AI-generated transcript of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals 07-13-23

[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome to this regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeal. We're just double checking. We're expecting one additional member who we haven't found yet. So if one of the folks on the call is Jim Turan, please signal so we know that you're there. Well, um, what we'll do then is I'm going to, um, take a quick roll call. And, um, as part of that, I'm going to call Jim's name and then, um, um, then, then we'll, we'll, we'll kick things off.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So, um, Andrea LaRue. Present. Jamie Thompson. Present. Jim Tirani. Okay, I'm not hearing anything.

[Mike Caldera]: So it doesn't seem that Jim is currently on the call.

[Andre Leroux]: I think there's at least one person in the waiting room.

[Mike Caldera]: I don't know if... Yeah, so I'm gonna continue with the roll call, but we're hopeful Jim will join shortly. Yvette Velez pre-communicated when we scheduled this. that she would not be able to make it. So board's on summer schedule and we wanted to make sure we had quorum. And so this was a day where we had four confirmed, which gives us quorum. Mike Caldera present. So we currently have three members of the board present, which is not a quorum. And so What we're gonna do is we're still gonna have Dennis kick us off. So Dennis, if you could please kind of read the remote meeting piece, then we can get started and I can explain what we can and can't do as a board while we wait for an additional member to join.

[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Haley signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language is not making any substantive changes to the Open Meeting Law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you, Dennis.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, folks. So as a board, to hear a case and grant any form of relief, as a five-member board, we need four members of the board present. The board does not presently have an associate member. And so we have five members in total. Two are currently absent. Three are present. So we do not have a quorum. There are some limited actions the board can take with a simple majority. And so we've already reached out to the board member we were expecting and we're hopeful they will join soon. We're going to proceed through that limited set of actions that we can take with a simple majority to at least take care of those cases and then we may vote to take a brief recess while we continue to delay. We apologize for the delay. All right, and so to that end, so there are a few items on the agenda that had requested continuances and so The plan is to take those out of order continuances, and there was one withdrawal. So I'm just going to pull up the agenda one moment.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, here we go.

[Mike Caldera]: So the first case that we'll take out of order is 590 Boston Avenue. Dennis, could you please read the matter?

[Denis MacDougall]: 590 Boston Avenue, case number A-2020-07 amended. Continued from May 25th. Applicant and owner, Anteleto Brothers Incorporated, are requesting a modification for the relief granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, recorded with the City Clerk on July 30th, 2021, with an extension granted by the Zoning Board on January 5th, 2023. Modifications will result in a lot area of the project now seeking an additional 3,000 square feet of relief. Additional modifications will either decrease that compliance or have no effect on the relief granted under the decision.

[Mike Caldera]: And we do have their attorney here. Yes, I see we have attorney Adam Bernowski. Attorney Bernowski, would you like to say anything?

[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Adam Barnosky with the law firm of Roberto Israel and Weiner at 255 State Street in Boston. As Dennis mentioned, these are really two related matters. In March, we filed an amendment of the underlying project, which we configured certain elements of it to make it more consistent in some aspects of the new zoning ordinance. After filing that in March, the Community Development Board, as a result of some modifications, had requested that we go before it as well. That hearing is currently pending, and we anticipate being heard at some point later this summer. So once that matter is heard, we'll be able to come back to this board on the amendment. uh consequence consequently as it relates to the underlying action the original approvals were seeking an amendment i'm sorry we're seeking an extension on in order to go before community development and then come back before this board so that that is that is the reason for the request

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Bernowski. And so just so I'm clear, so this matter needs to go back before the development board that hasn't occurred yet. You're already on the ZBA agenda and had previously asked for continuance and waived the statutory timeline. And so if I understand it correctly, you're requesting another continuance, and I'll clarify the to when portion. And then in addition, because of the timelines pertaining to the original relief granted, you're also requesting a six month extension for the prior relief, is that correct?

[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.

[Mike Caldera]: And still based on the current plans to visit the Community Development Board, until when would you need us to continue this matter? Would it be within the month or do we need to continue it longer than that?

[Adam Barnosky]: I would think we would need to continue it longer. I would maybe request 90 days. I think that we would be able to be back before you within 90, I would hope.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so that would be, so basically the October regular meeting then?

[Adam Barnosky]: Yes.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, so the chair awaits a motion, or actually, sorry, would any members of the board like to ask any clarifying questions or discuss before we make a motion? No, okay. Well, so then the chair awaits a motion to continue 590 Boston Avenue to the October regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and to approve the requested six-month extension to the prior, double-checking if there's a variance or a special permit, to the prior relief.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Do I have a motion? A move. Seconded. All right. Andre? Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So the continuance is granted and the extension is granted. Thank you, Attorney Barnes. Thank you all. All right, just to update the group, I think this was, this was just sent to me. So we do anticipate that We will have a fourth board member on within about the next 10 minutes. So that's good news. We should be able to hear all matters, but we're gonna continue with the items we can work through right now. So the next matter we're gonna take out of order is 396 Main Street.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Dennis, can you please read that one?

[Denis MacDougall]: 396 Main Street, case number A-2023-04, continued from May 25th. Applicant and owner, Peter Osborne, is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 104 City Methods, I mean, to install and operate a bakery at 396 Main Street, which is an existing non-conforming mixed-use residential commercial building located in general residence zones. It even places that a drive-thru is not allowed to use in accordance with Table G1. The purpose of this public hearing is to give the board an opportunity to further consider the application in light of procedural defects in the application of the vote of the board when it previously considered this application to March 30th, 2023 meeting.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. And so, Dennis, my understanding is for this matter that the applicant has requested to withdraw the petition. Is that accurate? That is correct, yes. OK. Do we have anyone for the applicant on the call tonight?

[Denis MacDougall]: I don't believe they were. They're here now.

[Mike Caldera]: OK. Well, so in that case, the matter is withdrawn. We never actually heard testimony on this one, so it got put back on the agenda after an earlier procedural hiccup. So no action is required by the board. This one is withdrawn. All right, next one we'll take out of order is 0 Spring Street. Dennis, can you please read that one?

[Denis MacDougall]: Zero Spring Street, case number A-2022-09. Applicant and owner, Kenneth Velasca, is requesting a six-month extension on a decision granted by the Board of Appeals on June 30th, 2022, with the decision filed on August 31st, 2022. The appeal dated September 20th, 2022, until December 30th, 2023, for the erection of the structure at Lot B1, Spring Street.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening, Chairman Valdez. Please go ahead, Attorney Desmond. Sure. We're asking for an extension for the exercise of the variance. This is a fabricated house and there's some coordination that has to go on with the contract with regard to foundations and there has been some delay in that. So they haven't yet been able to pull the building permit. So the applicant is requesting to extend the period of time for a period of six months.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you for the update.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we have any questions from the board for Attorney Desmond? All right.

[Mike Caldera]: So I see we have Commissioner 40 raising his hand.

[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, thank you. You can hear me, right? Yes. So a lot of times with modular construction, they have to go through a state process in which it has to be approved before it actually comes over state lines. A lot of times, too, there may be some design criteria. that isn't required in other states. So I would definitely agree with Ms. Desmond's extension that it's fair and it's forthright.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner Fordy. Chair awaits a motion to approve. This was a six-month extension, Attorney Desmond, is that right? Right. Chair awaits a motion to approve the requested six-month extension for 0 Spring Street.

[Andre Leroux]: Motion to approve the six month extension for Zero Springs Street. Do I have a second?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Second. Okay. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: I just want to double check. Do we have Jim yet? So, okay. So motion passes. All right, and so at this point, I believe we have gone through all of the known items requesting continuance, extension or withdrawal. And so the next item we will hear is 436 Riverside Avenue as soon as we have quorum. So we do not currently have quorum. And so,

[Andre Leroux]: Point of inquiry, Mr. Chair, can we approve the minutes?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, so why don't we take the minutes out of order? So the board received minutes from our last regular meeting.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me just double check the date. Looks like it's May 25th. May 25th.

[Mike Caldera]: All right.

[Denis MacDougall]: And I just added Jim.

[Mike Caldera]: Great. So Andre, Jamie, have you had a chance to review these?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. And did you find them to be in order? Yes. OK. Yeah, they look good to me too.

[Mike Caldera]: Can I get a motion to approve? The meeting minutes for May 25th, 2020, I believe it's 2023.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved. Do I have a second? Seconded. All right, Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, the meeting minutes are approved. Um, I don't really think we should take administrative updates out of order. So at this point, let's see if we haven't Jim yet. Do we have Jim Torani on? Oh, great. Wonderful. Thanks, Jim. All right. Um, so noting a quorum, um, let's proceed to the, the next case. And so that now we're going to go back to the regular order of business. And so, um, The next order of business is for the Riverside Ave petition that was continued from an earlier hearing.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we have the applicant or a representative for the applicant?

[Mike Caldera]: I saw someone by the name of Linda Foote speak, but I wasn't clear if they were trying to indicate that they were speaking on behalf of the applicant or if they were just accidentally unmuted.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: This is Cindy Williams Lundy. I'm here for this case. Sorry. Sorry. I thought you would unmute me. I didn't know I had to unmute myself. I'm sorry.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh, no worries at all. Welcome. Thank you. Yeah, so just to briefly update the public, so this matter came before the board several months ago, and there was a question.

[Andre Leroux]: Mike, I think Dennis needed to read the notice. I'm sorry. Please go ahead, Dennis. My mistake.

[Denis MacDougall]: 436 Riverside Avenue, case number A-2022-19, continued from May 25th. Applicant and owner Amarok LLC is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City Method zoning constructs 10 foot high fence in industrial zoning district, which is in violation of City Method zoning ordinance 6.3.3, which stipulates a fence with posts over seven feet tall needs zoning approval.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. So what I was starting to say is, so this came before the board originally several months back and did get early into presenting testimony. And so early in that process, there was, okay, hold on, I'm gonna mute this person. So early in that process, it was brought up the need for an approved security plan by the chief of police for this project. And so I think we've been continued waiting for an update on that. I did receive a letter from the chief of police earlier today, which I can read for public awareness, but I do want to check in with Cindy Williams. Is there anything you wanted to lead off by sharing?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Now I would just like to say that this is case has been continued because of a process change that you guys made with your codes. And a process change that which involves the approval of the I believe the chief of police and I think we've been waiting for many months for this decision to come down and what i've read in that letter now. is that the chief of police says he does not feel like he's the person to make that decision. So, if that's the case I feel like we are. penalizing Penske, who is the person that needs the security system or this fence, because you don't have a process that you yourself have said must be in place. So I wish we could, if there is a way we could go ahead and hear the case on its merits and make a decision on that, I would really like for a process to be figured out so that we can move forward with this and get this system in place. And I'm happy to talk, answer any questions or, or talk about the system or whatever else you want. I just, yeah. Yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Thank you for that. So, um, so yeah, I, I, I'm interpreting in your update, um, by you, you mean the Royal U as a U is in the city of Medford. So yeah, just to, to show you my, exactly.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: That's right. Not to you personally, of course.

[Mike Caldera]: Um, just clarifying. Right. Um, On the call. So here's my understanding, and I'm going to share some specifics from the letter, which is on file with the clerk. So just give me a moment. OK, so essentially Medford City Council passed changes to the zoning ordinance back in March 2022. This was a many month, if not over a year effort, substantial overhaul of the zoning ordinance. And so this particular matter came before the board after that. And so one of the changes in the new zoning ordinance is that section 6.4.9 uh, requires under the performance standards for, for this sort of project, uh, certification by the chief of police, um, that the petitioner has provided a written plan for site security. And that plan has been approved by the police chief. Um, and so that was the original reason for continuing the hearing that, um, requirement in the ordinance. And, um, and so in the update letter, uh, dated. Uh, today that, um, that the board received, uh, the chief of police, uh, informed us that, um, uh, essentially to paraphrase, um, he has reservations, um, with, uh, providing such certification, um, uh, and. Further asks, uh, it clarifies that it's due to, um, the, the authority capability and expertise of the department and further suggested that, he says if, but I'll say since this is a new zoning requirement, that council review this section of the ordinance. Now, I'm planning to have council do that. amount of time it would take to actually change the ordinance, assuming council agrees with the chief's assessment, is quite large. So we're talking on the order of many months, even for a small change like that, if the council agrees with that interpretation at all, and only if the city council agrees to make the change. And so I don't really want to, because I don't think it's relevant. I don't really want to speculate further or weigh in with my take on the chief of police letter, but essentially where we stand today, as I understand it, the chief of police is not presently planning for the reasons stated in this letter to certify and approve a security plan for this project. Miss Williams, it's a little unclear to me, is there a security plan so do we have an unapproved security plan or does no such security plan exists.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: There is not, I mean we submitted the application and I think we were heard in January. At which point in time we were placed on an agenda in January, at which point in time at the meeting we were told that you had just updated your code. And because we were considered considered a security system, even though our parents is just for fence height. Our parents is for fence height. but because that fence is part of a security system that you had just changed that code and that code now required you to go to the chief of police for a security plan. So we were told to come back to you and ask for the process so that we could get all of that done. Well now seven months later we still haven't been told what else to do, except for the fact that I don't think you need to resubmit anything. I think what you have is fine. I don't think we have a problem with the system, the fence. I think we just have a problem with figuring out the process. So Penske, which is your local business, is being penalized because you implemented a new code. and you don't have a process in place to handle that code. So I'm feeling kind of at wit's end here as to know what to do. It's been, you know, quite a few months, six or seven months since we were told this and we're not getting any movement on this. Now, I will say that Dennis has been especially helpful in helping us work through this, and I do not blame him. It's just that there's no process in place. He's been great to help us, to lead us. We just don't know what to do. We're trying to follow your plans and not getting any movement.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you. So I certainly understand the frustration. Just a couple of clarifications. It's been a large number of months. I don't think it's been seven. I think he came before us maybe if I had to go off recollection back in March, but point.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, well, whatever. I'm sorry, I thought it was January.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just for the record, I'm clarifying a few things. That's fine. The board hasn't provided any such guidance, so I'm assuming this is something you've been told informally in discussions with others. That's right. So yeah, so essentially, here's the dilemma as I see it. It is not within the board's statutory authority to provide approvals on behalf of the police chief. And furthermore, while it is within the board statutory authority to grant variances from aspects of the zoning ordinance that the applicant meets a certain set of conditions. One of the criteria requires that not only that the applicant demonstrate a hardship, but also that this hardship be related to circumstances pertaining to the shape, topography, soil conditions of the lot and structures. So clearly this the zoning ordinance, which was in place prior to this matter, which was fully in the city council's authority and doesn't in and of itself present a hardship. Everyone has the same requirements. So, but the, even if we were to, um, understand that in this circumstance, this particular aspect of the ordinance presents a hardship. I don't see any path to meet all of the statutory criteria to grant a variance, um, from that aspect of the ordinance. So as I see it, um, the board doesn't have the authority. If you even had a security plan, which you don't, which that's entirely in your control. I understand why you wouldn't develop one, you know, with a Robert Parkhurst, Applicant OLIV, he or hes.: : Lack of clarity on process, but you could develop a security plan, but even if you did the board doesn't have the ability to say, well, we approve instead of the chief. Robert Parkhurst, Applicant OLIV, he or hes.: : And I don't I don't see any path for us to grant that relief by bearing it so so, as I see it. you're essentially, and I know this is, you just want to get to a reasonable solution here, but essentially the request, the implication of all this is that the requested relief, we could only grant in part. And so there's no way under Medford's current zoning ordinance in the absence of the police chief's approval that this project can move forward. And so, I don't think it would be fruitful for us to even weigh in on the subject of the height variance in light of that.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: So what is our path? What path should we be taking? Because we were told this back at, you know, months ago that where we were was not the correct path, but we've been given no, what is our path for moving forward with this? Do we approach city council? Do we go to planning commission? I just, you know, if we have taken the wrong path, what is the path to take?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so as I see it, there are only two legal paths within everyone statutory authority path one would be the police. Okay, I'm going to mute that person. Again, we're gonna have to kick them off the call if this keeps happening. So the And I think that would be helpful. I think path one would be to continue discussions with the police chief and see if he will reconsider his position on the matter. Path two is someone and I have stated I will reach out to Medford's legal counsel to raise this issue and raise the police directly or indirectly through the city council to change the actual zoning ordinance for this to be allowed by right. So those are the only two avenues available in this case where the sole legal approver under the current ordinance is not comfortable or willing to provide the approval that that seems to be the only other remedy.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, well, I never got any kind of call, email from the chief of police to find out information on this. So how do we get to the chief of police to set up a meeting to get him more comfortable in understanding what the system is? Or is he saying he's not comfortable in approving any kind of security plan? I mean, I just need to know what to do.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I only have the letter. I see we have Danielle Evans from the planning department with her hand raised. Please go ahead.

[Danielle Evans]: Thanks, Daniel Evans, senior planner in the planning department through the chair. Have there been any discussions with the chief about perhaps hiring an outside consultant through 53G to evaluate a security plan? My understanding is that when this was put into the new zoning ordinance, it wasn't run by him and that's not his area of expertise. So he, you know, rightfully doesn't feel qualified to evaluate a plan. So if maybe there was a consultant that could evaluate it, like a third party, that could be an avenue. But again, this should be a discussion with the chief that that could possibly be a way. And I know that this is on our radar as something to change the ordinance. I'm not sure if it's on this. There's some kind of short-term fixes that will be going to the Community Development Board next month. I don't know if this one made it on it, but I have a long running list of things to change and fix in the ordinance. This is on the list as a priority.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Ms. Evans. Ms. Williams?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes.

[Mike Caldera]: I'll call on you in a moment. Thank you, Ms. Evans. Yeah, so my understanding is that the list of quick fixes that went before city council that'll go before the CDB didn't include changes to the security section or fencing. But I do, I am aware from offline discussions, it's something that was being talked about. So perhaps that would be in a future iteration. I do just want to reiterate, it's entirely within the applicant's purview to develop a security plan. As I understand it, one doesn't exist yet. It's also within the applicant's purview to hire a consultant and to talk to the police commissioner whose information is publicly available. that. We can get his e-mail address if you need it. I think Ms. Evans brings up a good point. You can certainly if the police chief does not feel like he has the expertise you can check with him whether he would consider an actual reviewed by an expert in security plans, an expert consultant. I see Andre has his hand raised, so I'll just check in with him and then we'll go back to you. Okay.

[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I mean, I certainly understand your frustration, Ms. Williams. We only heard today. We expected that there would be a certain process would happen and we only received the news today that that is not possible and that there's a kind of a difference in interpretation with the actual zoning. uh, ordinance itself. And so I, I do agree that I think we need to have, uh, the city's council look at this and make a recommendation for what a process, a viable process could be. And I see the building commissioner raised his hand. I was going to also ask him for, for his thoughts on this. Yeah. Commissioner Fruity. Did you want to add something?

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um, so, um, It's been a while since I've looked at this project. And, um, one of the questions that I had was, um, if we could possibly bring up the plan so that I can, um, provide the petitioner with, uh, some more solid guidance, especially when it comes to, um, what, what I'm concerned about is if this is a fully enclosed, um, area. and requires a security system, because I don't really recall the project that well. Would it impede the means of egress out of the building? Because there are requirements under the state building code for means of egress pathways going out to the public way. And so if there's an element of being blocked off from the egress path of travel, then that would be something that I'd like to look at. If we could just maybe bring up the plan real quick. I didn't have access to it on Google docs for some reason.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So, um, Mr. 40, I'm, I think, well, while I certainly, uh, understand the importance of that determination, I don't think it's going to come into play here. So I don't want to really open the can of worms of here when, when currently they're the only paths to, um, to actually getting the relief here are to actually develop a security plan, to run it by the chief of police, possibly with an expert consultant, or to get the ordinance changed, which the board's not in a position to make any insurances about, or to withdraw, or to request a continuance while you try to have those discussions, or have the board vote. And like I said, I'm not inclined for the board to be granting relief for projects that legally can't be constructed.

[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Andre Leroux]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman, PB --"The one thing, Mr. Chair, I would just add as a point of information is I do think that the ordinance, having just looked at it, that language again, it is very vague. It just says a written security plan. It's not clear what that means. So maybe the building commissioner could at least be helpful to the applicant in terms of figuring out what is an acceptable security plan. Is it just the fence plans itself, or is it more than that? Commissioner, do you want to weigh in on that aspect?

[Bill Forte]: I would be more than happy to read the language and I can actually reach out to KP Law on the language. to determine exactly what it means, and if the police chief, and I do, just so you know, I do kind of reiterate the sentiments of the police chief, that he's really not a security expert. He's a criminal justice officer of the city. So that does not require someone to be a security expert. above public security and public arena. So I will be more than happy to dig into this tomorrow morning and see if I can get some kind of sensible read on this. And I will report back to the chair through Dennis McDougal as soon as I have an answer.

[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Thank you, Commissioner Forty. So Ms. Williams, what would you like to do? I would like to ask a couple of questions.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Well, yeah, I'm gonna I'm sorry.

[Mike Caldera]: Um, so would you like to continue this matter? Would you like to withdraw? Or would you like the board to vote? Those are the three options within our statutory authority right now. Please go ahead.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, I had to mute you. So you have to unmute yourself. Okay, miss foot if you unmute yourself again, I'm going to have to kick you out of the call. You're still on mute.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Let me see if I got it. I got it. It just popped up. Okay, I have a couple questions. Am I understanding that the chief of police is not comfortable proving any security plan, not necessarily just our this for this system.

[Mike Caldera]: I'm reluctant to speculate. He wrote a letter And it did my a simple read of the letter does indicate to me that perhaps that's the correct interpretation.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay. Okay, that's fine. Because that that tends to make me feel that he's not disapproving our system. He just doesn't feel comfortable approving a security system.

[Mike Caldera]: So I guess what I'm going to do is confirm that he does not reference anywhere in the letter any discomfort pertaining to this specific system?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: That's important for me to know. Thank you. So I guess what I need to know now is which the board member or council person, I'm not sure who that was that just talked, what is the security plan? Because we've not been told that we needed to submit that. We've been told everything we've submitted up to this point was fine. So we're happy to submit a plan if you tell me what that involves. Is there a specific form or And, and do I just need to get a phone call a zoom meeting with the chief of police, I'm happy to do that. But I'm not sure he's going to be able to approve that as a security plan and if he's not, where do we go. If your counts, if you have, I don't know what to do because it seems to me like the city of Medford has implemented code that they're not able to enforce or they're not able to stand behind. And that's very frustrating and very, I don't know what to do. And meanwhile, Penske is still getting broken into and having catalytic converters stolen and damaged to vehicles and they're not able to do anything with this. So I just need some direction.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I certainly understand the frustration, like Commissioner Forty said. So this is building Commissioner Forty. Okay. He will review the relevant language and can kick off, help kick off the discussions and clarify for you what this would entail according to the ordinance. I do think your takeaway that getting time and discussing an actual security plan, possibly certified by an expert consultant with the chief of police would be a potentially fruitful avenue for you, but I'm not the chief of police. So this is on his back. Commissioner Forty, did you wanna add anything? Not at this time, Mr. Chair. All right, so, Miss Williams, it sounds like you're leaning towards asking for a continuance, is that correct?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, absolutely, yes. And can I get that commissioner's name again? I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're saying.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so it's Commissioner Bill Forty.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: F-O-R-D-Y?

[Mike Caldera]: I will type it in the chat. Oh, okay. which looks a little bit like 4k.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I got you. Perfect. Okay. And then I can still should still go through Dennis I'm guessing to kind of move things along here with me or should I. Yeah, is that a good contact.

[Mike Caldera]: Dennis is a good contact. He is with the, with the department. Yeah, so. All right, in that case, Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Not the next one, the next one's just in a couple of weeks. Give me a little bit more time for that.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, maybe, what do you think is, would give you enough time to have those conversations?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Well, I mean, the next regular meeting's just in a couple of weeks, right? So maybe the end of August, and if we need to, or whenever, when is the August meeting?

[Mike Caldera]: We haven't scheduled it. Uh, we, some board members indicated that conflict at a regular time. It will likely occur in early September. Okay.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: That should be good at Tom.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. So, uh, chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the yet to be scheduled August, regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals. Do I have a second second. All right, we're gonna take a roll call, Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike, aye. All right, the matter's continued. Thank you, Ms. Williams.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very much. We'll talk soon, bye-bye.

[Mike Caldera]: I wish you a good discussion with the police chief.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, Dennis, what is the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: 1618 Alexander Street, case number A-2023-10. Applicant and owner Jitinder Singh is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to create parking spots in the front yard of an existing two-family dwelling in a general resident zoning district not allowed. City of Medford zoning ordinance Chapter 94, section 6.1.4.3.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And I do see we have Jitinder Singh on the call. Hello, Mr. Singh, would you like to share some details about the request you're making? Yes.

[SPEAKER_17]: Hi, I'm his wife, Manjinder. Hello. Is it okay if I speak on his behalf or with him?

[Unidentified]: Yeah, go ahead.

[SPEAKER_17]: Okay, so we're seeking to create an additional parking space in the front yard of the property. Currently, the property has two parking spaces, which are accessed by the current curb cut. And we just want to accommodate one new parking space and request that the curb cut be expanded.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. And so you did submit all of the required documentation for this project. So I'm just going to walk through the different pieces. So essentially, as I understand it, The reason why the permit request was refused is that this additional parking spot would be in the front yard setback, which is not allowed in a GR zone. So you're seeking a variance from that aspect of the zoning. Is that correct?

[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, that's correct.

[Mike Caldera]: And so to grant a variance, the board does have to make a few different determinations. And I think it would be helpful if you could walk through with us a few of these elements. So I think we're going to want to go into a little bit more detail about the request, just to make sure the board has an understanding of this. So first of all, the board needs to determine that The requested relief is because a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance creates a hardship. So there's some hardship, it's a legal term, but just broadly it's causing some difficulty for you. And furthermore, we need to associate that with circumstances pertaining to the shape, topography, soil conditions of the lot or structure. So we have to find, so essentially we have to find something unusual about the lot that isn't just common across your zoning district or something unusual about the structure, which would include its location on the lot. And we need to find that the hardship is caused by one of those things. So at the end of this portion, the board is going to want an understanding of what is it about the lot or the structure, including its position, that is causing the hardship, requirementally. And then the last piece is that we need to establish that the requested relief can be granted without substantially derogating from the intent of the zoning. So essentially, in doing so, we're not you know, wildly going against what the zoning was trying to accomplish and without substantial detriment to the public good. So that's what, as a board, we're gonna be evaluating. And so he did submit all this in written materials, but I think it might be helpful for us to just walk through it together, at least briefly, publicly, just so that the board and the public has a general understanding of what you're proposing and why you need this relief. So I'll check in with you if you have any questions. And then if not, then maybe we can have Dennis screen share some of the things you included in your application. We can walk through them together. Does that sound good?

[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.

[Mike Caldera]: OK, wonderful. Well, if there's nothing else at this point, so Dennis, I think probably makes the most sense to lead off with either the site plan or the photo. that was included with this application. All right. So Ms. Sink, can you walk us through a little bit what you're trying to do here and what we're looking at?

[SPEAKER_17]: OK. So in the front area, it's a two-family unit. So right now, there's only two spaces available. And, you know, since it's two units, we want to at least have, make one more parking space in the front of the house so that two people, you know, people from the different units can park side by side at least, so that there's no issue for the, you know, one of the tenants to get out. And, you know, if we were able to extend the curb cut or first of all, get the, you know, the variance for the actual space in the front yard, and then get the curb cut, it would make it easier for both tenants to be able to park. Right now, there is one space on the street right in front of the house. And I don't think we wouldn't be taking away that space if we did create that space in the front of our yard.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so just one thing I wanted to double check. So if I understood you correctly, even with the proposed widening of the curb cut, if I understood you, this would enable the creation of the additional parking space in the front yard set back on your property, and there would still be sufficient space between the new curb cut and the curb cut on the other side that a car could be parked along the street there, is that accurate?

[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, that's correct.

[Mike Caldera]: Um, all right. And so then, uh, if I understood you correctly, um, part of the hardship here is that the, this is a two family house with only two parking spaces that are tandem. Um, and I believe, uh, by ordinance, there should be four parking spaces. Um, so it's already got less, uh, less parking spaces than required by the ordinance. Um, and so the hardship is essentially it's a two family with only tandem parking, which makes getting out challenging.

[SPEAKER_17]: Um, yes.

[Mike Caldera]: And if we were to literally enforce the zoning ordinance, you wouldn't have the ability. There's no legal space on your property to add a parking space. Uh, it looks like so.

[SPEAKER_17]: No. No, on the other side of the property, there's very little. I mean, there's no way to put any other, you know, there's no other curb cut. So no, there would not be any other space. And it's only five feet on the other side of the house.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And so the, if I understand it, then so the, the area there currently, which I think from the pictures you submitted looks to be perhaps like a garden or something of that nature. This would be replaced with permeable pavers and then that would be widened and then it would create this additional space.

[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And so I do notice that given the size of your lot, which is typical for the zoning district, and the position of the building, if one were to try to add a parking space, I don't see an alternate location that wouldn't be in the front yard setback. So that is another element the board should consider in terms of hearing this. Dennis, can you maybe, actually I'll check in with the board Does the board have any questions for the applicants about what they've shared so far or what we're seeing on the site plan? All right, I'm not seeing any. So maybe we could also just quickly see the photo that the applicant submitted, Dennis. All right, got it. So essentially this green, I'll call it grass, would be replaced with permeable pavers, and then the curb cut would be a space towards the left-hand side of what's currently the grass. Is that right?

[SPEAKER_17]: That's correct. Yeah, right now to the left of the grass is the driveway, and we would want to take some space from that grassy area and create the additional parking space, yes.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so just from a process standpoint, so if there's other information you'd like to share with us, this is a good time to do so. The board then for any such petition opens a public hearing at which point members of the public have the opportunity to weigh in on the project. and the requested relief, the petition. At the conclusion of the public portion of the hearing, the board would vote to close the public portion and then would deliberate. So if there's information that you feel the board should have that we don't have yet, either in what you've said out loud or in the application, now is a good time to let us know. Otherwise, that's the process that the board will follow through the course of this hearing.

[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, so main thing we just want to say is that. creating this additional parking space, we feel it's going to cut down on the congestion. Like if right now when the two units are trying to pull out of the driveway, you know, one person has to park in front, the other's in the back, that kind of causes like a backup. It's, this is a, you know, it can be a kind of a busy road. So when people are trying to back out, letting the other person out, it creates a little backup. So we're trying to hopefully alleviate that as well so that, you know, people are not, waiting for the other, because then one of the, you know, drivers would wait in the street, let the other person pull out, and then go ahead, you know, and move on. But hopefully with, if this is granted, we hope to cut down on that.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. What other questions do we have from the board?

[Andre Leroux]: not. Out of curiosity, because I was looking at Google Maps, which looks a little different than the photo here. I'm wondering which one is the most recent photo? Because in the Google Maps, it looks like there's tree in the yard. Is that right?

[SPEAKER_17]: No, there's no tree there. There is a telephone pole on the left hand side of our curb cut. That's all but there's no tree. This is a current picture or, you know, what it is right now. Yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. It says this is from May, 2023, Andre. I don't know if that's when the picture was taken, but it looks like it's from Google Street View already.

[SPEAKER_17]: All right. Yeah. Just bushes in the front of the house, but no tree, just a telephone pole at the left of the driveway.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre, you're on mute. I'll go to Andre first and then Danielle. Is there anything else, Andre?

[Andre Leroux]: No, that was, I think I was just looking at the wrong address. Got it. Danielle, please go ahead.

[Danielle Evans]: Thank you. Again, Danielle Evans, senior planner. Apologies, I had not seen this application before this evening. So I have a question. How are the cars accessing that space? Are they passing over the sidewalk to get into those spaces?

[SPEAKER_17]: Currently, currently this is, it's a driveway.

[Danielle Evans]: There's two spaces that are being proposed?

[Mike Caldera]: It's one, yes, so it's one space being proposed. And so I don't remember the exact amount of additional curb cut, but essentially, as I understand it, the curb cut would be increased from what we see here. Whatever that, I'll call it retaining wall or curb, would presumably be removed. And so there'd be some driveway for a car to perhaps angle in to that, to a new spot on the left-hand side of the green space there.

[Danielle Evans]: Would this meet, because we have maximum curb cut with, I don't know.

[Mike Caldera]: Great question. Commissioner Forty, do you happen to know if the requested relief here exceeds the maximum curb cut? You're on mute.

[Bill Forte]: My apology, thank you. So my understanding of the ordinance is that although driveway widths are basically expressed in the zoning ordinance, the ultimate final curb cut decision actually belongs to the police chief and the city engineer. So when someone applies for a driveway permit, or let's say this is a brand new house, it would have to be approved by the city engineer. One of the things that my, predecessor did was he would determine where the curb cut was and what size it is. However, I determined that my jurisdiction as the building official, as the building commissioner only allows me to make the decision on private property. So when we're talking about anything on a public way, that's really not decided by the zoning ordinance. I don't believe because when they talk about driveway widths, they don't talk about curb cut, they talk about driveway width. So, assumably, if you have a 15-foot driveway, you'd have a 15-foot opening. However, that maximum, that curb cut is the determination of the engineering department. And I don't know if Miss Evans agrees with me on that, but I'm pretty sure that's how I've interpreted it, so. Thank you. Yeah, I was sorry.

[Danielle Evans]: But yeah, through the chair at one point when I was looking through this, I did a search. I did a word search and couldn't find curb cut anywhere in ordinance. We don't define it. It's nowhere to be found. Um, so it's so the width of an entrance. Could that be interpreted as the curb cut? Um And the maximum width in a residential district is 20 feet. So is this wider than 20 feet?

[Mike Caldera]: I don't believe so. You can pull up the plans again.

[Unidentified]: On the plans, it's documented as 15 feet.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Ms. Evans, I guess I'm sort of certain, but I'm almost positive that this fits within the parameters of the zoning work. Um. Not partake.

[Danielle Evans]: I've seen much larger curve cuts than what's Yeah, and we really want to avoid that because from a pedestrian standpoint, it creates. Wide, you know, gaps in the sidewalk where you are now you're having to navigate cars.

[Mike Caldera]: It just creates under Yeah, so it looks like a 1.5 current curb cut if the curb cuts currently the width of the driveway.

[Danielle Evans]: Why is why is that second section going to be pavers and not? Cool the surface.

[Mike Caldera]: I share your curiosity about that so I'll ask the applicant. I don't want to. There's some questions that you know I'd like to understand kind of

[Danielle Evans]: what answer you're trying to get to because, like, I don't want to... Yeah, it's just... We can talk offline about this, about the lack of planning review of cases that go before the zoning board. We're evaluating things in silos and it's broken.

[Mike Caldera]: Agreed. Let's take that offline. We're not gonna, you know, let that factor into this case here, but I think it's a fair point. So, I do want to just check in with the applicant if they could provide an explanation as to why the request is to replace the entire grassy area with the permeable pavers and then we can go ahead.

[SPEAKER_17]: So we just want to, or we were told that if we do get this, you know, if it is approved, we would need this type of material, the permeable pavers. So if it's not allowed in the whole grassy area, then we don't, we won't do that. We would just do what is allowed, you know.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so in general, to that point, my understanding, which we can run by the building commissioner, is that replacing grass with permeable pavers is allowed. In general, I wouldn't say it's advisable if you don't need them for the full period, but that's just my, that's not my determination as chair, I'm just making a generalization here. It is within the board's authority to, if we were to grant relief, to do it conditionally, to sort of impose some conditions on, well, let's say you were proposing asphalt. No, it has to be permeable pavers, or the permeable pavers shouldn't extend beyond this point or something like that. I just want to check in with Commissioner Forte in case he wanted to clarify something, and then we'll go to Jamie.

[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, so getting to two things. I'll answer a question about the permeable pavers. So I'm actually on the stormwater committee with the city engineer and the engineering department has a requirement that any impervious surface increase of over 200 square feet requires onsite drainage. Here, it can be avoided by having permeable pavers, which would allow water to drain through and infiltrate into the ground without any additional pollution or phosphorus, which is what the city has been ordered by consent for the two eliminate. So, um, there is a functional purpose for that aerial and it also safe fence for the homeowner. Um, rather than put in an expensive subsurface drainage system. That would be the second thing. Secondly, it's aesthetically pleasing. A lot of times when you have an asphalt front yard, it's not attractive. Here, this designer obviously thought this would be a good fit for this type of project. So that's what I'll say about that. And then in my comment, again, I just wanna revisit the curb cut. My interpretation or my understanding, the curb cut size is not within the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals because the zoning ordinance and private property line, that's how I consider my authority. And I would advise the board to maybe take the same stand as that driveway widths are 12, drive widths are 12, but the opening onto the street and anything beyond the private property line are the jurisdiction of the city engineer.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner Forde. Just one extra clarifying question before we go to Jamie. So I just want to double check what I claimed earlier. So I understand in the case where an applicant was proposing asphalt, how this would come into play. Here we have a proposal to replace a whole section of grass with permeable pavers that extend beyond the footprint of the additional parking space. And so I just want to double check what you just shared. So in a circumstance where a homeowner were to add permeable pavers rather than asphalt to avoid triggering the stormwater ordinance. If they chose to add less permeable pavers and retain more grass from a stormwater ordinance standpoint, that would not put them at elevated risk of needing this special system, correct?

[Bill Forte]: Yes, correct. And also too is that landscape buffers are obviously encouraged, um, especially where our is going to be parked in the very front. So grass strips or plantings or any of that sort of give, uh, you know, a little bit less than a, uh, you know, I think as well within the juror of the zoning board to require a lens grip or, or whatever.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Um, so we're going to go to Jamie. Thank you for your patience. Jamie.

[Unidentified]: So my question to the chair, since we've been advised that the engineering department and the police chief are responsible for the curb cut, is the widening of the driveway, is the curb cut a requirement in order for us to move forward with the widening of the driveway?

[Mike Caldera]: Great question. So I from a legal standpoint, surely legal, not a common sense standpoint. I don't know if the approval of the curb cut is a literal requirement for us to weigh in on this. However, a simple read of the plan gives me the impression that in the absence of an approved curb cut, this requested additional parking space would not be accessible by a vehicle without actually driving over the curb. And so in that sense, I do recall from a similar prior hearing, there was a suggestion that in circumstances like this, where there hasn't already been a discussion with the city engineer pertaining to the size of the proposed curb cut, that the applicant reach out and secure either a kind of a tentative approval or at least a response, a written response from the city engineer indicating that that curb cut width is reasonable or that they've evaluated it because what we can't as a board do is conditionally approved. So we couldn't, for example, approve a parking space on the condition that the city engineer approves the curb cut. So yeah, I think it would be prudent for the applicant if they haven't already had a discussion with the city engineer, for them to have that discussion prior to the board making a decision in this case. Did that answer your question, Jake? It did. OK. Andre, it looked like you wanted to say something.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I would just, we're going to debate after the public, we open the public hearing, correct? We're going to deliberate, yes, which could be.

[Mike Caldera]: Deliberate.

[Andre Leroux]: Uh, I would like to motion to open the public hearing.

[Mike Caldera]: Uh, before we, uh, okay, well, um, is there a second? I want it. I wanted to discuss some logistical items first, but do we have a second? Okay. I'm not hearing one yet. So we'll just, um, let's have this discussion first. Um, so, uh, I like I said, I think that in the absence of clarification on whether this is the appropriate length curb cut it, it could put the board in a situation where we don't have the full information to decide the case. And so I just wanted to check in with the applicant, whether they have had that discussion and whether they would consider having that discussion before we proceed to the deliberations. Um, so, um, so yeah, have you talked with the city engineer about this curb cut length?

[SPEAKER_17]: No, we have not.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Um, but would you. based on what we shared. So like I said, the board can proceed and I ultimately I'm happy for us to proceed. But another option at your disposal would be to request that we continue this matter to a future hearing and for you to have a discussion with the city engineer, just to make sure that you have in writing a response from the city engineer about the curb cut. Like we were talking about the board it's not within the board's authority to change that or weigh in on that. And we can't add a condition. So essentially, if we were to proceed, we'd be voting on a petition with the possibility that curb cut doesn't get approved. But yeah, just what would you like to do? Would you like to continue the hearing and talk to the city engineer, or do you like us to proceed?

[SPEAKER_17]: I'm sorry. Could you clarify what our options are? Sure.

[Mike Caldera]: So essentially, like I said, there was a similar case that came before us previously. I don't remember who said this. It might have been the building commissioner. It might have been the city engineer who was actually on, or someone from the planning department. I honestly don't remember. But the conclusion we were given is that, in general, the city recommends talking to the city engineer or whoever's responsible for approving the curb cut prior to asking the board to vote on a request to add parking, which requires widening a curb cut. So the city's recommendation on a similar case in the past was that applicants do that. And so if you were to take that recommendation, which I'm not making a recommendation one way or the other. I'm just letting you know the guidance we've been given in the past. You would have the option to essentially So it's called continuing the hearing, which is essentially saying, let's not move on to the public comment. Let's not move on to deliberation. Let's agree on some future date where you come back before the board and pick up right where you left off. Hopefully with the clarity of something in writing from the city engineer stating that he's reviewed this and thinks that the curb cut is the the right length or maybe in those discussions the city engineer recommends a different length curb cut and you decide to change the plan. So that's one option. Or you could just say, you know what, I just want this whole hearing to happen today and we're happy to proceed. So those are your two options.

[SPEAKER_17]: Can I just ask a question?

[Mike Caldera]: Sure, yeah.

[SPEAKER_17]: If we do proceed today, I guess we mainly didn't know that we needed to speak to the other person, the other department. But would a curb cut, is that something that is needed for us to be able to do what we want to do? If it is, then definitely we will be happy to speak with you know, take the next step.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I see Commissioner Forty has his hand raised, so he might be planning to clarify that. Please go ahead.

[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, so my view on this essentially is that even if the curb cut cannot be increased, okay, it doesn't necessarily negate a person's ability to turn into that front yard. I think what the engineer did here was widening out the curb makes more sense because it will actually be more conducive to someone pulling in on a side angle. However, I don't think that it's mission critical if for some reason this curb cut size didn't change. It's not going to change The safety factor or the amount intrusion that it might be on the parking space that's on the side. You know, again, provided that the board, you know, may want a landscape strip in there. I still don't see that this would be detrimental to the actual. approval of what is being asked here, which again, it's relief from the parking design in two things there. Parking within the front setback and the three first drip that's on that side, they want to eliminate that. So even if the curb cut remains the same size, there is no more volume of traffic that's actually going into this lot. And in my opinion, I don't think that it's mission critical for the zoning board to know that that curb cut is either approved or not. It's an administrative matter, I think, outside of what the board should be considering. The only relief sought here is the parking in the front setback and the removal of that side strip. certainly do as you feel, but I don't know that it's going to make any difference whether or not this curb cut gets widened out because it's not going to intrude on the purpose of this, which is to get another spot in that front area. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so certainly I agree the board can vote on it without knowledge of whether the curb cuts approved Um, take, take it under advisement, your interpretation of the plans. I don't consider myself expert enough in geometry to know just how hard it would be to get in there without the permit. But, um, the only thing I'll just say again, I do, and I can check with the city engineer, like independent of this case on a later date. I recall in a prior hearing, someone from the city, it might've been the city engineer himself or maybe the police chief, somebody, um, mentioned that if the board were to approve plans that propose a curb cut without weighing in on the curb cut, it could put the city engineering department in a position where they feel obligated to approve the curb cut. So it just, but again, that's, you know, in some respects, that's not the applicant's problem. I'm just calling out that from a process standpoint, I think it's perhaps a best practice. But yeah, I agree, it's not literally required. So with that, I'll check back in with the applicants. So in light of everything you heard, what are you thinking? Would you like us to proceed or would you like to, to the city engineer and request a continuance at some future date.

[SPEAKER_17]: We would like to go ahead and proceed, please.

[Mike Caldera]: OK, wonderful. So Andre had made a motion to open the public hearing. Do I have a second now for that?

[Unidentified]: I think you've just got to make the motion again. OK. Motion to open the public hearing on 1618 Alexander Ave. Do I have a second?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, seconded by Andre. We'll take a roll call. Jim Tirani?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so the public hearing is now open. We have, if you're a member of the public and you would like to speak on this matter, please go ahead and use the raise hand function on Zoom, turn on your camera and raise your hand in real life, type in the chat. You can email Dennis at the planning department, dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. I do believe we did get one letter from an abutter. I think it was a short one, so maybe we could just quickly read that and then in the meantime, if any other member of the public would like to speak, please let us know and now's your time to do so.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me see if I can pull up the Butters letter.

[Mike Caldera]: So this is on file, I'm gonna paraphrase it. So, There's a letter the board received dated June 3rd of this year, to make concern, please accept this letter on behalf of Jitinder Singh and Majinder Kaur, an acknowledgement acceptance of their desire to construct an additional parking space in the front yard of this property. And so the person filled in some details about where they reside, they reside to the left of this property at What seems to be 26 Alexander Ave. This was written by Jasper Kaur Rand I'm not sure about the last name, but yeah, so they They state they have no objections and encourage the city of Medford to grant the petition. So we received that letter. I don't see any indication any other member of the public would like to speak. And so the chair waits a motion to close the public hearing and begin deliberations.

[Adam Hurtubise]: To close the public hearing and begin deliberations. Do I have a second?

[Unidentified]: Second.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we're going to take a vote. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim?

[Mike Caldera]: Didn't hear you, Jim.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: And Mike? Aye. All right. So we are now deliberating.

[Adam Hurtubise]: What do you think, folks? Andre, go ahead.

[Andre Leroux]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman, PB --"You know, I've said this, I think, in prior hearings, but I generally strongly oppose parking in the front of, you know, residential neighborhoods. And while I understand why the applicant wants to do this, since it's a two-family property, I don't think there's a hardship there is a significant amount of parking to the side of, of the home there's also on street parking. I think when we dealt with an issue. A few months ago around a front yard parking space, I went along very reluctantly and that was only because it was an older couple that had no off street parking at all in a very congested area and it did not remove all of the front yard. Here we have the entire front yard being removed while there's already existing driveway, garage, parking for a pretty you know, lengthy one, and as well as the on-street parking in front. So I don't believe this rises to the level of a hardship that would allow us to do a variance. I think a variance, you know, has to be a very strong exception to the city's zoning ordinance and what the zoning ordinance is trying to accomplish with it. I believe that, you know, in residential areas, we have, we do require front yards, so that there is some green space in the neighborhoods. And, and here this would eliminate that. I also, I understand and I'm sympathetic to the fact that all elsewhere on the street, there are front yard parking spaces, but I you know, the city should not be approving those and that, if anything, we should be removing them. So that's where I stand on it. All right. Thank you, Andre.

[Mike Caldera]: I think I saw Jamie raise his hand earlier.

[Unidentified]: Yep. So I concur with Andre's perspective. The driveway, parking, there is a garage present on the property. The removal of the front yard in a residential area is not something that we look to do within the area, as well as the potential for curb cut that could impact street parking.

[Adam Hurtubise]: That's about where I am. All right, Jim.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: With this, With this case, I tend to agree with my colleagues on taking away that green space for the extra parking space, seeing that there is a driveway there now with a garage and parking in front. That's my- All right.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my take on this is a little nuanced. So I do, I think there's some element of hardship in having a two-family with tandem parking, where the only parking is tandem. It's easier to coordinate within your own household than across households. But this generally affects the zoning district. So there's nothing unique about this property being a two-family with tandem parking. It's all over the place there. Um, and then, um, I also, uh, in generally not in favor of, um, adding parking to the front yard. Uh, I think it goes against the intent of the zoning ordinance. Um, there are also some choices here that I think, you know, were made that perhaps could be redressed with conditions, but that make it, um, more detrimental to the public good than it could be otherwise. So first of all, we don't have clarity on whether this curb cut's reasonable or not, which I would like. And then so it's possible there'll be no curb cut at all, and it'll be this very challenging parking situation. And then secondly, the proposal is not just to replace the portion for this additional space with permeable pavers, but to rip out the entire front lawn, which is just overkill and unnecessary. So yeah, I think there's elements of the case that the applicant has, but I tend to agree. I don't think it meets all of the statutory criteria in particular. I don't think the circumstances are unique to the zoning district. And I do think there is some detriment to the public good that may rise to the level of substantial. So that's my take. So any other things we should discuss or would someone like to make a motion?

[Andre Leroux]: would make a motion to disapprove the proposal for variance.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, do I have a second?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I'll second.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so negative motions are a little awkward, so I just wanna be very explicit. So I'm gonna do a roll call vote, and since this is a motion to disapprove, If you say yes or aye, you're saying yes or aye, I disapprove. So you're agreeing that we should deny the petition. So we're going to take a roll call again. Yes or an aye is agreeing that we should deny the petition for the additional parking space.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim? It would be yes. Yes, deny, okay. Amy? Aye. Yes, deny. Andre?

[Mike Caldera]: Yes, deny. And Mike, yes, deny. So the motion is denied, or the petition is denied. The requested relief is not granted. Sorry folks for the bad outcome, but hopefully you have an understanding of the board's rationale for that decision. And thank you for your time this evening.

[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Dennis, can you please read the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: 39 Gadsden Street, case number 8-2023-11. Applicant and owner Matthew Ford and Amy Benison, are petitioning for a variance from Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to construct a three-season porch with insufficient side yard setback and a single-family two-zoning district not allowed. City of Medford zoning ordinance Chapter 94, Section 6, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. Looks like we have Matthew Ford on the call. Mr. Ford, please go ahead.

[SPEAKER_16]: Hi, yeah, my name is Matt Ford. Yeah, so we're requesting a variance on our house to add a three season sunroom in place of a deck that is currently on our house. The sunroom would occupy the same footprint as the existing deck. But we're asking for the variance because the sunroom is close to the property line.

[SPEAKER_03]: All right. Just to clarify, Tanya Curley and Sean Curley for Curley and Sons is here to supply the application for the petition.

[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. OK, so if I understood you correctly, so you are planning to present some of the documents on behalf of the applicant. Is that correct?

[SPEAKER_03]: Correct. Correct. We can clarify the project too.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, please. That would be great. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_03]: So the existing deck that's there actually already has the non-conforming setback with the new ordinance. So we have to kind of take down that existing deck, put the new deck up to support the three seasons porch and then erect that from there. So it's actually already non-conforming with your setback. It's just, now that we're doing it, you have to bring it up to code. And so it's gonna basically not meet it by the two foot four inch. which is the variance that we're asking for.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And so maybe it would be helpful if you could just share the plans just to help the board and the public see the sort of before and after and the relief being requested here.

[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, yeah, I can do that unless you want to bring them up on Google. I don't know if you have them for Google Docs, sir.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, we could also have Dennis bring it up if you prefer. That's fine.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, it looks like Dennis will do so. Thank you, Dennis.

[Unidentified]: So we'll just give Dennis a moment.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm thinking maybe we should start with the plot plan.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, give me a moment. I'm just yeah, I'm trying to get it. I just had a weird computer thing kind of shows that.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. Great. Thank you, Dennis. All right, so we are looking at the plot plan.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, what would you like to bring to our attention? I see the reference to the proposed sunroom and the current deck.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, and so on the left hand side is what is already existing on the right hand side is the proposed sunroom which basically we're saying it within the same footprint. It's just because what we're doing by taking down the existing deck to build new for the new proposed room and putting there we're not within the current setbacks anymore. even though we're staying within that footprint from what is already there. And so that's why we have to try to meet with the variants. And that's basically why we're here. The only other, if we were to put this room anywhere else, we basically wouldn't meet with any setbacks. The only other option would be to put it where their front existing door is, but that would really screw up the whole layout of the house. And nobody really wants a room on the front of their front door. So it's kind of, this is really the only place to put it.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great and so just want to check my understanding so I, if I'm understanding correctly so the house.

[SPEAKER_03]: So the front door is actually where that set of stairs is. This is actually technically the side of their house with the way the lot is set up. Okay. Even though this is a side yard setback. So it's kind of- Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: So if I'm understanding correctly, so the house itself already is nonconforming in terms of the side yard setback.

[Danielle Evans]: Correct.

[Mike Caldera]: And so there is or was a deck that seems to have a, identical footprint to the the new proposal. I believe if a replacement deck that didn't have the the covered aspect of the sunroom were put in place that that you could do by right simply because it's it's not a substantial change to existing nonconforming structure. It's just a repair, but it's essentially the addition of the covered portion that's triggering the need for relief. Is that correct?

[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, because even if we were keeping the existing deck and adding the room, it would still trigger this. But we have to change the deck anyway for loading requirements.

[Mike Caldera]: OK, awesome. Thank you for those details. I'm just double checking if there's another document that would be helpful. to put up. I think that's the main one. So yeah, I'll check in with the board. What questions do we have for the applicant?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie has a question. Go ahead, Jamie. Sorry, that was actually my cat's tail.

[Unidentified]: Um, but, um, I would ask, um, the height, could you just describe the, uh, vertical change? I don't think we have anything that showed the vertical change.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm not seeing an architectural plan or anything like that. So yeah, could you maybe tell us a little bit about the dimension? Oh, there it is.

[SPEAKER_03]: There is an architectural plan for that. You've got your front room height, which is standard by code. And then your back wall height, I believe I've got nine and nine, six, nine and seven sixteenths. So it's basically going to tie in with the existing structure of the home.

[SPEAKER_12]: All right.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Great, what other questions do we have from the board?

[Mike Caldera]: All right, so if you were listening to the prior petition, we're going to follow the same process. So essentially, The relief requested here is a variance from the side yard setback. And so the board is going to have to understand whether there's conditions relating to the shape, topography, soil conditions of the lot or structure that create a hardship with a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. So for example, the house is already non-conforming in the side yard setback and the position of the house does determine the position of the deck or a sunroom, for example. And then also the board would have to establish that the desired relief can be granted without substantially derogating from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or bylaw and without substantial detriment to the public good. So that's the criteria. So if there's other, I know you have the full application, which we've had a chance to read. So that's on file. But I just want to check in if there's anything else you'd like to bring to our attention before we open the public hearing.

[Andre Leroux]: I just have a question. Actually, I was wondering if any any photos that the proponent can share with us. Because I know that there's a little bit of a great big gradient change. And so I don't know if you have anything that just can see the house and the current conditions a little more clearly.

[SPEAKER_03]: I did not supply. Okay, there you go. I was gonna say there were some on record.

[SPEAKER_16]: Oh, cool.

[SPEAKER_12]: On a bit of a hill there.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I see.

[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, it's going to go right on that front porch there that's currently there now. And it's going to tie into the same height as the roof that's there now currently, right above those windows and doors. There's a small roof there. So it's all going to tie in and stay within the same print that you guys currently have there now. Just putting a roof on it.

[SPEAKER_03]: And the sliding door is staying, and it's all staying. We're not changing any of that.

[Andre Leroux]: Can I ask, because it is on this slope, is this, I know you're proposing it as a sunroom, but what about the space underneath? I mean, is this really a two-story addition?

[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, it's gonna be the same. So it's gonna stay at the same height and level that's currently there now.

[Andre Leroux]: Right, but I'm thinking actually about the basement level. I mean, is that gonna be enclosed as well?

[SPEAKER_12]: No, no, there's no basement underneath there. It's not like a, it goes on concrete piers. We have a crawl space, we don't have a basement.

[Andre Leroux]: Got it. Okay, thank you for clarifying.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, if there's no other questions from the board, chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to open the public portion of the hearing. Do I have a second? All right, I'm gonna take a vote. Andre? Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. Same as what I shared previously, folks, if you'd like to make a public comment, you can raise your hand on Zoom, you can type something in the chat, you can turn on your camera and raise your hand in real life. but you can email Dennis, who's put his email address, dmcdougal at medford-ma.gov in the chat. Dennis, I don't believe we received any butter letters for this one. Is that correct? That is correct. OK. All right. So then we'll just give it a moment. Not currently. seeing any member of the public indicating that they would like to speak. All right, and so seeing none, the chair waits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberation.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to close the public hearing and begin deliberations.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, I'm going to take a roll call vote. Jim?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Hi, Andre. Hi, Mike. Hi. All right. The board is now deliberating.

[Adam Hurtubise]: What do you think folks.

[Unidentified]: The design is obviously within the scope of the existing structure. They're not extending any further from the existing structure and the height of the development is gonna be in line with that same roof line. Although that will be a change from the perspective on the building. I don't see that as a impact to that area from the community perspective.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts?

[Andre Leroux]: It is an unusual, you know, the topology of the site is quite unusual. And so I think that it's not unreasonable to do this.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim, any thoughts from you?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: No, I agree with that. I'm in line with that as well.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my take, certainly the topology is unusual. I'm not convinced in this case the topology is the specific aspect that's contributing to the hardship. I think it's the position of the primary residence so close to the side yard setback. So the non-conforming building, if you're going to do the sunroom, you got to do it flush to the house. So the position of the house implies the position of the sunroom. Also, I do think that as a board, we should consider in other cases where the addition of a covered porch or sunroom is very close to the front yard. So encroaching upon the front yard setback in some circumstances that could have a substantial detriment. Here the the structure is positioned way back on the property. So I do think we meet the statutory criteria, unusual topography certainly, as well as the position of the primary structure being non-conforming in the side yard. It's a pretty small requested relief. The sunroom would be set way back from the front of the property. Yeah, and so I do think it would be a hardship to literally enforce. And I don't think this derogates from the intent of the bylaw or causes substantial detriment. So I'm supportive as well.

[Adam Hurtubise]: What else should we discuss or would someone like to make a motion?

[Andre Leroux]: I just want to also point out that you know looking at the the photographs of the of the property that although it's close to the side yard. it's not. The the abutting property is still some distance away so it's not on top of the butter.

[Adam Hurtubise]: yeah good point, thank you. All right, chair wait to motion. Motion to approve the variance for 39 guests on the street. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're gonna take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. The variance is granted. Congratulations, you have your sunroom.

[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you so much. Thank you.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, absolutely. Have a good night. And just as a just some sort of telling folks when they get them that it usually takes about a month or so just to go to get the decision written, go through, you know, approval from one of the members of the board and then also go through legal checks. So that'll take it takes about a month or so. And then there's a 20 days appeals period after it's filed in the court's office. So I should get you the decision within the month, hopefully within a month. I've been working pretty hard on turning around quicker. So once you get that, I'll send you a copy, and then there still will be the 20 days appeals period for when you receive it. So before you can get your building permit.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Yeah, thanks for clarifying, Dennis.

[SPEAKER_03]: OK, thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, Dennis, can you please read the next item?

[Denis MacDougall]: 15 Hadley Place, case number A-2023-12. Applicant and owner, Frank Capone, Fjord Realty, are petitioning for a variance with Chapter 94 City of Medford Zoning to construct four additional dwelling units to an existing single-family dwelling for a total of five dwelling units in an apartment one zoning district allowed use, with insufficient front, side, and rear yard setbacks and usable open space. City of Medford Zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, section six, table B, table of dimensional requirements.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, and so I think we have Attorney Desmond for the applicant.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, good evening Chairman Caldeira and board members. I'm here this evening with the applicant Frank Capone and also the project architect Jeffrey Moriarty of Moriarty Designs. As indicated by Dennis the applicant proposes to convert an existing single family dwelling containing six bedrooms situated currently on a 9147 square foot parcel of land to a five unit multiple dwelling. For purposes of this project, the 9147 square foot parcel is being combined within a portion of a property also owned by the applicant consisting of approximately 4,373 square feet and situated on Franklin Street. In total, the parcel will be approximately 13,520 square feet of land. The property, as indicated, is situated within the apartment district where the use as a multiple dwelling is permitted as of right. If I could share my screen, Dennis, if I can find my

[Denis MacDougall]: You're all set to do so.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. Now, hopefully this pops up like it's supposed to. Beautiful. OK, if I could just let me just get over to. To what I need to go to.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I have one kiddo. I want this.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Do you know how this this won't move up on me? Hold on one minute if I can just I'm trying to get to the area plan and I have a million of these open. Sorry, let me just go to the survey. Actually, I'm sorry, just give me half a second. Sure. I have to open for both hearings and at some point I'm probably gonna dump all my exhibits. Okay. Can everybody see that? Yes. So, this is the old lot line of the Hadley Street property that was in place. This was the existing property which tails off down to here. This portion was registered And so we had to do some work to deregister the property so that we could more easily subdivide the property. As current as under the new survey, if I can pull that up. The survey, this shows what a lot. will be as it will exist with the new dwellings, leaving this parcel on Franklin Street with 6,003 square feet of land, so it meets the two-family requirement. As you can see from this proposal, In the rear yard, for the most part, in general, the addition complies with the zoning requirements. This triangle at this point, and you can follow the line, this is the part, this is where we are within the zoning code. This portion of the proposed addition is in violation because of this jog in the land. So that this is only 14 feet where everywhere else on the rear lot, you meet the required off street of 22.1. So it's only this portion of the proposed dwelling that would be in violation with respect to the addition. Otherwise, the addition would comply with the zoning requirements. And this is the rear yard setback violation for which we're seeking relief. In addition to that, this is being combined with the existing structure, which is going to go from a one to a two. So it's gonna be a combined unit and Jeff will show the plans in a few minutes. But basically it does not currently conform with zoning on the front yard because it's 14.5 from the street to the covered porch area. That was in part because of a taking by the Commonwealth to widen Hadley place. In addition, on the side yard. This meets the current requirement for single of 7.5 is at 7.8. When you move to a. A multiple dwelling, the minimum is 15 feet. So with this bump out and the side, we would have to demolish this portion to comply with what's required for the side yard setback. And I provided cases to the board that dealt Pratt versus Rockwell, Rockwell Zoning Board of Appeals provides that, you know, demolition is is a known hardship, because you've got economic loss with that. So in terms of relief we're looking for the front yard at 14.5. The side yard and again most of it is only three feet. three and a half feet off of what's required is this bump out, which causes the nine foot request. And then at the back here, because of this jog in the property line, we have a portion of the existing building that won't meet the requirement. But if you took the line from here to the back, it meets all of the rear yard requirements. for purposes of landscape, I think if you've looked at the property now, and I can show you a photo, a street photo. So you can see now that most of this is asphalt and paving. And what will happen, and Jeff can walk you through the plans, is there'll be substantial landscaping proposed. So this whole area, other than where the garage spaces are to get into the garage, this will be landscaped. landscape, we have roughly 35% landscape open space. I believe I detailed in either this memo or the memo for high street, that the difficulty with usable open space is you've got to be 10 feet off the property line 10 feet off the house and then you have to have a horizontal 15 foot. area for usable open space. But if you look at what will be landscaped open space, it will basically nearly meet what the requirement of open space would be combined usable open space and landscape open space, because landscape open space is only 10%, usable open space is 25%. So while there'll be a lot of green space, it just doesn't meet the technical requirements that you need to hang a clothesline, because that's how the old ordinance did that. So that's basically what we're looking for relief. The hardship being that we would have to demolish the existing structure to come within the build line. And also that this isn't really curable if you're gonna have any kind of a building with any height, with any length at all. So this piece, this corner is also what we would be seeking relief for. And with that, I can turn it over to Jeff so he can walk you through the architectural plan so you can see what the building looks like. Jeff.

[Adam Hurtubise]: That sounds great. I'm having trouble with my computer. Can you share your screen with the plans?

[Kathleen Desmond]: You know, you're going to make me hit the X button at some point and everything's going to go flying.

[Adam Hurtubise]: There we go.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Can you use your cursor, Jeff?

[Adam Hurtubise]: No, because I'm on the iPad. Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. Just tell me when you want me to move.

[Adam Hurtubise]: That's fine. Do we want to start with the current, with the existing condition, with what's there currently for the layout?

[Kathleen Desmond]: If you want to take them through, so this is the front elevation, what the proposed is going to look like, correct?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct, yep, so the right side is currently what's existing, that existing single family house that we're converting to, or potentially converting to a two family. In the middle of the proposed structure and the existing structure is an addition that connects the two. And then the left side is the actual proposed structure for the additional three family.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And in both of all of these will have garages. This space will be garage for either unit one or unit two, three, four and five. Five has a sort of a double garage. It doesn't meet the technical requirement for two spaces, but I think you could probably put two in. You want me to go to the existing plans?

[Adam Hurtubise]: There you go. That's perfect right there. So the existing currently right now is the existing basement condition is basically just the basement storage area with the half bath. Second, the main floor is right now currently living, dining and kitchen area. With, with one half bath. And then the next page down Kathy would be. Yep.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I missed one I'm sorry. Oh no.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, you got it. Yeah. And then this, the second floor right now is currently the three well three bedroom. made potentially three bedrooms where the bedroom in the front is kind of small to be a bedroom. So we've got three bedrooms on a second level. And then we also have, we got two bedrooms on the existing attic condition.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And then we'll go to the floor plan for unit one and unit two.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. proposed unit one and unit two. So unit one will be combined of the, the basement, the current basement now, and the current first floor of the, of the main, of the single family. So the unit one will be basement and first floor, and the basement will consist of two bedrooms, an office, a utility, with a full bath, and then the, The main level will have a primary bedroom and bath with a kitchen and living area. And we are gonna segregate the front foyer. So you have a dedicated entrance and egress for the second, for unit two up above. So yeah, so unit two, which would be the second floor of the existing structure would be, would consist of office area, living area, massive primary bedroom and bath and a half bath. with the proposed deck in the rear, which would be over the existing deck that's currently there now, primarily just for egress, for a second means of egress outside for the unit number two. And then in the proposed attic that's there now, we are gonna create three bedrooms there with a full bath. But the attic, the new attic space is substantially a little bit smaller than what's there now because of the current code with the five foot height walls. So we are reducing the room sizes due to that.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So this area, Jeff, is not usable living space. It's just storage based on on the current roof layout, correct?

[Adam Hurtubise]: That's correct, yeah. There's a gable and roof that's there that just, that we're not altering the structure there, but it's too small. The height is too small to consider it to be livable.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And this shows the addition, with the unit for one to two garage, and you can go through the units, but this will connect in storage for unit one and two, and then an entrance, correct?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct. Yep. So on the right is the proposed first floor layout as what was shown as proposed. And then we are connecting that with an addition with the structure that combines the two from the existing and the addition to the additional three units on the left. That little area will be built and there'll be more like storage and garbage storage for unit one and two. As far as the The addition goes sort of the main, the base level consists of a garage for every unit, including an office space, utility, and half bath in each one.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And then second floor.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Second floor, yeah. So second floor is, That addition that connects the existing to the new, it's only one level, so it does not rise above the second level of the addition. The addition on the left is a new, and that will consist of that will consist of a living area, kitchen, half bath, and proposed patios in the rear. The only patio that doesn't exist, the only, unit five does not have a, sorry, unit four does not have a patio. And then for the third level, Each unit will have three bedrooms. One of them will be a primary with a primary bath. And unit number three has the bonus room.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And so that concludes the layout of the units. In terms of the usable open space, I had this discussion with Medford Engineering, and maybe the building commissioner can weigh in on this. Because you do have the deck area and the patio area on each, and my reading of that open space is that the dimensional requirements of that don't need to meet the 15 by 15 horizontal. So we may actually have some usable open state, and I know I always argue that even if there isn't usable open space in terms of the technical requirements of the ordinance, that there are decks and patios that would provide open space. And I'm not certain that those have to be 75% to the sky based on my reading of the ordinance. I think it's accepted. And I had a conversation with Medford Engineering about that. So if that does weigh in as usable open space and we're not completely We're not at zero. We're somewhere between 25 and zero in that regard. I know that there have been some concerns expressed by abutters with respect to the parking situation and in traffic in general in the area. And most of the comments I have seen are from the SF1 district. This is a situation, again, where you're in a situation where one half of Hadley Place is apartment one, and the other portion of Hadley Place and also Franklin Street are SF2. And looking at the map, the breakdown on the area plan comes in here. So this is the SF2 district, and this is the apartment district. And also, if you look in terms of, you know, in terms of the pristine nature of the area, the SF1, these green dots represent, you know, two families that are within the SF2 district here, the orange are three families. So they're, you know, There may be traffic concerns, but I'd maintain that some of that relates to the fact that you've got, and parking concerns, an SF2 district, which is a single family two with a sufficient number, or a substantial number of two families and three families in that district. This property's wholly located within the apartment district. We meet the parking requirement. We weren't cited by the commissioner. We have, four bays, garage bays that will satisfy the requirement. We did on our survey place a space, where'd it go? I don't know why that's not sharing.

[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, I actually had a clarifying question related to this. So I think now's a good time for me to ask it. So I see on the zoning evaluation, it's the 0.8 per unit, which I believe has to do with proximity to high frequency transit. This is within half a mile of the 101 bus. Is that why this qualifies? Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct. And we went through that. I mean, and I've listened to this discussion this evening concerning the use of parking in the front yard. And certainly I understand the board's position that that's not recommended and we didn't show it. But in terms of parking in the event of an event or whatnot, or a party, I mean, there is, in addition to the spaces provided, there is that ability to park at least short term for purposes of an event in that front area, because you've got 22.5 feet of space in front of what will be the garage openings.

[Mike Caldera]: Each of these- Attorney Desmond, just a clarifying question. So if I'm understanding you correctly, there are no official parking spaces there, but you're just indicating that there's a driveway into the garage and there's enough space that if someone were to park in the driveway, a car would fit, is that- Correct, because it's 19 and this is 23.9.

[Kathleen Desmond]: We also put a compact space in here so that we're provided, I believe, five or six spaces so that there's an additional space. And if you look again at the bay for number five, if I go through the plans, let me just pull up the garage space, the internal. Okay, so this is a unit five garage. and it's 31.1, so it's not quite, you know, but you could likely fit two compact cars in there tandem if you chose to. And so, you know, we've got one, two, three, we've got four spaces plus the five on the side for the compact.

[Mike Caldera]: Which- Will the compact space be shared by all units or?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, each space would, it would then give each space one, each unit one space.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh, because there's the five, right, right, right.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct, so then there would at least be one. We were only required to have four on the 0.8, but we've gone with one space per unit, sliding that compact space over on the side. Got it, okay. We haven't completed the landscape plan, and I was reluctant to send it and share it because it shades in where that compact space would be. But just in terms of to give you a sense, there would be a reduction in terms of the pervious pavement that now exists significantly. And this would all be green in through here. Here at the compact space exists. So I'm not sure that this walkway where it's situated on this could be placed, but the intent is to eliminate quite a lot of the impervious pavement that currently exists on the property and to have the designated driveways into each into each unit. And I think in actuality, I know this is the engineering department purview to deal with. But you would probably in this instance, increase the ability to park vehicles on the street street parking. Because at this point, if you look at at this, this is open to the drive, which is there currently. And and I have another picture in front of the house. So there's space here, and these spaces are two-hour parking on this side of the street. But as you can see, much of it is not available for street parking. So I think you may very well pick up one or two street spaces that don't currently exist. I know that Mr. Capone has been, I don't know what the word, I'm searching for a word, amenable to allowing his neighbors to park in the spaces as it currently is now. And maybe to an extent that that's what some of the neighbors have concerns about because now that won't be available. But this is, it's a substantial lot, If you look at the project, we're proposing five units, which meet the tenor of the neighborhood. I think the lot based on the square footage of 13,000 square feet, if you just did the math, would be somewhere between eight, seven and eight. And then you'd probably be looking, trying to find parking areas to place this in within the confines of the development for those units. This provides each unit Most of the units with a garage so that you don't have that site from the outside. Also, the garages will have electric charging plugins. I believe that's required now as part of state code, but they will have those. And the house which we're preserving, which will be sprinklered along with the rest of the other units. So there's some fire enhancements that will occur and and you'll get rid of the paving here.

[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, I was just informed privately that, I don't think that this member of the board realized it prior to the hearing, but there's actually a member of the board that's gonna need to recuse themselves because they know the applicant and they're friends with the applicant. And so had I known that beforehand, and again, I don't think this was intentional, I would have said it from the outset. The complication here is once this member recuses themself, we won't have forum to vote on the petition tonight. So the board has adopted the Mullen rule. But we do have five members. So long as Yvette Velez is at our next hearing and the rest of the board is present, we can get quorum. But because Jim will be recusing himself, we don't have quorum tonight. So apologies for dropping this in the middle of your presentation. I just learned it now. But I did want to alert you at the earliest opportunity of the situation and get your take on how you'd like to proceed.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, you know, I know that Yvette can read in, but maybe it would be best to continue it at this juncture prior to opening the hearing.

[Mike Caldera]: If that's what you'd like to do, I'm certainly supportive of that. Um, and yeah, also we, I I've heard that this will be talked about in the administrative updates, but I've, I've heard we're on the cusp of having an associate member appointed. Um, so I think we'll be in a position to, um, to vote on this at our next hearing, but yeah, unfortunately, and I wish I had known this in advance. We could have just alerted you. Um, I don't think we'll have quorum tonight.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't know if there's any information that the board members who can vote at this point would find beneficial to have on a continued meeting rather than coming back and finding that there's something that they wanted us to address. So, you know.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so if I'm understanding attorney Desmond correctly, the ask is for the three board members who can vote on this matter, is there anything that we didn't see in the presentation today and that isn't in the application materials that we hope to see or might ask about at a future session of this hearing after it's continued? So is there anything, yeah, please go ahead.

[Andre Leroux]: I would like to see a landscaping plan in more detail, because I want to understand. I mean, we just talked tonight about the whole thing about the front parking, not doing the front yard parking. And here we have a proposal with, you know, paved front yards, as far as I can tell, without a landscaping plan. So I would like to see that. And I, you know, would like to see some landscaping in the front.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And that, you know, I apologize that that wasn't, it's just when I received it today, I looked at it and it doesn't accurately characterize where that compact space is. And if it's going to be part of a condition, I wanted to make sure that it was, but certainly we can do that within the time.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. What about you, Jamie? Anything you'd like to see that's not here?

[Unidentified]: Yep, in line with that landscaping plan, it appears that the trees that are on the back of that lot are gonna be removed. Is the, obviously with the landscaping plan, any trees that are gonna be added and call up any trees that are gonna be removed as part of the work?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I know that there's a plan for a tree here, and I think that Mr. Capone was gonna discuss with his neighbor what he wanted in terms of the back portion of this lot, but we can further develop that. We did speak to as to, you know, including trees and shrubbery in that area. And actually Mr. Capone said this is one of his other projects that he had. So, you know, he will intend to landscape pretty extensively in the back of the property so that there's greenery.

[Unidentified]: All right, and then my second question, the current design appears to be a parking lot of roughly 11 to 15 spaces. that how are those allocated today with the current property? I think this is an older picture because the house behind it has changed as well. That's all private property. Okay. Yeah. So if you look at it from driving by today, this space is not blocked by those pots, they're open spaces and they're lined. So in a sense, there's a loss of parking.

[Kathleen Desmond]: But that's private, that's fine. That's not public space. If I can show, so this is, where's the, okay. So here's the A&R plan, which probably shows it the best way and get it to come up.

[Unidentified]: Oh, come on. Oh, and that's, I guess that's where I fall to the question is.

[Kathleen Desmond]: This is private here. This is all part of the existing lot. So it's not.

[Unidentified]: I understand. So my question is, there are 11 to 15 vehicles parked there today. what is that use and where will they be parking when this is done?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, it's the largesse of Mr. Capone in terms of allowing people to park there. And Frank can speak to that issue.

[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, four of the cars belong to the properties and the other one's a couple of neighbors. I think there's six cars at the moment parking there. And sometimes I put my vehicles or my truck there.

[Unidentified]: Okay. And that's not, it's all owned by you and you're allowing people to park there because it's available.

[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: There's a guy across the street. He's running a landscaping company out of his yard. So he parks his car over there, but that'll end. Understood. Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, yeah.

[Andre Leroux]: Actually, I do have one more question. Could you, Attorney Desmond, could you put that back up on the screen? I guess it's the landscaping plan that you had. Because I just have a question about the lot line.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh, she already switched. I had a question about the ANR. So yeah, we can do the landscaping plan, that's fine.

[Andre Leroux]: Well, again, my question is actually about the plot.

[Kathleen Desmond]: line what is the actual plot line of this property because this does not look like that one so that well that's a landscape plan and maybe it needs to look more like it this is the actual this is the anr plan um and this is the this is the newest plan right here that you're looking at

[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: The landscaping plan was made months prior when we were tweaking the lot line before we separated. That was an original plan from the beginning.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And he may not have had the line correct.

[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: It wasn't correct. This is the correct line. We made it straight, so it separates it. But there is a line of trees in the back that we plan on keeping. I've been discussing it with my neighbors. The only two trees are in the middle of the lot, which would have to be removed, but we plan on putting up to one, two, three, almost four trees. So we're taking down two and putting up four.

[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could, I believe I have, I don't, I thought I had the land court plan, yeah, so.

[Andre Leroux]: And Mr. Capone, you own that property on Franklin Street. Is that in the corner as well? Is that correct?

[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: I actually lived there for 15 years. My kids grew up in Medford. So I know Hadley's place. I grew up in Medford also. So I know the whole area. I know the whole parking situation. I actually got the signage put up 20 years ago. Because the issue we were having is people going to Boston, leaving their cars on the street and parking all day here. So I had that fixed with the, over here was two-hour parking. But I believe right now that you need a permit and a sticker to park on Hadley Place and Franklin Street so that that problem's resolved. Because people were just parking and leaving their cars there all day long.

[Andre Leroux]: Well, I guess my question is just about the subdivision a little bit that's of these parcels, because the way that I think it looks like it's been done has that skinny narrow strip that goes all the way down to the intersection. And I'm just wondering why that wasn't maybe incorporated with the other property if you own that one too.

[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: Well, years ago, the Hadley, 15 Hadley Place House, the white one, The existing one was actually in the middle of Hadley Place. It was moved, and it was placed over there back in, I believe, 1890. And what happened was, I believe the state owned the road. My guess, by talking to the woman when I bought the house on Franklin Street, the land was offered to, six Franklin Street. They refused it and then 15 Hadley Place bought that strip of land off the state. That's what I that's my understanding about it.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And this is registered land um and that was on the land court plan so so we deregistered that and I think it was just a question of not trying to complicate it much further in terms of of the lot lines and give this 6,000 square feet and then allow the remainder to remain with lot one. Because this was always part of this lot. It was registered land. This is a registered land strip. This was unrecorded. So it was recorded both ways, both registered land and unregistered land. And we actually petitioned the land court to get this so that we could subdivide it and not have to go through the years that it would take at land court to do that.

[Mike Caldera]: I think that largely answered what my question was gonna be. So it looks like, so in addition to taking this action to deregister it, so essentially there were three lots, the sliver and then the other two. And so these were combined in this manner. And if I understood you correctly, Attorney Desmond, the choice to, keep that entire sliver with Hadley rather than, you know, try to make the spaces a little bit more uniform was to try and not complicate the subdivision. Okay. Okay. Like that sliver that juts down, approximately how many square feet is it? I'm not talking the whole lot.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I know that's the- I think it's 3,100 square feet somewhere.

[Mike Caldera]: So you're basically, even if it was with the other property, you're within the area requirements for this size.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, we made sure that when we did this, we had the requisite 6,000 square feet.

[Mike Caldera]: No, I meant for the other way around for Hadley. So in a hypothetical world where you subdivide it differently, just the, the portion that's a little bit more rectangular of the, of the Hadley. I think that's still, it sounds like is on the order of 10,000. Okay. Thank you. All right, so yeah, I echo the request. I think having an updated landscape plan that reflects the actual position of the compact space and the lot shape would be helpful. I don't have additional requests for next time.

[Andre Leroux]: I do have just one final comment, which is, I know it's not our purview here, and this isn't a site plan review, but it would be, I think, generally good practice to check in with the planning department, maybe get feedback about the design.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Andre.

[Mike Caldera]: So, Attorney Desmond, do you have the info you need from us for next time?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I do, thank you very much.

[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. And so we're actually still trying to figure out the timing of our next meeting. Ordinarily it would be towards the very end of this same month, so in a couple weeks. When would you like us to continue this to? To the next regular meeting or sometime after that?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I think, you know, in terms of the landscape plan, Frank, we could have that ready on short order, correct? Oh, you're muted.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. So we could do the following meeting.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Sounds good. Yeah. So we're, um, we're also going to, I don't know if we're going to schedule it tonight. Cause we have to check in, especially in light of this recusal, we've got to double check with the vet to make sure she'll be there. Um, but yeah, so we'll, what, what we can do is a member of the board can motion to continue this, um, to the next regular meeting. And then if for some reason there's a scheduling conflict, we can just do it again. Um, All right, Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter the next regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, and so, I don't know if Jim really has to recuse himself from the continuance, but we're just, we're not gonna ask Jim. So Andre. Aye. Jamie. Aye. Mike. All right, so the matter is continued to the next regular meeting of the Medford Zone of Appeals. Thank you for your time. We'll see you at the next meeting.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, Dennis, next item on the agenda.

[Denis MacDougall]: So the only other thing is just we have I know we probably have folks on here who are butters who are trying to figure out exactly what's there for them as well. So the next meeting, when we actually have the you know, the members who were actually able to vote, well, that's what we'll do the public comment portion of this. And so, um, it'll the meeting date will be on the city's website. Um, if things change, what I will do is I will send out notice to all the abutters who got the previous notice, just letting you know exactly when the date is. And that will be your notification as to when the, uh, when the meeting date will be, but hopefully we'll be able to announce it tonight. But if not, just you'll be getting a notice in the, uh, in the mail.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Dennis, I think in light of the, um, the, the need for all members, including one who isn't present tonight, um, you know, to hear this at the next one, I think we probably won't be able to schedule it tonight. So, uh, but we'll, we'll try to schedule it shortly and certainly, yeah, if we could get the word out to anyone. I don't know, maybe should people, I don't know the best way to get info. Maybe email Dennis, email Dennis, dmcgoogle.medford-ma.gov if you're on the call and you wanna be notified of the new, of the next hearing on this matter. It will also be publicly posted. And yeah, Alicia, were you gonna say something?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I'm concerned so this is the public hearing. You open the public hearing already whether or not public comment, you didn't open public comment but this is the public hearing. And so it has to be can you don't have to take comment at this meeting, but you have to continue to a date certain. You have to state when and where it's going to be. And if at that time you just have to re-continue it because you don't have quorum at that time, that is fine. But otherwise you have to re-advertise it fully, like in the newspaper and everything. If you don't say a state and time tonight.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks for calling that out.

[Alicia Hunt]: My suggestion is that you say when the next meeting is supposed to be, warn these people that there's a really good chance that that will get opened and continued. I believe you only need one person to do that.

[Mike Caldera]: I'd like to avoid that if possible. By chance, Dennis did answer that survey.

[Denis MacDougall]: She said she was free for any of those dates. I think the other, I mean, what the other option we do have is that we do have, at least it's on the city's calendar right now, a meeting scheduled for July 27th. So as Alicia said, all we need is one member to be a peer there, and then we'll stay, you know, we're gonna continue into, and by then we'll have the actual date firmed out. So we'll just basically, we'll open the hearing, I'll, you know, remember can say, you know, we can just make that announcement the member can was there and then we'll just say that the actual meeting table there and I'll literally stay on the call for an hour in case anybody wants it.

[Alicia Hunt]: The other thing you can do is if you know you're not actually going to hear it when you post the agenda for that you can say that it will be. continued and the date and time it's going to be continued to on the written agenda and then people don't even have to log in to get that information.

[Mike Caldera]: But it sounds like based on Dennis's update we don't even need to do that. So if Yvette said all the dates work we've got the other three members who need to vote and so we'll just make sure we pick a date. right now that works for everybody. So the board was considering essentially the first three Thursdays in August. The middle three.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, the middle, not the first. The 10th, the 17th, and the 24th.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, 10th, 17th, and 24th. So all three of those work for me too. So Andre, Jamie, good for you. Andre, any of them work for you?

[Andre Leroux]: Uh, yes, I just, I have some uncertainty about the first two dates because I, I may be going to visit my son who's moving to Chicago next month. So, uh, but I haven't figured out exactly when that is going to be in the middle of the month sometime.

[Adam Hurtubise]: August 24th, then it sounds like we'll have quorum. So does that work?

[Denis MacDougall]: Just then to make it all sort of legit, why don't we just get a motion to continue until August 24th?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, would anyone like to make that motion?

[Unidentified]: Motion to continue 15 Hadley Place to the next meeting, to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 24th at 6 30 p.m. Do I have a second? Seconded.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, we'll take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike, aye. All right, this matter is continued to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which will be held on August 24th. All right, great.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Dennis, could you please read the next matter? You're on mute.

[Denis MacDougall]: 421 High Street, case number 8-2023-13. Applicant and owner Richard Monagle, RJM Development, LLC, are petitioning for a variance from the Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to construct a nine-unit residential structure with approximately 1,000 square feet of commercial space located in both Commercial 1 and Single Family 1 with a structure toward the front of the property in the C1 district and subsequent parking is proposed in the rear located in the SF1 district. with insufficient front and side yard setbacks, spot coverage, lot width, and usable open space. City of Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, section 6, table B, table of dimensional requirements.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And so I see we have both Mr. Monagle and then Attorney Desmond, you're representing. Mr. Monagle as well, is that right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I am. It's a long night. So good evening Chairman Caldera, board members. I'm here this evening with the development team for 421 High Street in Medford. Mr. Monagle is here, Milton Yu of Peter Quinn Architects of Somerville, Jack Sullivan of Sullivan Engineering of Woburn, and Dan Mills of MDM transportation consultants in Marlborough. This is a little bit different in terms of a major project coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals in that we have not yet presented to the CD board as there is no special permit required for use under the table A of the use variances of use uses. And so it's been determined that under the new ordinance that the zoning will be separate from the special permit grant and that the CD board will have the special permit granting authority with respect to the project and that the zoning board will will decide whether or not to grant those variances that are requested in conjunction with the special permit request. By way of background, the site is situated at 421-423 High Street and approximately 11,420 square foot parcel of land, which formerly housed the Sincada Funeral Home and actually a second floor apartment. The parcel is situated in both the C1 and the SF1 district. The portion of marked lot one, and let me share my plans. I don't think you need to bail me out, Jack. I think I got this, at least now. So in terms, can you see that? No, because I'm not sharing, right? Hold on one second. I can share my screen. Okay. Okay, so this is the parcel. This is lot one, which is approximately 6892 square feet, and that parcel is located. Within the SF1 district, it's a nonconforming lot in that it doesn't have the required 7,000 square foot required in the SF1 district. Lot A is located within the C district, C1 district that contains 4,680 square feet of land. Consistent with the The location of the funeral home which actually took up the entire back portion of this lot I think if we have it here so there, there's the existing structure of the funeral home which as you can see didn't make the real lot line know we are requirement, but was off the front but hit both lot lines in terms of taking up the parcel. This will also be located fully within the C-1 district as it's required to be because there's no use allowed for multifamilies within the single one district. in terms of, and the C1 district does allow for both commercial and multiple dwellings as a right. The petitioner proposes to construct a mixed-use four-story structure with a GFA of approximately 13,724 square feet consisting of one commercial retail space with an approximate GFA of 1,091 square feet and nine residential units consisting of seven two-bedroom units and two one-bedroom units. The petitioner is seeking a variance from table B as it pertains to the dimensional items In number four, as to with usable area lot coverage front and inside guys setbacks. The relief side is clearly related to the shape of the lot, which kind of looks like a square figure figure eight of the portion that fronts on high street. being narrow and long with a depth that's about two and a half times what the width of the property is. The property is actually much wider back here and would meet the width requirements but it has to be measured from the street for the total depth so that that creates the hardship and the structure can't go on the SF1 portion of the lot. The front yard setback is zero. The requirement based on the average of buildings within 150 feet is 3.2 and that's based on a calculation which is set forth in section 4.23 of the ordinance. Both side yards are deficient as based on the building and the height plus length over six. The requirement is 20.1 feet and the westerly side yard setback is 0.7 and the easterly side yard setback is 4.4 feet. The width of the measured lot measured just within the lot lines is 48 feet, creating a deficiency of 52 feet. The open space ordinance requires 3,511 square feet or 25% usable open space. There are decks of approximately 1,100 square feet that would provide, if I'm correct, that that doesn't have to be open to the sky, 75%, about 8%. And we are over on landscape open space. by 15%. So that sort of makes up for what what is lost in the technical usable open space.

[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, just a clarifying question. Could you speak to the existing condition of the back portion of the two lots. It says on the zoning evaluation for parking and not applicable. But is there is this area already paved or is it like what's there now?

[Kathleen Desmond]: It is already paved. It was paved and used by the funeral home for parking in the back. And it has been used by the adjacent owner. The glass company, but that will my clients had some discussions with him and he understands that it, you know, once this development goes through that that that won't be permitted anymore.

[Mike Caldera]: So the lot of the existing lot is already. used either in full or in large part as a parking lot. And so here there's just a proposed configuration of how the spaces and so on are oriented in that lot. Is that right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: And you know I believe it's reducing a significant amount again of impervious pavement because there's only going to be 10 parking spaces located in the back with landscaping and we have a landscaping plan around this and bike racks.

[Andre Leroux]: Attorney Desmond, I'm sorry for interrupting. Can you also speak to the circulation because it's a little confusing. It looks like there's a right of way on two of the abutting properties. Is that the way it is now or is that changing?

[Kathleen Desmond]: So this is a recorded 10-foot right of way and in both all of these properties, including I believe the property next door are recorded land. So this is recorded in the registry, the registered land section. The one thing about registered land, the only thing that it has any value with respect to at this point is that there's no claim of adverse possession that can be made with respect to things which are registered land. So this 10 foot right of way is a registered right of way. And it is proposed and Dan Mills can speak to this a little bit further, he's going to take you through the traffic patent, but the proposal is to come in the right of way to the parking lot and to exit out of the easement area. This easement area was was done more recently in connection with the subdivision of, or the transfer of these three parcels were once held in common ownership. In order for this to, this was also a non-conforming lot. And in order to build the structure on here, my understanding is, and I wasn't involved, so this is just my understanding, is that this property was deeded the rights to this area, so they own it. And I believe I included within my package to you the easement. So this easement area was reserved by the prior owner of Rick Monagle in perpetuity for use, for all uses, the driveway could be used for, it could be landscaped, it could be fenced. So although they don't technically own this portion of the lot, in perpetuity, they have the exclusive use to use this easement area. And I do believe I included that in my package to you. So in terms of my worksheet and my argument with respect to the setback issues, again, although it appears that there's 20 feet or 19 feet that we are in violation of on this side of the lot, In effect, even though we can't count it because the actual lot line is here, for all practical intent and purpose, this 18.31 feet is exclusive use area for the benefit of this property. So in terms of the side yard setback, even though they don't own it, it would operate in a practical sense as if it was the side yard lot line. And I and I also pointed out with respect to this side yard that that the 10 foot right away is there and while again it's not within the lot line. it does operate as a buffer on the property. The difficulty here is that with respect to commercial property, there would be no side yard, front yard, setback requirements. The only requirement on a commercial is the rear yard setback. And so the addition of the multi, the residential component to this, creates a situation where if you were to enforce strictly the requirements, you would have a building that was very skinny because you have to go by each floor and determine what floor that's used, what the use is, and then apply what the requirements are for that particular use. So if you were to strictly enforce those, those provisions you would have a situation where you had buildings that didn't have reasonable space available to them and that were, you know, that were odd looking. And the hardship would be that this is a permitted use within the district and it's a much needed use in terms of housing. And in terms of the relief that we're seeking, I think probably the most significant is a side yard setback relief, but that again is somewhat mitigated by the fact that this is exclusive use area. So, even though it doesn't belong ownership wise to the owner, they have the exclusive use and benefit to use it as if it didn't belong to them. With regard to the front yard setback, much of that's created by the overhang, as is the lot coverage. So there's a decorative overhang on the second story of the building, which gets calculated into lot coverage, doesn't increase the gross floor area of the building itself. If you actually take in the easement area and calculate That space, in addition to what's within the confines of the lot line, you come out under what the requirement for lot coverage is. It's 2% over, but it's attributable pretty much to the overhang and not to the structure itself. And again, with width, the same thing in the sense that this is an unusually shaped lot. It's very narrow in the front and long. but you do then again have the additional 18 to 20 feet in terms of the easement area. I don't know at this point, I kind of went way beyond where I was at the beginning. I don't know if we wanna look at the plans first or if you have some questions about the layout.

[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, one question I have that I think is, probably good to ask now. So as I understand it, currently these lots are not combined, like they're two separate lots that are being used in combination. I just want to check if the board were to, as a condition of any decision, require them to be deeded as a combined lot. Is that something the applicants?

[Kathleen Desmond]: They're registered lands, so they can't be combined, combined. But there is a doctrine of merger, which nobody likes to bring up and rely on. But the reality is, is that that back lot, which is 6,700 unchanged square feet, doesn't meet the requirements for a conforming single family lot. So it's a non-conforming lot. And by virtue of that, I don't think it could be spun off as a single lot. When the properties were deeded, they were all deeded not as one parcel, but parcel one and parcel two on the deed, and that obviously would continue. And that wouldn't be an issue, but the registered land nature of this, because I think Bill asked the same question. And when I spoke with Richard Mead at Medford Engineering, he said, you're not gonna be able to combine them because they're both registered land, and they aren't gonna allow you to do that in terms of a parcel. But effectively, based on the fact that you can't, that backlog is non-conforming, effectively they are merged into one lot and the deeds have always read as one lot.

[Mike Caldera]: I see, okay. So just to pare it back to my understanding, so because they're registered, a literal merger is not a realistic option, but because even if for some reason we later learned the acronym merger didn't kick in here, this back lot couldn't really be used for anything else. So it's, there's not like the, the likelihood that it would just be spun off and would turn into something else is essentially zero. Is that your?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Because it doesn't really have any frontage, a 10 foot frontage on the, on the front of that, of that lot. Yeah. And in addition, it's undersized for SF1 parcel of land.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so I mean, I guess hypothetically, it could be transferred to one of the neighbors or something, but yeah, all intents and purposes, I think I understand.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, I think there could be a restriction to that effect, a condition I'd have to research that, but I believe that you could condition it as one parcel to that.

[Mike Caldera]: I see Commissioner Fordy has his hand raised. Commissioner Fordy, please go ahead.

[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, yeah, so I did look into this a little bit. And I, I tend to agree with attorney Desmond that, um, for purposes of zoning, um, the, um, contiguous ownership on a lot, uh, there is, um, there is a, um, um, case law that allows for a contiguous flowing lot that otherwise, um, is, uh, joined by common ownership to, to, for purposes of zoning, uh, can be, can be, uh, considered one lot. And it would be in a case more like Dover amended uses such as like Tufts University and churches and so forth. Those are the kinds of cases that they cite. But here, there is no other conventional use for this lot. It would never be a buildable lot and it would never succeed for anything other than the allowed accessory parking for the project. Whether the lots are merged by deed or by plan, I don't think It would matter and especially here where there's a new if if they do succeed in getting an order granted, it would become one lot. by virtue of its order, there would be no other way to divide up the lot or to make it somehow invalid by the order from the Zoning Board of Appeals. And certainly could reach out to KP Law for a little bit more clarity on that, but I'm pretty sure, I'm confident that nothing that the board's considering tonight would be detrimental or in some way might backfire in a sense that because they were separated lots by deed that they somehow didn't comply and made the order invalid. So that's kind of the way I see it, so.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Usually merger is to the detriment of the applicant, you know, because if lots are held in common ownership and they're non-conforming, you then have to use that portion to make the law conforming. So I think that applies in kind of reverse in this situation.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. That answered my question. Please proceed.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, I think at this point, maybe it would be a good idea for Milton to go through the plans to show what the building looks like in the proposed layout and whatnot. So Milton, I'll turn it over to you on the architectural plans.

[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Please go ahead, Milton. So, hi, it's Milton Yu, Peter Quinn Architects, Davis Square, Somerville. Do you wanna just keep on

[Kathleen Desmond]: Oh, I'm sorry, do you want me to go, I can pull it up. Okay. You want to pull it up.

[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, sure.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Do I need permission.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, you should be all self Nelson. Yeah, I gave you co host permissions a little bit of a start.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Does that work?

[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: You can see it. Okay. So, Attorney Desmond went over a lot of the numbers, the zoning stats, if you will, with the building, but I just want to show you like more graphically what the building and the site is about. So, with the building taking most of the area of this portion of the lot, we did free up the minimum required amount of rear yard here so that the, you know, and traffic would be able to answer more of these questions, but in terms of how the cars come in, there's two driveways come in here, access the parking, and when they leave, They have to come out this way. So therefore the building is set back from this property line, the correct amount, 15 feet at 15.1 feet. We'd have the 10 spaces, nine units. One is accessible by parking here too for 12 spaces here. covered portion on the ground level for the commercial space. And I should probably just show the first floor. Covered walkway here, general entrance to the units above, one unit on the first floor with its own patio. And then above we have four units, each with its own outdoor space. repeated on the third floor, but the third floors also have an upper and a lower portion of their units. So the units six, seven, eight, nine have a lower and an upper and the upper level has also outdoor space as the building steps in to sort of help with the overall massing of the building. There's a front elevation, you see the arcade on the lower level. This is actually a step back. I don't know if you want me to go over the materials so much, that might be more like a community development concern, but we have fiber cement panels above, fiber cement siding in the mid portion, and brick veneer on the base level. Here's the right elevation. This is that 15.1 feet setback portion at the rear where the cars come in here and then exit here. The left elevation, you see how this steps back up here. There's an illustration of overall elevation comparisons down the street from us.

[Adam Hurtubise]: 3D rendering.

[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: This was requested of us at a neighborhood meeting view from a rear border. One of the reasons why this was shown is because you would not be able to see the mechanicals up here at this given angle. We followed the ordinance for lighting requirements. And we can, if you like, go over some shadow studies. This is summer, but you don't get much shadow here. We have spring and fall. existing down here, proposed up here. Most of the shadow, because of the orientation, falls back onto the parking lot here. Most of the additional shadow is created. Same story in winter. A large portion of the shadow generated falls back onto its own site except for in the afternoon. That's really what I had for the overall walkthrough in this. I'd be happy to answer some more questions if you had. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So in just a moment, I'm going to check in with the board for questions. But before I do, I just want to share some details that are perhaps relevant for the board to consider. So oftentimes a major project goes before the Community Development Board before it visits the Zoning Board of Appeals that did not happen in this case. As I understand it, there were some trade-offs and there's no requirement that it happened in that order. But as a result, In general, I'm not a huge fan of visiting this order, even though I understand and I'm certainly willing to do it in situations where it is warranted and there's concerns about spending a lot of time and effort on something that perhaps would then later get shot down by the DBA. What I will say, though, is because in this case, the applicant has chosen to visit in this order, As a board, what we have to kind of be careful about and think about is that this project is required by ordinance to visit the community development board for site plan review. And in the worst case scenario where signals are crossed and the board makes a decision here and then community development board proposes some substantial or requests some, oh, Attorney Desmond, did you want to interject or can I finish?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, it's just in terms of procedure, this wasn't necessarily presented as a choice. So in terms of the order, and Daniel, Daniel, as well, in terms of the order, it was it was presented that that this is kind of the new the new path. Okay, well, so

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for that clarification. I'm going to finish my blurb because I don't think it's, it's not related to, uh, whether or not a decision was made and it's not even related to philosophical discussions about what the right order is, which, uh, Danielle, I'll come to you in just a moment. I just want to get the full thought out there. So the, um, why am I bringing this up? So essentially there could be a scenario where the board, uh, makes a decision here. This would later go to CDB. CDB might require some changes, which would then trigger having to come back to this board to amend a decision. So that is there if needed. There are some things the board can do to reduce that likelihood. And so we could clarify in any decision. If there's certain elements of the projects that we don't consider as needing to come back, we could perhaps be explicit about that just so that it resolves some of the ambiguity. And then lastly, I do want to make it clear that there are valid use cases where the ZBA might, in the form of a condition, impose a requirement that TAB, Ryan Schucharder): falls within the. TAB, Ryan Schucharder): architectural domain. TAB, Ryan Schucharder): And, and so I want the the board to retain that. ability if needed, but just be mindful that we're not trying to substitute ourselves for the CDB here. There will be a site plan review, and so it's possible certain issues that aren't major call-outs that would require a condition for our decision could be addressed through that channel. Go ahead, Ms. Evans. Just I'll go to her and then I can go back to you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I mean, I certainly anticipated that if there were some change that attorney does, I'll go to I'll go to Miss Evans and then I'll make sure.

[Danielle Evans]: Thank you. Thank you. So. So this only this doesn't require a special permit, it's just site plan review. So the use is by right. And it's only subject to site plan review. And the Community Development Board is a site plan review authority. but they cannot approve a site plan that violates zoning. So they first need to get the variances from the zoning board, which now makes it compliant zoning. So you're approving an envelope, heights, setbacks, and anything that was needed for the lot, like I think there was lot size, some tricky things like that. And so while you do consider you know, aspects of the site plan, because, I mean, you can't really ignore the site plan because you have to figure out if these, you know, reduced site setbacks would be, you know, detrimental. But you're not to get into the weeds about landscaping, and some of the details of the architectural elements, which is the domain of the community development board. They're the site plan review authority. So you're basically varying the dimensional standards so that the CD, so that the community development board can approve a site plan that departs from the dimensional standards. And this is what is done in other cities. And as a former zoning board member in another city, this happened a lot. We would get requests for height variances, setbacks, and we had to be very careful to, like, stay in our lane, but it's really hard to not want to get in the weeds of things. But having to, you know, staff would rein us back in. and try to keep us focused on what was before us, which were the variances for some of the dimensionals, so that the planning board could review the site plan.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks, Ms. Evans. I just want to double check. Andre, is this a point of information or can I go to Attorney Desmond and then to you? You can go to Attorney Desmond. Attorney Desmond, what were you going to add?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't remember. All right, Andre, go ahead.

[Andre Leroux]: I'd like to motion to open the public hearing.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I was going to have to run through the traffic just briefly, so you have an understanding of it. It's up to you. Do that or not.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I prefer if we didn't go straight to the public hearing but someone can second that if they'd like, I just, I just want to say, I don't fully share Ms Evans interpretation but I think we're saying similar things that you know, to the extent that the zoning board wants to defer to the expertise of the CDB, we should be careful about not being overly restrictive in any decision we make here. All right. So there's a second. Okay. So we're going to vote on whether to open the public hearing. Okay. So then Andre.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Jamie.

[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. The public hearing is now open. Do we have, if you are a member of the public and you would like to comment, please feel free to raise your hand on Zoom, turn on your camera, raise your hand, type in the chat, send Dennis an email, dmcdougall at Medford-MA.gov. There was a member of the public who previously shared something in the chat, who's welcome to make a comment if they would like to state their name and address for the record. They don't have to. I see someone by the name of Heather Hurd unmuted themselves. Yes. Please say your name and address for the record.

[Heather Hurd]: Hi. Yes, my name is Heather Hurd and I was actually trying to raise my hand and I couldn't figure out how to do it.

[Mike Caldera]: No worries.

[Heather Hurd]: But thank you for unmuting me.

[Mike Caldera]: So address for the record too.

[Heather Hurd]: Three ham in place. Thank you. I live around the corner from 421 423 high, and I'm a neighbor, and my question has to do with not the building which looks very nice, it has to do with the parking lot in the back for which I think is for 23. I wanted to ask about an underground river that runs through that parking lot. It actually runs behind my property, behind my neighbor's property, and it runs under the parking lot as well. And the previous owner, the funeral home owner, when he paved that lot, he had to put in a basin of some kind. It's still there, but it's overgrown because of the underground river, which I believe drains into the mystic. And I just wondered what the plans were in the development of the parking lot for that type of water drainage.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, is that is that something the applicant could speak to the drainage plan?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sullivan, our civil engineers here this evening, and he can address that.

[Jack Sullivan]: Sure, for the record, my name is Jack Sullivan. I'm owner of the solvent engineering group. So This will get more into the planning board discussion, but since you did ask the question, there is the drainage at the rear of that parking lot, like you spoke about Heather, and it does consist, it's like five to six feet of crushed stone. We're looking to formalize that drainage system and put in a rain garden and expand it. So I did provide a detailed stormwater report to the city engineer. So we have a design plan that planning board will review, the city engineer will review my stormwater report, but we are putting in a stormwater mitigation for this project. And just so the board members know, and the members of the public know, we are decreasing the amount of impervious surfaces by about 1900 square feet for this project. But that will be addressed at the planning board meeting, but we do have stormwater controls for this site.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Do we have any other comments from members of the public?

[Mike Caldera]: I'm not going to read the comment in the chat because I don't know that person's address. Go ahead.

[Denis MacDougall]: We did get a motion from Lisa Kennedy and Paul Spielman. If you want to just unmute yourself, you can please ask your question and just state your name and address for the record.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'd be happy to speak to that. I just want to make sure that everyone's following the same procedure.

[SPEAKER_18]: So we need a... I've been attempting to raise my hand, start my video. Doesn't work.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh, great. Wonderful. Please go ahead and name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_18]: This is Lisa Kennedy. They is not allowing me to unmute the video. I'll raise my hand. But I'm concerned about green space in West Medford and the zero setback for this building doesn't create a atmosphere of green in front of the building at all. It's right up against the sidewalk apparently. and the design with the driveway on both sides, why don't you just have one driveway? Why don't you have a green space in that agreed upon space with the building next door? Just have a green strip that could be enjoyed by the building members and Oh, good. Now we have a video. So the just the opportunity to have more green space with that. kind of strange strip on the side of the building that has this agreement with both properties, make that the green space and provide more trees for Medford City of Trees. And the original building on the parking lot was a single family home, big, huge garden, trees. torn down and paved over by Sankati recently. It's not always been a parking lot. This is relatively recently became a parking lot and destroyed the open space. So I wanna take note that a lot of members of the city of Medford want as much open space as possibly preserved, even though there's a four-story building being placed on top of this old funeral home. wanting to do everything you can to preserve open space.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Ms. Kennedy, you may have touched on it a little bit, but she previously made a comment about the always one parcel thing. So I think you're just saying this is used to, before it was a parking lot, there was a single family home.

[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, it was zoned single family, still zoned single family, yeah. Yeah, it was not. It was not joined with sync audio funeral home they bought it.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you for your comment. The. If I understood the plans correctly the to your question about why it's not a two way driveway I think it's just a width. So that's why they have the circulation.

[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, but if only 10 cars are using it, they can manage to go in and out and take turns.

[Mike Caldera]: Well, yeah, it gets a little more complicated when you factor in the ordinance, but point taken.

[SPEAKER_18]: Not a driveway now, and it wasn't a driveway when the funeral home owned it. The funeral home had driving right in and out that one driveway for their events, and they used it as a single driveway. They didn't need to drive around the funeral home.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So Attorney Desmond, I think I've said this in a prior hearing. I'll just say it again. I don't want this to turn into a discussion, but if there's something you want to clarify, please go ahead.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So the right of way, again, to the left of the property in between the glass company and the building provides access, I believe, to the back of the glass company as well. So that's a right of way that's been provided by land court. And it's in the plans. It's not something that we can choose to eliminate.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Do we have other comments from members of the public. I do see in chat, Tim Conant did share their address, 20 Brooks and Hammond, just asking for clarification on whether there's a date for the planning board meeting. My understanding is that meeting will be scheduled after today, partially based on the outcome of this hearing. Attorney Desmond. Oh, was that accidental? Okay, great. Do we have other? Okay, I see a hand raised. I'm guessing that's Paul Spielman. Name and address for the record, please. Could you unmute yourself? I can't hear you.

[MCM00001496_SPEAKER_06]: Hello, yeah. So I'm Paul Spielman. I live at 2 Hammond Place next to Heather. It's the same house where Elizabeth Kennedy, where Lisa Kennedy lives. And I'm concerned about 10 parking spaces for the units that are back there. And the commercial units are also going to have people who work there who are also going to look for places to park. I'm concerned that parking is going to overflow onto Hammond Place. that there's not enough parking for all the activities that will happen in this building and that there'll be people parking on Hammond Place, which is right around the corner and convenient. So what can we do about that?

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. That's something the board can certainly consider. I will say that this proposal does provide parking in excess of the zoning requirements, but yeah, point taken. What's hard for us is we don't know the commercial tenant, what the use would be. But yeah, the board will generally consider the dimensional relief saw and there's not dimensional relief being sought for parking here.

[MCM00001496_SPEAKER_06]: Glass people use the parking lot now. I think I heard in the attorney's description that they would no longer use it. They spread out into the parking lot now and they have a small section of parking lot that I guess is theirs. That's the portion of the parking lot that's closest to High Street. But their trucks are using this space and backing up and possibly making it less accessible to the tenants who are going to be there. Also, I'm still concerned about the commercial tenants that are going to be there. Where are they going to park?

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So I see Attorney Desmond has her hand raised. And yeah, Attorney Desmond, whatever clarification you're gonna make, could you also just clarify if you have knowledge of whether the Glax Company will be able to park in these spaces?

[Kathleen Desmond]: No, no. It's a short answer to that. I think we indicated that this is registered land and so there's no right of adverse possession. So no matter how many times people have utilized that property, Again, it's property that's owned. They can't make a claim to that property legally. Rick Monagle has spoken with the owner of Amman Glass. It's my understanding that he is intending on making different arrangements. Rick has told him if this project is approved or if we're moving towards a September, hopefully early fall date, what we have at least an indication that we have approvals that by that at that point, he's going to have to move on and he's been provided notice with respect to that.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Also, the commercial space is 1000 square feet. So under the ordinances, it's reconstituted, it doesn't require spaces for for the commercial use, and it's a very small space. It's not as if the entire floor is going to be utilized for commercial space. It's 1,000 square feet of commercial space on the bottom floor. And there's actually one residential unit at the back of that first floor.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Monaco. I see you raise your hand. So if you'd like to add to that clarification, please go ahead.

[SPEAKER_23]: Yes. Just a little clarification on, uh, Alma class. I did speak to, um, Tom Tilton. Uh, on a few different occasions, he was talking about maybe relocating the last I spoke to him. He was looking at a place out in Stoneham and they do, um, uh, park some of the vehicles back there, but that a lot back there does that I do have ownership of that in the back lot. So, because of now I told him, you know, if it gets approved, that he'll have to find somewhere else to park his vehicles, and he knows that. And a lot of the other vehicles back there, same thing, he said they'd be probably coming with him. Again, last night I spoke to him with Stoneham, and respect to the single family in the back, the people I had, because I took over this project, I bought it from the guys that were moving on from it for a financial situation, they needed to move on from it. So I took a run, they told me it was probably about 35 or 40 years ago, the single family was torn down in the back, and the parking lot was paved over with Sincardi Funeral Home. I don't know the exact date, but that's what I was told. They told me it was, you know, several decades ago that that happened.

[MCM00001496_SPEAKER_06]: About 10 years ago, maximum, that the parking lot, that the house was torn down and the parking lot was built.

[SPEAKER_23]: That's what I was told. They told me it was about 30 years ago. It is, if you look back there, it is an old parking lot.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_23]: No, it's not.

[Adam Hurtubise]: That's not the case. That's not the case. I'm sure there's records.

[Mike Caldera]: No, no, no, no, no. This is not a discussion. People get called on, then they get to talk. So the, as it turns, thank you for the clarification. As it turns out, the, when this happened isn't relevant to the board statutory analysis. Right now it's a parking lot. I understand. I was just trying to. Yeah, no, of course. Do we have any other comments from members of the public?

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, I'm not seeing any.

[Mike Caldera]: Do we have a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation? Moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're gonna take a roll call, Jim. Jamie?

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, public portion's now closed. You're now deliberating. Thoughts from the board?

[Andre Leroux]: Well, I just wanna say, I think that in terms of what we're looking at as a board, I feel like it's pretty straightforward. I wouldn't have a problem uh you know proving these variances i think that it pretty much conforms to the footprint of the existing building it would add housing and some activity and walkability to to the area i think it increases the amount of trees i see in the landscaping plan five new trees a significant amount of additional you know, green space for, and rain gardens. So, you know, I see this as a net positive. And I think just in terms of what we're supposed to do, the, you know, I don't think the variances that we're being asked to approve are very significant and are a net positive.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Other thoughts from members of the board?

[Unidentified]: I'll compare with Andre the additional landscaping work that will happen around the parking lot will add green space. I do like the fact that they're going to be redoing the drainage as well. On the variances on the setbacks, I do understand the concern for the zero setback on the front. but for West Method Square in the C1 zone, that is pretty standard. And I feel that the additional housing that it's gonna add to that area and that high traffic with the commuter rail there is a benefit.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Jim, your thoughts? I don't have any comment at this time.

[Andre Leroux]: And I would just add, actually, the one thing I forgot to mention is that I do think some of the things that the neighbors were speaking to are more things that the planning board, the CD board will be dealing with. So things like design and landscaping and materials, like we're really just looking at the envelope of the development.

[Mike Caldera]: Yes, yeah. So my take is, the same as that and just to elaborate. So essentially, what the zoning board needs to consider here is the front and side setback violations, the lot coverage, and the lot width, and whether those Merit variances that meet the statutory criteria. So we've got to relate them to a hardship that's pertaining to the shape, topography, soil conditions of the lot and or structures and then you know, it is within the board's purview. And then we've got to ensure that in granting this relief, we're not going to substantially derogate from the intent of the zoning ordinance, and that this could be done without substantial detriment to the public good. So that's the criteria. So things like parking concerns, concerns about the landscaping and so on, unless they, rise to the level of a concern that the zoning board would need to impose a condition to conclude no substantial detriment, those are not things that the zoning board would directly need to factor in. These are things that would typically be considered and approved upon during site plan review. And I will reiterate, I do wanna get like a temperature check from the board on if we were to approve this, how we'd like to communicate to the CDB, you know, the types of things that could be changed that wouldn't require a visit back here, you know, just to ensure a seamless process as possible for the applicant. But yeah, in general, I do I've seen other projects in site plan review where the types of concerns we heard from residents tonight are able to be addressed and the zoning board would only address those concerns if it fit within the parameters of what we're analyzing from a statutory standpoint. So yeah my take, this is a Substantial improvement to the existing lot in a commercial district we're adding residential density within close proximity to the commuter rail. These are folks who would potentially frequent the businesses and in West Medford Square. They're retaining the commercial space. The lot in the back, which before I learned more I was most concerned about it's already, it's already paid so they're, they're actually introducing more. pervious surfaces and green space. And while this is deficient in terms of the usable open space, there are patios for all of the units. And yeah, so from my perspective, certainly the shape of the lot is unusual. I do think when you consider the right of way on the one side and then the the easement on the other side, it takes already pretty small de minimis dimensional relief being sought and it really emphasizes even more so that this is pretty minor relief being sought. And so we're investing in a property in a central business district or adding some density. I think there's a lot of pros to this project and the parking is in excess of what's required. And I'm sure that's something the CDB is gonna consider and work through with the applicant. What's the right configuration of that parking lot? What's the right way to landscape it? So yeah, I think it meets the statutory requirements. It looks like a good project to me. So that's my, That's my take.

[Adam Hurtubise]: What else should we discuss as a board? I vote to approve the variances. All right, do I have a second?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I'll second.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we're going to take a roll call.

[Mike Caldera]: Jim?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jamie?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mike I. All right, so the the variances are approved. I would feel comfortable in the decision writing something to the effect of that if the building envelope doesn't changed materially in a way that would change the dimensional relief being sought. And if there are reconfigurations to the parking lot or the landscape that happened in site plan review, or the materials on the architectural plan, that none of those would rise to the level where this project would need to come back before us. Does that seem reasonable to include language such as that from the board perspective?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Agreed.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre, are you good with that?

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I'm not sure it's necessary, but I'm fine with it.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Yeah. I just want to err on the side of being a little explicit here. Uh, ambiguity sometimes results in frustration and confusion. So, um, but yeah, this would not be a condition. It would merely be something we clarify in the, in the order itself. All right. Uh, well. So congratulations, you have a project that you can bring before the community development board. All right. Thank you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: You kept us guessing till the last minute.

[Mike Caldera]: I did.

[Kathleen Desmond]: No, Mr. Torani was.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh, yeah.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes. Thank you very much.

[Mike Caldera]: That'll be the wild card.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. Have a good night.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thanks. You too. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Denis MacDougall]: I saw the other folks on the line, the neighbors in a butter. The Community Development Board will be sending out notification for their meeting. So you'll get another letter in the mail telling you when that meeting will occur. So that's, you know, I'm not sure of the date. They don't know the date yet, but when that date is decided, you will get a notice in the mail.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. So I think we are... Good luck neighbors. Thank you for coming out. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I think we're almost through the agenda. We already approved the minutes. There's just the administrative updates. So do we have any administrative updates?

[Denis MacDougall]: I can just sort of tell you without actually, you know, I don't want to, because it's still paperwork still has to be done, but a new member will be appointed in the next few days. I've talked to the mayor's office about it. We're just working about getting the paperwork out to the person. So once that is, I'll sort of send out an email of introduction to all of you and sort of get them on the, uh, on the, on the, on the list. And then we can move forward with a full board. And then the plan is eventually once that, you know, we get the second associate member slot available. We actually have another person that's going to go into that. We've already sort of got that person in mind, but we're just waiting, you know, we don't, they can't really be appointed until we actually have that in, uh, in there. So, but the good thing is that literally once that is actually approved by the council, basically the paperwork is ready to go out and we'll get that person on. So. Great. That's exciting.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Um,

[Alicia Hunt]: Mike, I just wanted to share one thing with the board. It's not so relevant to you all, but I'm excited. And I think you guys would appreciate this. We've given another job offer in my office. So we have a new climate planner starting in just over a week. And this is a position we've never had before. It's grant funded to work on climate and policy. And a lot of the, The grant was around getting our climate goals from the climate plan and our comprehensive plan enshrined into our zoning and regulations. So part of her role will be working with updating zoning. So she might be actually, as I say that, somebody useful for you all to talk to offline about thoughts. But I just wanted to share that I'm super excited. It's somebody I've worked with in the past, so I'm glad to be bringing her here to Medford.

[Andre Leroux]: So awesome. Well, thank you for the update. Dennis, I assume you saw in the chat the message from Tim Conan asking to be mailed.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, but I got his info and I just talked to him directly and I'll get the contact info and get it to Amanda and we'll be able to figure out some way for them to be kept abreast.

[Mike Caldera]: Do we have any other administrative updates that anyone would like to share?

[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm not seeing any others.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Oh, yes, Commissioner 40.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah. So, um, Mr. Chair, thank you. So, I just wanted to let the board kind of formally know that I accepted another position in another city, I first want to say to the board that it's been It's certainly been an honor and a pleasure to serve with you. I will continue in this position on an interim basis provided that the mayor wants me to. And I just wanted to let you know that it's been refreshing and a pleasure to work with a, you know, with a zoning board that has the desire to seek and do the right thing. It's not, doesn't happen all the time in every city and town. And I can tell you that I found that you really put a lot of thought and effort into your decisions. And I honestly just want to thank you. I'm very grateful for being able to share this last year with you. And again, I'm going to continue being advisory to the city as long as I'm needed until I can help the mayor replace me with a suitable successor. And so I just wanted to thank you very much for your time. And you'll continue to see me on the screen until I'm no longer needed. So thank you very much. I appreciate it.

[Mike Caldera]: Thanks for the update, Bill. Sad to see you go. It's really been a pleasure working with you. I think you've done a great job and really appreciate your preparation, your knowledge, and how you really been a great partner and a resource to the board. So sad to see you go. Wish you the best in your new role and glad to hear that you may be staying on at least in the interim while the city hopefully somehow finds a way to replace you. I don't know how they will, but yeah, thank you for everything.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, Any other administrative updates or anything the board wants to say?

[Andre Leroux]: Congratulations, Bill. And I will motion to adjourn.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Do I have a second?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. All in favor?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Aye. All right. Good night, everybody. Thank you. Thanks.