[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, could you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th 2023 governor Healy signed into law a supplemental budget bill which among other things 6 cents temporary provisions came to the open meeting a lot March 31st 2025. Simply this further extension of public bodies you hold the meetings are only about a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote means language that might be some sort of changes to me of an extending expiration date of temporary provisions regarding what needs March 31st 2023 to March 31st 2025.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. And so my understanding is the first item on the agenda, 290 Salem Street, this is a matter where last month the applicant requested to continue it to our December meeting, but because we hadn't yet settled on a date, we continued it to this meeting and the intention is to continue that again, is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct, yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so could you just read that one and then we'll vote on that?
[Denis MacDougall]: 290 Salem Street, case number A-2023-14, continued from November 2nd. Applicant and owner, 290 Salem Street, LLC, is petitioning for a variance from Chapter 94, City of Medford Zoning, to construct a seven-unit residential structure with commercial space and an apartment one zoning district allowed use, with insufficient front and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and number of units per square foot of land. City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 6, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. So we did discuss scheduling as a board prior to the meeting. And so I have responses from the board. It looks like, so our meeting would ordinarily occur on the last Thursday in December, which is when a lot of folks are gonna be on holiday. So we traditionally reschedule it. And so it looks like we will have a full-strength board on Sunday, sorry, the week of, no, I'm looking at the wrong one, my apologies, on Thursday, January 11th. And I believe every member who's currently present today has indicated they can make that. So Dennis, let's go ahead and set that as the date for our December meeting, Thursday, January 11th, 6.30 p.m. And with that being set, chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the December meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 11th at 6.30 p.m.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to continue 290 Fellsway to January 11th. Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the matter is continued. Dennis, could you read the next item, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 9. So the bells way case number 40 be dash 2023-a lot. The resumption of consideration of the petition of the IV fell sway LLC the Davis companies. For comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts general laws chapter 40 be for multifamily 6 story apartment building located in approximately 3.4 acres of land and 9.70 thousand property ID 7 dash 2 dash 10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 289 units consisting to us 78 units of multifamily housing and 11 townhomes with 73, 25% of the total units of them being designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right. So folks, if you are unfamiliar with the 40B process, these are typically multi-session hearings. So the board will not be voting on the 40B tonight. This hearing is just kicking off. And so, The intention tonight, I believe, based on communications from the applicant and my own expectation is that we will get a presentation that provides an intro and overview of the project. And then there will be an opportunity for initial comment from the board. I will also, I'm in favor of allowing public comment in this session. overall comments, just so the board has some visibility into what the public would like to know and currently thinks. And then we will almost surely continue this matter to a future date, as this will be a hearing that takes place over the course of six months. So the board is working with the applicant to figure out a schedule which will be topical in nature, and we will make that public so that if folks want to attend and speak to specific elements, they will know when they should do so. So I just wanted to lead off with that. For those who are unfamiliar, we will not be voting on this matter tonight. We will just be hearing an intro, and we will take some procedural votes, and then this will be a hearing that might extend for six months. And with that being said, who do we have here for the applicants?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Good evening, Mr. Chair. Peter Tam on behalf of the applicant. Good evening. Thank you to you and the board and the public for the time this evening. On behalf of the Davis Companies, and the applicant DIV Fellsway LLC. We're really pleased to finally be before you substantively on what we expect to be a very significant and important project, both for the Davis companies as well as for the city. I'll be very brief. We have a PowerPoint presentation and I don't know, as I'm introducing the team, If Pat noon might be able to share his screen.
[SPEAKER_43]: Yeah, if you guys would allow me permission to share. I can pull the presentation up sounds great.
[Mike Caldera]: I think Dennis will get you that permission in just a moment.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, while he's doing that, I'll do a quick introduction and and. So I'm counsel for the Davis companies. Uh, we've been involved in this project for a number of years, as some of, you know, um, Pat noon and his colleague, Mike Cantaloupa from the Davis companies. Uh, I believe both are available. Uh, this evening, uh, Steve moderato, uh, who's the project, uh, civil engineer from bowler is with us. Eric Samuelson, uh, from cube three, the project architect. Scott Thornton from Vanessa associates. The project traffic and transportation consultant. And March on is also available he's a real estate and 40 be adviser on behalf of the Davis companies and my colleague Pat Gallagher is also in attendance. I don't think I missed anyone. Our goal is to be as as you suggested Mister chair to provide a comprehensive overview this evening, but just an overview, and that we fully expect to be working with you, your peer review consultants, on a schedule going forward after your comments and public comments this evening that can get more in-depth on any particular topics. And we have some suggestions, and we know you will as well. with that, um, our goal is, is sort of outlined here and we can follow this or, or take your lead on, on any direction. But, um, I'm going to touch quickly on the procedural history here just for the benefit of, uh, the board and the public. Um, and I'm going to turn it over to Pat noon. He's going to talk a little bit more about the Davis companies, who they are, um, what their intentions are for the site. He in turn will turn it over to Steve Margarano, talk a little bit about the site civil aspects of the project. And then Steve in turn will turn it over to Eric to touch on the design. The plans have not changed since you've seen them last. And so they'll be familiar to some, particularly those in the public who have attended some of these meetings in the past. We'd like to reserve a few minutes. I know you have a busy agenda at the end of your comments and public comments to do a little bit of housekeeping with you if you, you know, on scheduling. And we can also work with Dennis outside of this forum if we need to on specifics. So, Pat, if you wouldn't mind skipping to the next slide. This is an important slide because this shows you just how much work and how much time has gone into this project. We started this project and the Davis Company started this project back in 2019 with extensive planning. They own the site and that planning culminated in a comprehensive permit submission back in April of 2020. This board or your predecessors, many of your predecessors, opened the public hearing in April of 2020 and ultimately invoked a safe harbor, which led to an appeal, which took a number of years. That in the course of that appeal, we did continue to dialogue with the city and that led to some productive discussions, including a neighborhood meeting back in 2022 that some of you and members of the public did attend and provided feedback at that time. There was also a site walk in October of that year. But ultimately, the Housing Appeals Committee made a determination finally in October of this year that ultimately concluded that the city did not establish the 1.5% general land area for being able to successfully invoke a safe harbor. And they remanded this to you to resume the hearing. Based on consultations that Mike and Pat had with your staff, with professional staff, we submitted an update on November 6th, which allowed for new legal notice, new notice to abutters. We provided an updated waiver list, reflective of the changes to the zoning ordinance. And we acknowledge that there will be other updates that will probably be appropriate, including to the traffic study. which we can talk about generally this evening, but, and the point there being, we think the traffic study is still valid, that traffic volumes have not increased, but rather decreased, but we'll be providing an update to the board, fully understanding that that will be the subject of detailed discussion and review by what we would expect to be your peer reviewers. So that leads us to this evening, and we're looking forward to substantive feedback and review in order to make this project better. And that only begins this evening. The board does have 180 days, the period you referenced, Mr. Chair. But that period has, in fact, it did commence. It was told during the appeal, but there is significantly less than 180 days remaining. I think it would take us into early April by my estimate, and Dennis and I can work to nail that down. extensions are possible, but we'd like to be able to work with you on a schedule to meet that requirement, because this has been a project in the works for many years now, and we're anxious to move forward.
[Unidentified]: So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Pat Noon.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Hi, everyone Peter mentions my name is Pat noon. I work for the Davis companies on the development team just touching quickly on part of what Peter has messaged over the length of the project. There's been some turnover. I'm not only at the ZBA, but internally for us. So, many of you may remember my former colleague, Chris Shandor, who was working on this project. I'll be stepping in now for the Davis development team and. Working on this going forward and looking forward to doing so. This slide here is just a general. uh, history and summary of, uh, of the Davis companies, uh, and our firm, um, founded close to 50 years ago now, um, been operating in Boston and in the Northeast for, uh, for that entire period of time. Uh, and the company has grown, um, to, uh, what it is today, uh, with close to 120, um, professionals on the team, uh, and a 10 member senior management team, uh, and, uh, Davis is dedicated to working across real estate assets and the asset management side, property management, development, redevelopment throughout the country. Now, at this point, since its inception, Davis, as you can see here, is just focusing specifically on the residential portfolio has developed over 13,000 units and we believe that. We do great work in that capacity and in this asset class and have a good reputation for the products that we develop and are very proud of the products that we develop. With 5,300 residential units from the ground up and nearly another 1,200 in construction or pre-development now, looking forward to working on this project going forward. This slide here, this next slide, excuse me, just showing a couple of examples of the projects that we've built ground up with many of them in the Boston area here, but a couple of examples of projects that we've done in other parts of the country. I'll just highlight quickly the 1st project on the screen, the reserve in Burlington, Massachusetts. It was a sizable development that was done largely with the same team that you have here and was also a 40B project. A project that was a great success for not only us, but also for Burlington. So a project that we're very proud of and hopeful that we can duplicate the type of Success and outcome for all parties involved with 970 Fellsway. So, jumping into into this project itself. Uh, giving a bit of a bird's eye view here, high level, um, just starting with the, uh, the zoning map and orienting everybody to the location of the site quickly. As you can see, the site is centrally located on the screen outlines with the red boundary. Um, uh, located in the industrial district here in Medford, but. at the perimeter and intersection of several other residential districts. Historically, this site has served all industrial uses. Going back into the early 1900s, this was paperboard manufacturing and transitioning from that heavy industrial use into today, which is more of a storage use, which is anchored by the extra space storage tenant that most people are probably familiar with, and with some other tenants in the space that have some other miscellaneous storage uses. But looking forward, believing that there's a transition to a residential use on this site, that makes sense being at the perimeter of This industrial districts and adjacent to some residential uses and looking forward to being able to explore that transition to a residential use here. Zooming in on the site itself, getting a little closer, the yellow boundary that you see here is roughly the. Of the outline of the proposed project, this would be this yellow boundary would be the boundary that our comp permit encompasses in yellow with the remainder of the site being excluded from from the project that we're discussing tonight. The extra storage space being the space that occupies the remainder of that space. The plan is to. Would be to take down part of that existing structure, some of that structure being a bit older and somewhat disrepair and being able to move forward with the project that we've proposed here. And just moving on here, just with another. Photo of what the existing conditions are this perspective, giving you somewhat of a selfie, a Southeastern look at the site, but as you can see again with the yellow boundary, what the existing condition of the building is and and really the proposed perimeter of what. The project would be, and the extent of what the proposed demolition would be to the existing structure. So, again, looking forward to working with everybody here and moving this process forward. I'm going to be turning it over now to Stephen from Bowler to talk a little bit more about the site plan, and then we'll get further into the design with the cube 3 team on this presentation.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_10]: Great. Thanks, Pat. I'll just quickly take folks through this drawing. This is the same boundaries that Pat showed on the aerial view, but I'll take you through some of the specifics of the site plan, a little bit of how folks get around, where the access points are, and where sort of the highlight points are as well. I'm going to start in the bottom right-hand corner of the site, and we'll just walk counterclockwise around the site, and we'll come back up through the middle, and I'll tell you what's going on in each of those areas. So on the right-hand side of the site, sort of that gray block on Proposed Lot A, that's the existing building. I'm sure folks are familiar with it. Self-storage use is what you see as you come up the Fellsway. So that's existing to remain on that side as you coming up counterclockwise, which is not the way you'd be driving because it's the wrong side of the Fellsway, but let's pretend we're walking that way. You get up to the main entrance, which is the existing curb cut off of the Fellsway. So we're maintaining access points for folks entering and exiting the site. That's a right in, right out movement because there is a median on the Fellsway there. So as you come in that entrance there, you still have the remaining self storage uses, and we have a small parking lot on the right as you enter the site, there's eight spaces there that would facilitate, you know, the commercial needs there. creates a nice opportunity that's a smaller parking area than exists today. So you can see in that top right corner, there's a nice green space. We get an opportunity to bring in some landscaping. It's right behind the MBTA bus stop. So there's an opportunity to just create a nicer environment there, provide some screening. along that edge. Then as you come in, you start to see these blocks that line down Myrtle Street, and when you hear the architectural component, they'll describe a little more what's going on there, but just so you know what those blocks are, there's some townhome units that we'll have pedestrian access out the front, the vehicular access is internal to the site. So you can see each of those units has their driveway going to the unit. There's an opportunity for garage, there's an opportunity to park in the driveway as well. So nice use along there and that keeps the vehicular access internal to the property. Continuing on to the left, you'll see there's a drop-off zone for the apartment community. Folks can come in there. Somebody who's getting dropped off an Uber, a pizza delivery person would have an opportunity to come in there and greet the residents. And then you have some sort of hardscape and traditional gathering zones near the entry to the building. And again, lots of opportunities to introduce trees where folks that are familiar with the site today, it's very much a large sea of asphalt for trucking maneuvers. spaces get a little smaller, the vehicular maneuvering areas get a little tighter, that gives us the opportunity to bring trees internal to the site as well as around the perimeter. So you'll see that throughout where we had opportunities, we've incorporated a nice tree scape. As you get around, and then obviously you have an entrance into the garage there, you can see as you get to the last townhomes, there's an entrance into the residential building. At the corner of Myrtle and Amaranth, we're taking that opportunity to again pull back from that corner. Pull the asphalt back. Today it just kind of blurs into Amaranth Ave. We really wanted to get rid of the vehicular access at that point. It's too close to the intersection today, so we've eliminated any curb cuts out to Myrtle Street, and instead we bring in some nice outdoor uses. There's, you know, it can be a top lot, you know, dog run, a community, you know, garden parklet there. So really, we thought that was the right approach to that corner. And that will still continue to be refined. But that's the programming thoughts on that corner at the moment. As you come around Amaranth, Amaranth will remain as is. It gets a little bit wider because we do pull the buildings back from Amaranth today. And then Amaranth will continue down. Again, proper sidewalks get introduced with this scheme and some landscaping along the edge of Amaranth, down opposite the The existing townhome complex next door will go opposite that driveway with a secondary access out of the garage. And then continuing around, very similar to what's there today, a little bit wider because of fire department access requirements, but we widen that into the property and then continue that driveway around the back along that MBTA right of way. At the bottom left hand corner you see sort of a dashed circle there. That's sort of a place keeping element we talked a lot early on about the hopes that at some point in time that rail trail can come through, whether it's bike lane or some type of pedestrian amenity. doesn't exist today and the rights aren't there today, but we did put a little inlay to show how that space might become in the future. So just, again, keeping the opportunity open. We'd love that to happen. So we're just forward thinking, planning out some space back there in case that comes to fruition and we can create an access to it. And then around a little more utilitarian there's some access to the loading for the existing commercial building to remain. And then going up the spine back towards, you know, back up to the, to the north, right up between the two buildings are proposed and existing. We just use that there's some parking in there. We think it's a nice balance in there to not over park the site right so we have parking in there that is designated as flex parking, which effectively. during the day as the residents might be gone or at work. It's available to the commercial space at night when the commercial use is less active. There's spaces for the residents. So it's a nice flex zone to not over park the site. So that's, you'll see some designated shared use parking zones in there. And then you get back to the main drive and out to the Fellsway. So that Hopefully that lets you know what we're thinking and the components that we're working into the site plan at this point. And then the next couple of slides, Pat, if you can go forward, these are the more technical slides, but just wanted to show you a little bit of what that looks like. Again, the purple line will be the residential lot, right? So that would be the subdivision lot. So just wanted to make sure it's clear on some of the other slides, it might be difficult to see where that line is, so we thought it would be helpful just to highlight that that is the lot for the application here. And then the next slide gets into the real technical stuff, which I, as the civil engineer, really enjoy, but we'll keep it high level. This shows the drainage Today, there really is not a comprehensive drain system. There's a couple of collection points. There's no treatment, no infiltration, so not really a current drain system per today's standards. This would be a fully DEP-compliant stormwater handbook design system. It has proper collection. It has treatment systems, and then the larger boxes that you see on the page north and south of the new building will have some infiltration components. Again, that does treatment, it removes water from the system, and it is, you know, the state-of-the-art way to harness and treat and control stormwater, as well as the introduction of the trees and the landscaping, which are stormwater benefits as well. And then the next slide is really just to show water and sewer. The site is well served. There's good infrastructure in both Amaranth and Myrtle Street, and we've done some investigations, hydrant testing, and working with the fire department on access. And then we will continue working with the engineering department on connection locations. the infrastructure. Um making sure that the infrastructure is helpful to the city and obviously not detrimental to any anything in the neighborhood. So um, that is the summary. I'll pass it over to Um. To T A T to do the presentation on the
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: It's quickly touch on some of the projects we've done here in Medford going from oldest newest we have a river's edge here in the top right represent to also known as re one 50 in the top left. We have modera Medford in the bottom left and the Windsor Mystic River in the bottom right all for successful projects with slightly different styles but you know through collaboration here in Medford we feel we're very successful. I'm going to go quickly here through some of the floor plans into the design. On the first floor, it's majority parking layout. This is not open parking to the public. The exterior walls come down to the ground, so you're not seeing this visible from the adjacent properties, so it is fully enclosed. In the bottom right, you'll notice in the red there, that's our amenity slash leasing area. That's really the front door for residents and potential residents coming to the site. In the top right, you will notice the top lot and pocket park that was previously mentioned by Steve right there on the corner of Myrtle and Amaranth. One thing I did want to note, this plan is rotated 90 degrees for those who are a little disoriented by the changing angle here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Next please.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: This is the second floor plan, so this is elevated above. Here you'll see, you know, we're starting to get into the units here. We have a central corridor with units on both sides. In that bottom right is our main amenity space, which opens up into a enclosed courtyard, you know, above the parking level. And then on the left side, we have an open courtyard that opens up towards that industrial area, and also where we're hoping to see that rail trail. And then this is just our typical floor plan, levels three through six. So this is where you'll typically just see our you know centrally loaded. Corridor unit of both sides. In this you know relatively stacks up through level 6 and you can see our unit mix on the right side with the intention of 25% for all. Good talk through just some of the times in the top left. You'll see the townhouse elevation these are really We're trying to create a character with each of these townhomes, more of a row house style, and trying to create a rhythm that comes across on the street edge that would mimic more of the homes you would see along a residential drive. Then the elevations you're seeing on the right and the bottom are for the base building. Here we do a mixture of things to create different proportions. We have vertical elements that help break up some of the massing. while using some horizontal pieces as well. I think materiality-wise, we use a mixture of industrial materials as well as residential materials. You'll see some brick and stone pieces that are used to work off of the industrial history of that site. But we also recognize that we're on the edge of that residential zone, so we're using other materials that would more identify with the residential feel and material. We're using a blend of those materials to really give the site an identity as that blend between industrial and residential.
[Unidentified]: Next, please.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Just a couple of existing conditions. This is along Myrtle Street. You'll notice that along the edge here, we have a fence and shrubs that create a wall along the edge of Myrtle Street. Beyond that, it's really blank brick facades, trucks, cars, parking lot, There's not a lot of activity or welcoming along the street edge. Next, please. This is just taking a step back and that view is a little further up looking over those shrubs. But same thing, you're seeing the residential feel of Myrtle along the right side and that left side is really a wall really just opening up into asphalt and brick wall. And then here, you know, we have a conceptual rendering where we're looking along those townhomes down Myrtle Street. You know, you see we're trying to mimic the rhythm, you know, across Myrtle, but the real intention of what we're trying to do here is break down that wall along that street edge and create, you know, a better environment for the pedestrians down that sidewalk, you know, through the pocket park, the playground, you know, removing of the fencing and shrub wall down that edge and really trying to create a welcoming environment, both not just for the residents of the site, but also for the people of Myrtle Street and the surrounding neighborhood. And then this is just an internal rendering of the site. The townhomes here on the right, so we basically flipped into the inside of the site here, looking towards that base building. So this element you're seeing in the front here that is, you know, brown in color, that would be our main amenity and leasing for the site. There's going to be a drop-off space right in front of that. So that's really our main entry for this building and where prospective tenants would come to visit the project. You can kind of get a feel for the proportions and different elements we're using along the facade to break it up in spots, but also create some moments.
[Unidentified]: And we have a spread of balconies throughout.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: But just go over some kind of quick project improvements. So one of it is you know being energy efficient project that is ready for the future and including solar ready to sign. I also want to know you're aware that Medford has opted into the specialized energy code. So that is something that we're preparing for I hear 3 we have done projects that meet that so we are prepared for that. We're also the enhanced stormwater management on site got into that a bit. you know, new stormwater design, improved water quality, reduced flooding risk, reduction in pervious site on the site, you know, all benefits. And then enhanced public realm improvements, you know, that I was mentioning there in those last few slides with the pocket park at the corner of Myrtle and Amaranth, pedestrian intersection improvements, and potential future connectivity with the rail trail.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I'm going to jump back in just to to conclude some of the additional benefits from a municipal perspective. And I suspect that the board is aware of this. I know planning staff is, but obviously through the planning for an approval of this project. The city gains a lot, both from a control and regulatory point of view, but also simply from a housing creation and affordable housing creation point of view. And you, the city, have identified these as key strategic priorities, both in your comprehensive plan and in your housing production plan, with a good deal of specificity. So by approving 289 total units here, that will result in the creation of 73 affordable units. Those 73 units, a good majority of them will be available with local preference to local residents. And that's important. That's exactly what you identify in your comprehensive plan and your housing production plan in terms of the critical need for affordability to provide for residents that are feeling these pressures in the city. In addition, all 289 units will count towards the city's subsidized housing inventory, SHI. And By the approval of this project, it also provides the city the ability to assert safe harbor successfully. And that in and of itself gives the city the ability to take a more proactive approach in terms of future planning for housing. So we feel that in working with you all, we can approve A project that's going to be successful and it's going to accomplish a number of your identified goals and we look forward to to working with you throughout this process. Mister chair that's that's the overall summary we look forward to to this process into working with you and hearing your feedback and those and those comments from the public as well as your peer reviewers.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Excuse me. Yeah, thank you, Attorney Tam, and thank you to the project team. So on the topic of schedule, including the duration permitted for the hearing, let's absolutely talk about those logistical items. I'm going to save those for the end after we do record questions and comments, as well as high-level public comment. And yeah, so board, just a suggestion. I think one thing we can do now to help speed up the process, or at least ensure that if there are any threads that need to be pursued, they can be set in motion. If you do have feedback, either something you saw in the presentation, something you read in the plans that may result in a future discussion or a future analysis, this is a great time to signal some of those things just so that the applicant is aware and can start preparing those. But in general, anything, high-level questions or feedback from the board now is a good time for it. So I'll open it up to the board.
[Mary Lee]: So I'm just wondering for the 73 affordable housing units, at what point would they be identified in terms of the specific units or would they be identified at a certain point of this development?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Attorney Tam, is that something you could speak to? Yes, I I'm looking back it it's been a little while since I've looked through all the plans, but they are and I see this hunt is raising her hand so all the first initially.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, that sounds great director. Please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, Chair Caldera. I know some of the newer members of the board may be less familiar with this. So the designation of which units are affordable is regulated through the state and through our office. They have to be randomly distributed. They have to be a distribution of the different sizes. They can't be any better or worse than the other units, so they can't design some of them and say these are the affordable units. They have to be equal to the non-affordable units so that somebody couldn't tell which is which. But that is something that is not done by this board or the applicant. It's sort of a combination. The applicant sort of proposes. Our office kind of reviews the layout. It gets sent to the state for approval. That gets happened at a later state after this whole thing. It's more the building, it's actually during construction that usually happens. The other piece that is relevant is that because this is a rental building, what would happen is that tenants will move in. They'll be certified that they meet the income requirements. If you are living in the building and your income goes up and you no longer meet the income requirements, then there is an opportunity to stay in your unit at a higher rate. It's no longer a suppressed rate. But then the next available, like if that was a two-bedroom unit, the next available two-bedroom unit would then automatically become an affordable unit. So we would set them at the beginning, but over the duration of the existence of the building, which ones were affordable could switch over time as well. So hopefully that's helpful.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Thank you. Just one thing to double-check that equal spread, that would apply to the townhomes as well, not just the main apartment units.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. It's 25 percent and it is equal, so it would be 25 percent of the townhomes, which I think we figured out would be two. Ten units, 25 percent.
[Bill Forte]: Commissioner 40 is that. Mister chair, thank you so I did not have the benefit of starting out with this project when I was hired in the city of Medford back in October of 2022 and here I am after now being the interim commissioner so I feel like I missed a whole bunch. I would like to request through you to the applicant for a full set of plans off my office so that I can spread them on the table have a look at them. and bring up any concerns I should have written comment on this and it doesn't look like I'm going anywhere soon. I'm going to probably extend my time here in the city of Medford because the city's had no luck in fines by successor. And so I would be grateful if I could have a set of plans delivered to my office at some point in the next couple of weeks that would be great. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you commissioner 40. I saw a lot of nodding so the train can that that should be doable. We'll get them over to him tomorrow. Okay, great. All right, back to you. Did that answer your question?
[Bill Forte]: Yes, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, yeah. Thanks, Bill. Mary, so did that answer your question? And did you have any other questions or comments?
[Mary Lee]: No, thank you. That clarifies it.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Yeah, go ahead, Jamie.
[Unidentified]: Just considering this is abutting a residential district, One of the things that we obviously took up with the previous 40B was an overview of the lighting plan. So that's definitely something we want to see in the plans going forward. And with the landscaping as well, obviously that's going to be a full landscaping plan. We'd want to also see what that looks like on the side of the residentials.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Jamie. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: I have a general comment regarding the aesthetic or the look. There was a lot of flat surfaces I noted in various directions, and I know this isn't previously commercially zoned, and one of the merits that I keep hearing is that it's going to be obviously an improvement in the look in the neighborhood, It also right now is very different than the neighborhood housing that's across the street from it. When I saw the presentation given, I could imagine walking in and it actually looks pretty industrial. I would just want to hear more about the reasoning behind what was picked in regards to the materials and you know, the specific, you know, that it's, again, very angular and, you know, in a way, so very modern that I think, you know, it's, it doesn't look very modern. So that would be my comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Yvette. So we do have a note taker who's logging these requests. And so we can make sure to take that up when we do the design session or sessions. other questions or comments from members of the board.
[Mary Lee]: So Mike, I just have another question. It seems like, I might be wrong, but it seems like the location of the development is quite close to the Everett, Costco, Encore, you know, that big shopping center. So usually there's like a lot of, traffic congestion around there. And I understand that prior to the presentation, there was some discussion about the traffic feasibility study. And I'd like to know that since there are future proposals for the Encore site and in light of the fact that there are additions for that Encore development, how would that affect the traffic? Um, but if at all, whether it will affect the traffic from, from the development.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Mary. So I had some feedback about the traffic as well. Um, and so maybe that's something in the updated study, uh, that they could speak to. Um, yeah, for me, it was a little unclear from reading the packet, whether the traffic study in there truly was just a summary of this study. And there was some, more detailed study backing it up, or if that is the study. But my current reading is that not only would it benefit from a refresh just because time has passed, but also additional detail. So this was one of the pieces of feedback from city staff back in 2020, which I share. So I would like to see much more in the way of detail about traffic volumes, potential routes, modes of transport. They're spoken to at a high level in what's there today, but it's not really at a level of detail that I would expect. And so, yeah, I think a refresh traffic study where they could perhaps also speak to this scenario, Mary, would be good. Okay, Andre, I saw you unmute yourself earlier. Did you have a question or comment?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, just a couple of comments. One is building on, I think, what Jamie and Yvette said. I think it's going to be really important, the interface between the main building on Amaranth Ave and the residential area across the street there. I do appreciate the effort that's been made with the townhomes and the the top lot, etc. But I noticed you didn't focus on Amaranth, which is going to be a little bit more difficult design-wise. That's going to be something I'm sure we'll focus on quite a bit. I do appreciate the fact that this project would contribute a lot of new affordable rental apartments to our community, which we need. So, you know, thank you for that. Thank you for your for your patience and your desire to invest and build housing here in our community. I would be a little interested in a couple other things, just understanding what the buildings that are there now, you know, whether there's any historic consideration to those buildings. I mean, there's nice brick buildings, but I really don't know the history of them or how old they are, whether In the long term, you're going to be looking to preserve any of the whole complex, whether it's in the existing area slated for demolition. Obviously, that's going to be demoed, but the area outside. I'd like to understand that a little bit more. Also, I'd love to hear your thinking as we go through this process about how do we create more of a neighborhood place here and use this opportunity for investment, whether that's through public art, whether it's through, you know, what makes this project and development a Medford project, right? So not just something that you would, you know, generically put down in any suburb of Boston. So thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Andre. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, then I'll go next. So I shared my feedback on traffic. I see in the waiver list, there's a request to waive the portion of the zoning pertaining to solar. And so that's something I certainly want to discuss. I think in the description it says that it's contemplated for the future, but to waive something like that would like a better understanding of is there an opportunity to actually do the solar study? Is there an opportunity to incorporate solar now? In the original department headletters from 2020, there were some questions raised about the sizing of some of the utilities, especially water and sewer. And then there were also questions about underground utilities, whether there's some above ground utilities could be brought underground, which was then later referenced in the waivers that you were looking for the possibility of doing that. So it seems like maybe thinking has advanced on that since the last filing, but the plans haven't. So I just wanna make sure that those discussions are happening with the engineering department, that it is something we're gonna discuss at the appropriate time in this hearing. So the bike storage situation leads a lot to the imagination in the current plan. So additional details on that, details about how it's going to be configured, what's the appropriate sizing for a development of this size. There was some feedback in one of the original department headletters about outdoor bike storage as well. Now e-bikes are a thing. That came up in a prior hearing. So I would love to talk to you about that. What else? Oh, there were some studies requested by various city staff, as well as a subsidizing agency, like one that came to mind. There's a solar study, which you maybe will grant a waiver to, but you're asking about that. And then there's The subsidizing agency I know asked about a shadow study. So that's something we'd like to see.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think that hits my main list at this time. So other questions or comments from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, so what we're going to do from here is, so there's a couple of procedural things the board needs to do. I'm going to check in with the applicant before we do that, just in case they have any brief details they'd like to share in terms of what the board just requested. And so then we'll do the procedural steps. Then we'll open for public comment on the overall plans. This will not be the last opportunity to comment. We will do that on the different elements of the project in the appropriate sessions of this hearing. But I do want to open it to the public. So that's what we'll do next. So Attorney Tam, anything you wanted to check in on in terms of what the board mentioned in future topics for discussion or does that all seem aligned for you?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, Mr. Chairman, I think it's quite clear and we appreciate your comments. We're all taking notes and we'll continue to take notes and I think we'll be fully prepared to address each of these items.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful, thanks. So I see two hands up. So one's from a member of the board So I'll go to Andre first and then I'll go to the others in hand.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mike. Just a real quick comment I wanted to throw in there too is, you know, this project is substantial and it's a It's not too far from mass transit, right, in terms of the orange line, but it's an awkward distance from it. You know, I know there's good, you know, pretty good bus service right along Fells Way, but it would be good to think a little bit about how to, you know, maximize the amount of public transportation and active transportation that's being used, you know. So that's something that I think we'll be looking at.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Um, thanks, Andre. So I see that there's a bunch of hands raised. I seems a number of them are from members of the public. One happens to be Cliff Bowmer, who, uh, the board hasn't authorized it yet, but I know the city has engaged as a possible peer review consultant. So the board's about to vote on the peer review consultants, but, uh, Mr. Bowmer, just want to double check with you. Is there something you wanted to say before we do that?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Just very briefly, and as you pointed out, I'm not really retained yet, so I'm attending tonight to really get to know the project. If I am retained in the spirit of keeping things moving at a good pace, I would probably, within a very small handful of days, submit a list of some additional exhibits that I think would facilitate everybody's understanding of the development, but that's all. I just wanted you were enumerating various other exhibits and there are a handful more that I think could, could help advance the, the design exploration.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. It sounds good. Thank you. Yes. So procedurally, what the, what I intend to do, so the board has to authorize a couple of things that are useful for the peer review process. So one is the actual hiring of peer review consultants. And then secondly, permitting those peer review consultants and the applicant to work together in between hearings to iterate on design to try to align. Because what can happen in a hearing of this complexity is that if we don't allow for that communication in between hearings, we have to have one hearing for the peer review, and then another one for the response. And it just slows things down quite a bit. So the board is going to make best efforts for this to be a thorough discussion. So what I would like to do, which requires a vote of the board, is to authorize the city to engage and hire peer review consultants pertaining to the design, the engineering, and the traffic of this project. I'm a little unclear, and I don't know if Director Hunt or Dennis could clarify this, but whether a 40B consultant is in that list or is that separate? Do you happen to know Director Hunt?
[Alicia Hunt]: So the 40B consultant, usually we get a grant from MHP. We've been in conversation with them. They have basically told us, yes, but we need to fill out their form. And that form is waiting for the mayor's signature right now. And actually, Chairman, we are going to need your signature on it as well. I was hoping to have those submitted by today, but they got delayed a little bit. So I'm hoping to have those signatures, at least the mayor's tomorrow, and we'll get yours early next week, if not sooner, and get that into MHP. So there will be a consultant. It's just not official yet.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, sounds great. So in that case, so the board, so my proposal is as a board, we authorize the city to engage peer review consultants to speak to design, engineering, and traffic. And furthermore, we authorize those consultants once selected to work directly with the applicant and provide feedback in between meetings in addition to during the meetings themselves. So that's my proposal. I'm happy to discuss as a board if anyone else has additional thoughts or suggestions before we vote.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike just a question or should we take, I think we should take public comment first though before we do that motion vote on that motion.
[Mike Caldera]: Any reason, Andre? I figured since it's procedural and, oh, just, you're worried that maybe public will speak to something, another area where we'd want additional peer review? Is that the fear?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I was just thinking that, you know, once we kind of hear the public comment, then we can do any, you know, discussion and motions we need to do tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, fair, fair. I will take that advice. So we will defer the procedural discussion until after public comment. So chair awaits a motion to open public comment on this session of the hearing. So moved. Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. We need to take a roll call vote. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre. Aye. Yvette.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike. Aye. All right. Public comment for this session is now open. Members of the public, please feel free to share your comments on any aspect of the project. We're going to limit it to one comment per person. In the event of lots of comments, we may need to limit time as well, but I think based on the current number of people on the call and hands in the queue, you'll keep your comments on the order of three minutes or less. I see we have some residents who already have their hands raised, so I will go to them first. If you'd like to make a public comment, you can raise your hand on Zoom, you can turn your camera on and physically raise your hand. You can type in the chat. You can send Dennis an email at dmcdougall.medford-ma.gov. So we are now taking public comment. For members of the public who don't often tune into these meetings, You're making a comment. So in the process of your comment, you can certainly ask a question. You will not necessarily get a response to that question. If you have such questions, you should address them to me, not the applicant. This is not a conversation with a lot of back and forth, but the board will do our best to make sure that if there are open questions that they do get answered. All right. So the first name I see in the queue is Tom. So, Tom, if you would like to make a public comment, please. Yes, we can hear you so please state your name and address for the record. Yes, my name is Thomas.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_13]: I live on Kenmare Road, which is right across from the development. My only comment is on the issue of that it's on the Fellsway. And the Fellsway, as you know, from the lower basin up to the end of the Fellsway is part of the National Register of Historic Places. And there's nothing on the Fellsway this tall, and has that been reviewed and approved, reviewed under the section 106, I guess, federal CMR 35 CFR 800. That's my comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Tom. Yes, we can certainly, as part of this hearing, dig into the historical aspects of the project.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_13]: I mean, it's obviously it's a state site too, and the Environmental Protection would have had to review that issue too, so.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_13]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. The next raised hand I see is Joel Edinburgh. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_45]: Joel Edinburgh. I'm at 37A Amaranth Ave, which is right across the street from the proposed development. And my comment is when I met with Chris from the development company earlier, I asked him questions about parking and traffic. And he said that all the parking would be contained within the unit, but now currently with the way you have the townhouses set, you're gonna have people parking, it's encouraging people to park on Myrtle Street. which already gets congested, which becomes a very big traffic problem because that road is effectively three lanes wide. So you typically have to wait for someone to get through in order to, when there's two cars going back and forth. And when we're adding 600 people, that seems like that's gonna be a very big problem when we're putting those townhouses in a way that's gonna encourage people to park on the street.
[Mike Caldera]: I want to make sure we understood your comment. The townhouses have private parking interior to the lot, but then there's also public parking on the street in the front of the townhomes. And so your concern is surrounding the usage of that.
[SPEAKER_45]: Yeah, and the basically adding significant extra cars to that street. I'm worried about basically, not just traffic on the street, but also lack of parking for current residents when we're adding that many more people to park on that street, when the town, especially when the townhouses are right on the road.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, we're going to be doing a dedicated session on traffic. So we can certainly into that further. Next hand I see is Sue Fitzgerald.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very much for this opportunity. Sue Fitzgerald, I'm to Amaranth Place, so I'm a direct abutter. I'm the backyard that shows up on the corner. I'm in one of the townhouses at Amaranth Place. Going back two years or so when this was first proposed and a lot of the other projects that had been developed, were basically built on empty space. And I think the difference is, Windsor across from Meadow Glen was built on an abandoned store market, which nobody lived right up on. Moderna, again, was by the train tracks. A lot of these other places were not quite in dense neighborhoods. A six-story complex that runs basically to the curb on the Amaranth Ave side, is very dense. Our buildings, I think, are very high, but we're set back and understand that we used to be the waterworks, the old waterworks from Medford DPW. But again, I can't even pull out on Myrtle Street to get onto the Fellsway. I've almost been t-boned twice because there was no visibility down the curve of the Fellsway. And unfortunately, and I go to work very early. I leave my place a quarter after six. If I leave 10 minutes later, I can barely get on the Fellsway. If I try to pull out onto the Fellsway, I can't see up to the light on Central and Medford. So that is a problem. But again, I think the density of a six story building, when you have a bunch of two and three family houses and in a very dense neighborhood, it is not the same footprint as it is over by Meadow Glen Mall, over by the train tracks, over by the back of Wellington Circle. So I do think it's just a bit outsized. When we brought these concerns up, when we had our one-on-one meetings with people from the development company, the question was raised, why does it have to be six stories? You could still have 25% affordable housing on a four-story building that would not be so outsized. So to bring down the scale of the townhouse on Myrtle Street and yet leave the bulk of the green space in an interior core and basically throwing a pocket park is like throwing a bone because even the landscaping is not visible past the storage place if you're on the Fells Way. So again, I think it adds a lot of bulk to the neighborhood. There was a conversation, would there be any services or retail spaces, anything to add to the neighborhood? But it seems to be a fairly self-contained place, which doesn't necessarily blend itself into the neighborhood. So thank you for taking my comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, the next hand I see is Allison D'Agostino.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, thank you. Thank you to the board. Thank you Davis Company for their presentation. So I live, represent, I guess the D'Agostino Trust, we're the owners of 1022-1024 Fellsway, which is visible on a lot of your renderings. We're the second house away from the Myrtle Street on the Fellsway. So a couple of comments just I don't want to take up too much time. First I I'm always fascinated by renderings that you show a snapshot of the actual street and then your renderings you don't show the actual right side of what the neighborhood looks like when you clearly have that as an opportunity. So I think and I don't mean to call out anyone on the board but I think one of the board members mentioned the aesthetics of it of this building and I'm happy I followed up too. Yeah I mean the size and the scale it doesn't fit. I can tell you that the. This home that I live in, my mother-in-law lives in the 1022 unit. She has lived here for over 52 years. My husband was part of this neighborhood. I've been here for 12 years myself, so it certainly doesn't look the part. My concerns, I brought them up as part of the original groups as well. Biggest comments for me, access way, traffic, even in the renderings you can clearly see it. We all know that, you know, you Or I guess, yeah, U-turn that you would take over at Central has become more difficult with the enhancements to the sidewalks. And I think someone from the Davis Company said it best, you can turn in right, and you can turn out right. And Accessway, from my understanding of the roadway, again, you can't develop where the bridge is, that is protected. So I think, unfortunately, where the Davis Company has purchased this plot, You are limited to only two access potentials. Myrtle or three excuse me Amherst Myrtle. The Fellsway. None of none of those are really viable for that size of a unit building there. You you cannot get up and down the Fellsway now or Myrtle Street. Those roadways become one ways with Lawrence as well. So I would be interested to see and also My understanding is as you go further down Amaranth that is not owned by Davis Company. So I'm curious to see in the renderings it didn't appear there was any access way onto Amaranth so that all traffic would be coming in and out unless I misunderstood from the Fellsway. And then my biggest one that no one's mentioned yet is just environmental concern. Size of that building. I remember the other presentation in 2020 there was environmental study information it showed. sun would be blocked to a lot of houses. And where this building now is being positioned in these plans looks like my house would be one of them. So I would be very interested and just encourage the board to really please think about that. This is a longstanding community over here. This space has always been zoned for commercial and in my opinion that's where it should stand. So thank you for the time. I appreciate it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, the next member of the public I see is Erica. Erica, please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_05]: Hi, my name is Erica, and I'm at 101 Sydney Street, which is right behind all of that. I have other residents from Sydney Street with me as well. Most of the residents in this, it's a cul-de-sac, but most of them have been here since these houses were built in the 40s. And nobody, like everyone, that I've talked to is on the same thing, but the size of it all, sorry, I'm reading my notes at the same time. But also with construction, what about the rats? Like we already have rats, we don't need more. And the minute you start doing anything, ripping anything down, everybody, not just Sydney Street, but Budweiser and Amaranth Ave, Myrtle Street, they're all gonna get inundated. Anytime there's construction in Medford, we get inundated with rodents, not necessarily rats. It's always been mice, but now they're on steroids and they've gotten bigger. And we have a pumping station that runs from fourth street down between Sydney street and Budweiser to prevent Budweiser to prevent Sydney street from flooding. Will you guys be tapping into that pumping station? because it can't handle the 18 houses it handles now, and we're gonna start flooding again. You guys talked about the sewers and making it all better, but are you gonna tap into our pumping station that can't even handle the 18 houses it handles?
[Unidentified]: That's it.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, no answers. No answers.
[Mike Caldera]: just a clarification so I'm making a note and so I'm gonna try to summarize the the comment some of these will if there's something that we weren't planning to address will the board will talk about it and we'll try to make sure we cover it in the hearing but the the current format answers is not the the answers will come I don't know if the answers are at the ready for all of these just to clarify so thank you so the next member of the public I see is Richmond Chow. Name and address for the record, please.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_04]: Hi, this is Richmond Chow. I live at 128 Myrtle Street, which is directly across from the development. So, you know, I'll keep it brief. I think I echo, I agree with kind of the general sentiments of my community that's spoken so far. You know, my concern would be, you know, if we allow such a huge development at that part Parcel currently, what's going to happen at the 2nd, half of that parcel in the future. Is there going to be an additional huge development, which is already a concern for our neighborhood that is oversized. And my, my only other comment would be, you know, we had that. October 22nd, 2002 open session where, you know, I think a lot of these same comments were brought forth and recorded. but I haven't seen any update or address to those comments and they continue to be asked, right? And the presenter basically stated the plans and drawings haven't changed since the original filing in 2020. So I'm just wondering why we continue to have all these comments, but we don't see any results from them. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, the next member of the public I see is, I believe it's Christina Koch. Name and address for the record, please.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Christina Koch. One 30 Myrtle Street, Medford. So really a direct impact resident for this complex. So similar to what Richmond just shared as well as Joel earlier, we have had a number of concerns be raised that we don't have answers yet too. And one of them was, as many times as the developers have talked about the number of parking spaces that the residents will be required to use, They haven't been able to tell us the way they are going to enforce those residents not to take our parking spots on Myrtle and Ameren. Parking on-site obviously is wonderful for them, but I do want to see more of how that will be enforced that they will not be taking the resident spots. Along with that, Note on the parking. Mike, you had mentioned earlier that there was a traffic study that came across your desk and it looked maybe it was like a summary or only a preliminary report. When the civil engineers and the traffic engineers are able to provide the full detail of that study and their simulation modeling, is that something that the public is able to look at so we can see what perimeters they put in, what different testing they did for times of day versus snowstorms. Is that public information that we as residents can dive into?
[Mike Caldera]: Absolutely, yeah. Everything the board reviews, including the presentations, so the documents themselves are in a folder on a public drive. Everything will be made available. It's public record. It will be made easily accessible. So the particular traffic study I referred to, it's titled executive summary, or maybe that was a section, it's a little ambiguous. But so that's included in the plans that were submitted to the board as part of this hearing. And then any plan increments will all be captured in the same public share folder. So yeah, all of that will be made available to the public and I do intend, once we settle on the full schedule for the hearing, to make that public and easily accessible so members of the public know topically what the board will be talking about at different sessions of this hearing.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, thank you, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so then, okay, thank you. So the next hand I see is Maureen. Name and address for the record, please.
[Mea Quinn Mustone]: Hi, this is Maureen and Paul Terenzi, 132 Myrtle Street, also directly across the street from the new apartments. And at this point, to be honest, a lot of our sentiments have already been shared. So I just support what a lot of our neighbors have already said. I think the traffic, the point about the fact that there's cars parked on both sides, it's a one lane road. So is that really feasible? I mean, God forbid there was ever a fire in this apartment building. Could you get people out of there? Could you get 500 residents? Like, I don't, I just don't see it. Um, so I think parking is huge. The flooding concept we're very concerned about as being huge. And I also just agree that this was zone commercial versus residential. And if you convert it to residential, that not only adds the stress to the neighbors, but also to our neighborhood schools. Like now you have children who are entering schools that are crowded. You know, there's police, there's fire. Like it just adds a stress to the city overall that commercial Kurt, we have, you know, commercial is just zoned differently. So that's part of ours and all.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: I just said, I want to know where they're going to put the trash. I didn't see that in the plans where they're going to put the trash for the 300 people and also electric cars. What are they going to do about that? I know that the city right now on the fire department have trouble putting out fires for electric cars. There's no phone. They have to call Logan Airport for mutual aid when there's a electrical fire. So I want to know what they're doing for charging stations for these people that are going to go in and what they're going to do to help support the fire department. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right. So I don't see other hands raised right now. I'm going to check in with Dennis in a moment to see if we got any emails from members of the public. This will also be an opportunity if anyone else who hasn't spoken would like to raise their hand. But just to summarize some of the themes that I heard, so concerns about the density and the massing, concerns about both the parking and the traffic, on the concern about historical buildings, that's something we can come back to. I know that in the original department, head and board letters. There was some information from the historic commission. I do want to clarify, I'm not taking repeat comments, so clarifications perhaps, but in general, if you've spoken, that's it for today. Then in terms of some of the concerns about fire safety, That's something that the board definitely covers as part of the sessions. So we will be reviewing both the construction plans as well as the overall adequacy. And then let's see, what else? There was, There's one other one. Oh, so the electric cars kind of goes in with that. So we're going to be reviewing that as part of this hearing. I think that covers most of it. So this is recorded. We're taking notes. We do intend to get to all these topics. I'm just summarizing the themes. I see Tom with their hand raised. I vaguely recall that Tom spoke. I don't know if it's the same Tom.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_13]: I just wanted to clarify. My comment was about the- Yeah, sure.
[Mike Caldera]: Can you give me an address for the record again?
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, I'm sorry. It's Thomas Tiernan, T-I-E-R-N 33, Kenmare Road, Medford, Mass. Kenmare is on the other side of Amherst, and on the map, they showed Pinkert. But Kenmare is the road that everyone would cut down off Central Ave to get to this place. But the issue on the historical, you mentioned there was a determination about the current building that's there, but that's not historical. uh but I'm talking about that and the the Fellsway was uh developed in 1890 by Charles Eliot and in 19 just recently, 1913, we got this, it was put in the National Historic Register, the Fellsway East, the Fellsway West, and the whole Fellsway. Like you said, that whole area, there's no building that's above two stories, you know, three stories. So it just, it doesn't, that's supposed to be, it used to be a beautiful road with all elm trees on it, but so when you're driving down the Fellsway to see this huge, monstrosity of a building it just it I don't see how it would have been approved on a federal level you know I've just agreed to so that I'm clarifying it's a national federal but the master start not the method historical okay got it yeah thanks for clarifying we will certainly make sure as part of hearing to get definitive um clarity on on the national
[Mike Caldera]: law. And whether this is in compliance with that. So thank you for pointing that out. Yeah, and then there were a couple other things residents had mentioned that I didn't list off. So there are some general concerns about the design. We're certainly going to be getting to that. And then concerns about the utilities in particular. I believe the water. So So yeah, all of this will be covered in the hearing. We will be publishing a schedule with some of the themes. Yeah, throughout that schedule, some of the next steps will determine its meeting.
[Unidentified]: I think we lost Mike. Let's just give him a second. But I can just jump in.
[Denis MacDougall]: I got an email regarding about future meetings. So during this meeting, we're going to discuss a couple of dates for future meetings. And then on the link that I sent you, which is the Google Drive, which we have all of our files in, there'll be a set list there based on the calendar and what things we have. And if new things get added, it'll be put on there. So there'll be a set, so everyone will know exactly when the dates will be. And the dates will also be on the city's calendar. And also just to let people know that the Zoom link that you use to log on to tonight's meeting will be the same Zoom link for all of our future meetings. It won't change. So whatever that special Zoom code number you have is, that'll be the exact one to use for all future meetings for this project. So you won't have to try and figure out if this is a new number or not. If you have the information to get on tonight, you can get on any of our future meetings. Thank you, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: my connection clearly dropped. I don't know exactly when it did, but thank you for picking up the mantle while I was having some tech issues. I'm back now. I hope most of what I said you all heard. Okay, so I see Richmond Chow has their hand raised again. I'm taking only one comment from members of the public, but if this is a clarification, please go ahead, Richmond.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, I was just wondering if the board members were gonna visit the site where this is proposed as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Great question. So that is something the board will discuss as part of scheduling. I think that's a good idea. The board does sometimes visit the site, and with this being a major project, that makes a lot of sense. But thanks for asking. All right. I don't see any other hands, so chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of this session of the hearing.
[Andre Leroux]: I moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. We're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right. So the public portion of the hearing is now of this session of the hearing is now closed. I will take public comment. on topic at other points in this hearing. All right. So now back to the procedural items I was starting to discuss before we did this. So as a board, we need to decide what areas to authorize the city to retain peer review consultants. So the three that I proposed are design, engineering and traffic. And these consultants often speak to some of the adjacent elements, including safety and utilities and so on. I see Director Hunt has her hand raised again, so please go ahead, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just wanted to clarify, because I had gotten some questions separately, that engineering actually means site civil and environmental as needed. This doesn't need wetlands environmental, but it might need other environmental. So I just wanted to clarify that that's what you mean.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, yes, that is what I mean. Thank you for clarifying. Yes, in general, the peer review consultants cover a broad range of topics. And so yeah, the engineering is pretty comprehensive across those areas. Design does speak to elements of the construction as well as does engineering and then the yeah, the traffic. So yeah, those are customarily areas that boards choose to
[Adam Hurtubise]: ask for peer review consultants, but yeah, other members before we vote.
[Mike Caldera]: And I will say this is the same as we did for the other 40B hearing. So at the other 40B hearing we had, design, engineering, and traffic, and that, in my assessment, worked out well. I think we got the info we needed. Sounds like the 40B consultant is independent of this, so as a board, we don't have to vote on that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And also, like, oh, go ahead. I think that was Andre.
[Mike Caldera]: Did someone say? No.
[Mary Lee]: Is historical preservation inclusive in one of the professionals, the consultants that you mentioned?
[Mike Caldera]: So I know that the design consultant will sometimes speak to historical significance and the appropriateness of various design elements, not necessarily providing specific expertise in the specific history of the site. But I think we could also get some of that information from city departments, or we could even request feedback from the historic commission, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: COB, Bethany Collins — I am fairly certain that our historic commission has already commissioned a standard study that they do on locations for this. I could have looked it up if they haven't. It's a standard thing that they do when things come in front of them. for historic demolition. I feel like I've actually seen it for this location already, but we can check on that. I just thought it would be helpful to clarify for the public, because I realized the board knows these things, but this is a different set of the public that's paying attention to this than for the previous building, is that The city doesn't pay for these peer consultants. The way this works is that we get quotes from the consultants, and then we give those quotes to the applicant. They give us money for that that goes into a special account that can only be used to pay for these peer consultants, and we pay their fees through that. So we hire them, and literally, I approve their invoices, Dennis and I do. But the money does come from the applicant so that it's not a burden on the city for this. I would suggest if we just wanted to be very broad and cover things that the board could approve, that that could include historic in the event that such a study hasn't already been done, then we could do that. I don't think they're very expensive because the historic commission does them very frequently.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, the director and I know in the 2020 packet there was an analysis by the historic Commission I hope that's what you're referring to I see it turning him as their hand raised so attorney Tim.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you Mister chair just for clarification. No part of the site. As any historic designation. I can appreciate so I think we just need to be careful. In terms of what we're talking about when we use the word historic. And so the Historic Commission, Director Hunt is in fact correct, and your recollection is correct. They did in fact comment in the course of site approval, and I believe their comment is in the record. These buildings are old, but there is no historic designation. That said, So from my point of view, it would be inappropriate to consider historic circumstances where there's no basis on the site. And questions relating to the Fellsway, we're happy to get into at a separate session.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Attorney Tam. Yeah, so my understanding is that the Historic Commission will sometimes do this analysis for buildings that may be of historic significance, whether or not they have been designated as such.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And so that's what's included in the original department and board letters in response to the submission.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So yeah, so there's, my recommendation is still the design, engineering, traffic. These are all quite broad that will cover pretty much the whole project through those three. They're also customary. And then, like I said, I mean, we can split it up if someone's opinionated, but I'd also like to authorize those peer review consultants once hired to communicate directly with the applicant, just to aid in the, in the conducting of an efficient hearing. So the board does not hear about those discussions outside of a public hearing. So this is just the cut down on all the back and forth on very low level technical details, which are then later presented to the board in public. So that's my recommendation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thoughts from the board before we vote? I agree.
[Mary Lee]: Can I just ask a question? So is there is there a distinction between historical and preservation or is preservation?
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, I think that was just someone they've already been muted, so please. between historic and preservation.
[Mary Lee]: Preservation, or is there no distinction? Just for my own purposes, I'm just wondering.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[Mary Lee]: Because someone mentioned about preservation and historic.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, yeah, so I don't consider this to be a primary area of expertise, but my understanding is that there are historic designations, which this building does not have. Then there's at the local level, a determination of whether a building's historically significant. And then preservation is not necessarily a technical term. So I interpreted the prior suggestion or comment as could elements of the original structure that is relatively old, that the historic commission analyzed for historical significance, could those be retained as part of the design? I think that was the question. So, but like from technically, I think they're different, but I don't, there are limits to how deep we can go down that hole in the absence of some determination by some body that it is a, historically significant or historically designated buildings. So this is more of a design concern as I see it, but we can certainly go through the history of the building as part of that process.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Mike Caldera]: So I think Jamie stated he was on board with my proposal. So Jamie, would you like to make a motion? motion to put in the request for peer review for engineering design traffic engineering design traffic yeah and so specifically it would be to authorize the city to identify and retain peer review consultants for engineering design and and traffic is that the motion so motion
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. I'm ready for the words, man.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. We're going to take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Mary? Aye. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So the city is now authorized to identify and retain peer review consultants in those areas. And like we talked about, I think it's advisable that they just communicate directly with the applicant if they have any questions. One potential peer review consultant that I know the city has been in contact with, Mr. Bomer spoke earlier, if so retained, I think examples like telling the applicant additional requests for information are exactly what we want to be happening. between this hearing and the next one. So, all right. With that being said, Attorney Tam, so you wanted to talk some logistics, as do I. So yeah, should we head right into schedule or are there other items you wanted to talk about as well?
[Adam Hurtubise]: We appreciate your time and the comments from the public as well. So we can get right into it for efficiency. I heard you loud and clear, and I think the design team is prepared to engage at an upcoming session on all aspects of design. And if the board can engage with their design peer review consultant, and that work can be underway, we'd be prepared to make productive use of a session certainly devoted to all aspects of design, including landscaping, open space, lighting, the comments I heard from members of the board and the public.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Yeah, that sounds good. So my thought is in terms of either next steps or early in the process steps. There should be a dedicated session on design. There should be a dedicated session on engineering, maybe joint with traffic, depending on the circumstances, maybe traffic is its own. And so where we want to head as I see it is we want the peer review consultants once retained You have had adequate time to review the current plans, to get you their feedback, to get us their feedback. We want you to have the opportunity to speak in greater detail about each of these elements. And we want you to have the opportunity to respond to the peer review consultant's feedback. So, Attorney Tim, my thought, which maybe is wishful thinking, so I wanna check in with you is that Because the city has already proactively identified some candidate peer review consultants who are available to take this on, that we could, with enough lead time, actually have peer reviews that you've already seen and have thoughts on and just do presentation with the peer reviews and your responses all together. Do you think that's a good way of doing things or do you think we need to break it up where First, there's a session where you just present in the absence of those comments the full plan, and then we get the comments, and then we come back and talk about it again.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I would say in the ordinary course, I would defer to you and the board as to how you want to manage your process. But I appreciate you asking, and I'll tell you one consideration that's going to inform this is the passage of time. Obviously, the board has by statute 180 days. from the opening of the hearing to close the hearing, effectively two months have passed, building in, even including the tolling during the appeal. And so we have four months. It's a compressed timeframe, but I think a lot can be done depending on the board's willingness. And I know this is more of a burden for you than for us. Assuming as we go into the holidays, I don't know if you're going to be doing one meeting a month or two meetings a month on this, but my sense is we're going to need to compress.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. Yeah. So I don't have a city legal opinion yet on the amount of days we have, but I appreciate you calling it out and I agree the next step
[Adam Hurtubise]: You'll want to confirm that. I appreciate that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. But so with that being said, regardless of the number of days, I'm committed to conducting an efficient but also thorough hearing. And so in general, the intention is we're going to determine and align on a schedule in advance. We're going to publish that schedule. Things do come up, of course. we can reconsider it in a pinch, but we're going to try to structure the schedule in a way such that you can be responsive at each step along the way, as well as have the information in hand that you need. So, you know, the board is going to expect you to have comments on the peer review feedback, for example, at the appropriate time. So as long as The peer review consultants are retained in a timely manner. You're getting the inputs in a timely manner. We're getting your responses in a timely manner. I'm committed to conduct a thorough hearing that as efficiently as possible. And I think in the process of planning that out, once we get clarity on how many days we actually have, that will help to clarify whether there's a need to discuss and align on right up front a small extension. But from the board's perspective, if we cover all the content in less time, great. To your question of how often the board intends to meet, in general, these will not be heard at the same as our regular meetings. This is unusual because we knew it would be more of a shorter coordination thing. These will be separate meetings spaced such that the requisite inputs, there's time to create those. So I'm anticipating a somewhat longer gap factoring in the holidays between this meeting and the next set of hearings so that the peer review consultants can be retained, can actually get you the feedback and talk to you. You can come prepared. It sounds like you're on board with a scenario where we're talking about your detailed presentation and the peer review feedback and your responses in one session, which is great. That is the board's preference. And so, yeah, my intention is we'll get on the books, the meeting we're going to do that for design, as well as the meeting we're going to do that for engineering tonight. So you know what to track to and we'll make sure that you know, feasibility is there. And then we'll just, you'll coordinate and I'll coordinate with city staff and we'll build out the full schedule. And, you know, if we think it's prudent for a short extension in light of the tolling and so on, we can just discuss that up front and then, you know, we'll just proceed in a timely manner. But I don't want to on day one get into compression. We're not trying to drag this out. We want to be as efficient as possible. We want to make sure we cover everything. And, you know, some of the elements of the time that's elapsed thus far is not fully in the board's control either. So.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And when I say compression, I'm what I'm referring to is the statutory requirement. So obviously, there's been. quite a bit of time and consideration that's passed. So we're fully prepared to engage and work collaboratively with the board and with your peer consultants. And I do think the next, if there's a session scheduled in December, we look forward, and I know the folks at CUBE3 and at Bowler will actively engage if it's Davis that is engaged on the design aspects that we can have a fulsome discussion between them and our design team at the next session. I will say to clarify on the traffic, I can appreciate that the report starts with an executive summary, but it is a fulsome, robust, full-blown PIA, traffic impact analysis that was prepared in accordance of professional engineering standards. It has everything that would be required. We will certainly provide an update. And I know our transportation engineer has got that work underway. We can probably share that with you shortly. And that will supplement and identify those areas where relevant changes have occurred. So I think You know, there's no reason why we can't also share that with you. In the near term, so that as soon as a peer review traffic consultant and an engineering consultant are engaged. They can be working as well.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Yeah. In terms of the traffic report itself. Thank you for clarifying. There are some details that in 2020 the engineering department requested that I also would like, and I've seen them in traffic assessments before, and I won't comment on how customary or not they are, but I don't think they're way off the beaten path. So different modes of transport, different paths, a little bit more detail in the report. I'm a data guy. We have other people on the board. We have residents who want to see the data. It's a little too high level. So yeah, a refresh would be great. Take that feedback for what you will. We'll consider anything you submit to us. But for me, the details were on the light side. All right, so then I did, in advance of this meeting, check in with the board on availability. The big, I think the long pole item here, it sounds like from your response is not necessarily your readiness. It might be the peer review consultant's readiness. I wanna make sure they have adequate time accounting for the holidays to do a rigorous review and to discuss with you and possibly iterate. And so, and then the other challenge is for statutory reasons, it's important that we make sure that the board has availability and that we're doing our best to retain full voting power, because I think more than two absences would start to dwindle in terms of voting. So happy to discuss offline. We could potentially schedule something sooner, but I've already confirmed there is availability from the whole board towards the end of January and then again in mid-Feb. So my current proposal, which I'm happy to talk through, and I do need to clarify with the board on specific days, is that we would do a detailed dive into the design on Tuesday, January 30th. And that presentation of low-level details on the design, the landscape plan, all these things we talked about that are design-related, the aesthetics, the review of the peer review letter of that design from whomever the city retains, as well as you would have an opportunity to respond, and then we would take public comment on it. So I know that we have availability that last week in Jan, this would be a standalone meeting. It would not be our regular meeting. That will be separate. So I'm proposing we do one on Jan 30th, and then we follow that up quickly with a engineering one on Thursday, Feb 15th. The whole bit about having less time is news to me. So again, happy to consider building something in sooner once we have a little bit more clarity on how much time the peer review consultants need. But first, I just want to check in with the board to see if those two dates work.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm seeing some head nods. Mary, you're not on camera, so I just, if you could verbally confirm. We'll check in with Mary in a moment.
[Mike Caldera]: So yeah, so let's plan on that. I'm happy to confirm additional dates where all six of us are available before then, once we have clarity on the applicants' readiness for those discussions and the peer review consultants' readiness for those discussions. I think at this point, it's optimistic to do something in December simply because of the impact of the holiday. It's a very tight turnaround time if we're steering clear of the week between Christmas and New Year, which we're already, we already moved our regular meeting away from that. So I know some, we will have some availability issues that week. So, so yeah, I think, I think we're in Jan, no matter what. We can look into, you know, pulling it in sooner. We could potentially, you know, break it up, do something on our, on our Jan 11th meeting. But that's our regular meeting, what we just scheduled. But yeah that's that's the availability I have prepared today so attorney can just want to check in with you. Any any feedback before we make that the plan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I appreciate you checking with me Mister chair and I I know I'm going to be taxing your patience and members of the board when I say this, but going out to January 30th is essentially, and I appreciate the holidays and folks having obligations and travel plans, and we, just like you, very much need the full board and your participation, but going out two months for the next session, frankly, I don't think will work. with by my estimation four months, you know, in this, there is a reason, a statutory reason for this requirement. So, and I wouldn't want to burden you with a whole bunch of meetings in February and March. So, I would suggest, and I can appreciate the timing, but on the design components alone, and I can appreciate your potential peer review consultant being available this evening, I don't see why we, you know, the discussion on those items can't be commenced, if not in December, then first thing in January.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Given the uncertainty surrounding the amount of time we have and our mutual desire to avoid things getting very cramped at the end, What I'm going to propose, I have good reason to believe January 11th is our first opportunity to discuss any of this. So, um, why don't we continue the hearing to January 11th, which is going to be a regular meeting. So it will be a joint meeting. And our current intention, which we're not going to determine yet, we're going to just, we're going to publish the schedule of the agenda in between meetings. We're going to, we're going to talk with you. We're going to align. We're going to clarify this issue of timeline. But so the, in the absence of additional information to change this, the intention would be Jan 11 would be the design. And then we're going to reserve the dates on the 30th and the 15th anyway for future topics. So if we follow the pattern, if we end up following the pattern I was discussing today, then the 30th would be engineering. Um, and yeah, that also gives us the opportunity if we need to and want to, uh, and feel it's prudent to schedule something in between, um, the 11th and the 30th, you know, we have the flexibility to do so now. So. That's going to be my proposal. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we're dead in the water for December. It's not a reasonable expectation of a peer review consultant. There's a lot of back and forth required. That's a very happy path. Jan 11th I know to be a good date for the whole board. Why don't we continue this matter to that or we will schedule our next session to that date. Yes we'll continue will continue it to that day and that with the intention as of today which may change will publish the schedule for that to be the day we we do the design review work better for you attorney camp.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I I think it will it will work better for everyone I appreciate that Mister chair and what what time would that be 6.30. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, great. So, yes, I see Mr. Bowmer has his hand raised. Please go ahead, Mr. Bowmer.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Hi. I know I'm not retained, but if I were retained... Oh, I think your connection may have cut out.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Bowles, you're back now. Your connection cut out briefly. So you said you know you're not retained, but if you were retained, and then it cut out.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: If I were retained, I'm not available on the 11th. So if you could do engineering on the 11th. Engineering. Sounds good. Engineering on the 11th. Perfect.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. You're good on the 30th? Yes, I am. OK. Great. Thank you. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: So with that, Chair awaits a motion to continue 970 Fellsway to the January 11th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Unidentified]: Making it easy on me, so moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Mary? Aye. Andre? Aye. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So this matter is continued to January 11th. Attorney Tam will work with you to fill out the full schedule to get clarity on the timeline scenario. And yeah, appreciate your time folks and also appreciate the comments from members of the public will certainly plan to go dig deeper into those details.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Dennis, can you please, actually, are we gonna take the next matter or are we gonna take it out of order, Dennis? Dennis says one moment.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry. I think just saying also just to reiterate to all the folks who are here, For those of you for the fells way, it'll be on January 11th. So the same zoom information, please, you know, if you have any questions, you know, my email was in the chat. It's on the city's website. Just contact us. You can call our office. You have any questions about anything. Items will be up on the city's website through that Google drive. I just sent you and actually just during the meeting. I found the historical commission 48 form that was written for this. It's this, it's not just that building, it's in the area of town. So that's up there now as well, if anyone is interested in looking at it. So that was done several years ago by the City's Historical Commission for the whole neighborhood. So that's pretty much it. So yeah, we can continue, we can work on, and Terrace Road will be the next one. So let me just get to that. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Yeah, so Dennis, can you read that one, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 44 Terrace Road, case number A-2023-19. Applicant and owner of Blueprint Properties 23 is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to rebuild a non-conforming single-family dwelling effort after a catastrophe in a single-family non-zoning district allowed use. with insufficient area in a different location than the original structure, which requires a special permit from the Board of Appeals, City of Bedford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 5.7.13. The height of the original structures are unknown. Due to the grade of terrace road, the structure will be over the allowable height of 35 feet, excuse me, in City of Bedford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 6, Table B1A, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, good evening, Chairman Caldera, Kathleen Desmond here for the applicant. I'm here this evening with the managers of Blueprint Properties 23 LLC, Ned Kirkpatrick and Dominique Jennings, and they're also the new owners of 44 Terrace Road Medford. Also here this evening is our project architect, Adam Glassman of GCD Architects of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The petitioner, proposes to construct a four-bedroom, three-and-a-half bath, single-family dwelling with a finished gross floor area of approximately 5,906 square feet together with an attached two-car garage. The petition before you seeks relief by way of a special permit pursuant to section 5.7 of the ordinance to reconstruct a non-conforming dwelling on what is now an existing vacant lot following catastrophe, in this case, fire. The petitioner also seeks variance as to the height in the event that the board were to determine that the height of the prior structure did not exceed 35 feet. We will present evidence tonight that based on Google Maps estimates and our engineer that in fact the height of the existing building measured from street level exceeded the 35 feet. By way of background, the subject property is a 6,683 square foot parcel of land situated in the SF1 district on which a two and a half story single family dwelling was previously situated. According to the city assessor's office, the original structure was a five bedroom, four bathroom, single family dwelling with a gross floor area of 6,090 square feet and a gross livable floor area or finished area of 3,385 square feet. The assessor's office further indicates that the house was built in approximately 1900 and was there over 120 years old. The original dwelling was destroyed by fire in March of 2023. The existing lot is nonconforming as the required lot area in the SF1 district is 7,000 square feet. As indicated previously, the area of this lot is 6,683 square feet, which creates a deficiency of 317 square feet, or approximately 4.5% of the required lot area. The proposed single family dwelling does not create any additional violations or nonconformities The proposed structure meets all yard setback requirements, lock coverage, width, depth, and frontage requirements. The proposed structure does not meet the height requirements of the ordinance, as I explained previously. However, as I pointed out in my worksheet, the existing single-family dwelling, which is being replaced or reconstructed, was a two-and-a-half-story structure, and although it cannot be conclusively established by a current measurement, If you take the grade and a 35-foot structure, a structure that was 35 feet would only be 17 feet from grade up, which would not even allow you to create a one-and-a-half-story single-family residence. of Medford Engineering has also provided a statement for the boards, and I sent that over today, that he estimates that the height of the original structure measured from the grade of Terrace Road was roughly between 48 feet and 52, 50 feet, I'm sorry, from grade. With that introduction as to what we're looking for in relief and the issue with regard to height, I'll pass the, the presentation over to Adam Glassman and he can run through the plan so everyone can see what we're discussing.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Good evening. Thank you, Kathy. I'll now share my screen. I need to be allowed to do that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It looks like you should be all set now.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Okay, everyone sees my image on the screen?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, we see an image of a house.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: OK, so what you see here is the existing house and clearly it's quite tall. Sort of a stately Victorian era home that used to be there that no longer is. Views from the street show again how tall it is relative to the existing abutting home on the right, which is also a tall stately home. Site plan prepared by Medford Engineering shows our proposed footprint conforming setbacks. The previous house may have had some non-conforming setbacks, but we're completely conforming on all sides. Some rendered views show the style of the house from Terrace Road. The dramatic slope of the site gives it a, almost a three-story appearance from this angle, but it's really a two-story from the other sides. This is the side that faces our rear abutters and our side abutters on our right side. From this view, without the dramatic grade, you can see it's a pretty typical two and a half story house, the high point of which is actually under 35 feet off the visible grade. We have a two-car Garage parking with living space above attached to the two and a half family house. Porch or deck on the rear overlooking Terrace Road. This is the view from Terrace Road. The existing stairs and retaining walls will remain in place. The view of the right side. Another view of the rear, the rear and the left side. Here's a, on the right is a view of the direct rear facing our butters. And this is 15 feet back from the lot line. This will be all landscaping in front of the house here. There'll be no cars parked here. Parking will be limited to that corner of the lot off the private way. Open space plans and setback plans show conforming setbacks. informing lot coverage. This lower left-hand corner is the extent of our parking, landscaped on all other sides. Our area plans, I think what's important here is that when we get above the basement level, we've got just short of 4,500 square feet of living space. Here we've got our first floor plan, garage parking, family room, I'm sorry, this is not our garage plan, this is our lower level plan. This is the garage above, there's no space below the garage. Down at the lower level, we've got family room, we've got exercise room, hallway, mechanical space, bathroom, utility room, and patio space off of Terrace Road. The house really looks, faces towards Terrace Road, all the activity outside will be facing Terrace Road. It will not be on the sides of the abutters. Our first floor, we have our two-car garage parking, dining, living, kitchen area, entry hall, basic components of a modern house. Nothing here that I think we would describe as extravagant. On our next level, the second floor, we've got Three bedrooms, office space, two bathrooms, and a laundry. No decks or outdoor space on this level. We've considered having outdoor decks at this level or balconies, but we're thinking a lot about respecting the privacy of our neighbors. And so we opted out of that. Our roof plan and our attic plan, we've got a smallish playroom. At the third floor, it's under 500 square feet. It's very small space. Our roof plan, some elevations. Again, at this rear side, thinking about the impact this could have on neighbors, we kept a pretty low profile, lower than the previous structure. Again, the high point of the house is less than 35 feet. from the visible grade in the rear, what we call the normal grade. The side-facing terrace road has exposed basement level because of the grade, so we're utilizing that with French doors and a covered porch. The view facing the right side of Butters. Again, the high point of the garage is approximately 29, 30 feet above grade, fairly low by today's standards. The high point the high point of the roof above what I call the normal grade is again conforming well under 35 feet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just our building sections.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Rendered view from the Medford Terrace side showing traditional design elements. traditional massing. It fits very well with the cluster of Victorian-era homes in the neighborhood. Another view from Terrace Road, which better shows the maintaining of the scale and character of the neighborhood with our abutters, an appropriate style for the neighborhood. We're maintaining this rhythm of the gables, similar window styles and patterns, very similar porch and deck areas off of Terrace Road. The view from the rear, this is the side that faces our closest to Butter. Again, a pretty conventionally sized home by today's standards. extensive landscaping on all sides, pervious pavers at the driveway, no asphalt. We conducted a shadow study to test the impact on our abutters. And I'm happy to say that our impact is negligent. Starting in the summer solstice at 9 a.m., we've modeled the existing house on the left in each slide and the proposed house on the right. You've got no new shadows or insignificant new shadows thrown or cast onto our budding lot. Here we would actually have a seven foot fence, which I'm sorry to show, which would really negate any possible new shadow at this time. We have a lot of slides here, so I'll just try to be quick with these. You can see comparatively very little or insignificant impact. That was the summer stolsis at noon, summer stolsis at 3 p.m., no impact on the butters. Moving to the fall equinox at 10 a.m., similar, very similar shadows cast on our right side of butter. Equinox at noon, similar, similar shadows between existing and proposed. Moving to the fall equinox at 3 p.m., shadows are cast away from butters, no impact. to our butters. Winter solstice at 9 a.m. Between the existing proposers, virtually no impact. Winter solstice at noon. Again, negligible impact, very similar shadow patterns throughout the year, every day, every time. No noticeable difference between the spring equinox at 10 a.m. between the spring equinox at noon. The profile changes, but they're very similar shadow types. No impact at 3 p.m. We did a height comparison between the existing or the previously existing proposed homes based on Medford's approximations as well as our own, and we are coming in extremely close, if not slightly under the previously existing house. So with that, I will conclude that part of the presentation and turn it back to Kathy.
[Kathleen Desmond]: The first question for the board in terms of the relief sought in this instance is is whether or not a variance is required for the height. And I think so.
[Mike Caldera]: So, Attorney Desmond, I'm going to rule it's not. and I'll cite the relevant parts of the zoning ordinance. So there's a few different sections, all of which loosely relate, sorry, a couple of sections at least. So there's the non-conforming structures in section 5.3. So this is where, board of appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a non-conforming use. And according to the section, only if it determines that that reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure. So that's the first element, the non-height related element. And so this piece applies to reconstruction, extension, or structural change of a structure or altering a structure Well, the second prong doesn't apply. And so then the section 5.7.1 pertains to reconstruction after catastrophe or voluntary demolition. And item three in that section says, in the event that a proposed reconstruction would cause the structure to exceed the gross floor area of an original nonconforming structure, or cause the structure to be located other than the original footprint, a special permit from the Board of Appeals should be required. So that's special permit. And then there was one other one. The one about variance required. So I guess the board does need to make a determination about whether the existing structure was in fact nonconforming with respect to height. I guess that's what triggers it. If indeed it was, which we'll get into, then since this does not create a new nonconformity, increasing an existing nonconformity. So even in a scenario where the measurements are inaccurate and the height's actually larger, as long as the height was already nonconforming, that requires an issuance of a special permit. So basically, from my read, the building clearly, as defined in the ordinance, is more than 35 foot from grade, and so it was nonconforming with respect to height, and therefore, all the different elements are special permit, so it's the whether or not it would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood analysis. That's my ruling. I'm happy to discuss a member of the board disagrees, but to your question, Attorney Desmond, I think we're in special permit land.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. With respect to the special permit and the determination as to whether or not this structure is more detrimental, substantially detrimental to the neighborhood, Dennis, could I just share my screen?
[Unidentified]: You're all set. Okay. Second, I had it here and now it's.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can go through just the points. So the lot area violation in this instance is 317 square feet or approximately 4.5% of the required lot area, which is not a substantial violation, given that it's only, am I sharing my screen or no?
[Adam Hurtubise]: You were and now you're not.
[Unidentified]: How'd that happen? I don't know.
[Mike Caldera]: that happened now it's screen sharing again right now we're just seeing a folder okay see that's I wish they would stop changing these things okay how about that got that so we're currently that show currently seeing the folder
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: It shows the, I think the file you're trying to share highlighted, but then... Right, yeah, okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Let's see if I can share my screen again. Is that better?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, now we see it.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, okay. So, as I said, the Laudier Violet Area violation is 317 square feet or approximately 4.5 of the required lot area, which is not a substantial violation of the lot area requirement. And it isn't something that that can be changed. The lot area is in essence. What it is the proposed single family otherwise comfortably meets. of the maximum lot coverage requirements of the district. In an SF1 district, the maximum lot coverage is 40% of the lot, and the proposed dwellings lot coverage in this instance is only 36.4% of the lot. And that's also inclusive of the attached garage, which I'll get to in a moment. But the proposed dwelling also meets all yard setbacks with depth and frontage requirements. The only increase is with respect to the height. And again, that's based on calculations within a foot or two of what was the existing structure. And we haven't got that you know, exactly measured because it no longer exists. The increase in GFA is in significant part, in this case, attributable to finishing the basement space of the dwelling. If you look at the assessor's records with respect to the original home, that area was unfinished, and certainly a homeowner would have been permitted to finish that space and wouldn't have required any any relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even in this instance where there is an increase in GFA, a significant portion can be attributable to finishing a basement area. In addition, the inclusion of the two-car attached garage increases the overall green space in the rear of the proposed lot without appreciably encroaching on the backyard area. If this were A structure that was rebuilt built on the same footprint without the two car garage, you would have two vehicles in that backspace area, which is now. Landscaped and, you know, and green as opposed to butters having to look at vehicles parking in the driveway. It also, you know, in terms of fire safety enhances the ability of of vehicles having to get in in that event and not have to deal with vehicles parked in the driveway. As indicated by the renderings, the design of the proposed structure is in harmony and consistent with the adjacent properties. You know, this entire area is comprised essentially of large Victorian properties and larger homes. And some of the lots in the area, and I can try and show you the. the area map, but the area map indicates that there are a number of lots within the Summit Road area that are less than 7,000 square feet with large homes on them. Again, the height of the structure being directly related to the greater Terrace Road, it's not out of character with the other two and a half story homes in the area. the actual average height of the proposed dwelling from grade being approximately 30.10. And if you had a height that was from grade 35 feet, you'd be dealing with a much smaller structure that would be out of place in the existing neighborhood. And again, I think I made that point that there are a number of single family dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood that are situated on similarly sized lots. That kind of recaps our position that this isn't substantially detrimental to the neighborhood because other than the height, which is something that was already preexisting, we meet all the setbacks, side yard setbacks to the property. We've greened up the back of the property and actually it allows it to be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbor rather than having to look at vehicles And, you know, we believe it's consistent with the houses in the area. I know that there was some public comment and the board received a letter concerning the fire that occurred. And certainly that is a horrible thing that everyone in the neighborhood had to go through. But prior to my client purchasing this property, they did their due diligence and spoke with both fire and the water department and were assured that there is adequate water pressure to handle a fire in that neighborhood. And that if it wasn't before that, that issue has certainly been corrected. So, we would never want this to happen to any of the neighborhood houses. I think also the fact that the house was over 100 years old may well have contributed to the ability of the home to quickly ignite. And certainly there have been building code improvements since that property was constructed that may have prevented, you know, the quick fire on this. But with that, I'll take questions from the board.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Questions from the board?
[Mary Lee]: Just out of curiosity, was there like a determination as to what caused the fire?
[Kathleen Desmond]: You know, I don't have that information. I know that water pressure was an issue, and that has been corrected, but I'm not sure. I think it may have been electrical in nature, according to my client. He may have some information.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Kathy, I actually did a Google on that, and it was thought that it had to do with that oiled rags that were improperly stored on site.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions from the board. All right, I see commissioner 40 has his hand raised. Please go ahead, Bill.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it was Adam is correct that it was determined, although it wasn't conclusive, that there was an ignition of rags from from staining that were left overnight that just kind of, you know, suddenly combusted in a barrel. That's where it appeared to be. just just for the record I did issue a notice of unsafe structure for the property and it did have to be torn down it was it was beyond repair. I know that they probably have that assessment from a structural engineer but I determined that the building was either had to be made safe or torn down in this case it made sense that it only was to be torn down because structurally it was too far. You know it was too far gone so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you commissioner 40. Other questions from the board?
[Unidentified]: I just had a quick question. In the refusal, there was a reference that the position of the home had changed. In the design documents, it shows that the new home, in comparison to the size of the previous home, fits within similar footprint. It was what's the shift in placement of the home? Can you go into more detail on that?
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Well, I can say that if you're looking from Terrace Road, the house shifts towards the left, it becomes slightly lower and slightly longer.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe that we had an existing plan which showed the original footprint. Do you have that, Adam? I looked today to see if it was in the actual package that was sent to the board. So there was a prior existing
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: I, I am going to look for that and I can. Actually, I just, I just found it. I can share my screen. Um, actually, yeah, sure. Go ahead. Thank you. After that. Okay, so everybody can see this previous site plan. Of the existing dwelling before the damage and on the. Left side from terrorist road. we had a 27.1 foot distance from the exterior wall of the house to the lot line and we reduced the 27 feet to 8 feet. Still conforming to that side setback.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Bill Forte]: Commission reported this is something else you want to. No Mister chair I just wanted to I just wanted to confirm that there was an as built and I had the owner do that prior to the issuance of the demolition permit so that not only could you prepare but if he was going to replace the structure in the same size and location that I would have a reference and I could have issued him a permit by right. So that was my only comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay thank thank you. Yeah so I have a question and it's related. So it, it seems like there may have been an opportunity to do an, as a by right rebuild here. And furthermore, even excluding the basement, the gross floor area, if I'm calculating it correctly, does seem a bit higher, which is still permitted by special permit. under the right conditions under the ordinance. So I'm wondering, Attorney Desmond, if you could just speak to specifically the choice to expand the footprint and slightly expand the gross floor area and how that relates to any potential detriment to the neighborhood.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can have my clients speak to their thought process in expanding the property to some extent, if the board wants to hear what their personal reasons were for that. With respect to expanding the footprint, what that did allow my clients to do was to put a two-car garage on the property, which eliminates some impervious pavement, which was in the back area for two vehicles. And that is now neatly tucked within the confines of the structure, which is still less than the 40%. And that's not 40% based on what would be permitted, 7,000 square feet, but 40% of the 6,683 square feet. So this is still much less than than what would be permitted in an SF-1 based on the proration of the structure and the lot coverage and the lot area. And it's much closer to what you would have in, say, an SF-1, I'm sorry, SF-2 general residence where you've got a 35% lot coverage. Um, so they're trying to keep it. You know, proportional, um, to. To what the lot, in fact, uh, is, um, with also providing a two car garage, which has its benefits from an aesthetic point of view to neighbors who have to look at in pervious pavers versus vehicles in the back area. And I think that that came into play with extending to the sidelines, to the setback requirements. But none of this went over the setback requirements. It's still within all of the requirements of the ordinance in terms of yard and whatnot. If you want to hear from my clients as to why they they felt that they needed to go outside or why it was beneficial for them to go outside of the footprint, they can certainly speak to that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, I mean, so the board's decision, it has to do with the whole, is there or is there not substantial detriment to the neighborhood? So I'll leave that up to you and your clients, whether you'd like to share those details.
[SPEAKER_40]: Yeah, I think, yeah, thanks Kathy and thanks Mike and the board. Yeah, appreciate it. I'm Ned Kirkpatrick. This is Nikki Jennings, my wife. And yeah, it's great to be able to review this property. We're really excited. We're very, I would say fortunate to be able to purchase this lot. It's a beautiful neighborhood, a beautiful area of Medford. I think, yeah, anyone who's, I see a few neighbors there too. It's just, yeah, it's, we're really excited. It's, yeah, it's really, We live in Malden right now. We've lived here for 15 years. We want to build our dream home, really. And so just to kind of address why this thought, the way the house looks, it really, I mean, I contributed to two things. One is really Nikki and Adam. working together and it was really an organic process. And what we wanted to do is one, yeah, make something really, really nice field opportunities for ourselves, but we wanted to look nice for the neighborhood as well. And just going through what our vision was with Adam and working and what fits with the landscape. And this is a really unique, as everyone saw, very, very steep grade lot, which I think maybe challenging one way, but also exciting to be able to have something that fits, takes advantage of, you know, the beautiful, the neighborhood and be able to have nice views, but also, you know, as low impact with that kind of style. And so I think that's where really what we try to do in the back, as Cathy's reiterated a few times, is, you know, really have something that's approachable, that's the way I think about it, and nice and architecturally very, very pleasing. And I think in the front, you can see in that slope there, you really have the advantage of having something that looks out into a nice view, but it it fits with the land. That's how we see it. So we really appreciate this discussion and hear what people think. I'm excited to try to move forward as we hear the discussion. Thanks.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I think too, when Adam went through, The design of the building, it's the prior home had 5 bedrooms. This is a 3, possibly 4 bedroom with a study and with the remote working, it's not uncommon to have that type of space. available to you. And there's a small playroom in the upstairs. They didn't try to expand it to anything more than that, given what a half story would be on the second floor, because the second floor is quite large. So in terms of expanding space, you know, the bedroom and the family room downstairs is something that could have been done by a prior owner. You know, the garage certainly takes up space in terms of lot coverage, but the benefit to that is, again, you don't have vehicles out in the yard area, and you can have a more landscaped area. But it's not, I think as Adam mentioned, it's not overdone, there's different roof lines, so it probably looks bigger, but in terms of space, you've got three to four bedrooms, a typical downstairs, and then the garage and family room down below.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: I'd also like to add to that, that while we worked in the house collaboratively, the big question was knowing we were coming before the board for a special permit is do no harm is the golden rule. So looking at the areas that the board is charged to evaluate, we're having no negative impact on parking, on existing street patterns. We're not depriving any abutters of privacy or the Um, the enjoyment of, of their own lots were having no impact on the existing uses of our budding lots. Uh, the scale and the character of the house while different is in keeping with the previous house and those homes, which, um, have abutted it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And actually just one other question related to that. So in the, comment the board received that Attorney Desmond referred to, I believe that comment asked about the height of the structure and shared some details about the prior height. The photos the board received looked like they were from the perspective of, well, of the abutting lot, but kind of at grade with the driveway and so on. So was, am I correct in my understanding what I heard that from that elevation, it's under 35 feet? Is that correct?
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: From the garage level elevation, which is the elevation of the rear yard, the highest points of the roof are lower than the previous house and under 35 feet.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. One other thing I'll say, I was looking into this before the hearing because of the, it mentioned that there was some uncertainty about the exact height of the prior structure. There are some drawings of elevations from that same perspective from a prior permit by a prior owner that, you know, it had the scale on the drawing. I think it was back in 20, 21 or something, and it was roughly 35 feet from that perspective. But take that for what it will. I'm not an engineer. It was in that neighborhood.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, I mean, that's pretty consistent with what we put together.
[Mike Caldera]: OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. I'm wondering about with the shift to the left, I understand a lot of the design decisions that you've made, but one thing that's been conspicuously absent from what you've talked about is how it affects the property to the left. And shifting it to the left sort of looms over that property. And I'm wondering what measures, how you'd mitigate that.
[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Well, my first answer is that although we pulled the house closer to the left, we did remove the outdoor space that was attached to the house. The previous house had an extensive wraparound deck. So by moving the envelope to that side and removing the deck, I'd say that from a kind of a privacy standpoint, we have improved their situation. how they feel, I mean, honestly, how these providers feel about this design. I haven't talked to them directly. I don't, I know Nikki and Ned have reached out to them. I'd let them describe how the neighbors have reacted if at all to the new design.
[SPEAKER_40]: Yeah, I'm happy to speak today. I think it's, I mean, we're, yeah, again, excited to go in the neighborhood. We've, we've been able to meet some of the neighbors we've provided Some of these plans are the plans, I think a little over a week ago because they weren't yet posted. So definitely, yeah, we're very aware and considerate of what comments people have. But I think Adam's point is very much something we discussed too. I mean, I think the port, and if you look up the porch, our outdoor space is very much in the front. you know, for the house too, it's important for your outdoor space can be private for yourself too, right? So I don't think we wanna be, you know, feeling like we're on top of anybody or, you know, if there's, you know, grilling or anything above someone else's house. Yeah, so that's, you know, it's something we're very, would very much consider. We also, yeah, I mean, there's existing trees along that, on that side and, you know, the landscaping, is also an important part of how we'll shape what the house looks like in the privacy side. And so I think, yeah, we're, again, open to hear what people think. And I hope that we've approached this and that we're approachable and wanna make the best for the neighbor, because that's where we're gonna be living too.
[SPEAKER_02]: And I think some of the neighbors are on the call tonight, so we'll definitely have an opportunity to hear from them, I think, which would be good.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great, thank you. Other questions from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I don't see any, so chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to open public portion of the hearing. All right. We're going to take a roll call.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mary. Yeah. Yes. Jamie.
[Mike Caldera]: Like I. All right. So the public portion of the hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak on this matter, please feel free to raise your hand on zoom. Raise your hand in front of your camera. With your cameras on Zoom, you can type in the chat. You can email Dennis D. McDougall at medford-ma.gov. All right. I see, I'm just going to go in the order I see them. So I see Elizabeth M. Ammons. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Ammons]: Hello, sorry that my camera isn't working. So I'm Liz Ammons. I'm a resident on Terrace Road, just a few houses down the street from where the new house would be built. I'm on the other side. And it's great to have new people moving into the neighborhood. And it's great to have a house going on to that lot after the tragic fire that took down the old house. But I really do have a major reservation about the scale of this house. I know that in the presentation so far, it's been said that it's, quote, a conventionally sized house by today's standards. I think that depends whose standards and whose convention. For this neighborhood, a 6,000 square foot house is really big. I live in an old house, and you could put two of my houses in that square footage. and saying it's not overdone, it's nothing extravagant. The way that the footprint has been expanded on that lot so that it takes up almost all the free land there, and the other house was big and used a lot of the lot. It just seems to me that this is a house that is just too big for that lot and too big for the neighborhood. There are big houses, which is great, but this one really, it seems to me, is looming and sort of dominating. And that seems to me out of character for the neighborhood.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, next I see Paul Tringali. Please go ahead, name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_11]: Hi, Paul Tringali, 11 Crest Road. So my house is opposite the easement, the driveway. So my question is specifically on that, the easement. My understanding was there's also an easement between the houses, the stairway that goes up from Terrace. I don't know if that is absolutely true, but that's the lore. that I learned from being a newbie of 25 years here. I just don't see that on the plot, so maybe it isn't true. But I understood the stairs, the access up to the driveway was a neighborhood easement. And if that would be impacting the lot line, and if access would continue even with the new plantings, paving, etc. So that was my question. I had just also a comment to make sure that no impact was made on the stone wall that belongs to the city. I walk by there a lot, clean that area a lot. So I see the stones starting to fall apart and just wanted to make sure that in any kind of construction that that was secured and not impacted, especially with drainage. because there's a lot of water that comes out there. You probably see the PVC pipes that spill over onto the street. Those were my comments. Otherwise, I hope it works out and welcome.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Attorney Desmond, could you speak to either of those elements, the presence of an easement and the city-owned wall?
[Adam Hurtubise]: that you're currently on mute.
[Kathleen Desmond]: With respect to the city-owned wall, I would assume that engineering and there would be construction measures in place that the city would require so that anything that happened, if anything were to happen with that wall in the course of construction, that the owners would be obligated to repair that. I don't believe that there's any need, this isn't a situation where there's going to be any blasting that I can see occurring that would perhaps damage the wall. With respect to the easement, I didn't do a title on this because I was not the conveyance attorney, but typically that would appear in the survey that was done. It would indicate the existing easements on the ground and I don't, see that on either the existing plan or the proposed plan that there is some sort of an easement on that staircase. And I don't believe there was anything in the deed, because I would have noticed that, anything in the deed that would reflect an easement.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, it's hard for me to make out what it's even supposed to represent on the plan. I think it might be something very different, The design plans with the structure before fire damage has something marked in a different location that says easement from Crest Road. Is that something else?
[Kathleen Desmond]: That's the access easement from Crest Road to the property.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. So basically, you're not 100% because you didn't pull the title, but it's not on the architecture. It's not on the-
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, it's not on the survey and I don't recall seeing it on the deed and I think Mr. Tringali is talking about on Terrace Road in terms of the stairway. Is that accurate?
[SPEAKER_11]: The stairway that goes up from Terrace Road continues to the right side of the house and to the Crest Road easement, the driveway.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. There is an easement, the driveway in the back, and that's indicated on the plan. But in terms of an easement on Terrace Road, I'm not aware of any, and it's not showing on the surveyor's plan who would have noted that on the survey that he did.
[SPEAKER_40]: Yeah, just, yeah, sorry. Kathy, yeah, and there, we, yeah, we, in the title, in the title, indeed, we don't, there's no easement. And in fact, on that side, just for references, the neighbors at 48 have already had put up a fence since we bought up, bought the plot, and the fence is on the, you know, along their property line that's outside of that stairwell. So there's no indication that there's any easement.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. We're going to go to the next member of the public. They're listed as Zoom user. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, my name is Josie Christian. I'm speaking on behalf of my parents who reside at 29 Summit Road, and they are the immediate abutters to the rear of 44 Terrace Road. They have some grave concerns regarding the size of the house, the proposed house being built. First of all, I know that the water pressure was addressed in terms of the fire that occurred in March of 2023. I can tell you that the fire department had extreme difficulties battling those flames on that evening. They fought that fire for over eight hours. They were unable to successfully battle the flames from Terrace Road. So they actually had to break down the fence that borders my parents' property, as well as the abutters to the left. so that they could battle those flames. They were standing in my parents' backyard, just a few feet from their kitchen window, fighting that fire through the night. They expressed that there were water pressure issues, and based on that information, one would only stand to reason that a larger, even further non-conforming home would be that much more difficult to stabilize should a fire break out again on that property. So the safety concerns and welfare concerns of the neighborhood are paramount here. But also, the quality of my parents' life and enjoyment of their property is gravely affected. They currently have a partial city view. And I know that the shadows were discussed, but what wasn't discussed was the fact that my parents stand to lose. an area of view of about 19 by 34 feet. 19 feet being the width and 34 feet being the height.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Sure.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. The next member of the public I see is Matias Rowe. Name and address for the record.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You're on mute. You're on mute. Matias, you are currently on mute, so we can't hear you.
[SPEAKER_09]: Hello, everybody. Can you hear me? Yes, I'm so sorry. Yes, my name is Matthias Rode. I live on 19 Summit Road, also known as 32 Terrace, as the access to Terrace was taken away from us with the new wall that the city built a long time ago. So I'm basically the second house to the south of the proposed project. I just singled out, I was reading the worksheet of the applicant and I was wondering, you know, about all the rights that they mentioned in that worksheet, but really none of the condition that those rights are coming with. And it seems like they're playing the game of if it's useful to us, we're going to use it. And if it's not, then we're not going to even speak about it. So I'd like to speak about some of those issues. In section six of the application. I'm reading this off right now because I get really nervous when I do that normally, so I hope you don't mind. In section six of the application, the applicant states that the denial of a variance as to height would be contrary to the intent of section 5.7 in the zoning ordinance. They conclude that a fair reading of section 5.7 would allow for the reconstruction of a two and a half story single family dwelling. Well, I thought it might be a good idea to read section 5.7. It is titled Reconstruction after Catastrophe or Voluntary Demolition. It's short, three paragraphs to be exact. The first paragraph established the time constraints that you have to build within two years of construction. The second paragraph establishes the right, and I quote, buildings reconstructed as of right shall be located on the same footprint as the original non-conforming structure and shall be only as great in gross floor area as the original non-conforming structure. So that's your right. But paragraph three is the real reason why we're here meeting today. It basically states that if you don't adhere to the condition in paragraph two, you will need a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I believe that a more thorough reading instead of a fair reading would have led the applicants to understand that the right to rebuild also comes with the conditions of keeping the same footprint and the same gross floor area. The request for a variance on these issues only would enable the applicant to break the rules. and that there's no hardship that I can see. Why are rules important in this case? Well, because these rules, the zoning rules, are written so that we are guaranteed that our neighborhoods stay as they were planned. They guarantee us that we continue to live in well-scaled neighborhoods. The intent is to control bulk and density, the size and shape of buildings, and how close they are to each other. The board will have to decide whether to grant or deny based on the findings that the proposed single family dwelling is or is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The proposed home will have a gross floor area of 6090 square foot. That's 80% larger than the previous home occupied by the lot and not insignificant as you mentioned before. It is also three times the size of most of the homes found in that neighborhood, because most of the homes don't exceed 2,000 square foot. And even the larger homes surrounding that specific home don't exceed 3,400 square foot, as the old home was showing. So by rebuilding the old home, it would be still the biggest house in the area.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry.
[SPEAKER_09]: The proposed, I'm sorry, the front elevation of the proposed home facing Terrace Road will measure 43 feet. Now, I know that you measure only 35 feet because you measure from the garage, but the front of the house and the elevation is, I measured on your plan, 43 feet. And I find it very convenient that all the elevations are drawn with a house of the north to the north, together with the proposed construction, because that is a stately house. But you left out the view from the house in the south, which is only a modest one. story ranch with a walkout basement. So if you would picture that in your illustrations, I think you all would see how detrimental it is to look from their yard to a facade measuring 43 feet. The length of the gable and the height of the home will block the last view for my neighbors. The added bulk to the building will scare them even more after the horrible fire in March. Firefighters had to break down their fence to escape the heat of the fire and to fight it from a greater distance, my neighbor's yard. In conclusion, I would like to state my objection to the requested variance. But I would also like to encourage the applicant to come back with a more fitting solution for all. After all, it is a very special place to live at. Welcome.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Matthias. One thing you mentioned, I just want to double check if I understood correctly. So you did some measurement or have some reason to believe from the So the original building was 43 foot tall from that front portion, is that right?
[SPEAKER_09]: No, what I'm saying is that none of our neighbors, none of your neighbors, your new neighbors, will have a problem with the original height of the original building and the original footprint of the original building. That's your right to rebuild. Nobody's questioning that. But what I'm questioning is, by removing the dirt in front of the building and exposing the basement, you wind up with a 43-foot facade. You can call it whatever it is, basement, and then your house starting, but it's 43 foot. It's a straight facade. This is only interrupted by a balcony. It's massive. I'm sorry, by all means, it's massive. It's not insignificant. Again, 80% is addition to the house of the original size. 80%, almost double the size.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you for clarifying. And also, so I'm about to move on to the next public comment. But I just want to make one clarification. That was very well researched and described. I did make a ruling at the beginning, which I just want to clarify. So under that section of the ordinance 5.7, or actually it's under section 5.4. So section 5.4 states that increasing an existing nonconformity shall require the issuance of a special permit rather than a variance. So in this case, because I've ruled that it's the special permit criterion, the circumstances, the criteria about the variance hardship created by circumstances pertaining to the soil condition, shape, and topography of the lot and structures doesn't apply. It's the substantial detriment to the neighborhood criteria. So changing the facade, changing the gross floor area, all of this would enter into the calculation of whether or not there's substantial detriment to the neighborhood. But I just want to clarify for the public that because it's under the special permit criteria, in this case, there is not a need to demonstrate the statutory criteria for the hardship under a variance. So I just wanted to clarify that.
[SPEAKER_09]: May I say one more thing about that?
[Mike Caldera]: Please go ahead, yeah.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, again, I'm that's exactly what I read in this in the statute just as well, but we're talking a lot in the attorneys talking a lot about the right to build. And that right is only only spoken about in the second paragraph and that right applies only if you stay within the conditions. And you need a special permit, as you pointed out, if you don't meet those conditions. So don't tell me about rights, on the one hand, and not telling me about the conditions that you voluntarily not meet. That's all I was speaking to.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Yeah. Thank you. I can certainly attest that this is not allowed by right. OK. All right. Next up we have Kevin Goulding. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay, I'm Kevin Goulding. I live at 71 Terrace Road. I live just two doors down from the property. And I think I'll echo Matias' statement that everyone that I've talked to around the house and around the abutting area doesn't have a problem if it was built within the same footprint of the old home and with the same character. And no one is going after that right. So I want to echo that on Matias' statement. But to echo Liz's statement, and Liz, I believe, has been down right next to my mother. My mother has been in the 71 Terrace Road home since 1964. A lot of these families up here have been here for 40, 50, 60 years. And when you look at a house that's now over 6,000 feet, And you say, well, it's fitting with the style and the current trends of where houses are going or whatnot. It doesn't fit within the architecture and the design of the beautiful old Victorians here. I live in a very large house right on the corner. It's just over 3,000 square feet. But I live on an 8,000 square foot lot and there's a lot of separation on all sides here. If you look at the easement for all of those houses, if you look at the Perella's house, if you look at some of the other houses behind it, their views are going to be severely impacted, as they mentioned earlier. So that does change the nature of everyone else around the building. And again, I think the design, it's not exactly my taste, but I think it's nicely done in some way. But to put a massive home, 6,000 square foot home, where the biggest house around is Mateus at 3,400, it could be that. To me, that's just, you're gonna have this massive McMansion that changes the character of the neighborhood. And he's 100% right. If you look to the left and you look at the smaller home, that's not in the diagrams. That will literally look like not even a garage. That will look like a shed to that opposite side of the home. And I can't even imagine there were some designs that were put up with the light and the shadows. There's no way that these other homes aren't going to be impacted by that. And also, I would encourage the board members, take a drive up, come on up and see it in person, because we can do this over Zoom, but just like any other Zoom meeting, it's not like an in-person meeting. And look at the structure, walk up the easement, and you'll see how close These houses are that are surrounding the property they are right on top of it. So when you talk about the fears about the fire and when people express that fear that fear is very, very real. I was not there that night, unfortunately, fortunately or unfortunately I was I was I was away. But for my, my mother even down the street there was a lot of panic, because everyone thought that that could easily spread and if you come up in person and look at it to all the other homes now you're talking about expanding the footprint. It may be within the same percentage but if you're going to the left that small house to the left. was the one that got the most damage out of the fire, ironically, due to the wind. And so that is certainly a concern, a very valid concern that everyone has. And I'll also mention that there has been zero mitigation to the fire department having issues with the water pressure. I talked to the mayor myself after the fire. I talked to Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, and I brought it up with her. I said, hey, did you hear that they had to run lines all the way up Governor's Ave from Brigham's, or former Brigham's, Colleen's, up to Governor's Ave, and then had to have a truck go up and over and put a ladder there. And there hasn't been a single hydrant pressure check, anything done. I can almost guarantee it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I know none of our neighbors have seen anything done. No additional hydrants added. No notification from the fire department saying, hey, we need to fix this. That has definitely not happened. So that is an absolute concern when you talk about the fire. And then when you look at these pictures, Look at real estate pictures. Go on Zillow. Pictures are deceptive. And you look at these pictures and it looks, oh, it's the same exact height right here. It's just like the other house. Well, it's not. Mateus brought up it dwarfs the house on the left. And I think it's potentially outside of that garage going to dwarf everything around it. just due to the sheer size. And maybe I'm wrong, I'm not an architect, but that's the perception that everyone has. And again, no one, we're happy to have a couple come in and put in a house that fits within the character of the neighborhood. I think they've done a great job hiring an architect and doing the right thing. And I don't think anyone wants to be negative on this, but The house doesn't fit within the character, it will be like the lorded castle amongst other big homes, except like also Matthias brought up, a lot of the other houses on Summit Road, if you drive down and Terrace, there are 2000 square foot houses in most. The house next to me just sold, that's a 2000 square foot house right next to my property. And one of the final things I'll say is, if you look at the wall, that wall has not been touched in years. It's not maintained by the city. There are branches growing out of it, and there's obvious bulges coming out of it. And if you look down the rest of Terrace Road, that is a massive concrete retaining wall because they had problems with the old wall. A pool leaked way back. 30-40 years ago and brought the entire wall down where the city had to replace the large wall that was down there and they replaced it with a gigantic concrete structure. So if you drive up Terrace Road, you'll see an incongruence between the large wall and then the small stone wall that they're going to be building on. Personally, if I were building even a 3000 square foot house, I'd be really worried about that wall and that should be checked by the city and because everyone seems to pass the buck on that wall, and no one wants to take responsibility and I think even my neighbors have tried to talk to the city about it. And they try to say it's theirs and it's yours and it goes back and forth. So there's obviously some structural issues I think that need to be addressed as well. So those are just some of the things that I'm seeing as a person who is just a couple of doors down. And yes, I'm not an absolute direct to butter, but I, my mother has been here since 64. I grew up in this street. I moved back here seven years ago. And I know a lot of the neighbors have been here so long. they are worried about the changing of the character with this house. And if it's somehow redesigned or drawn back where it's brought into scale with the houses surrounding it and fitting within the footprint, then no one has a problem and everyone will be, I think, would be for it. But I just think a house that's twice the size of what was there before. And even if they say, well, the basement wasn't finished, that's garbage. The house wasn't nearly that big. That basement might have been, if I look at my basement, which is a similar size house, it might be 800 square feet at most. So, and that's being generous. So those are just some of my comments and as a neighbor, and I'm sure I again I'm echoing a lot of what Matias and Liz and other people have said, but it's it's certainly concerning to the size of the house, the safety with the fire that just happened with the water pressure, the wall, the structure. And then the overall enjoyment for the neighbors who are going to lose views that they once enjoyed. And I don't think that's fair to them. They've invested in these houses. If you come up and look at them, they've put a lot of time, money, and effort in these houses over decades. And I just don't think it's fair to do something like that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So the next member of the public, I see with their hand raised is Jim DeCristofaro. Name and address for the record, please.
[Josh Ekhart-Lee]: Yeah, Jim DeCristofaro, 48 Terrace Road, so we're the abutting neighbor to the right. Our concern is that the house is getting moved forward in the lot, and we have currently a beautiful view of the Boston downtown city skyline by moving the property up. that view will partially be removed. If you look at all of the houses on Terrace, they're all staggered back from each other so that each house has a view of the city. Now, this is getting moved up to be either parallel to our house, if not slightly in front of our house. That is a concern on our end. I second everything else that the other neighbors have said.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Next up, I see Nathan, Mello, name and address for the record.
[MCM00000641_SPEAKER_15]: Hi, my name is actually Tara Mello. I am the abutter to the left of the 44 Terrace Road. I am currently in a one-story, 1,500-square-foot home. I'm living under the rules of the current ordinances and statutes of the Commonwealth. I am a family of five and live quite comfortably in that home. I am now 47 feet away or I was 47 feet away from the prior home that was on that location. Again to echo the concerns that were brought about the fire at 47 feet. My house was nearly taken over by the fire. There were 2 firemen sitting in my yard. Their sole purpose was to keep the fire from extending to my home. We had to get mutual aid from a different city to bring up a ladder truck that was tall enough to come up from Governor's Avenue. I had to usher my 3 children out To imagine a house eight feet from the property line, now two and a half stories straight up from my property line with a catastrophe such as that, my house would not survive. I want to speak to the fact that when we purchased this house due to its privacy, my mother lives on Summit Road. She is a neighbor, not a direct abutter, but a butter who has a view through that side. between our houses or what will be the house of Nikki and Nathaniel. And I grew up in that house as Kevin had grown up on Terrace Road. I grew up on Summit Road and I bought this house purposefully because of the privacy and the view and just the nature of the houses on this street and in this neighborhood. And What I will be seeing out of that side yard which is quite a quiet side yard for me will be basically three stories, what will look like an apartment building just a sheer wall of windows, very close to my house which is not really in keeping with any not any of the buildings up here. I was very excited to hear that a couple had purchased this with a young daughter who is the same age as one of my children, but after seeing the plans, I have to strenuously object to a building that large. I also, I know, Chairman, that you made a ruling at the beginning that this was not a variance issue because It was a pre-existing non-conformance and that should carry over. However, I do just want to state for the record and argue that the fact that they are extending on the pre-existing non-conformance means that they are now then extending a non-conformance outside of the height. And I think that that should be considered a variance. And what I see is that people are trying to take advantage of the setbacks that are currently in place by but also then not wanting to take the height differences that limitations that are in place. And I find it quite disingenuous that in the application, they say that a family cannot live comfortably in a one and a half story home. I do quite well in a one story home. I also, you know, you don't wanna speak to the hardship and I certainly get that if you don't think it's a variance as I stated, I disagree. And I understand because there is no hardship to them that falls with the land, they are similarly situated to everyone else in this problem in this in this area and there's people that lived here over 50 years and people who have just moved in a few years ago, and who have completely reconstructed homes within the bounds and confines of the ordinances of the of the city to keep the character of the city. But as to the special permit and the findings of detriment, substantial detriment to the neighborhood that I hope that you find just based on the size of the structure and how it expands on the non-conformity, I don't believe those shadow images that were put up. I've lived there myself now for six, seven years, and I've lived in the neighborhood for a long time. A structure of that size over my, what is really probably a 15 to 17 foot home from the grade, the grade that you're supposed to measure it from, it will be overwhelming. It will interfere with my little fringe on my privacy I'll be looking at almost three stories of share wall as I've said, while we try to relax and enjoy our yard the privacy of this location is incredibly important to everyone up here we're all very friendly I think we all know each other it's a really great neighborhood to live in but part of that is that we all have our own space. And I feel that that will be lost regardless of the fact that you do use the front of the of Terrace Road to enjoy the view, but that is not where you do your living. You do your living in the yard. I've been here a long time and that is extremely true. And to compare the use of a side porch, basically a side of a wraparound porch, to a wall that's going to come at me an additional, I don't know, almost 10 feet is just not realistic. I meant from the porch width. So I don't believe I'll have sunlight on that side of my yard as it is the big tree is there and I understand that they'll be taking that down, I guess, to put up the wall, but it will invite moss and mold to breed on that side of the yard and I will not be able to go grass. And nor will my children play the way I expect them to be able to play over there. It does change the character of the neighborhood. And I feel that something that large is truly not in keeping with the neighborhood. And I feel like they're being really disingenuous by showing you pictures of that property from that, they could never show you pictures of that property facing my property.
[Mike Caldera]: My property- You've been talking for a while now. If you have like an extra sentence or two you want to wrap with, that'd be great. But I haven't been keeping strict time, but it's
[MCM00000641_SPEAKER_15]: I just feel like I'm the one most affected by this. And so I should be the one to be able to speak the longest, but certainly I will. Yeah, you did.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So I appreciate everything you've said. I'm not trying to cut you off, but I think you're starting to refer to things you already mentioned. So just.
[MCM00000641_SPEAKER_15]: Dredging of the tiers, I think will also disrupt the soil and increase the weight and size of that home. We'll put pressure on that existing wall that's owned by the city and potentially destabilize my property. I additionally think the expansion of the non-permeable surfaces has a direct detrimental effect on my property that's at a lower elevation. And no matter how much drainage you would put on that property, I have experienced water since that fire because there's an open space there. And I think just building a structure that large on the smallest, one of the smallest properties in the area is, is unfair and it's infringing on me and the benefits that I experienced when I purchased my home here. Additionally, I just, my final thing is to just say that these parties bought this property, they didn't experience the catastrophe. They not only bought a nonconforming lot, and now they want to, within months, expand on the nonconformity. And I just think that the board should take that into consideration as well. That house was a large house to begin with. Okay, I have an on site visit, I would please like to be informed so I could walk through with you. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank thank you. Um, since there was mention of the prior ruling, I just want to clarify. As a board, we have to apply the rules of the ordinance and land precedent quite literally in a very technical way. And so, you know, there are procedures if someone disagrees with a ruling to add an outcome, you know, to challenge. But in general, I'm comfortable that by the Medford ordinance, the correct criterion here to apply is the special permit. So I attempted to explain that earlier. And so, yeah, we're gonna proceed. Okay, so one last member of the public who hasn't spoken yet. Pierce, name and address for the record, please.
[Unidentified]: Hi, I'm Lisa Warren, married to Pierce Hughes, and we don't live in the immediate neighborhood. We live at 10 Woodland Avenue. I have lived in Medford for 18 years. I frequently walk my dog up Terrace Street Terrace have every, you know, every couple days. And I just loved the whole view walking up that street. I appreciate the lovely homes and the view that is afforded by the people who live there. I remember driving out the morning of that horrible fire. And I appreciate all the trauma and all the worry that all the people in the neighborhood suffered through. I would just like to point out that, you know, this home that's proposed, I think would fit very well within the confines and within the neighborhood and actually would enhance the value of everybody's property there. And I would also, you know, point out, you know, the concerns about fire, of course, are in everybody's mind after such a catastrophe. But I would point out that a new structure built under code and with the proper, you know, warning devices would probably be less of a risk than the houses that are already there in the neighborhood and have been there for many years. So that's just my two cents. And certainly I don't live in the immediate neighborhood, but I am close by. I can look from my back deck up into that area. And I think it would be a lovely new structure.
[SPEAKER_15]: I would say I'm PSU. One more thing, very slight comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, I couldn't see who was speaking. I thought someone who already spoke was speaking.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, sorry. I just have one comment. It's my wife who was speaking before. Again, I love the neighborhood. I walk through all the time. opposed buying a house originally up top. I missed out on an opportunity to buy one and it never happens. Unfortunately, bottom of the hill. But I would just say that there are a lot of large houses up there. For example, 33 I looked up, 33 Summit is 4,000 square feet. So they're not all 2,000 square feet. There are some big houses there. I don't think this is incredibly huge. By the images I've seen, again, you can argue that images are misleading, but maybe a walk through the property would help people. That in fact, it would be an appropriate size building and it would look very good to match the properties in the area. It's my opinion from what I've seen today. I have no real vested interest and I do appreciate people's concerns. I want to give my two cents because I am a neighborhood walker when I go through that area. Again, I wish I'd bought a house up there myself. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So I see someone named Barbara, who I don't believe has spoken yet. Barbara, name and address for the record, please.
[Julie Flynn]: There you go. Hi. My name is Julie Flynn. This is not Barbara. So I live right across from Matt and Pat on Summit Road. So I'm very close to this new building. And I just wanted to comment about a couple of things. I absolutely Yeah, one minute, Claire, I would hope that you would not issue this special permit. I believe that per se, there are violations and that because this per se violations regarding height requirements, that that in and of itself should be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. A couple of things that I do wanna point out is that I think the lot size really does matter, and you as the board really need to consider that this is a small lot, and they are going big. I think this case is an example of a mans, you know, when they use that term, mansionization of a neighborhood, and I think this case is a perfectly good example of it. I've lived in the house for, you know, my family's lived in that house for 50 or 60 years, I walk up and down the streets, Terrace Road and Summit Road all the time. This house is much bigger than the average house in these neighborhoods. I was disappointed to see how big this particular house would be. And one of the things that is sort of bothersome too is the bulk of that roof. So that structure before was a typical home reflective of the style of this neighborhood. But what we have now is not a ridgeline that goes like this. We just have this bulk, you know, like length of a whole top on the third level. It's gargantuan. And I think that's something that is bothersome about the design of this place. And again, HAB-Masyn Moyer): Again, the last place was built in concert with sort of the design of the neighborhood and then now we have where there was once a one story. HAB-Masyn Moyer): porch now we have a two and a half story proposed structure and then the fact that the that lot is technically too small should really lead you to consider doing what. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator): To vote against the special permits, I mean it's just too big it's too small of a lot for to size for that big house and. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator): I do want to comment a little on. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator): I share some concerns that Tara have Tara has in terms of. The whether or not they don't need to seek a variant so I just think for the record. I want, since they applied for a variance I would like to comment on, and just for the record, speak to the issue that I don't think they're entitled to any variance and that this is just for the record so I understand that you don't think they need one anyways, but I think for the record I'd like to speak to it. The topography they mentioned the topography of the property with create a hardship, there is nothing about the topography of this. Of this lot would create a hardship, there was a previous. single family dwelling in that lot, and there can be another single family dwelling in that lot so I don't think the topography affects anything. I know Tara has spoke to the notion of a substantial hardship there is obviously no hardship, building a house that's your dream house that is much bigger than the lot area that's Not, not meeting the height requirements that is not staying within the footprint of the building is not something that would create a hardship. I just want to comment to that the hardship that they mentioned mentioned here is not being able to, you know, reasonably use your property and of course, they can reasonably use the property. And as everyone has stated here in a home that's similar to the one that was there. I think everyone would be comfortable with that. The last is, I think, I do think that there is a detriment to the community. I think that it's kind of the aesthetics is going to change. I know those are considerations that I really want you to think about. The aesthetic will change. That house is bigger than any other house. There will be change to the lights. There's change to the view of the neighbor. And I don't think it's fair that someone can build a house that's going to increase their value at the detriment of other people who have lived here forever having less light or having less of a view. And I don't think that is is fair. And also air and open space. But it is the density, that density is really striking. And I think there is case law that would suggest that if you are increasing the nonconformity of the space, then that is a substantial detriment to the community. And I can submit that. I think it's applicable in this case. I don't think there's any case law that that has been submitted that supports the issuing of a permit in this case. Thank you. I guess that's it. But other than that, you know, if someone else wants to say anything, but Barbara would like to say something. Sure.
[Mike Caldera]: I know you just spoke to the record.
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_13]: Can you hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Name and address for the record, please.
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_13]: It's Barbara G. Christophero. I live at 11 summit road. Um, I was, again, I was here the night of the fire. I came running out of my house to wake up the neighbors. When it happened, I held my nieces while they were screaming because they came out and that flame was so hot and that house was like I said, 47 feet away. Um, I understand what they're saying. They want a special permit for the height. Is that correct?
[Mike Caldera]: They want a special permit to reconstruct the fire damaged building in a different footprint at a greater gross floor area.
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_13]: Okay. And the variances for the height? Because I heard this.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I've ruled that it's it's special permit criteria still because the height of the prior structure was already greater than 35 feet.
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_13]: So I was actually walking around my little sister's yard who lives right next door there to the left of that house. And I was walking around her yard today and I took a look. I was just there tonight and I walked around and I looked at the old footprint which from its We father's width is 40 feet from its depth from terrace to summit is 36 feet. The new footprint of this house from its width, it will be 63.5 feet, which is an increase of 23.5 feet. The depth is going to increase from 36 feet to 57.2 feet at its at its deepest point, which is an increase of 21.2 feet outside. the 40 by 36 original building, which is a massive building. I grew up in this neighborhood. I've been here since the seventies. I used to play in that house five owners ago with the kids that used to live there. I know that house intimately. And then the second owners that had it did work to it. The third owners that had it only went into the basement from an outside door. The fourth owners that had it, redid the entire inside of the home. The fifth owners, the last owners, so the owners before the Warrens were Rick and Jenny. They redid almost all the work inside. Then the next owners, they redid all the electrical. They gutted the entire house. When you looked in the house, there were no walls. They gutted it. Everything was brought up to code. Branch making, no. So that house, it was not an accident waiting to happen because of anything electrical or anything like that. It was completely redone from floor to ceiling. And I looked in those windows when they were doing it. I walked over and spoke to the contractors when they were doing it. I know that the state fire marshal, and I already put in a submit for their report, says that it was the chemicals that were left inside the house by the contractors that caused that fire. I pulled the police report. I pulled the fire report. I'm waiting for the state modules report. I'm not opposed to somebody building on their lot, but now they're coming 19 feet closer to my sister's property, 34 feet high. They are completely taking one of my best friends' backyards. When I sit on their porch and I look through there, they're taking their entire backyard. I stood on the wall and I held up a pole with a flag on it and took some pictures tonight from my mother's front porch of what she used to see at the foundation of the old house to what she's going to see at the foundation of this new house. And my mother loses all that view as well from living across the street. And she's 86 years old, 87 tomorrow, and now she's not gonna be able to sit on her front porch. Next door to my mother, Mr. Flynn, who's lived here longer than my mother, is not gonna be able to sit on the front porch and see that view that they had. My neighbors using 19 feet by 34 feet of open space that they're losing by this permit being, you know, it's not in keeping with the spirit or statute of the zoning laws, which is to protect the neighborhood and the city from overcrowding, overbuilding. And if you do this, you know, the property, you know, you have to be prepared to do it for every single property in this neighborhood. So, you know, I'm asking you to please deny this massive structure being built that's going to take away from our views, everybody around's views, And I know you're talking to people that live down on Governor's Ave that they say they walk up in the neighborhood. They don't live up in here. They don't see the views that we see. I bought my house. I grew up on Summit Road at number 30 with my mother. I bought my house on Summit Road because of the neighborhood. My sister bought her house on Terrace Road because of the neighborhood. and the views. My neighbor Matt and Pat moved into the neighborhood and I knew the people that owned their house before them that grew up here from being infants with us. So I mean we've been here forever. The views are there and they're there for a reason and the houses are staggered and the newest people who are actually in their house tonight with several other neighbors with this meeting And we're sitting here in one of the newest neighbor's houses that he built in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. And he kept it back. It's thought to take away from my sister's view, or the view of the other house, or the next house out. Like we said, we're all staggered, including my house is staggered back, so that they have a view. So that's why I'm saying, this is going to be detrimental. So that special permanent, our experience about the detriment to the neighborhood, That massive house is gonna be a detriment to several people in this neighborhood. And I'm asking you to please deny the permit at this time. Thank you very much for your time.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I don't see any other hands, so chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. All right, so we're gonna take a roll call vote.
[Mary Lee]: Yay.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye. Yvette. You're unmuted, Yvette.
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_13]: So we file an appeal.
[Mike Caldera]: And Jamie. Mike. Aye. All right. So we are now deliberating. So what do you think, folks?
[Yvette Velez]: I could start. I actually really liked the house and I appreciated what was proposed. While I hear what the neighbors are saying, what I've seen and both in person as well as online and images, I thought the house was actually, I feel the house adds to the neighborhood. continues with the look and feel, I actually thought it looked like a more modern, and I'm not an architect, like House of the Seven Gables. I felt like they kept in line with what is there while making it modern and adding to quality of life for the folks who live there in the sense of, you know, parking for them, and then the livable green space and just the way it was overall presented. So that's where I'm going to start.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Thanks, Yvette. Other thoughts from the board? Andre, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. So I think that some of the comments about the design a little overblown, but I do have two main concerns, which I think are problematic for this proposal. One is that I think bringing the house as close as possible to the abutter on the left is really problematic. It's just very out of scale with the house on that side, in addition to the you know, the topography, which is the houses sits much higher anyways. And then plus you have the effect is, you know, a three and a half story building right next to, right next to the abutter. So I think that's, that's problematic and moving the, you know, the house forward as well, which changes the pattern of the staggering of all of the other houses along the row. You know, the combination of those two things, which does affect the numerous abutters, you know, in terms of their enjoyment of the neighborhood. You know, obviously there is, if not a provable increase in detriment, there's certainly the perception as we've seen tonight from the neighbors that there is a detriment to the neighborhood. Those are the things that are problematic to me. I think that left facade, which has really been de-emphasized in the presentation,
[Yvette Velez]: uh is really a big problem thank you andre other thoughts from the board i do echo oh go ahead sorry jamie i just want to follow up with that comment because the way i look at the area plan for the neighborhood it's all of the houses with them and i've again been on the street itself right it all goes at an angle so they're just by By way of the area plan for each of those houses, they're naturally already going down the line, even with this house moving. To me, it stays within uniformity of how it already exists if you're looking at that area plan. Do you understand what I'm saying? The slope of it, they're all just going at an angle, so they're all already getting that standard that folks are referring to.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Yvette. Andrew, did you want to add anything to this?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I don't have a problem with the house from the design itself, from the right side, from the rear, even necessarily from the front. But from the front left corner and from the left, I think it does It's definitely different than what was there before in a way that is really imposing. And I would share the concerns that we've heard from the neighbors. And I also think that there is a real argument to be made for, I think, what at least one person has said, that While the new house may not be taller than the house that was there before, functionally, it is adding a floor to the house because it's converting the basement into a first floor, essentially.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie, you were going to say something earlier.
[Unidentified]: Yep. So from the aesthetics and the design, I do agree with about it as a well-designed house. It is very nice. The format and the structure of the architecture is in line with some of the other houses in the area, but my concerns do align with Andre's with the size, the numbers that people spoke about, you know, the 19 feet closer to the left side, take into consideration that the depth of that extension is 34 feet, and at some places more than 40 feet. The extension of the house forward almost 10 feet, to me, does carry a detriment, as we've heard from the neighbors tonight.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks, Jamie. Mary, were you going to say something?
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, I'm just, I like the house, the design, like just want to echo what everyone else was saying, but I also hear what the public's comments. So I'm just wondering if there's any possibility of a compromise. So I know that we are in deliberation right now. Would it be appropriate to hear some thoughts from the owners after they heard what the public sentiment is? I mean, it's just a thought.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, yeah, so typically that would be up to the applicant's attorney, I suppose. And since Attorney Desmond has her hand raised, why don't we check in with her?
[Kathleen Desmond]: So hearing the comments and those of the board and where the particular concerns are with respect to the design, I'd ask if we, you know, we wouldn't be looking for any additional relief so I don't think that would be a situation where we would need to withdraw without prejudice because the relief is essentially the same. We'd be looking for a special permit and the height has been determined not to require a variance and I had requested that initially anyway so the publication included all of those elements. But given the board's comments and the neighborhood comments, we'd like to continue it for a month and see if we could adjust that design, particularly on the left-hand side, so that it maybe meets more with the boards in the neighborhoods liking. I believe that everybody Who who's at this means tonight probably has my email address. And, you know, we could arrange zoom to kind of discuss things. And see if there's some something that we could do, I will say, though, that, you know, this would be as a right project if we had 300. Additional feet and so, you know, while my clients are willing to look at. Adjusting some of the items that have have been raised. You know, some of it, I don't know that we're going to be able to correct and keep the. the two-car garage, which has its benefits to the back of the property. And the prior, looking at the city assessor's records, there was a carport outside and additional structure. So that's sort of eliminated by this project, but certainly my clients are willing to go back, take the comments that we received tonight, and try to come up with a design that's more to the liking of the neighborhood.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Attorney Desmond, please, let me know if you're aware of other examples of this that I should be aware of, but I'm not procedurally really in favor of holding an entire hearing, including public comment, then hearing a good portion of the board's deliberations and then offering to do that. Like to continue at that point, it just seems like I just procedurally, I'm not really sure like, okay, so if we continue it, then next time the plans will be different, you know, maybe they'll address all the comments, maybe they won't, we'll have to reopen public comment. So, yeah, I mean, I mean, we routinely
[Kathleen Desmond]: you know, at least in a CD board meeting, um, and also I have in the past, um, with a variant situation, um, continued the meeting, uh, to, to attempt to, to address concerns. I mean, the other alternative is to have to go through the whole process again, which would be to withdraw, uh, without prejudice, uh, requested a building permit refusal, uh, publish and, and, you know, pay the additional fees. That's not the bigger piece of this. It's just having to go through the entire process again, rather than address what appear to be the concerns of the board and the neighborhood. Assuming that you would allow us to withdraw without prejudice, but I think given the fact that we're attempting to meet some of the you know, the requirements and the concerns, I would think that that would be permitted.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I don't intend to block it. So if a member, I've expressed my concern procedurally with continuing. If a member of the board wants to make that motion, I'm willing to hear it.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to allow the proponent to withdraw without prejudice.
[Mike Caldera]: second all right and just to be clear so that wasn't what the proponent asked to do the proponent asked to continue i think they were in favor of not so we could still i mean we'll you could either we'll vote we could vote on that or we could amend it i mean i don't even know if we have a request i don't i guess it's not in order until we have a request to withdraw without prejudice so does anyone first let's say so i'm going to rule that out of order so now i've disposed of it um Do I have a motion to continue this matter to our next meeting?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes. Motion to continue.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead, Andrew.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to continue until January 11th. All right. Do I have a second?
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Second for Mary. We're going to take a roll call. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mike, no.
[Mike Caldera]: The matter is continued to the January 11th meeting.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. And if I could just indicate to those neighbors, you know, they have my email address, certainly, and I can be in contact with them if they want to set up a Zoom meeting to discuss. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. All right, Dennis, can you read the next matter, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, 417 Salem Street, case number A-2023-20. Applicant and owner, Andrea DeLoreo, is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City Method Zoning to extend and alter an existing nonconforming mixed-use building in a commercial one-zoning district, which requires a special permit from the Board of Appeals City Method Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 5.4.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, I'm muted.
[Mike Caldera]: And I saw Jamie's hand, which I think I know what this is about. So Jamie notified me prior to this matter that he's going to be recusing himself from this. So we will have four voting members of the board, myself, Yvette, Mary, and Andre. Is that what you were raising your hand about, Jamie? All right, do we have a representative for the applicant?
[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, good evening, board. My name is John Bavusel. I'm a friend of the owner of the restaurant, Andre Diorio, and they've asked me to speak on his behalf. We are requesting a finding from the Board of Appeals to do some alterations to a preexisting, nonconforming building. This structure was built approximately 1918. It houses four rental units, two commercial spaces on the first floor, and a restaurant. Andreas and his nephew bought the building and opened the restaurant approximately six months before COVID hit. They have survived. They've prospered. They're doing well. They're good people. They have a great clientele and they have an excellent menu. So we are hoping to return some of the monies they are now making into doing some basically minor repairs to the building, which they've undertaken on the outside doing repairs to the brickwork. We would like to now modernize and slightly increase the units on the second and third floor of the building. Very minor. If you look at the plans, it looks like we're doing a lot of work. Those representations on the crosshatches are the areas of the work, which would include new flooring, new drywall. actual construction is approximately 12 by 14 feet. It's enclosing what's now an open porch to create a slightly larger living space of a second floor of about 189 square feet. The third floor would get an additional 540 square feet. This would allow another bedroom, a continuation of a roof dormer, which would now give the third floor more habitable living space. A lot of the third floor is attic or gable storage areas, right? No living space. So it's actually not a lot of work. We're hoping to do this in phases. We have been looking at different contractors. We've hired a structural engineer to come in and look at it, an architect to do the plans. So we're hoping to get your blessing to go with the work, modernize the building, make it a better place for everybody. We do also have two letters of support from neighbors who are also friends and customers and are wholly in support of the project going forward.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So you did submit to the board some drawings. I'm wondering if we could just, maybe Dennis could screen share those just so that we show visually the area of the change. It sounds like it's somewhat small in size. And so I just want to make sure the board understands specifically the portion where you're going to be enclosing that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Of course.
[Mike Caldera]: The best view of it would be on page A4.
[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: A4, OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: Give me a minute, I'm just going through my files.
[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: We are having a little technical difficulties here also, as well as other people, so. Yeah, no worries.
[Mike Caldera]: It's not a requirement to share it yourself. I just want to make sure that, you know, that we, the board is all looking at what we should be.
[Denis MacDougall]: Of course. And this is, John, you're referring to the architectural plans to show?
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's correct. Yeah, A4 on the right. Yep.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, just give me one second. Take your time, Dennis. I could not share these. All right, so I'm just scrolling down. A4, you said?
[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: Yep, right there. There you go, perfect right there. So if you look at the compass rose, it says north of round black circle, below that and to the left, right? It's column line four, that small triangular area to the left of that. That is the, right now, an open porch. That will be the area that is going to be enclosed. So, that's it. I guess you can't see the floor. Yeah, on the second floor, you really can't see the dimensions of that size, but the dimension underneath it is actually 19 feet. The vertical going out is 13 foot four. There you go, or 1310 on the other side. So the diagonal dotted line is the outline of the building itself. So we're going to close that small area, yep, right there, right? That will increase the size of the second floor slightly, and above it on the third floor, we're gonna build out to above that same dimension.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions from members of the board?
[Mike Caldera]: So I don't personally have any questions. I think what you shared and what you're planning to do is relatively straightforward to me. My understanding from reading the permit refusal letter is that what triggered this was merely that you're making an alteration to a non-conforming mixed-use building. So essentially, a special permit is required simply for the appropriation. Is that correct?
[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: That's correct. It's pre-existing non-conforming. There's no increase to the footprint. There's no additional height. It's actually a very minor job. So we're trying to, Andreas and his nephew, Gabrielle, have put their heart and soul into this building. They're trying to make it better. I mean, they have done remarkable with it, given the circumstances which they took the building over, the cleanliness and the quality that they put into this. It's very good. That's why they're doing so well. I mean, they came in at the height of COVID, survived and are prospering. I can't say enough good things about these people. Okay, thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions from the board? Seeing none, Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Mary Lee]: Motion to open public hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're gonna take a roll call.
[Mike Caldera]: I Andre I Mary I like I the public portion of the hearing is now open if you're a member of the public. You can use the raise hand feature. On zoom you can raise your hand on camera you can chat. You know Dennis and he may do at Medford dash and a dot go. Give folks a moment. a whole lot of folks on the call right now, but just in case. All right, I'm not seeing any members of the public that wish to speak on this matter. We did receive the letters of support. So those are in the public record. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Mary Lee]: Motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: to close the public portion of the hearing. Do you have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take another roll call. Andre? Aye. Beth?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion is now closed and we're now deliberating. What do you think, folks?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't have any issues with this.
[Yvette Velez]: I also don't have issues and I didn't hear any public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: So I don't have issues either. The standard here is that we need to find no substantial detriment to the public good. This relief is required simply because it's a non-conforming building. seems like a very small and reasonable change that's going to improve the building. Given where it's located, I don't anticipate any real issues caused by a change of this magnitude for the neighborhood. So yeah, I think it meets the criteria. All right. So would anyone like to make a motion regarding the special permit.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to approve the special permit. I don't have the address in front of me. 417 Salem Street. Do I have a second?
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mike, aye. So that's four in favor, which is enough to meet our, we need four out of five. So, so the special permit is granted. You have your project. Congratulations and thanks for staying on with us.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Sorry you have to wait so long.
[Mike Caldera]: That's okay. I'm really good.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very much for your support. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. I think that takes us to the end of our cases. Dennis you read the next item please.
[Bill Forte]: Mister chair I'm going to take off respectfully and I don't see you all have a great holiday.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Merry Christmas bill. Thank you so much appreciate it very good you too. All right.
[Denis MacDougall]: The next item we have is administrative update and There's nothing really on my end. I mean, any administrative updates would have been related to the 40B stuff, which we discussed earlier. So no other things that come to mind right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Thank you. And then the next item is, I think.
[Denis MacDougall]: The next one is approval of meeting minutes. And I still always put in discussion of rules just in case we ever want to talk about them.
[Yvette Velez]: Right. I did notice on the website that we still have 7.30 as the start time, not 6.30. Oh, God.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, that's good to know. All right.
[Andre Leroux]: And also, I think the meeting agenda, I think the Google Doc link on that meeting agenda is wrong.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, I will look into all those.
[Yvette Velez]: It does seem like it's working. We have two folders.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's a new thing. I think maybe the link is right, but the new folders.
[Yvette Velez]: So I don't know if we can combine all the things.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. All right.
[Denis MacDougall]: I can work on that tomorrow.
[Mike Caldera]: Cool. Thanks, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: I just realized my camera's been off for this long. Sorry. I turned it off while I was eating my dinner and never turned it back on. So that was just a voice shouting from the wilderness. So apologies. But nobody wanted to see me shovel scrambled eggs in my mouth for 10 minutes. Okay. So, yeah. So, all right. So, let me just mark this down to website and... Great. The one thing which actually I discovered with the 40B is that I never used it before, but there was this thing called like Bitly where you can actually shorten URLs and create new URLs. So, that's what I did for the 40B when I sent the postcard out. So, I think I'm going to do that for ours as well because the stuff I put in the postcard and in the notices is gigantic. If I just can shorten it to, you know, But for zoning info or what not that exactly but a much much more formal and that will be a lot easier for folks to follow instead of typing in random letters and numbers.
[Andre Leroux]: That's great and this is very very minor but when you send us the calendar invites can you just include the zoom link in the calendar invite. So when we open up you just click on it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh sure I can do that.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks Dennis. So for the notes themselves. I didn't get a meeting minutes rather themselves. I didn't get a chance to review.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, no, I'm sorry. I thought that it's super late. So I will. We can we can do that at the next meeting. And by then I should I think I have one missing one in between that I'll get to you as well. But I think the last meeting, I don't think I give you the minutes either. So. I think I was one behind. So I'll get you those and we can do them all at the January meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: Sounds good. Yeah. I'd feel more comfortable just, I know maybe if someone... Yeah, I know.
[Denis MacDougall]: I know. And I totally get it. Yeah. I sent it to you guys like what at 4.30. So yeah, that's not, that's not nearly enough time to review.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, cool. So we'll, we'll review those or we'll vote to approve them on the January meeting.
[Alicia Hunt]: And just as an FYI, for this 40B, it's our intention. So Rachel was on to take minutes, and she's going to provide minutes. She's actually already given us some notes, but she's going to clean them up tomorrow. So we'll be doing those as we go along and getting them to you sooner so that we'll have the list of everything, like an official list and official minutes as we go. We should have done that last time, and somehow we didn't process.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure, yeah. I think that'll be great, especially for something as long running as the 40B, just to kind of have that all in one place.
[Yvette Velez]: So, great. Am I understanding you to say you're doing the minutes for the whole meeting she's doing? not just the 40B, or is this the 40B part?
[Alicia Hunt]: He's gonna do the minutes for the 40B portion. Okay. But what, which will actually, because you're doing the minutes for tonight's, of course you would have that. But we don't, I don't think we gave you individual meeting minutes as we went through the 40B process last time. And that's actually really helpful. So we're gonna be doing that through this one. And Rachel is actually tasked with that and tasked with capturing all the things you guys ask for the concerns of the residents. So like developing lists. And as the applicant says, I'll do that. She's tasked with capturing those as individual lists for us so that we'll have those available and then getting that up.
[Denis MacDougall]: And then once they're done, we can. put those up in the Google Drive just for the 40B information. So there'll be, I think the meeting minutes will probably be for this entire meeting, but then the 40B meeting minutes will be on a separate sort of file. So that's because for folks who want to just go to that website and look at them, they'll just get those.
[Mike Caldera]: That sounds great. Yeah. And even if we're doing this in Jan, that portion of each could be identical. So it could just be take the 40B minutes and include that in the meeting minutes for this meeting. I think procedurally, that's the correct thing to do. And then I think most of them will not be joint meetings. So having them separate. Yeah, exactly.
[Andre Leroux]: I don't think we resolved this when we were talking about the 40B project, but are we going to try to do a in-person site visit before January 11th?
[Mike Caldera]: That's something we will discuss I think that falls under scheduling. I don't think we need to decide that in public. Is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, that can be done sort of online and figure that out. Those usually, you know, get sort of done, you know, we can figure out a date and a time and then we usually just, you know, go.
[Alicia Hunt]: As long as there's no deliberation on the site.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, exactly. You can't actually speak about, you know, you can speak about specific things, what's going here, how tall, what's the, where's the, the dimensions of the building where the court are going to be things like that but like the actual. So the case in terms of things like you can't go into those things like. But.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah my intention is I have I have like roughly the board's availability over the duration of the hearing from the prior attempt at scheduling and then we get clarification on stash or early the and they I'm going to draft and propose a schedule for the whole hearing, which will run by the board and the applicant. That will include a candidate date for any site visit should we choose to do so. And then we'll just kind of go from there. So once it's aligned on, we'll include it in the folder so the public knows. But yeah, we'll just do that in one batch.
[Alicia Hunt]: And does it go without saying that if any of you care to walk over to that property on your own, you are welcome to do that. The benefit of a joint site visit would be to have the applicant there to point and clarify what's what where.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Understood. Yeah.
[Mary Lee]: Thanks. So Mike, I have a question. In the doodle poll you put in Sundays, are you anticipating Sunday meetings?
[Mike Caldera]: No, no, no. I didn't want to make people weigh in on a very large number of options. So I was just trying to identify weeks that worked well. And then I was, since I knew we only had to schedule a couple a night, um, I just figured we could in public figure out the exact day. So I just picked the weeks where five people said yes. But no, nothing, we will not be meeting on Sunday. We will be meeting- Okay, that was my- Preferably on Thursday, maybe on Tuesday. We could explore other days, but it will be a weekday for sure.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, now I understand. All right. So my issue is just Saturday and Sunday. Friday, yeah. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to adjourn.
[Mike Caldera]: All in favor?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, great.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, thank you, everybody. Have a good one. See you soon. Have a good night.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
|
total time: 1.27 minutes total words: 133 |
|||