[Denis MacDougall]: July 16, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, which, among other things, extends the expiration of the provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to 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 Law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15, 2022 to March 31, 2023.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so to get started, there's a couple of cases on the agenda today where we received some notices in advance about those cases. So I'm not sure if there was an updated correspondence, but I believe 55 Burgett Ave, there was a possibility that there was a request to continue that one. Is that still current, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: Is he I received a message from the applicant asking for continuance until the end of January, which is going to be held on January 26.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, and do we have anyone present for the applicants or did we just have their message?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, we just got the message with the request.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so just repeating this for the public. So this is a case that we heard initially in our last meeting on December 1st. And there were some questions from the board surrounding some elements of the case that the applicant needed some more time to put together. And so they had request a continuation from that meeting to this meeting. And it seems that they might need a little bit more time. So I'm hearing they've requested an additional extension. I don't personally have any concerns granting that extension. extension. I believe the applicant already waived the statutory timelines. Is that right, Dennis? That's correct, yes. So yeah, is there anyone on the board who has thoughts or concerns around granting a continuance here? All right. Can I get a motion to continue 55 Burgett Avenue to the next regular meeting of this Building Board of Appeals?
[Unidentified]: I moved. Do I have a second? All right, Andre seconds. And then we will do a roll call vote. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Andre? Aye. And Mike? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: So the motion passes unanimously. All right, and then the second item on the agenda.
[SPEAKER_00]: Excuse me? When will the next meeting about 55 Burgett be?
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, yes. So the next regular meeting, I believe it is scheduled for the last Thursday in January.
[Denis MacDougall]: January 26th. And you'll use the same Zoom information to log on.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay. Thank you very much. Good night.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, good night.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's the end of it? No more for Bob Burgett, right?
[Mike Caldera]: Correct.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Good night.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so then the other case on the agenda that we received some correspondence about is 54 South Street. We received a request to withdraw without prejudice. I see we have Attorney Desmond here. Attorney Desmond, would you like to share anything?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, following the meeting on December 21st, my client made the decision to withdraw without prejudice based on the board's determination that the project required a variance from frontage requirements. I notified the clerk prior to the publication date that my client was intending to withdraw so that the notice with regard to the additional variance required was not published. So at this point we're requesting withdrawal. I believe we can withdraw as a right where there was no publication as to the existing variance. And I just like to say, you know, that originally this project, you know, we worked pretty hard to design it so that we could preserve both structures and also because likely they have some historical significance and try to balance that with reasonable use of the property in an apartment one district. We're still willing, trying to work with the city on on that we've had some conversations with the folks at historical relative to what what they would like to see but the difficulty isn't in all of these cases that you need to be able to balance. What you need for zoning, what what a reasonable uses, and you know what you can do in terms of a preservation, and we're certainly, you know, willing to do that my client came into this with the intent of preserving that property and actually sprinkling it. which would have been a benefit to the property. And, you know, he's still willing to do that. But at this point where it's not a multifamily and it's been determined to be single-family attached and required the frontage variance, which met with some resistance or at least appeared to, we'd like to withdraw at this point and reconfigure the structure as a multi.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And so my understanding is that Withdrawal without prejudice does require a board action in this case. So just a recap for the public. So we've had a few hearings on this. There was an original determination by the building commissioner. about the particular use. And so there were two variances required for the projects based on that use classification. And then in our last meeting, after we had already closed public comment and open deliberation, There was a vote by the board to reclassify or to overrule the building commissioner and to rule that the use was different, which required the third variance and so. At that time, at the request of the applicant, we continued the hearing to this meeting, and then we also reopened the public hearing. So my understanding is because the project itself didn't change, even though the variances required did, that we would still need a vote by the board to withdraw without prejudice. And so I just want to, Attorney Desmond, if there's any,
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't, you know, it's a different area because it's very rare where this situation where you overturn the decision of the building inspector, but it is clear under the statute and I did, if I can share my screen poll, poll various provisions from MCL, from the Mass Continuing Legal Ed. that there was a requirement that this be published because, and notice be given because it was a different variance. And I, so it's a different, it's a different application to an extent at that point, because you've got a variance, which was not what was required initially, which was not anticipated by the applicant. And at the time of that meeting, Yeah, I didn't know where we were going to go on it. I think in fairness, we made the decision before publication specifically so that we could withdraw as a right based on the fact that there was a new variance requested that notice had to be published in order to move forward with that, and that we we then notified the board through the clerk that we did not intend to go forward based on the new variance that was required by the board. If in fact we were withdrawing based on the original relief side, I would agree, but I believe, and I don't know that this case are on it, but clearly the section 16 indicates that if you have to have notice, you can withdraw as a right without notice. have been published. And in this case, where frontage became an issue, it wasn't an issue in the first instance. I do think that we have the right to withdraw as a right.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you for clarifying. I'm on board with that interpretation. So I don't believe you need any action from the board. So if you'd like to withdraw, we don't need to vote on it.
[Unidentified]: The withdrawal will be without prejudice. All right, so then moving on. Dennis, could you read the next case please? I believe that is 71 South Street. Dennis, we can't hear you. Sorry about that.
[Denis MacDougall]: I was having some issues with a spill. So yeah, so 590 Boston Ave is asking for the six month extension. So I figured we could do that one. Sure. Yeah, let's do that. Let's jump that one up again, up higher, because I don't want to jinx anything. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So can you please, or I guess, yeah, could you read the agenda item?
[Denis MacDougall]: So 590 Boston Ave, case number 8-2020-07 amended. Applicant and owner, Antelito Brothers Incorporated, are requesting a six-month extension of the variance and special permit granted by the Board of Appeals. The decision filed on July 30th, 2021, with a certificate of no appeal dated September 12th, 2021, with an initial extension granted until January 12th, 2023. until July 12, 2023, the demolition of an existing gasoline station slash car wash and construction of a five-story multiple dwelling consisting of 40 units and 1,343 square feet of retail space.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. It looks like we have Attorney Bernowski for the applicant.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Dennis, Mr. chairman members of the board. For the record, Adam Bernoski to 55 State Street Boston on here on behalf of little brothers. So we are here, requesting a six month extension for the permits that were granted relative to this project. The board may recall that we came before you six months ago asking for that initial extension. I believe the board at the time granted a one year, but then in reviewing 48 section 10, it was determined that the board could extend it in six month increments. So we're here back before you always anticipating that we would need the full year. The project continues to move forward. We have just recently this week received the license That was a long time coming. We first met with them, right before COVID hit in March of 2020, and finally received that email. that piece is going to be all set. I also just wanted to inform the board, it's relative to the project, but not exactly to the request that we will likely be back before you at some point this winter, seeking an amendment of some of the design elements of the project that we actually anticipate will reduce the amount of nonconformities and variances required for it, but it's more consistent with the zoning, which has changed since the time in which this project was first approved.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. So my understanding from the earlier extension and some of the comments made by the city's legal representation at the time, is that as a board, it's not that we are only authorized to extend variances in six-month increments, but it's that we're only authorized to extend variances by six months in total. So that's my read, but I will readily admit I'm not a lawyer This is the first time I've encountered this situation. So if there's anyone on the city side, especially who has prior experience on this, I'd appreciate if anyone could chime in. I don't know if Commissioner Forty or Alicia or Dennis, if you have any.
[Denis MacDougall]: Mike, I think the issue before was that we were going to extend it for a year. And instead, then we found out it had to be six months I think we still do. They just have to come back every six months because I know in the past we've done multiple extensions, you know, on a case by case basis. circumstances, but it has a lot of chairman.
[Bill Forte]: I'm of the opinion that the ZBA can extend as many times as they like for just cause. So obviously, if there's still some design, things that are worked out or some additional, you know, additional things with zoning that are going to give them more liberties, then certainly, that is within the purview of the ZBA. And certainly, I don't have any objection as the commissioner.
[Mike Caldera]: In commission reported just to be clear that's for variances I know for special permits that's the case but for variances that's your understanding as well.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah variances I thought could be granted up to a year extension. But, you know, I think if the language is clear in section 10 and six months is safe, then certainly, you know, you would follow that so I'm not aware of anything that would preclude the ZBA from making that, you know, from granting that extension.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I did try to read up on this in advance. So first of all, just for folks who are unfamiliar, the plain language of 48 section 10 is that if the rights authorized by a variance are not exercised within one year of the date of grant of such variance, such rights shall lapse provided, however, that the permit granting authority, which in this case would be us, in its discretion and upon written application by the grantee of such rights may extend the time for exercise of such rights for a period of not to exceed six months. And then there's some other language, but yeah, so it, you know, I also consulted a legal manual. I didn't see any reference or precedent in terms of legally that this is a power where we can just extend, you know, six months and then another six months and another six months.
[Adam Barnosky]: Mr. Chairman, if I may, please. Yeah, I mean my reading of this, I mean, first it's it's it's relatively commonplace to seek extensions, you know for variances and the zoning board to generally grant extensions of this nature just due to the nature of. the timelines that are required in projects like this. My reading of that text is that in order to extend, you have to make a written application to the board prior to the lapse. And that upon the written application, the board can make an extension for up to six months or for a period not to exceed six months. The way I'm reading that is that the six months is tied to the written application, but that there's no explicit prohibition on going back before the board to seek that additional six months.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, well, I don't really have any strong evidence to definitively say my reading is the correct one here, so I'm happy to rely on custom for this one. So, board, what do you think? The applicant is requesting an additional six month extension. Any thoughts?
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, when we, you know, when we granted the initial extension, I think we had all agreed that we, the board was open to a year. We just had to, we dialed it back to a six month extension. So I would be happy to make a motion to extend it for another six months.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. And I would, I'll check that with. Right.
[Mike Caldera]: So there's a motion that seconded, but I'd like to hear from the rest of the So Jamie, go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Yep. I was just going to say that in the confines of the good cause statement, I believe that this is where, you know, again, there's no reason not to, and I don't think there's verbiage that says we cannot.
[Mike Caldera]: With that, any thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: Nothing new. I mean, in my past experience, I've never actually heard us being unable to grant the extensions. So I didn't realize that it could have been an issue. And I don't see otherwise at this point that we would change that. I think we can grant this within reason.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I would say simplest explanation is my reading drunk. So. Um, so, okay, we have a motion by Member LaRue, seconded by Member Tarani. So we're gonna do a roll call vote. Andre? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. So that passes unanimously as well. Thank you, Attorney Bernowski.
[Adam Barnosky]: Thank you very much. Happy New Year, everyone.
[Mike Caldera]: Happy New Year. All right, Dennis, what's up next?
[Denis MacDougall]: 71 South Street, case number A-2022-16. December 1st. Applicant and owner Sean Fahey is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City Method zoning to construct an additional story to existing single-family dwelling in the General Residence Zoning District to allow use, thereby exceeding the maximum allowable height and allowed number of stories.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. I see we have Sean Fahey. So Sean, are you gonna speak or do you have a... Who would like to speak for the applicant?
[Unidentified]: Okay, you're on mute. Are you able to unmute yourself? Yep, sorry about that.
[SPEAKER_13]: It's just me. Nobody's speaking for me.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yeah, so I'm not sure how familiar you are with our process, but at this point, you have an opportunity. So you provided some files, which we've had a chance to review. They're referenced in the meeting agenda, so members of the public can refer to them as well. And then you have an opportunity at this point, if you'd like to make a presentation, if you'd like to tell us a little bit about what you're requesting and why, and then we'll open it up to public comment and then deliberate.
[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, yeah, so this is... This is going to be a, you know, owner occupied property for for my just starting a new family. You know, I'm requesting the, the addition of the third floor. For an opportunity to, you know, add more square footage for guest bedroom bedroom for in laws that just moved down to Florida and need a place to stay when they come and help with childcare I also work from home so I you know I need like a dedicated office space. And I'm sure you're familiar with that stretch of South Street. There's four houses all right next to each other. I believe the house to the left has petitions to tear it down and build three condos, which will be Similar height to what I'm requesting. And then the house to the left was also granted a variance in the past for essentially the same three full stories that I'm requesting as well. And that's really about it other than I spoke to both neighbors on the left and right and said that they would be happy to you know, write the board with their approval of it as well, if that would help. But yeah, it's been, you know, sort of a long process getting plans done and made and whatnot. And, you know, happy to go back and do that if needed, but also would kind of like to get going on this.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, well, so to that point, so you had plans made and I know those are some of the documents you submitted. Oftentimes applicants choose to bring those plans up and walk us through them just because some of the determinations we have to make as a board do rely on certain analyses where it's helpful to have that information. So is that something you'd be interested in screen sharing and just sort of walking us through?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes, I'm sure. I'm not sure. Honestly, forgive me. I've never actually done screen sharing on Zoom here. So.
[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis, do you think maybe you can do it? Yeah. Shawn, do you want me to, if you want, Shawn, I can bring up the architectural plans or the area plan first. Yeah, that would be. I'll bring up the area plan first and then we'll start from there.
[SPEAKER_13]: That would be very helpful.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Doing some orientation now before I actually turn it on. Yeah, so should I start now or? Yeah.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, so as you can see, you know, on this lot line right to on the left side facing if you're facing the house is too close. You know, we could, I guess, in theory, potentially, you know, pick the house up and move it, but it still would be short. It really wouldn't, I guess, help. And my understanding of it is it wouldn't help because it is under the required 5,000 square feet. I know behind that, which you can't really see what would be in between the back lot line and the dock is actually, at some point was, I guess, my understanding of it, taken by the state and owned by the state. So it went from what was at one point, I believe, close to a 10,000 square foot lot to a 4,471 square foot lot. you know, at some point, much prior to my purchasing of it, of course.
[Mike Caldera]: Sean, actually, just to interject briefly. So we can narrow things down a little bit here. So the building permit refusal was about a specific element of the plan, and it was the allowed number of stories and the height of the building. With these nonconforming existing structures that have issues such as being too close to the, like not having a large enough side yard, which I think is one of the things you're referring to, there are some statutory protections for the homeowner. I think we might need, in addition to, a variance for the additional story, we might also need to do a finding just to, essentially to reinforce that for the non-conforming elements of the project that are not being made worse, that the overall project, because one element's getting worse, the overall project that is not more detrimental but but we can come back to that for now I think the you can focus on a just informing us in the public about the project in general, and then be on the height element, because that's the part that you weren't allowed to do by by right according to the right okay yeah so so I mean, my understanding is, you know, that the height.
[SPEAKER_13]: that the addition to the height, to your point, is not going to negatively affect the non-conformity of the lot at this point. Again, the height, as mentioned, it would you know, more conform with the surrounding houses to the left and right, you know, certainly not impede on anything on their end.
[Unidentified]: I'll jump in and I'll throw up the architectural plans now. Okay. but essentially we'd just be going straight up from what is already allowed up to a third floor.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, so as you can see, the proposed front elevation would be 42 feet, the back elevation because it is graded off and slightly lower in grade. In the back, I think we'll bring the total to about 45 feet. Again, the back deck that you see there is already existing on the current property. you know, the second tier deck above it would be added in after, which I don't believe would again affect anything as far as the Board of Appeal is concerned with the variance. You know, again, largely it would be, you know, the same sort of structure as currently on the property, you know, the addition of those two extra rooms on the third story, which you can also see in the plans as well.
[Unidentified]: The rest of the house remains largely the same. Let's jump to the next page.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, so if you see on this page, it's just the addition of the extra room with a kind of common double entry bathroom upstairs, what will essentially be a guest room.
[Mike Caldera]: And so Sean, just so we're clear, so it looks like, so I think we only have the proposed, I don't know if we have plans for the existing. So it looks like it should be a net height increase of seven and a half feet. And the area right now, is it just an attic? It's like an unfinished attic or?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes, correct. The current area is just an unfinished attic. There's not enough, there's certainly not enough height there to like add any livable space. Although there is attic access there. Yes, it's essentially just storage space at the moment. And it probably couldn't be used for anything otherwise.
[Yvette Velez]: And increasing the floor, the height of the building, you're changing the siding and it'll all be very similar to what's in the neighborhood and nature, right?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, so the plan was to do you know, similar or not, like, currently there's aluminum siding, which we would pull down and do, you know, some sort of, you know, plastic siding. The plan was to do white with, you know, black, you know, window casings. And the current structure is currently white aluminum siding. And yeah, again, from the front view was designed by the architect anyway to sort of emulate the two houses, the one to the right, which has been recently renovated. I believe they have two and a half stories, not the full three. And then a house to the left, which several years ago was granted a variance. to do the full third story. And yes, to your point, I believe that's correct, that it would be adding, you know, seven feet, which would be, and then, you know, of course, the empty space for the attic, what would be then the new attic space. So, you know, another seven feet tall ceiling on the third floor.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, and then in the documentation, there were two conflicting references, and I looked it up, so I'm pretty sure this is accurate, but so just for clarity. all involved so we can discuss if someone has a different understanding. So this house is in a general residence district, not a SF1 district. That's my understanding. And I believe that's what it also says on the permit refusal. And so in a general residence district, Some of the dimensions are a little different than SF1, but on this number of stories and the height, that is the same. So essentially by right, two and a half stories is allowed, I think 35 feet. And so the request for a variance here is for the additional height and story.
[Unidentified]: Just want to double check, does anyone have a different understanding that
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so at this point, I'd just like to check in with the board. Does anyone else have clarifying questions about the projects based on what was presented?
[Unidentified]: Just a question. Is there any impact to trees or shrubbery, I mean, well obviously not bushes, but is there any impact to trees in the area?
[SPEAKER_13]: So the only, there's one oak tree that's in the front that would just have to be trimmed because some of the branches do overhang, but there's no plans to, you know, take down any existing trees. There are some, there's some shrubbery that's I hesitate to say shrubbery, it's mostly overgrown and weeds at this time that I would assume will get, will be too far gone to really do anything other than remove at this point during the excavation and the repairs that need to be done to the rest of the house.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board? Okay, so Sean, before we go to...
[Mike Caldera]: the public portion of the hearing, there's just a few things I want to talk through with you. So like I mentioned earlier, there's a specific analysis that we have to go through when folks ask for a variance. And so I want you to have an opportunity to speak to the different key elements here. So one of the things that we're asked to think about and weigh in on, and I'm first going to just say it in its kind of legal terminology, and then we can sort of talk about what it means. Some examples is that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or structures, that especially affects that land or structure, but not generally that this zoning district in which the house is located, that rather than the, sorry, we're supposed to find that the hardship in a literal enforcement of the zoning is derived from circumstances related to these things. So, so essentially, you know, here, there's a few elements of the property that stand out to me as as non-conforming. I think not all of these are pertinent to a request for additional height. So the lot itself is smaller than the allowed area. The location of the building on the lot doesn't conform with some of the setback requirements of modern zoning. And so, and then the structure itself, so we can consider the structure itself. And so this is the avenue where I think maybe it would be helpful for you to share some additional details with us. So as I understand it, the house is, sorry, I have to pull up the evaluation sheet again. So the house is presently two stories, and 29 feet high. And in General Residence District, and actually most districts for most uses, the allowed height is 35 feet. And then the allowed number of stories is two and a half stories. So by right, you could already build essentially a six foot increase in height and add a half story. And so I just wanted to get your take, are there kind of in your discussions with the architect or just like based on your knowledge of the house, are there reasons why the allowed by right avenue would not work given the way the existing structure is already configured?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, so if, If I were to only add the six feet by right, I would not have the height in the existing structure, given the existing structure, to do any finished usable space up there because the roof line would come down and I would really only be able to do one small room in the middle where height would allow. you know, as opposed to, you know, if I'm able to do the full story to, you know, get an actual livable floor there.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, and so my recollection, and someone can chime in if I'm misremembering, is for that half story, I think the usable space can be no more than half of the, the usable space in the floors below it, so. Right, yeah. Yeah, so the, let me just double check.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, and that my, and not to jump in, but my architect had said the same, that if if we were to only add a half story that like half of it would have to be storage space or something like that, which doesn't do me a ton of good, it helps, but it doesn't do a ton of good as far as the space that I need.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so it looks like ballpark, let's see, Yeah, so it looks like the floors below it are on the order of 840 square feet, so it would be like half of that would be 420 or thereabouts. Is that consistent with your understanding?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes. Yes, with also then still having part of the pitch of the roof being up, you know, on the edges. So, realistically, like, not that whole 400 square feet would not have, you know, seven foot ceiling still.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And so then, so that's one of the things we need to weigh in on. Then the second thing we need to weigh in on to grant a variance is that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to you and so typically this would be that your alternatives that you could do by right are. really bad or really expensive. And so in this case, it seems like you're, well, you don't need a variance for the side yard, but it's using that as an example, like asking people to move their houses would be very expensive. So here it would perhaps also relate. to the, that you're allowed by right to have this half story, but maybe there's elements of the structure that would present a hardship there. And then the third element is that, and I think you ended up speaking to this a little bit, but I'd love for you to weigh in if there's anything else, that we could grant the relief without substantial detriment to the public good. and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. So essentially, this would be an analysis where we're thinking about what's the impact on the neighborhood and is it gonna sort of impact any of the adjacent properties or things of that nature. So I know you spoke to some of those elements, but could you just let us know if there's anything else you wanna share in terms of how allowing this third full third story would not result in substantial detriment to the public good.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, so again it actually just given you know the dynamic and the setup of the neighborhood now would actually conform more with the surrounding properties if it was taller. As far as hardship, I mean, in general, other than the financial hardship of not using the property to the best of its ability. Again, for purposes of maybe some day down the line resale value and stuff like that, if this house is 30 feet tall or 35 feet tall stuffed in the middle of three other properties that are all three and a full third story tall, it will look strange and all these other houses to the left and right will all have windows on the third floor peering down into the house, that sort of thing. you know, again, my understanding is that, you know, the zoning requirements, the purpose of them is to create conformity within districts and neighborhoods and stuff like that. So in this case, actually allowing for the variance would create more conformity, at least in that immediate area.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks.
[Mike Caldera]: So those are the three criteria that we're gonna have to talk about later. And so, like I mentioned at the outset, there'll be a moment soon where I'm gonna open it to public comment, or we're gonna open it rather once we get a motion. Before we do that, I just wanna double check.
[Unidentified]: Are there any other questions from the board? Sean, is there anything else you wanted to share with us as part of your presentation?
[SPEAKER_13]: No, that's it. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So would anyone like to motion to open the public hearing?
[Unidentified]: Motion to open 71 South Street to public hearing. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, I saw Andre first, so Andre, except your second, so we'll do a roll call vote. Jim? Aye. Yvette? Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike, aye.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so we're now open to the public. Any members of the public who would like to speak about this petition, you can raise your hand on Zoom, you can type in chat, just let us know if you'd like to speak.
[Unidentified]: I'm gonna give it a solid 30 seconds.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so I don't see anything. And Dennis, I just want to double check. We didn't get any email from the public about this project.
[Unidentified]: We did not, and I was just checking just once.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, does anyone want to motion to close the public hearing and open deliberations?
[Unidentified]: Motion to close public hearing on 71 South Street. And to open deliberations. And open deliberations. Okay, do I have a second? Second. All right, I'll give that one to Yvette. And then we'll do, we'll call the vote again. Yvette? Yes. Jim? Excuse me. Yes. Jamie. I Andre. It looks like you said yes, Andre. And yes, I did. Hi. Okay. And then, Mike. Yes. All right. So what do you think, folks?
[Yvette Velez]: I see it as an improvement in the neighborhood. Doesn't look like a detriment. The addition goes straight up. I think to make it a livable space, that alone would be, in my opinion, a hardship to have those. You couldn't just do the one room attic. And when you look at the actual redesign of the whole building. It's not as if they've added, you know, a whole bunch of rooms they've thoughtfully put together. So it's going from a three bedroom to a four bedroom, essentially, which is not a significant, like, you know, it's not three bedrooms on the second, on that third floor, and then additional three bedrooms, right? Like it's within reason and livable design that they created.
[Unidentified]: All right, any other thoughts?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm actually just curious, Sean, maybe I should have asked this earlier, but you don't happen to have any current photos of what the houses on either side look like?
[SPEAKER_13]: I don't. I know that if you we're to pull it up on Google Maps really quickly that that one is fairly accurate.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, yeah, because that's what I did and it says from March of 2022 which seems so it's pretty recent, but I thought you had said that on either side of your house that the they were taller, but they look about the same size as your house right now. I see two doors down, there's the yellow house that does have that additional third story, but I just wasn't sure if I was misunderstanding.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, no, you're correct. So the house, if you're looking at it to the right with the blue siding, was renovated fairly recently. In fact, I believe they're still renovating. That one is actually, I mean, I didn't measure it, but it is certainly taller than mine. I believe they did a half a story on that floor. Again, that's like an owner-occupied house as well, and rather than go for variances, they went for just a loud half a story. I've actually been in it. As I was mentioning, it's sort of petitioned into two rooms, but on either side, each room, there's so much of a pitch to the roof that they really don't get a full room out of either. The one directly to the left that you're seeing, the sort of greenish siding there, they, to my knowledge, have been for quite some time, and from what I was told, were approved to do a complete teardown and do three condos there, in which case there will be much, it's currently a three, you know, a three unit, but the condos will actually be, you know, match that height. And then again, yes, the yellow house to the left, which already does have the full third story. And as I mentioned on that particular part of South Street, those four houses are all grouped together and sort of separate on either side of that, there's the boat ramp and then to the right is the park. So it's kind of like a cluster of just those four houses and then everything else in the area.
[Unidentified]: Great, thanks for clarifying.
[Andre Leroux]: And just to note that the the homes that are on either side of you those lots are why in fact all three of the four lots are are significantly wider than yours.
[SPEAKER_13]: Oh okay yeah I think I believe, though, they to that point are all. This, the same, same or less square footage wise I could be mistaken with that but I believe at the time when I looked total square footage was this was the same. And although the frontage, they may have more frontage, the frontage is not necessarily what I'm asking relief from. Unfortunately, it's that side setback that is too close to the existing lot line.
[Andre Leroux]: But I'm just thinking in terms of the height, your frontage is, you're a narrower lot than the other ones, then there's less room to do kind of a different kind of an addition. And it seems like it's more of a justification to go up vertically.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, right, exactly. Which that's, yeah, essentially the plan. And then obviously behind me is, you know, I can't get any closer moving back because now we're dealing with the river being right back there and stuff of that. So we thought better to, we're actually better to go straight up than try and go back closer to the Mystic River at that point.
[Mike Caldera]: So actually just to chime in with an answer to one of Andre's questions. So on the area plan, we have some square footage details. And so the property to the left of the subject property is substantially larger. It's 6,200 square feet. And then the property to the right is slightly larger. It's 4,900 square feet. The property, not that it's part of our analysis, but the property two down to the left that did receive the variance is even smaller. It's 3,800 square feet. So yeah, I think it would be fair to say that the neighbors to the immediate left and right do have more space. The neighbor to the right doesn't have a whole lot more, but does technically have more. And actually while we're on it, we normally don't, we should have asked these questions up front, but just, you had made a comment in your application or maybe in your presentation that your neighbors are in support of it, but I didn't, I don't believe we received any specific documentation on that. So can you just clarify like who have you, which neighbors have you chatted with? So I,
[SPEAKER_13]: at one time or another, you know, spoken with all of them, you know, the two to the left in the yellow house that has the third story and the one directly to the left there, you know, both developers who actually offered to purchase the house from me, but as I'm keeping it as a, you know, As an owner occupied, I refused. And to the right, and forgive me having a complete brain fart right now, I spoke with him actually very recently because I did, I was scheduled for last meeting and he had saw it. And then I was very recently over the house just covering open windows with plywood to secure it. And he had asked what was going on and asked if I needed him to come to the meeting or anything like that. I, of course, not to be a bother to him in this sort of my first first time doing something like this, you know, just, you know, so that, you know, I didn't wanna take up too much of his time, but if I needed something moving forward, I would certainly let him know. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So let's go back. We're gonna go back to deliberations. And so it looks like Jim would like to say something. So go ahead, Jim, what are you thinking?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, Sean, I see the yellow house and then your house, Is the one in between the one they're going to be taken down?
[SPEAKER_13]: From what I was told, yes.
[Unidentified]: And that's where they want to build three units?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes, three condos or three family, anyway.
[Unidentified]: And what did they say the height was going to be?
[SPEAKER_13]: I don't know the exact height.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, Jim, I can jump in. So that about two years ago went before the historical commission for a demo apartment. And then there's like an 18 month demo delay. So that only just expired recently. So they haven't gone forward with any full plans just yet, but they were waiting out the demo delay on that. So that just expired over the summer. So I would imagine that at some point they're going to put something forward. Because that house there right now is an existing two family.
[Unidentified]: Oh, OK. All right, thank you. Sorry, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Please go ahead. I want to transition back to deliberation, but if there's something else you wanted to say, please.
[SPEAKER_13]: No, no. I just, as far as I'm not sure the zoning on that, I do know that the architect mentions when we kind of first went through this, I know you mentioned that it's actually in a GR zone as opposed to the single family. zone that it's the way the zoning map reads it's sort of like right on the line of like a couple of different zones so that's you know again why why probably there's a discrepancy between what was submitted and what the actual zone is.
[Unidentified]: Okay thanks.
[Mike Caldera]: So back to deliberations, other thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: I'll weigh in. From the sounds of the planned design, it's definitely an improvement to the property. The facade improvements with the new siding. Obviously, the maintenance and pruning of the trees. Also, the one thing I did note is across the street, there are two three-story buildings as well. With the nearby properties, although the neighboring ones are currently two stories, I do see that the properties across the street and the one down and obviously we do expect, we are understanding that there may be a third coming that would be going up to that same height. So it sounds like from a conforming perspective within the scope of that area, it's in line with what that area will be and currently looks like. All right. Any other thoughts from the board? Jim, were you going to say something? No, I tend to agree with him. I'm looking at the homes across the street as well. And they're all full three stories.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, yeah, yeah. So my read is similar. So in particular, let me just pull back up the statutory requirements. So for me, I think the particular thing about the lot that we could point to, circumstances related to soil conditions, shape and topography, we could point to is that the, as Andre mentioned, you know, this lot is relatively narrower for the district. So if one were to build, they've got to build up. And then furthermore, the existing structure, you know, I think if it was just, if it wasn't need for height relief, if it was just a need for, or a request for, you know, relief in terms of the number of stories. There are some additional options available by right to the petitioner, because you don't have to have it be spread out over the entire footprint. You can have a bump out. But in this case, only being allowed to go up six feet, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where modifying the structure to add the by right half story would result in anything usable. I do think that presents a hardship. And then in terms of the, you know, relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. I think we've already talked about that at length. There are a number of houses in the area that are already that height, the proposed modification would actually be more consistent with the neighborhood. So I think we have good cause there. So one last thing I just wanted to discuss before someone motions to vote. So My read, and I'm willing to let someone walk me off this cliff if you have a different understanding, but is that because this is classified as a substantial extension of an existing nonconforming structure, in addition to the variance, we also need to find that this substantial extension, it's very close to that last thing, but it's the specific language I think is will not be substantially detrimental to the public good or something like that. Let me pull it up. So yeah, that will be my ruling unless somebody wants to kind of weigh in and let me know what I'm missing.
[Unidentified]: That makes sense. Do we have to vote on the finding first?
[Mike Caldera]: I don't believe there's a required order for us to vote, but I do think that we should vote on them separately. And so, yeah, it seems logical to me that we would vote on the finding first. So let me just pull up and read the specific exact language for this.
[Unidentified]: need to make sure it's handy. This document is too long. Okay. Here we go. Section 6. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: So we have to find that this substantial extension is not substantially more detrimental to the naval than is the existing nonconforming structure. So I think we've talked about related items here. So I'm Okay, just going straight to a vote on this, but does anyone else wanna weigh in on that specific requirement for a finding? Whether you have any additional thoughts on how this substantial extensions is or is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use? All right, well then in that case, would anyone like to make a motion to formally find that this extension will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use?
[Unidentified]: All right, so I'll give that to Andre. Any second? Second. Okay, Jim seconds. We'll do a roll call. Jamie? Jim? Aye. Yvette? Andre? Okay, it looks like you said aye.
[Mike Caldera]: So the So we've now found that this alteration is not going to be substantially more detrimental, which basically, that's why, Sean, you don't need to request any special relief for things like the side yard. Essentially, you've got the existing structure. We're just saying that what you want to do to change it isn't more detrimental. So now we need a motion. surrounding the variance being requested for the height and number of stories.
[Unidentified]: Well, I didn't make a full motion. Sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: Someone needs to decide whether they want a motion to approve or to deny. the variances, and yeah, it would be for, so for example, if someone wanted to make a motion to approve the variances for height and for number of stories for 71 South Street, that would be the motion, so.
[Unidentified]: I make a motion to approve the variances for 71 South Street for height and stories.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? All right, second from Andre. And then we'll do a roll call.
[Unidentified]: Andre? Yes. Beth? Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: and Mike, aye. So that's five in favor, which is enough to grant the variances. And so here's where I'm gonna ask Dennis to help me out a little bit. So oftentimes applicants who have counsel, we ask them to take some steps regarding the decision, but Dennis, I think you put it better than me that the next steps for Sean.
[Denis MacDougall]: So just to dial back when Jack, unfortunately, was unable to make it, but she said she was going to contact me and get on working on the decision, especially in a case like this, you know, that she'll work with probably some assistance from myself.
[Unidentified]: And she might actually end up calling one or two of you all just to sort of get some background detail as well and, you know, have her and us. Okay, thanks Dennis Yes, so go ahead and say something about.
[Mike Caldera]: I think his audio is moving in and out right yeah it cut in and out so the the main thing, Sean so our. Normal Chair Jacqueline Doherty, she will be writing the decision. As you've already heard, we voted in favor and we made the required findings. So yeah, so there's some procedural steps that need to be required. It's not officially granted until the decision is made and recorded. And there's a period for appeals, but you're well on your way. So congratulations and best of luck.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, I appreciate it. All right. Sorry, as far as next steps, try to contact Jacqueline Doherty, I guess.
[Mike Caldera]: You don't even have to so you can work with with Dennis, who will keep you updated there's some statutory timelines that we have as a board to render the decision which which can walk you through and so Jacqueline already knows that this is required, we're not going to make any upfront promises as to when the decision will be made, other than that. you know we're statutorily required to make it within a certain time frame so so yeah within that time frame you should expect the decision the formal decision from us and then we can go from there okay great awesome thank you guys for your time yeah thank you have fun all right yeah i switched over to my phone and audio so i think you can hear me probably better now yes yes yeah all right sorry about that i'm not sure what was happening with the other one but um All right, I believe we have one more case on the agenda.
[Denis MacDougall]: We have two more.
[Mike Caldera]: Two more. We have two more.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, yeah. Summer Street and Riverside. OK. So we'll do Summer Street next. 7th Summer Street, case number A-2022-17. Applicant and owner Joseph and Carol Willongo are petitioning for a variance in the chapter 94 city method zoning to install a driveway opening at 7th Summer Street. No part of any parking or loading area shall be located closer than five feet from a lot line. If the provision section 6.3.2 apply or three feet will outline it all on there. This is the ends and sides of parking loading spaces adjacent to a lot line and shall be defined by race curb or berm.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and I see we have Mr. Lungo and then Attorney Desmond. if you're representing, yeah.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. So the petitioners, Joseph and Carol DeWango, are seeking to construct a one-car driveway on their property at 7 Summer Street, Medford, where they've lived for 30 years. The property is a 1740 square foot parcel of land situated in the apartment one district on which a non-conforming single-family dwelling sits. In addition to the lot in the single-family dwelling being non-conforming, the existing parking situation also does not conform to the Medford zoning ordinance as the property does not provide any off-street parking. The addition of a one-car driveway would serve to mitigate the existing nonconformities by providing one of the parking spaces required. Relief is required in this instance as the parking space itself would be nonconforming as section 6.1.57, as Dennis has mentioned, requires that any parking area be situated three feet from the property line and defined by a raised curb or berm. The proposed parking area does not meet the three foot requirement and there is no availability to place curbing. If I can share my screen, I can show you the existing plan.
[Mike Caldera]: Before you get into the presentation, just one quick clarifying question for you. So in the application itself, there was reference both to a variance and to a special permit. So what is the relief that the applicant's requesting?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, I mean, I pled in the alternative as to a variance if the board determines that a variance is required in this instance. I think that a special permit would be permitted in the sense that we are only looking for relief as to parking.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's that's consistent with my understanding. So, Section 6.1.10 of the zoning ordinance says that the special permit granting authority, which in this case is us, made by special permit reduce or waive the requirements of section 6.1, if warranted. And there's some factors we need to consider. So the requirement in question, the off-street loading requirements and the required distance, so the 6.1.7, that's part of that section. So we are able to waive that by special permit if we make the appropriate determinations.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So in terms of what's existing, this is the plan. You'll see that the lot is oddly shaped and that there is room to place a vehicle to put in a one-car driveway, but there isn't the three feet, which is required per strict adherence to the ordinance. I don't know if anyone has taken a view of the site, but in looking at the view of the site, this isn't, an uncommon situation. Quite a few of the driveways and every other house on the street, according to my client, from what I could see when I looked through, it does have at least the ability to have a one car driveway. And most of those driveways are not compliant with the three foot requirement of distance from the lot line. or raised or curbed raised berm. In this particular instance, in addition to, and I referenced in my worksheet, section 6.3.3, just for purposes of, in instances where there's an enhanced requirement of landscaping and buffer zone, There is mention in that section of the ability of the Community Development Board on site plan review to place a fence requirement in place of that three foot buffer zone. And in this instance, I can show you my client at this point does have a fence which exists between their property and the adjacent property, which is Pinky's Pizza. So there is already fencing which would provide a buffer between What is a commercial use, and what is a residential use. I have another view of that as well from the interior. So that's the interior space that provides fencing again as a buffer from that property. The difficulty for my heart, my client and in terms of if I was seeing a variance. In terms of hardship is the inability for them, they have pinkies on the right side of their property, which is take out pizza place and you know that. the parking to get off street parking, on street parking in that vicinity is very difficult for them and it's become increasingly difficult. They're advancing in age and sometimes they can't find a space on the street itself. And this is, my client took a picture of what it often looks like in front of his property in terms of the ability of off street parking for them. There is a letter in support from my client's neighbor supporting their petition to place a one car driveway. It will just allow them to have a space that they can use and be guaranteed in bad weather, you know, raining, winter. And as I said, they're the only, they're the only lot which at this point does not have any type of a driveway for their use. In terms of substantial detriment to the neighborhood again this is a net loss we're not well it's one space that would be you know on street parking versus one space which is off street parking. The neighborhood it's compatible with the neighborhood there isn't many houses in that area where you have the actual three-foot buffer with the berm curbing. And they do have mitigating factors, which is the fencing, which is already in place next to the commercial space that's existing. So in terms of a special permit, I think they meet the requirements. of that. I think there's a hardship, because they have difficulty finding spaces closest that that picture indicates. And I'll take questions from the board. If you have them.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so before we get to the questions, I just wanna say it out loud so we're all on the same page in case there's anything you needed to add, Attorney Desmond. So there's some general factors which I can pull up in a moment that we need to weigh in on for a special permit, but for special permits pertaining to section 6.1, essentially, We can reduce or waive the requirements of the section if warranted, and the factors we consider are specific site and public safety considerations, access to public transportation, supply and demand of on-street parking in the vicinity, mobility management slash shared vehicle programs and services to be provided by the applicant and if no substantial detriment shall result in the neighborhood. So clearly not all those apply but those are the special conditions or the special considerations under 6.1.10.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Um, I think I should mention to it. I think I did. Yes, it is that this, you know, mitigates against what is nonconforming in the first place, which is there's no off street parking.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So, um, I do have one question, but I can hold it in case others from the board have questions.
[Unidentified]: Any questions from the board? No.
[Denis MacDougall]: Kathy, could we jump back off the share screen?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, I can ask my question while folks are speaking if they have any. So Desmond, one thing I just, it was a little hard for me to tell from the plot plan. And I don't know if it's just sort of an artifact of how these things get drawn, but so on the proposed, there are little illustrations of curbs to sort of indicate where the curb cut ends. And I noticed, at least as depicted, it looks like there will still be curb kind of in an awkward spot to actually turn into that space. So I just wanted to check in. Is this proposed curb cut sufficient for someone to actually enter and use the space in its current positioning?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe so. I mean, the maximum curb cut would be 20 feet per the per the ordinance and I don't think for a single car, you've got a nine foot vehicle. So it's almost twice the size, the curb has almost twice the length of what you'd have for a vehicle. And that's a space that a vehicle that's actually nine feet in width.
[Mike Caldera]: So, Commissioner Fordy, could you just remind me, or remind us, say this was just like a straight up and down driveway, what's the typical curb cut for a conforming driveway?
[Bill Forte]: So a normal, Mr. Chairman, a normal opening for a driveway curb cut is usually 12 feet. The city doesn't like to grant any more than that, at least in my experience. I don't exactly know how this engineering department side, but I would say that a 12-foot curb cut is the norm just about in any city or town, and I don't see that it's any different here. That would be to eliminate any extra curb line that someone doesn't necessarily need to have, and so that would be a standard 12-foot width. Okay, go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe Chairman Caldera, too, under the new ordinance, the engineering department is required to approve all driveways ultimately, you know, beyond what the zoning requirements are. So it would have to go through engineering and get their approval.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, fair call out. And you're not asking for relief for the curb, you're asking for relief for the position. Okay. Jamie, go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Just one quick question, Attorney Desmond, in relation to, I believe what you're speaking to Mike is that curb section there. On the opposite side of the fence, is that a driveway? for Pinky's or the property beside it?
[Kathleen Desmond]: From Google Earth, I don't know exactly where the driveway opening is on that. It may be from the front of Pinky's, but they do park vehicles. I know in that back portion, because when you look at it on Google Earth, they're located there. I don't believe there's a curb cut there.
[Mike Caldera]: I believe there is.
[Unidentified]: I looked it up. So I think just within the scope of Mike's question and obviously a decision for the engineering department, it might make sense when they go out to take a look to that, that that item that's in the drawing may not be present in the actual implementation.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I mean, that's what popped out to me, but I also don't think, as Attorney Desmond pointed out whether we, or maybe it was Commissioner Fordy, now I'm forgetting, but that we need to weigh in on that. We're being asked about parking space itself, and yeah, it has been called out. The engineering department needs to sign off anyway. So I do think that's a good point. Like there might be an opportunity there to make it a little bit more accessible, but I don't think as a board we can comment on it.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I guess I'm just wondering, I mean, the way that the plot plan looks is that the car is going to have to be like behind the outcropping of the home. I mean, that it's actually like the nose of the car is gonna tuck in behind the structure a little bit. And it looks so close. It looks like such small amount of space there. I'm just curious. I just feel like there's some opportunities for hitting the building.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, you know, in terms of spaces, the 9x19 isn't, Joe can speak as to what kind of vehicle he has, but I mean, most vehicles within that space aren't that 9x19. And so the 9x19 is the space so that you have the width in order to, you know, have a vehicle within that space, but it's not what you anticipate the 9x, that the vehicle itself would be 9x19.
[Unidentified]: With the capability to open the door as well within that space.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And it's not uncommon in that area to have driveways that are, you know, close to the house.
[Mike Caldera]: If it ends up being relevant for later, I'll just add that the dimensions of a parking space are also in the requirement, or rather in section 6.1. And so in principle, if it was needed and the board felt it was warranted, we could waive the requirements for the size of a parking space. We don't think that that space is truly accessible for a vehicle that would sort of max out a 9 by 19 footprint. Any other questions before we open the public hearing?
[Andre Leroux]: What's the surface of the parking going to be? Can you speak to that?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think that he would probably pave it if there was a requirement that it could be something other than pavement, we would deal with that certainly. I think again, that may be part of the new approval process for engineering in terms of driveways, because there is now a whole section in terms of the engineering department approving all of the driveways.
[Bill Forte]: Mister Chairman, there is a requirement, I believe it's over 200 square feet has to have onsite drainage. I don't know that this parking space quite meets that. But the only thing I would suggest is that if this variance gets approved, it kind of boxes and corners in the engineering department into approving that 16 foot curb cut. My advice is to have them look at this before you make any determination on it only because If the, you know, if, for whatever reason, the engineer or DPW department decides that that current credit is too big or too small, you know, they've kind of got a standing order now that they're going to have to follow. And so, I'm just, I just think it's a, maybe it's something that you may want to consider only because I wouldn't want to see the petitioner have to come back for something is, you know, as menial as that, I don't know how the, the board feels about it but I just thought I would point that out.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could speak to that I did before we went through this process and filed the, the application, I did run this by engineering and building in terms of making sure that they had no issue with the curb cut, because I didn't want to go through this process and have the client, you know, spend the funds to go through the bearings process and I think I don't I don't have it, because I didn't know that the issue of the curb cut was going to arise tonight but I'm feeling certain I have. an email from Owen at the time asking if there would be any objection to the curb cut. Now, whether in terms of size or not of the curb cut, I think that's up to engineering. I don't think that has anything to do with what we're seeking from a special permit perspective. I hate to hold this up another month for the client. I'll do that if that's what the board so determines, but I did because I didn't want them to have to go through this process and then find that there was some objections with the curb cut, that if we got the relief on the three feet and the berm, that we were then going to have an issue with engineering. So I do believe that I have an email to that extent that addressing that issue. in my file. But as I said, I didn't think that the curb cut issue was gonna come up as an issue this evening.
[Mike Caldera]: And so Attorney Desmond, just so we're clear, it might be, it sounds like it might be hard for you to pull it up on the fly. Is that correct?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I think it would be in October and I'd have to have to see if I could just jump in.
[Denis MacDougall]: If Could it just be put in the decision that the curb cut will be built to the specifications of the engineering department or something along those lines? Don't put it to the specific side and just put to their standards.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I think if I understood Commissioner Fordy's concern correctly, the hypothetical scenario of concern would be if we said, yeah, you can have a special permit for parking there and then engineering determine that essentially there wasn't a reasonable curb cut to accomplish that. It would essentially, maybe it wouldn't technically require it, but there'd be pressure on engineering to approve a curb cut that they weren't happy with because we had already approved the parking.
[Bill Forte]: Is that correct, Commissioner Fordy? Yeah, not only that, but also to is if you're making a decision on an operative fact that the curb cut is indeed 16 feet, and they may not be entitled to what I have the liberty to it, then a redesign might be appropriate and herein would be a change in the original approval. So I'm only saying that because, you know, as Andrea pointed out, you know, that, you know, he had asked about the, you know, the size and the turning and the concern of how tight it is into the house. I mean, yes, you would probably need that much curb width in order to navigate the vehicle properly. Again, if you have an economy car, it's not a big deal, but if you have a pickup truck, that's going to be a very tight spot. And so, I'm thinking only for reasons of procedure, this probably should be reviewed by the engineering department first to make sure that they don't. And believe me, I have no objection to this at all. I think this is great. But if you're making the curb cut an operative fact and the curb cut changes, then it becomes a problem when I go to issue a building permit.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, and just to make a few relevant references to the ordinance itself. So the section, well, I wanna make sure this isn't a special section. I do think this is relevant. We can back it back if I'm looking at the wrong section. So section 6.4.7 says for curb cuts, curb cuts shall be limited to the minimum safe width, minimum width for safe entering and exiting. Um, the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets shall provide for the convenience and safety of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian movement within the site. Um, so, so yeah, I don't think it has like a specified requirement there, um, but it is this, this preference for having it be as small as reasonably possible. Um, and then the other thing. So Attorney Desmond was referencing some of the engineering approvals required and so I just want to share those. So it is indeed the case that the new driveways, which should be a new driveway, do require a permit from the city engineer. Furthermore, driveways must be paved with paving stones, grass pavers, pervious concrete or porous asphalt and less graded to direct runoff on to an onsite permeable area or grant by city engineer to mitigate adverse site conditions. And then, go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I do have that email. I'm just trying to print it in the PDF.
[Unidentified]: Oh, wonderful. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, because I think my position is going to mirror Commissioner Porte's, but if you already have Owen's take, then perhaps we don't need to delay.
[Unidentified]: see if I can do this. My skills are much better than they were at the beginning of COVID, but that doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.
[Kathleen Desmond]: One second. Okay. I don't know, is this shared at this point or wait a minute, let me...
[Unidentified]: So here's the email that I received. Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So thanks for reaching out. Can you read it? Yeah, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks for reaching out. Engineering is usually the last place in the approval process. Building department and police chief have the initial say.
[Unidentified]: And then he said he didn't see any issues on his end, but he didn't want to speak to the other departments.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And obviously I did speak with building at the time when we filed.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. At this point, the building department has no objection to the curb cut size and location. I just don't know that it's within our jurisdiction. So I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I think what it is is the engineering or DPW department determines where the curb cut is with no objection from the police chief or the building department. We don't make that determination in our ordinance, at least under our authority. I don't have an issue with where the curb cut is. But again, I don't know that there's a condition out there that exists that a curb cut can't be put in such as like a water gate or a gas shut off or something that's unforeseen. You know what I mean? And this is my only hesitation in saying that this is OK. You know, because it's it's kind of a different business out there from aside from the zoning, you know, which again is just the placement of the of the parking stall itself. You know, right.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So that's, that would be, you know, if we run up against some other issue, which, you know, I, I tried to head off at the outset. I mean, that that's separate and apart. I think from, from getting the relief from zoning is to the violations is to the three foot and the, and the curb.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So for me, so one thing I'm confident about is that we can't impose as a condition. the applicant secure a permit from another body, in this case, the engineering department. So we can't make this conditional on securing the permit. I think it's a fair call out of the risk here in terms of potential pressure and so on. But I also think that There is absolutely no requirement that city engineering permit a new driveway just because we chose to issue a special permit to waive a particular requirement. So I think we can weigh in on that. based on our current understanding which is that there's no objections from the building department and the city engineer and our understanding that for this to actually be used as a new driveway it would need a permit from city engineering anyway and we can just you know, discuss this special permit on its merits, make a determination, and then if it turns out down the road that there was some bad information, then it, you know, it may get blocked for other reasons. But I don't, I don't see a need for us to have that approval in hand to weigh in here. I agree with Attorney Desmond on that.
[Andre Leroux]: I have a question. Can you explain what the applicants may have done, if anything, to try to address this issue in a different manner? Like residential parking or handicap space. This seems just like a very extreme solution to the problem that they're having. Can I address that? Yeah. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, this is Joe Luongo. Me and my wife live at 7 Summer Street. We just want what every other resident on Summer Street has, which is a driveway. We've tried to talk to the city about getting special permits or whatever. It just would continue to hit a wall. And frankly, we're pretty much at our wit's end as far as the parking. We've lived there since 1985. He accepted the fact that we parking lot parking space. 10 years ago, it started mining problem five years ago, it was worse. The past year, it's been terrible. And the reason for that is nothing that we've done. It seems like people continue to sign off on condominium developments without thinking where the cars are gonna go. I can tell you where they're going. They're going at 7 Summer Street. Why? Well, because mostly people live there who don't live there on the street, they park there. There's no consequences for them to park there. They can take the bus that's 10 seconds away to Harvard Square or Davis Square with no consequences. The only one paying is me. My wife is retired. I'll be 67. I am playing the game. Whenever we see a space in front of our house to make this mad dash on Royal Street or Main Street in the hopes that we can grab that space. They call me crazy, but I think If I live at a house or residence, I should be able to park within 50 yards of that home. We've tried to do this. We've gotten absolutely zero. We don't want to lose that little space that we have. We really don't have any choice at this point. This is not something that we did. This is something that the city has done to put me in this position. I don't wanna spend extra money to have a driveway in there, but I don't have any choice. Does that answer your question?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I'm just wondering, I'm very sympathetic to your situation, but I guess, can you just explain, is there residential parking on that street right now?
[SPEAKER_15]: Not where I am. anybody can park there. You have to go further down, I believe, and then do it. And you can only try something so many times. So we've been really, this is really our only option at this point.
[Unidentified]: Here's my issue with it, is that
[Andre Leroux]: doing a curb cut removes another off street parking space on street parking space, you're essentially putting a parking space. It's hard to really say this is a driveway that you're parking in the front yard, and you're cutting down a mature tree to do it. So, I, this is not something the kind of thing that I think we're trying to encourage in the city because, well, You know, who knows in the future once you sell your property, then, you know, somebody could be basically parking a truck there. And I, I don't think that it makes a lot of sense we want to don't want to be encouraging this in, you know, other properties.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I can speak to those two. If I can speak to those issues with respect to the zoning. It's an apartment one district. So there is the ability to park in the front yard. As a right. Secondly, with respect to conditioning any special permit as to a passenger vehicle. rather than a truck or something of that, I believe I can confirm with my client. I'm sure he'll confirm that he has no issue with that. So if there was a specific limit to a passenger vehicle in the special permit, that would not be an issue for him. It is a unique situation. He doesn't have a driveway at all. And this is a situation where the majority of All but his, his unit have a driveway. In addition, in terms of the off street parking it's a net loss, because you've got a space off street, or you've got a space on street. So, you know, if you're going to take that space and indicate that should be a space that he should be able to park in, then you're not losing anything in terms of space. It's a net-net. It's one space for one space. It's not a situation where we're creating a curb cut so that you lose more than one space. I think it's a wash in terms of the availability of on-street parking. It's a unique situation to the aspect that He's the only residential area where he doesn't have a driveway. And as he's indicated, he has tried other methods to do that. And we're not adverse to conditioning, certainly the special permit so that it'd be limited to a passenger vehicle.
[SPEAKER_15]: And I don't know if that addresses your question. Yeah, I just want to say that, you know, it's, I'm sorry for my frustration but it seems like folks are more interested in parking spots for people that don't necessarily live on the streets. or may not even live in the town. And that's what I have to do. People parking in front of my house, sometimes for a week or two at a time. And because there's no consequences to that. And if there aren't any other questions, I really need to leave because I'm in the middle of two meetings. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And one other item, in terms of nonconformity, the requirement for zoning in there is at least one and a half spaces. It might be two with a single family, that's still up in the air based on how the draft is written and the fact that corrections haven't quite been made through that. I don't know whether with a single family in all districts, the requirement's two or it's one and a half once you get to the GR and even possibly the SF2. It's unclear based on the table, because it hasn't been revised correctly, but this would just mitigate what's already an existing violation by giving him that one space, and it wouldn't bring him fully in compliance with the off street parking requirement. And, you know, I think even from a variance perspective. It creates a hardship, they've lived there for 30 years they're invested in the community. And, you know, they, they're asking for what most people have in the neighborhood which is a parking space. And in addition to that, when you look at what the Community Development Board is being able to do with regard to the enhanced buffer requirements. They can substitute by way of fencing, rather than the three foot. curb in Birmingham. So, you know, I don't, I don't think this is an ask that isn't somewhat allowed by the ordinance. And it certainly would mitigate an existing nonconformity.
[Mike Caldera]: So, um, Andre, I think some of the topics you brought up and that the applicant responded to, we can go through during deliberations. I just wanted to make sure, did you get the information you needed?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I mean, I guess I don't know. Maybe I, if I did not hear it, I apologize, but it seems like the city could easily fix this problem if by granting them like a handicap space and giving them a handicap permit. I mean, is that. Like so they can park right in front of their house. That's not something that has happened or that could happen.
[Alicia Hunt]: You have to have a medical reason for a handicap permit.
[Andre Leroux]: The city doesn't grant that that's a that's right but it could be for right for for, you know, both people who are aging I mean the mobility issues. arthritis, I mean, I'm sure.
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't know what the standard is, but it's definitely not within the city's purview. We don't issue those. Those are a state level issue. I just want to be clear about that, that that's not something one of our offices can just do.
[SPEAKER_15]: Age is not a something that is taken into consideration. You have to have some sort of a medical issue. My wife does have a bad neck, but it probably wouldn't qualify.
[Unidentified]: All right, just wanna check, are there any other questions from the board before we open the public hearing? All right, do I have a motion to open the public hearing for 7th Summer Street? Motion to open the public hearing for 7th Summer Street. Do I have a second? Seconded by Jim. I'll do a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Yvette? Mike? Aye. All right, the public hearing is now open.
[Mike Caldera]: If there's anybody on the call that would like to speak on this petition, please feel free to raise your hand on Zoom,
[Unidentified]: type in the chat. All right. I'm not seeing anything.
[Mike Caldera]: And Dennis, I know there was the one letter in support from one of the neighbors.
[Unidentified]: Did you receive any other correspondence related to this petition? You're on mute.
[Denis MacDougall]: We received the one letter from Jimmy Hembrough who approached 15 Summer Street, the next door neighbor, in support.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so would anyone like to motion to close the public hearing and open deliberations?
[Unidentified]: Motion to close the public hearing for 7 Summer Street and open deliberations. Do we have a second? Seconded. All right, seconded. Andre will do a roll call of that. Hi, Andre. Hi, Jim. Hi, Jamie. Hi, Mike. Hi. All right. Um, what do we think folks? I tend to agree with Mr. Luongo. Uh, I think the parking situation is horrible. And even if you go down Riverside Ave in Medford, you'll see cars parked right in front of their home. And there's two or three cars just parked right in front of the home. So I feel for, you know, everything he said, I see it in my own neighborhood. So it is, as you get older, especially if you have 30 years in, you know, in the city and you're getting older and you just want to be able to get in and out, It's hard when you have a snowstorm coming and you're racing out to find a parking space two blocks away. It's just horrible. So I understand everything he has mentioned. So I'm kind of in favor of granting the okay for it.
[Yvette Velez]: The applicant's been there for quite a long time. And it's to my understanding from what they presented that they have gone to the city and they've done their due diligence of trying to find the parking on the street. And I would also agree in that neighborhood, it's challenging. And it's clear that as long as they've lived in their unit, they've taken care of their very small yard. So clearly they have like made a a personal decision to pave and remove a tree that's been there for a while and green space. And they were not taking it lightly to do that. And if it was perhaps in a different space or area or whatnot, it wouldn't make sense. But I think because of the location and things out of their control, it would, this seems appropriate to put the curve cut there to make their quality of life and the home in general a much better home for whether it's them now or folks in the future.
[Unidentified]: Any other thoughts? So Summer Street is definitely busy. You can see what the neighbor's properties across the street and down the street on their side. There are many houses that do have driveways without beams or curbs along a fence line with another property. I think within the scope of supply and demand of the on-street parking in the vicinity, it's a hardship for them as well as Attorney Desmond has pointed out the lack of a parking space with a single family residence is a hardship for the property within the scope of the property for both their use as well as future value. I've already expressed some of my concerns.
[Andre Leroux]: Another one that I didn't mention is that there's virtually no sight line when you back out of this space. So it's pretty dangerous for her. for pedestrians. I don't know, has any thought been given to putting kind of a mirror in somewhere that, you know, to improve that situation, but with that, that fence right there, just and the angle that it's coming out at, like, you're not going to see anybody, especially a child.
[Unidentified]: That is a, that is a obfuscating fence. It's not a chain link fence. And I did note that many of the other fences are either Four foot or chain link between the properties.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, we could certainly consider that, but most vehicles at this point also have the backup camera. So you're gonna see when you move out of that space, what's in front of you. At one point, that was probably more of an issue than I would think it is now with the way vehicles are built and the fact that the backup cameras are pretty much standard fare at this point. But certainly if that was something that the board required. My client had to leave, so I can't at this point confer with him on that, but I think that that was something that the board was concerned about. But I do think that the backup cameras at this point mitigate against that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Trini Desmond. So my plan is we'll do the deliberation, and I'm actually about to go through Um, some of the considerations, uh, that we're supposed to go through for a special permit, as well as some of the, um, permissible conditions. And so then, you know, when we get to discussion of conditions, you know, if there are asks, we'll, you know, I'll make sure that we, um, check in with you. Uh, but, but for now, I want to, the board to focus on deliberating. So, um, yeah, so first of all, just, uh, You know, Andrew, to your point about the sightlines. So that does fall into one of the criteria that we're supposed to consider as part of any special permit. So in particular, we should consider social, economic, and community needs, which are served by the proposal. That's the first prong. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading is the second. Three is adequacy of utilities and other public services. Four is compatibility with the size, scale, and design of other structures in the neighborhood. Five is impacts on the natural environment. And then six is proposals compatibility with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. So I think that a number of these, we might, when we go through and discuss them, determine they're not really related to this particular proposal, but certainly I think we should have a discussion of traffic flow and safety as part of this analysis. And then in terms of conditions, I don't believe, for example, we would be able to condition on properties of the car that's parked there. So I'm going to skip over conditions that obviously wouldn't apply here. We could make Um, screening requirements, um, for the parking area. Um, we can, we can have conditions on that. We could have conditions on, um, exterior features or appearances of the structure. I guess that's not pertinent.
[Unidentified]: Um, we could, um, have conditions on the design of traffic features.
[Mike Caldera]: And then, yeah, I think the rest I'll just skip over because they don't really apply here. So there are some conditions within our power to grant that potentially could be used to mitigate concerns on some of the areas I described earlier. So I just wanted to get that all out there. Maybe before I share my take, does anyone else have thoughts on that. One thing I want to be clear on is we're not, for a special permit, we're not weighing in on hardship. So that's not, that's not the analysis here. It's about these criteria and then essentially whether or not to pull it back up. 6.1.10.
[Unidentified]: Almost there. Okay, here we go.
[Mike Caldera]: we can waive the requirements if warranted. And then we want to, in addition to what I already said, we're considering specific site or public safety considerations. Some of the other requirements I don't think are relevant here. And we have to find no substantial detriment to the neighborhood. So yeah, I have some thoughts, but before I get in there, is there any other
[Unidentified]: things that the board would like to weigh in on in this meeting?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, so for me, my knee-jerk reaction before hearing the presentation was similar to Andre's, but I do think it's important to note that This really is a it's a wash like it from a parking perspective, it's not that oh we're. it's not it's not really like we're privatizing parking it's that like there's a car that was going to be on. This street anyway. And it just so happens that this is a property that didn't have any parking, your private parking, likely due to its shape and small size and awkward angle. the zoning ordinance is suggested that single family homes generally need some parking, some offsite parking, we require it. That's sort of the, I think, the intent of the bylaw there. So for me, while I don't think it's really helping the neighborhood at all, I think it's, a quality of life improvement for the applicant, the resident there, and it's a wash from a parking capacity standpoint. They already have a car. They're already parking it on the street. It's a super awkward spot. I think that it's really speaking somewhat to the lack of available options that someone would even consider a spot like that. But it happens to be in a district where parking in the front yard is allowed. It's right next to a pizza place. The pizza place realistically is not going to care. So yeah, I'm supportive, but I do think that the safety concerns are legitimate. And furthermore, I think that it's not even clear to me whether, you know, it's feasible to park there, like it's, it's cutting it super close. And so I don't even know if the engineer is going to ultimately be able to issue a permit. And I don't think we need to weigh in on permeability because under the new ordinance, that's for the engineer to decide. So I think we're okay there. But But yeah, like, I do have concerns about sight lines and I'm wondering if there is some sort of condition that would help to address that particular safety concern, because we can't make assumptions about the availability of backup cameras. And frankly, as someone who lives on a property that has some obstructed sight lines on its own, even the backup cameras, if you've got a lot of foot traffic, isn't necessarily gonna save you there. So yeah, Andre, do you have any thoughts or suggestions on what it would take to reduce the safety concern that you raised.
[Andre Leroux]: And honestly, I mean, I really wish the engineer would take a look at this first because I just would like to see, make sure that there's not gonna, you know, that a vehicle moving in is not gonna hit the house, that it's going to the curb cut is the right, you know, width and that, you know, they should really be making the suggestions about how to mitigate the, you know, the safety issue. I don't feel like we're in a really great,
[Unidentified]: place to be able to solve that problem.
[Yvette Velez]: Could we put in a request, and this might be more of a question for Alicia, for additional signage coming into that road, blind driveways, up ahead, things of that nature? Or is that completely not even a possibility as part of this discussion?
[Unidentified]: To the chair, do you want me to obviously to respond? Please.
[Alicia Hunt]: So there are signage that is like legal signage that's directional, like no parking, that type has to go in front of the traffic commission. There's like cautionary signage that's usually at the discretion of our director of traffic and our DPW. We try to avoid what we call sign pollution, too many signs all over the place. But it's certainly something that this board an individual that you could just ask Dennis to relay to the director of traffic that you would like him to consider whether that would be appropriate signage for this road. And then he and his professional capacity would look at it, determine if there were blind drive, like what exactly would be the most appropriate treatment there. So you could certainly make that request. I wouldn't, you couldn't require it, I wouldn't think, because of sort of the nature of that. But it seems a very reasonable request to push through to staff. Could he take a look and see if what would be appropriate there?
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, for special permits, I know that, you know, departments regularly weigh in on projects with their letters, they review projects, they kind of send the board's letters. you know, what they think about the project and what conditions they might suggest. And although this is a very small project, we don't have the expertise to evaluate it. And so I think we need the, an engineer to look at it.
[Unidentified]: That would be my position.
[Alicia Hunt]: It seems to me that I feel like this was something, and you'll have to forgive me cause I've been sort of listening in and out over the course of the evening. And I, I can't remember if it was this case or actually the one before with the third story where there was the discussion that this board has one level of approval. I think it was actually this, right? You can say we don't object in terms of variances. It was this, right? And then engineering has to say how wide it is, right? There are other permits they have to get. So there are other departments who look at things like this. I feel like some of that falls under engineering. I don't know if our building commissioner is available to sort of weigh in on who hits, I'm not always involved, like normally a driveway would never come through my office for a single family home. It only hits here because of the CDA request, but it does touch other, his office and engineering, I think.
[Bill Forte]: Again, Mr. Chairman, through you, so the only norm that I see is that most curb cut driveways are 12 feet, and in this instance where it's a little bit bigger, I just think that, again, I'm only recommending this, if it's an operative fact, in which you are going to issue the permit that the curb cut is an operative is in fact and you know an operative fact as to your granting of the special permit then I think it needs consideration from the city engineer before you approve it. Again, I don't have any objection, but I'm not a traffic engineer either. So, you know, only from a zoning standpoint, which in my understanding, zoning ends at the private property line. We don't really have jurisdiction or any opinions about anything that's on a public way, at least, you know, within the purview of the building department and the building commissioner's office, we don't really make determinations on public ways. Again, my recommendation is to just have the city engineer weigh in on this. And if they see that there's no issue with a 16-foot curb cut in that location, then I don't see any reason why it would be that you couldn't issue it in good faith and in public safety.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Director Hunt and Commissioner Forte. The yeah, so my, my take on it. So I think if it was just about the curb cut, I'm satisfied with, um, Commissioner Forty's, uh, approval and, uh, engineer or tell us, um, kind of suggestive approval because in part, because we're not, not truly boxing men, we're, we're sort of, we're sort of like adding pressure, but there, you know, there is still ultimately this discretionary act after the fact, but I do think, um, If we find ourselves in the position as a board where we don't feel like, where we have some concerns about traffic flow and safety. So in this case, safety of entering and exiting this proposed space. So if we find ourselves in a position where we don't actually have the information or expertise to know what the right condition would be, I think it's a reasonable position for us to take and a request for us to make the applicant to please reach out to the relevant departments. I think in this case, it would be city engineering and the traffic department and just ask them to weigh in on traffic flow and safety for this proposal and, you know, any conditions they might recommend. So I don't think it's like a requirement or something you would necessarily expect for all such applications, because under the new zoning, we are going to see more special permit requests for smaller projects that aren't going to go through the whole site plan review. But in this case, I think know, we're in a situation where maybe we're not as the board able to self resolve what the right conditions are. And so I think there's a space where we don't require like the permit in advance from engineering, but where we can take the position that We haven't heard sufficient information to identify the correct way to mitigate these safety concerns and to ask the applicant to reach out to those departments.
[Unidentified]: So any thoughts on that from the board? I'd support that. I'd agree.
[Mike Caldera]: Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): Attorney desmond is that something you, you and the applicant would be willing to do to essentially what we're asking here is. PB, Lupita D Montoya PB – She, Her, Hers.:
[Kathleen Desmond]: : I could have written direction possibly from the board is to what questions they want asked I just you know I tried and i'm not you know I tried to head some of this off. PB, Lupita D Montoya PB – She, Her, Hers): Because I didn't want to be in a situation where my client applied for the variances as to the the three foot requirement and the berm and then. find that he would be have an issue with. with engineering because that was a concern that I had initially. So I just don't wanna, I don't wanna be in a situation where we come back next month and I don't have all of the answers that the board wants. And I think I would prefer some written direction as to exactly what the board wants. Maybe Dennis could provide me with a list of questions that the board wants addressed so that so that my client doesn't find himself in this position. Because it's not a big case. And it's a situation where he's just trying to place a one-car driveway. And I don't want to rack up expense. I'm very sensitive to the cost in this. So I don't want to be in a situation where we have to have more than one additional hearing if that would be acceptable to the board.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, yeah, so Attorney Desmond, I think we can get there. I don't, I'm not in favor of the board taking an action item. to get you like a detailed list because I think that's overkill for what we're asking. However, I'm going to attempt to say verbally and then back up with just like a message in chat so you have what I'm proposing verbatim. what we're asking for. And of course, Shrine is kind of fighting with me so I can't see half of what I've written. Let me, this will be in two parts. So for traffic, so we're asking that you check with the Department of Engineering and Department of Transportation for traffic flow and safety concerns.
[Unidentified]: pertaining to this proposal.
[Andre Leroux]: My specific question would be, does the engineering department recommend any conditions to enhance pedestrian safety? Yes. A second question that I have is, PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: I think I, I think I captured that and I'm aligned and we can pile onto this. So the, so the specific ask in writing from the board, uh, um, And then we'd also check with the department of engineering and, uh, transportation, um, to review this proposal for traffic flow and safety concerns. Okay, that's, to review this proposal for traffic flow and safety concerns and any recommended conditions to enhance pedestrian safety, as well as the dimensions of the parking are adequate for ingress and egress. Also, what is the recommended curb cut width? So those are our questions and just so we're not you know, making you work with inferior tooling. Attorney Desmond, I'll also send that over to Dennis and so he can convey that edited for typos over to you. That's specifically what we want to know. And so I think that, again, we're not looking for the engineering permit in advance, but I think that if those two departments were able to weigh in on these points, that we would have sufficient information as a board to weigh in on the considerations and conditions for a special permit. Board, is that Do you feel like I've captured everything that was being requested here? Yes, thank you. Okay, Attorney Desmond, does that work?
[Unidentified]: Okay, so let me just copy this so that I can send it over to Dennis. And then
[Mike Caldera]: So given this, we're going to need a motion to continue. I don't know where we are. Dennis, do we need any waiver of the statutory timelines in this case?
[Denis MacDougall]: I think we probably would, yeah. I'll talk with Attorney Desmond about that, and we'll get that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so Attorney Desmond, so I take it you're amenable to continuing this to the next regular meeting. Are you also willing to waive the statutory timelines in this case? Yes. Wonderful, thank you. So would anyone like to motion to continue the hearing for 7 Summer Street to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals?
[Unidentified]: I motion to continue 7 summer Street, the next scheduled meeting of the. Seconded. All right, seconded by Andre. We'll do a roll call at that. I Andre. Yes. Jamie. I Jim. Mike I.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So we're continued. Thanks, Attorney Desmond. So like we said, Dennis will send you the official write up for what we're requesting.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, terrific. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks. All right. And I think we've got one more case. So Dennis, will you please read that one?
[Denis MacDougall]: I do. All right. Just says, just for a formal notice, the notice on the agenda had the wrong address in one part of it, but it's for 187 Riverside Avenue, case number A-2022-18. Applicant and owner, Ralph Federico, is positioning for a variance in Chapter 94, City of Medford Zoning, to construct a 20-foot by 23-foot garage at 187 Riverside Avenue, which is a detached accessory structure, which is six feet from the primary structure. Building accessory to single or two-family detached drawings should not be less than 10 feet from the detached drawing unless part of the attached and attached to that dwelling at not less than 10 feet from another accessory building. In residential districts, no accessory structure shall be located within the required front or side yard setback or any court, but may be built in the rear yard.
[Unidentified]: All right, thank you, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: And it looks like the applicant is present. So I'm not sure if you were on earlier when I described this for another applicant, but you have an opportunity now if you'd like to make a presentation or share some details with us about what you're requesting. And then we'll ask you some questions. We'll open public hearing and then we'll deliberate.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, so my name is Frank Federico. I'm here with my uncle, Ralph Federico. He wants to construct a garage, as Dennis mentioned. As part of the application process, we sent some pictures in, I think upwards to 10 pictures of garages in the neighborhood of similar type, basically to prove that it won't be a detrimental addition to the neighborhood. I believe there were four or five letters from a Butters that we distributed and asked them to sign if they were in favor of the structure and all of them agreed to do so. The only one that did not sign was the one directly to the right. He did give us verbal consent. He just was not comfortable reading English and didn't want to sign something that he couldn't read basically because of the language barrier. So as far as a hardship, I mean, looking at the plot plan, there's physically no other location on the property without adding more zoning infractions, so to speak.
[Denis MacDougall]: And I mean, my uncle- Frank, I can put the area plan up on the screen if you want.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, that would that would be perfect. Thank you, Dennis. She wants to call. I got the phone numbers.
[Unidentified]: You want to call the guy you told me?
[SPEAKER_12]: So basically, the bottom right is the existing conditions. The top is proposed. There's currently grapevines and a vegetable garden in the back of the property. The grapevines are there just for shade, nothing edible. The garden will remain, it will reduce in size. My uncle is 74 years old now and that's part of the reason why he's seeking the garages basically to keep his new vehicle out of the snow. And he's going to reduce the vegetable garden basically because it's becoming too much upkeep, um, but there will still be a significant vegetable garden, uh, compared to, I think most so. Um, but mainly he's just trying, he just purchased, he just retired not too long ago from the union after 30 some odd years, he purchased a new vehicle, an F-150, and he's trying to keep that in the garage. Basically he tells everybody in the family, he's like, that's the last vehicle he's going to have. So he wants to take care of it. Um, And obviously everybody here is aware of New England winters and how harsh they can be on our vehicles. Oh, as far as the design of the building, we are trying to construct it out of split-faced concrete cinder block, considering that we're six feet from the existing dwelling, the house itself. We're trying to take into account for any type of fire spread. So eliminating any type of wood framing except the roof, it'll be asphalt shingles. Inside the structure itself, we'll have five-eighths type X fire rated drywall. And then, like I said, just an asphalt shingled roof, which if the building commissioner and the building department prefer we could even side, sheathe that side of the roof with fire rated plywood. We're willing to basically construct it, you know, whatever is our best scenario.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So one question I had, it was referenced a little bit in the zoning worksheet. And I'm also what I'm just looking at what's currently being projected of the plot plan. So it seems that the current position of the proposed garage, it's 11 feet from the back of the property. And so because of where it's positioned, it does run into this issue of being six feet from the house, which is something that we are able to potentially grant for relief for under certain conditions. Just wanted to double check is it seems like maybe the garage could also be moved back and would be able to remove that violation, but might cause some other issues. So I just wanted to check in. Is there something specific to the property that makes that the best position for the garage?
[SPEAKER_12]: So essentially, if we do bring it back, even tight to the property line, there's still going to be some overlap on the house. That's less than 10 feet, it may be a little bit greater than six feet. But I mean, he is trying to preserve his vegetable garden. And that's the location of vegetable garden is that 11 feet. He was essentially He was reluctant to give up any towards the garden but I think he was trying to make some sacrifices as far as that's concerned. In addition, I'm actually a licensed contractor too, and I've discussed with my architect and he usually, he was trying to tell me go minimum 24 feet deep. for basically ease of use and we scaled that back a foot too out of good faith just to try to reduce the size of the structure as much as possible. So I mean we feel like you know we believe that we took as much of that into consideration as possible.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay thank you. Are there any other questions from the board?
[SPEAKER_12]: So I think there were two variants altogether, one being 10 feet and then one with the side property line. I don't know if I touched on both of those. Okay, perfect.
[Mike Caldera]: So the permit refusal says that it was refused because it's less than 10 feet from the dwelling. and it's not attached to the dwelling. And then it's also in violation because it's located within the, so it's in a residential district. and the accessory structure will be located in the required side yard. So I think it's essentially like the position where it's moved up a little bit brings it into the side yard, or maybe if it was further back, it would only be in the rear. But then as you've already mentioned, even if you put it back to the property line, it sounds like it's the first variance. And then separately, there's this desire to keep the garden.
[SPEAKER_12]: Not to mention to I mean, it is technically considered the side yard, however, I mean, even with the garage there I want to say that you can still fit four cars, two and two in the driveway so it's not as if it's approaching the sidewalk there's still a significant amount of room between the sidewalk or the front of the house and the rear of the yard. I'd say the majority, obviously you can see by the plot plan that the majority of the house is forward from the garage.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Yeah, so my understanding is that the reasons for the refusal are accurate. here. So I think it's technically part of it. But but here you on the point of that, you know that this particular proposal, it's it's it's it's far enough back that there's there's ample parking in the driveway. So the other thing I just want to share with you before so we'll do other questions from the board if we have them. But before we open the public hearing, I don't know if you heard me go through this earlier. But so there's some specific statutory requirements that we have to weigh in on as part of these variance applications. And so I'm just going to say them out loud and we can, so you have an opportunity to kind of speak to some of those points, which will help us as we deliberate. So let me just pull it up. Okay, here we go. So there's three required findings. So essentially, we grant variances when there's a hardship. And in particular, that hardship needs to be Owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures, and especially affecting that land or structures but not generally affecting the zoning district in which it's located and so, you know, in this case. there's not an existing driveway, but there is an existing house on the property. And so you've made an argument as part of this application surrounding, well, if I wanted to put in a garage, this is really the only logical location for some of the reasons you've described.
[SPEAKER_12]: So there's actually an existing driveway. Some of the driveway will be removed and some of the vegetable garden
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, apologies if I misspoke. I mean, okay, okay. Yeah, I don't know if I said anything right I meant existing garage. So, so yeah, but but so still, the, the house itself is an existing structure right and that that's going to potentially know for some properties, perhaps this one included. make restrictions on like the the logical location for accessory structures such as a garage where and we'll get to the second point a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise so like if for example we're asking people to lift and move houses or things of that nature just to comply with zoning you know that's a really extreme example of hardship but in general we're thinking about things that would be typically allowed in the zoning district so you know in residential districts often garages are allowed. And so, you know, in this case, perhaps it's indeed the case that there's no possible location, you know, for a standard garage that doesn't trigger one of these needs for a variance and so you could make an argument surrounding that. Lastly, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment. That's the public good and without knowledge or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. So for that one, I don't know if you really spoke to it specifically in this presentation, but, you know, it's we think about things like, you know, what are the neighbors takes? And so certainly having some support from the neighbors is suggestive evidence for us that maybe it's not going to cause substantial detriment. And so pointing to, you know, what's typical in the area, you know, whether the structure is going to be consistent with the neighborhood, things of that nature, these are all sort of relevant facts there. So just wanted to get that all out there. I do think you spoke to a lot of these, but just in case there's anything else you wanted to add to those specific points.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, I mean, as far as, you know, just touching on detrimentalness to the neighborhood. As I mentioned, we did get letters from the abutters, both the rare across the street left. I believe there was one more. And then, like I said, the one to the right, you know, he did approve of verbally to us. He just had a language barrier that prevented him from actually signing the paperwork. And then in the online submission, I think I included upwards to those 10 photos. Basically, we drove around the neighborhood, found similar type structures, and then I went to Google Maps and kind of included screenshots of those. So I don't think by any means it's out of place for the neighborhood. If anything, you know, it's kind of the opposite with a property, a driveway that size, most have the garage in that general area. And then as you were kind of touching on the location of his house on the property, I mean, there really isn't many other locations, if any at all, that you could actually locate the garage without causing some type of another zoning infraction.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions from the board.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I have a question I guess I, I don't think it's been mentioned whether it's a one car garage or a two car garage.
[SPEAKER_12]: It's kind of that. So, as I kind of mentioned, consulting with my architect, a two car garage. to be comfortable is a 24 by 24. He has a pickup truck and his girlfriend has a smaller vehicle. We've taken measurements of both vehicles and they should fit comfortably in there. I wouldn't try to park two pickup trucks in this garage, but I think one pickup truck and one crossover or smaller should be sufficient.
[Andre Leroux]: Because I wasn't sure since it was I was hearing only about like one truck so I was wondering why it was even that big because generally single car garages or could be smaller in which case you could have less of a, you know, yeah, you could get it further from the house.
[SPEAKER_12]: Definitely, so it's basically the fact that his girlfriend stays with him and she's similar age and it's gonna be one of those things that you don't wanna put one, try to, it defeats the purpose if he has to go out and clean his girlfriend's car instead of his car.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, that's what I was wondering. So it is a two car garage. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Actually, just one related clarifying question about that. So the current driveway, can that fit two cars side by side?
[SPEAKER_12]: The current driveway can probably fit about six cars total. Um, two, um, more interested.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Like parallel.
[SPEAKER_12]: Okay. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Any other questions?
[Unidentified]: All right. Um,
[Mike Caldera]: Would anyone like to make a motion to open the public hearing?
[Unidentified]: Motion to open the public hearing. Seconded. All right. We'll do a roll call. Jim? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the public hearing is now open. Are there any residents on the call who would like to speak on this petition? If so, you can feel free to raise your hand or type something in chat. Okay, I don't see anything. And so Dennis, I know as part of the application itself, we got those letters of support from several of the letters. Did we get any other communications related to this?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, just the five letters of support that were in the application.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Andrew, it looked like you were gonna say something for a moment.
[Andre Leroux]: I was just gonna motion to close the public hearing. Please go ahead. Motion to close the public hearing. And open deliberations.
[Mike Caldera]: You have the motion to close it and open.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm sorry, motion to close public hearing and open deliberations. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: All right, we'll do a roll call. Jamie. Aye. Jim. Yvette? Hi. Andre? Hi. Mike? Hi.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. What do we think, folks?
[Andre Leroux]: I think this is kind of an easy one, and I don't see any reason not to do it. It seems like it's a you know, the hardship is there. Other properties have garages that are similar, and there doesn't seem to be a negative impact on surrounding properties.
[Unidentified]: Any other thoughts from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: I'm just gonna say no. Did what Andre said. Don't wanna repeat it. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: We have a ditto. All right, any other thoughts? Okay, well, yeah, so I concur. I think the circumstances that justify the variance, it's the position of the house. I think it limits the viable locations for our garage. I also think the relief being requested here is relatively minor. I think if we require literal enforcement, I do think the applicant has demonstrated hardship. They can already park two cars side by side. New England winters are not pleasant. It would be nice to be able to park in covered parking like the neighbors who seem to be largely, if not entirely, in support. Yeah, and I also think the applicants made it clear why this would not this relief would not be substantially detrimental to the public good. So yeah, so I think we've met the statutory requirements here. And so yeah, if the board is in agreement, I would need someone to motion to approve the variances for 187 Riverside Avenue relating to distance of the accessory structure to the primary structure and the positioning of an accessory structure within the required side yard of the building. So would anyone like to make that motion?
[Unidentified]: I motion to approve the variances for 187 Riverside Ave or distance from the primary structure of six feet and presence in the side yard setback. Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Seconded.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So we'll do a roll call vote. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mike, aye. So the petition is approved. And so in terms of next steps, Jacqueline Doherty, who's typically our chair, will be writing the formal decisions based on tonight's meeting. And so there's some time that she has according to the statute to write that decision, but that would be the next step. You'll get a formal decision in writing, approving these variances, at which point it can be recorded, and then you can proceed with your project. So congratulations.
[SPEAKER_12]: We appreciate the most consideration. Thank you for hearing our case, and hopefully everything goes smoothly.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, absolutely. Have a great night and happy new year.
[SPEAKER_12]: You also. Thank you, guys. Have a good day.
[Mike Caldera]: Good night. All right. So we're nearing the end here. We've gone through all the cases. We just have two last items on the agenda. So I don't know if there are any administrative updates beyond what Director Hunt shared with us earlier. Are there any administrative updates?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, nothing on my end. Just we have a number of applications for. It's actually this month hearing in three weeks. I'll be sending those out to you shortly. The. The info for them. And that's and then we're also meeting Monday for the. 40 B case and also for the update on the appeal for the rise project. So that's really it from my end. So I think there are no other large scale projects. coming to us in the near future.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thanks, Dennis. And so then lastly, I know some meeting minutes were sent out for our last meeting. So we have the approval of meeting minutes and discussion of rules. So have folks had a chance to read through the meeting minutes? And do you find them to be accurate in order?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, I'd like to motion to approve the minute meeting minutes from the December meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: I just like to amend that. So I'd like my name correctly so it's up front of top it's it's right, but then in some of the. Sorry, yeah, it's okay. But yeah, I got that amendment Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, I motion to approve the December minutes as amended. Second.
[Unidentified]: All right, Jamie.
[Mike Caldera]: I Jim that Andre Mike I the meeting minutes are approved. All right, and we don't have any other Business on the agenda. So thanks, everybody. And we'll need a motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right. And Mike, I just got a global change poll fixed, so we should be good.
[Unidentified]: That sounds great.
[Mike Caldera]: Cool. Thanks, everybody.