[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healy signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location, and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. the language is not making any substantive changes to the open meeting laws and extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Dennis. So let's see if we have Mary. Mary Lee, are you on now?
[Denis MacDougall]: I haven't let anybody in for a bit, but
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I just let one answer in. So, okay. All right, well, so. She just came into the waiting room.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, perfect, okay. All right, we can make Mary a co-host. All right. Hi, Mary.
[Mary Lee]: Hi, everyone. Sorry, I had some technical difficulties.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, no worries at all. Nice to meet you all. Yeah, nice to meet you as well. So we just kicked off the meeting. And so we have some items on the agenda that were continued from prior hearings, which for those We won't be having you vote just because you don't have you weren't there for the earlier testimony. We're currently one short of our full set of regular members and so there are some cases we haven't heard yet where I'm going to appoint you as a voting member. So, so yeah, that's, and Dennis kicked us off. So the first, we're going to start with the continued matters. And I think there's a few that have requested additional continuances. So we're going to start with those. And then when we get to a case, Mary, where you'll be voting, I'll just let you know and designate you as a voting member for that.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Dennis, can you please read the first matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: 436 Riverside Avenue case number a dash 2022-19 continued from July 13th. Applicant and owner Amar Amarok LLC is fishing for variance in the chapter 94 city met for zoning to construct 10 foot high fence and industrial zoning district, which is violation city methods on learning 6.3.3, which stipulates offenses with posts over 7 feet tall need funding approval.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. So this matter was continued due to some ongoing discussions with the applicant about some of the approvals required for the safety plan. My understanding is that those discussions are still underway and the applicant would like to continue to our next regular meeting. Just want to double check. Do we have anyone on the call for the applicant? All right, I know the applicant has been in touch with Dennis. So for this one, my understanding applicant wants to continue to the next regular meeting. Chair awaits a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: A motion to continue 436 Riverside F to our next scheduled meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: Second. Do I have a second? All right, second from Jamie, we're going to take a roll call.
[Denis MacDougall]: Your point of order is September 28th.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. Thanks. So we're going to take a roll call, Jamie. I. Jim, I. Andre, I. Mike, I. All right, so the matter is continued, I also see that. just joined so we can make her a co-host. All right. Next item on the agenda. So Dennis, my understanding is we already continued this to the October 26th hearing, but could you just read it for the... Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: 590 Boston Ave, case number A-2020-07 amended. Contingent from July 13th and matter will be heard on October 26th hearing. Applicant and owner, and a little brothers incorporated are requesting modification for the leaf granted by the zoning board of appeals recorded with the city clerk on July 30th, 2021 with an extension granted by the zoning board on January 5th, 2023. Actually, we just created another extension on July 13th of this year. Modifications will result in a lot area of the project now seeking an initial 3000 square feet of relief and additional modifications will either decrease our compliance or have no effect in the release granted under the decision.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, great. So that matters already continued, which brings us to 15 Hadley Place. So a couple of things I just want to get out of the way beforehand. I know I see Attorney Desmond here representing. the applicant. So this one we started hearing at our last regular meeting and learned of a conflict of interest midway through the presentation and lost quorum. So to vote on the release being sought, the board needed four Four voting members had four voting members present, but one had to accuse themselves and Ronnie knows the applicant and so has recused himself from this matter. I'm attorney Desmond we do have. are five regular members, plus our newly appointed associate member. I heard from Dennis some details, but it was unclear to me. Is it your intention to pick up where you left off, or did you want to restart the presentation? If you're restarting, I can appoint Mary Lee as a voting member. If you're going to continue, then it would be myself, Jamie, Andre, and Yvette.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So my understanding on this is that it kind of comes down to whether or not Yvette has read in from the prior meeting. I can certainly go through the entire presentation. I don't have an issue with that. I can certainly try and make it briefer than it was in the first instance. But I guess that would be the question, whether Yvette has had an opportunity.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Dennis, could you make Yvette a co-host? I don't see her pinned.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, she's a co-host.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, for some reason, she's not. OK, there we go. Hey, Yvette, have you had a chance to review this part from last hearing?
[Unidentified]: I did not have a chance to review that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so Attorney Desmond Why don't we, why don't we start from the beginning we hadn't taken the comment, and then I'll plan to appoint Mary as a voting member for this for this issue Jim has refused himself sound good.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Oh, okay, yes, because then there'll be five. All right, got it. So I am here this evening with the applicant, Fred Capone. Unfortunately, our architect couldn't make it to the continued meeting, as he is one of the event hosts of the Feast in North Maryann Moffitt, Applicant OLIV, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers and is situated on a 9,147 square foot parcel of land, two or five unit, multiple dwelling. For purposes of this project, and as I explained to the board at the last meeting, the parcel containing 9,147 square feet is being combined with a portion of the adjacent property, 6 Franklin Street, consisting of 4,373 feet. And Dennis, if I can share my screen,
[Unidentified]: Stop it.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay. Just one second. They were all up here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, this is the survey anyway. I can do it through the survey. So this is the survey, not the ANR plan. And actually, here's the ANR plan. I just needed to open one up. Can you see hello. OK, is every I'm sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we see it now.
[Kathleen Desmond]: OK, so this is our plan. This was the original lot line for six Franklin Street and the lot line for the parcel, which is being which this portion of lot of 6 Franklin Street is being combined with this lot was the original 9,000 square foot parcel. We had to go to Leoncourt and deregister the parcel because this piece down here was a registered portion and we had that deregistered so that it could be combined. So the parcel which we're discussing is the existing dwelling And then this portion here, lot number six, Franklin Street, being a 6,000 square foot lot with an existing house on it as it's combined. In total, the parcel will be approximately 13,520 square feet of land. The property is situated within the apartment one district where the use of multiple dwelling is permitted as of right. The ANR plan, as you can see, was approved by the by the Community Development Board in February of this year. As the plan indicates, and I can show you the survey. The plan is to maintain the existing dwelling and then add three units as an addition to the existing parcel to combine for five units. The addition itself, with the exception of this corner in the back where the triangular angle from the adjacent property cuts in to the property, meets all of the zoning requirements. The only area of the addition which is noncompliant is the portion which is caused to be noncompliant due to this This jet jog in on the property. In addition to the real lot variance that we would need the existing house, the front setback is already non compliant, it's 4.5 and 15 is required. And then the side yard. So you can see 7.5 which which was compliant when it was a single family, but now that we're moving into a multi the requirement is 15. So the side yard doesn't comply and we would need a variance for that as well, in addition to those variances that we would need. The. The usable open space is not compliant, and that, to a very large degree, is related to the shape of the lot. Any usable open space has to be a 15 by 15 horizontal dimension. It has to be six feet away from the building, which makes it difficult to comply with that requirement. If you look at the zoning evaluation sheet, however, you'll note that of the landscaped open space exceeds both what's required, which is 10% for landscape open space and the 25% required for usable open space. So the usable open space on this is actually 41%, which exceeds if you combine the usable open space and the 10% for landscape, it exceeds the 35%. So the overall green space is increased under this plan. In terms of the architectural plans, I can take you through that as well. This is the proposed structure. This would be the existing here. There is a, an entryway, which there's storage space for both units one and two, which are housed in the original structure in this space. And then there are three additional units with garage space. And you can see, I'll take you through the back. And then this is the plan. So that's your existing first floor condition, existing basement. existing attic space, existing second floor. And you can see there are a number of bedrooms in this existing single family. The basement floor plan for unit one will be two bedrooms in the basement, and then an office, and then you'll have a living area and a master bedroom with a deck out to it. That's the proposed unit one. Unit two, again, you have living space, a master bedroom, we said proposed second floor plan, master bedroom and living area on the second floor and then bedrooms in the attic space. And you can see here on the first floor, this is the space that will be used for storage for both unit one and unit two. You then have the three units, which unit, unit three, unit four, and unit five in the back here. The garages, there's two garages here, one which services the existing structure, and then there's two garages, and then the units themselves. Second floor has the bedroom space on all of them, living area for both space.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Do I have to admit? I'm sorry.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So that is, in essence, what the plan is. There is garage space for each unit, and there is a driveway in front of that, looking at the survey. Actually, I'm sorry. I guess without the architect here, I'm not that great, am I? sorry i'm just looking for the so there is driveway space in front of each of the units as well so that kind of gives you a brief overview of that in terms of what we're looking for the shape of the lot is irregular and in particular we have that jog in the rear that creates a hardship and there's a few bump outs on the existing structure nothing's going to physically change on the existing structure but As indicated in my worksheet, it would be a hardship to have to demolish the existing structure due to the violations, which are fairly minor. And although not existing, the structure isn't changing. With respect to the rear yard setback, again, it's that corner of the lot. And if we had to change the structure, you'd have to kind of make an odd you'd have to cut this corner off of the building and it would be kind of irregular in shape and all because of this jog section. Again, the open space exceeds the requirement of 35%, although the usable open space is not, there is no usable open space based on the constraints within the lot itself. For the public good, it's a relatively modest project. It's five units on a, 13,000 square foot lot. It preserves the existing structure and incorporates it into the design. In addition, this structure will be fully sprinklered. which it is not now. The parking meets the requirements and there's an ability to accommodate, as we discussed in the prior meeting, an overflow or company because you've got 23 feet in front of each of the garage spaces where if you had visitors, they could certainly park within that space. And there's also a compact space over in here. So you've got six spaces combined. And I think that that's about it in terms of the project itself. We also discussed the landscaping and I did provide the board with a landscaping plan. That plan shows that there'll be an increase in the on-street parking because by virtue of opening those driveways, we'll have to extend the sidewalk and curb cut, so we won't be reducing the on-street parking or the parking, there'll actually be more on-street parking available on the basis of the changes we'll have to make to the front of the structure.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, just a clarifying question on that last point. So I pulled up the landscaping plan and it does denote existing sidewalk and then it does have portions of the curb cut on there. So there's a significant piece that seems to be landscaped on the plan. It doesn't have anything there. So are you saying that the sidewalk would need to be extended up to the curb cut for the driveway?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right my clients prepared and for some reason I can't. I thought I had put that in my queue. That landscape plan to show I don't know if you're able to to bring it up. On your screen.
[Mike Caldera]: You just received a single document so it's right and that's that's the document that we have that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: that shows what's proposed. But in terms of your question, I didn't want to extend the sidewalk in the curb cut, because that's within the domain of the engineering department. But that's certainly what's anticipated will happen in this regard, because you're only allowed a certain, I think it's 20 feet for a curb cut. So you're going to have the driveway. So my client's prepared and understands that there will be a requirement to probably continue that sidewalk and reduce what's the existing curb cut. Because I believe when we talked about this previously, currently, I don't know, can you see that?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Currently all, and I have a better actually photo, the side shot.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Currently, this is all open at this point. So we anticipate with the landscaping plan that that is going to be closed off and there's going to be a requirement that we sidewalk that and curb and add additional curb, which will then provide for more on-street parking than what already exists. and will actually be significantly reducing, in any event, the pavement area in here.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then attorney Desmond in our last meeting, there were a couple of topics that came up that I just like to, you know, briefly go through again, since we're starting over. So there were some questions about the ANR and in particular, why the lots were combined in this way. And then there was some separate clarifying questions about the, the existing parking, whether that was private or open to the public.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. So in terms of of the parking and the private, you'll see here the the actual sidewalk curb cut area and the parking, as it stands now, is all in this area, which is part of my client's property. So this isn't any on street parking. It belongs and you can look at it Here, it belongs as part of the property where this is all parking so that that will all be you know landscaped and building to a degree. So this area of pavement will no longer exist, and you can see where the planners are so that's you know essentially. where the line would be and cars have been permitted with my client's permission to park in that area. But it is his property, which it belongs to. With respect to the other question on the A&R, I think as I indicated at the time, this is registered land. And in terms of, we had to unregister the parcel in order to combine it with the other. it just would have been more cumbersome to attempt to draw it in a way, redesign the whole lot for purposes of this piece, which has always been a portion of this existing lot. So we just deregistered this portion, which was registered because part of the lot was unregistered and then combined it.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And it also, I mean, I didn't, It wasn't a thought at the time, but the other issue is if you brought it out here, you'd be making it, you'd have two front yards. And I don't know what that would do in terms of what's here and in terms of any violations that might be created by creating two front yards versus the one that you have currently on that, because right now that's a side yard. It wasn't contemplated at the time, but it certainly would be possibly an issue.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board for Attorney Desmond before Mr. Capone presents the architectural plans?
[Maria D'Orsi]: I did go through the architecturals.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, you did?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sure. I see Andre's hand. Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Attorney Desmond, I'm just looking at the landscaping plan and it just called my attention that there's a driveway and garage for units one and two. How is that going to work exactly?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, I think it's how it's being assigned. So in other words, let me see if I can pull up.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, let's try to get it pulled up. Dennis can.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I yeah I had it I can't seem to unless it now.
[Mike Caldera]: So the title of the one the board received not so helpful just landscape plan.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I thought I had put it popped it in here this evening and I apologize when I when I went through it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis, maybe you could just share it. Cathy, I can bring it up. I just got to undo your screen sharing.
[Maria D'Orsi]: OK. I'm sorry. I apologize for that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We good?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, we're good. OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre, you had a question about units one and two and the garage and the space in the driveway in front of the garage.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So one and two, that is one bay and it's going to be assigned to one of those. There's also a space over here, a compact space in addition, so that you have, and here you could probably on five fit into two vehicles, but it's essentially a four car Thank you. Four-car garage, one or two having that space, and then a compact space over here as well, which is the only exterior space. This space here is large. You could probably fit two compact vehicles in that space, in that garage area, but these are all single bays.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, is this slightly different from what we saw last time? I remember there being the compact space plus the four garage spaces, but for some reason I thought the compact was assigned to unit five earlier. I could be misremembering.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't know that it was assigned specifically. We put the compact space in here, and it's probably going to be a question of who needs the spaces. You may have a situation where you don't need all of the spaces. It is different, to answer your question, than the last plan, which is why I didn't want to present that plan and put it before the board as a plan. Because the space, I don't even believe that the space was drawn in here, to be honest. And it needed to be added. But yeah, it was different. It was based on a prior reiteration with another architect, which is why we didn't, we didn't do that.
[Unidentified]: Go back to unit one and two though, that's in tandem there.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Um, it would be one space and then there'd be a compact here, you know, unit five could be here, as opposed to I think it's all going to depend on, you know, who wants the garage spaces, this one outdoor space. So in terms of how that's going to work. He has it labeled on the plan as unit one and two, unit three, unit four. Unit three and unit four obviously make sense because it's part of those units. It's underneath those units in the staircase. This could be a sign, one could have it and then the other could have an outdoor space. I suppose if someone didn't want a garage space, they could take the compact space, but that would probably be with unit one or unit two at this point.
[Mike Caldera]: So my understanding is that the driveways are long enough to accommodate a car, but aren't considered additional spaces. So it's not by zoning tandem, it's a single space.
[Kathleen Desmond]: In an apartment one zone, certainly you are permitted to park in the front yard. We went with the garage spaces in one compact space. knowing that the board would prefer that that not be the case that you park in the front yard. This is 23 feet, so certainly it would accommodate a vehicle, a 19, you know, 19 by nine space. But, you know, we didn't, we went with, it's entitled to the 0.8 consideration, and there's garages for four out of five of the, the properties, and again, this one, you could probably swing in another vehicle, a compact vehicle, given the height. It doesn't meet the 19 by 19, but you could certainly put another vehicle. If you had two compacts, you could probably fit two compacts in.
[Unidentified]: Other questions from the board?
[Mary Lee]: So, um, attorney Desmond. So what if now you, um, my understanding is that the space spaces are for compact vehicles. What if some vehicles are like vans would, would, would that space be, uh, be able to accommodate a van?
[Kathleen Desmond]: The only compact space is, um, the exterior space. These are all legal spaces. So they're all at least nine by 19. and they would fit the vehicle. So these are regular spaces. And with the 0.8, it complies with four spaces, but we did include a compact space so that each unit has one vehicle space anyway. So there's five spaces to be used. So in terms of these four spaces, they're regulation parking spaces.
[Unidentified]: And my question of where's the, where's the trash going?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Where's the trash going? Well, there's garages in the bank, so that they, for most- Like is the expectation that trash goes in the garage? Like I just, yeah, where's the, where are the barrels?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Where are they going and how are they- The expectation would be that the barrels would be kept in the garage until they were where it was trash day and unit one and two has storage, which comes in from, so they could put their barrels in as well in that storage space. I was ready for you.
[Mike Caldera]: So I do see that there was a member of the public who briefly raised their hand. I'm happy to call on them first. We haven't started the public portion of the hearing though. So once the board has finished asking its questions, we'll vote to open the public portion of the hearing. Whoever's in queue, we can start with so, but we're not, we're not there yet. Other questions from the board. All right, I don't believe, well, so we're starting over anyway, and I don't believe anyone said this out loud at the last hearing. So the board, well, actually, I'll describe it when I get to public comment. The board did receive some letters from members of the public, which we'll talk about, but let's actually wait until we start the public portion of the hearing. All right, well, if there's no other questions from the board, chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: All right, do I have a second? Seconded.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Mary? Second. So you can just say yes.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and then that I Jamie I Andre I like I alright so the public portion of the hearing is now open. Now I'll quickly say my blurb on the letters the board received. So the board received, I believe by my count, six letters, which is a lot. So I'm going to try to summarize. Two butters sent two letters, and then two other butters sent one letter. So it's public comment from four individuals. They're going to be part of the record. The two there were two butters who expressed concerns with traffic impact and parking. Just me summarizing. And then there was an a butter who was in favor who said that they know the applicant and they've been a good neighbor and should get to develop the property. And we had a letter from another abutter who said that this is adding much needed housing and that they are also in favor. So with that being said, I see Oh, so if you remember the public who would like to make a comment, every member who does so should state their name and address for the record. So that's the first thing I'm going to ask them to do. You can indicate your interest in making that public comment by using the raise hand feature on Zoom, by having your camera on and raising your hand in real life. You can email Dennis at dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. You can let us know in the chat. So I see there's someone on the call in the raised hand queue. The Zoom name is hi. So I'm going to call on that individual and ask them to state their name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_03]: How are you? My name is Stephanie Roshon. I reside at 12 Hadley Place in Medford. I'm the owner of a two family unit here. So I'm just trying to, can you hear me?
[Unidentified]: Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_03]: So I'm just trying, this is my first time. I'm actually on the Zoom call, so I missed everything prior. So we're trying to, we're making a five unit dwelling consisting of how many bedrooms per unit?
[Mike Caldera]: I don't recall off the top of my head. Attorney Desmond, how many bedrooms per unit?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Three bedroom units.
[SPEAKER_03]: Three bedrooms? Three bedrooms per unit. So we're talking a total of 15 bedrooms. And we have parking for how many cars?
[Mike Caldera]: So the proposal has five parking spaces, which is more than the four required under the ordinance. This is close to high frequency transit.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so it is going to increase traffic because there's not really one said parking spot per home, nor two. I have a two family house and we reside with three, four, five cars. and unit one does not have a parking garage or a parking space?
[Mike Caldera]: So on the current plans, it states that units one and two will share one of the garage spaces and then it doesn't specifically state who will use the compact space.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, I mean, in reality, There's not really one car per household today, nor two. So we're going to be occupying a lot of... I don't even park my own car on Hadley Place. I have a five car driveway. And parking here is quite an issue as it is. We have people that park from the MBTA. It's not a monitored parking street, even though you're not allowed to park on the street. So my biggest concern is traffic is a nightmare. You can't even back out of your own driveway. I mean, unless you're willing to put a stop light or a blinking light or something to control the traffic here, you're adding probably at least 12 cars and you can't tell, you know, you can't say, oh, I'm going to only sell to a person that has one car per unit or rent. That's my first question. And my second question is, how does this affect our tax bracket?
[Mike Caldera]: So that's not something the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals considers.
[SPEAKER_24]: OK.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's all I have for questions.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. Do we have any other members of the public who like to make a comment.
[SPEAKER_14]: Hello.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, I see someone by the name of Cynthia Graco who just spoke. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_14]: Cynthia Graco, 11 Hadley Place, right next door.
[Mike Caldera]: Please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_14]: have the same concerns with the parking. The traffic is crazy over here. I am right next door. So you were saying they were saying that they're going to extend, you know, the sidewalk and the curbs and drive, whatever. But is that making it public parking on the street?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, so in Medford residents, I don't recall if this street is permit parking or not, but- It's permit, it is. Yeah, so the street parking is available to members of the public.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, my other concern is, once the construction on this, We're going to have a lot of mice and rats. We have been lucky on this street compared to other places that have not been able to do any of that. Living on the floor is a concern for me, but once they start ripping down things and remodeling, I think that's going to be a big issue with the properties around here, having to deal with all that. and how long would the construction be going on for?
[Mike Caldera]: So those are also things the board doesn't consider. The city does have ordinances pertaining to those and state building code.
[SPEAKER_14]: Anything else? Anybody have questions? Okay, so there's, okay, I guess that's all I have. That was just my, that was my concern is. The city doesn't take care of rats.
[Mike Caldera]: Nope, we're not gonna do that. So, members of the public will only speak if called on each member of the public will have one chance to speak. So, we're not going to have a dialogue here. Oh, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_14]: To built.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, what did you say? I missed it.
[SPEAKER_14]: How long would it take to build?
[Mike Caldera]: So that's not within the board's purview. And so I don't I don't think we need to answer that question. So there are requirements in terms of how long until how long after receiving any of special permit or variance an applicant has to start construction, but then the length of time it takes to build depends a lot on the project and the construction methods and so on. Okay. Sorry, one more. Yeah, good point. So Dennis did make a comment. Yeah. Commissioner Forte, could you maybe briefly speak to any kind of, essentially the high level building department, how things work in terms of construction timeline and rodent control?
[Bill Forte]: sure Mister Mister chair, thank you. So the requirements with the with the Board of Health are that properties have to be abated 30 days before any demolition commences on on a property that will be one thing as part of the building permit requirement for the Health Department to sign off. So pest abatement as part of the construction. In addition to that, the applicant is required to keep the site fenced off at all times. And you know, prevent access for children or anything like that. In addition to that, they're required to maintain regular construction hours, I believe at 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., I believe. In addition to that, the limits on a building permit, the applicant has one year to exercise the permit from the date of appeal. Um, you know, the day beyond appeal, and then they have one year to exercise their right to a building permit. If not, they'd have to come back to this board and ask for an extension. I would tell you that a project like this, by my estimate, would be a little bit better than a year's worth of construction. It's a pretty significant alteration, and I would say if the project is funded properly and it goes well I would say about a year before they're turning the key and renting these things out, I would say that, you know that they're not going to do it. And drag their feet because there's money to be made and rent and this is what's driving the market and so a project this size I don't expect to be, you know, it's going to be disruptive for a year or so but I think post construction these things are relatively non impactful. in multi-residence neighborhoods and they don't present any problem after post-construction. So there are time limits in the building code, 180 days to commence the work once the permit has been issued. Construction must proceed exponentially to a degree of reasonableness and otherwise the work should continue and That's really about it. There's nothing else really to add to that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you, Commissioner Forty. So Ms. Creco, did that answer your question?
[SPEAKER_14]: Hey, so I'm right next door. And if there's any type of damage to my house or cleanup, who's responsible to take care of all that? If any damage is done to my side, like when he's remodeling the side of the house, not the new development that's happening. the house that he's going to remodel, you know, with anything with my side of the house, my yard, my siding, anything in that, fences and stuff like that.
[Bill Forte]: Mister chair, I mean it's yeah sure so any any civil liabilities would not would be beyond the authority of the building inspected to enforce so if you drove over your lawn a cracker driveway or had some kind of you know some kind of other episode where there was property damage. Obviously you know what a um you know um a decent builder would would replace your lawn or fence or whatever in better condition than he found it that's that's the usual thing um but uh it becomes a civil liability a civil matter if there's any property damage which you could seek in civil um civil court and when you say in the peasant world that you know prior to the building
[SPEAKER_14]: as this construction is going on, will pest control keep up with the situation to make sure it stays under control?
[Bill Forte]: Once pest, again, through you Mr. Chair, once pest abatement has been initiated and the construction begins, there's no chance of rodents ever collecting on a job site that's active. The vibration keeps them away every day. Anything that's going to scatter is going to scatter in the first you know, in the first week or so, or even a few days, if there's, but the abatement should pretty much eliminate any pests, rats, or, or other animals that might be borrowed in the ground otherwise. And this speaks only for animals that are borrowing below ground or, or, you know, caught in the thick brush. Right. Okay.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay. I think that's all I have for now.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, Ms. Brito. Other comments from members of the public?
[Unidentified]: Raise your hand, you can type in chat.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I do not see any. So the chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. Oh, wait. Scratch that. There is someone by the name of L on the call who can unmute themselves and state their name and address for the record. Please go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Let's see if I can help them unmute.
[SPEAKER_18]: Can you hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we can hear you. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_18]: Liliana Rochon, owner of 12 Hadley Place.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_18]: Okay, I don't have concerns for any pests because the pests will come out and they'll go away. I don't have concerns for damages because I'm sure he has to have insurance. I oppose this project greatly. There is so much traffic. Hadley Place is a cut-through street. There's so much traffic. I come out of the driveway. I almost get hit many, many times, many times. The traffic is real, it's enormous, and it's a speedway. and there's children. My other concern is I have my three grandchildren. There are other small children next door and other children on the street. It's not a place for project living. That's what I look at it as. Even if you make it beautiful, there's no need for a huge building there with all the cars. Not only does everybody have tenants almost on the street, there's not enough parking, even with parking permits. Where are these people going to park? Where are they going to park? There's not enough. I don't know what the city of Medford is thinking. I oppose this project greatly. I don't have concerns for things that'll repair itself. It will never repair. Not with all these cars. And that's what I have to say. If you're concerned with the safety of children, this is not a place to put a big build in there. And like I said, there's no parking. There is no parking as of now already. People are getting ticketed. I have gotten ticketed and I live there because I lend my parking permit to a visitor.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you for your comment.
[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, that's what I have to say. I pray greatly that this project doesn't go through. Thank you. Please take everything into consideration, the parking, the safety.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, so the board does take into consideration whether there would be substantial detriment to the public good. Attorney Desmond, did you just want to make a clarification?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I did, as in terms of the project. If you look at the size of the lot, which is 13,000 square feet, there is the ability to place a project here, irrespective of what we're seeking for variances that certainly would at least be the five units that's requested. What the applicant is doing and the hardship here is that he's utilizing an existing structure, which is in good condition and which the demolition of would be economic waste. So it's not as if there isn't a project that could go here. And this project is modest.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, if I may. We already heard the presentation. I think the board understands that. So if there's something to clarify, which I'm interpreting this as a clarification of what could be done by right. Okay, but yeah. Okay, thank you. I thought I saw Linda Foote or heard Linda Foote, but I could have made that up. Okay, yeah. Linda Foote, name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Linda foot and live at 24 Franklin Street in Medford, and all the people that I've heard I agree with them and that I think my husband drew up a plan we submitted to show all the traffic, all the streets that come into Hadley place. And I think this project should not be allowed. It's totally, it's a, you're in, you can't even cross the street because it's cars coming around from coming from Washington Street, they're coming from Vine Street, they're coming all the way up to the end of Hadley Place and you can barely get out there Hadley Place because there's so much traffic on Main Route 60. And I agree with everyone that has spoken that this shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen. It is like a project, but it also is just we can't afford all those extra cars. As it is, it's Franklin Street is a you have to have a parking permit. And I know on Hadley Place, you have to have a parking permit. So I don't know where they think these cars are going to go. And if anybody you're dreaming is you think there's only going to be one car per person renting these apartments or owning them, whatever what it's going to be. But I am definitely against it. And be very upset if it goes through. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Do we have any other members of the public who would like to comment? All right, I do not see any.
[Mike Caldera]: So the chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do I have a second? Seconded. All right, we're going to take a roll call, Andre. Aye.
[Unidentified]: Jamie. Aye. Yvette.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I didn't hear you, but I saw you say aye. Mary.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike. Aye. So, okay. So public portion of the hearing is now closed. We are deliberating. What are we thinking, folks?
[Andre Leroux]: Go ahead, Mary.
[Mary Lee]: Is there a feasibility study about the traffic and the safety issues that members of the public have mentioned?
[Mike Caldera]: Mary, my understanding is it's also not a requirement for this sort of project.
[Unidentified]: I miss one of you all that spoke previously about the parking situation there. The city is actually reclaiming some parking along that curve, right? Because what currently exists is like all parking there, right? That people can drive into. And so then none of that can be parked for the public because that's private property. And so now with this rebuild, new build, he's shrunk his personal private property. And so reclaiming curb for public. Am I correct?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so that my understanding is that currently the. is a paved portion that is owned by the applicant who chose to allow some people to park there privately and then in doing this, which of course they're not required to do. And then in pursuing this project, as Attorney Desmond mentioned, the city engineer is going to require extending the uh the sidewalk because otherwise the curb cut would be in violation and so that will result in if you do the before and after comparison about the public parking available it will result in the creation of some public parking spots and did we go over exactly what the reclaiming for the public for parking spots is going to be because that sounds like something that folks would like to know um Yeah, Attorney Desmond, do you know how many parking spots this would equate to, street parking?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't have the exact amount because, again, it would depend on the opening from the engineering.
[Unidentified]: But if you were to look at the plan that we had, let me get that survey. Let me just get the survey out.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I'm going to go back to this.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, the curb stops here, and there's a curb here. Now, this area, you can't see the exact, but I would guess that you would get at least two spaces back out of this area, because it's 19 by 19. 19 by 9, I'm sorry. So you'd have to have 30, 38 feet would be two spaces. And I would anticipate that, given this broad area, that you would have at least two spaces that would come back into the public domain. I think, you know, and it also depends on whether he, what happens with this curb here, whether that gets extended somehow. But it will definitely increase the number of on-street parking spaces by likely two anyway.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm just doing some.
[Maria D'Orsi]: If I have, I can see if I have a survey.
[Mike Caldera]: Looking at some of the measurements on the proposed it. I don't know if we have it listed on the plans, but it certainly appears to be more than two car lengths.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Mike Caldera]: All of additional curb that would be required before you hit the part that's going to be driving.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think this is 89 feet here that measure if that's correct, but I can't. So you would have it.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Part of that will be the driveway, but it looks like comfortably at least two spaces.
[Unidentified]: And then on the other side, it looks like you probably could reclaim another spot because they're going to move that. From what I see, the curb cut currently there's two, right? And so they're going to reclaim the one on the far, on the right, on the top of what the image you're
[Mike Caldera]: showing um because you have to remove that curb cut that island curb it's right there to get into the units three and one and two so reclaiming three spots it looks like total from public i'm not sure about that event it looks it looks like the the island curb cut would need to move but looks like maybe closer to half a car length that would could become sidewalk so i'm not as confident about that one
[Kathleen Desmond]: I would say conservatively two and possibly three, depending on how that curb cut is handled up here by the engineering department and whether they close off a piece of this here, which isn't really needed.
[Unidentified]: So you might get another space. Yeah, I think you're getting another space. I mean, I look at the way it looks, even on Google Maps, Right, what do you call it? The blacktop goes all the way to the house currently, and it looks like they could have parked cars all the way to the house. And now that is all, that's turning green.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Right.
[Unidentified]: So I see it as like, it looks like two, three full cars, public owned spots are getting reclaimed by the neighborhood that they don't have to pay for to this owner.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so for the purpose of our analysis, I think it would be fair from what we're seeing to assume it's two to three incremental public spaces, and then to some of the residents' concerns about the possible car impact of added units. As a board, we generally don't scrutinize as much when the when the building is in compliance with the ordinance about that. So this is actually one compact space more than it's required. So yeah, net it's one compact space more than required. And then the addition of somewhere between two and three street parking spaces.
[Unidentified]: I actually like this construction. I like that it's three benching units. I think in this housing crunch, I like that they've kept the old, I don't want to say old, the previous home, and that it actually is matching in its style in the area, so it doesn't look out of place. And they're, you know, townhouses versus the way it's structured versus, you know, a square building with units stacked on top of each other. I mean, I actually really appreciate what's been presented. Okay, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Andre, go ahead. Thanks. I have a few comments, and I appreciate what Yvette was saying, and I'm going to build on that a little bit. So regarding the street itself, I want to acknowledge what the residents are saying, because it is a challenging street. It is a cut-through street. I live in the neighborhood not too far from there. I actually live on Riverside Ave, so I'm very familiar with High speed high traffic streets. We don't have any parking in front of our two family. And so, you know, there are challenges with that. I think some of the issues are more related to the city's management of the street itself, rather than to this particular project. So I think looking just at the land and the project that's being proposed, this is a reasonable project. It's not asking for a lot of major variances in order to do it. And in some ways that this project is certainly providing a benefit. We have a housing crunch, this is creating more housing. It does have, from my read of the parking situation, which isn't perfect, but there are four garages, and an outside unit, so one slot for each unit, although I guess the assignment is a little funky. One of the garages could potentially accommodate two small cars, and all four of the garage spaces, although it's not an official spot, but let's be real about how people actually use their driveways, could accommodate a second car in front of the garage. I don't feel that that is, I do feel that it accommodates most, if not all of the parking needs for those units that are gonna be created. I do think in terms of the traffic situation, because it is, you know, people do kind of come around those corners at high speed. I would certainly think that adding some on-street parking along that side of the street where there is none right now could actually make the street safer for pedestrians because adding some on-street parking there will narrow the lane of traffic and the traffic will have to go slower to get around that area. Right now, because no parking is allowed in front of all of the open parking spaces that are off street, it's like a parking lot there with kind of no sidewalk and nobody can park there, that's where you get some really, people can kind of really speed up to that stop sign. So I think this would actually help that situation, make it safer. I do think that the city should look at this street and see you know, if there's any further improvements that it that it could do in terms of, you know, pedestrian safety. That's not something that this board can do. But I just for the record want to say that I agree with the residents that that should happen. They should look at like the permit parking management. Is there any other improvements to that street that that needs to be done? And, you know, hopefully the city is part of this project. You know, looking at this project would look at the street as well. So I think those are my basic thoughts.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Thank you, Andre.
[Unidentified]: Other thoughts from members of the board? So I think that was excellent overview of the parking and traffic situation, Andre. I appreciate you going through that. I agree with it completely. I think I work in that area. Washington Street, Hadley Place is definitely a traffic concern. I think you're right, adding public parking on the side there will create a slowing behavior. And I think it's an opportunity for the residents to bring something to the city about the concerns there as well. The development of buildings, Yvette made great points about the design of the buildings. or department building, it's not flat, it's in design with the area. Maintaining the original structure is an excellent part of that as well. And the variances that they're requesting with regards to the setbacks are minimal. I think the landscaping work will make it a better looking property as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Jamie.
[Mike Caldera]: So Mary, I know you asked that question. Do you have other thoughts you'd like to share on this project?
[Mary Lee]: Well, I appreciate all the comments that everybody made, because, again, this is my first meeting. I'm trying to understand this as well. About how many cars are an estimate that are able to park along that diagram that Attorney Desmond showed? It's just out of curiosity.
[Mike Caldera]: Just to be clear, Mary, are you talking about the private spaces that are there or the public?
[Unidentified]: The public spaces.
[Mike Caldera]: So our best estimates, which are not certified by an engineer, but two to three. John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His): Was the John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His): Two to three along the street. If you assume that as required by ordinance, the city engineer will require the extension of the sidewalk. that will incrementally add two to three spaces. We haven't done an analysis of the total capacity of the street. I'm not entirely sure what that would be. But for along the property line, I think that maybe it is zero right now because the first little bit of sidewalk is pretty close to the corner. I don't know if that's a legal spot. It looks like if you extend the sidewalk along the grassy area, as the city engineer would require, and then you maybe extend the sidewalk a little bit to the north, as oriented on the, oh yeah, it is true north, you get two to three spaces, where before you had zero.
[Mary Lee]: And that's for the public, two to three?
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, is there something you wanted to clarify?
[Kathleen Desmond]: In terms of the spaces, there are some permit spaces. And I think Frank can clarify, we went through this at the last meeting. There's some permit parking up above where the existing house is. And I believe there's also some just general parking as well, or limited to our parking. We had gone through that at the first meeting. So there are some additional spaces beyond what will be created on the place.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thank you. Andre, you were gonna say something else?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I just had a question. Again, given some of the concerns that were raised, I'm wondering, maybe we could hear from Mr. Capone too directly about this, but a concern was raised about the number of bedrooms and maybe that would generate more parking need than what is actually there. So I'm just curious if you could clarify, are these homes for sale? Is this rental? Mr. Capone, did you want to answer that?
[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: Can you hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes.
[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: I plan on renting them. I do own multiple properties in Method, which I tend to keep. And to my experience, the majority of them are couples with one child or two, or just couples living together. I don't seek to rent out the bedrooms, you know, multiple people. It's always a couple. They seem to be more interested in Medford, I've noticed, in the last five, six years, maybe because all the business that are coming in outside the city. And just to go back on the parking, right now, I think three of my tenants have permit parking on the, on the street. So I know there's three cars that that do park on the curb. And with the curb being replaced closing that big driveway. I think there will be two to three more, just like your estimated spot. So that'll give us almost six more spots out front. Six in total out front, and then whatever they would park tandem, like reality, they will park in front of the driveway, in front of the garage. So you would see two, four, six, plus two more, plus the one on the side. So it'll be about close to 13 spots available for that house.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Andre, did that answer your question?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, thank you. OK. And I just want to say this out loud just so there aren't any misunderstandings. So the board doesn't consider the ownership structure for properties when we're making our findings.
[Fdc01P8Cv9U_SPEAKER_00]: OK.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. And so we're not going to do that, but I don't think that's what Andre was getting at. All right. Yeah, so my take, folks, I think some good points made about the the parking reality. So it it does sound like a lot of units being added, but there is creation of additional street spaces. It is more spaces than the ordinance requires. So when we think about the intent of the ordinance, this is certainly consistent with that. In terms of the actual relief being sought, so we have to link the hardship to circumstances pertaining to the soil condition shape or topography of the lot and or structure and so the lot is certainly oddly shaped. At the start of this hearing I had some curiosities about the actual merger of lots and, you know, there were multiple ways that the lots could have potentially been combined and, you know, why were they combined in this way? And, you know, did it, did this sort of long stretch somehow allow for more building, you know, than otherwise would be? And it doesn't. So it's, This was, as I understand it, there were some, Attorney Desmond mentioned in the last hearing, there were some reservations about making changes to the shapes, given that some of the land had to be deregistered, and there were some other kind of considerations. And so at the end of the day, the lot would be unusual even if it was merged in a slightly different way. The variances being sought are clearly driven by the shape of the lot, so that little corner that juts out is a big reason for the need for relief, which is pretty minimal, all things considered. When we think about the usable open space, so that has a very specific definition. And in general, it's harder to satisfy that definition with a oddly shaped lot like this. So I think if we were to insist on a literal enforcement of that requirement, it would dramatically change the footprint of what could be built in ways that weren't intended by the ordinance. So I do think the shape of the lot presents a hardship. I do think the relief being sought is pretty minimal. We think about potential detriment to the public good. The variances being sought aren't really generating a detriment. All of the concerns that the residents in opposition raised seem to surround congestion and parking, which isn't even something that the variance is seeking. And as Attorney Desmond mentioned, there's likely a way to fit, if not three additional units, certainly two additional units on this lot by right. So yeah, I'm not seeing substantial detriment. Don't think it's derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. I do see a hardship if we do a literal enforcement. So I think we meet the criteria. That's my take. Other thoughts from the board?
[Adam Hurtubise]: for the vote.
[Mike Caldera]: Chair awaits a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to approve the variances for 15 Hadley Place. All right, so we're going to do the second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, great. So we're going to do a roll call vote that.
[Unidentified]: Mary. I. Jamie.
[Mike Caldera]: I. Andre, I. Mike, I. All right, so the variances are approved. Congratulations, you have your building permit. So Dennis, can you just walk through with Attorney Desmond the next steps and logistics?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure, so just sort of the standard, Attorney Desmond sort of knows the ropes by now, so just a draft decision and then, you know, we'll check, we'll run it over and then it'll get checked out by KP Law and then once everything's done, it'll get signed and then at that point, notices will go out and then there's the 20 days appeals period when that happens.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So let's move on to the next matter on the agenda. Could you read that one, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: AD Canal Street, case number A-2023-15. Applicant and owner Richard Brown is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City Method Zoning to construct in addition to a pre-existing nonconforming four-family dwelling in a general resident zoning district allowed use. The expansion of a nonconforming use and structure of a four-family dwelling does not comply with City Method Zoning Ordinance Chapter 94, Sections 5.2 and 5.3, requiring a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: And so I just wanna clarify up front. So this case and the next case are both new filings. As it happens, there were previous filings for both, but these are new filings. Those previous filings are withdrawn. We have our full five regular members. So unless something changes, Mary, please ask clarifying questions and you can certainly you know, discuss with us in deliberation, but for these, unless somebody drops off, Mary, you'll be our associate member, so you won't be voting. All right, so 80 Canal Street. I see we have Attorney Grant for the applicant.
[SPEAKER_02]: Good evening, how are you?
[Mike Caldera]: Evening.
[SPEAKER_02]: So, my name is Sheila grant from government Cabral 92 high street in Medford. I'm here representing the applicant Richard Brown who was sitting with me, we're getting the property located at 80 canal. The property sustained fire damage in 2020 and since then my client has been working to rehab the premises in a manner, which would be safer more current. aesthetically pleasing and benefit the neighborhood. He has met with the neighbors in the past, and although there are some objections, he has tried to take their concerns to heart in proposing the plans before you. He did pull a demo permit and an electrical permit to get some work started and has been working on the property with respect to that. The premises is located in a GR district and is currently a pre-existing non-conforming four-family. The proposed plans extend the nonconformity with respect to the roof line and the third floor. The footprint of the building remains exactly the same. The expansion of the nonconforming use and structure of the four family requires a special permit from the zoning board. The third floor square footage will change from 992 square feet to 1325 square feet, which would add an additional three hundred and thirty three square feet to the overall building.
[Mike Caldera]: The renovated structure will attorney grant just one clarifying question about that last part. This is something I was trying to figure out before the hearing and actually doing on a different computer. So I don't have it up. So the property card. For this property, has it as a two and a half story and somewhere on the order of 300 some odd square feet of livable area on the the third floor. I didn't see that cited in the permit refusal. We do have Commissioner Forte on or at least did but I just wanted to double check before We continue, is this an existing three-story or is it an existing two-and-a-half-story?
[SPEAKER_02]: The square footage is a little bit over the two-and-a-half, which is the non-conformity with respect to the roofline. We're extending the non-conformity. Then I don't believe that the two-and-a-half is allowed in the GR district. That is, again, the pre-existing non-conformity.
[Mike Caldera]: Right.
[Unidentified]: Hold on. So I'm just going to pull up the property card again.
[Mike Caldera]: Because I know this was one of the things referenced in one of the letters the board received. There were some other things referenced that didn't seem to be accurate.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And we did receive your letter for those details, which we'll get into.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the property card for 80 Canal Street, oh wait, on the, sorry, this is, I think it should be on the card, but on the actual assessor's database, it lists 306 feet of living area in the finished attic, which is less than half of,
[SPEAKER_02]: That's the living area. So this is the whole square foot of the third floor is the 992.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, but my understanding and Commissioner 40 can check me if I'm misunderstanding something here, but it's the it's a livable area that determines the number of stories. So Commissioner 40 was there. I just want to make sure the board's considering the right relief is can you just kind of clarify is this as you see it as a 3 story or 2 and a half story.
[Bill Forte]: I see it. Mister chair, thank you. I do see it as a nonconforming 3 story House. So the zoning ordinance defines another story by 50% of the gross floor area below okay. Here they have a little bit more than 50% so it's it's a pretty good thing not conforming 3 story. And it was correctly identified in the zoning evaluation. Okay, this is an extension and I do I do agree with with attorney grant that it is an extension of a non conforming for family, both in both in size and in its its use. Wonderful.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you for clarifying Commissioner 40 attorney grant please continue.
[SPEAKER_02]: Sure thing. The renovated structure will offer updated plumbing mechanics electrical and fire prevention, among other things, the rehabilitated structure will also be much more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood certainly don't exist right now. The standard with respect to the special permit is whether the proposed project is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what currently exists. The use and footprint are the same that has existed for many years. The property will be updated and safer, which I know is one of the concerns addressed in the letters of objection. We're adding no new conformities to the project. and this type of extension is exactly what the code is referring to in its requirement for a special permit as it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw and it is not substantially more detrimental than what exists and will be in far better condition than what exists now. So we respectfully ask for your approval as I said I have my client here with me and I also have Peter Tomino on the call if you have questions with respect to the plans. We can show you sort of the existing and proposed roof line so you can see what we're talking about. And obviously the zoning evaluation shows the current and proposed conditions as to basically no change.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, if you could walk us through the plans. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: who's going to be the person sharing i'm going to give that person co host so they can share their screen.
[Mike Caldera]: attorney grant is it Peter to me know.
[SPEAKER_02]: That will be me.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay wonderful.
[Unidentified]: network.
[SPEAKER_02]: You I see.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we can see.
[SPEAKER_02]: So this is existing right now. As you can see, there's a dormer and the roof slants down. So this will be the proposed new roof. So you can see that it's just brought up on the sides here. There is also dormers, and then Richard can further explain.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, so it's a man-side roof. As you can see, the pitch on the sides, a lot steeper. The height of the overall building, I believe, stays the same. A drawing, you know, it's just a sketch, but in reality that really will look nice when it's done, but. That's all I can say.
[SPEAKER_02]: And then we're happy to go through the if you want to focus on the roof, we can do that. Otherwise, the plans to go through sort of the bedrooms and the further layout and then the zoning evaluation sheet also shows you that there's there's no difference as to what's existing and provided.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I mean, I think we'd especially like to go through anything that's changing. So it sounds like the roof needs to be replaced, but if there's other changes happening as part of that.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, there is that it's, they're all going to be for two bedrooms, which is a change from what is existing now. Sorry, I'm losing my voice.
[Mike Caldera]: Are the different elevations changing? Nope.
[SPEAKER_12]: All of all of the other elevations are the elevation to stay in the same the on that, you know, picture there shows the back decks right now existing I have the back decks like that, but I also have stairs coming down. There'll be no longer need for stairs coming down. The addresses will be inside so there'll be no outside staircases to contend with or Like I said, it goes to four two-bedroom units. Right now, I have two four-bedrooms, a two-bedroom, and a one-bedroom. Yeah, and it'll go down to all two bedrooms.
[Mike Caldera]: Wait, so, sorry, just so we're clear, I thought I heard you say you're actually changing from four two-bedrooms to two four-bedrooms?
[Unidentified]: No.
[SPEAKER_12]: No, I had It was always been a four unit home. Two units were four bedrooms. I see. One unit was two. The fourth unit was one. Got it. OK. Now all be twos.
[Unidentified]: I see. And that just shows the further elevations and then the framing foundation. so on and so forth.
[SPEAKER_02]: That's the existing, and you can see the multiple units, and that's existing third floor as right now.
[Unidentified]: And that's the lower floor, the roof plan, And that's the new third floor plan, the proposed. So you'll see it's kind of split there. Second floor. Again, it's just adjustments with respect to the bedrooms, first floor, and that's it. And then you can see the asphalt showing that the footprint is the same.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And so the proposed deck, so that's net new, but that's also allowed by right, is that correct?
[Unidentified]: Correct. Do you have other questions from members of the board so far?
[Andre Leroux]: Is there existing a driveway or off-street parking?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, so currently there's no parking and that will not change the parking situation will not change from what is what is there right now, because again it's that is one of the existing non conformities we're not alterating changing anything with respect to that.
[Unidentified]: So attorney grant one thing you didn't.
[Mike Caldera]: mentioned yet that I think would be good just for the board to understand. And I think we'll come back to this because it was subject to a letter we received. So typically when there's a fire, even if it affects a non-conforming structure, a legally non-conforming structure. It can be reconstructed by right under certain conditions. So what about this proposal is triggering the need for relief? Is it the addition of some living space on the third floor? Is it the reconfiguration of some of the interior units? Is it something else?
[SPEAKER_02]: It's so I'm misunderstanding the question. I'm sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: So essentially, just to clarify the question, so. Not legally nonconforming structure experiences a fire, there's a provision in the Medford ordinance that allows for a certain type of reconstruction, I'm just by right. In those cases, I'm just trying to understand what's triggering the need for relief here.
[SPEAKER_02]: Because we're expanding the space on the third floor, because we're extending the non-conformity with respect to the third floor and the roof line, that it requires us to be here.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. Commissioner Fordue, is there anything you wanted to add?
[Bill Forte]: No, Mr. Chair, just that I concur with Attorney Grant's comments regarding its non-conformity. It's not changing in use. It's, it's, if the roof were rebuilt on the same size and location and everything was stripped out then this project would not be before the ZBA so the expansion of the floor space, because it's a non conforming for family is the requirement under Section 5.3.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then Commissioner Forty, so the board did receive a letter which Attorney Grant has responded to that it mentioned a few different things. So one, it claimed that construction did not commence with a few years of the fire. And so in the response letter received, Attorney Grant clarified that in fact it did. I also checked the building database, I see those permits. So that's one thing I just want to double check with you. And then the other thing is, the same letter mentions, it didn't use this word, but essentially that there were some unpermitted changes, which in my terminology would make this a non-complying use. I looked in the database, I see A number of permits pulled over the past 2025 years is a pretty big gap in between but just so I'm clear as far as you understand it and building part department understands that this is a legally non conforming structure that right.
[Bill Forte]: Yes, a pre existing non conforming for family yes, correct. My predecessor decided that back in one of the first petitions and again Here, I did check with my staff and they have done, they have done the research and determine that that there was no inconsistency with my predecessors finding. So, and with regards to the abandonment of the use. I don't know that it is affected here. really abandoned the fire was accidental. I don't know if it could be challenged or not. But I would say that for purposes of this hearing, I don't think that the ZBA should consider it an abandonment, whereas the building has not been able to, you know, be occupied in the condition that it's in.
[SPEAKER_02]: Just a note on that to the two permits that were pulled after the fire were within the two year period required. So the demo permit usually does satisfy the commencement of work with respect to that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, the demo permit, what I saw also specifically references the fire. Yeah.
[Bill Forte]: OK. Yeah, so I don't see that there's any abandonment of use here. So I don't believe it's a standing fact.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you, Commissioner Forty. Attorney Grant, were there other items you wanted to share with us?
[SPEAKER_02]: I think I'm good. I'm happy to take any questions, though, that you might have.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. What other questions do we have from the board? Do we have to open public comment on this? So the board can ask questions. We're not deliberating, so we don't want to deliberate. But then we will open public comment whenever the board has asked its questions.
[Unidentified]: So to be clear, it's moving from an 11-bedroom structure to eight because of the new four two-bedrooms, right? Correct, yep.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions from members of the board?
[Andre Leroux]: And this isn't related to like what we have purview over, but just in terms of looking at that property, I mean, it's. Where do the people park, where are they going to park? It doesn't look like there's any parking on the street and all the other properties have off street parking.
[SPEAKER_02]: Canal Street is a tight street, for sure, it's close to the train station and especially now the Green Line, so and a lot of. I think the people that you've had don't have cars or are they parked on the street.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, I'm back on the street, you know, some, you know, didn't have cars, but mainly they back in the street is just, you know, just like a lot of the other people in the neighborhood, that area are in the same situation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So the only other item I'm seeing in the letters that would be good to clarify here is, so the existing deck, is that just missing from the architectural plans on some of the floors?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, I think he might have been went through and we think you might have been looking at the proposed versus or the existing versus the proposed and that's that's where on the rear, the decks will stay there but the stairs will be removed on the front left.
[SPEAKER_12]: they show on existing there's a deck that will be removed because those stairs will be moved to the interior. There will not be any outside staircases. That was one thing from the commissioner. I believe that, you know, had to be done under a four-family unit. So that was, you know, taken care of.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Other questions from members of the board?
[Unidentified]: I just want to ask this so it doesn't come up later. 9457 qualifies for reconstruction after catastrophe. Within two years, does the demo permit qualify and indicate that, you know, although that work hasn't commenced, there has been an intent
[SPEAKER_02]: Well, technically work has commenced with the demo permit. And then also there was subsequently an electrical permit that was pulled. So there's been electric work done within the property. So that would be the commencement of the work.
[Unidentified]: You're welcome.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Well, if there are no other questions from the board, chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: I moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Seconded.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public who would like to speak, you can use a raise hand function, you can type in chat, you can raise your hand on video, you can email Dennis at the previously shared email address, dmcdougal at medford-ma.gov. I see, I believe this is attorney Aaron Cohen, has their hand raised. Please go ahead and name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_01]: Good evening, my name is Aaron Cohen I'm an attorney my address is 126 Oxford Road Newton center oh 2459. I have a couple of points I'd like to make. First of all, I don't agree at all that this is an existing three story building. If you take a look at the existing third floor plan, as I see it, it's about 600 square feet. And if you take a look at the existing second floor plan, it's about 1400 square feet. So, and in fact, The previous rejection of the application in February of last year said that it was a two and a half story building. So I really don't agree with the conclusion that it's three stories. So that's point number one. Point number two, about whether it's a lawfully existing nonconforming structure. The question is not just whether they got building permits, but there were many activities that expanded and changed the use of the building. to add bedrooms, changing the configuration of the basement to add bedrooms, and closing a portion of the rear of the building to add bedrooms. Those are substantial changes. And under the previous zoning bylaw, when that was done, there should have been a finding PB, John Gerstle. PB, John Gerstle. PB, John Gerstle. PB, John Gerstle. PB, John Gerstle. PB, John Gerstle. And when the new ordinance came into effect, it was not then a lawfully existing nonconforming structure, but rather an illegal structure. So for that reason, it seems to me that this building really is subject to all of the ordinance. Then I'm not sure how, frankly, how you reach the conclusion I mean, we ought to do more research about whether the fact that it hasn't been used for two years is somehow suspended because of the catastrophe. I'm not aware of any law to that effect I know it. kind of seems inconsistent, but I don't think you can easily reach that conclusion. And if in fact it was suspended for more than two years, you can reinstate the use, but only if you get a special permit. And it's not the kind of easygoing special permit of making sure that it isn't any worse than it was previously. You really have to go to the special permit in section 94-11.6, which talks about a whole series of criteria for rendering a special permit, including whether the new structure will be in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood and whether it will be a benefit to the neighborhood or a detriment to the neighborhood. In this situation, it's clearly a detriment. And certainly the scale is is way out of whack with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood. Finally, I want to say there was a comment about parking. that other people have trouble parking. In fact, most of the people on the street have their own, you know, off street parking. This is the only property that has four families and no parking whatsoever. And it's created a great deal of conflict and just difficulty among the neighbors. I'm happy to take questions, but those are my thoughts.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you.
[SPEAKER_01]: Excuse me, let me let me just say one last thing. The most important thing it seems to me is that this was not a lawfully existing non conforming structure.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, yeah. Thank you, Tony Cohen. So we're not going to take questions for you. But I certainly want to have a dialogue about some of the concerns you raised just to hopefully clarify things as I understand them. And I'll which as we understand them, we'll check in with the building commissioner if there's anything at issue. In the Medford zoning ordinance, I don't recall if the wording changed between then and now, but I don't believe that the particular elements I'm talking about materially changed. We have definitions for various things. Gross floor area is the sum of the areas of several floors of buildings, including areas used for human occupancy and basements, attics, and penthouses, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The story... There's a definition of a half story. So a story used or designed to be used for human occupancy that has a floor area measured seven feet vertically from the floor of not than one half of the area of the floor next below. So when I look at the property card in the assessor's database. It says the finished attic has a gross area of 1,224. The upper story has a gross area of 1,762, but understood the building commissioner correctly because that is in excess of half of 1762, which I guess would be somewhere between 800 and 900 square feet. This is actually a three-story building. So in that case, I don't understand.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'm sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll check back in with you in a moment.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'm sorry, Michael. Excuse me. Sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: I saw you pop on camera. Is there anything you wanted to add?
[Bill Forte]: Thank you Mister chair. So yeah, I have really nothing further to add except that the the only determinations that could be based or on the information you know that's provided we didn't go and investigate the House or anything like that. The amount of of living area that was taken up by by you know the existing footprint on the 3rd floor. could very well be out of building code. I think what the applicant here is trying to achieve, and again, I don't advocate for or against the applicant, but the purpose here is to make the building obviously safer and up to code. I would say that what's up there now does not comply with the current state building code, but the structure is protected under Chapter 48, Section 6. for its existence materially. Uses have a different type of protection. But here, the applicant is asking for the proper relief. It's an expansion of a non-conforming structure and use.
[Mike Caldera]: So, I guess, so I want to be very crisp in Howard using the word non complying in this context so the part that I think is that issue here that the board would need to understand is. what was the gross floor area or the area that would count towards the half floor determination prior to any unpermitted changes that did not comply with the building code. So yeah, so if what you're saying is that we don't know, whether the attic was finished, had proper permits when it was finished, that could potentially change the analysis.
[Bill Forte]: So I'm not an attorney and Mr. Chair, respectfully, I don't wanna go too deep into the statutes because it's really not my place. But I will say this is that based on the information, The best determination that could be made on up not only by me, but my predecessors in a previous hearing that was, you know, dismissed or withdrawn without prejudice is that it the building did exist as a pre existing nonconforming for family that any construction outside of that for family provided that it, it didn't, you know, Construction that is not sanctioned by a permit is protected from construction, not use. Construction is protected from enforcement 10 years beyond the date at which it occurred without the ability to enforce without a permit. Six years with a permit, 10 years without. If a structure is not lawfully changed or altered, but the uses remain the same, then the structure essentially, you know, we wouldn't enforce. So let's just say you had a mudroom on the side of a single family and we didn't detect it for 10 years, it's protected from enforcement. And there were changes in 2018 to chapter 48, which not only rendered lawfully or non-complying structures, rendered them non-conforming, but they actually, were somehow enumerated as they had a kind of a protection above what a non-conforming structure would be. So they become essentially, I believe, and again, I'm not an attorney, so I'm not gonna opine about that, but my understanding of Chapter 48 is that the changes that were made in 2018 actually extend more protection to construction that was done without a permit. I, in this case where the use was the use was non conforming and again without going into, you know, detailed, you know, excavation of records. It, it was determined by my predecessor and by me that it is a legal non conforming structure and The fact that there was living space on the third floor and that it accounted for a portion that was you know purported by not only the applicant, but you know also reinforced by the assessors who actually go in and measure this this footage. I have no reason to dispute that in any way and and as a building inspector I'm not really required to go into what that deep. So, I would say, I'm going to shut up right there because I always say a few too many words. but that's how I see it and that's how we rendered our determination and I do stand behind my original notice of refusal in that the only relief this property needs is a relief sought by the applicant today which is an expansion of a non-conforming structure in essentially a non-conforming use of a forehand. May I respond?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Almost attorney Cohen. I fully intend to come back to you. I know you weren't done with your comment. Just a couple of additional clarifying questions for commissioner 40. So. The. I looked in the building department database. I saw no record of. you know, someone could file if they felt that there was a non-complying building in there. So just wanted to double check. If I'm not seeing code violations in the database, that's a signal that nobody reached out to the building department to say that this was non-complying. Is that right?
[Bill Forte]: Yes. So in a case where a fire may have occurred, my inspectors would have cited it as an illegal apartment at the time if there were any in there. Usually that's along with an unsafe structure notice. They would have that. Additionally, I did not find any records or any evidence of any violations in the past. But again, I didn't dig into it that deep. I basically went off of some of what my predecessor said. I got the, you know, the input of my current staff, and, you know, there was really it's it's above, it's above question, as far as we're concerned.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then last question for you and then we'll go back to Attorney Cohen so. So your predecessor would have been the one who did this. So I'm just asking kind of building commissioners in general. So if a building commissioner is assessing a permit to make an extension of structural alteration of a building and And so there was a claim that some of these changes might have required a finding. So the building commissioner would make a determination about whether that permit could be issued by right. And in the case where it could not be issued by right, they would refuse the permit. And that's when it would go to the ZBA for a finding. Is that right?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, correct. And in, in that application, it's, it's almost always claimed as a one, two or four or multifamily multifamily is kind of a broad term, but the number of units, usually was. you know, was asked for in most building permits historically, as my experience would tell me, you know, alterations to a two-family, alterations to a four, that's a lot of times we will use that as base evidence for, you know, for non-conforming structures such as these.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so the absence of a finding and a permit refusal would suggest that the building commissioner at the time had found that whatever the alterations that were being done could be done by right. Is that correct?
[Bill Forte]: It would be, you know, you could conceive it that way. But again, without seeing the actual facts here, I don't know that I could opine. But yes, You know, in most cases, we look for alarms, you know, indicators that otherwise would lead us to think that there's an illegal unit there. And units that are separated from basement and attic are usually, you know, if there was a fifth unit up there on the third floor, that would be something that would bring our attention to a, you know, a non-conforming unit. But what happens, I mean, a non-compliant unit. But what happens is, you know, there are certain alterations that happen through the decades that you know, such as the, you know, the housing initiative post-World War II and, you know, these sorts of things, maids' quarters and servants' quarters are a big one. You know, I worked in Newton and that's what I found there. So, yeah, it's conceivable that, you know, unless we see indicators and we go in and we look at the property and it looks like it's always been used as a four-family and that's kind of what the records show and there's no red flags on the violation end, then that's kind of how we make a determination, by factual finding.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, awesome. Thank you. Attorney Cohen, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, going back to two things about the two and a half story thing that I don't understand the third floor plan, the existing plan which was submitted. It looks to me like there's only 600 square feet and I don't see the remainder that you say is there. I want to go back also please to the to the necessity of a finding. It sounds like Mr. Forte is saying that if it was previously a four-unit building, and now they're going to continue it to be a four-unit building, that's the analysis that he goes into. But the question is, if you keep it a four-unit building, but you expand the square footage, that's a material change that I think demands a finding. And it's the findings that are missing that make it a non-complying building.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so, so, Attorney Cohen, the reason why I was asking those clarifying questions to Commissioner 40 is so certainly some types of alterations do require findings. As far as I could tell, and I think Commissioner Forty did consult with the department, there's no record of permit refusal. So in cases where a finding is required, the permit would actually be refused. So in the absence of a permit refusal, unless there's some evidence that a permit should have been refused and was challenged within the statute, The board can't weigh in on a finding that purportedly should have been made on a permit that wasn't refused.
[SPEAKER_01]: So it seems to me what we need to do is the neighbors know of the various changes that were made to the building. I think we have to compare that and make sure that they got building permits for each of those changes, because the absence of a refusal for something that was done without a permit doesn't lead to the conclusion that you're speaking.
[SPEAKER_02]: Can I just interrupt for a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Attorney Grant, if you want to clarify, certainly.
[SPEAKER_02]: Well, I just want to reiterate something Commissioner Forde said with respect to the fire, that they went in there and if there was any sort of alarm or indication that there was something done that shouldn't have been, there would have been a violation issued because there was an inspection at the time of the fire. Am I interpreting that correctly?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I. I don't want to get too far down the route of speculating what would or wouldn't have happened, but I believe Commissioner Forty did state that typically after a fire, if the department were inspecting the damage and saw evidence of a non-complying unit, that they would do something about it. But in this case, I don't really think we have enough details to say. Definitely what I will say is the board as it understands the building commissioner and the the permit refusal is that this is a legally non-conforming structure, is not a non-complying structure, and therefore the board should do its analysis on the basis of it being a legally non-conforming structure. Attorney Cohen, was there anything else you wanted to add?
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, I would just ask, do you intend to vote today? Because I'd like to do some further examination of the building permit history.
[Mike Caldera]: So that will be subject to the vote of the board whether to do that. But as chair, I'm going to rule I don't see sufficient evidence to support the assertion that This is not a legally non conforming structure and thus I intend to proceed unless my colleagues stop me, it's the we've done due diligence I actually spent. substantial time before this meeting consulting records that typically as chair I would not even look at and that sounds like the building commissioner did something similar. I see multiple building permits going back 25 years. You know I certainly don't have a full accounting of everything that was done Commissioner pointed out some of the relevant statutes. So yeah, I don't think we have sufficient cause to continue this on the basis of the claim being made, because it's not enough evidence to support that assertion. We're seeing signs of building permits. We're not seeing signs of this being a non-complying structure.
[Unidentified]: OK, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Do we have other comments from members of the public? Sorry, I muted myself. I see Matthew Wadsworth. Please go ahead and name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, my name is Matthew Wadsworth. I live at 81 Canal Street. I have a question. I'm a little bit confused about the section 94-5.6, abandonment or non-use. So this says, this is very short, so it won't take me long. A non-conforming use or structure which has been abandoned or not used for a period of two years shall lose its protected status, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So I'm a little bit confused about this clause here or not used for a period of two years. I would presume I believe the intent here and I'm not a lawyer. I could be wrong. I believe the intent here is to force owners to repair structures in a timely manner. This structure has been sitting here. You know, I think people call it blight, right? It's been sitting here burnt out for three and a half years. The basement door is open. I see kids going in there. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): The half the roof is missing right so like the entire structure is riding from the inside out. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): Is my understanding of this section zoning code correct that it's intended to force repair within two years. Great, great question.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Wadsworth so the. This is an area where there's legal precedent to clarify what does and doesn't constitute abandonment and in general, commencement of building. within that two-year window is viewed by the courts as a signal that the use has not been abandoned. And so in this case, a demolition permit was pulled within the two-year window, and that's why the building commissioner does not consider this to be an abandonment of use.
[SPEAKER_04]: So the buzz or not used has no additional meaning here.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so it's, and this is something, as I was learning about zoning as well, I actually had a very similar question. It's, there is a legal precedent that defines what would and wouldn't constitute abandonment. And so, yeah, I think your plain language reading of the ordinance is, a reasonable interpretation when you layer on the legal precedent, which the board has to do. So the reason why the board goes through all this rigor is that, in general, we want to make sure that no party is wronged and that what we're doing is consistent with both the Medford ordinance and the state law. Laws have ambiguities that go to court in prior cases and get clarified by judges. And so in this case, abandonment, there is precedent in Massachusetts that clarifies what does and doesn't constitute it. And so here, because a permit was, because building commenced, essentially the demolition portion of the building commenced within two years, according to the Massachusetts precedent on the matter, that is considered an action that would not rise to the level of abandonment. So they did something to start the process of eventually repairing it within two years. Thus, the use is not abandoned, according to the Massachusetts courts and precedent. That's my read. Of course, the rest of the board is welcome to have their own interpretations, but I'm just trying to share those details to clarify.
[SPEAKER_04]: And what would the previous discussion was largely around a lack of evidence or lack of evidence that there's been a legal expansion of the structure. What would rise to that bar? What would be sufficient expansion to make it in a legal structure?
[Mike Caldera]: First of all, yeah, I'm going to call on Commissioner Forty who might help to clarify. So I just want to clarify, this doesn't have to do with the magnitude of the expansion. In general, there's a distinction between a non-conforming use and a non-complying use, a non-conforming structure, a non-complying structure. And then within the building code, there's also differences. And so the board would need Robert Parkhurst, Applicant Olympic Committee, Ph.D.: : sufficient evidence to support the assertion that the structure is actually non complying and determinations have been made by. Robert Parkhurst, Applicant Olympic Committee, Ph.D.: : The authority on this matter, the building Commissioner and then research has been done by multiple parties, there isn't enough evidence i'm seeing. to challenge that, although it would be fully within any member of the board's purview to motion to find and change the building commissioner's finding. So any member of the board could do that. I'm just clarifying for the sake of trying to steer this discussion that as chair, I'm not prepared to continue this hearing on the basis of the claim that it's non-compliant because there just simply isn't enough evidence to support that that's been presented to the board. So anyway, Commissioner Fordue, is there something you wanted to add?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, just to clarify real quick to this person's concerns. So would rise to the level of a noncompliant structure or or you know something that would create a violation would be a an expansion of the building without a permit. You know beyond its original walls would constitute a substantial violation and it would have to again have to be caught within within the 10 year period in the statute of limitations. And then the other thing would be in a substantial expansion of the use like adding another unit that would constitute otherwise something that would create or raise a red flag to a violation. And here we found no evidence of that.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, Mr. Rogers, hopefully that answered your question. Were there other questions?
[SPEAKER_04]: My only final thought is that I've only lived here three years and I've seen expansions of aspects of the structure. So I've seen exterior stairways come down and get expanded and actually further encroach on neighbor's properties, like actually over the property line. And I've seen exterior areas getting closed. That's why I was asking, you know, what rises to the bar of expansion and noncompliance?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so I see record of a demolition permit in that window of time and an electrical permit in that window of time. So, you know, if there was some other expansion, I guess it would be important to clarify, is it shown on these plans or not? If it's not on the plans, the board is approving the plans or denying the plans, whatever the board decides, but those govern the relief being sought. So in a hypothetical situation where John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His): Something non complying was added and it's not on these plans, then any relief the board granted would not. John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His.: : involve those so it do you see anything on the plans that was added in the last three years.
[SPEAKER_04]: I would have to dig, spend a little bit more time going through the plans in a very detailed manner to see if what is there. So is your question, do the plans reflect the current structure or what the structure was say like three years ago?
[Mike Caldera]: So I've been told by the building commissioner who has checked with the building department that this structure is legally non-conforming. And if it's actually non-complying, it would be helpful to have any clear evidence to support that assertion. Attorney Cohen made that assertion. I've done a lot of research. I've not heard anything to to validate that assertion. So in general, we can't stop a hearing because an assertion is made without evidence, because that's not fair to any applicant, right? Anyone can make any assertion about any project. So yeah, if there's something very concrete that the board could consider today that makes it clear that actually this structure is non-complying, that would be relevant. And, and furthermore, I just want to assure you that in the hypothetical scenario, the scenario you're worried about where, um, something has been extended and is non-complying. If it's not on these plans, the board's not considering it. It would, there would not be a building permit issue that allowed for that to continue. So, so yeah, really the plans are the governing documents. You know, certainly there's an opportunity if you're aware of something that is clearly on complying that's in the plans, like that would be super relevant to the board and the building commissioner, but I just haven't heard anything to that effect.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay. So I'm trying to test my understanding here. So if I have pictures of this structure that show that there was work done in the last few years. and there was no permit for that work. Would that satisfy what you're asking for? Because it sounds like it's whatever's in the plan. So if the plans show, include everything that was done potentially legally or not illegally, then it doesn't even matter.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, if you could prove that if you had like photographic evidence of something not in the plans, not in the assessor's database, with no record on the permits, that would be relevant to the board. But I'm just, I want to warn you, like any latitude to go down that avenue is going to be thin because we've already spent a lot of time on this and there's been plenty of opportunities to present that information. I believe you wrote a letter, Attorney Cohen wrote a letter, this came before the board before, You know, if this is something you can show me like us two pictures and two minutes and, you know, establish that it's non-compliant. I mean, we've spent a lot of time on this, so I'm just, yeah. Hopefully that clarifies your question. Like really trying to, in light of the concern, you know, which, which could affect the analysis, you know, I want to make sure. As a board, we're hearing everybody, we're considering all the evidence, but we really need to move on unless there's something really clearly missing. Jamie has his hand raised. Jamie, please go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Just a couple of follow-up questions for Mr. Wadsworth. Have there been any calls to the city board of health or building department to investigate any violations? Not that I'm aware of. That's all I have.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Jamie, so Mr. Wadsworth, if you have one last thing you want to say, please feel free. Otherwise, I'm going to move. It looks like there's another member of the public who wants to speak.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, yeah, I'm done. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, all right, I see a Ben Rifa with their hand raised. Please go ahead, please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes, hi, my name is, can you please lower your voice? Hi, my name is Ben Rifa, and I live at 74 Canal Street, and I've lived there 37 years. I would like an opportunity to see the permits that the applicant has placed. Because I am positive of what I'm talking about. I even know where the bricks are buried that was taken out from the basement and they built a new wall. This was in before 2002. So I would like to examine the the permits that was taken. Also, I have to say it now, there was a number of, when I was building my house, my file disappeared. A number of things from the files disappeared. So I would like to know, if it is possible for me to examine what you have. And I have pictures and I have, I can show you on the plan that was submitted to the city. This is a plan I commonwealth and Mary dated January 14th, 2004. And on the rear of the property, there is an area that was enclosed that is part of the new footprint, the new proposed footprint. So if I don't know legally, if that makes it, I don't know the legal language, if that makes it now an illegal existing non-conforming or not, I'm not a lawyer, but I can show you that the new footprint includes this area. And also, three years ago, that area was enclosed the same time as the applicant placed, rebuilt a staircase onto beyond my property line, beyond his property line, onto my property. I can also show you that the time that he did get a permit to build this staircase in the rear. It was when the permit was gotten, the old staircase run another way, but as usual, the staircase would change. The permits, what was on the permit and what happened was different. Also, there is another question. If the applicant says that there is no rear staircase, why on this plan that was On 507 23 only four months ago after the preview after the February. Presentation, why is that staircase showing on the proposed plan.
[Unidentified]: So these are my questions.
[SPEAKER_21]: I have documents. I know exactly where the front doors of unit 80 and 82. I can tell you exactly where the staircase that was removed is. And I can tell you where the bricks are buried within 15 feet of the river.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so you asked a few questions. I did attempt to partially help answer them. So in general, information about the building permits is... Am I being heard? Yeah, can you hear me?
[SPEAKER_21]: I'm sorry, I cannot hear you.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, okay. Can someone else on the board just confirm that that they can hear me? Okay. Since you can't hear me, I will attempt to type this in the chat. So please see the links. I shared the permits, our public record.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't know.
[Mike Caldera]: Also building code violations can be reported to the building department.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[Mike Caldera]: So I have attempted to answer those questions. Is there another member of the public who would like to speak? I do not see any. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, Mr. Chair, someone just entered. I just want to make sure it's not a resident who wanted to speak.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. Good call. Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this matter? We are currently discussing 80 Canal Street. still do not see anyone, so chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded.
[Unidentified]: So we'll take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike I. All right, we are now deliberating. One thing we didn't talk about that I just want to be explicit about with the board. So the relief being sought here is a special permit where the standard is essentially the same as a finding under section six of the 40 a mass general law. So I'm just going to pull up the specific section. All right, so Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a non-conforming structure in accordance with this section only if it determines that such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure. we can consider reconstructions, extensions, or structural changes, as well as structures that are altered to provide for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner to a substantially greater extent. Variance would only be required if a new non-conformity is created. According to the building commissioner, that does not kick in. This is also why we were checking about the number of stories earlier. Again, the standard is not substantially more detrimental than the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. With that being said, thoughts from the board. And just to reiterate what I said earlier, Mary, please feel free to chime in, even though you're not voting.
[Andre Leroux]: So I would like this to be a straightforward matter, since it was a fire with a four unit building that's being rebuilt. I'm concerned about some of the allegations that the neighbors have stated. This is not a property that would be permitted today in the city of Medford, given its location and dimensions. lack of parking and everything else. But that's, I understand that's not the question that we have. I am inclined, however, because of the seriousness of the allegations that have been said, to continue this for another month to allow the residents to make their case and present their evidence. And you know, that being said, I'm unclear if there is you know, merit to what they are saying, what the remedy is exactly, and, you know, what they're hoping for, because, you know, it seems like it would make sense to rebuild.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Andre, just from a procedural standpoint, if the building were in fact non-complying, any relief that we grant would be, well, there's a few things. I don't wanna, I'm not 100% sure what case it would fall into. So there's some circumstances where any relief we grant would be based on the building as it was before it became non-compliant. And then I think there's some conditions where a non-compliant structure would forfeit its previous legal non-conforming status. There's the added complication of the whole statute of limitations. So you're of course welcome to make any motion you see fit. One thing I will point out is that any decision the board renders, there is an appeal period. So it's not, if we did make a decision tonight, there's not a requirement that, or like it doesn't preclude someone from gathering that evidence and then challenging that decision. And the decision we'd be making is all premised on the notion that this is a legal non-conforming structure. So if the structure was in fact non-complying, that would render any relief we did or didn't provide invalid. So I just wanted to clarify that, but yes, one tactic that could help the board determine whether we should, whether we're able to grant this relief would be to continue and see if there's additional evidence that materializes. I just, there's a balance we have to strike, right? Like there has been ample opportunity to respond to this, especially considering this came before the board. six months ago, seven months ago, and we got letters back then. So how much time does it take to do the research? Anyway, with that being said, if you want to make a motion to continue, happy to entertain it. Just wanted to share my perspective.
[Unidentified]: I'm going to agree with Mike. I think right now we have, that's hearsay. I mean, I think that's not, we don't have, you know, nothing was reported. There's nothing that was given to us. Folks took the time to send notes and messages and we received those. So there's ample time again for all of that other stuff if it could have been gathered. But at this point we don't have that. Like, it doesn't even sound, you know, just because if enough people say it, does it true? Like, no, that's not. So I would stick with the timeline that we're currently on, because I feel like we've had plenty of time. Public notice was received and given. So I would just agree with Mike. I do want to ask just really quickly about, you know, the structure being new and there's concern of like the trash, right? Like where is that going? But it was previously, it was the information we have, the structure is going the exact same place it was. So clearly there was a place for it before, you know, when you think of like all the additional items that were brought up. I find that those answers have already been established and not, you know, that's, this is how the property exists. And, you know, it's for, if anything, this is less of a, less of a, you know, I say here it was 11th bedroom, right? And now it's eight. So it's actually, it's going to look better. So that's all I have to say about the property at this point. Thank you. Other comments from members of the board? So I absolutely appreciate Andre's point. I do agree that the allegations that have made do raise some concerning questions, but that is not our purview. That's why I brought up the question of the Board of Health, building department. Obviously these changes and concerns have been happening over the years and there's no reason to raise them. We are in a situation where a building that has suffered from a fire is going to be rebuilt within code with improvements to its current condition and obviously previous condition based on the concerns. What I would raise is that if there are concerns that they be raised to the appropriate folks to investigate and benign things going forward. But I feel like the improvements that will be made to the building, although to Andrew's point, this is not a building that will be permitted today, will be an improvement to the property within the scope of the existing lines and I would say to the neighbors to when you see a violation, report it. Thank you, Jamie. Other thoughts from the board? All right, I'm not seeing any. Yeah, I mean, clearly,
[Mike Caldera]: If there are unpermitted changes being made, encroachments on others' properties, especially, well, just really irrespective of the building, I do think like if, since the building's already non-conforming and more units than would be allowed by right, I think it would potentially be more extreme in this case. But the correct channel for airing those concerns is the building department. Anyone can report a violation at any time and the building department will investigate it. If there was more uncertainty we were receiving. So, you know, if there was just like an accidental oversight and the right people hadn't been consulted and checked with, or, you know, the board hadn't done its homework and signs were pointing to that, like, hey, maybe something was missed here. I think I'd be more amenable to a continuance, but here, the things we can directly verify, are consistent with the building commissioners finding that this is a legally nonconforming structure, which makes our analysis quite simple. It's, is that in this case, the extension to the gross area of the third floor and the reconfiguration of the number of bedrooms across the units, is that substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use? Even if it wasn't a fire damaged building, I think that would be a pretty tricky case to make that it's detrimental to the neighborhood, substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. But with it being a fire damaged building, Yeah, I think repairing this fixing the damage fixing the concerns of vacancy and, you know, people possibly entering it, you know, without owners permission and all this other stuff. Yeah, it's pretty clear to me that allowing this extension would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. If anything it would be better for the neighborhood. Yvette mentioned it's less bedrooms so potentially it would be a net reduction in occupants which seeing as this is a denser use than the area allows if anything would be a benefit to the neighborhood and certainly nobody wants a fire damaged building sitting around for years. So yeah, I just think there's other channels. If this is non-complying, talk to the building department. The board has to make its determination based on the evidence before us and the building commissioners ruling is that this is legally, non-conforming and I see no evidence that rises to the level where we as a board should challenge that. So yeah, I'm prepared to vote. I certainly think we meet the not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood standard. Yeah, that's all I really have to say on the matter. Anything else a member of the board would like to discuss? All right, chair awaits a motion.
[Unidentified]: I will motion to approve the special permit for 18 Canal Street. Do I have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette? Jim?
[Unidentified]: Aye. Andre? Abstain. Can you do that? I actually don't know procedurally if you can do that.
[Mike Caldera]: I mean, I guess that's kind of like, okay, we'll allow it unless someone lets me know I'm in the wrong here. Jamie? Aye. Mike I. So we have four I's and so the motion carries. So the special permit is granted. Congratulations. Please just Information about possible lack of building permits non-complying is worrisome. So we didn't see evidence to support that assertion, but, you know, make sure this is all on the up and up.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. We appreciate it. Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Good night.
[SPEAKER_02]: Good night.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, next matter on the agenda, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, just give me a minute. My computer went completely. So I had to restart a bunch of things. So I just need to call the agenda back up. Sure. 54 South Street applicant and owner Marsh builders LLC is petitioning for various in Chapter 94 city method zoning to construct an additional structure and add four dwelling units and existing single-family structure and apartment one zoning district allowed use with insufficient side yard setbacks. City of Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 6 table B table of dimensional requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: All right I see we have attorney Desmond for the applicant and I think we also have on Buck. Attorney Desmond did you want to
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening Chairman Caldera and board members Kathleen Desmond on behalf of the petitioner Marsh Builders LLC owner of 54 South Street Medford. With me this evening is Benjamin Minnix of Eagle Brook Engineering and Survey, the petitioner Ron Buck of Marsh Builders and Chris Mulhern of HM architects in Winchester, so I won't be trying to read architectural plans and show them to you. You're all lucky. The matter before you is a petition for a single variance permit in connection with the construction of a multiple dwelling class A building on subject property 54 South Street, which is located in the apartment one district. As indicated, it's an allowed use within the district. By way of background, subject property is a 16,000 951 square foot parcel of land on which a single family dwelling constructed in the early 1900s presently sits. The proposed project intends to preserve the existing structure that will house two units and construct an addition to the single family unit that will provide three additional units. Significantly, the addition as proposed meets all side yard, all dimensional aspects of the zoning code. The project is designed, let me show you the plot plan. As you can see from the plot plan, let me just get the survey. Is my screen shared?
[Mike Caldera]: Or, uh, it is now. So currently we're seeing an access starred files. Right.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Let me, um, let me pull the screen.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, just one clarifying question before we get deep into the presentation. So my recollection is that there was a petition surrounding this property before the board some number of months ago. The board made a finding that was basically changed one of the building commissioners Determinations about the relief required in particular, I believe it was the frontage. and that was withdrawn without prejudice. Looks like there's a new building permit refusal. Just wanted to check, has the building fundamentally changed or?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, so two of the units are stacked and we'll go through the architectural plans. But as you can see, the violation is right here. This bump out extends it's 14.7 feet from from the lot line. The requirement is 16.6. So the violation is 1.97. And that violation does not extend the entire property. In fact, it is only 4% of the existing side yard setback where that violation occurs, and only 8% of the building, which is 80 feet in length. The remainder of the existing structure complies with this new setback requirement required for multi-family dwelling. In order to meet the zoning requirements, we would have to demolish a portion of the structure in order to meet the side yard setback. nothing physically on the property is changing. As indicated previously and as indicated in materials, economic waste is determined to be the result of demolition and does, in fact, constitute a hardship. So that is what we're looking for, not to have to demolish any of the existing structure. As indicated previously, the proposed addition meets all of the dimensional requirements. And as we spoke last time, on the prior case, it's very difficult to meet the usable open space requirement because of the dimensional requirements of it having to be 15 by 15 and so many feet away from the building. But this particular addition does meet all of those with the exception of that side yard setback. I can have Chris Mullen take you through the plans, Mulhern take you through the plans, so you can understand what changes we've made with respect to the architectural plans and the structure of the building. Chris, do you want to do that? I can share.
[SPEAKER_20]: If you could just advance to the ground level plan. Sure. This is a good place to start. This is a site plan that shows the existing structure and the new addition at the bottom of the sheet. The way this new addition is organized is that there are stacked apartments to the rear and a townhouse to the front. So if we go to the next page to the... Is there a plan?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yeah, here we go.
[SPEAKER_20]: So here's the site plan. You can see the existing house at the top of the sheet. There's a new connector in the middle, narrow neck, and then down the sheet at the bottom, there are a total of three units. And as I mentioned a minute ago, the one at the front, unit four, is a townhome. where the living spaces are stacked on top of one another. At the rear, there are two two-story duplexes. The one that enters on the ground level has living space on the level below, which is- I can show that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So that would be the ground level, correct?
[SPEAKER_20]: Yeah. You need to back up, I think, a couple of sheets. One more, okay, so this is, nope, this one here. So unit five, the lower level of the unit has two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a laundry and a family room. If you go to the next page, SD3, please. This is the street level, if you will, of the building. It shows the upper portion of unit five, which consists of a kitchen, a dining area, a living area, and a third bedroom and bath. The front of this building, unit four, is a townhome. It has the main living spaces on this grade level. In the existing house, the front half of the house is a two-story unit, and the rear of the house is a second two-story unit. We're doing this by virtue of closing and opening in the demising wall where the stair is between the two units, converting what's presently a parlor in the front of the house into a kitchen and tucking the powder room underneath the staircase. And then at the back, unit two is also a duplex that has a kitchen, living space and a study and a powder room on this level. Moving up one floor in the new building in the front, you see the front, you see the, second level of unit four, the townhome, which has two bedrooms and a bath. And you see the first level of the second stacked unit, number three. Unit three is accessed by way of a stair in the connector and a front door at this level. This floor of unit three has the living space, the dining area and the kitchen, as well as one bedroom and a bath. In the existing building, You can see the bedroom levels of unit one, two bedrooms and a bath in the area that's in question. The unit one bath is subject to the request tonight. The unit two has a large living space, walk-in closet and a bath and a laundry. This is a present, a one bedroom duplex unit with a very large bedroom on this floor. And then up at the top of the building in the new work, If you go to the next slide, please. This is the second level of unit three in the new building, which has a principal bedroom towards the rear, a second bedroom in the middle, two baths and a laundry along the corridor. We also see the top level of unit four, which is a townhome, which consists of a principal bedroom and a bath and closeting. And then also the third bedroom of unit one in the existing house is shown and is at this level. So that's the way the plans work. If we go to the elevations next, you can see that the existing home is on the right with the screen porch in the foreground. The proposed addition is on the left with the connector link in the middle. The front facade of the addition has two planes where the living space on the ground level And one of the bedrooms is pulled forward to make a little more interest in the elevation. Next page, please. This is the long side. This is the left elevation of the building. You can see that there are doors to private garden spaces that units four and five have on the left side of the house. And then up top, we see the three dormers, which make the bathroom spaces on the upper level. Next slide, please. This is the rear elevation with the existing home. On the left, the area subject to the request tonight is on the far left where you see the projected angle bay. That's the portion that's in violation of the required setback. The right side of this is the new work. You can see a kitchen and bedroom windows on the ground level, and then living and bedroom windows on the second floor. And next slide. These are three little views, four little views, starting at the street on the top row. And view three is also a street view. And then view four is showing the building from the rear. And that's the story in a nutshell. The part that we need relief on is the angle bay at the top of the sheet on the existing building, the balance of the building that's drawn here complies with the dimensional requirements of the bylaw.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think it's also significant to note at this point that last time when we were before the board, the the structure was flush with the existing structure. The addition was flush with the existing structure. And the board had requested at that time that we consider to move the proposed addition further to the rear of the structure to give this more of an entrance look than would be if they were both flush with each other. And we have done that in this plan. I believe the proposed addition has been dropped back approximately 10 feet from where it had existed originally on the plans.
[SPEAKER_20]: That's correct. We slid the building back and reconfigured the parking as a result of that to get the required spaces, but have less impact on the street and more landscape space in front. Also less in the buffer, less built in the buffer.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, because this was the subject of an order of conditions as well. And we did go through the Conservation Commission and they granted approval of that. And we had provided the board previously with the landscape plan. And Ben Minnix is here as well. And he can kind of take us through the proposed landscape plan based on conversations and the determinations of conservation. So Ben, could you
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, please, Kathy, if you could.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Here I go. Is that right?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Can you hear me OK?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes. Is that the correct plan?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Great. That is the landscape plan. Thank you. So if you look at the new addition, kind of the center of the new addition, slightly down from there is a new proposed tree in that current location. There is an existing tree that we're proposing to remove along with two at the front and then one in the new vestibule. So those four trees are gonna be removed and then replaced with the trees that are shown on this proposed landscaping plan. Two in the middle towards the bottom of the sheet, and then three along the front, and excuse me, another shrub or tree right at the front of the new addition. Along with that, the order conditions requires so many square feet of ground cover, shrubs, native species in the front yard. And as was said, we've moved the building back approximately 10 feet. So that gives us more area to work with for a nice landscaping in the front. I think that answers that. Stormwater would be as proposed in the conservation permitting set.
[Mike Caldera]: I do have one clarifying question. So it looks like on the landscaping plan. There isn't a, last time there was some back and forth discussion during the public comment portion, whether it was a carriage house or a garage, but where that tree addition seems to be indicated at the top left corner, I don't see a carriage house on the landscape plan, but then I do see it on the plot plan. So I just wanted to double check.
[SPEAKER_20]: So this parking layout that you're looking at here is the previous iteration of the parking. The current site plan has the correct parking layout and has the carriage house properly shown in its current location. So Kathy, can you back up to that site plan? This one here. Yeah. Yeah.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Maybe zoom out so we can see the whole thing. And just to reiterate that landscaping plan, the reason it hasn't been updated is because that is the approved landscaping plan with the conservation commission. So that is why it remains that is a certain number of trees to be replaced and square footage of non-invasive species. But yes, this updated site layout plan shows the garage or carriage house remaining and no new tree in its location.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And so, um, in this new plan, so I don't know if you were already at the minimal number of trees requested by the conservation commission, but is would, um, having this carriage house there and the proposed new tree, not there. Like, does that somehow change your conservation commission approval or, or is there some modification that. that satisfies the Conservation Commission's expectation as well.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: So what's good about our new proposal is that the proposed addition is sliding further away from the resource area, like we said, approximately 10 feet. So the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission would be that 200-foot line that runs uh, top to bottom on this plan around the middle of the plan. Um, so the proposed tree on the left side and the carriage house are outside of that 200 foot resource area. Um, but I will defer to Dennis if there's something he thinks, um, we need to approach the commission with again, after this, um, this permitting process.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Dennis, can you weigh in on that?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. Hi, I'm Dennis from Google. I'm the clerk of the zoning board, but I'm also the city's environmental agent. So, I was, you know, staffing the concom when this came before us. So basically, as Ben sort of said, everything basically to the right of that line is within our jurisdiction. So that tree that was off by the carriage house, that sort of fell out of our purview. And with these plans, since the actual proposed is moving further away from the river, then what they're proposing doesn't need to come back for the concom because it's, it's actually increasing the amount of impervious space that's currently sort of there. So that's sort of if they were going the other way, or they were doing something that would actually, you know, increase the amount of pervious materials or something like that on there, then they might have to come back before us. Basically, you'd probably just see an amended order, it wouldn't have to, it wouldn't come back for us for a whole news. set, but given what they're doing and given where the plantings are going, you know, the three trees along the street and then the two additional ones along the property are sufficient for the conco. Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think also that, Dennis, if I remember correctly, we did indicate at the time that we were hoping to raise that garage, or that's what the chief had originally indicated he would have a preference for, but that, that, you know, if it was deemed to be historical, that, you know, that we, and we had talked to the chief prior to that as well, that, that, that we would be agreeable to leaving the carriage house in place. And I think we had that discussion at that time, or at least talked about it.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. I remember that as well. Other questions from members of the board?
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could show just by way of, I think I put it up here, what we're talking about in terms of the actual area. Hold on one second.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I don't want to lose everything.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I just want to show the actual picture of what we're talking about and where it is. So you have a sense of, in a photograph, what we're asking for.
[Maria D'Orsi]: And I somehow got out of where I was, so just one second.
[Unidentified]: I think share.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So this shows by picture the area that encroaches. And that is a portion of what we would have to partially demolish if, in fact, we were to meet the side yard setback requirement. The rest of it meets the requirement, but we would have to get rid of this entire piece, or at least seven feet, a foot and a half of it to bring it into compliance, which is economic waste. It adds character to the property itself. you know, demolition is a hardship, which is what we didn't want to do in this instance. We've tried very hard, and we tried from the outset to work to keep the property intact. And that was our goal from the very beginning. And we had conversations with the fire chief in an attempt to do that. And, and, you know, he worked with us on that purpose and you'll see in my worksheet there's a list of items that you know we agreed to do in terms of. appeasing his interest. And one of the most important things, and it runs towards the public good, certainly, is the intent to sprinkle that existing building, which is over 200 years old. Currently, it's not sprinkled. Under this provision, under this scenario, the entire project will be sprinkled so that property will be preserved, resistant to fire as much as it can be. And that was something that gave the chief some comfort level, certainly. And, you know, also clearing the brush on that side so that he can get the trucks through. And so, you know, in terms of what we're looking for and the relief, and it's very minimal and going through it, I can take you through what I prepared here. So what we're looking for in terms of relief is a side yard setback of 1.97 feet of the existing structure. The structure is approximately 80 feet in length. The violation extends only seven feet, 4% of the side yard, 8% of the length of the structure, and the violation is attributable to the shape and location of the structure on the lot. The hardship is a portion of the existing structure would need to be demolished to comply with the side yard setback, resulting in economic waste, and actually, any building of any size that sought to preserve, that you couldn't preserve that existing structure without a variance as to that side yard setback unless it was a single or two family use, which isn't a reasonable use given the fact that you have a 16,000, almost 17,000 square foot lot. And that's my next point, the petitioner would be unable to make reasonable use of the property, which is situated in the apartment district and contains approximately approximately 16,951 square feet. So that's the hardship and that's what it relates to, the structure. It's also a narrower lot and there are also, I know in the public comment, there have been suggestions that you could somehow subdivide the lot and then be able to work within that period. But as indicated, and I believe I gave the board the lamb case, there is conservation land in the front. So any other entrance exit drive for a subdivided property would have to traverse through that conservation land, which would also create a hardship. This preserves the existing structure. It adds on to it certainly, but history is not static. And it also keeps much of the impervious area in the front of the property. In terms of points as to zoning compliance and public good, we're preserving and sprinkling the original structure. We're preserving the carriage house. The proposed project is very modest in scope and is designed to complement the properties in the adjacent general residence district. I think, you know, on a 16,000 square foot lot, just based on the numbers and not the, you know, it's always a puzzle. So there are certain things you have to consider, but in terms of the numbers of units based on just straight zoning, you're looking at between, you know, a 10 to 14 unit building based on the size of the lot. and this is a five-unit building, two of which are in the existing structure, so you're only adding three units to what's existing. The proposed addition meets all the dimensional requirements, including the usable open space, landscape open space, height, story, and lot coverage requirements, and the proposed project provides additional housing units in close proximity to public transportation, of the bus, there are numerous bus stations within 0.2 miles and the subway service, the new subway service is 0.6 miles away from, a little over a half a mile away from the existing property. And the landscape preserves, plan preserves the trees and replaces those that are required to be removed. So, you know, that's what we're looking at here. We're very sensitive to the historical nature of the property. We always have been, but frankly, that's not, what's before the Zoning Board of Appeals. And, you know, the issue here is really de minimis relief. We're looking for seven feet on a side yard setback so that we don't have to demolish the existing structure.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So Attorney Desmond, to pull it back up, just a clarifying question. This building does appear in the MACRIS database as a historic building. I know demolition is not being proposed here as part of the project. Eyeballing it, it looks from the architectural plans like some efforts have been made to keep the materials consistent, but can you just speak a little bit in greater detail about the materials being used, the colors and so on, and the consistency of the proposed structure, both the existing historic structure and then the new portion?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, I can. I think Chris Malt Well, her and would be better served to do that.
[SPEAKER_20]: I'm back. Sorry about that. My computer decided to update in the middle of this. So this is an existing timber frame clabbered house with double hung windows. And our goal is to support that with the new work. So I think we'll be matching using somewhat more modern materials, but matching the look and feel of the existing exterior finish, existing window style, and the existing forms will be not replicated, but supported. Our new work will be supportive of the existing vocabulary of the historic building. Color wise, the yellow house, I think the yellow is lovely. And I think we can probably be able to stick with that for the new work as well. So I think the color palette that you see is what we'll have when we're all done.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, just to clarify, is the carriage house going to be used for parking?
[SPEAKER_20]: Yes, that's correct.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Is that two cars, one car? Two cars.
[Mike Caldera]: And actually, related to that, sorry to interject, Andre. So the zoning evaluation sheet says eight required, eight provided. This plan has six, so what's... what's being provided and what's the requirement?
[Kathleen Desmond]: So what was submitted? And I saw that this afternoon. What was submitted with the building application? And if I could share my screen, hold on just a minute, was the 6 based on the 0.8. And I can show you, just give me half a second. The evaluation that was submitted to originally with the package had the 1.22 feet and the 6, 2, and 6. In conversations with the building department, Commissioner Forte wanted the yard calculation shown. And when that side yard calculation was shown, It increased, and I didn't, I'm sorry, let me just open this up. It increased to 1.97 feet. I didn't realize that when I received that, that he hadn't, this was an older form, it was in February and the prior, and the other one was in April. the zoning evaluation too. So we had submitted to the building department the information with respect to parking on this. And we included the scheduled stops and the routes. And that's why we're not cited on that because we had applied for the six. What we're actually providing is 1.2. and the standard would be 1.5. But it was narrow on my part not to see that he had just changed the 1.97 on an earlier form and not on the one that was submitted to building. And I noticed that today when we put it together.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, since this has come up in some of the comments that letters we received, I'm just curious if you could review the trash collection areas and what the strategy is there.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. So I think I've managed to hold on one second.
[SPEAKER_20]: Yeah, I think I can while you're getting a site plan, I can at least describe what we're talking about. There's an area between the carriage house and the back fence, the back rear property line, which is fenced. And the notion is to use some rolling dumpsters in that little zone between the two buildings. So there'll be shielded from the street by way of the carriage house and shielded from the neighbors by way of the fencing on the rear and the right side property lines, which fencing would be upgraded to be more solid than it is now.
[Andre Leroux]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, David Ensign — He, Him, His PB, Harmon Zuckerman. He, Him, His PB, David Ensign — He, Him, His PB, Harmon Zuckerman. He, Him, His
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I'm sorry, I was doing well and then I dumped my.
[SPEAKER_20]: That's it right there.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, yeah. So the bins, there's an area here for bins and also, you know, we discussed over at this corner, there's also space if need be for trash pickup, trash storage.
[Unidentified]: There's also probably space in the garage, although I don't know that at this point. Okay, thank you. Other questions from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: So moved. Do I have a seconder?
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we'll do a roll call. Aye. Andre. Aye. Yvette. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim. Aye. Mike. Aye. All right. Public portion of the hearing is now open. The board did receive a number of letters from members of the public. I think Paul, certainly most were in opposition. summarizing them, I think the probably the most concerns were surrounding the potential traffic impact of additional residents, and then possibly changing, quote, essentially an extension and a change to a building that's historic or in Macris. And there were some references to the historic district commission's plans to create a historic district. As far as I'm aware, that doesn't yet exist, but we did receive comments around those themes. And so those are all going to be part of the public record. If there is a member of the public who would like to weigh in, feel free to use the raise hand button on Zoom, raise your hand while on camera, type in the chat or email dennismcdougall at medford-ma.gov.
[Unidentified]: I do not.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: I see a Steve raising their hand.
[Unidentified]: Steve, please go ahead and name and address for the record. You're on mute. I'm going to try to unmute you. All right, please go ahead and name and address for the record.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, Steve, we still can't hear you for some reason. It looks like you're unmuted.
[Unidentified]: It may not be picking up the microphone.
[Denis MacDougall]: If you want, you can just put your question in the chat.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, you're certainly welcome to put it in the chat if you can't get it resolved. We'll give you a minute or two to try to get it sorted.
[Unidentified]: Right, it looks like Steve's typing, so we'll wait for Steve to finish typing. You wanted to try the microphone again. It's the arrow to the right of the microphone. You click on that, and then pops up a menu, and you can select your microphone at the very top. Thanks for that. Looks like they might be trying that.
[Andre Leroux]: Or if easier, maybe they could just call Dennis at the office and.
[Unidentified]: Through that, that would work too. Oh, there we go, we got something in chat.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I'm going to read that out loud. Steve, if you could just also type your name and address for the record, I can read that out loud too. But while we're waiting for that. So Steve would like to go back to the landscaping and get some clarification about the trees that will remain as part of this proposal. Thank you, Steve Campbell, 52B Metcalfe Street. Yeah, and I, there was, I believe there was one comment letter that mentioned some old trees and concerns about the possible removal of those, so. All right, yeah, so I don't know if this is Ben Minnix or Attorney Desmond, but if you could walk us through the trees and what's, especially the existing trees, which ones are staying, which ones are being removed.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Ben, could you?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, Kathy, do you have the site plan, proposed site layout from, this is August 3rd, 2022. It's the conservation set. I can put my screen on if it's easier.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Isn't, is that the plan?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: No, if you don't mind, I'll share my screen.
[Unidentified]: Absolutely. Okay, please confirm you can see that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we can.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. So this is the permit site plan that was approved with the Conservation Commission. And these dark Xs are trees that are going to be removed. So there's one here, which I tried to describe earlier, one in the middle where the deck is going to be placed, one up front. So these two here were required to be removed by the fire department in order to get the fire truck in here if they needed to access the back. These two are actually, there's actually a shrub misidentified. And then these are just two small pine trees. But the biggest ones of concern with 1, 2, 3, and 4. This one's technically outside of Conservation Commission. But I know some of the abutters were concerned about trees along this property line here. We're not proposing to remove this one up front. These two back here, we're not proposing to remove. This parking lot layout, is the old one, so the parking actually ends right here. So these parking spaces are not going to abut these existing trees. And hopefully that answers the question.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, thank you, Ben.
[Andre Leroux]: Actually, just one follow up on that. I'm wondering if the trees that are being planted, could you just say what kinds of trees those are? Are those trees that could in time become large, mature trees?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, so these would have to be approved with the tree warden. But if I can pull up that landscaping plan again. So three columnar trees. Let's see if I forget the trees. OK. Western redcedar. was what was specified here, and I forget exactly what was on the erotic conditions, if that was specified, but... And actually, just to jump in, Ben, there were some other trees up to the upper left too, some native ones as well.
[Denis MacDougall]: Basically, we provide like a variety of trees to choose from so we get some diversity.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Right. And I think that was because sometimes these aren't always available at the time. So there were some options that I think Dennis, you're actually going to be the one we would call it the time of construction to get confirmation. Exactly.
[Denis MacDougall]: And that's what I was going to jump in. Like basically at the time, you know, a list is provided to me and the tree warden, the tree warden actually usually this is the sort of information that comes from her saying these are trees that thrive in the area that we, you know, would be good on the street there. And then when they're ready to go, they let me know.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: And typically it's a red maple if it can fit in the spot because of the close proximity between the trees in the front. The columnar type tree was proposed so it could fit more than, you know, a wide red maple.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: Actually, can I just, sorry, can I just jump in for a sec?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, sure.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, just sort of seeing this. I'm putting my other hat on because. Basically, there was a tree that was going to get removed from, like, the middle of the front of the lawn. But now that the buildings move back. But basically, it's, you know, there's the list of 3 new trees and then the 1 to the left. Just to the right right in the right hand side of the building.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, it's like right there.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, right around there. Yep, exactly. So there was a tree at the corner there that was going to have to get removed because the building was going there. But now that the building is pushed back, I don't know, it might be something to look into to see if that tree can stay.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so the building was pushed back about 10 feet. So you're looking at about right here. So the branches would be hitting.
[Denis MacDougall]: OK, I see what you mean. Yep, got it. All right.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: If I can get to there real fast. It's this one here.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay. It's that one there. Okay.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: So it would exist. Okay. It would, it would survive immediately, but it wouldn't last long in my opinion.
[Denis MacDougall]: Eventually it would cause havoc. Okay. Got it. Nevermind. I just, why, why I had you on the call, I figured I might as well jump in.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. And I guess the other question that I had on that is, um, The one that's, let's see, is that east or west? The one by the fence and the new property that's a very large tree, a nice mature tree. Yeah, that one right there. Does that one have to go?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: That one is a nice mature tree, but it is going to be close to the structure. I have a better picture of that one. It's that one right there. So down at the base, it's not too bad for foundation construction. You will hit those roots, which isn't a good thing. And then the top is going to be close to the roof. So that's the reason that one's proposed to come down. OK. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So I know Steve Campbell was having some issues with audio. We're going to move on, but if I see something in chat from Steve as a follow-up comment, I'll read that out loud. Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this matter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see a raised hand from Sarah Burnt. Please go ahead and state your name and address for the record. So Sarah, it does look like you're unmuted, but we don't hear you yet.
[SPEAKER_24]: How about now?
[Adam Hurtubise]: There we go.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yep. So Sarah Barrett, 25 Sharon Street in Midford. Can you clarify the parking situation? I know that there were some changes to it.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my understanding and we can go back to Attorney Desmond if we need additional details is that this property is within the required distance for high-frequency transit to have a lesser parking requirement. And so the proposed plans here include six parking spaces, four uncovered spaces towards the rear of the building, and then two spaces in the existing carriage house for a total of six spaces, which is, I think it's more than the required number.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So the number of spaces, oh, I'm sorry. The number of spaces is what, if you do it by percentages, the ordinance allows 0.8 and this is at 1.2. So there's one space for each unit and then there's an additional space. So, you know, the ordinance, if you weren't in that high frequency zone would be 1.5. The allowable is 0.8, and we're at 1.2, closer to the 1.5 than the 0.8, certainly.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, so just to reiterate, six spaces, no parking relief being sought, four uncovered spaces right next to each other, and then two spaces in the carriage.
[SPEAKER_24]: And they all enter from the right of the property driveway?
[Unidentified]: That is correct, yes.
[SPEAKER_24]: Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Oh, so Steve did way back in Steve Campbell, would you be that my cap Street, stating that they're just hoping that the two trees at the far back will be saved, not just attempted, so I didn't see trees being removed at the far back so. I just want to check back in with Ben Minnick. So are there trees being removed at the far back?
[Adam Hurtubise]: You're on mute.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: At this time, we have no reason that they should be removed. You know, if one of the trees dies or you know, if they come across significant roots that are going towards the foundation, they're going to have to cut the roots to put in the foundation. So that could hurt the tree. So there are some unknowns. But fortunately, the proposed parking lot is farther away from the trees than originally expected. So that's why the notation is as it is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, thank you for clarifying. Do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter?
[Unidentified]: Great.
[Mike Caldera]: Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I move. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Unidentified]: I think pushing the building back improved significantly everything, including the landscaping. And that small bump out does add character to the original building. They would maintain that. So it's a pretty, that two feet, less than two feet is pretty tremendous. All right, thank you. Other thoughts from the board?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I agree. I mean, and, you know, I just, again, want to acknowledge the neighbors concerns in that it's a lovely property. It would be wonderful if it wasn't changed. PB, David Ensign --"but our zoning does allow significant development here, and I think this is the best outcome in that It's preserving the historic part of the structure. It's not putting in an apartment building here. I want to give some kudos to the design team for working with the input that this board gave previously and for doing the best they could to incorporate that feedback. Thank you for doing that. And as Yvette mentioned, I think it's minimal what we have to approve here. And I think it just doesn't make sense. It's a total hardship to slice off a piece of the historic building.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Andre. Other thoughts from the board? Jamie shook his head no, Jim.
[Unidentified]: Arian, you'd like to add?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah. I tend to agree with Andre on this. So the actual relief being sought here is de minimis. Existing structure has a side yard setback violation. the unique aspect, it actually doesn't even have to be the lot itself, it's the position of the structure on that lot. So it'd be a hardship to require demolishing part of a historic building just to comply with the side yard. And when we talk about You know, I do think we as a board can be mindful of the historic nature of buildings and consider, you know, even if the particular plan doesn't trigger. review or for a demo delay or preferably preserved or anything like that from the historic commission. You know, certainly we as a board don't want to see historic buildings just getting destroyed. And here it does seem like the applicant has made some really noticeable efforts to keep the existing building, which they wouldn't necessarily be required to do, and then B, to extend it in a way that's consistent with the historic character of the existing building. So yeah, I tend to agree with Andre in terms of what's allowed under Medford ordinance and what's in our board's purview. essentially the best possible outcome for a property like this. It is an apartment one district. The relief being sought, quite small. The design choices are tasteful. So I think it's unique. We have the uniqueness based on the position of the structure. The hardship would be the requirement to demolish part of a historic building. the no substantial detriment. Most of this can be done by right and they are making some design choices consistent with the historic nature of the building and being thoughtful both about the proximity to the river as well as trying to preserve as many trees as they can. That's my take. Any other items the board would like to discuss?
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, there's nothing else. Chair awaits a motion.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead, Jamie. Motion to approve the variance for 54 South Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie? You're on mute, but I saw you say aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, so the variance is granted. Congratulations, you have your project. And yeah, echoing Andre's earlier sentiments, I do certainly appreciate your listening to the board's earlier feedback and reflecting some of that in these plans. All right.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much, and I'll prepare a draft decision, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: Great.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thanks, Attorney Desmond.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, everyone. Go ahead. All right, I think that was the last case on the agenda. So let's just get through the remaining agenda items. So Dennis, could you, so the next one is administrative updates. Are there any updates from the administration?
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing for me, I'm not sure about Alicia, but
[Adam Hurtubise]: We may have, I think it's been one of the rare cases. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: So, you know, we, okay. Cool. All right. And then approval of meeting by bill. Thanks for hanging in there with us.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you again.
[Mike Caldera]: Let's appreciate any meeting minutes. Thank you everyone. Yep. So Dennis, were there any meeting minutes we need to?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I just forgot to send them to you. I'll send them to you for, I'll send both for next meeting. And so you'll have them to approve on the next one.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Well, in that case, we're through our agenda. So the chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to adjourn. Second.
[Denis MacDougall]: And, you know, I'd like to tell Mary that our meetings usually don't go this long but we're adjourned and can stop.