grocery store, but people, but the, the board was like, there are too many grocery stores here. We don't feel like it. That would not be a basis for denial. It would have to be something more in the, the, the health, the wellness, the character, the, it would have to be something more concrete in zoning.

[Robin Stein]: It would have to be related to their zoning authority. Yeah, there has to be something that's founded in in the zoning authority. And so again, if there's, for example, if you had specific criteria for the issuance of a type of a certain type of special permit in the ordinance and and findings that had to be made. If you found you could not make one of those findings and you have the discretion to deny the permit. You also have the discretion, even if it's possible that all those findings could be made to deny the permit, if, for example, it doesn't meet the overall purpose or goals, but the denial has to be based on legitimate zoning purposes, not preferences or we'd rather see this use there instead or something along those lines. It has to be tied to zoning. And again, these are very fact specific. There's a lot of case law, interpreting board decisions and the discretion afforded to them. And so when particular situations come up, we always do appreciate the opportunity to take a quick look at it for you and maybe do a little research and see what kind of guidance we can find on particular concerns and whether or not courts agree that they're founded and grounded in zoning. PB, Lupita D Montoya.

[Alicia Hunt]: PB, Lupita D Montoya. PB, Lupita D Montoya. Frequently, I kind of just heard that. I don't know if that's true, but that if members of the board are looking at a case, have seen something come up and want a lawyer to weigh in, we can always ask KP Law to take a look and give you the legal findings, the legal information in advance so you don't have to figure it out on the fly in the meeting. That doesn't have to be your role.

[Robin Stein]: We're always happy to help. And honestly, with you codifying a new ordinance, questions may come up because standards or other matters may have changed. And there may be questions about how to apply them. And we're happy to help. I mean, you guys obviously have a very good board. I've seen parts of two of your meetings. Now you put a lot of thought into what you're doing. And so if you have questions, just let us know. We're happy to help.

[Victor Schrader]: Thanks Robin can I jump in sure this is Victor again the special permit section is particularly relevant because of pretty soon they'll be. a special permit request before the ZBA for the marijuana license applicants. And there are specific criteria in the ordinances and now in the zoning ordinance that established those. that process for the zoning marijuana establishments specifically. So I just wanted the board to be aware of that and also a question if there are specific standards for a use like marijuana establishments as well as special permit standards more generally are those in combination or are they mutually exclusive?

[Robin Stein]: with sorry so as long so a lot of ordinances will have kind of the general special permit granting standards in order to get any special permit you have to satisfy the board of state's traffic you know impacts on on municipal services but then they may also have a section that says in order to get this marijuana special permit you have to meet you know, some other specific requirements. And as long as they're not in conflict with each other, we would apply both. If there was some conflict between them, then we would usually, and obviously we'd have to look at it, but in most instances, recommend that you apply the more specific standard to that type of use, because usually there's this concept in the law that the specific controls over the general, you know, if there's a conflict between them. And sometimes that comes up, you know, sometimes new sections get added and they get written for specific uses and they don't quite align with the general requirements. But we would we could take a look at that if the issue came up.

[Victor Schrader]: All right, thanks.

[Unidentified]: So I think we kind of talked about that.

[Robin Stein]: So this is just, again, kind of walking through when you make your decision and your vote. know, it's good to tie your decision to the real specifics of the project. So, for example, you don't want to just say, I'm in favor of approving the project because it would not be substantially more detrimental. You want to say why? You want to say this would not be substantially more detrimental because this specific project does or accomplishes these things and, you know, make it specific to the project that makes it a much more, you know, thoughtful and defensible decision were someone to repeal it. And it really is best to not just kind of repeat the standard or repeat the statutory standards, but you want to give your reasons. You want to give your specific reasons for approval if there are specific requirements in the bylaw. It says in order for the board to grant a special permit, it must find as follows. You want to identify those things and say why you have found, that you have found each of those things and why. You don't need to give as much detail on a denial, but it is still very helpful for boards to explain their reasons to vote their findings for denials so that if that's appealed, well, first of all, in fairness to applicants, they should understand why something passed or failed, and in fairness to all butters in the public, the same thing, but also for being able to defend decisions if they're appealed and they go to court. You know, as much as it's a de novo and new review, the more specifics that are in there, the better we can represent the board. So, I mean, all around, there's a number of reasons to put that level of specificity in and be project specific. I know I've mentioned this as well, it's a little bit more detail, but you can impose conditions on special permits and that can be on time and use, hours of operation, even sometimes renewal of permits, deadlines to start or complete certain work, limitations on noise or types of landscaping. There's a good amount of leeway, In the type of conditions that you can impose on a special permit, they just need to be reasonable, they need to have a basis in zoning. And special permits can be limited in duration to ownership or use by a particular applicant. Again, if you're considering doing that in a particular application sometimes it's helpful to talk to counsel and just flush that out a little bit. Something I'll note in this Victor, and you may know this may have changed with your update but 48 section nine specifies that zoning ordinances and bylaws can specify that special permits will lapse if they have not been used. within up to three years. I did note that at least the version online of your bylaw, section 9481D right now says one year. So that's something we might want to go back and check and see if that's changed with the new page, because it very well might have.

[Victor Schrader]: I'm not sure. I have it in front of me. I'll look through it as you continue.

[Robin Stein]: Yeah, we had something we can always follow up on but I just want to, I figured I'd mentioned that that might be old news at this point. So, um, Plan conditions, if a special permit application is accompanied by a plan or there's specific work that are done, you want to include those as conditions. So I'm sure you know this, but oftentimes in the decision, I'll say that the work needs to be consistent with a particular plan or in substantial compliance with a particular plan. And you want to identify that plan by its name and its date and any revisions. So there's no question later what somebody was supposed to do for their project and it's always good to reference the plans and the decision and then make sure they're filed somewhere you know with a copy of the decision where people can find them you know if it's years down the road things are probably getting a little easier with digital copies but definitely you want to be able to find that plan later if there's a question about something so one other comment you know the board can't delegate its discretionary authority and so you have to keep that in mind with conditions that You don't want to condition something kind of, you know, too far down the road where, you know, saying, you know that a building commissioner or staff or somebody in the town might be responsible for something that's really part of the boards discretionary authority. And so there's some case law out there on that as well. We can look to if that question comes up. So that's kind of the world of special permits. I'm going to switch gears to variances a little bit. I know I mentioned earlier, so variances are Chapter 48, Section 10. And there are two types of variances. There are dimensional variances and use variances. And again, we would want to reconfirm. I don't think this changed, Victor, but use variances are currently allowed to be granted. And unless you took that out, then you can continue to grant them. The statute says that unless an ordinance explicitly authorizes granting use variances, you can't grant them. And that does give the board some flexibility, you know, with projects that it wouldn't otherwise have if it was limited only to granting dementia variances. So I'm just going to go through the findings necessary for granting variances.

[Alicia Hunt]: I'll just confirm that they actually made it clear because there had been some debate, and I know there'd been a legal case in Medford, but they did make sure in the recodification that it was stated clearly that use variances were allowed.

[Robin Stein]: Okay, I definitely took a look and I thought it said, including variances as to use.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, so we had, we had, there were two sections, two subsections that said it and then we had a case that went up on appeal and the judge found that it was allowed. So since that finding, when we've had It may have only come up once or twice since the judge made that determination. So since that's happened in the decisions, I've put in what the state statute says, the two conflicting bylaws, and then what the court finding was just to make sure we recovered. So now with the new codification, we can just take that one little subset, which which makes it easier just to like be really safe I was citing all of the things in that timeline.

[Robin Stein]: God no that's that's good and that's the whole point you want to put in the decisions where the authority for the actions you're taking comes from so that sounds like that's going to get cleaned up a little bit before you all have to be as cumbersome with it so that's good.

[Unidentified]: And Victor said something in the chat. Oh he said special permits shall lapse if substantial use thereof or construction There under has not begun except for good cause within 24 months.

[Robin Stein]: All right, so you've added a year to be a year now it's it's 24 months, so that, again, I will send my presentation but please remember that it's already rapidly out of date. Um, you know, update, you know, and come back again and talk about me. It may, it may actually be a good exercise to go through at some point to just sit down and talk about the changes from the old to the new, because if you got the, for the people on the board that I've worked with it more, there's going to be, um, you know, changes that you want to make sure you're aware of. So that'll be helpful as well.

[Andre Leroux]: That's a great idea, Robin.

[Robin Stein]: Yeah, I'm happy to, let's get it finalized and up and I'm happy to, you know, and I'm looking forward to working with you and the community development board more as well. So I'm sure I'll be taking some time to get into the new ordinance anyway, just so that I have familiarity as questions come up. So it'll be good for all of us. It'll be helpful for me as well to have Alicia and Victor kind of teach me the new ordinance as well. So I think that'll be good. So required findings for granting variances, the statute has three findings. The first one is that you have to find that there are unique land conditions relating to soil shape, topography of the land or the structure, which affect that land or structure, but not generally the zoning district. So that could be something like ledge, that could be something like an unusual existing structure that maybe takes up, you know, most of the property and that's not common in the neighborhood, wetlands, but something about the property, you know, it has a particularly unique shape that makes it necessary that it needs relief and that also is unique, you know, it's not common to the whole neighborhood. So that's the first finding. And the second finding would be that a literal, oops, did it not click? Hold on. There we go. That a literal enforcement of the ordinance would create a substantial hardship, financial otherwise to the applicant. And I know the statute says financial, but there's a world of case law that says it can't just be financial. And again, the hardship has to actually be related to whatever that soil condition is. It actually has to be created by that. So it has to be, you know, because we have this ledge all over the back of the property, you know, we can't meet this particular setback requirement or we can't meet this particular coverage requirement, they have to actually be tied together. And then the third element of grant of variance is that you can grant that relief without substantial detriment to the public good and without modifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the award. And that gives you an opportunity to analyze the impacts of the variance. What it means to grant a variance, which I'm sure you're all familiar with, but that you're authorizing dimensional requirements that wouldn't otherwise be permitted. you know, the burdens on the applicant to come in and prove that they need this variance. And again, the hardship isn't, you know, alone isn't enough. It's not just that I have a challenge, but that, um, you know, there really is some unique special condition of this land or of the structure that's creating that problem. And that they can go ahead and do what they're proposing without causing that detriment. Um, no one is entitled to a variance. Um, you know, there's case law we've cited in here that variants just should be granted sparingly. I will say, I think how courts evaluate variances often relates to the degree of your variance. So if you're talking about, you know, a couple of feet on a lot area requirement, something more de minimis, it may be, you know, evaluated differently by a court. And some of that has to do kind of with the detriment concept, as opposed to somebody who's looking for an extreme dimensional variance or use variances, which may get a higher kind of substantive review because they're more significant variations. So similar to special permits, variances have lapsing and extension provisions. So variances need to be exercised within one year of the date of the grant of a lapse. They can get a six month extension needs to be applied for before the lapse happens. And there's a little bit of case law, but not a lot on what it means to exercise a variance. The way I usually like to describe it is that you, you have to have changed your position in reliance on the variance, so there needs to be recorded the registry of deeds that's not enough to exercise it, you know, it would really be, did you pull a building permit and start work. Did you sell the property to a bona fide purchaser? Did you change your position? Did somebody really rely on and use that variance? And there is case law out there, but that is extremely fact specific area of the law. So if that question comes up, by all means, let us know and we'll help with that. But there's really only a handful of cases that deal with what it means to exercise a variance.

[Unidentified]: Attorney Stein, is that six month restriction So variances may be extended up to six months. Is that a hard six months or can that be?

[SPEAKER_06]: It's in the statute. It's right. Yeah, it's right. Forty eight, ten.

[Mike Caldera]: You know, one other thing, though, attorneys, I think if I was understanding Jamie correctly, the question was, So, and if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying it's in the statute that variances may be extended up to six months. So if a board were to say, get a request for an extension of six months and then say no or something that would be against the statute, it sounds like, but what if- No, if you have discretion to grant it. Okay, but so what if someone came before the board and asked for an extension longer than six months? Is that within the board?

[Robin Stein]: No, because the statute only empowers you to grant us. That's what I mean. The six months is set by the statute. So that's all the authority you have.

[Unidentified]: OK. I don't think any of us knew that. And we just gave an extension of a year. Yep. That's where I was going. I think that was what the question was.

[Robin Stein]: All right. Well, why don't we talk about that one later? Maybe, Jackie, you can give me a call. We'll talk about it. Yeah. Yeah. And I have to take a look at your bylaw as well, or your ordinance. I keep saying bylaw, I'm sorry. My mind is in towns, but it's, I'll take a double look at that one, but I think it's six months. Let me just.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I don't think I realized it was in there.

[Robin Stein]: That's okay. You know, that's why we do these trainings right so we'll, we'll talk about that one later. We can see. One thing I'll note, so there, the statute talks about. The year running from the date of the grant. There's one landlord case that I'm aware of which says that means the date of the grant not the date of the 20 day appeal period runs after the decisions filed, but there really isn't reported case on that and sometimes. you know, does happen that somebody comes in and they say, well, I couldn't use it till you filed a decision in the appeal period ran. So I didn't realize. So, you know, I always, if anyone asked me, I always say be conservative, go with the date, the board vote at the grant, because that's what the statute says. It doesn't say the date of decision or the date of appeal. So that's an area that at some point might get decided by a higher court, but very little guidance on it, on it now, other than just the words of the statute and that one land court case. So, again, variances can have conditions, they can pull you as the board can impose conditions and safeguards and limitations similar to. the special permits, but the difference being that you can't tie it to the applicant or to renewal. And conceptually, the difference with that really is that when you're granting a variance, you're actually varying the zoning for that property. It's really tied to the property as opposed to a special permit that's more tied to the use of the property. And so because the concept of variances is that you're really saying this is a property that only needs 20,000 square feet, not 25, that's not something that you really would tie to a person, you know, or a particular project. So it does have a conceptual basis to it, but it's really more that the variance is varying. I'm going to shift gears a little bit and just talk about a couple other zoning concepts. So accommodations for persons with disabilities, there is some language in chapter 48, section three, that talks about that local land use and health and safety laws, regulations, practices, ordinances, et cetera, obviously can't be applied in a discriminatory manner. And, you know, some time to time you may get an application for say a variance or some other relief that's tied to the fact that somebody requires an accommodation, perhaps to put in a wheelchair ramp other aspect of their home. And so if you get questions about those, and you need help with that, let us know. But I just wanted to flag that obviously, you know, in addition to just general discrimination laws also in the zoning act as well. And then the Federal Fair Housing Act also will apply in zoning situations. And so again, from time to time, you may get requests for accommodations, what have you. You know, there is a kind of a framework to evaluate those, and we can help with those if they come up. So, and just a little bit more guidance on those. I don't really, so I need to read the slides, but, you know, the point is that you want to make sure that folks have equal opportunities to enjoy their homes, equal opportunities, you know, for the accommodations that they need. and so that they have fair opportunities to live within the community as everybody else. And that's really all we're trying to accomplish. And so sometimes the analysis can get fact specific about accommodations and what have you. But again, if those come up and you have questions, just let us know. So I'm going to shift gears a little bit now out of zoning and into some of the general Um, kind of open meeting law, public record concepts that just apply to all boards and commissions. So I feel like it's always helpful to put those in our area specific analysis, but, um, the open meeting law, obviously your, um, meetings, the agendas need to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meeting that does exclude weekends and legal holidays. So always kind of keep in mind when a, like a Monday holidays coming up that, um, you know, if you have a Tuesday meeting, it'll make sure you post the Thursday before things like that. You need a quorum of the board to deliberate, and a quorum is a majority of the members in office. It gets a little trickier in zoning sometimes because you still, for say, a special partner for variance, or you need a supermajority to act, right? So you need more than, if it's a five-member board, you could have a meeting of three, but you still wouldn't be able to approve a variance, for example, because you need that fourth member. So for public hearings the board has to have the same access to the meeting as the public or the public to the board, you know, this is honestly taken on a bit of a different meaning over the last couple years as we've started to get into the areas of hybrid meetings and remote meetings What that means, but the bottom line is that you know their public meetings they, you know, especially when you have public hearings, folks need to be able to ask questions and interact and see plans and so you know we've spent a lot of time over the last couple years figuring out what that means in a remote and sometimes hybrid environment. but it is important that the public has access. Big one, maybe the only exclamation point in the presentation, obviously no deliberating over email or outside of a public meeting. So, you can circulate a document that's gonna be discussed in a meeting, but nobody should be hitting reply all and sharing their comments or suggested changes or corrections or what have you via email. You can do things like scheduling over email, because that's not a deliberation. You can distribute the packets over email that are going to be used at the meeting. But any back and forth, sharing of opinions and thoughts and things like that, not over email. We have to save those for our public meetings. So another aspect that comes up under the Open Meeting Law is questions about site visits. So the Open Meeting Law actually says that on-site instructions are not meetings. They have to be posted. provided there's no deliberation. So that's something important to keep in mind. You don't have to post the meeting, but you can't be pointing things out. And it's hard sometimes because you go and you see something or what have you, but you can't kind of have those conversations. Sometimes boards will be inclined to say, well, let's post it just in case. The one caveat with that is that the board doesn't have the ability to invite members of the public onto somebody's private property. In fact, the board doesn't have the right to go on somebody's private property. So if the property owner says, sure, I'll host a site visit, you just want to make sure, yep, they're inviting the board on. And you can check with them and say, we'd like to post this so we can talk about things. Is it OK if the public comes? If they say no, then you can't. And you just have to be careful not to have any of those deliberations. And obviously in land use site visits can sometimes be very important. It's often, you know, especially for big projects, it's really helpful to see the site and know what you're looking at, not just some of the paper plans. So a couple more, as I know it's getting late in the evening, conflict of interest. I know you have a few new board members. So some of you may have just gone through this, but you, when you were appointed and sworn in, you should have received a summary of the law. You have to complete the online training program. I think it's still every two years, you do the online training and then you print out the certificate and you give it to the city clerk that you did the training. Kind of some of the big things obviously you shouldn't participate in matters where you have a financial interest or you're related to the applicant or if you're in a butter or close resident. If you're on an abutters list, you should not be participating in an application. And obviously if you have some kind of issue or bias in a particular project or what have you. So I'm sure those things go without saying, but we always like to include them. Public records. This is kind of the last the last item, but anything that you as a board receive is a public record, unless there's some exception in the law for that, and there are various exceptions to public records, but most of what you folks will receive will constitute public records. I mean, you may from time to time get, you know, privilege, like a legal opinion or something like that, but the type of work the Zoning Board does doesn't trigger too many of the exceptions. Emails are public records, texts are public records, really any writing in which there's communication is a public record. So social media posts, even if it's, and I don't know, do you have city email addresses or use designated email addresses? If you don't have city email addresses, One thing I've seen some people do is just set up like a separate Gmail that would be like, you know, Jamie Thompson zoning board at Gmail so that you segregate it so that if there is a public records question, you're not making a personal email account open to that request. And that way you can just keep like all your zoning board stuff separate with whatever free email service you like. And I'm not, I'm not advocating Gmail, but whatever free email service you like or whatever, you can choose to just set that up. That may be a further conversation we're having also with Alicia and Victor, because I don't necessarily know the city's technology side of things, but it's good to keep it separate from your whole personal world.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, we don't have city emails, and I believe we're all using our personal emails.

[Robin Stein]: Yeah, so you might want to think about setting up like zoning board emails. so that you just can keep things separate. And if you have to go back and find something, it's easy to find. And if we do have a case where there's discovery, it's very easy to be like, this is everything I got as a board member, it's all right. it makes things a lot easier and it gives you some privacy protection. Obviously, the whole file for the project is a public record, unless there's, again, some kind of exception, but anything that the board receives should be kept in the official file, official records of the application. Minutes are a public record, and the minutes should always include the date, time, and place of the meeting, who was present, who was absent, what was discussed, you know, and enough of a general discussion set of a member of a public committee read the minutes, they really understand what went on. It doesn't have to be a word for word transcript, but it should contain, you know, some substantive explanation about what happened. And then any motions, any votes, and who voted, you know, which way on those, as well as listing, I didn't put this on there if you had it, as well as, you know, listing documents that were used at the meeting. And that is pretty much my whole presentation. I don't know if anybody has specific questions or was hoping for, you know, more detail in any particular area. I really wanted to just kind of start with a high level kind of discussion of different zoning concepts and different types of permits and things like that and figured, you know, we can always have a more substantive discussion later, which seems like it's going to tie in well with your new ordinance.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Robin. This was really wonderful. Well, now I'm happy to get to be here with you. No questions? Presentation was so flawless, there are no questions. I think we'll have more questions after we review the recodification.

[Robin Stein]: Every time I give the presentation, I think, oh, I should remember to move that slide there or there, so I'll go make my notes after this. I appreciate your workshop.

[Unidentified]: Every time I go back into the ordinance because I want to check something, I find something new.

[Robin Stein]: There you go. So no, I think it'll be good for all of us working together going forward to have a chance to go through the new ordinance together as well. And I think it sounds like Victor has a really good handle on it, but he might even be able to kind of help us with a cheat sheet of, you know, major differences. And we could plan that one just a bit more ready for prime time.

[Victor Schrader]: We do have something like that Robin for our own internal use and we can certainly format it so that it could be shared because we're also learning the new ordinance and finding things and as we're putting it to use because the city's really active right now with applications.

[Robin Stein]: make total sense to just schedule another session like this to just go through the new ordinance when you guys are ready.

[Unidentified]: And that's a good two or maybe even jointly we'll see with the development board as well.

[Alicia Hunt]: that could be really helpful. I will just say that when we have, I highly encourage electronic, but I personally like to have a physical copy of the zoning ordinance. I have my own zoning book with 40A and the zoning ordinance. And I'm having those more copies of those put together for our staff. When the new ordinance comes out, we actually kind of need to put a draft version in there because we couldn't wait But if members of the board would like printed copies, don't feel you have to do that yourself. Let Dennis know and we can arrange for it. And unless you feel a significant urgency, I would like to give you the new version once it's out.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, that would be helpful. I think most of us have probably printed out and made like giant binders that we keep with us. So I think that would be really helpful.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So just let us know if you want the insert of just the new zoning, or if you're new and you would actually like a copy with 40A in there as well. I have a box full of binders in my office, so it's not like I'm going out and buying binders. But you shouldn't have to incur the cost of the printing. We'll do it.

[Mike Caldera]: So Alicia also, I know Governor Baker extended the order permitting the remote meetings, but I imagine once we're back in chambers, having those will be really handy too.

[Alicia Hunt]: All right. So I just to give you the heads up, the state legislature is actually working on how to make that extension permanent. And what's actually under debate is what requirements they want to put into place Requiring remote access to meetings and that just failed right now as an unfunded mandate. So we'll see how that progresses. But yeah, but I hear you because people would like to do some of this in person.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, isn't that isn't a remote access more of a requirement for public access.

[Alicia Hunt]: Um, it allows us to meet. So the law before the pandemic was that under certain circumstances, one member of the board could be remote. Um, but the board, the majority had to be in person and you could always provide remote access to the public if you wanted to. Um, it was just that nobody was motivated to make, we had just started. Um, we had just purchased a package to do that for the city. and we were basically in the middle of wiring up some rooms in City Hall to allow remote access to more board and commission meetings when the pandemic hit.

[Robin Stein]: And the difference with a lot of those two is you would have been providing the ability for the public to watch the meetings but not necessarily participate. And so, as of now, the ability to continue having remote and hybrid meetings if you choose to, the way that you have been is continued into March of 2023 and we do expect in that time to see that there may be some more specificity given on not just that you could do it, but maybe you should do it or what have you. And to what Alicia was talking about, there was a proposal that was actually going to require remote meetings, but that would have been for everything. And I think that there were some issues raised from cities and towns and smaller communities as well that were just like, we don't have necessarily the technological ability to put, you know, to give public participation remotely at every meeting. And so those are some of the things that we expect to see coming and talked about over the coming months.

[Unidentified]: You mean as if the board were in person and then the public could do what they're doing here, but just into the room?

[Robin Stein]: Or that, yeah, that you would always have to have a participation option for everyone.

[Unidentified]: Like a screen or something to be able to see people.

[Robin Stein]: And, and it would be it would have applied to everything so smaller was bigger board, you know, not, you may have some communities with one meeting room and if there are four meetings in one night, they would have needed the technology elsewhere so you know it's a good conversation that folks are having but I know I expected to continue.

[Unidentified]: Cool. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how that shakes out.

[Alicia Hunt]: The corollary to that is, I believe, and sorry, since Dennis asks your board, I don't, I don't micromanage. I believe you're now getting all your materials electronically. If there's times when you say you really wished you had a paper version, we do get a paper copy of everything in our office. It's if it's like, I just want to see it in person, you can make an arrangement to come in pretty much anytime during business hours. And if we know you're coming. Our administrative assistant can have the documents available for you to see. And if you feel that you need a copy for some reason, that can be arranged too. I just feel like this is the right time to make sure you guys know that. But we're trying to be green. So we're not just mailing you massive packets all the time. We'd rather you ask.

[Unidentified]: I have to print them out.

[Robin Stein]: I write all over them. You post a lot of the materials on the website as well to write to the public and access them and board members can also access them if they need to.

[Alicia Hunt]: There as well correct Dennis I, I know we do it for the plan.

[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, you can hear me sorry I had a change I don't read muting yeah so everything goes up on our on our boards website every every new filing goes up there and. You know, I have some of the members do like paper copies, so I have been printing them out for them, which is fine. That's a piece of cake. So sometimes I actually, depending on the applicant, some applicants bring in like a full, you know, even though we don't ask for it anymore, seven copies, you know, that's what the old board used to require. And we kind of brought that down. So most of the time, we're just getting like two or three copies now at this point, plus a digital version. And with all the electronic filing we do now with CitizenServe, that's already electronic before it even comes to us, because they have to file with the building department electronically. Like everything is already on there.

[Robin Stein]: Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia, I just have a quick, when did the council adopt that recodification? Victor may know this better than me, but I'm going to say April. Oh, okay. So it's definitely in effect. Now there was some question about the window when it went into. I gotcha. But it is.

[Unidentified]: Just a quick question, should we end the public meeting?

[Robin Stein]: If you have nothing else on your agenda, I think my training part I think is done if no one else has any other questions.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, well, I was sort of just jumping in. So let me just jump in, excuse me, sorry. And I realized my camera's off, so you can't see my holding my hand, because I had to switch computers. Just if anyone doesn't have any questions, Robin, if you send me just the presentation, I can send that to everybody. And everyone just, if you go through that, just write notes and questions on it, get them to me, and then I'll forward it to Robin that way. That's probably the best and easiest way to do it. So as you're sort of doing it, just the minute you see something on that little thing, you know, just say, hey, you know, question, and then send them to me and we can answer it that way too.

[Robin Stein]: Just not reply all, just to Dennis, and then he can send them to me. When we have a subsequent conversation, I can include any of the answers to those questions as well.

[Denis MacDougall]: What I'll do in that one is just when I send it out, when I send that out to everybody, I'll just put it in their BCC just to make it even easier. That way there is no possibility for the file.

[Robin Stein]: My contact information is in there as well. So you can always reach out to me. All right.

[Unidentified]: Well, then I'm going to follow up with you on that, um, six year issue.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah.

[Unidentified]: Yep.

[Denis MacDougall]: That's a contact attorney as well, because he didn't really seem to have any problems with that either. So, you know, sort of maybe he knows something that, you know, it's some sort of hidden gem somewhere.

[Robin Stein]: We'll connect on that. Okay, great. Thanks, Robin.

[Unidentified]: I will never have a good night. I'm gonna sign off and I'll see you later. Thank you. And, um, Could we just get a motion to close the meeting?

[Mike Caldera]: So, Jacqueline, I'm going to do this every time until we actually follow the agenda exactly. There's an administrative updates item, so I just want to double check that they're not, in fact, administrative updates before we adjourn.

[Unidentified]: And you know what, Mike? I love that you do that. We're all just trying to figure it out through the woods. Dennis, do we have any updates? I know that Dennis said at the beginning, I'm not sure if everyone was on, that there are some minutes that are gonna be coming to us so we can approve them at the next meeting.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Those, at least in the past, we usually just put those on there just as a sort of a stop holding case. Like just because it's on the agenda doesn't mean it has, I mean, but we can acknowledge it, but we can just sort of say, you know, anything on this? No, moving on. So, but it's just there as like a placeholder just to make sure that if something does come up, it's on the agenda. It's sort of more of a make sure that we have it there. Reminds us of the agenda.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Dennis, I think it's perfectly reasonable. I don't know. Maybe if we took it to the logical extreme, it would be a problem. It's fine having agenda items or like categories on there, but but yeah, I just am more comfortable if we at least acknowledge they were on there and then just, you know, even if it's nothing.

[Alicia Hunt]: It's good of you to ask that, though, because every time people different I've worked with a bunch of committees and when they ask me for administrative updates, my brain racks and then I go, oh, you all would be interested to just just so you're aware. The position of building commissioner is posted on the city's website. It has been advertised in a number of places. There's been some attempt at recruitment, and I believe that there may be, in fact, some interviewing beginning. I'm technically on vacation this week, but I do believe I saw something in my email about starting to do some interviewing.

[Unidentified]: You're on vacation and you came to hang out with us on a Thursday night? That was very nice of you.

[Alicia Hunt]: I really wanted to see the training myself and be here during it.

[Unidentified]: I have a quick non-work related question. How did your daughter do in synchronized swimming?

[Alicia Hunt]: They actually did amazingly well. Her team, which is Cambridge Synchro, but it draws from the Cambridge, greater Cambridge area, including Medford, placed sixth in the nation.

[Unidentified]: Wow. Oh, wow.

[Alicia Hunt]: Category, yes.

[Unidentified]: That is really cool.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, yes. And my daughter also competed with some solos and did five. But their team got the highest score a Cambridge Synchro team has ever gotten in a national competition, so.

[Unidentified]: That's really neat. Well, congratulations to her.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. It was very exciting.

[Unidentified]: OK, so that was our administrative. Mike, do we have anything else on the agenda besides speech?

[Mike Caldera]: No, that's it. I motion to adjourn.

[Unidentified]: Can I get a second?

[Andre Leroux]: Seconded.

[Unidentified]: OK. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Great. And then we, Dennis said this earlier. Dennis, what did you say the date of our next meeting was? August 25th?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: Great. I'm going to go plan a vacation. I'm going to go plan a vacation for that week right now.

[Unidentified]: Just because we're so fun. It's like being on a vacation. Yeah. I'm sure it's the best. Um, okay, great. Uh, well folks, uh, during the rest of the summer, we'll see you in August. Thank you all. Bye.