[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, so everyone welcome to the February meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are gonna get started in just a few moments once everyone is in. This is our regular monthly meeting. We have with us Dennis McDougall from the Planning Development and he is the clerk for our board. We also have Bill Fordy who is our commissioner, our building commissioner. Um, Dennis, do we have any other staff on tonight?
[Denis MacDougall]: We do not know. It's, um, it's, it's a light week here. Some people are a bunch of people are on a vacation with their kids.
[SPEAKER_16]: Oh, good. Well, good for them. They're missing the snow.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Yeah, I agree.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay. And then folks, we, um, we have, um, Michael Darragh and Ronnie Andre LaRue, Jamie Thompson and myself, Jacqueline Dardy here from the board. So Dennis, could you please read off our little, um, Yes, little virtual meeting a note please.
[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16 2022 governor Baker sign into law and act relative to relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, which among other things extends the expiration of the provisions pertaining to the open meeting on March 31 2023. Specifically this extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location, and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The act does not make any new changes to the open meeting other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15 2022 to March 31 2023. Okay, thank you guys. Okay, so let's call for 36 Riverside as please.
[SPEAKER_16]: Right. For 36 Riverside Avenue case number a dash 2022-19 continue from January 26 applicant and owner Amarok
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm a rock LLC is petitioning for a variance in the chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to construct 10 foot high fence in industrial zoning district, which is a violation of the city of Medford zoning ordinance, which stipulates that fences with posts over seven feet tall need zoning approval.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, do we have anyone here from the applicant?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, they sent me a letter basically saying that they're still trying to work on what came up in the last meeting with meeting with the police chief and trying to figure out that part of requirements and so they request a continuance until our next meeting.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, perfect. Folks, is everyone okay with a continuance on that one?
[Mike Caldera]: I just want to double check. My recollection is the applicant already waived the statutory timelines, but do we have that?
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I believe so, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: They did, yeah. Yep, they did. We're good on that end.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, perfect. Do I have a motion from anyone on that?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I motion to continue 436 Riverside Avenue to the next regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals.
[SPEAKER_16]: Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, and all in favor, Mike Teldara? Yes. Jim Tarani?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_16]: Andre LaRue?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_16]: And my apologies, Jamie, I'm going to designate you as a voting member today. Jamie Thompson?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_16]: and Jacqueline already is yes. Okay, so 436 Riverside Avenue is continued to our next regular scheduled meeting. Dennis, could you please call 55 Burgett Avenue?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. 55 Burgett Avenue, case number A-2022-15, continued from January 26. Applicant and owner, Phaedra Varelis, is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to erect a new eight-foot fence on a property containing a single-family house in a single-family two-zoning district allowed use. side yard requirements shall not project six feet above the grade in an acquired yard in all other cases.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, thank you. And who do we have here from the applicant?
[SPEAKER_10]: Hello, you have James Donovan on behalf of favor borrowers. She's with me.
[SPEAKER_16]: We, James Donovan, I see you, you're cutting out a little bit. I think you said you had the applicant with you as well.
[SPEAKER_10]: I do I have the applicant with me.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. So let's hear from you. Go right ahead.
[SPEAKER_10]: All right. We continue this from December 1st so we can get a survey done and give the board some additional information. I believe the plot plan was was dropped off and everybody should have a copy of it showing the disparate between the elevation between the properties. I do have a slideshow prepared for you. That would be great. Can I hit the share screen?
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, you can. Now, I just want to let you know, you are cutting out just a little bit, but go right ahead and we'll just see if we can get this going.
[SPEAKER_10]: I'm on wireless. If it's too much, I can run to a hardwired connection if it's that bad for everybody.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, yeah, let's why don't we see how it goes.
[SPEAKER_10]: Okay. Okay, can everybody see the PowerPoint?
[Vasudevan]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_10]: Okay, so bear with me for one second. Okay, so If everybody has the the plan drafted by we had my client had land mapping surveyors come out. and do a survey. It's based on some assumed data where the finished floor of the building, and I'm sure everybody can read it, but I'll read it out loud. Finished floor of the building on the primary survey property is based on 100 feet. All the elevations shown there on the drawing are in reference to that elevation. The difference of elevation along the property line where you can see in red where the fence is, there's an existing fence between the 55 and 51 ranges from 1.2 feet near the front of the lot, 2.1 feet near the rear of the lots. And the land on the lot where 51 resides is higher. And I'll go to the next slide and show you that. So that's a photograph of the backyard of 55. And on the right, you will see 51 that is elevated. And the next slide is a picture of the existing fence that's there at the six foot mark. We're not looking for eight feet, we're just looking for another foot to continue the fencing material up to that spot to have the privacy that ordinarily a six foot fence would give, but for the difference in elevation. So if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. If everybody doesn't have the plan, I can pull that up too. But I, it should be.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, why don't you pull up the plan and that way if there's anyone else who's watching, they can take a look at it.
[SPEAKER_10]: I will pull up the plan.
[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_10]: So this is the plan itself. You will see along the red line is the fence on the right-hand side. It's indicated as an existing six-foot high stockade fence. You will see on the back right, the number 96.94, so this is where the elevation is shown. And I can do whatever. Would you like me to shrink it, Ms. Doherty, so we can see the whole thing?
[Unidentified]: Sure, that'd be great. Thank you. So there is the full elevation plan. OK, great. Board members, does anyone have any questions? I don't think I see any hands.
[SPEAKER_14]: Mike, did you have a question?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I just wanted to verify my understanding of the elevation plan. So I see these numbers listed at various points, and I'm mainly focused around the perimeter. So it looks like on On lot three, there's some elevations and then on lot four, there's some elevations. And so if I were to compare two numbers that are kind of close to each other, um, vertically, so like the 99.94 and the 96.99, is that roughly the difference in elevation between the two properties?
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes, sir. That's correct.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, anything else from the board?
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, I don't have a recollection and I don't have my notes from December in front of me about whether we opened up to the public. So just to be safe, why don't we do that now?
[Denis MacDougall]: And Jack, we did not open up public at that point. So this is the first opportunity for public comment.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, let's definitely do that.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to open the public hearing for 55 Burgett Avenue.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, thank you. Do I have a second?
[Unidentified]: I'll second.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay. And all in favor. Perfect. Thank you. All right, Dennis, do we have anyone who wishes to be heard on this? James, you can stop the screen share if you want now.
[SPEAKER_10]: I will stop the screen share.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thanks. Hi. Hi, my name is Elaine Ford. I live at 51 Burgett Avenue. Hello. Hi, how are you? We have a fence there that's a little over six feet. So I have a shadow problem with the fence that's already there. I don't know whether you can see it, but that's my side yard that I've lost the ability to plant vegetables in. It's completely gone. It's completely shadowed. I brought pictures into the office. One copy for all of the members, and I don't know whether you got them, that was in December. But if you look at these, you can see that my yard is completely shadowed by the fence that's already there. I've lost four feet of planting that I use for flowers and vegetables. I had to take out hedges. And this is early morning. It's early in the morning, the shadow. And then this is late in the afternoon. And then at certain times, There is no, no, there is no sunlight on that side of the house. If you, can you see these on my phone?
[SPEAKER_16]: I can see them. Oh, I can. Yep. I can see that now, actually.
[SPEAKER_01]: I have no sunlight on that side. And that's what the fence that's a little over six feet tall. It's not exactly six feet. It's not over. It's it's, it's not under it's over. So that's what I'm getting from my side yard next to Ms. Ballas. on any given time. If you look, there's a window here. It completely blocks the window from my basement and casts a shadow into the house. So I just have a little family room down there, but now the sunlight doesn't enter it because the window is blocked. The sunlight is blocked by the fence that's only six feet tall. That's only nine feet from my property line to my house, and approximately the same to Ms. Balases. So half the distance is about four and a half, five feet. So you have 18 feet, so it's nine feet. You have a fence that's six, seven, six and a little over six feet on her side, but it affects the sunlight because I'm on the south side of her. I mean, I'm on the north side of her, so I get more of a shadow in my yard than I normally would have. You can see the sunlight. I don't know whether you can see this. A little bit. I sent a group of pictures in, in December.
[Vasudevan]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_01]: This is also my side yard. As you can see where the line is, shadows my whole side yard. Makes it useless for growing vegetables or flowers. Okay. Thank you so much. I'm in a position where, you know, I don't want to be a nitpicker, but as you can see from this, there's no sunlight. On my entire side, yeah, in that picture. Okay, thank you so much. That's my, you know, I plant, I grow vegetables. Ma'am? I grow flowers, and I don't have the ability to do that now because of the fence. And if she goes higher, I'm gonna lose light into the entire basement. I've already lost it out of one window. If she goes a foot higher, all the light in my basement is gonna be gone. Okay, thank you so much. It's affecting the quality of my life with offense. That's okay. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Dennis, is there anyone else? Dennis. Sorry.
[SPEAKER_16]: PB, Lupita D Montoya. PB, Lupita D Montoya.
[Denis MacDougall]: PB, Lupita D Montoya.
[SPEAKER_16]: PB, Lupita D Montoya. PB, Lupita D Montoya. PB, Lupita D Montoya.
[Unidentified]: I'll second.
[SPEAKER_14]: All in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: OK, great. Folks, what do you think?
[Unidentified]: Board members, how are we doing? Jamie? So I mean, I definitely understand. You can see that there is a two foot difference in the height of that property line between the properties. And from that second, from the pictures that the applicant shared, you can definitely see the difference in height from the fence as it steps down into the back of the yard. Yeah. Which now we've got a measurable Difference in 2.1 feet at that point.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, and I think that that's a clear topography issue. Just in terms of the statutorily what we're looking at.
[SPEAKER_14]: Anyone else anyone else have any thoughts?
[Unidentified]: So OK, so a couple things. Uhm?
[Mike Caldera]: Oh no, nevermind. I was, for some reason I thought the special permit was the criteria for fencing.
[SPEAKER_16]: Let me just double check. I could be wrong. You might be right. This, I just, what I have in front of me says it's a petition for a variance, but you might be right. Let's double check.
[SPEAKER_14]: Just pulling up the new ordinance.
[Mike Caldera]: I actually don't see. I'm looking at it too. That's what I was trying to figure it out. I don't see, so I think it is. I think it is variance.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so just while we're while we're looking so. I think the elevations helped, so one of my. concerns and I think one of the important things we should be evaluating as part of this application is were it not for the unusual topography what's allowed by right and it's basically so if you've got neighboring properties that are on parity in terms of their elevations, it's a six foot fence. And that's a six foot fence, it can be completely opaque, it can cast shadows and so on. And so in this case, it looks like even at the closest point, it's over a foot difference. And so, There's, on the one hand, the neighbors concerns, which I do understand. On the other hand, the applicant, a six foot fence for them doesn't provide the same privacy that it would were it not for this unusual topography. So for them to have kind of the equivalent of a six foot fence for everyone else. It looks like it's closer to a seven or an eight foot fence and they're asking for a seven foot fence.
[SPEAKER_14]: I'm in agreement with that thought process.
[SPEAKER_16]: Anybody else?
[Andre Leroux]: I agree as well with what's been said.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. Do I have a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: Um. So hold on. I just want to make sure we talked through all the statutory criteria, so I was. Operating under the assumption that this was a special permit.
[SPEAKER_16]: OK, so we have the we have a topography issue that's unique to the property. It causes a hardship. And then I I don't see that there's a substantial detriment, and I don't think that it nullifies. or substantially derogates from the purpose of the bylaw.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks, Kathleen. You're welcome.
[SPEAKER_16]: That fourth prong, I always say the part of it for special permit and the part of it for variance, I always say them backwards, but the idea being that it's not going to be a detriment to the common good of the neighborhood.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, so I'll motion to approve the variance for 55 Birchad Ave.
[SPEAKER_16]: Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, and all in favor? Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Andre?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Jim?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_16]: Mike?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, folks. Thanks so much. We will get a decision.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you, Ms. Jory. Thank you, everybody.
[SPEAKER_16]: You're welcome. Okay. Can we just ask one question?
[SPEAKER_01]: Before I close the public portion of the meeting. Okay.
[Vasudevan]: Thank you. Thank you. Yes. James, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_09]: Ms. Doherty, before I exit, I'm not sure if you transferred control to me. I'm not sure if you transferred me as the host. I keep seeing people pop up to let them in. I don't want to even have something happen.
[SPEAKER_16]: No, no, no. Thank you so much. You know what we do is rather than give everyone the option to screen share, when we're individually letting someone screen share, we make them a co-host. So you've been made a co-host. But when you leave, you'll be fine because Dennis and the rest of the members are still co-hosts. But thank you for checking. OK. Dennis, could you please call?
[SPEAKER_10]: 93. Thank you so much.
[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you so much.
[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis, could you please call 93 Governors have 93 Governors Avenue case number a dash 2022-21 continued from January 26. Applicant and owner Leonardo Blanco is petitioning for variance in the chapter 94 city met with zoning to construct an attached garage garage with a room above and 93 Governors Avenue in a single family one zoning district insufficient side yard and rear yard setback.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay. And who do we have for the applicant?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Yes. Hello. I'm Leonardo Blanco. I'm the owner. You can hear me fine?
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes. And I can see you now as well.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Okay. Well, I apologize for last month. I had like a concert. I couldn't, I couldn't cancel the year, but thank you. Yeah, thank you for having me here again. And also, my architect, John Andrews, is around. Is there any technical specification that you guys need from him? So basically, yeah, I'm a full-time musician, composer. I teach. I'm a professor at Berklee College of Music. I'm a pianist. Basically, there was a metal garage structure in the house when I bought it, and it had to be removed immediately. Basically, the insurance company told me that it had to be removed immediately for safety issues. So I removed it like a couple of years ago. And so I have no garage now and we really need the garage. But also another important reason for me to build this structure, which is planned to be a two level. the first level garage for two cars and storage, and the second level for a music studio for me to practice, to host this baby that I have here in the back, which is enormous. And I'm basically occupying all my living room. So we have no living room now. And my neighbors and tenants downstairs, who are being very nice and patient, but still there's the sound when I'm practicing, when I'm recording. Basically, I need to build this structure to have both functions, the garage and the music studio. The design, just make sure to be in accordance to the neighborhood. It's going to be basically a carriage structure, carriage garage. And, and basically, so the usage of these is going to be as I say recording there's no commercial and there's no lessons here because I teach at Berkeley, where I have all the infrastructure there. But I do need them, then the place to make music and to be, it will be. completely isolated, so there's no going to be any neighbors be able to hear anything from this room, not even in my house. It would be a connection to the house. And I have here handy some of the structure. Let me share my screen here. Okay, this is one. So this is what it looks like. And yeah, that's basically my, you know, the reasons I'm applying for this variance. I don't know if you have any question for me or for the architect.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, so I just want to make sure and I'm looking when I pulled up my file, I'm not seeing that I have the worksheet for the application in front of me. So I'm just going to take a quick second and look from that. So if there's anything that you want to go over with the architect, that would be great. I think you probably just heard us talking some of the things that we need to go over as a board when we're looking to grant a variance. there are a couple conditions, so that were a couple prongs that we look at. So one is that there's a condition that relates to the shape of the property, the topography of it, or a soil condition, and that that causes, we're looking for a variance, right? Yeah, for variance, that that causes a hardship, that the condition is unique to the property, and not generally seen throughout the district, that it doesn't cause harm to the general good of the neighborhood, and that it doesn't nullify or derogate from the zoning ordinance. So those are the things that we look at. So if you want to just have the architect present anything or speak, or if you can speak to any of those points, that would be really helpful. I know I went through them quickly, but I just want to make sure I have that worksheet when we're going through this. So I'm going to take a quick second look for that if you want to Do that, or if any of the board members have questions you can go right ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline actually before we proceed I just have a clarifying question for Commissioner 40. permit refusal, it was refused for insufficient side yard setback and insufficient rear yard setback. It looks like it's about 20 feet tall. And so I just wanted to double check whether this also needs height relief. 4.3.11 says structure accessory to one and two family dwellings shall not exceed 15 feet in height. Is that excuse me? Can anybody hear me? That's a question for the building commissioner. Oh, okay. Thank you.
[Bill Forte]: Yes. Madam chair through you. Um, so in this particular case, this is an attached structure. Um, so it's not detached. Um, and so, um, the requirements for height would be what it is for the district. However, um, the fact that it needs side and rare yard, um, relief would also be that Because of the, you know, because of the proximity to the property line. I don't believe that height. You know that the height is calculated by by height by by length. as some of the other dimensions are. I believe that in residential, it is strictly the seven and a half side yard and the 15 feet rear yard. And so, because this structure is attached, I don't believe that it needs any other renewal. Okay, thank you.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, and I found the worksheet, my apology folks, that I didn't have that up earlier. Um, okay. Was there anything, um, that you wanted to, um, present or that I apologize what I forgot what, uh, I think you said that the architects was named as Mr. Anderson.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Yes. Andrews.
[SPEAKER_16]: My apologies. And I'm sorry. I shouldn't have assumed Mr. Um, but if you wanted to go ahead, if there was anything that you wanted to present to us, please go ahead.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Uh, I feel like Leo said, uh, everything that is to be said, there was an existing structure. on the property before. While it wasn't two stories, it was about a story and a half, an old metal building. So there was something there. And as he mentioned too before, in sticking with maybe the architecture in the area, it's made to resemble a carriage house. There is a bathroom on the second floor, but it's no means gonna be livable space. And then there is carriage house doors in front and of course the siding trim and all that will match the existing home that's there now.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, great. Thank you so much. Board members, anyone have any questions? I'm just taking a look at this worksheet for Christian.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I just have a kind of a clarifying question. Does the fact that this structure was there, even though it's been torn down eight or nine months ago, does that have any bearing on our decision-making tonight?
[SPEAKER_16]: Do you mean the fact that the structure's already gone?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, well, I mean, the fact that it was there. I mean, it's gone now, but I don't know. I think I see the building commissioner can speak to that.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, madam chair again through you. So if if there were a claim of a pre existing nonconforming structure, they would have up to one year to replace it if it was demolished voluntarily. I'm here. This is a completely different structure. And I don't believe that it has any, any kind of, you know, binding effect to your decision.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, thank you.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, so folks, before we get into some of the other questions, I pulled up the worksheet. So I mentioned before, we have a couple of criteria that we need to go to, and I'm not seeing from the worksheet or the attachment letter that the issue related to what causes the hardship, the condition that causes the hardship has been addressed. And I just want to make sure you understand what my question is. So typically when we're looking at this, what the state law requires is that we see that there's an issue related to the shape of the lot that's causing the hardship, why you would need the relief, the topography of the lot or some kind of a soil condition. So I'm not seeing that that was addressed in the worksheet. So if there is something related to that, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to let us know what that is.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Does that make sense? Yes. So, um, let me try to understand. So, uh, what we're saying then is that, uh, the hardship, I guess, would be, uh, the size of the property, right? So there was a two car metal building there before that was not conforming and understand it was too close to the property line. So in order to replace that, at least the two car garage pod, uh, Would that be kind of what you're asking?
[SPEAKER_16]: I think we're getting there. I'm not sure I understand exactly. So there was a non-conforming garage that's been taken down. I think if I'm understanding Commissioner Forty correctly, that because it's no longer there, if you were to reconstruct it, that would be one thing. But now that it's gone, that might not have any bearing on our analysis. Bill, am I understanding that correctly?
[Bill Forte]: Okay, I see. So yeah, Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
[SPEAKER_16]: No, no, I was I was asking you go right ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, sure. Okay. Um, so, um, unless unless the structure is going to be replaced as a detached structure, there would be there would be no, um, The pre existing non conforming structure that continuance of a non conforming structure would be allowed without without hearing a less. there was an increase in the non-conformity. Here, there's really no increase in the non-conformity. The non-conformity of the existing structure no longer exists because that's not what the application is. And so here, I don't know that it can be used as a hardship. At least that's how I would see it anyway.
[SPEAKER_16]: OK. Yeah, so that was my understanding from what you were saying. Folks, this is to the applicant. Are you aware of any of those criteria that would be affecting this? Or is this a matter of the structure that's being built just happens to be bigger based on the design that you have?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Right. Yeah. I mean, they mentioned that there was a structure before. Really, it's not that relevant here. I understand that. And I understand when I went for the permit, they explained it very, very well to me that I had a period of time where I can apply to rebuild it or modify it. But I already have the need of having the place for the music and all this. So I decided to let that go and apply for the variance for to have the proper structure that will serve the purpose of both the garage and the practice music studio. I understand exactly what you folks are talking about.
[SPEAKER_16]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she- for them to withdraw without prejudice if they wanted, or I'm happy to go to a vote. What do you folks think? I'm just not seeing any of the criteria being addressed.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: I'm a little confused of what the criteria that it has not been addressed is exactly.
[SPEAKER_16]: Sure, yes. So it's the ones that I was talking about, the something related to. So if there's an issue where the shape of the lot means that you aren't able to build what you could otherwise build, or the topography, there's a slope or something that affects your ability to build, those are the things that we have to look at for the variance. Those are the criteria. the shape, topography, or soil condition are the ones that we're looking for.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Wouldn't that be the size of the property and the location where it is, where the garage wants to be set at, that it's limited by the property line, the perimeter of the property line there? It has to be a certain distance away from the existing house in order to enter. there, but then on the other side of it to use it as a two car garage, there has to be a certain size to it.
[SPEAKER_16]: Sure. So, so it's kind of limited.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. And if you're, if you're right, then you're right. Why don't we pull up the, let me see, let's pull up the plot plan. I don't think we have a plot plan.
[Mike Caldera]: If I may.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, go ahead, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so I think we, we do have a, we have a site plan. It's in the, it's in the drive folder. So, um, I think, um, so one thing I'm noticing is that the position of the principal structure, um, limits the possible locations for a garage.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: So that's something unique to the property. So the circumstances pertaining to the.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, I'm just sharing my screen. Yeah, folks, I just want to make sure we're applying everything correctly. And I didn't see this in the worksheet. So let's take a look. Here we go. Alright, so we definitely have a shape issue. I don't know. I'm not saying that the shape is gonna is gonna get there. But in terms of the shape of the lot, it's not It's not a regular rectangle. So, Mike, you're saying that where the house is located in terms of the garage that were that being put in in this top left corner?
[Mike Caldera]: Correct. Yes. So the criteria is owing to the circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape or topography of such land or structures. So the the primary residence, its location. is circumstances related to the, I don't know if it's shape or topography, but basically it's- My understanding is that the location of the structure gets you to shape. Yeah, it gets you to shape, right. So I think it would be reasonable to assert that the vicinity of this location is the only realistic position for a garage.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, yeah, the driveway location. Yeah, you couldn't put it anywhere else. And given the the backyard isn't that large, you couldn't even you couldn't put it behind the house or anything like that. Okay, thank you. Yeah, that's what I was looking for. So to the applicant, was that clear what we were just talking about?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Yes, so I think I finally understood at the end that basically that there is no other place that I could have built this but in the place that I'm applying for.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, and I don't wanna make you jump through hoops. I just wanna make sure that we're always hitting the criteria so that every applicant in front of us has to meet the same criteria. Okay, so, all right, so board members, what's everybody thinking?
[Mike Caldera]: So I just have a clarifying question about the usability of this design for parking. It looks like the angles are a little awkward for two cars on the, which plan, the architectural plans. And so I also, I don't know if there's like any support beams or anything that are.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So it looks, it looks to me that like the, uh, the closet kind of partially juts into where you would otherwise expect a car to have some clearance. Um, so yeah, just, can this even fit, is this truly two parking spaces? It's just, it's not clear to me from the architectural plans that you could actually fit two cars in this.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: So the, the idea was it's, it's more like a subcompact and, uh, a regular size car, uh, front to back. And mainly it'll be for, uh, if you're thinking about maybe a single car, there won't be any beam, any columns in the center. It's all clear span there. But if it's something that the board members didn't feel comfortable about or something as far as removing that storage closet over to the left, that could be removed. No problem. Thank you. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: And then I guess while I'm speaking, other question, just can you speak to the soundproofing strategy for this? That wasn't fully clear to me how you intend to soundproof this.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, so there are like some space between the internal and exterior walls and the materials that we're using that it will isolate sound both ways from in, outwards, and the up and vice versa from out to inside. So I'll be able to record. So it requires a little thicker walls and a little space between the internal and exterior. like double space in the windows, stuff like that, that according to these plans will suffice the acoustics specs for the usage for the studio.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: And that could also be listed in a panel criteria for the construction documents that we will show to the building inspector. There'll be wall sections and showing how How these walls are going to put together, be put together to, uh, you know, keep the noise in and out.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yes, go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. So I just a couple of comments. So, um, The, uh, the purpose of the, of the additional structure here, I'm hearing the word sound studio. And when I, um, when I. think about, you know, allowed accessory uses in residential homes, sound studio is not something that's usually allowed by the zoning ordinance. There are certain types of accessory use activities that are allowed, some business activities, some, you know, just some, you know, things and I don't know that sound studio is in there. I would just maybe advise or caution the board that when granting this variance, especially if there's any mention of a sound studio in here that you do probably right into the order that not only is the construction sound resilient, but in addition to that, because of its proximity of the property line it is part of the primary structure. Now because it's going to be one structure so essentially you're allowing the house to be two feet four inches off of the property line. It also should be noted that. That that construction has to be rated by one hour fire, because of its proximity to the property line and so it's just something that might be noteworthy. when writing the order. Certainly, you know, Mr. McDougal can consult with me when he's, you know, if and when he's writing the order that I might be able to help you word it a little bit. I just want to be careful that, you know, that the board knows that not only is this a variance for dimensions but the fact that the use is being mentioned here I think that you know something probably needs to be clarified in the order again only because the applicant or the petitioner is presenting it as an area for you know for a sound studio which again with the proper resilient channel I don't see it being an issue but two feet four inches off the property line could be you know something that that the board should address okay
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, thank you. Could I just ask you said, um, could you you said that, because it's the house that's close you said it would need to be and then I didn't hear you said something fire.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so, um, the requirement under the state building code is that any dwelling that is within five feet of a property line must have a one hour fire protected wall. Yes, one hour yes correct and and in addition to that, they can't be more than 25% openings on that wall so that's something that the architect I'm sure knows, but But again, I just want to make sure that if there are controlling plans that are cited with this order I just want to make sure that they match exactly what is on the plan so that there are no changes to it you know when the when the when the board. uh votes in a in order such as this and there are plans accompanying it um the aesthetics of the plans are expected to be identical to what um what the board has issued the order for and so um you know again i would i would maybe continue this um just and and get those questions answered and maybe have a proposed draft of what you know what the board might be thinking um along with the review from the architect to make sure that the resilient channel uh is in place and and again because the use is mentioned um and certainly you know it would be fine i i think that it probably needs to be um you know uh documented a little bit better and and just having those things up front. And just one more thing, I noticed on the plan, I did not see the lot coverage, just because it brought to my attention at the last minute. I did not mention that in the letter of refusal, but I think that a lot coverage calculation should be done. I believe that the maximum here in this zone is 30%, but I would have to check the zoning. chart to make sure, because again, if the applicant needed relief for law coverage, that should also be mentioned in the order.
[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you.
[Bill Forte]: Can I just comment really quick?
[SPEAKER_16]: Sure, why don't you respond to that? And I want to make sure I give Jamie a chance after that, but yeah, you can respond to that.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Yes, I agree everything with the building commission that says, and also too, that the inside of the garage structure the ceiling, the walls, and all that are also going to be type X fire rated sheetrock because there is a space above that. I'll also have the surveyor put lot coverage on the new plot plan. We will come back again and show how the exterior walls are going to be, how they're going to be put together in a couple of different wall types. And we'll show the separation from the garage to the space above as well. Perfect.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, yeah, that would be great. Thank you so much. Okay, Jamie and then Andre.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, I apologize. My question is actually about two documents. So if we look at the architectural plan and the site plan, I've got a question about the size of the structure.
[SPEAKER_16]: You want me to bring it back up?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, if you can bring up the architectural plan first.
[SPEAKER_16]: Let's see.
[Unidentified]: And if you look at the architectural plan, we've got a width of the building 23.6 or 24. It appears all the way at the back, you've got an accurate 24.24 on both. And we've got a storage section on the left that is three feet. If we jump to the site plan, it's documented as 20.1 feet and 22.2 feet wide. So there's a two foot discrepancy, at least a two foot discrepancy there. And it does not document that three foot storage. section that's on the side of it.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah. Excuse me. I don't mean to cut you off. I do. Leo, could you bring up those latest plans? It looked like there must have been some confusion. And that looks like an older plan, the architectural plan.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. So that may have been on me.
[Unidentified]: No, that's OK. These are the same ones I'm saying, too.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. Leo Blanco, go right ahead. If you wanted to bring those up, you can share and then.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Let me go here to share. Is, okay, so I have, is this the one?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, that looks like the one there.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: So I can, if you need me to zoom.
[SPEAKER_16]: Is there an updated site plan? So this one looks like it has the 24 feet. I think, Jamie, your question was because the site plan is different, right?
[Unidentified]: Yep, so well, we've got 24 feet of width there, and it looks like that exterior storage has been removed. So that three-foot addition is gone, but we've still got 24 feet, which is a discrepancy. And then we've got 30 feet of length, and then we've also got that stairway on the back of the building, which is an account for in the depth.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: I'll show, we'll make sure that gets updated in the plot plan in the architecturals.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, perfect, thank you, yeah. So folks from, oh, Andre, go ahead, sorry.
[Andre Leroux]: If you could look at the elevations on the architectural plan too, I don't know if you could scroll down to the next page.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Let me see if this one, this one?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, because, you know, I mean, Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like the rear elevation is actually just the left elevation duplicated. I don't think there's actually a rear elevation indicated. And that was part of my question was because this is going to be that second floor is going to be overlooking whatever fence is into the back yard of the butter. I wanted to see if there were windows or what that looked like.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_21]: Okay. I see what you're saying. Yeah, that'll be the staircase going up to the open deck. What we'll do for the next go around was we'll put each elevation on a separate sheet. So it looks like there was some confusion in these.
[Andre Leroux]: And I don't know if you've talked to the abutters, but it would be great to know what they think of it.
[SPEAKER_16]: No, we got some photos and an email. But it sounds like what we are gonna probably do is continue. So I think that we'll probably, if that's what we do, I think we'll continue. We'll get some of these little issues sorted and updated for next month. And then we could open to public comment at that time too. But I agree, I think it'd be great if we know any more about the abutters. But I know that we did get one email, at least one email and some photographs. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so this is to Commissioner Fordy's earlier comment about allowed accessory uses in residential districts. I think this use would meet the definition of a home occupation. So if we're continuing this, I'd like the applicants to speak to those elements in particular there's a distinction of home occupations allowed as of right versus by special permit and the criteria seven of that or no sorry criteria Three of that is does not produce offensive noise, vibration, smoke dust, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So I think that this is for at-home occupation as of right. So it sounds like there's a soundproofing strategy, but I think the analysis is ultimately going to have to go through the whole home occupation section. And so it'd be great if we just had the applicant take a position on some of the as of right criteria for home occupation uses?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I mean, as I say at the beginning, and I hope I'm addressing the comment, basically, I mean, my main instrument is the piano, as you can see, but it's not going to be like drums or like a military march kind of band. And the problem I have actually here, I'm sure that all of you relate to it, is like every time We hear more the airplanes going by. And so if I'm recording something, there's to be many times that I have to stop the recording and start again because their airplane sound vibrates. And so it's more like they shoot out from in. But I also want to make sure that if I'm practicing. playing 1am, 2am, I don't bother neither my neighbors or my family and so that's why I've been taking care of the acoustics but it's not going to be any like commercial usage or like noise of decibels that will possibly bother or be other than having a piano in the home. The only difference is that if I wouldn't be a musician having a piano in the home, I'll be playing regular hours, but that's because of my profession. Sometimes I'm all night up recording, composing, or having Zoom meetings in Europe in odd times, and so that's why I need the soundproof.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah through through the chair so understood. But Mister Blanco saying and that's why I'm making this recommendation so home occupation doesn't need to be commercial. According to my reading of the ordinance. And so in the absence if we're not calling home or home occupation. then it becomes a question of is sound studio and allow residential use at all. So I just think that if we're continuing anyway and the applicant comes prepared kind of just with a position on why this should be allowed as of right, I think that would just help streamline the discussion and the deliberations.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I want to make sure before I leave the meeting to be sure exactly what I need to be prepared. I mean, I think I have explained what I would use it for and why it has a little address of acoustics just to be like 200% that my neighbors won't hear the piano. But other than that, I'm not very clear of what
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so we're happy to send you the relevant link to the ordinance. I just pasted it in chat. I know it's not the best way to consume it, but essentially, I think the best step is we can have Dennis send you the pertinent part of the ordinance. And I'm just asking that you, I mean, you've kind of spoken to it a little bit today, but just like, I would like you to be prepared to justify, especially this third item on the home occupation as of right, the not producing offensive noise. I think everything else in there, it pretty obviously follows. But I think as long as you just have like a strong, argument on that, then it gives us the basis, as we're deliberating, to consider this an allowed use as of right, if that makes sense.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Sure, I'll take, I'll be happy to take a look at that and thank you for for sending this.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, Bill?
[Bill Forte]: Yes, just just to elaborate a little bit on on what I think the board is looking for is your written assertion that how this fits in by right okay so so basically you're going to take a look at the ordinance you're going to basically projected on paper and have that as part of the record. You know how it's not going to generate excessive noise, how it fits into this, this by right activity and that becomes public record as part of the hearing so.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, Bill, thanks, that's a good way to sum that up. All right. So folks, it sounds like that everyone's in agreement that we'll continue, you'd like to continue until next month and then we'll see you folks back.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. I'll motion to continue 93 governors out to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[SPEAKER_16]: Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, and how do you vote, Andre?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_16]: Jim. Yes. Mike. Yes. Jamie. Hi. And Jacqueline is yes. Okay, folks, we will see you next month. Oh, excuse me before you go. I'm just going to ask you to coordinate with Dennis. We have timelines. within which we need to issue decisions. And so I just want to make sure we're going to ask that you waive that time frame just to make sure that we can continue this without running up against any deadlines. So I'll just Dennis will talk to you about that. But I just want to make sure that I alerted you to that before you hopped off the meeting.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Okay, sure.
[SPEAKER_14]: Thanks so much.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, just here who just for the folks who are here. That meeting will be on March 30. And you can use the exact same zoom link, you'll got onto the meeting tonight to get onto the meeting next month. We have a set Zoom link for that. And if anyone has any questions about anything, I'm throwing my email there in the chat and please send me an email. And when we get the updated information from Mr. Blanco, it'll be up on the city's website and you just send me an email and I'll send you the link so you can look at the updated and any changes made to any of the plans.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: All right. Thank you very much, everybody.
[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you, everyone.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, Dennis, could you please call 80 Canal Street?
[Denis MacDougall]: 80 Canal Street, case number A-2023-01. Applicant and owner Richard Brown is petitioning for a finding from the Chapter 94 City Metro Zoning to alter a pre-existing non-conforming four-family dwelling by constructing a two-story addition on the rear second and third floor and redesigning the existing roof from a gable to a manserv roof to create a three-story building and a general residence zoning district allowed use.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, folks, what do we have here for the applicant.
[Mike Caldera]: So just Jacqueline if I if I may go right before we hear this. I just wanted to clarify with Dennis. So, I'm seeing a permit refusal dated August 22 of 2022. uh, an appeal dated, uh, January 18th, 2023. Are those the correct dates? Yes, that was what was submitted to me. Yes. Okay. So then my understanding is that because the appeal wasn't filed within, um, within the statutory timeline, we don't have jurisdiction to hear this case.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, that is correct. That is correct.
[SPEAKER_16]: Hang on, let me just look at these. Okay, do we have the applicant? We do. Yes. Okay. Folks, what happened with that timeline?
[MCM00000617_SPEAKER_02]: Uh, he had to go to historical and that kind of held up things. Um, but I, I just want to note as a procedural matter that this is not the first time that the board itself has taken an application 30 days beyond the appeal. I did do a little research on the decisions and there were a couple of decisions within the last couple of years that the petition refusal was in the application was more than 30 days.
[SPEAKER_16]: I can appreciate that I, I'm gonna, you know, we do our best we don't always get it right. Because we're not precedent setting. I think we just have to look at what's in front of us right now. I think that unfortunately you may need to go back and resubmit. I hate you know we hate to make people jump through hoops, but we just have to make sure that everybody comes in front of us, we're doing our best to make sure everyone in front of us does the has to jump through the same hoops, I suppose, I think we understand. yeah sorry about that folks. We should. I mean, if we don't have jurisdiction can we even. I haven't had it.
[MCM00000617_SPEAKER_02]: Is that what it is? Is that what you want me to do? Yeah.
[SPEAKER_16]: Well, I mean, I'm in agreement with Mike on that. I'm not sure.
[MCM00000617_SPEAKER_01]: May I just say one thing? My name is Aaron Cohen. I'm an attorney. I'm representing one of the or some of the neighbors. I believe there's something in the In the ordinance that says that if you've been refused, you can't reapply for two years.
[MCM00000617_SPEAKER_02]: So I'm not sure it's as easy as withdrawing.
[SPEAKER_16]: Just one second on that. Sorry. I thought you were going to help us out with that, with the question related to this. We're not going to hear from the neighbors at this time right now, but no, no, that's okay. If that is, if we render a decision and we refuse it and they can't. However, if what we're saying right now and I just want to be clear to everyone listening is we're just talking to the applicant is that they may need to resubmit their paperwork because we need to hear the appeal within a certain period of time but I see that Commissioner 40 is going to help us out.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Madam Chair. So yeah, because the application is not valid, there's no action that the board needs to take, nor is there any action that the petitioner needs to take. There's no need for a withdrawal. There's no need for consideration. You know, it's dead on arrival. So I just think that going through the same process over again, you know, I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. I just will say this is that my letter of refusal will be a new letter of refusal and it may be, it may be different from my predecessors assessment there. So I'm going to take a good look at it and make sure that if there's anything missing on that, that you'll, that you'll know about it. Okay. So feel free to file tomorrow and I'll be more than happy to review it for you and expedite it for you.
[Vasudevan]: Okay. Great. Appreciate that. Go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I do have one clarifying question for you, or maybe commission reported so can we even point out there were some elements of the application that were were missing. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_16]: So my understanding from what commissioner just said to us is we don't have jurisdiction to do anything, but here as a board, if there's something missing from the application, I think this would be a great time if you wanted to speak to attorney grant and just let her know what we're thinking so that they don't have to come back next month. And then we say, Oh, we actually need more stuff next month. So I think that's perfectly fine. If you want to, if you want to go right ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sure. So the ones that come to mind, And I apologize if I missed something, but I think on the architectural plans provided, we're missing some of the floors for the existing condition. I think the lower level on the first floor. So we would want to see the existing condition for all floors. The plot plan that will typically clearly indicate the location of parking and distance for some of the setbacks and so on. And I didn't see that on the plot plan. So those were two things that stood out to me.
[MCM00000617_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_16]: OK. So Attorney Grant, I think we'll just see you next month. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Thanks so much, folks.
[Denis MacDougall]: Have a good night. Actually, Jack, it may not be next month because of the timing on everything.
[Vasudevan]: Oh, yeah. Sorry, Attorney Grant, if you're still there.
[SPEAKER_16]: Did you hear, Dennis? I did. I did.
[Denis MacDougall]: And just for those folks, and just all the folks who are there, because it'll be a new application, you'll get a new notice in the mail. So we don't want to say exactly when the hearing will be, but you'll get a notice in the mail, just like you got for this one. And it'll tell you exactly the time of the meeting and all the other information for the meeting.
[Vasudevan]: So that's a great point.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay. Sorry about that, folks. Yep, have a good one. Okay, Dennis, could you please call 18 Edward Street?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. 18 Edward Street, case number eight dash 2023-02. Applicant and owner Anastas Pano is petitioning for variance in the chapter 94 city method zoning to add dormers to a nonconforming family dwelling.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, and who do we have for the applicant?
[SPEAKER_03]: Good evening, Anastasia Spano.
[SPEAKER_16]: Hello. Do you have, pardon, I'm just pulling everything up. Did you have a presentation or anything that you wanted to give us or do you want to give us an overview? Go right ahead.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, I had prepared a couple of short elevations from our architects and first and foremost, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the board for the time. I'll go ahead and try to share my screen now. Yep.
[Unidentified]: I hope you can see my screen now. Yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: This first slide presents the current condition of 18 Edward. Our proposal is to elevate two dormers on the side of the house. We're not looking to elevate the roof. We're not looking to necessarily increase the level of the roof. Slide number two. I should point out, provides a better picture than my words. So.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yep. No, this is great. Just, you know, take your time. No rush. We're here to, whenever you want to hear, whenever you're going to tell us.
[SPEAKER_03]: So as you can see, we're looking to, we're looking to.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm sorry, excuse me, sir. Would you be able to enlarge the image a bit?
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. I was trying to do that.
[Unidentified]: Here we go. How's that? Great. That's better.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so this is what the proposal is. Let me see if I can enlarge the existing structure as well. Obviously, we went around the neighborhood and We had some good discussions with the abutters, and ultimately almost, I wanna say a good chunk of the folks around that area that was supplied to us by Dennis and team, and try to speak with everyone in regards to our proposal. I know some of the folks are here as well, and some of the folks that support this are here as well, and we've also provided some of the letters of support for this. As you can see, we're still trying to make, we're looking to maintain the same roof level, and we're looking to, we're looking for a variance from, or a finding to go from a two and a half. I'm sure there's some, am I the only one hearing that?
[SPEAKER_16]: No, I'm hearing something. Hang on, let me see if I can. I'm not hearing it right now. Okay, why don't you continue and then if it comes back up, we'll try and figure it out.
[SPEAKER_03]: All right, so what we're proposing to do is add these dormers on the side of the house and ultimately we wanna keep the same roof height. Our dormers are going to go on the side of the house and what we're seeking from the board this evening is a variance or a finding for us to elevate the size of the roof from in a two and a half stories existing building.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, thank you. Let's see, I'm just looking through some of the documentation. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
[Mike Caldera]: So I just want to double check. I'm not sure I fully understood from the permit refusal, whether or not this was the case, but does the added floor area here change the classification for this property from a two and a half story to a three story, or is it already a three story or is it already, or will it afterwards still be a two and a half story? That one I'm not clear on.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is currently a three-family dwelling at two and a half. And I frankly, I don't know whether it makes it three, three stories, but it is currently a three-family dwelling. And in addition of, I'm sorry, go ahead, Madam Chair.
[SPEAKER_16]: No, no, Mike was saying something, go right ahead, it was your question.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so it's gonna come down to the floor area of the third floor and the floor area of the second floor. So the third floor can't be more than half of the floor area of the second floor.
[SPEAKER_03]: My understanding is that the current as it is, it's already exceeding the two and a half floor space. So with our request, we are seeking the three.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, so I think to follow up the question, so what would be very helpful, so there's two different things. So if your third floor is already more than 50% of the square footage of your second floor, then that is the nonconformity. I'm just not clear what the nonconformity is right now, but we can ask Bill in a second, perhaps if he knows. But if it's already more than 50%, then we would be looking at a finding to say, is this change or alteration or expansion of the nonconformity, is that a detriment? So that would be the analysis that we're doing. I think Mike's question was, we just wanna know what the exact nonconformity is. So- I apologize. No, no, no, you're fine.
[SPEAKER_03]: Let me clarify from what we found out is that it is a non-conforming three family where the third floor unit is occupying more than 50% of what the second floor square footage is. So subsequently, yes, that is the non-conformity.
[SPEAKER_16]: Do you know the square footage of the first, second and third floor as they currently exist. And then also what the square footage would be of the third floor after this, that would be super helpful.
[Mike Caldera]: If I may. So in the assessor's database, it says that the, the half story that's finished has a gross area of 1260, which is more than half of the gross area of the second floor of 1932, but it has a listed living area of 630, which is less than the listed living area of 1932 of the second story.
[SPEAKER_16]: Oh, in the sense of the living areas, six, the whole thing is 1260, but only six 30 of it is considered living. Yeah. Um, do you know, or maybe bill, do you know living? Does that mean that it's finished versus unfinished and, or if something's unfinished, but it's there, are you allowed to finish it by right? Bill?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, madam chair so I'm looking at my permanent refusal here and basically what this is this is an expansion of a nonconforming structure so it's within the setback that not only is the construction of the dormers within the required setback so it's an expansion of nonconforming structure, but also the size of living size of the of the living space on the 3rd floor.
[SPEAKER_16]: The dormers are within that 630.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, correct. There are two, the right side of the house is two feet, four inches off the property line. And so the expansion of those dormers on that side constitutes a setback, a relief for setback because the structure is nonconforming. So it's an increase in the nonconforming structure. So it's construction within it. I don't know that this is a dimensional variance as much as it is. an expansion of a non-conforming structure. And in this case, because it, let me just go back. Yeah, because the structure already exists in that footprint. It's not encroaching beyond the de minimis line of the foundation. Here, what they're doing is they're expanding something that's already not conforming. So the living space on the third floor is already not conforming. It doesn't comply with today's zoning for a half story. And the fact that they're expanding the wall line up only in certain places. It doesn't constitute a third floor, but it is an expansion of a non-conforming third floor.
[Vasudevan]: Okay. That's why we, okay.
[Bill Forte]: Was I clear on that or?
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, you were. I'm just thinking it through.
[Unidentified]: I think if I can just step in. Yeah, Jamie, go ahead. Living area square footage is defined by the square footage that's in a space with a ceiling height seven feet or higher, correct? So that's why it's 630. Yep. That's correct.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. And so where we're looking on, when we look at the proposed, what am I on? I'm on the plot plan. Here, maybe I'll pull this up. Would you mind stopping sharing your screen? I don't know how to get someone to stop sharing it. Okay, so if we look at this, this right here, here, let me, that might've been too much, here, This is what you're talking about Billy up that the dormers are the existing dwelling here. We're not making that necessarily bigger. We're not, you know, adding over this area here. What you're saying is that the dormers are staying within the existing area, but the dormers are expanding. What's already non-conforming over here. Okay.
[Bill Forte]: Expansion of a non-conforming use. Yep.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay. So then we are, as we, we are doing a finding.
[SPEAKER_10]: Correct.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, cool. Well, we're learning something new every day. Okay, did that make sense to everyone and to Anastas? Did that make sense? Sorry, Tasso, you said Tasso.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it. I wouldn't have been able to articulate that well.
[SPEAKER_16]: Well, I say this every meeting, we're all still learning and trying to figure this out. And so thankfully we have Bill here and we have everybody trying to help us as well. And we do our best. Okay, so that makes sense to me. That said, Mike, did you have any other questions?
[Unidentified]: Okay, any other board members have questions?
[SPEAKER_14]: No? Okay, why don't we open up to public comment?
[SPEAKER_16]: Can I get a motion, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to open the public hearing for... 18 Edward Street. 18 Edward Street.
[SPEAKER_16]: All in favor?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Denis MacDougall]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. Dennis, do we have anyone who'd like to be heard on this?
[Denis MacDougall]: Just as a point of order, we needed a second on that motion.
[SPEAKER_16]: Oh, did I get a motion? Sorry, did I get a second on that?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'll second.
[SPEAKER_16]: Second. Okay, all in favor.
[Denis MacDougall]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Aye. Aye. Okay, great. Thanks, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just trying to make sure my notes actually make sense.
[SPEAKER_16]: Listen, that's, that's, I appreciate it.
[Denis MacDougall]: So if anyone wishes to comment, you can either, you know, make the reaction in the chat or in the chat, or kind of, if you're on camera, just sort of wave your hand and we'll call you. two folks here so we'll go to I know just all we ask is to give your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_12]: Hi, this is Vinnie Fagan, we are at 16 Edwards Street. And we just wanted to say that most people in the neighborhood are doing changes to the homes, and it has been, I think, beneficial to the whole neighborhood. Everybody is in I think everyone is in agreement that it's doing a great job for the whole area.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, thank you so much. Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: So I saw Christopher a please. Again, name and address of the record.
[SPEAKER_18]: Yep. My name is Christopher best lot 20 Edward Street unit B. I go ahead. COB, Mark Gershman, He, Him, His.: : Sure, thank you just wanted to reach out and say that so far through this process, the builder and kind of the neighbors. COB, Mark Gershman, He, Him, His.: : You know we're going through this process i've done a pretty. Great job with reaching out to make sure that the new structure that is being built and the changes to that structure, I guess the changes that are being made don't impact our property specifically with sunlight and other things. And so I think from just a general standpoint of. quality of making the neighborhood better, redoing the units and everything and caring about the rest of the community. I am in favor of this simply due to the proper process that I see that they're taking and caring about their fellow neighbors through that process.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. Well, thanks so much. And we, you know, say this all the time. We so appreciate when people are working with the neighbors and making sure that they're taking all that into consideration. So that's always wonderful to hear. Thank you. Dennis, do we have anyone else?
[Denis MacDougall]: Um, I don't see anyone else sort of making a motion or in the chat. So I think, uh, okay, great.
[SPEAKER_16]: Could I get a motion please to close public comment and open deliberations?
[Unidentified]: Do I have a second?
[Vasudevan]: Um, all in favor.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great folks. What do we think?
[SPEAKER_16]: So in terms of a finding, I don't think that this would be substantially more detrimental. I think for the neighbors, it seems great. I think care and consideration has been taken with the design. I think that it almost seems as though the expansion is really more of a technicality than an actual expansion would be my thought here.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, Jacqueline, I tend to agree with you.
[Mike Caldera]: So the alteration, it doesn't change. Aaron Sussman, PB – He, Him, His.: : Any of the things we would typically look for as as like a sign of substantial detriment, so you know the same number of units. Aaron Sussman, PB – He, Him, His.: : it's just making the living experience in that in that third unit a bit more pleasant with the extra space so so yeah I didn't want to put Commissioner 40 on the spot because it's not relevant to this proceeding, but I think if this was a to to family, it might have even been allowed by right. Aaron Sussman, PB – He, Him, His.: : I don't have any concerns.
[SPEAKER_14]: Great anyone else from the board.
[SPEAKER_16]: Just I forgot to say this at the beginning of this, but folks we talked a little bit just for anyone watching. about the variances. I know you're all sitting through all of these hearings and we're talking about the criteria. We're not going through those because those were applications for a variance. This is an application for a finding. And that's why here our criteria is different. So the criteria here is whether the nonconformity, which is what we went through and we were looking at all the plot plans, whether the expansion of that nonconformity would be substantially more detrimental. And what we're saying right now is that we don't find that it would be, it's quite de minimis. So that's what we're talking about and that's why we're not talking about those other criteria. Okay, so if anyone has any more comments, go ahead or if anyone wants to put a motion, I'm ready for it.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, no, I agree with what's been said and I'll motion to find that the expansion of the non-conforming use is not detrimental to the neighborhood.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, and I heard Jim seconded. So, and how do you vote, Jim?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_16]: Jamie? Yes. Andre?
[Silverstein]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Mike? Aye. And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, folks, Taso, you have some dormers. We will get a decision to you shortly.
[SPEAKER_03]: and thank you to the neighbors as well.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, thanks folks. Okay, you know, for an evening that had six applications, it's only nine o'clock and we're on the sixth. Okay, oh no, wait a minute.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, you're right, but I believe you just jinxed us, so. I probably did, that was my fault.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, Dennis, because I see there's still a lot of people. Could you please call 114 Mystic Avenue?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. 114 Mystic Avenue, case number SP-2023-01. Applicant and owner, New England Organics LLC, is petitioning to operate a retail marijuana dispensary in an existing structure in a commercial two zoning district, thereby requiring a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[SPEAKER_16]: All right, folks, who do we have here from the applicant.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: My name is Tito Jackson, and I also have. I also have my partner, Jason Zuby, with us. We are a close-knit crew, so we're sitting next to each other, so we're going to deal with the audio components. So we received, and we are very thankful to receive a post-community agreement from the city of Medford. We were the only equity applicant in the group, and we are very thankful to be able to do business in the city of Medford. The facility, many of you know, is the VFW. And we've actually entered into a partnership at 114 Mystic with the VFW. So we are taking offline the large hall, about 3,400 square foot hall that currently is in use. And we will be using that hall to have a marijuana retail dispensary, adult use. We have 25 parking spaces that are immediately out front in the building. That's a very large lot. There's about 95 spaces currently in the lot. The spaces that are closest to the building, including the handicapped spaces, will be used for our customers and our employees, the 12 to 15 folks, will park in the back of the building. We are on the hook for a couple of things with the city relative to, we will be doing some landscape upgrades to the front of the building. In addition, we also will be putting forward at least one, we actually anticipate more than one, but we will definitely have at least one charger for electric vehicles for those folks who need to have their I actually won't say a name of a vehicle now, but have them charged. And we are going to be doing upgrades inside the facility, but we will not be changing or adding any additional components to the external aspects of the facility. The bar that's currently a part of the facility will continue to operate. That's actually in our HCA. And also the small hall that is currently there will also still be able to be rented by the VFW. And so the partnership really is symbiotic in that we have an opportunity to to do well and do good in that this also this partnership also helps stabilize the finances of the VFW and it's also in our in our in our host community agreement that they will continue to operate. So that's a critical component. We actually have an addition, I know it is the zoning board, but we will note that we actually have a very aggressive employment plan to employ residents of the city of Medford, women, people of color, as well as veterans and members of the LGBTQIA community. And so we have uploaded a significant number of documents that you actually already have on your site. We have also contracted Van Ness Associates to do a traffic study. I will note we are not the only cannabis that will be on Mystic Ave. There was a traffic study done a couple of blocks, I wouldn't even really say blocks, but a couple of buildings up. So it is very likely that we will have, be at the same number or less than our friends up the street relative to impact, which in that study saw a 1.5 to 2% potential max impact on cars during the peak hours of the day. So, Jason, is there anything you want to say? put forward. I will note Jason's actually a resident of Medford and a serial entrepreneur and owns several businesses in Medford. currently run a cannabis dispensary in Boston at 150 State Street. So we are operating. And so there is a great deal of experience that both of us bring to the table. And again, we really are very excited about our chance and ability to do business in the great city of Medford.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, great. Well, thank you so much. Jason Zuby, did you want to add anything?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_20]: Not currently, it's just so I'm here to answer any questions that you may have, you know, the only thing I'd like to add is that, you know, with regards to our plans, we're not really changing anything. With regards to the footprint of the building, every little majority of the work that we're doing is more of a renovation. We're not changing the outside parking plan or anything that's in what's already existed. And I believe the amount of parking spots are on record as far as what the use would need. And I know we far out see, you know, with the club and what we're looking to do with regards to the square footage, parking really shouldn't be an issue, but it is deeded as a 25 immediately in the front, will be for our customers.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. Thanks so much. And then I also just wanted to let the board know that Jonathan Silverstein is on the call with us if we have any legal questions related to marijuana retailers. So we have him as with us as a great resource. Okay, so We have, and I think this might be a good way to go through this, unless there's anything that you folks wanted to put up to share screen or anything like that, there are a number of criteria we need to consider as relates to marijuana retailers. So I'm thinking what we did when we had someone else come in front of us was we went through Each of them, it's a bit of a long list, but we just went through them one at a time and we can, I'm trying to think, last time we did it, it was actually pretty good, but I'm thinking what might make sense to do is rather than read through all of them and then have you answer all of them and then go back through them, we could just read. Let me think. How did we do? It's just a little stuff on Zoom. Does anyone remember how we did this last time? I can read each section and then the applicant could comment on it, or we could look at, or maybe we should save that for deliberations. Maybe what we should do is take public comment. Mike, do you have an idea?
[Mike Caldera]: uh, before public comment, the, um, the applicant to give a brief overview of their security plan, operation and management plan, emergency response plan and disposal and order control plan. Uh, just because those are some of the core elements, um, that are required, uh, findings for the special permit. And then they also might be, um, relevant to members of the public who want to comment.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, okay, so some of those, the ones from, let's see. Yeah, okay, let's do that. I think, yeah, okay, do you wanna go through some of those? That would be first. Let's see.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Madam Chair, can you give that that that list list again.
[SPEAKER_16]: So I know it was the disposal and odor control plan emergency response plan and security plan.
[Mike Caldera]: And operation and management plan.
[SPEAKER_16]: And operation and management, yeah.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: So let's start with, I guess, the elephant on Mystic Ave, I guess, would be the odor control component. First, on the odor control, all of our products will be brought in, and it will be prepackaged. And so some companies do what, in our industry, they call deli style. We do not do deli style. That actually leads to many issues, in addition to the fact that we actually track all of our product from seed to sale. So there are some difficulties that come along with that. And so, one, all of the All of every product will be prepackaged and in either boxes or plastic containers, which actually has the opportunity to cut down on scent. We also will have odor control components around exhaust. At a retail store, unlike a cultivation or a manufacturing, there is generally not a huge amount of odor relative to that. We would, on the disposal side, we would most likely use the current company that I already use, which is Republic Waste. We actually, for any product that is either quarantined or spoiled, we actually send it back to the wholesaler. So that would not actually end up in our trash or disposal in the case that it did end up in our trash or disposal. We actually, frankly, we have a method of making the product unusable. And frankly, that's by using cat litter, a blender and bleach that actually is then put in packaging. And then all of our trash is placed in locked containers and will be picked up at least two times a week. But that process that I said about remedying the product unusable is typically not something that we have to do because most often if a product has expired or is quarantined, we would actually have that sent directly back to the wholesaler on our end. So that's the odor as well as trash. From an operational perspective, both Jason and I will be involved in the operations. We will have a general manager. as well as assistant managers who will go about the day-to-day requirements. In addition, we will also have a director of security, which is a requirement by the Cannabis Control Commission, who will monitor all cameras. We'll also do a regular monthly mandated security audits of all of the cameras, as well as the facilities, doors, and we are required to have key access, I'm sorry, keyless access systems. And so those are actually checked on a monthly basis. So operationally speaking, on the security side, what you would see as folks enter is that they would actually be carded with a electronic I guess, analogous to what you would see at a nightclub, something that actually looks at the date electronically, because obviously in today's day and age, there are many cards, I'm sorry, IDs that are are pretty good relative to the fake ID side. And so we actually have a system that gets updated on a monthly basis that looks at those components. They would get carded twice before getting into the building. Once outside, there's a second check before getting into the dispensary. And then there is a card, eye check that's actually done at the point of sale. In addition, our process is for there to be a good neighbor policy relative to individuals really signing a, this is actually at the point of transaction, a good neighbor policy that they will light up litter or loiter with their product anywhere around the area. We plan to be in close contact with the police department, and we have a process in which we would determine if individuals were caught loitering, lighting up, and the like, that we would actually ban them from our facility, because that's actually not the type of relationship that we wanna have with folks in Medford, and that is our policy. Is there one other category that I didn't cover yet?
[Mike Caldera]: So you referenced the chief of security, but I wasn't sure if that was also your description of the security plan.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Oh, in terms of and actually, we do have a actual written security plan, we can actually submit to you. But in terms of the the actual security plan for the facility, there is a requirement by the Cannabis Control Commission, that we have hardwired cameras for the whole facility. And so, you know, there are obviously cheaper models of cameras that can be Wi Fi be based on Wi Fi, all of our cameras are are hardwired and then really the security plan is. really based on physical access to the building as noted relative to no individual under the age of 21 will be able to enter the building. That is a critical component to us. In addition to that, we have redundancy in terms of glass break for every window in case that occurred. we have burglar alarm as well as each of the POS stations as well as other places in the facility have a panic button and I mistakenly hit one not too long ago and I will let you know that they absolutely do work and the police do come. That was, yeah, so, and so that that is a critical component and then in addition, we will have a director of security and several security officers who open the building and also who will close the building ensuring that managers will be escorted to their vehicles. In addition, one of the components that's a requirement at the state is also how we remove cash from the building. We actually work with an organization that is well-versed in that. And so we will have cash removed regularly from the building. And those individuals come at periodic times. And that is one of the safest methods that we've seen in the industry of dealing with that component.
[Mike Caldera]: And then, Jacqueline, if I may, through you, just what is the emergency response plan?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yeah. So, um, in terms of, uh, emergency response, all of our, uh, our, um, we, some people call them, but tenders, we do not call them, but tenders, we call them, uh, CCRs. Um, these are our cannabis concierge representatives. Uh, we take the interaction very seriously. Um, but from our emergency response plan, um, we actually, uh, have, um, several, uh, deescalation trainings, um, relative to, uh, what would actually happen, um, in, in situations where there was a crisis in particular. Actually, in addition, if there were to be a fire or something of the like, we actually have a plan that would have a group meeting place for us to ensure that all of our workers are actually out of the building. And relative to issues of robbery and the like, the components are really, I'm sorry, to deescalate and call authorities. So typically in the places that we do business, the authorities are able to respond in a very quick timeframe. Yep. And I'm going to go on mute.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_20]: I just like to add that part of our physical layout will prevent the visibility of our deliveries. So everything that would be stored and everything that would be delivered would be behind a wall so that customers that were inside would not be able to really be able to tell. And that access is really limited to only a few people on the staff. So with our deliveries, it will be done out of sight to a separate location where there wouldn't be any interaction between the public. And once the product was received and weighed, it would then be put inside of our vault, which is located inside the middle of the VFW to prevent anybody from knocking any walls down and having direct access to that. And between the ventilation system and the camera systems that have been set up, along with the key access that is really the majority of our preventative plans for security purposes.
[SPEAKER_14]: Andre? Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is helpful information, all of what we're hearing, you know, verbally, I guess. you know, looking at the requirements in the zoning ordinance, which indicate that these plans need to be submitted in writing to us before the public hearing, and also need to be submitted to the relevant department, city department, so that we can hear from those departments at the hearing. And I just wanna make sure you understand that or have that information.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_20]: You know, just reading through the process, you know, we were, know that it was the use rather than the building permit that we were, you know, looking for the approval for. Excuse me. I know like originally we submitted what our security plans are, you know, our layout for security cameras along with our operating procedures with regards to a lot of that stuff. So as far as other things that weren't submitted, I'd be happy to address that or be able to provide that at a later date. Um, you know, there was a little, a little bit, a little confusion as to our end as to, you know, what it is that we were actually looking for. Uh, I believe it was, uh, you know, um, it was for the use, uh, at first and in the, uh, you know, getting the building permits would, would come, you know, along with the stamped architecture plans, which we've submitted not at, at the time of the ZBA, um, Um, application, um, that came a little bit after, um, we did submit, you know, our, our proposal, um, nothing that there has changed. Um, along with our security plan, whether our cameras will be located, um, you know, along with, you know, some of the other stuff that we discussed earlier with regards to our, our, our levels of security and our, our, uh, operations.
[Silverstein]: Um, yeah.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: So just just to be very clear, Commissioner, we are aware of the requirements to have a submission to all of the relevant agencies. We have actually the that information and do plan on having in any meetings with those folks, if need be, for them to reflect on our readiness, in particular, police, fire and the like. So we are we are very aware of that requirement.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, thank you. And Jonathan?
[Silverstein]: Good evening, everyone. I did want to just mention, I was just looking on the, in preparing for tonight's meeting on the Google Drive for current filings before the board. And it does look as if the security plan, emergency response plan, odor control and disposal plan, and standard operating procedures have all been submitted. So I don't know if somehow they didn't get in front of the board members, but they do appear to all be on the Google Drive.
[Andre Leroux]: But Attorney Silverstein, I'm just looking at the zoning ordinance itself. And it says that it also needs to be submitted to the relevant city departments so that we can hear and get their feedback at the hearing. Is that correct? Right, yeah.
[Silverstein]: And I obviously have no idea what which departments have received all those documents. I just wanted to make sure that the board members knew that those documents are on the board's Google Drive, if you wanted to see them.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, thank you so much. Yeah, so I know like, for example, one of the requirements is, let's see, I have this in front of me. One of them has to do with, let's see, submitting to chief of police stuff like to that effect for various sign off.
[SPEAKER_12]: Let's see.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, it's just that we're not the you know, we're not the experts in these matters, so I feel like we really need to hear like the guidance of the relevant.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, no, I'm in agreement. I'm in agreement with you. I was just looking at the I think I was speaking to everyone out loud as I was looking through the criteria in front of me. I'm looking at 11.6.2 and 7.6.11 is what I'm doing. 767-766-768. I'll say the same thing prior to meeting with us. Okay, so, folks, we are still familiarizing ourselves and in a lot of ways with the new city ordinance. But what might be helpful is if we were to continue to our next meeting, and then what we could do is we could have Dennis send over to you the sections of the ordinance that have some of these prior requirements, prior approvals, so that you can just make sure that you've got everything submitted to get the correct sign off. And then when you come to us, we'll be ready to, go through some of this stuff substantively is my, I think that's what I'm hearing. Does that make sense?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: That does. And just to be clear, as you're noting, ZBA does not have, so the police department is not accessing the same portal as ZBA. So you're saying that all of these relevant organizations would not actually come to a centralized place that we actually have to separately ensure that they actually look at these same documents.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, I think, no, no, that's a great idea. I think you might be talking about a Medford maybe 10 to 45 years in the future.
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Jackson, just to be another thing that the ordinance says, and again, this is a new ordinance that just kind of changed over the last year. So it also says in these sections that the proponent needs to sit down and meet with the relevant department heads, whether that's the police chief, the fire chief, you know, whatever. So just so you know, you know, to get those meetings scheduled.
[SPEAKER_16]: Mm hmm. Yeah, so we can, what we can do is if we do a vote to continue and what I'll say is, folks if there are folks here from the public. Since what we're going to do, it seems like we're going to do right now I don't want to make assumptions before a vote but. I think we're going to take a vote to continue to our next meeting. And what that will mean is that we're not going to open for public comment tonight and then we're not going to deliberate tonight but we're going to give the applicant, and I'm an opportunity to meet some of the criteria from the ordinance, and then we'll make sure that when they come back next month. that we'll continue the meeting. And it's most likely that at that meeting, we'll be opening for public comment. But I just want everyone to be clear that even though we're not opening for public comment tonight, that before this or any matter where to go to a vote, there would be public comment. It's just not gonna occur tonight, if what I think is about to happen is about to happen. Okay, so anything else you wanna say to the applicant before we do any kind of vote, just so that they know exactly what the expectation would be for the next meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, in addition to like 7.6.6, 7.6.7, you know, those plans, I think that we did hear some feedback from butters looking for more specificity around like landscaping and screening. And so even though I'm not sure it's required for you to submit this, but it would be very, very helpful. And I think in your best interest, if you could submit a landscaping plan that would help us kind of answer those questions.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. Yeah, and we can just coordinate through. Oh, Bill, go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, the applicant and I had some discussion prior to the submission of the special permit, and it does appear that he provided some additional information from what he had on the beginning when we spoke. But I think that the crucial element to allude to Andre's point is that In order for me to make a determination about zoning, which would be the parking, the loading, the landscaping, any of those things, you know, you really do need a site plan showing the location of the parking spaces that are designated for that. In addition to that, we're going to need a layout showing the handicap accessible parking. You know, there's some gaps there that can be answered with a site plan. And I know that I had spoken to Jason. and asked and mentioned at the time that a site plan was going to be required. No determination can be made on zoning compliance without that site plan. So I think that having a controlling plan is something that's going to be operative to your decision. I don't know that you can make an informed decision without a controlling site plan. I've done a few of these permits. in other jurisdictions and it all kind of starts with a controlling site plan and a controlling law plan, if you will, because all of those things are relevant to the required, you know, categories that are listed in the zoning ordinance and so in order for them to be enforceable you have to have those plans and so I'll be more than willing to get busy writing a recommendation on the information that I see there where I think it's lacking. I will take the time to go to the ordinance and provide you with the best guidance that I can on a relatively short amount of time but I do see that Jonathan Silverstein is here who is an experienced zoning attorney when it comes to marijuana facilities. And so I will be more than happy to discuss with Jonathan if I have any questions, but I'd like to prepare for the board and for the applicant just a relative list of information that I think is going to be relevant in order for the board to make an informed decision that's binding and will control the site for the years to come. So that would be the only comment I have tonight.
[SPEAKER_14]: OK, thank you.
[SPEAKER_16]: Anything else that we wanted to bring up with the applicant when we have them here?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm sure I just on my end, so I can make sure I can work on getting the right documentation of the right people. I apologize when this application came in, unfortunately, I was not in the office. I was out on leave, so I wasn't able to go through a lot of the stuff I think when it came in. So but I will be in. I'll be in all day tomorrow. I'll be in a regular time tomorrow. And I can kind of figure out who exactly needs to get the documentation. Because as we said, we have the documentation on the Google Drive. We can make sure we can just send that link to those folks and say, here's what you need to look at. And please look at it and get back to us as quickly as possible.
[SPEAKER_16]: OK, great. All right, so to the applicant, folks, we think this is a good plan?
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, we do. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and to your August board.
[SPEAKER_16]: That might be giving us a little more credit.
[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Trust me, I've also been into been other places. It's August board. But no, we absolutely understand and have no problem meeting with the right folks, as well as making sure that the documentation that we have is airtight. One of the features of this facility that's very different than any of the other ones that we have is there, there is actually parking here. So that is a new, a new asset that we actually have not dealt with in the past. So that is a very, very good feature and we will lock down the the site plan, we do have the internal plans already set and look forward to coming back before the board and having a conversation with you and hopefully gaining your approval.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, great. That's wonderful. Okay, so folks, do I have a motion to continue?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to continue 114 Mystic Avenue to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[SPEAKER_16]: Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Seconded.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay. And how do you vote, Andre?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Mike?
[SPEAKER_10]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Jamie?
[SPEAKER_10]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Jim? Aye. And Jacqueline is aye. Folks, we will see you at the next meeting. And Dennis will be in touch with some of the specifics. But please do feel free to reach out to Dennis or to Commissioner Forty, anything you need.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you so much. Um, all right, Dennis, I don't think I jinxed us too much. We, uh, we got through six applications in two hours. Not bad.
[Denis MacDougall]: I'll be home in time to watch the Bruins. Worked out pretty well.
[Vasudevan]: Um, and we have hang on before we, we have.
[Unidentified]: Administrative.
[Vasudevan]: Yep. Yeah, well, I'm going to go through that, but we have a, we have a meeting on Monday, right?
[SPEAKER_16]: Monday. I will still be on trial, so it's going to be just as tight. Okay. Administrative updates. Dennis, do we have any?
[Denis MacDougall]: I really don't have anything right now. Usually it's more sort of Alicia's bag and she is, Right now, so, but next month doesn't look too bad. I only have, I think, 1 application and 1 request for continuing. So, I think that's not for a. 6 month extension type of thing for 1 of those dealings. So, not a lot of new things.
[SPEAKER_16]: I mean, we just continued at least 2, if not 3 things.
[Denis MacDougall]: I understand that, but not a continuance, but a request for, you know, it's not a new project. It's an old project that's coming back before us with some changes. So it's not fully a big new project. And so I think next month doesn't look, I'm going to shut up right now because I don't want to jinx it again. So, but we have a few things and nothing in the pipeline that comes to mind that at least I know about.
[SPEAKER_16]: All right, great. And then we have approval of meeting minutes and discussion of rules. I don't think I have anything on rules. Did everyone get a chance to read through the minutes?
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, just before we move on to that, just was wondering if there's any updates on board renewals.
[SPEAKER_14]: Oh, yeah, great question.
[Denis MacDougall]: That sounds like a party enough. Alicia has talked to some folks about that. I think we can probably talk about it on Monday. I think that might be a good one that way. You bet we'll be on that meeting as well. I think there's, I think there's work around the thing that she's working on to sort of make things. Make this work in terms of more membership and things like that.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. To stagger because we're supposed to be staggered.
[Denis MacDougall]: Exactly. It's going to be something along those lines, but Alicia had been talking with the folks from people on, so I think they got something, but I'm not sure the full details. So, but I know she wasn't she was. Yeah, I was up and she was out. And so there's been a few little.
[SPEAKER_16]: No, that's great. Yeah, my, my, I would like us to not violate state law. So that would be great. There we go.
[Denis MacDougall]: So I definitely do with like the staggering. So I think we can do that, you know, and make that happen. But then I think, I think we can probably do that on Monday at after the conclusion of the 40 B stuff, because we'll all be on and we can just know we should be on that one too. So I think that will be a better time to do it.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. And thanks for bringing that up, Mike. Okay, did everyone get a chance to look at the meeting minutes? Okay, anyone have any edits? Nope, can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes or adopt them?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to approve the meeting minutes from, this was from the January regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, and how do you vote, Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Andre?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_03]: Aye.
[SPEAKER_16]: Jacqueline is aye. The minutes are approved. Anything else, folks, before we adjourn? Everyone's just having a great time. Okay, motion to adjourn, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to adjourn.
[Andre Leroux]: I'll second.
[SPEAKER_16]: All right, all in favor?
[SPEAKER_16]: Great, folks. See you Monday.