[Mike Caldera]: Hello, and welcome to this regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call, and then we'll get started. Jamie Thompson? Present. Jim Turani? Present. Yvette Velez?
[Unidentified]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue is absent and Mike Caldera present. So we have five members of the board present. For some of the matters on the agenda that haven't heard testimony yet, I will be appointing Mary as a voting member. We have one matter where there was a prior presentation, and so for that one, we'll just have four. But in all cases, we have quorum, so we can get started. So, Dennis, could you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill which, among other things, extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting lot to March 31st, 2025. Typically this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at the meeting location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thanks, Dennis. And so my understanding is we'll be taking a couple matters out of order. And so the first one, I believe Salem Street requested a continuance, so could you please read that one?
[Denis MacDougall]: 290 Salem Street, case number A-2023-14, continuing from October 26th. Applicant and owner, 290 Salem Street, LLC, is petitioning for a variance on Chapter 94, City Method Zoning, to construct a seven-unit residential structure with commercial space in the Apartment One Zoning District, loud use. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance.
[Mike Caldera]: I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance.
[Mike Caldera]: I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance. I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: I think at this point, if we could continue for two months, I'm in the process of coordinating with Director Hunt and Danielle Evans in the planning department. This was an application that was submitted without a pre-application meeting. And following submission, there were just some questions about the application. So we're working through to try to make it a little more clear what the applicant's long-term plan is. And because we understand we're going to have to receive site plan approval we figure it'd probably be best to get before the community development board first followed by the zoning board thereafter all right um thank you for that information so um the
[Mike Caldera]: Zoning Board's next regular meeting is on, I believe it's on Thursday, November 30th. And so as of right now, the following regular meeting would be Thursday, December 28th. I know that's a weekend that a lot of folks take off for personal reasons. And so historically we've elected to move that back by a week. So why don't I just quickly check in with the board. Folks, what are your preferences for our December meeting? Should we be holding that on the typical date, which would be December 28th, or should we move it to January 4th?
[Unidentified]: I have no preference.
[Yvette Velez]: I would be inclined to do January 4th.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I typically travel through the New Year. I'll be traveling as well. The 4th would work better for me as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, Yvette, I'm not confident I heard you correctly. So the 4th does or doesn't work for you?
[Yvette Velez]: The 4th would be better.
[Mike Caldera]: Would be better, okay. Mary, what about you?
[Mary Lee]: December 28th will work better for me.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and then I don't know what Andre's preference is. So, okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, Mike, we could just continue it to the November 30th meeting and then at that meeting. We might have a better idea for the next 1.
[Mike Caldera]: That's fine, we can do that. Okay, sounds good. And Attorney Barone, if you prefer, you could coordinate with Dennis offline. You don't have to show up to that meeting. Once we have better clarity on the intended date for the December meeting, Dennis can let you know and you can just confirm one way or the other if you still want to continue and then we'll just take that action at the next meeting. Does that sound good?
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: That sounds great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so in that case, chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the next regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. That's the meeting on Thursday, November 30th at 6.30 p.m. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're gonna take a roll call. Mary? Aye. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so the matter is continued to November 30th. I believe we will also, we've also been asked to take 590 Boston Avenue out of order, so Dennis, could you please read that one?
[Denis MacDougall]: 590 Boston Avenue, case number A-2020-07 amended, continued from October 26th. Applicant and owner are requesting a modification for the relief granted by the zoning board of appeals recorded by the city clerk on July 30th, 2021, as an extension granted by the zoning board on January 5th, 2023. Modifications will result in the lot area of the project now seeking an additional 3,000 square feet of relief. Additional modifications will either decrease noncompliance or have no effect on the relief granted under the decision.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. I believe Attorney Barone is the representative for the applicant on that one as well. Is that right? Attorney Barone?
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Actually, my colleague, Adam Bernosky, will be handling this one.
[Adam Barnosky]: All right. Sounds good. Attorney Bernosky. Thanks, Mike. Good evening, Chairman Caldera, members of the board. My name is Adam Barnosky. I'm at the platform of Roberto Israel and Weiner, 255 State Street in Boston. I'm here on behalf of Anteleto Brothers, Inc., the property owner and proposed developer. With me today is Joe Anteleto, the petitioner. Peter Quinn, the project architect, and my co-counsel, Michael Barone. As the board might recall, I recognize that this project has been going on for a while, and there are some members of the board that may be more familiar with it than others. But this project involves a proposed mixed-use five-story building on the southeasterly corner of Boston Avenue and Harvard Street at 590 Boston Ave. The applicant in this project previously appeared before this board in 2020 and then in 2021 and obtained relief including use of dimensional variances in case number A2020-7. We are here this evening, as Dennis mentioned, to request modifications to the project, which are based in part on recent revisions to the zoning code, as well as updates that align the project more with the economic conditions which have occurred since the original approvals. As I'll detail in a moment, with the exception of two setback modifications, the requested revisions reduce the noncompliance, increase existing compliance, or negate the need for the previously granted approvals. The updated project, as revised, received unanimous approval of the Community Development Board at its October 4th meeting. So first, a quick background on the property. It currently operates as a gas and car wash on the corner of Boston Avenue and Harvard Street. It is owned and operated by Joe Anoletto and has been run by his family for over 60 years. The premises is situated on a rectangular lot in the industrial zoning district just north of GLX Ball Square station and across the street from Tufts. It is subject to an easement for the benefit of the MBTA along the GLX line and another easement for the benefit of Medford along Harvard Street. The architect, we're going to have Peter run through the plans in a moment. But first, I just wanted to talk about the notable practical changes to the project. We did include a table relative to these changes that the board can look at. But overall, we are going to be decreasing the total gross floor area to 41,306. That's a net decrease of about 5,000 square feet. There will be a reduced lot coverage to 41.5%, which is a reduction of 5.5%. Reduced height, we're going down three feet. The new proposed buildings will be 58.4 feet. There will be an increase to the retail space. Although it's de minimis, we're adding an additional 121 square feet there. increase residential units from 40 to 45. That's an increase of five. There will be a second residential amenity space. We are reducing the parking to 34 spaces. This is a net reduction of six, but it is now still compliant with the new ordinances. There will be an increase to bike spaces to 46. and of particular note is that parking is now at grade. Parking was previously below grade. This allowed for the removal of a retaining wall on the southeasterly lot line, and it allows for a reconfiguration of the entrance aisle. There is a 25-foot wide curb cut, and it now permits two-way traffic. So, as I mentioned, this is mostly going to decrease noncompliance, increase compliance, and negate the requirement for some relief. There are two facets that require new relief from this board, which is what I'm assuming would be of most interest. One is the side yard, which was requested in 2019, but it was omitted from the board's decision. It was granted by the board, but again, it wasn't in the written decision. So now there is actually a reduction in the scope of that side yard variance. We only need a 1.2 foot variance in the side yard. And the second is the parking setback, which was compliant in 2019. It was compliant where 14 feet were required. I'm sorry, it was 14 feet where six were required. And now we do need a six foot variance. So we can look at the plans and we can run through that in a moment. that we're going to have to deal with. So with that, I'll provide some to the extent the board would like to rehear some of the elements on the legal end for why this relief is both needed and complies with the requirements for variance. I can get to that in a moment. For now, I would like to pass it along to Peter Quinn to run
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, for the record, my name is Peter Quinn of Peter Quinn Architects in 259 Elm Street, Somerville. If I could share my screen, I'll take you through the drawings quickly. Okay, looks like I can do that. Here we go. If somebody could just say when they can see it, then I'm good to go. Yes, we can see it. Great. Thank you. So as you can see in this plan here, if you look at it briefly, we have basically a wraparound driveway with parking spaces arranged like piano keys off of that. In the previous scheme, we actually had turned this side into a ramp, and then you went into an underground basement. And of course, that was a huge cost. In addition to that, we ran into some technical problems with the water table on the site that made it prohibitively expensive to do. So coincidentally, the city had changed its regulations on parking, which opened up this possibility of having on-way parking as we are now proposing. basically this is a building without a basement and it is built in such a way that all the utilities and everything is on the ground floor and we have a retail space at the corner as we did originally. It's approximately the same size as before. We have living rooms and the like and mail rooms for the for the residents, a bike room that's all sheltered, as mentioned, and a nice unit on the ground floor with its own outdoor patio. We've been able to increase the amount of landscape in the front by not having elevated plinths that had the garage underneath it. So we're able to get more robust plantings in the front as well. Just to give you an idea of what this looks like, This was, this is the rear view, and I show that comparison to what we had before. You can see here, before we were down below the building in quite a complex technical, with a T right next to it. And now it's primarily, it's all above, all at grade, essentially. In the front of the building, This was the proposed view. I think I could say that we made this facade a little more interesting with a nice brick base, and then balconies and the like arranged in the pattern on the building. The previous design was a little more random. But in the end, the new design, I think, actually holds together a little better, and we got a very good reception on this from the community development as well. A few other things to note about this rearrangement is that we have a brick wall in the front here, which contains the transformer. We also have a handicapped accessible ramp in the front here that allows people to get into the building without having to use the lift that we previously had, so that it creates a nice and accessible entry. We also are able to get most of the units with balconies. So they all have some outdoor space, very nice feature. And we'll see a lot of things. Yeah, so there's some aerial views that we'll take you through as well. This is a view going down Boston Ave from the north. You'll see how that retail space commands the corner and then go in. area. So we've added locations for solar panels, mechanical equipment, and we do have an enclosed deck up here, which is allowed up to a certain limit by building code, and that is to exit. So it's completely, you know, sheltered and shielded from any residents nearby, but it is a nice feature to offer to the residents in the area. There's a view down to that parking area that I mentioned a minute ago as well. In the floor plans, we've simplified the plans quite a bit so that they essentially just lay out along the hallway with units front and rear. We're able to carry this design right up through all four floors, which is quite a bit of a savings for the project, which means As I mentioned, on the roof plan, you have this roof deck up here. It is somewhat toward the back, and it does have a safety feature of being able to get to two stairways. I think that's about it. I'm happy to take any questions. I do want to mention that I had to meet with the fire chief And he and I went over in some detail his clearances that he required to get around the building to the rear. It was a very productive meeting. And it turns out that I had to raise the building approximately one foot six inches. But it's still within, it's still less than what the variance that was granted to the building height. So it's, I think it's 60, 60.2. I think it's a small change, but I'm still within that height that was granted in the original variance. So I just express that for the record.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Mr. Quinn. So because this is a major project but it's the the request here is not for a new variance it's to amend an existing variance and as attorney barnowski mentioned uh the the board members currently seated have varying familiarity with this project my thought is um We will go to board questions on the architectural plans, but I think it may actually be helpful before we do that for Attorney Barnowski to just give a brief synopsis of the legal argument that led to the board ultimately granting the variance, the original variance. this time, because that will help us then as a board to assess if the elements of the project that changed somehow changed that analysis in any way. So before we get into full-fledged questions, I don't want to treat this like we would a brand new case. I think that would just be helpful context for some of our newer members of the board. Does that work for you, Attorney Bernowski?
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, thank you. Yes, so as I mentioned before, the board previously found that the project met the required statutory criteria for both dimensional and use variances under 40A section 10. So those, the reasons and all the elements under 40A section 10 are uh provided for in in great detail in that decision but in uh in summary we talked a lot about you know this first prong relating to soil condition shape or topography this is a unique uh it's a unique parcel within the industrial zoning district It is subject to several municipal and public agency easements. It's bound by public roads on two sides, Boston Avenue, Harvard Street, and then the MBTA commuter line rail. And then in addition to the easements, it creates a difficult lot to build on. The easements restrict the layout and the placement of the proposed buildings and parking. And what it essentially does is kind of requires everything to build up as opposed to out. So to be in compliance really would be challenging. And that was a big part of the discussion we had back in 2020 and 21 relative to the setbacks and what could really be built on there. I think at the time we said it would be very difficult to build anything functionally that would comply with all the setbacks and also be in compliance with the easements and not interfere with some of the more challenging aspects of the site. So this is unique to the zoning district. There's no other lots that we were able to establish in the zoning district that face this configuration and that the literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship. Again, the railroad corridor and easements intensify the setback issues and they further constrain the possible layout of any development property. The surrounding neighborhood has transformed from industrial to the mix of residential commercial uses along the industrial corridor and enforcement of the industrial zoning district use would prohibit a development just like this. And that was a huge discussion we had relative to the use variance in 2020 and 2021. Now, the use here is not changing, so I wouldn't anticipate that that component would be a piece of the board's decision today. And finally, that relief could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or nullification or substantial derogation to the ordinance because this is an existing project. and where it's already met these threshold requirements. We don't think that what we're seeking now is going to derogate from the intent of the bylaw or of the 2021 decision. The requested modifications in many ways are in greater compliance than the original relief that was granted. And this, again, does come before the board with the unanimous support of the Community Development Board. So that's essentially where we're looking at the legal argument. We're happy to answer any questions the board may have or dig into any of those components in more detail.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Bernanke. Yeah, I'm inclined to agree that since the use hasn't changed, that's not something we should be reviewing as a board today. board members having heard that explanation of the prior rationale for granting the variance and having seen the presentation from Mr. Quinn, what questions do you have either for Attorney Bernowski or Peter Quinn? OK, well, while folks are thinking of their questions, I do just want to clarify a few details. So I think this is mostly for Attorney Barnowski, but it's going to indirectly reference the plans themselves. The board has received a letter. It's in the public record from the Medford Community Development Board, which as mentioned, did unanimously approve the site plan subject to some conditions. They have recommended to the board that the relief be granted subject to the proponent complying with department head recommendation memos from the fire chief, the director of diversity, equity, and inclusion, the city engineer, and the director of traffic and transportation. prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, for the applicant to purchase and install a countdown pedestrian signal for the intersection of Boston Avenue and Harvard Street, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the applicant to contact planning staff to begin the EOHLC local initiative program application process for the inclusion of the six affordable units that are part of this project on the subsidized housing inventory, and just asserting that the project is subject to development linkage fees. So my clarifying question mainly relates to that first portion. So we've had a chance to review the department head recommendation memos, from the Fire Chief, the Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and the City Engineer, and the Director of Traffic and Transportation. I just wanted to check in with you. Are the recommendations that these department heads have made, are these things that you are amenable to complying with, or are there particular items that are part of these recommendations that for whatever reason you're not, you don't want to follow those recommendations for whatever reason.
[Adam Barnosky]: There are no recommendations that were made by the various departments that there were objections to. I guess I will also ask the same from a design standpoint of Peter Quinn, although I believe we're all on the same page on this one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, this is Peter Quinn. As I said, I did meet with the fire chief and resolved what his concerns were. Although I can't speak for him, I did ask him to supplement his letter with a revision. I don't know if he did that or not. He's obviously a busy guy. But I have no issues with any of the department head letters that they now stand. We'll be able to comply with everything and it will not change the zoning I'm not sure if that's the case.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. you know, something in the stormwater control system or whatever that wouldn't show up in the drawing like this. Yeah. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: And then my last clarifying question on this thread. Um, so I did see there was discussion and a recommendation surrounding, um, an easement for the city of Medford on, uh, I believe it's on Boston Ave. And so whether that should be an easement or whether there's an opportunity to make a donation to the public right of way, what's the status on that?
[Adam Barnosky]: We think, Mr. Chair, that we're going to have to work through the best way to do that, but we think that an easement would make the most sense because what we anticipate is if we were to get the approvals here today and then subdivide the parcel later, it would likely trigger the need to I don't know that there would be an issue with conveying to modify the zoning in the event that that would happen. So I think that I don't know that there's much of a difference from the city's perspective, whether it's an easement or a zone, but we have to kind of work through the details on how that's all going to work. And we prefer not to have to come back before this board on further zoning relief related to that sliver.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So in that case, what I'm interpreting is that there's no objection to any of the community development board's recommendations except for that one recommendation, which maybe it's not an objection, but there is a concern about the technical feasibility of actually doing that. So the board should just keep that in mind as it considers those recommendations. Is that a fair assessment? That is fair, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Other questions from the board? All right, well, then I guess I'll ask two more clarifying questions. So as you mentioned, Attorney Bernowski, these changes have either a combination of these changes and the zoning itself changing has decreased a number of the variances that were originally granted for dimensions. And the two exceptions are the lot area per dwelling unit and then a new variance required for the parking setbacks. So could you or Mr. Quinn just kind of walk us through at a high level sort of what what about the changes is sort of driving those needs for additional dimensional relief in those two areas? Sure.
[Adam Barnosky]: And just for the clarification, it's the side yard setback and a parking setback. But I do think that Peter would be, if Peter could show you on the plans, that that would probably be the best way to illustrate it. Okay. Yeah, it sounds great. Thanks.
[Adam Hurtubise]: First, on the issue of lot area per unit, because we have increased the number of units, the ratio of the amount of lot area that is technically provided by each unit for each unit is decreased, but it makes it a little less non-conforming. However, we have exactly the same number of bedrooms as the previous scheme. So this is really just a matter of moving partitions around to make smaller, more efficient units, more appropriate for the market, actually. And we end up in the same place, actually, with less square footage. So it's just one of those numbers that pops out, but everything else gets more conforming. And then as far as the setbacks go, And I may need some help here from my associate Milton Yu, who put this zoning paper together. But I believe the setback issue relates to the proximity of the parking spaces to the building, such as at locations like this, and to the side yard setback. which I believe would be in the rear here, where there's a certain side yard requirement that is in the bylaw. Do I have that right?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: That's with regard to the setback from parking spaces to the building, that's correct. And then because we reorientated the parking such that it's double loaded carter, some of the setbacks, I've changed since the 2020 application.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: So, Peter, if you want, I can tackle the side yard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, please.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Sure. So we're the, we're the. Isle is the two way aisle coming in and again, sorry, Michael Barone with Roberto is Ron Weiner on the where the aisle is to the right of the building there. We originally had a retaining wall as a result of the parking being subterranean. So that retaining wall was only four tenths of a foot. excuse me, off of the lot line, having now removed that retaining wall because parking is at grade, we now have the structure at 20 feet off the lot line. Therefore, we're requesting a variance of 1.2 feet instead of the originally requested variance of 23.5 feet. So we greatly decreased that noncompliance. And again, the side yard there was a variance that was reflected in our initial application and part of the initial hearing. However, it apparently just never made it into the decision. But so we are referring to it as a quote new variance, but that was part of the plans that were approved back with the original set.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Other questions from the board?
[Unidentified]: My only question, and adding on to what you brought up with the letters that we received, does the engineering requirements considered acceptable as well? Yes. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Jamie. Other questions?
[Mike Caldera]: Hearing none, the chair awaits the motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: Motion to open the public portion of the hearing for 590 Boston Ave. Do I have a second? Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a roll call, Jamie. Aye. Jim? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. So if you're a member of the public who would like to speak on this matter, please feel free to raise your hand on Zoom, raise your hand on your camera. type something in the chat or email dennisdmcdougall at medford-ma.gov.
[Denis MacDougall]: And actually for Mr. Quinn, if we could just jump off the screen share, that way we can see everybody. Oh yeah, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, so we're just going to give it a minute to make sure that anyone who would like to speak on the matter has an opportunity to indicate as such. All right, I do not see any members of the public indicating they wish to speak on this matter. So chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. So moved. Second. Second. All right, we're going to take another roll call if that. I think she dropped again. Come back to her. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. I still don't see Yvette. Yvette is absent. I think she's having some technology issues. Mike? Aye. Right, so the public portion of the hearing is now closed. We are now deliberating. What do you think, folks? And by the way, I think I could just say it up front, but Mary, you are voting on this matter, so we haven't heard any testimony before today.
[Mary Lee]: I think that if it's just a modification of something that's been approved and what they are requesting is less than what was required. Am I correct? That was my understanding of this.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's right, Mary. So this was approved back in 2020, as I understand it. And the zoning has changed between then and now. But the net effect of this request is that most of the granted variances decrease, dimensional variances, decreased in magnitude relative to what was already approved. It appears that there was one variance that was discussed at the time, but that was just not in the decision surrounding parking setbacks, which is considered new, but it has lessened as well. And then the five dwelling units have been added As part of this redesign. And so the lot area per dwelling unit. Variance that was granted has intensified so. So, technically, no, it has not all decreased, but I think in most. Dimensions it has, so it's really just the. You know, I wasn't on the board at the time, but assuming that there's just an error of omission on the parking setbacks, everything got more conforming except for the lot area per dwelling unit.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Just want to clarify, I think the parking setbacks are new. The variance that changed was the side setback with the change in the driveway. with the retaining wall removal.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so I just want to double check that so that the board has it straight. So the parking setbacks are new or was that just omitted?
[Unidentified]: The parking setbacks are new because of the placement of the parking spaces with regards to the building.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, we have Danielle Evans from the planning department. Please go ahead.
[Danielle Evans]: Good evening, Danielle Evans, senior planner through the chair. Yes, my understanding is that the switch in the parking configuration from being subterranean to surface triggered a setback from the building that wasn't applicable before. So that was a new one. And then the right side setback For whatever reason, I also was not privy to the previous decision and why that was omitted from the decision, but they want that right side setback reaffirmed. And then it was the intensifying of the lot area per dwelling unit. And regarding the, since it hasn't been settled whether there'll be an easement or a land donation, I would recommend that perhaps The variance for that may be increased slightly to accommodate that, I think it was 50 square feet. I didn't analyze whether it would cause problems with setbacks, but as far as the lot of airbird dwelling unit, that would further bring it into noncompliance. So your decision could reflect that as a possibility, so they don't have to come back for that, but I leave that up to you all.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you, Ms. Evans. So I'd like to check in with the applicant on that. I don't believe we can grant a variance for more than was requested, so we would need a request to do something like that. So is, yeah, I just appreciate thoughts. My interpretation of the prior feedback was the applicant prefers the, easement approach. do we have attorney Bernowski to speak to that topic?
[Adam Barnosky]: I can speak to that. If we would have to, without any other discussion, if we would have to choose one today, I think the easement would make more sense to avoid the requirement to get further approvals. But I don't think that there's any objection on the part of the applicant to gifting the land. And if there's a way to do that and still have the project go forward without I don't know that we can say with certainty either way. but just know that the applicant is willing to work to be able to donate that for the benefit of the community in one way or the other, either by easement or conveyance.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I see Director Hunt had her hand raised. Yeah, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: So Mr. Chair, I just wanted to sort of chime in. I think what Danielle and I had discussed with this particular variance that had not previously been requested is that if you grant that variance, if they request it and you grant it tonight, then there is an option they would be legally able, like we wouldn't have, they wouldn't have to come back to this board in order to then gift that little piece of land. If you don't give it tonight, then it takes it off the table because they'd have to come back and do a whole nother filing and a whole nother advertisement. We didn't see it as saying that they had to decide tonight. We actually thought that if they requested this additional variance and the board granted it, then it was still on the table as an option. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything. I think it's an open question whether this board could actually require a gift of land. That seems pretty bad. No, but you could put the mechanisms in place to allow it, and if it was offered, you could be okay with that. We don't think we're asking the applicant to commit to that tonight. just to leave that option open.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Director. So just to make my ruling on this clear, so it is not within the board's power to, as a condition of approval, have an applicant donate land. It is within the board's power, if an applicant were to request it, to grant a variance in excess of what's currently on the plans to avoid revisiting the board in the event that a discussion led to that outcome. It's also within the board's power, although I fully acknowledge it leads to some administrative delays, to amend a variance with a visit in a circumstance such as that. So I can't make any assurances as to the outcome, of course, of that revisit, but that is my position on the board's powers here. Yeah, so I haven't heard a request from the applicant to do that. I'll just double check with you one more time, Attorney Bernowski, and then we'll just resume deliberating.
[Adam Barnosky]: So just so I understand, are you saying that if we request there be dimensional relief granted relative to the carve-out? Is that what we're talking about here? Yes. Yeah. And that's the proposal from the planning department. OK. And the only question I have is one, I don't know if the city's attorney is on the line here. Yeah, I'm just curious if that, the validity of that, if it hasn't been noticed or gone through those procedures. Yeah, I'd wanna make sure that that's a valid grant by the board, but there'd be no objection to that if that's gonna be additional relief that the board has granted that we can work within that without either committing to convey it or to go with easement. I have no objections to that. I would want sign off from the city's council that procedurally that all works, but no objections to it. So if you need me to make the request, we can, although dimensionally, I don't know exactly what we'd be requesting. So I think that that might be a challenge on the fly.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure, yeah. I tend to agree with your assessment there about the noticing requirements, but let's check in on, do we have a legal representative for the city on? Okay, I know you're not our legal representative, but we can check on that.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to say that the legal notice, I believe, just said a modification of the lot area variance that was granted previously, so it didn't specify numerically what it would be. But whatever, so it would be an additional, what, one foot? Or a little over a foot per unit increased. Lot area, but only unit variant increasing it by a foot per unit or something like that. Square foot I. I don't have my plans in front of me, but you just you take the lot size and then you divide it. Yeah, and then for the 45 units so that's.
[Mike Caldera]: I see, yeah, I see Mr. Quinn has his hand raised.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I did a quick calculation while we were all listening in here. It actually is about four square feet per unit distributed. So in other words, it's about 160 some odd square feet to make that triangle. And when you distribute that over 45 units, that's four square feet. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know Our existing variance is for 15,115 square feet. Our request for modification is 18,113 square feet. So I suppose if we know what that space would be, the figure would be the amount to be either deeded or granted an easement across added to that 18,113 square feet. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. This is a tricky one. I appreciate the creativity. I appreciate the collaboration. I'm not, I don't intend to create any procedural defects on my watch. Sometimes it happens, but not tonight. So I think we're just going to proceed with the, amendments as submitted, and then I certainly think we could encourage, as a condition, the applicant to talk with the city planning department about the possibility of doing this. And again, I can't make assurances as to outcomes for applicants that revisit the board, but I think the applicant can make an informed decision about what to do. I don't see a path to do this so that it doesn't risk a challenge that could just create a headache for the applicant. So we're just, I mean, if board members disagree with me, we can vote on it, but otherwise, we're just not gonna consider that tonight. All right. So we were deliberating. Mary had, I've ruled on it, Director Arendt, but please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: So so you should actually strike that item from owens letter so when you do your decision you should remove that item yeah understood yes the intention would be that um that we would uh
[Mike Caldera]: a member of the board could propose to impose conditions, but that would not be a valid condition. We would have to strike that condition.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just didn't want to make sure that you hadn't put that, missed that piece of it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right. Yeah, so I think we had answered Mary's question. Other thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: I think all the options are improvements. And the parking space setback doesn't have an impact to the community as a whole, just to the property itself. I don't see any issues with moving forward with it.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim, is that thoughts?
[Mary Lee]: I'm not sure if I'm still clear on the part about the extra four feet for each unit. Is that the part that we are not making this decision on? Or are we, I think I need some clarification. What we are making?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my understanding is that we are deciding whether to amend the prior variances that are granted. And so, in principle, the board could take a position on any of those variances that are changing, including ones that are decreasing. But I'm recommending we focus only on the changes that we think substantively would change the prior analysis, which would predominantly be ones that intensify. So, for the original decision granted a variance, as I understand it, for lot area. Now, because the new proposal has several additional units and the lot area is the same, that has intensified. And I think if you spread it over the five additional units or the five additional units over the area, it works out to about four per unit, I think. Or maybe that was actually in regards to the gift. I don't remember. The important thing is, five units were added to the same lot area and thus that lot area variance has intensified. That's the main thing.
[Mary Lee]: What about the part about that easement to the city? I may have missed things.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so there was a recommendation in the I think it may have been the city engineer's letter that in lieu of a proposed easement, so this is an easement where the applicant owns the land, but there's a portion of it that would be either accessible to the public or very close to the public right of way. The proposal that went before the Community Development Board was that the applicant would grant an easement to the city of Medford to basically enable the better use of that land. The city engineer proposed a creative alternative, which the city seems to prefer, to work out some land donation to the city. the public right of way, but I've ruled that procedurally that we can't do that due to how it was noticed. So that's still an option, but it would trigger a revisit to the board.
[Mary Lee]: So our vote and our decision tonight is not related to that specific.
[Mike Caldera]: It's not related to that, yeah. You're welcome to challenge my ruling, but that's the rule, yeah.
[Mary Lee]: I just make sure that, I'm in agreement with you that we should not touch that area tonight. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thank you. Jim, Yvette, what are your thoughts? You said something, Jim. Sorry. What was that?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: No, I'm good with it.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay.
[Yvette Velez]: I agree. I'm fine. No additional thoughts.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yeah. Based on the reminder we all received about the original justification, I think the The variances that I intensified, they don't fundamentally change the zoning analysis. The lot is still unusual with the existing easements and the proximity to the public transit and all the other complications. Furthermore, I agree with Jamie that the changes here, do generally improve the project. So I think this is a pretty straightforward one from my perspective as well. So I have no concerns and I think the proposed modification still meet the statutory criteria for the dimensional variances being requested.
[Unidentified]: everything we need. Do we want, I just want to qualify that the condition will be including all the comments submitted by the Community Development Board and the Department of Public Works while striking item one from the site and utility comments provided by the DEPW?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's a good point, Jamie. So we didn't specifically discuss the CD boards recommendation. So I've reviewed them in full and the applicant has no objections to them. And I personally have no objections to them. So I think it's advisable that we do impose the recommended conditions from the CD board, except for the one that will strike the one pertaining to the land donation, just because that's not within our purview. So, yeah. It's up to whoever proposes to vote, but I would recommend that we do make it subject to all the conditions in the cd board letter uh accepting the um the the request to to donate the land which is not that one was from the dpw that was from the the engineering division city and the engineering department yeah okay um so i'll make a motion to approve the variance for 590 boston ave uh with uh consideration for the
[Unidentified]: conditions from the Community Development Board and the Department of Public Works, striking the Engineering Division's site and utility comment number one from this submission.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette? Aye. Mary? Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. All right. So the variance has been unanimously amended. So thank you, folks, for your time. Please do talk to the city, see if you can work something out. But, yeah, I mean, I think the call-outs procedurally were on point. So, yeah, Ms. Evans, please go ahead.
[Danielle Evans]: For this project, you guys are the site plan review authority because you were the last time. So you also need to approve the amendment to the site plan.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I was unaware of that. So chair awaits a motion to approve the site plan as amended. So moved.
[Mary Lee]: I have a question. Does the amended site plan includes the part about the easement donation land to the city?
[Mike Caldera]: So the amended site plan, my understanding is it does not have the, it marks it as an easement, not as the city land. So it does not, yeah, okay. All right, so there is a motion that has been seconded. We're going to take another roll call vote. We'll just do it in the same order. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. Thank you, Ms. Evans. So you now have also an amended site plan. So now you should be good. All right. Thank you very much.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Much appreciated.
[Mike Caldera]: Have a good night. All right. And now we can revert back to the regular order of business. Dennis, can you please read off Riverside Ave?
[Denis MacDougall]: 436 Riverside Avenue, case number A-2022-19. Continued from October 26th. Applicant and owner Amarok LLC is petitioning for a variance from Chapter 94 City of Medford Zoning to construct a 10-foot high fence in an industrial zoning district, which in violation of the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance 6.3.3, which stipulates a fence with posts over 7 feet tall needs zoning approval.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. I see we have Ms. Lundy for the applicant. Ms. Lundy, we did receive your updated security plan, so thank you for that. Also, I think we kind of got stuck on the security plan before you had a full chance to make your presentation in the original hearing, so the floor is yours. Yeah, we'd love to get some details. Both on the site security plan as well as anything else you'd like to tell us about this proposed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, I'm happy to do that. And 1st, I do want to apologize about any misunderstandings that came forth in previous meetings and any miss. Information that we may have given you, I think I understood at the last meeting what it is you're looking for and I feel like we have provided that and hope you feel the same way. So, I'm going to go over this security plan that explains what we are and how we feel like we meet those. criteria that you put forth for me last week. And there was also a gentleman, I'm not sure which one, what his name was, but they gave me some specific, like about 10 specific questions that he wanted answers to. And I do believe this plan also includes those answers. So we'll go through that and see what questions you have afterwards.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think that gentleman was
[SPEAKER_00]: uh bill uh bill 40 so okay yeah that does sound like okay so i hope we've answered his questions as well as as yours So, let me just briefly talk about Penske. Penske, of course, is a nationwide company that has thousands of employees in multiple locations. They do use our system in many of these locations. The address that we're talking about this week is 436 Riverside Avenue. And I have provided their hours of operation in the security plan. Basically, it's your daytime hours till 8 o'clock at night. 4 o'clock on Saturday and 2 o'clock on Sunday. We do propose that this fence is only going to be operational during those working hours. I mean, during those non-working hours. So, in other words, when the business is open for the public, the fence will not be operational. It's just like an alarm system. You don't leave your alarm system on when you're at home. You turn it off when you come home, but you turn it on when you leave. So, it is just going to be operational during those non-business hours. And then I also gave you a little more information on what their current security is, which is cameras and parking lot lighting, which has not been effective for them. They've still continued to get broken into vandalism and stuff, and especially at their site, and also some that they have noted in the immediate area that they are worried about also. And I also list the ingress and egress because that was one of Mr. Forte's main questions. We do not change. Let me make that, that's a very important point. We do not change the ingress or the egress to the property. You get in to the property and you leave the property the same way with our system as you do without our system. I like to say, Same way today as you do tomorrow. Go in just like you do today as you do tomorrow. Now we do, and I'll get to that, it's in one of the attachments, but I'll get to it later. We do provide a knock switch for first responders. They can get in without coming in contact with our system, but in order to resolve or dissolve any hesitation when they pull up, we Also will install a knock switch, which they can turn the key and it energizes the system. So there's no hesitation when they decide to enter. I mean, when they need to enter the system, we don't want any hesitation. even though the perimeter is non-electrified, they open the gate the same way they do today. They open that gate the same way. And when they open the gate, our system sets off the alarm and breaks the control, but breaks the contact. But we provide that NOx system, which does go ahead and de-energize our system so there's no hesitation for entrance. Amarok, who are we? And I'm applying for this on behalf of Amarok. We are a nationwide company. We have over like 6,000 installations nationwide at large businesses like Penske, National Business, FedEx, UPS, Brightview Landscaping. Those businesses that store stuff outside. in outside property. We are the protection for the outside property, just like you would never consider having a jewelry store, which you store all your assets inside of the building. You would never consider not having an alarm on that building. Well, we are the alarm for the property, for businesses like landscapers, trucking terminals, truck, you know, people that have to, businesses that have to store their stuff outside. Um, and the system to be installed at this site is a layered system. It's a, it's a, it's a fence. That's 20 strangle strands of wire goes up 10 feet high. Um. Very thin wires, 12.5 gauge galvanized steel wires were installed about 4 to 8 inches inside of the perimeter fence. So that perimeter fence, we don't attach to that perimeter fence. We are installed inside of that. So that perimeter fence is never electrified. Anybody walking down a sidewalk or walking past it does not they can lay up on that chain link fencing all day long and they never feel any, there's nothing. The only people that come in contact with any of this jolt of current are those that are trespassing and have already breached the perimeter fence, so they've already breached the first line of security, which is their perimeter chain link fence, and then they come in contact with our fence. Our fence is designed to homogenize and blend in with the perimeter fence so that if you are driving down the street, you don't really say, there's two fences there. You see one fence and ours kind of homogenizes with that perimeter chain link fence. We don't alter the layout of the property or again, we don't alter the ingress or the egress. our fence does need to be two feet taller than the non-electrified perimeter fence. So that chain link fence is eight feet. We need to be two feet taller because if we were the same height, there is a height slide in the attachments. It's attachment J. It shows that if we were the same height, the bad guys can climb the non-electrified perimeter chain link fence and they can simply hop over. So we do need to be that two feet taller. That's why we're here to begin with, because we needed a height variance to be taller than the non-electrified chain link fence. That prevents an unscalable amount of fencing, two feet, that they cannot scale then, unless they throw, you know, a mat or something over it or cut the wires or whatever. And then when they do that, it sets off the alarm. So, we do need to be additional height. That's the main thing here is that we need that additional height from the non electrified perimeter fence to be effective. Or the bad guys just climb over. How does this system work? I think that was one of the questions that we got last time. This system works on a 12-volt DC battery, like a car battery, like a battery you put in your golf cart. It is not connected to the mains at all. It's not connected to the grid. It doesn't pull any of your mains power at all. It is connected to a 12-volt battery, and that 12-volt battery is charged by a solar panel. The good thing about that is if you have a power outage, then the property is still protected because they are not on the mains grid, so they still have their alarm system that protects their property. It's 12 volt battery charged by solar panel doesn't not carry continuous current. Therefore, somebody doesn't latch on when they, if somebody were to touch our fence, they're not going to latch on like that. They're going to be automatically go back. I touch this fence about once a quarter when I go into the office and. I'm still here, been doing it for 15 years. It's not pleasant, but we call it a safe but a memorable shock. It's very safe because it is so short. It's one to three ten thousandths of a second in duration. And that shortness of duration is what makes this jolt or this shock so safe. And we have included those studies, the explanations for why it is so safe, because it's not continuous, it's pulse current, very, very short. We've included those in the attachments that go along with our safety plan. or security, yeah. The energizer that's installed in these systems does meet the IEC, which is the International Standard for Electric Fence Installations. And we've also included that as an attachment. We actually come in at half of the allowable standards for that. We are at half of that power. So it's very, very safe. It is medically safe. We've also included an attachment that explains that. We are also certified and listed by NRDL, a nationally recognized testing laboratory, of which the most common one that everybody knows of is UL. But there's about 17 of these NRDLs that test products, and they all have the same authority, and we are tested by SGS. We've included that certification as another attachment in our plan here. And so we have been tested by a nationally recognized testing laboratory and we have passed that. So what happens when somebody does touch the fence or break that circuit? An audible alarm is set off on the property. And we can be defeated if somebody wants to throw something over to insulate the wires or cut the wires, then automatically it sets off the alarm. Like I said, we're an alarm system for the property at the perimeter. So it sets off an alarm. A signal for that alarm is sent to a 24-hour monitoring service. So it's a monitored alarm. They in turn call the business. They have a call-out list. They call the business because we are not We are not tied into your emergency services. We want to verify that alarm first. And that's very important to your emergency services too. They love verified alarms. So if somebody cuts that circuit, breaks the alarm, our monitoring service is called. They then call the business owner. The business owner can log in through cameras or their online system. They can verify the alarm, where it happened, and then they can in turn say, yes, this is an event that we need to call first responders for, or we need to call the police for, 911. So then after it becomes a verified alarm, they then make that phone call. That helps cut down on false alarms. The alarm can also be silenced remotely if it's, you know, or it meets your decibel levels, but it can be silenced if it is like, oh gosh, such and such, I see such and such is in there working late tonight. So once we verify we can silence the alarm if we need to. So I think it was made pretty clear to me at the last meeting that there are some consistent some things that we need to satisfy some characteristics or whatever, there's requirements that we would need to satisfy to allow you to grant a waiver of the standard, which was the standard was for the police chief to approve a safety plan, which he did not feel comfortable. So, Mike, I believe you were very clear in telling me there were some things that we needed to satisfy in order for this board to then waive that standard and make the approval on its own. One being an explanation of how our system works, which I hope we've just done. So I've got three things here that I took away from the last meeting that were very important that we had to satisfy in order for you to have the authority to approve this. One was that we were not inconsistent with the health and safety of Medford, Massachusetts. And that is from your, well, you know, the section 94.6-6.4.1. I have listed in my plan, but I'll be glad to go over the several reasons why I believe we're not inconsistent with health and safety. We're a battery-powered fence. We provide ingress and egress to the property the same way tomorrow as it is today. We do not change that. We don't alter any of the land use. We provide a NOx switch. Model 3502, which is also shown in the attachments. That is to ensure that the fire department can deactivate the system prior to entering the property. If somebody pulls up in an emergency situation, we have a knock switch and they can deactivate the system and not hesitate. We also have the attachment I, we have the instructions for the fire department on how to operate that knock switch. I'm sure they know how, but we just put it in there anyway so that you would be comfortable knowing that it's a very simple, put your key in, turn it, and it deactivates the power to the system. Current egress and ingress paths don't change. We feel that the security system is armed and disarmed like any other alarm system would be. So, therefore, there's no risk to employees or the public. The fence is located behind an existing perimeter fence, not accessible by accidental encounter. Usually the people that touch our fence have criminal intent. They're trespassing because they've gotten past a non-electrified fence and they have criminal intent. We put warning signs up every 30 feet. They tell us that They are visible inside and outside and they are in English and Spanish or. whatever language you want them in. We can put them in however many languages, Creole, whatever languages you have up there, we put them in. We put different languages in. We do train your employees on how to use this fence and when it works and how it works and what it does. We do train the employees and the benefit to that, other than the obvious of knowing how to work the fence, is that they realize that if that fence is activated, that it stops any internal crime also. That's a benefit to the business for that. The fence is located behind the existing perimeter fence again, warning signs, We also, in Attachment G, have provided one of the world's leading experts in biomedical engineering, Dr. Mark Kroll, who has tested, studied our fence. He does a lot of things for the federal government for tasers and other types of electric, pulse electricity, and he has tested it. And in the attachment, there's some really good information as to why this system is safe. Again, we're not impacted by power outages, so I don't think that, and we're tested and certified, so I think we could say that we are not inconsistent with health and safety. How do we, and the next thing you want me to consider was that we do not derogate from the purposes of section 94.6.4.1. The purpose stated in that section is that we do not That section says it is there to control size, scale and impacts of non-residential developments. So size, we do not change the size of the property or the size of the business at all. So that's a positive impact or certainly not a negative impact. scale. We don't change the scale of the business operation, so that would not have an impact either. As far as the impacts of the business aesthetics, again, we try to homogenize with the chain link fence that's there. I've listed several things. I hope you've had a chance to read them. The only thing that I would point out is the variance being sought is to add two feet to the existing height of the fence that's there. That is the minimal necessary aesthetic impact. 20 gauge wire, 20 gauge thin wires. We hope we are neutralizing the aesthetic impacts and it doesn't support, as it doesn't even support weight of anybody trying to climb it. It's that thin of a wire. We are an alarm system. We are widely considered a burglar alarm system in 22 other states, and we feel like it's a positive impact that we are an alarm system for the perimeter, which doesn't traditionally have that. We're monitored 24-7. That's a positive impact. We are sounds of our alarm system are consistent with our alarm system. That's a positive to neutral impact. We verify the alarm before we call police. That's a positive impact. And we also feel like we have crime reduction. If approved, this fence will provide crime reduction to the business, but also to the neighboring crime because it runs crime out. If people can't get into this business to get what they came for, then they're not in the area. And I've listed several things there that hopefully will help you understand that that is a positive impact too. And another impact is the legal. We do, we have offered up a hold harmless agreement to indemnify the city. That is certainly a positive impact for the city. And then I think the next, the third criteria or requirement that we were to try to explain was that we're non-detrimental to the public. I think we've probably already done that, but I will reinforce those again for this specific example. We're medically safe, not harmful, pulse, shock, can't hurt anybody, we all touch it. We don't tell the bad guys that, they're fearful of electricity, move on. It's a stall behind an eight foot tall chain link fence. It's approximately 30 feet from the street. The only people that encounter this system are already trespassing because we're only open after business hours also. We have warning signs. We have a fire department, knock switch, emergency cutoff. I think that proves that we're non-detrimental to the public. Then I followed up with some frequently asked questions, which were the ones that Mr. Porte specifically asked about. I don't know if you want me to go through those. We probably already answered those. But if there's anything, we did provide manufacturers cut sheets. We talked about ingress and egress, the fire department. If the gates are malfunctioning,
[Mike Caldera]: Yes miss Lundy just one thing to make where so the What you submitted is in the public record and the board has read it. So what I would suggest is yeah We'll we'll have the board as long as you're satisfied. You've presented kind of what you the core things you need to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think so I think you understand, and if you have read it, I guess in summary, if you've read the summary, and if you've read my final thoughts, which were very sincere also, we do believe this document satisfies your concerns and your requirements, and we respectfully request consideration and approval of our security system. I'll answer any questions you have.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, absolutely. Ford, what questions do we have for Ms. Lundy?
[Unidentified]: I appreciate all of the detail. The one question I did have is you talked about the signage on the fence. Is that signage on the public facing fence so that it's visible to everybody on the exterior or is that signage?
[SPEAKER_00]: It is. It is. I wish I could. I can show you because I got a camera. This is the sign. This is a typical sign. We can do whatever you want. This is a typical sign, English, Spanish, and look, it's on both sides. So it's visible from inside and outside.
[Unidentified]: So my question is, there's a public fence there currently. Yes. Is that signage placed on the public fence so that it's visible or is it placed on the electric fence behind the public fence?
[SPEAKER_00]: We place it on our fence if our fence isn't behind a chain link. We can place it anywhere you want it. We can place it anywhere you want it. If a person has a solid fence, if a business has a solid fence, then we place it up high where they can see it, the two feet above. Okay. It is visible from inside and outside of the building, of the property.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_00]: You're welcome.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm yeah, yeah, sure for you please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you Mister chairman so I thought that the presentation was very good this Monday it didn't answer a lot of. questions I think that the board had. And again, I just want to be clear about my position. I'm not a part of this voting body. I merely try to facilitate compliance with zoning through better understanding. And so I don't want you to think that my position here is either for or against the project. But I did have one question. Now that I've kind of seen this whole project and I've kind of listened to what you're trying to achieve, I think that's clear, but you had mentioned protection of the property. Now, it got me thinking, a question that I have through you, Mr. Chair, is the purpose of this fence, is it to protect vehicles or is it to protect product that's being stored outside?
[SPEAKER_00]: It is to protect everything that that business has in their outside storage lot, not inside their building, is to protect their trucks, the catalytic converter thefts, the getting in and stealing, you know, tires or rims or anything that they can to disable those trucks and that they can sell on the black market. That is what it's for. And this may be a lot that has large trucks in there. I don't know if they have storage in them or not, but it is to protect the outside property. Things they can't put in a building. It's not to protect. But now it does have the added benefit of if anybody is working late and they're in there and they turn the system on, it protects the employees also.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so Mister chair, just in summation of that, the only reason I ask is that if the purpose of this security fence was for protection of product that's being stored outside that. activity in itself is an accessory use that's only allowed by special permit. So I think it just be for a point of clarity here, I just want to be sure that, you know, you know, accessory industrial uses, you know, parking of vehicles is, you know, is allowed, it's considered a, you know, an accessory, you know, a permitted accessory use and industrial and commercial zones, but But, you know, I would just want clarity from the applicant that the purpose of this is not to have large outside storage of product where, excuse me, where something like that could, you know, manifest into something that would require a different permit.
[SPEAKER_00]: I would say, you know, and I probably, I don't work for Penske. I don't know what's in those trucks. I thought Penske was a trucking dealership, that we're trying to protect their vehicles. They mentioned the catalytic converter thefts, rim thefts, tire issues, getting in and stealing radios out of trucks. That's what they're trying to protect. I don't know that they even store anything in those trucks, but they're trying to protect their vehicles, which are their assets. That's what Penske does.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Ms. Lundy, and thank you, Commissioner Forte. So I know in the original application, there is reference to protecting vehicles. And so, Commissioner Forte, please correct me if I'm wrong here. But my position is that in the narrative, we have an example that is allowed by right as a purpose for this. And if the Penske were to do this accessory use that's not allowed by right, they would either need to come back for a special permit or it would be a code violation. Is that consistent with your understanding?
[Bill Forte]: Yes. I just wanted to make sure that the purpose was protecting the vehicles in the parking lot, not a future plan of outside storage or product because a lot of times warehouses run out and this is not an uncommon thing in an industrial warehouse type situation.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that would be above and beyond our request here. We're here to protect the property and the trucks. That's what we're here for. And that's what they expressed to us was their concern, the catalytic thefts, all of that stuff. That's what their concern is. And that makes trucks unusable, so they lose, you know, their daily rent or whatever it is on that. So, yeah. Their uses are not changing. What we're doing does not change the use allowed for the property or the business.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Thank you. Other questions from the board? All right. I have two clarifying questions. So, first of all, I do see the exhibit or attachment I surrounding the the knock switch emergency shut off. And so I'm not really familiar with Fire department standard training and all of these other things. So you say you provide the knock switch and there's instructions and so on. Does the the fire department just have the Like as part of their standard issue gear, whatever they need to do this, or is that something that you provide to them? Are they, are they trained, you know, to, to know how to use these? They do look like they, they, perhaps they're widely used, but I'm just not an expert in this. So I don't really know, uh, in a community that perhaps doesn't have, uh, any, uh, Armorock, uh, solution in it. So I don't know if that is or isn't Medford, but like, does the fire department know how to use this from day one or like, do they need additional information so that they could leverage this knock switch?
[SPEAKER_00]: They know from day one. Knox is something that fire departments exclusively use. Well, Knox or some kind of emergency deactivation product. Knox is the most common, but there are other vendors, I'm sure, that do that. But they use them to enter buildings. You go into a building, you'll see a box next to the door. It looks like a key opens it and it has the keys to the building or something like that. Knox switches are, Every fire truck, every captain of a fire truck carries the key to a knock switch and we call them and get their codes so we know how to have it. key, you know, it all runs through the fire department, everything that we do. So yes, that is something they, we order the NOCs specific to the jurisdiction so that it's key specifically to them. And yes, they do know, they know NOCs.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I figured that was probably the case. I just wanted to double check. Commissioner Forty, did you have something to add?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. So as part of the order, I think it would be wise to maybe condition in that the fire department review and approve the security plan or the building permit. So what we'll do is we'll route the permit application because it will be a building permit for this particular project. We will route the building permit application to the chief, and the chief will make sure that the system is working and approved as he sees it fit. I'm sure that there's a national standard for this type of system, and so he would get familiar with that, and if he has any questions, he can comment on that prior to the issuance of a building permit for this particular. you know, for this particular project. So, you know, the Knox box is universal and, you know, they'll be, obviously they'll be trained and, you know, they'll know what's going on with it. So I would say that during the permitting process that should take place and it should be written into the order.
[SPEAKER_00]: And we can't even order our Knox without input from the fire department.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Ms. Lundy, I got it. So, yeah, Commissioner Forty, I just want to make sure I'm understanding the recommendation, because I know we can't make a decision subject to future approvals or conditional on someone else approving. So the recommendation here is that the order contain language stating that the The application of the building permit should be submitted to the fire chief for feedback. Is that what the condition would be or?
[Bill Forte]: No, for comment. That's all.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Just for comment. Yes. Yeah. OK. Yeah, um, and then the thank you. Um, and then miss lindy, so the next clarifying question is um, So this this whole harmless agreement you mentioned how does that work with the with the city? Like is that something that? You just put on file like the city already has a signed copy of this or what's the?
[SPEAKER_00]: We've already submitted that, well, we've already signed it. I guess it would be submitted at the point that you, if you approve this, let me see, let me find the signatures on this. It is attachment H. Okay, got it.
[Mike Caldera]: So Dennis, basically we would just, like procedurally, this, all the submitted documents would be kind of part of the decision and it would include this old harmless agreement. So we'd have that.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's right.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm talking to Dennis. So we would have that on on file with the like the land register or with the attorneys, I don't know, however you know, I'm not I'm not talking to you. So I'll let you know next time I'm talking to you. Yeah, I'm trying to call on you. So I'm talking to Dennis. Yeah, I mean, I don't even know if like the city has some procedure that really need to formally accept a hold harmless agreement or if it's merely like a unilateral thing the applicant can do that send binding upon them. Do you have any details that would help put this down?
[Denis MacDougall]: I honestly really don't. I don't think we've had something like this before. But I think the best thing to do would just be to submit it to KP Law and basically say, there are on-council attorneys for the city, by the way. I just submit to them and say, here's what we've received. What's the procedure going with this? Maybe it's nothing. I just genuinely don't know. Trying to think of something in the past that we've had that's similar and I just can't nothing's ringing a bell. I wish I wish it did. You know, would jump out at me, but.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, and there was a question from director hunt about seeing the agreement. So it's attachment. H, of the submitted security plan, I believe. Trying to search for it now, so. It's somewhat long, but it's dated October 3rd, 2023, signed in front of a notary witness by the VP of Government Relations of Armorock LLC. And it's got some language surrounding indemnification and hold harmless. So it doesn't require a counter signature, but I don't know enough about It doesn't have a space for counter signatures, I should say, but I don't know enough about the city processes to know whether any additional action is required on City of Medford's part, Director Hunt. Yeah, Commissioner Forte.
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, in my experience, there is no contract that could ever relieve a city from liability or obligations, especially on private property matters. So there's no, a person who sets one of these things up obviously is taking full responsibility. I don't know that it's something that the zoning board needs to consider. The only thing I think that we're approving here is a seven foot high fence. The permit for the six foot fence, it's electrified, does not require a permit. I think that the conditions that they're setting forth for the perimeter fence that is seven feet high around the property is really the only thing that the Zoning Board is here to consider because of its height. I don't think that there's any condition, whether that be liability for the city or not for the city, that I think that the action is really gonna I don't I don't think that the zoning board has to consider it, because you're not really approving the electric fence which you're approving is the seven foot or eight foot, you know, safety fence it's around that. And so I think that the less the city gets involved with it, you know, probably the better. But if I, you know, if I think if this needs to go one more meeting to get KP law to just give you some consideration and opinion on this, I think that the information that we have, I think is sufficient, at least, project-wise. And again, I'm not an attorney, but I don't think that an indemnification is necessary when it comes to private property because the city has nothing to really do with that or be liable for, so.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner Forti. So I don't consider myself an expert in these matters, but I do agree that the actions of the board needs to take to grant the relief is decide whether to waive the standard that the police chief approved the submitted security plan and and then the whether the requested variance per fence height meets the statutory criteria. So I agree we don't need to take any action that specifically relates to this being an electric fence. I think the analysis of public health and safety might consider some of those elements, but I don't really have the slightest clue from a liability standpoint, and I don't know the city's policy, whether this would even be considered a valid agreement or whatnot. So I'm inclined to say that That should not be the board's focus today. I also don't see the need to extend this to an additional meeting, but we'll see what others have to say at the appropriate time. All right, one last question and then I'll check in with others if they have additional questions. So Ms. Lundy, I don't, see anything in the submitted attachment that speaks to safety for Animals such as birds and squirrels and whatnot that could in principle try to land on this or climb the fence and touch it. It's not necessarily something we even need to consider, but it's in the gray area. So I just figured I would clarify with you what is the safety to local wildlife that might touch this electric wire?
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, I'm glad you asked because I have the answers for that. The bottom wire is a ground wire and the top wire is a ground wire. Birds can perch on the fence. Lizards can crawl underneath it.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is still pulsed just like it is for us. It's pulsed short, short, short, short. It won't harm them.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, but so the squirrel that tries to dive through the metal might run into some trouble. But OK, so it's part of that.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he's got to get through the freaking chain link first.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, OK. All right. Thanks. All right. I think those are all my questions. Other questions from the board?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Jim, go ahead. I had one question. Is it 7 feet or 8 feet? You had mentioned 8 feet and I read 7 feet. What is the height?
[SPEAKER_00]: Our fence is 10 feet. We have to be taller than what you allow. It's our understanding that the Penske fence is 8 feet. So we have to be 10 feet tall. 10 feet is the industry standard, which you'll see in the IEC attachments there.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: But currently it's 8 feet going to 10 feet.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's my understanding. I don't know if they got a special permission to go up. But if they're 8 feet, we have to be taller. So that's why we're requesting the additional height.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: So is it currently 7 feet or 8 feet? OK, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other questions from the board? That says no. I think Mary's one of the numbers dialed in. So I'm not hearing any other questions. So chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: Motion to the open public hearing for 46 Riverside Ave.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. And so I'm not going to ask Mary to vote because this is the one that we heard testimony multiple times prior. So is there a second? Okay, so we'll do a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mike? Aye. public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public that would like to speak on this matter, please raise your hand on Zoom, raise your hand on camera on Zoom, type something in the chat. If you're on the phone, you could just unmute yourself and let us know briefly so we're aware you want to speak. You could also email Dennis McDougal, dmcdougal at medford-ma.gov. All right, I do not see any members of the public indicating that they would like to speak on this matter. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take another roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Hi. All right.
[SPEAKER_05]: Mike, this is Mary. Can you hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, Mary. Yeah, we can hear you.
[SPEAKER_05]: Oh, OK, OK.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: OK, good. So just let me know if you want me to get involved, because I'm on my phone.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sounds good. Yeah, so Mary, so for this matter, because it originally came before the board before you were appointed. Oh, OK, that's fine.
[SPEAKER_05]: I know. I just wanna make sure that I'm not missing anything because I'm on the phone.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, absolutely.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you, that's okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So one thing I want you to know is you're still welcome to chime in, you just, you don't get to vote. So now we're now deliberating. I forget if I voted, so Mike, I, okay. So now public portion is closed, we're deliberating. What do you think, folks? So before we get into that, just a reminder. So essentially, the statutory criteria that needs to be satisfied are that waiving the requirement for this site security plan, which has been submitted to be approved by the police chief, is not inconsistent. with the public health and safety and doesn't derogate from the intent of the bylaw. So that's one element. And then the second element is that Something pertaining to the shape, topography, soil conditions of the lot is the source of the hardship, if there were a little literal enforcement of the variance. And so a little enforcement, sorry, of the zoning bylaw. And the one thing I want to emphasize there is that the position of structures, including the existing fence, considered to be one of those elements. So it's a lot more structures. So yeah, what do you think, folks?
[Unidentified]: Well, I'm not a security expert, and I know that our bylaw indicates the chief of police signing off on this. I think that the applicant has done a very good job of explaining the security implementation of the solution, and I think it meets expectations that a general person would have. from the consideration of the existing fence and placement of the new fence as well as the height consideration. Personally, I like that there is a non-electrified fence in front of this so that the general population, anybody walking around the area isn't impacted. Somebody would have to attempt to go over that fence before they even come in contact with the other fence. and I do understand the height requirement, and I think that's adequate considering the intent to protect the trucks on the lot from thievery.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Jamie. Other thoughts from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: I would just add that if you're agreeing with everything Jamie just said, including that I'm not a security expert, The area where this is located, I feel like it wouldn't be detrimental to the entire whole neighborhood. It's a commercial space, so the look of what I would envision a significantly taller fence would be does not. Beyond that, the landscaping in front of the fence, I think, that will be maintained helps add and ease what a larger fence would look like. And that the shape and that's where it is located. I mean, it's clear that when we talk about. Needs and how it's affected by the. By the area that this would be. Not only an improvement, but it would help for the business as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you that you're going to say something.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, I agree with Jamie on their comments.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, well, I'm a little torn, so I'll just share my current thought process and kind of where it leads me. So we are not security experts. I don't really like that we're being asked to weigh in on something as important as safety and to waive a requirement in the ordinance that pertains to safety. I understand this is a complex matter. We've heard the police chief's letter, and while some of us may not fully agree with the police chief, I certainly respect his position as to why he doesn't feel comfortable approving things himself. This does put the board between a rock and a hard place, though, where on the one hand, if we, in the absence of a security expert's independent assessment, refuse to grant this waiver, then the police chief's position could then be a source of potential litigation or something of that nature. And then on the flip side, if we just grant the the waiver, you know, we're not security experts. We're being asked to be security experts. So I just want to say that out loud. This is legitimately conflicting. I think on the other element, it's pretty clear to me. So just in terms of like the actual statutory interpretation and all that other jazz like that, the position of the existing fence coupled with this solution and how it essentially requires it to be attached to the existing fence. And furthermore, the requirement for it to extend above the existing fence to achieve its desired purpose as a alarm system. I think that's the circumstances related to the location of the structures that allow us to grant potentially a height variance. And furthermore, I do, I think it was attachment C, there are some pictures of the aesthetics and we didn't show them on screen today, but it does look, you know, reasonably transparent. It's not very, like, it's not a visual eyesore from my assessment. So, yeah, I think in that sense, the fence height one, it pretty clearly meets the statutory criteria. It doesn't, you know, derogate from the intent of the ordinance. I don't really like being put in the position of having to decide whether to waive a security requirement. I do think that the final security plan that was submitted is very comprehensive. Not that pages is the best metric, but it's a good proxy. It's more than 59 pages long with scientific studies and other details. Everything I could think of to ask and assess is basically in here or I asked it today. And so I think it would be, you know, not a good experience for the applicant if this issue in the ordinance and the police chief's position, you know, made it an impossibility to install something like this. I think in general, you know, the obvious vectors to injure somebody, you know, have been addressed. Someone touching the fence, they're not going to get electrocuted because the perimeter fence is not electrocuted, it's just above. Even the wildlife, it seems like there's some mechanisms to avoid electrocuting them. The fire department has an industry standard way to access the site. And even if someone touches it, it seems like it's non-lethal. It's just uncomfortable. So in that sense, I think all of the things that a non-expert might ask pertaining to the safety, I think have been adequately addressed in this plan. I don't know what an expert would ask, so I don't know if we're missing something. But that's my current thinking. So yeah. Overall, I certainly see the case to rule in favor of both, that both criteria are met. I think the clear one is the argument for the fence height. So yeah, that's all I got. Any other thoughts or comments from the board? All right, and so because Mary can't vote, it does take a unanimous vote to grant the special permit being sought here. Chair awaits a motion. Just want to clarify, special permit or variance? Sorry, it's twofold, actually. So it's both require four. So it's a special permit to waive the performance standard approved by the police chief security plan, and it's a variance for the fence site. Thanks for clarifying.
[Unidentified]: OK. Motion to approve the special permit and variance request for 436 Riverside Alley. Do I have a second? I'll second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a vote, roll call vote. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. So the special permit and the variance are granted. Thank you, Ms. Lundy. Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate what you submitted in between last meeting and this one. I think that helped us get to the decision we needed to make. So thank you.
[SPEAKER_00]: Glad we got to where we needed to be. Thank you so much, all of you, for your patience throughout the whole year. We appreciate it. Thank you so much. We're gone.
[Mike Caldera]: Have a good night.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thanks, you too.
[Mike Caldera]: All right.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, and just Cindy, while you're still on, I'm going to be writing the decision in the next week or two. And then when I get that, I'll get it to one of the board members to review, and then it'll just be checked by our legal counsel. And then once that's all gone through and then it's signed, I'll get it to you.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Dennis. And McKenzie will be working with you on that.
[Mike Caldera]: Perfect.
[SPEAKER_00]: Great. Thank you so much, everyone. Good night.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Good night. All right, Dennis, next matter, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thanks. 277 Middlesex Avenue case number 8-2023-18 continues from October 26. Applicant and owner New York Capital Investment Group LLC is petitioning for a special permit to expand a pre-existing non-conforming car wash to include three automated pay stations with stopgates and vehicle turning within the rear of the property and commercial and zoning district not allowed, which is considered an extension of a non-conforming use requiring a special permit in accordance with the City of Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 5.2.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. Do we have someone for the applicant who would like to speak on this matter? I see three names that are potentially for the applicant or one's a phone number, but I'm not going to say them out loud. So looking for Anyone on the call for the applicant who could speak on this matter? Yeah, there's someone by the name of Nir, I believe, who is raising their hand. Yeah, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_09]: Hi, can you guys hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we can hear you. We can't currently see you. We don't need to see you if that's an issue.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, no, I can put the camera. I'm just trying to figure out how to do it. So it's normally that my brother would speak up, but I bet you he can't figure out how to do it. So I'm going to take the lead on this.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, sounds good.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yep, something happened. There we go. Can you see me? All right, perfect. Yep, so Nir Drori, owner of 277 Middlesex Avenue, Prestige Car Wash. So my architect had an emergency and he couldn't show up. The engineer, I'm sorry. And normally he's the one that will take you guys through the whole plan, but he's not. He had an emergency. He had to rush his mom into the hospital. And we didn't want to delay it any longer because we already postponed one meeting. So we figured we'd just come in and get the board input on this whole thing and see where it goes. So if you guys have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. We currently own and operate the car wash in Middlesex Avenue. We own and operate about 22 car washes in the greater Boston. Most of our car washes have the automatic gate system, something that we installed in the Middlesex Avenue. It helps with the traffic pattern.
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: It helps with... Can you hear me? Yeah.
[SPEAKER_09]: All right. I can let my brother do the talking because he would probably do a better job than me. Do you want to explain to them?
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: Sure. Good evening, everybody. My name is Aron Njori. You can put the camera on if you like, so they can see. How do you do that?
[SPEAKER_09]: Just click on the screen and then it says share video.
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: Hold on. My son is just helping me. I'm sorry. Okay, can you hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we can hear you. We can see you.
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: Good evening. And I apologize. I just I'm not that tech, but I'm going to do the best I can. So good evening, everybody. Thank you very much for having us tonight. And so to begin with, I guess my brother took I did. I did hear everything he had to say. So, so far, everything he said, it's pretty much straightforward. We did meet the building commissioner on site. After we had the pay station built and we went through everything he asked us to do, so basically once we met him on site, he asked us to have a fence with the neighbors. He asked us to identify all the vacuums, all the directional signs, count all the vacuums, and show him the direction of the traffic and show how this will improve the whole site. So pretty much right now, what we had in the back was four existing islands with vacuums and we tore them down. Once we tore those vacuums island downs, we did build the pay stations in the back of the car wash. So the traffic circulation was improved drastically once you drive all the way to the back of the lot. We're not blocking the road on busy days. We extremely improved the site by doing it, and it gave us a huge advantage of queuing probably an extra 30 cars, if not more, just by pulling them all the way to the back. Once we had our employee scan and move the traffic, it was only one employee that can do it at a time. Right now, we're going to have three pay stations, which will be three times as fast. So that was a huge improvement for the site, for the traffic circulation. Also, I'm sure all of you guys who live in the Medford area, 50% of our customers come from Malden. And I don't know if you recently any of you know, but we did open the car wash in Malden. So the traffic to come to the Medford site actually slowed down drastically. We lost about, I wouldn't say 50% of our customers, but at least 30% of our customers right now does not go to the Medford site anymore and they use the Malden site. So that's slowed down. the traffic to the site drastically. Basically what we are, we are asking for a special permit to expand the non-confirm use by replacing the vacuum with the pay station so the traffic will be a much better, not backing up into the Middlesex and the traffic circulation will be much better. Like I said, we met the building inspector, the building commissioner went over it with him. And as far as I know, he was satisfied with everything we did. by improving the site, this will be an attended. This is not an unattended site. So there will still be guys in the back helping the customers from open to close. So somebody is always going to be on the back of the site helping them process and helping them pretty much explain them how the gates work. So this will always be attended by our employee. And I'm just trying to think, we installed the fence between the neighbors, the paystations are three employees, and pretty much I think I went through everything that I can think of. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you. So just 1 thing I want to make clear to the board. So a substantial extension of a non conforming use. Triggers a special permit the standard is the same as a section 6 findings. So. What we need to assess is whether this change or extension of the nonconforming use with the introduction of these three automated pay stations, we need to find that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So that's the standard. So to that point, before the board starts asking questions, can you just kind of give us a quick blurb as to, you know, why I think from like a business operations standpoint, it makes a lot of sense kind of how this helps. Do you speak to the anticipated neighborhood impact, if at all, of this change?
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, yeah. So actually, the neighbor to our right with the gas station was extremely for it. We did ask him to join the Zoom meeting, but he couldn't do it. But he was all for it. And the neighbor on the right, he's on the right side with the mobile station, the neighbor on the left, they were both for it. And they were extremely happy that we did it. So this was extremely improvement for the neighbors to the traffic flow. So the traffic flow extremely well now with the three pay stations. And like I said, currently we are using a person outside on a carriage. So we really what we, the expansion of the special permit, it's not more detrimental because you're improving it and we had vacuum islands there already. So we really replaced the vacuum islands with pay station. So somebody was already there putting money in the vacuum. So you really kind of replaced one thing with another. If that make any sense.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_09]: But I can add one more thing. We are not going to generate any more customers. We are servicing the same amount of customers in a better way. So that would not make it any more detrimental because we're not generating any more customers.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board? Oh actually before we do that commissioner for you please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thank you Mister chairman so I just want to give you my summation on on the on this case and why it's come before you so I discovered I happen to be a customer of prestige a lot of Washington. I happen to discover one day that these pay stations were installed and I had no permits on record. There was an electrical permit pulled for the underground electric, but I don't think that the property owner was aware that the type of activity that they were performing would require a building permit. The reason why it would require a building permit or an application to expand the operation is because it's the same use in a substantially different manner. the requirement for the site plan and I did, if you will, I did kind of coach the property owner to provide a comprehensive site plan showing the existing and proposed conditions. The reason why I did that was because this is a non-conforming use and a commercial zone, and it would require a special permit. Different from what we listened to at the last meeting, where that expansion actually was required because there was a change in the structure. Here, there is no change in the structure, nor is there any increase, I believe, in the volume. If anything, this does improve the traffic circulation within the within the site, except for the fact that it really hadn't had any kind of approval. And I didn't feel that I as the building commissioner could approve a permit by right because it was considered, I considered it to be an extension of a non-conforming use, even if it's being used in the same manner in a different way. Section six kind of, you know, when you're looking at the language, it says, You know that it's used in the same manner in, you know, using the same in the same use but in a, in a different manner or in a like use in a different manner. You know, once the configuration of the parking changes, then I felt as though this triggered off the need for a, an increase. in intensity of use and would require a special permit under the ordinance section in chapter six. And so I took the initiative, rather than write a notice of violation for the parking reconfiguration, I just thought it would be more prudent to reject a permit and base it on the fact that they have changed the site in addition to what they have already changed that might, uh, you know, improve the traffic circulation. I just wanted to make sure that it was on record and that it was issued. Um, the permit was issued legally and that, um, you know, that the burden didn't fall completely on, um, on the bill and inspector, because I just wanted to make sure that the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted. This is not a major violation or a major increase in, in, um, you know, in impact or configuration. They did it on their own property, but, uh, but I thought it would, it would do good to get in front of the CD board maybe for a comment or review and in front of this board to make sure that there weren't any questions or problems with what they've done over there. Otherwise, the site plan is accurate. I can just attest that the site plan is accurate to the current conditions on the site. One of the things that was that was not on the site when they bought the property was, there was an increase by virtue of the vacuum. So the vacuums are free and although it's free for members only, you do occasionally have a person who's not a member that comes up and uses the vacuum for free. It's just a kind of a consequence of having something for free. And so that did create a little bit of impact over there. And so I had all of those parking spaces and all of those vacuums added to the plan. So you're considering not only the installation of the pay stations, but the site in general. And I will tell you that I had no complaints. This wasn't a complaint-driven notification. It was something I happened to come across. But I have been to the car wash on a number of times in busy and unbusy times. And I've seen no significant detrimental effects to this car wash. It seems to, it's very, very busy. It runs very well. The cars are in and out pretty quick. And just as, and again, not advocating for the property owner, but just in my experience and what I've seen and the work that I've done with the property owner, I'm satisfied that this meets all the criteria for the board to consider and review and approve if wanted.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you for that context, Commissioner Fordy. Questions from the board for the applicants or for Commissioner Fordy?
[SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair and Mary, can I ask a question?
[Mike Caldera]: Please go ahead, Mary. Yes.
[SPEAKER_05]: So I thought I heard something about electrical structures underneath the new pay stations. Is that different from the pre, the formal machines, the washing machines, the car washing machines?
[Mike Caldera]: So if I understood the question correctly and what was conveyed correctly. So the question is, essentially, the electrical that was required to install these machines, is that different from what was required previously? And then if I understood correctly, I don't know if it was said explicitly, but I think the electrical
[Bill Forte]: is something that was uh to code and allowed by right it was just the the change in the uh or the extension of the yeah that use is that right yeah commissioner 40 yeah i can speak to that um so um the electrical permit was issued uh the underground work was inspected and it was approved um the final sign off on the um on the gates has not been approved yet because i stopped it and i asked the wiring inspector not to fine off sign off on the final until this project was approved by you. And so the underground was inspected. It was covered up. It is compliant as of today. But again, the pay stations are already constructed. So there would just be a final signature from the wiring inspector, you know, if and when this project is approved. because it's part of the construction project that, again, was done without permit. But yes, it's underground, it's safe, and it's compliant.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Mary. Other questions from the board? I'll just say I think I understood the presentation, so I don't have questions. I'm not seeing any other questions from the board. So chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: Motion to open the public hearing for 277 Middlesex Ave. Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second. Great. We're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim. Aye. Yvette.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary.
[SPEAKER_05]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public and you'd like to speak on this matter, you can raise your hand on Zoom. You can turn on your camera and raise your hand. You can type something in the chat. You can email Dennis at dmcdougall at edford-ma.gov. We're just going to give it a minute so that anyone who wants to speak on the matter, it's a member of the public has an opportunity to do so. All right. I do not see any members of the public who would like to speak on the matter. So the chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. So moved. Second.
[SPEAKER_05]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, uh, Jim was silent, so I'll Mary was a second. We'll say and then we'll do another roll call. Mary. Hi, that. Hi, Jim. Hi, Jamie. Hi, Mike. Hi. All right, so we are now deliberating. What do you think, folks?
[Unidentified]: So I think it's an improved use to the property. Traffic patterns, traffic flows. I've seen the area does get busy over there and the traffic flow to the back of the lot obviously allows them to bring more vehicles in a better flow around the property and avoid any backflow onto the street. I would have these conversations with other businesses as well. I think it's an improvement to the use. And it allows them to handle the flow more efficiently into the equipment to get the property, the vehicles off the lot.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Jamie. And I should have mentioned it when we started. I know I mentioned it earlier, but so the standard, again, is just not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhoods. That's what we need to find. And so, as you mentioned, Jamie, you said there's some potential benefits to the neighborhood, it sounds like. other thoughts from members of the board?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Jim, anyone else? I think it's a busy area to begin with, so anything that's going to reduce that traffic is better, but I'm good with it.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so from my perspective, this is pretty straightforward. So I think Commissioner, it was good. Commissioner Forty flagged it like it did need to come before us according to the ordinance. There's not a submitted traffic impact assessment, but I think that would be really overkill here. Just, you know, it seems like, if anything, the introduction of three kind of cues, it improves the traffic flow. So, you know, be either no impact or less than the impact would be my expectation. So, yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward to find that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood to allow this change to the, or this extension of the use, rather. Other thoughts from the board? Chair awaits a motion.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve the special comment for 277 Middlesex Hill. I'll second that.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a vote. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[SPEAKER_05]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[SPEAKER_05]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, the special permit is approved, so you folks should be all set. Thank you for hanging in there with us.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you so much, really appreciate that.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, we're going to draft a decision for them, is that right? Can you just tell them some of the details, what to expect next? You're on mute, Dennis.
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: Can you hear me?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, sorry, no, I'm muted. That was me. Yeah, I'll do a draft decision. It'll get reviewed by one of the members, and then it'll be reviewed by our city's legal counsel. And then once that's done, it'll go up for signatures, then it'll get filed in the clerk's office, and then, you know, barring any appeals, you should be all set.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Chair, if I could just... We can hear you. So was there something you wanted to ask
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mister chair, just just I just wanted to add something because I probably won't be seeing these applicants again. Sorry to take up any meeting time. But after the 20 day appeal period, you need to record this at the registry of deeds. And then once that happens, then go ahead and apply for a permit on citizen serve. And you should be all set up for that. Okay.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you guys. Have a good night.
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: I want to really say thank you to the commissioner that really worked with us and really helped us bring it to the finish line and work with us on everything to get to you guys. So thank you very much. You've been great and really been great help to us.
[Bill Forte]: Glad to assist. That's my job, public servant.
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: Thank you. No, you did a great job. Thank you. OK.
[Bill Forte]: Very good.
[oM84wx0fXIk_SPEAKER_07]: Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night, guys.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Good night. All right, I think that gets us through our cases. So there's the administrative updates, and I don't think there was meeting minutes, so. I'm checking out, everybody. Good night. Yeah, good night. Yeah, take care. Thank you. All right. Yeah, administrative updates, Dennis, Alicia.
[Denis MacDougall]: Alicia's here if she wants to give you guys a heads up, but just to give you a heads up. We kind of knew it would be coming and it is coming. So the. 2nd, 40 is going to be rolling onto us fairly soon. We expect them to file. Probably in the next week or so, so what we're probably going to end up doing is that our meeting in November, just. Do what we did before and just incorporated as part of that, just to open the meeting and sort of do the initial part during that meeting instead of having a separate 1. Just for that, though, and then once we sort of do that, then we could sort of go into. You know, the regular parts of the meeting, but we might. Since everyone's sort of that, most everyone's been sort of through this before is. Possibly, you know, have some of these meetings. In conjunction with our regularly scheduled meetings, so instead of having, you know, like. 2 meetings a week, sometimes, you know, just put them both on the same evening to save. Awesome time and. And I realize I'm looking there because the camera's there, so I apologize. It seems like I'm not looking at you in the eyes. So, but to my monitor setup, but. And we, I think we've learned a lot of the. Yeah, and so I've talked to the 2 consultants that worked on, you know, the design and engineering consultants. I've contacted both of them and they are both, you know. Available and willing to work on this. So, which I think is great. I think they were exceptionally helpful. So, um. And I think Yvette was the only one who was here when this initially got submitted. And so it's the same plan as before. But when we get the filings and stuff, I'll send you all the link to everything so you can have it. And if anybody wants a physical copy, what was that? This is the one on the front. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I didn't say that part. But yeah. So we're going to be getting some physical copies as well. If someone would prefer a physical copy or one in addition, let me know. Because they were asking me how many copies to print out. I think last time they gave us 13, which was too much. We don't want that many. I found a copy in my office with all of them stuck in it. So that's just sort of to give you all a heads up that sort of it happened relatively quickly. This sort of coming in, they were like, you know, we're coming back. So I don't think of anything else. Nothing else really jumps to mind. Alicia, do you think of anything? that I might not have said.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I think this is sort of implied what we're, we're hoping to speed things up a little bit procedurally by already having reached out to those consultants. Once we get the filing, we will anticipate that this board is likely to ask for peer review because that is the habit with 40B projects of this size. So we'll ask the consultants for Quotes in advance such that by the time you all have your meeting in theory, we would actually have quotes from them in hand. The applicant could agree immediately. They know we're going to ask for peer review. They're comfortable with that. They could give us a check the next day and we could actually contract with the peer review consultants.
[Denis MacDougall]: very quickly whereas last time it took us quite a while to get quotes and then it took us actually several weeks to get the check from the applicant um so we're hoping that pushed everything back you know i mean we really didn't get much done for the first two months so i think this will be a pretty big difference and i think that will hopefully you know keep us from having to go as long and have as many meetings
[Mike Caldera]: Yes. Yeah, so the intention is that the first visit, the opening, it will be on the date of our regularly scheduled meeting. The applicant will make a presentation. The board will have an opportunity to vote on whether to request peer reviews and authorize the city to kind of select the consultants and then And then that'll be it for the first hearing. And so this pre-work should speed up what happens behind the scenes. And then also, we can coordinate in advance of that meeting on a tentative schedule for the hearing. So yeah, it's my intention that before we ever have the meeting we have a line of sight on you know when we're meeting and sort of what the tentative topics are and so on and of course that'll change over a six month period but i think if we lose less time on the front end and we're a little bit more focused than we were last time on the agenda for each of the meetings um we will have an opportunity to avoid getting cramped on the back end in may when we close.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I will say that the applicant has indicated that they'd love to move through this quickly, that their hope is that they don't actually need so many meetings that it's going to drag out for six months. So we'll see what happens.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, well, I've made a mental note of that. But I fully intend for us to do all of our due diligence. All right. Dennis. of my wish list item, so I don't know if it's an update. Well, I'll ask for an update. Any updates on our second associate member? I think it would be great to have them seated before we get started.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, I have contacted them, and I'm just waiting to hear back from them. I think they were away, so there was like an out-of-office message. I am anticipating I'll check with them again tomorrow. I think I contacted them last week or so. So I will get back to them and hopefully everything is Jake with getting them on. Great. I believe they were switching jobs, so I think there was a little bit of a hold up with that. This isn't a full-time job?
[Unidentified]: Actually, I had a quick question on a different project. I don't think it comes to us first. I think the GE, the old GE next to the CRS, the other 40B, I remember that was put off for some period of time and was going to be potentially coming to the city after the 40B was either approved or after they're done with their work. The, which do you mean the 40 B. Because you also, which is a different site across from the parkway.
[Alicia Hunt]: To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been sold yet. Okay. a, I forget what the paperwork is called, who had expressed interest in it and had maybe made an offer. They met with us and then they rescinded that offer there. So, and I haven't heard since of somebody else. If you hear that somebody thinks they're buying it, they should definitely come talk to our office about the permitting process and et cetera. So.
[Unidentified]: I'll see if I can get it to them.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, there was a 40 B and that actually Dennis sorry, I was really swamped and I think that our lawyer wants to do a an executive session with this board. Sorry, I just realized that it came in. Yeah, so the third 40 B would like to have an executive session. Yes. And it came in just like the other day. So it was too, it was too short notice to legally put it on this agenda. Um, but she'd like to have an executive session with the ZBA to discuss, um, next steps because that case had been, um, The word has stayed pending the decision of the case, the other case. And since the Davis case, the Fellsway case is decided, that sort of is something makes this case come back alive. And so the lawyers had a quote, conference of counsel, so a lawyer's meeting. And now she wants to discuss that with you all.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, if we have any opportunity. Yeah, I was just going to say, yeah, I'd love if we could do that at the regular meeting date, unless there's some time urgency.
[Alicia Hunt]: She said to please let her know that you're meeting scheduled for November and December. So if Dennis can just let her know about the November date and that the December date isn't scheduled yet, but it may very well be in January.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. So the December date, we'll just take that offline. We can talk scheduling over email. Right. The November date, we're locked in November 30th. Nope, lost Alicia. All right. Sorry, go ahead, Gene.
[Unidentified]: Just on the 40B, if there's any opportunity to make a request or petition the applicant for a 50-20 instead of an 85-25, that would be a good opportunity. I don't know where we have the opportunity to make that request. I don't know if it's already passed. I know that came up with the first one.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. So I think that would either be between the city and the applicant or something we could bring up in the public hearing.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. I'll bring it up again gladly.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Dennis, you're on mute. Any other administrative updates?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, nothing. Alicia just wanted me to let you know her battery died. Okay. That's why she dropped off.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. And then I didn't see any meeting minutes. Are there any meeting minutes we have to approve?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I realized I like literally today I was like, oh, gosh, so I'll get to them like in the next week or so. Probably hopefully by like middle of next week if I have no meeting scheduled for next week. So I should be a little bit eased up early in the week. So OK, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: That sounds good. All right. Well, in that case, chair awaits a motion to adjourn. I moved. A second. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Mary. Are you in favor, Mary?
[SPEAKER_05]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to adjourn doesn't need a second. Oh, thank you. I've been doing that wrong for too many meetings. All right. Cool. So we are adjourned. We can stop recording. Good night, everyone. Thanks, everybody.