AI-generated transcript of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals 01-26-23

[Unidentified]: Okay, so welcome to the January meeting of the board. To get started, I'm going to call the role of members. Michael Caldera.

[Mike Caldera]: Present.

[Unidentified]: Yvette Velez. Present. Jim Tarani. Present. Andre LaRue. Present. And Jamie Thompson. present. And Jacqueline already. Okay, great. So Dennis, I'm gonna have us go a little bit out of order today. But let's do Birgit first followed by Governor Zav. But first, could you read the opening statement?

[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law an act relative to extending certain state emergency accommodations, which, among other things, extends the expiration of the provisions came to the open meeting on March 31, 2023. Specifically, this extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present in the meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The act does not make any new changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15, 2022 to March 1, 2023.

[Unidentified]: OK, Dennis, thank you so much. Could you call the burgeon matter, please? I can do it in front of me. Yeah, yeah, no problem. Okay, 55 Bridget Avenue case a dash 2022-15 January 5 applicant and owner federal wireless is petitioning for a variance from the chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to erect a new eight foot fence on a property containing a single family house and a single family to zoning district allowed use side yard requirements shall not project six feet above the grade and the required yard and all other cases. Okay, Dennis, am I correct in understanding that we have a request for continuance? Dennis? Oh, Dennis, you're on mute.

[Denis MacDougall]: I didn't realize I was on mute. All right. We can. I can go ahead. OK, the applicant having issues with her that she needed that was that she was asked to get, so she asked for a hearing.

[Unidentified]: OK, is the applicant appearing tonight? Do we know if the applicant is here? She's not, okay, but she submitted that request to you earlier. So to the board members, I don't have a problem with. Pardon? Dennis, did you say something? I couldn't hear you. That's okay. All right, so to the board members, I don't have any issue with the request for continuance. Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Mike Caldera]: No issue here either. And I think the applicant already waived the statutory timeline.

[Unidentified]: I believe so.

[Mike Caldera]: I'll make a motion to continue 55 Burgett Avenue to the next regular meeting in the Zoning Order of Appeals.

[Unidentified]: OK, great. Thank you. Do I have a second?

[Andre Leroux]: Seconded.

[Unidentified]: OK, great. And all in favor. Mike? Yes. Yvette? Yes. Jim? Yes. Andre? Aye. And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, so the continuance is granted. Dennis, I know that they already waived the timeframe, but just for peace of mind, would you mind just confirming that for me and shooting me an email on that just to make sure we have that paperwork?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, I'll do that.

[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Okay, so Dennis, just because of the internet, why don't I read the next one. So the next case we're going to call is Governors Avenue. This is 93 Governors Avenue. It's case number A-2022-21. Applicant and owner Leandro Blanco is petitioning for a variance from the chapter 94, Steve Medford zoning to construct an attached garage with a room above at 93 Governors Avenue and a single family one zoning district with insufficient side yard and rear yard setback. Okay, and Dennis, if you can hear me, am I correct in understanding that the applicant has requested a variance? Pardon, a continuance.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, he has. He has, he got, had a work issue which he couldn't get out of, and so he asked to continue until the next hearing.

[Unidentified]: Okay. Did you talk to him about the waiver?

[Denis MacDougall]: I did, yeah.

[Unidentified]: Okay, great. So we'll do a vote of the board, but if the continuance is allowed, let's just make sure that we button up that paperwork for the waiver. Okay, folks, I don't have any problem with the continuance. If anyone does, let me know. Otherwise, do I have a motion?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to continue 93 Governors Avenue to the next regular meeting of the Joint Board of Appeals.

[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks. Do I have a second?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll second.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Okay, all in favor. Let's go reverse order. Andre? Aye. Jim? Yes. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she- dash 17 continued from January 5th. Applicant and owner Joseph and Carol Luongo are petitioning for a variance from the Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to install a driveway opening at 7 Summer Street. No part of any parking or loading area shall be located closer than five feet from a lot line if the provisions of Section 6.3.2 apply or three feet from a lot line and all other instances. The ends and sides of parking and loading spaces adjacent to a lot line shall be defined by a raised curb or a berm. Okay. And attorney Desmond, are you here for the applicant?

[Kathleen Desmond]: This matter was continued from the December meeting. Right. And there were some concerns expressed about safety and also size of parking space. And I had submitted to the board, the emails exchanged between engineering And the traffic engineer type like in the city engineer, or when warning isn't it. And I don't know if you want me to brief as to what, what the situation is and what we're looking for, or whether, whether you want to continue in the deliberation process.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm gonna have you do that, but just because I have reviewed everything to get myself up to speed, but since Jamie, you were here last month, I'm going to recuse myself and I'm gonna have you step in to vote. I've reviewed things, but I think since you were here, it's probably better if we let you vote and give a better sense of everything that occurred. Okay, so I'm gonna do that. I'm gonna appoint Jamie to vote in my set on this matter. I'll pop back in, but someone else needs to just run this hearing for this matter.

[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, would you like me to run it since I did it last?

[Unidentified]: Yeah, that would be wonderful. Thank you, yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, sounds great. Yes, thanks for spending along the information attorney Desmond. We did receive it earlier I've had a chance to review it I think some of the other board members have as well. One thing, so, you know, if there's any comments you'd like to make based on what we learned in the letters. Please, please go ahead.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So, as everybody knows this is a request to construct a one car driveway on a single family dwelling. Some, a couple of items that I didn't raise at the initial hearing that I think are probably important, and which is shown on the revised plan that chose to turn the turn. how the vehicle will turn into the driveway, is that it is a one-way street, Summer Street. In addition to being a one-way street, there's also sidewalks on both sides of the street. In addition, we were talking last time about the inability to, or the ability to exit and enter the vehicle. And I think that the city engineer address that in that he indicated that the relevant dimension is the parking space but in addition to that, and you'll see it in the email that I sent to him. I raised section 6.1 point 4.5 of the ordinance, which indicates that that nine by 19 space relates to vehicles not to exceed seven and a half feet in width and 18 feet in length. So that provides some buffer with respect to the parking space dimension, and the parking and the vehicle. You know, and I'm thinking about this for the last three weeks. The other thing is in terms of parking spaces in a multi family dwelling situation where you have a parking area. I mean those vehicles are parked. side by side within that nine by 19 space. So this really isn't any different than that. The difference in this in the relief that's being sought relates to the buffer of the adjacent lot. And I think as I had raised originally in my. In my first presentation is 6.3 point three which deals with larger projects and performance standards indicates that those that buffer can be replaced by offense. did weigh in on the fence situation, and indicated that he would like to see a fence, which is not six feet nine which is what the existing fences but something lower so that pedestrians are cued to the fact that there's a driveway there and I think he outlines. What he would like to see in his email. In addition to that, with respect to pedestrian concerns. This is a single family dwelling so you're not dealing, even though you're in an apartment one district you're not dealing with a multifamily. So the number of trips total trips probably in and out. In speaking with Mr. Luongo, he's a teacher in Malden. So he goes to work in the morning and he comes back at night, you know, and on occasion they'll go out shopping or out to dinner. But on average, you're looking probably on two trips, round trip per day. In some instances, you may have four if they go out to dinner or out to breakfast or out shopping. But this isn't a situation where you have a number of entrances and exits from that driveway. It's essentially an overnight situation where someone goes to work, comes home and parks their car. I think we talked previously about the net loss of parking spaces and that it was a one for one. And that's also mentioned in the traffic engineer's statement that there isn't a loss as to on street parking. And in terms of the curb cut, I spoke with the city engineer Today, the curb cut as it stands now has a two stone curb cut. I know the traffic engineer mentioned in his, his memorandum that that it might be a situation where they expand the existing curb cut in speaking with the city engineer today, he indicated that the city has no exception to the plan as drafted. So you wouldn't, you'd have a 16 foot curb cut. We also discussed, and I think we discussed at the last meeting, that the driveway permit is issued by the city engineer. So if they want to decrease that curb cut, you know, that's something we're open to. I think that the turn example that Medford Engineering gave is the most conservative turn into the driveway, but he did indicate that Medford Engineering survey did indicate that you could probably do 14, but anything more than that would probably be difficult to make the turn. So I think that covers it. I'm certainly available for questions.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Are there any clarifying questions from the board? based on what attorney Desmond shared in the letters we received from the city engineer and the traffic department.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I should also mention that if the tree is an issue, my client is willing to plant a tree in the back rear of the property to replace the tree that's going to be taken down for purposes of the parking space.

[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, one clarifying question I had, I don't recall whether we discussed this already in the prior meeting, but who owns the fence?

[Kathleen Desmond]: The fence is owned by my client.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So So this, Todd Blake had recommended modifications to the fence. And so it would be, so we haven't asked whether your client would be willing to make those modifications, but it would be within their power to do so it sounds like. Correct. Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And they are willing to do that for the record.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then, Just as a, for the general public, as well as a reminder to folks on the board. So when we were discussing this last meeting, we identified that this is a waiver that we can grant by special permit, specifically section 11.6.2 of the Medford zoning ordinance. And so, To do that, we would need to consider social, economic or community needs served by the proposal, traffic flow and safety, adequacy of utilities, compatibility with size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood, impact on the natural environment, and proposals compatibility with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. And so one of the mentions made in the prior meeting was that some of the clarifying questions we had asked for would help members of the board understand that the traffic flow and safety element in particular. And so just wanted to check in with the board members. Do you feel like you've received adequate information to understand the traffic flow and safety of the proposal, um, both in the case where no modifications are requested to the fence, as well as, um, in, in cases where we add the condition that, um, the, the director Blake's recommendations be adopted, um, in terms of modifying the fence. Does everybody feel like they have enough information to Um, to kind of weigh in on that when we're doing our analysis.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think that information was very helpful and the fence modifications make me feel a lot better about it.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So we've already done the public comment. Um, and we are already in deliberation. So, um, Just wanted to get, so Andre, you said it made you feel more comfortable. What about others? Do others have thoughts on that proposed modification?

[Unidentified]: Based on the conversations that we've had before with regards to the sight lines and the guidance from Todd Blake, I think the fence adjustment should be a requirement. The concern of having the vehicle pulling right along that fence line without visibility of somebody walking down the sidewalk was significant. Okay. Any other thoughts from the board? I'm in favor of it, uh, as well. I think the fence should be a requirement as well, just to make sure it's low enough so that pedestrians can see it, the car coming out. Do you have any thoughts? Um, no, no additional thoughts. I agree with whatever everybody has said.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, two thoughts that came to mind for me reading through this. So first of all, the 9 by 19 is a standard parking space in Medford for a standard vehicle. And so with this directly abutting the fence, you know, it's kind of akin to maybe You park next to another car and they're right up against the line. And so, you know, perhaps it'd be a little cramped getting out of one side, but I think, you know, for me as a board, I don't, I don't really think we should be, um, when standard size parking spaces are being proposed, be too concerned about those elements. It's a standard parking space. And I also don't think the provision about the three feet has anything to do with clearance to get out of the car. I also think that I would feel comfortable with the modification to the fence in terms of how it frees up sight lines should help safety exiting, avoid creating a blind driveway type situation. My only reservation, which I'm genuinely conflicted about because at its core, I find it somewhat unlikely that this would happen, but is that if we're going to permit a parking space conditioned on a modification to the fence, which the Longos own, Um, the property next door could buy, right. Constructive six foot fence and then make the space unsafe again, which we wouldn't want and which they probably won't do just speculating, but we can't condition a permit on what the neighbor does. And so, so that's my only reservation here. I think the proposal. would yield a safe parking space, but the approval would really only serve its purpose in promoting safety if, in fact, the neighboring property didn't build a fence, which we have no way to enforce that. So I just wanted to call that out. I don't know if the board has thoughts on that.

[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could speak to that. I believe that the ordinance that the fence that is there now, I believe doesn't comply with the ordinance requirements and further researching this over the last week. I think the fence is probably. It's supposed to be a four feet. It's not in the zoning regulations, but in the building regulations. So I think that if the neighbor were to put a six foot fence up, it wouldn't be able to per the building regulations. It's not in the ordinance itself, but within the building regulations, there's regulations as defenses. So I believe that that fence should be at a lower height in the front yard.

[Mike Caldera]: And Attorney Desmond, so I'm clear, you think it's because it's in the front yard that the four feet is what applies? Is that right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. It's in the building regulations. It's not in the... the ordinance and I had a sheet on sheds and I had a sheet on garages. And actually, if you go on the building website, if you scroll down far enough now, there's a provision that deals with fences, which I think is newly put on the website, but it's there.

[Mike Caldera]: Do we have a representative from the building department on at the moment?

[Kathleen Desmond]: So it indicates that no permits required, but that you have to check with the building department prior to erecting the fence.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. I'm just trying to, I'm trying to pull it up on the fly. So I'm on the building department website. I'm doing a keyword search. Is a building permit required to erect a fence? Is that the section attorney Desmond?

[Kathleen Desmond]: It's very, it's down at the bottom, the informational section.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the, I think I'm at the, I think it's towards the bottom where I am, right? Mid, middle, let's say. No, however, the zoning ordinance restricts the height of fences in certain locations and certain zoning districts and maximum allowable height of a fence is four feet and the required front yard setback. Maximum height of a fence beyond the required front yard setback is six feet.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Um, okay. And that doesn't appear in the zoning ordinance itself. I looked all through it when, when, um, Todd, like provided his comments. Cause I couldn't, I knew there was some, some height issue. I didn't know if it pertained to all instances, but, um, it's in the building regulations.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Um, the only thing I just want to double check, I'm looking through the zoning ordinance now. So I believe this is a. actually, from a what's the is this house in a gr district or is it an apartment next to pinkies? But like, what are the requirements for each of the? Is this a residential commercial boundary property?

[Kathleen Desmond]: It's an apartment one district. I Let me see if I can get, I have my area plan and I can pull that up. So that area, if you allow me to share my screen, I can do that and show you.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, happy for you to do so. I don't have the power to let you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I need to be allowed, I think.

[Unidentified]: Dennis, is that something you can help with?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, so here's the area plan and you'll see here, this is the property right here. So it's apartment one in this area, then general residence in C2.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so if I'm reading it correctly, even Pinky is in the apartment one, is that right?

[Unidentified]: Correct.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so then the part of the ordinance I was referring to wouldn't apply. Okay, I think that's helpful. Thank you, Attorney Desmond. So I'll take the building department. Regulation under advisement so I I'm of the opinion now that six foot fence could not be constructed by the neighboring property, all the way up to the property line so in light of that information folks. You know I put this out there just want to double check does that change anyone's analysis. Okay, not seeing any reactions to indicate that's the case.

[Andre Leroux]: I don't have any issue with that. I think that the, you know, like I said, I think the public safety piece, the fence modification takes care of that if we condition it. You know, I just wanna, I do wanna make one comment and I'm, you know, I'm sympathetic to the family's situation and I will support this, but I do think that it's not a good precedent to set to permit systematically spaces in front yards.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So to just to grant the special permit, what we specifically need to do is we have to determine that the adverse effects of this proposed addition of the parking space that doesn't conform with the parking requirements or the parking dimension requirements. Hold on, sorry. To determine the adverse effects of it will not outweigh the beneficial impacts to the city or the neighborhood, view the particular characteristics of the site and proposal in relation to that site. And so we need to consider Again, socioeconomic or community needs, which are served by the proposal, traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading, adequacy of the utilities, other public service, compatibility with the size and scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood, impacts on the natural environment, and the proposal's compatibility with the city's comprehensive plan. So I will claim based on what we've discussed so far that We don't, the adequacy of the utilities and other public services doesn't apply. The impacts on the natural environment don't really apply. We talked about permeable versus not. That's something the city engineer gets to decide. Comprehensive plan compatibility doesn't apply. So then that leaves us with, social, economic, or community needs, which are served by the proposal. Um, my summary of the, um, uh, attorney Desmond says six, six, one 10. Hold on.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I think we have a special permit that relates to parking exclusively. Uh, I think the other standard is the special performance standards and maybe site plan review. Um,

[Mike Caldera]: My understanding is that we have to consider the factors I read out for any special permit and then... Okay, fair.

[Kathleen Desmond]: 6.1.10 deals with traffic and loading and we, yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. I apologize, I just wanna make sure that... Yeah, no, no, fair call out, okay. So then specific site or public safety considerations. So the one that was called out is the blind exit. Um, and so, um, there was a proposal, um, to add a condition that the fence be modified, um, consistent with the recommendations of director Blake. Um, and then, uh, access to public transportation. I don't think that one applies here. Supply and demand of on-street parking in the vicinity. So we talked about this is a net neutral proposal. So director Blake said it would be better if you're adding two spaces and taking away one, but this is a parking neutral proposal. The next condition doesn't apply. And then there's the whether substantial detriment shall result to the neighborhood, which we didn't specifically talk about. But in general, I don't see how this would result in substantial detriment to the neighborhood. A lot of the neighboring properties have driveways. It's a parking neutral proposal. So there's just a proposed condition. That's the only thing we've talked about. And so in light of that information, would anybody like to make a motion? For example, you could make a motion to approve this special permit subject to the condition that the fence be modified Um, in accordance with, uh, director Blake's recommendation.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mike. So moved. Do I have a second?

[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right. Um, so we'll do a roll call vote. Um, Jamie Thompson.

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Yvette Velez. Aye. Jim Tirani. Yes. Andre LaRue.

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Mike Caldera, aye. So the special permit is approved subject to that condition. All right. And then so I think here is where we typically ask you, Attorney Desmond, if you could draft up the decision. Is that right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: That decision, correct.

[Mike Caldera]: OK. Wonderful. Well, congratulations to the Longos. And with that, I will turn the chair back over to member Doherty.

[Unidentified]: Thanks so much, Mike. OK. Attorney Desmond, are you in front of us for anything else this evening?

[Kathleen Desmond]: No.

[Unidentified]: OK. All right. And thanks so much, Harold. I was going to call you next if you were.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you.

[Unidentified]: All right. Have a good one. OK. So that is 7 Summer Street. Next we have 436 Riverside Avenue. That's case A-2022-19. Applicant and owner Amarok LLC is petitioning for variance from the chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to construct a 10 foot high fence in an industrial zoning district, which is in violation of the city of Medford zoning ordinance 6.6.3, which stipulates that fences with posts over seven feet tall need zoning approval. Okay. And who do we have here for the applicant?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Hi, I'm Cindy Lundy with Amarok. And we also have Brian Albanese. He is with Penske, who is the customer.

[Unidentified]: OK, great.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Good afternoon.

[Unidentified]: Hi there. I just don't see Brian. Where is he?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: He's, I don't know where he is on yours. He's on my bottom screen, bottom of my screen.

[Unidentified]: Okay, not on video, got it, okay. Not on video, sorry. No, no, no, that's totally fine. No worries, I just was looking for you. Okay, did you folks wanna make a presentation to the board or lead us off with what you're looking for?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I'll be happy to. I didn't know if staff would make a presentation or not, but I'll be happy to.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, that would be great, thank you.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, we're here tonight asking for a variance for a electric security fence that goes interior to an already existing and permitted chain link fence at the Penske at the noted address for 36 Riverside. If I could. Let me first back up and explain that the fence is allowed. It's not that we're here discussing the characteristics of the security burglar alarm, alarmed fence. That's already allowed by code. It's that we're discussing the height. And we do know that the maximum height allowed in this industrial setting is seven feet. And if I could possibly, for one quick second, share my screen, I could give you a pretty good example, a pretty good video slide of why the extra footage is necessary.

[Unidentified]: Don't feel that you need to be quick. Take whatever time you need to show us what you think we need to see.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, thank you.

[Unidentified]: You're welcome.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I'm not getting the screen sharing thing, I don't think. You should be now. Sure. Oh, do I ask for it? Okay, there we go. There you go. Now, are you seeing that slide with the two?

[Unidentified]: Not yet.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: You're not seeing it.

[Unidentified]: Did you hit the button at the bottom to share?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I hit share screen and it came up with, oh no, I did not. There you go. So now you're seeing it, right?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay. This is a pretty, pretty simple explanation for why we need to be taller than the perimeter fence. So if you see this perimeter fence right here, this is the chain link that's already existing. If we were the same height, which is what is allowed, there's chain link is seven feet. If we were the same height, which is what is allowed by code, we would be like this. And as you see, the bad guys can throw a ladder up on that chain link, or they can climb that chain link and they can hop right over.

[Unidentified]: Is that chain link fence owned by the neighboring parcel?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: No, the chain link fence is owned by the business that's here, the parcel, Penske, which is the parcel at 436 Riverside.

[Unidentified]: Okay, is that chain link fence staying up.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, yes, yes, the chain link that stays there, we do not impact that chain link it's already there and permitted it's there it's a legal fence it's in fact it's actually he sent me pictures it's a slatted fence it looks really good. You know, it's a good fence. So if we were that same height, as you can see, a bad guy could simply climb up that chain link or throw a ladder on it and hop right over, because these fences work in conjunction with the chain link. So they are only about eight inches separation, between four to eight inches separation between the two fences. So if you see over here on this side, if we have the chain link fence, and then the bad guy decides to climb the chain link, then he has this two to three foot additional wires that he cannot... climb. They don't support weight. They're just individual single strands of wire. They don't support weight. They are the battery charged wire, the alarm system. If he touches them, the alarm goes off. The business is called. That's what the system is designed to do. But if you have that two to three extra feet, he can't jump over that. It creates an impenetrable barrier for him. So we're simply here asking for the extra footage to create the alarm system that will secure his property. This is also the industry standard for these systems. Not just us, but anybody else in the industry that installs these security systems, 10 feet is the industry standard. that's what the variance is all about. If you have any questions about, you know, the need for it or anything like that, we're happy to talk to you about that.

[Unidentified]: That would be great. So we, when we go through these, we always go through the statutory requirements for the variance relating to, you know, shape, topography, soil conditions that give rise for the need for it. So if you could walk us through that section and then also we take a look at whether or not there'll be any substantial detriment to the district as well.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Sure, I'm happy to review that. You're welcome to follow along on the variance criteria response that was submitted with the application, which seemed to me to be very good, but I will be glad to point some of the highlights out. Penske is a national customer. They have between 115 and 120, depending on which ones have been approved since we wrote the variance or since we wrote the application. They have about 120 fences with us nationwide. Not fences, but security systems. They're really burglar alarm systems, is what they really are. They know that this is the only way to stop the criminal activity that they have in their property. And they are experiencing increasing crime with thieves breaking in, stealing catalytic converters, batteries, cycling fuel, and then cars that are inoperable can't be used. So there's an incalculable cost there. As far as The bylaws are very, very clear. Zoning code 6.3.3 says that fences in the industrial site need to be anything over seven feet requires a zoning approval. That's why we're here tonight, because we need to be taller than the height of the fence. Otherwise it creates a very impenetrable barrier that the bad guys can just hop over. So for this system to work, it needs to be a little bit taller. As far as the subject property, I think if you know this property or if you've looked at the maps of it, there's mature vegetation and landscaping to the east outside of the property, which they don't control. This heavy vegetation serves as a perfect screen to obscure criminal activity happening inside the property. and it also obscures passing police patrols. So there's also large trucks on the property because they rent trucks and that also helps the bad guys move around and do the do the bad work kind of under natural cover based on what's inside the property.

[Unidentified]: Sure you know I just realized this is very helpful but I just realized and I want to just check with the other board members I may have the paperwork that we got said that you were applying for a variance. It is a variance, but I just want to make sure. OK, so the reason I say that is typically we have to go through the requirements from the state, but I just wanted to double check rather than start asking you about the soil condition and shape and topography. which it didn't seem like from the materials that that would apply. We have a section in our new zoning code and you'll have to bear with us a little bit. We're still kind of getting used to this. Talking about the substitution, this is landscaping buffers and screenings. You're familiar with section 6.3.3, is that the one we're looking at?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: That's the code that states can only be seven feet.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, so I just wanted to see, because it says that where this applies, It says that the special permit granting authority may specify substitute materials, may change its extent and specify minimum maximum dimensions, increasing the requirement. For the other members of the board, do you read this to say that, oh, I'm just trying to get a sense of, does the zoning ordinance specifically allow us to say it can be higher? or is it a regular variance analysis? Mike, do you have any sense of that?

[Mike Caldera]: So I believe 6.3.11 allows us to waive. Yeah, so 6.3.11 allows us to waive any provision of 6.3.3. Oh, okay, perfect, yeah. If we're mentally considering, and then it has a list of values.

[Unidentified]: Okay, so then it would be a special permit and not a variance. Right? Yeah. Okay. Cindy, the reason that I say that it's a much higher criteria to meet the variance. So I just want to make sure we were going through the correct analysis and Mike has confirmed he knew the section correctly. So we are going to do the analysis as to the special permit and the zoning ordinance specifically gives us permission to waive that seven foot requirement. And I'll read you what it says. We can waive or reduce that provision if warranted considering the waivers offset by other beneficial aspects of the proposal, overall design and site planning enhances the visual and civic quality of the site, the overall design and experience for residents and visitors and no substantial detriment. So that's the analysis we'll be looking at, not that other one that I said about shape and topography. Does that make sense?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Well, the application we submitted was for a variance. Um, that was because that was where we were directed or, of course, once we got of the permit.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I don't think that that will be an issue. It just means that actually the criteria that we have to use are actually, it's a lower threshold for you. It's an easier threshold to get over. Perfect. But what I'll do just- Let's move forward. Yeah. Mike, did you want to add something?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just a couple of things to point out. So first of all, it's ultimately up to you what path you request to pursue. If for some reason a path didn't work out, it doesn't preclude you from pursuing any other path. As Jacqueline said, for a typical thing without weighing on the merits of this case, special permit tends to be the lesser standard and so easier for us to grant. The second thing I just want to point out is One of my question marks that I didn't see addressed in the docs that I think also matters for for this particular proposal is section 6.4.9 utility security emergency system standards. And so as part of that, there's an item three site security. There shall be a certification by the police chief that the petitioners provided a written plan for site security, which has been approved by the police chief.

[Unidentified]: Mike, why don't we do this? Why don't I do a share screen quickly and pull that up? So that just because if the petitioner doesn't have this in front of her, I want to make sure she can see what we're looking at. Okay, so you said 6.4.9 right here, site security? Yeah. Okay, go ahead, Mike.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so this, as I understand it, because there is a proposal to essentially build a structure for site security would require the police chief to certify that they've reviewed and approved the written plan. And this is in the general section. performance standards for multiple dwelling or non-residential use. So essentially everything in section 6.4, our performance standards have been adopted in order to control the size, scale and impacts of non-residential and multiple dwelling developments that require a special permanent or site plan review. So anything in this section, I believe that's the only one that would apply here, is required on the path to a building permit. So yeah, without this essentially being approved by the police chief, I don't believe we can grant a special permit today. And maybe it has been, I don't know, but that would be one of them.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, so we can check with that. Cindy, is this something that has gotten approval by the police chief, do you know? Oh no, no ma'am, I'm sorry. No, no, no, you don't need to apologize.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: No problem.

[Unidentified]: No problem. So this is new in the city, so we're all still getting used to it, so no problem. That's something that we can discuss, depending on what you want to do as the applicant, if we can also do a continuance or something. I just want to point out while we're looking at this, the other two that we were talking about, we had the just one second while I scroll. Okay, so 6.3.3 was the one that we were talking about you'd been directed to regarding substitution. that has a seven foot height. And then the 6.3.11, I just want to give you these numbers so you have them. That's the one that Mike mentioned that gives us, we're the special permit granting authority, that gives us the power to reduce or waive any of the provisions, i.e. the seven feet. And these are the criteria. So these are the criteria, as Mike was saying, they're generally a little bit easier of a hurdle than the variance, which requires an issue with the shape, topography, or soil condition of the property. This takes into account that there are other reasons why we might need to waive. So that was what we would be looking at.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Can I ask a question? I'm caught very unawares on this, I'm sorry. No worries. If this really does apply, we are not prepared for that because we have not talked to the police chief. But let me ask you, that section 6.4.9 when you're talking about emergency systems, is that for all industrial properties or is that just for certain industrial properties like possibly city-owned properties, utility-owned properties, anything that's, you know, maybe adjacent to some other type thing? Is it for all industrial, or is it just special?

[Unidentified]: Yeah, no, great question. So right here, this is the section he was talking about, 6.4. Mike, unless you know a different, I think this is what it would be. So the following performance standards, all of 6.4, have been adopted in order to control the size, scale, and impacts of non-residential, which would be this, and multiple developments, they require a special permit. So for here, for the special permit that we would give you or not give you based on what's presented, because this would be for the special permit. So it seems as though if you go the special permit route, which is the threshold that seems most appropriate and is the lower threshold, it would seem then that 6.4 would apply, so you would need the chief of police to sign off. Otherwise, we would need to find that there was a shape, topography, or soil condition that was unique to the parcel that caused the hardship. Does that make sense?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: It does.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, if we were going to do the variance. So it might make more sense to go the special permit route. Can I see 6.4.9 one more time?

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Sure, of course.

[Mike Caldera]: And Jacqueline, if I may real quick, just to the specific question about exemptions, there are three, but none of them would apply here. So it's emergency response, municipal uses and structures and events.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay. So see what I'm seeing here at 6.4, and I really don't mean to be argumentative, and I'm happy to continue this. I just wanna make sure I understand so that when we come back next month, we're not in the wrong venue yet. 6.4.9 says utilities, but it also says security. So is that where you're telling me we fall under?

[Unidentified]: Mike, I think that's what you're referencing.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Because I was seeing utilities and I thought maybe this applied just to utilities.

[Mike Caldera]: I believe it's the standards that apply to three different things. Utilities and security and emergency systems.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, and I think what they're saying here is it's utilities, security and emergency systems, whether they're private or public.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Well, we're not a utility. We're a security system.

[Unidentified]: Right, so I think it would be this right here. Yeah. So we do fall under that category. Yeah, yeah. And no worries about the various everything again like we're all still getting used to this everyone at City Hall is the board is. We're all just sort of trying to make our way through it and find the sections that apply.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, well, I appreciate your help on that. Yeah, we're gonna have to ask for continuance then, because we cannot talk, if that is the one thing that we have to do, we have not done that.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Because that's not required for variance, and that's what we thought we're here for.

[Unidentified]: Sure, yeah. So we can ask the board to vote on the continuance if that's what you'd like to do. And then I know I mentioned this, but just so that everything is really clear, when you come back, it's the, Where is it? Right here. I know I highlighted this before, but it's the 6.3.11. That's going to list out the criteria. And these are the right after, among other factors, right here.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: OK. So we need to submit a whole new application. And do we have to do a notice again?

[Unidentified]: I don't believe that you need to resubmit the application. I don't think we need to do notice either. I think we just state tonight that it's continued, right, Mike?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my understanding is that you would not need to reapply. You're welcome to, in advance, provide any supplemental information that's pertinent. But yeah, I think we, so you'd, uh, we would ask if you're willing to, to waive the statutory timeline so that we can continue it. Assuming you're on board with that, then, um, one of us could motion to continue it. And then, yeah, you would just, you could either present it day of, or often, um, applicants choose to just, uh, provide some supplemental information in it. Right.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: And who is the person that we need to meet with? You said the police chief, does it have, do we have a way to contact him? Is it online or what?

[Unidentified]: Um, you know, what might be the best thing to do is, um, you can contact Dennis, who's the clerk of this board, Dennis McDougal. And he, Dennis, is that okay? And, um, he can help you coordinate where, where we need to get to, but it's the police chief. I don't know that you need to meet with the chief, although I'm not going to suggest how you should engage with the chief. Well, let me see what it says. It says specifically sign off, I believe.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so there needs to be a security plan that's approved by the chief.

[Unidentified]: Yeah. So that is yes, certification that the petitioners provided a written plan that's been approved by the police chief. So you can talk to Dennis, who's the clerk. of the board, Dennis McDougal, and he'll be able to help you know how to get that submitted. And then anything you want to submit to us relating to those criteria, everything, entire applications, we put them all online. So anything else that you submit there, we'll just add that there as well. So the public will have access to it, but we won't need to re-notice. You don't have to do another whole formal application.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, okay. Will the police chief get back to you with an approved plan or will it come back to us or I'm just trying to figure you know I yeah I'm not sure but Dennis will know the answers to those questions for sure.

[Unidentified]: Logistical things.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, Brian I'm going to ask if you're okay with this. Asking for continuance. Okay, okay. Okay, great. Well, we appreciate your time. I'm really sorry we came. Oh gosh, no worries.

[Unidentified]: No, no, no, not at all. But before you go, we do need to just vote on the continuance. Okay, okay. And yeah, so no problem, you're fine. Okay, thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Do I have a motion?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll make a motion to continue 436 Riverside Ave to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

[Unidentified]: Okay, do I have a second?

[Mike Caldera]: A second.

[Unidentified]: Okay. And by a roll call vote, Mike. Oh, pardon. All in favor. Mike. Yes. Jim. Yes. Andre.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Aye.

[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, folks. So you have a continuance.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: What's the date of the next year?

[Unidentified]: Oh, the date of the next hearing. I am not 100% sure I believe it will be.

[Denis MacDougall]: It's February 23 February 23.

[Unidentified]: Is that right, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct.

[Unidentified]: Okay, February 23.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, will it also be zoom.

[Unidentified]: Yes, we're still going to be on zoom I think that this continues at least to the end of March on zoom. Okay, and then I'm Dennis will help you coordinate getting that waiver sign just so that we make sure we don't run into any statutory deadlines on that.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: And then we will look forward to seeing you next month, getting waiver sign is that the thing from the police chief.

[Unidentified]: That's the one I'm sorry that's just the time frame. We have a number of days during what during which we have to have the hearing and then give you a decision. So we just want to make sure we don't run out run afoul.

[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, and that goes to the person that's been running the application.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, Dennis Dennis will coordinate that with you so you don't have to worry about that. That'll be fine. Yeah, perfect. Okay, great. All right. Thank you so much. Yep, you're welcome. Okay, next item is 55 Hall Street. Case number A-2022-20. Applicant and owner James and Sandra Nazaro are petitioning for a variance from the chapter 94 city of Bedford zoning to construct an addition at a property at 55 Hall Street, which is in an industrial zone with insufficient side yard setback and exceeding the maximum height allowed. And folks, who do we have here from the applicant?

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: That'd be me. Hi there. Hi, can you hear me?

[Unidentified]: I can, yes.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Okay, good. I'm Doug Shoup. I'm the architect for the Nazaros at 55 Hall. And I don't know how you'd want to do this because I'm sure you've all taken a look at the application and the plans and all that stuff. But I mentioned to Dennis, I could maybe do some screen sharing and just sort of give an overview of what's being proposed and why we're asking for the relief.

[Unidentified]: Okay, no, that would be great. We tend to like the applicants to give a presentation and that way for anyone who's watching on the live stream, they get a sense of what's going on because I think generally it's just the board members who read the written materials that are submitted. So if you want to screen share and give us a presentation, that'd be great.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Okay, I will.

[Unidentified]: Let's see which one, this one, okay. Can you see it? I see, yep, there it is.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Okay, okay. Yeah, so I have three screens here, so I'm just trying to figure out how- It shows the bird's eye view. Yes, so I just wanted to give some context and I'll just kind of zoom around here. It's just the Google Earth overview. And while the last person was going, I found out my electricity is off at my house, so.

[Unidentified]: Oh.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. It's not a big deal. It's just that I went to turn on the heat from my phone and I couldn't get it to come on. All right. Anyhow, down here is obviously the Mystic Valley Parkway and this is the Meadow Glen Mall, Dix, and everything, all the sporting goods. This is the site. This is the piece of property we're talking about. at 55 Hall Street runs from Riverside down this way. And it sort of loops back around out that way. And there's, this is all within the industrial district. And so what we're proposing is back here in this back portion is putting an addition on. Now what you can see from this sort of, it's not the greatest photo. I do have a few photos I want to show, but, You'll see that this is open. It's actually open all the way to this existing, the original sort of addition that was put on. This addition was put on probably 20 years ago. Don't know exactly, but we're asking to extend this addition out to the past, not within the, beyond the minimum required rear yard setback, And so I made all setbacks with the exception of the side yard because the existing building sits essentially a foot and a half off the side yard. So now let me jump to the... So this is a view from right as you come in the driveway. There's a fence all the way around the building. What happens here is there's no manufacturing. It's primarily the General Glass, which has been there for 10 or 12 years. They get their parts in, and it's mostly storefronts and windows. It's glass storefronts and windows. They get all of the aluminum parts, all of the glass is made off-site, all the aluminum is made off-site. They basically fabricate in this location. The reason they want to extend is twofold. One is they want to increase their office space on the second level of the addition in the rear. The main reason is because they run out of storage room and a lot of their equipment are very large platters essentially that they erect the glass on. They have to be level and they have to be able to get around them because most of it goes into commercial buildings. Pella or Anderson, they provide mostly for commercial type structures. That's really pretty much all they do. It's a family business that's been around for a long time. Their parents, Jim Nazaro, I worked for him 25 years ago when he was doing storefronts and an old project that I was working on many years ago. And I've been here in Medford Square since 2000, actually working out of West Medford first. So I've known this family for a long time, and they've really just trying to expand. They're sort of on top of each other now. And I'll just go through a couple of some of my site photos. And you can see all these, correct?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: OK. So, this is the rear side. So when they built this, they didn't think they would need the room and they ended up using this and closing it off of the gate for additional storage and these are all, this is all storefront. It's mostly aluminum frames and stuff. But when you get glass and all this stuff together, this now sits outside. This is one of their main storage areas, but it is a little vulnerable because it just does have this fence. But it's not a hot commodity. It's not catalytic converters like the last one I was talking about. But still, it's an open area that they would like to bring inside. just another view of it inside the fence. And this is kind of, basically this is kind of what they do is they build this kind of thing. or like I said, mostly commercial buildings. Here's some photos from the inside and you can see product is everywhere. They've even on this interior put a mezzanine to locate some older equipment up there. But the natural flow, and I'll get to that whenever I get to the floor plan, is impeded by all of this. And they like to get the product in, fabricate it, move it through the shop, and then bring it out the other side. And so what we're doing is we're extending that. And the main reason why we're asking for the relief is that it would really be much more beneficial to have the storage in one continuous big space. And they could clear up some of this and make their manufacturing or their fabrication much easier. But these tables here, you can see there's a table here, there's a giant table here. They have other tables, they just don't have the room for them. And that's really the need for the additional space. So just kind of zooming around here, but you can see all these tables are perfectly level. They have to be square so that they can make their product properly. This is about a year-old review of the rear. There's just a lot of stuff that they would like to have inside and not outside. This is my 3D model that I built for them. And this will help you see this is the existing, that's the original building that was there. This was put on a first edition before General Glass moved in there and they put this edition on. The back part would be the edition that we're asking to build.

[Unidentified]: Are each of those white squares that are facing us, are those doors through which?

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Overhead doors.

[Unidentified]: Product would be going in and out?

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Correct. Okay, yeah. Correct. So I can just kind of zoom around here if you can see that. And this really is the addition right here, okay? I just made it a slight, I don't know if it shows up on your screen, but it's slightly different color, but it would really just be matching is the existing metal flat building, industrial building that's there. It's pretty common in this type of, to this type of a use. So the addition really stems, it comes along this wall here. So right now, currently, I'm pointing with my finger. Currently right now, this area is the open area that I showed you. It just has the roof overhang on it. And this here is the addition of 46 feet or 47 feet. The existing building that's here now, I blocked it out and this is the footprint of it. They are also essentially right next to each other on the border. So this is basically what I'm asking to do is extend what's already a preexisting non-conforming structure. So now I can jump to, first, one thing I just wanna clarify is this was the letter, the permit refusal, and I spoke with Paul Smith about this. Because I gave sort of gave me a heads up. I said, I'm going to need a permanent refusal and I'm just going to submit a simple package. And at the time I thought that I had exceeded the building height. So what it says, we're not asking for relief in the building height because after he wrote this letter, we had another conversation and he realized that you're in compliance because I was doing the peak and he said, oh no, in Medford, it's the average height of the slope. So it's a relatively low slope, but if you look at the plans that were submitted, that they fully comply. And the only thing, so if I go to, oh, so that's all of that. Let me go back to.

[Unidentified]: So you're not requesting, the only relief that you need then would be.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: The side yard setback.

[Unidentified]: Side yard, okay.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Correct, correct. So if I go back to, this was the submission. This is the site plan. The addition is in closing this overhang and then putting this addition on here. It's 46.7 feet, but the rear yard is in compliance. All these comply with the exception of this basically sliver of land that's right there. And if I go to, here's the zoning review, and here's really where we don't comply for obvious reasons. So, but the height, the building height, which is maximum 30 feet, we're actually, the existing is 28.6, just because of the slope and the width, that's gonna put us at about 29.1. So we're okay with that. We're not asking for relief on that. And that wouldn't get rejected once the permits were submitted.

[Unidentified]: What I'm wondering is if this is an extension of a prior nonconformity is whether we actually only need to make a finding and don't need to do a full variance. Oh, Mike, did you have something?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I have a question related to that. Yeah, go ahead. I get the answer. I think I'm going to get it. I think I know the answer to your question. So I just want to double check, Mr. Chute. So the existing nonconformity in terms of the side yard setback is the same as the proposed ones. You're just extending an existing nonconformity, right?

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: You're not making- That is correct. That is correct. So, right. So here's the proposed building. So right down here where it says 15.1, that's where the new overhead door would go. And like I said, all the way up to this point right now, even though this is overhang, it's nonconforming. And it started off with the original building. then it was added on and this was added on, this section here. I call it building C. I say, A, that's original, B is the second one, C is the third, and D is what we're proposing.

[Unidentified]: Right. Because that overhang isn't technically a building, it would be a finding based on the pre-existing nonconformities of A and B on that side yard.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Correct.

[Unidentified]: Yeah. And then on the other side yard, you're all set and the rear, you're all set and.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.

[Unidentified]: So do you agree? I think we just, it would be a finding related to an extension of the prior nonconformity.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Jacqueline that's my understanding as well. It's a finding. And so the old zoning ordinance was silent on specifically how that should work, but in the new ordinance 5.3 0.1. is what governs, or no, sorry, maybe it's just 5.3.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, so let's see, non-conforming structures.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so essentially... Yeah. It's not substantially more detrimental standard. Ultimately, we're awarding a special permit, but yeah, that's the only standard we have to establish.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, so the things that are permissible under this would be reconstruction, extension, or structural changes. This would be extension.

[Mike Caldera]: OK.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and so if you were creating a new nonconformity then it would require a bearing. So you're basically making the non-conforming worse.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, so this could come, well yeah, we don't want to say worse, you could say you're... I'd go right to the property line or something silly. Yeah, yeah, so no, right, exactly, yeah, if it was changing... More intense, yeah. Right, if it was even changing from 1.5 feet to 1.4, that would that would be different. But since it's staying exactly the same. So this would be to Mike's point, it's five dot three. And this is an extension of prior nonconforming building, which is a different standard. So I'll just read this out. The Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct extend alter or change a non-conforming structure in accordance with the section only if it determines that such extension is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing conforming structure. So that's the only analysis that the board needs to do here is that it's not substantially more detrimental. which is an easier analysis for you folks as well. It's always nice when people come in front of us and they think they need a higher standard, and we can say, actually, well, here's what we've got. It's a little harder when it's the- Well, I have high standards.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Well, I mean, really, I didn't really finish, but the key thing here is now I've got this big storage, which is inside, and then the assembly pretty much starts in here, and certain smaller windows come out. These doors, which are already there, These are overhead doors, you see the dash line, that's like if they're open, right? But it really would just flow down this way and then out. And if we couldn't do that, then that really screws up sort of everything else.

[Unidentified]: Okay, well, what we're going to do is we need to, I'm going to see if the other board members have questions before we open for public comment. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Oh, you know what we can do? Why don't we stop the screen share?

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, can you do that? All right, hold on. I'll stop it. Stop the share.

[Unidentified]: Perfect. Thank you.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Stop this deal. All right.

[Unidentified]: All right. So I don't see any other board members having questions. Okay. Oh, Jamie, go right ahead. I just have one question. In the 3D rendering, you showed additional parking spaces mapped out? Yes. Do those impact our path forward at all? So say that again? I guess my question to the board is, do we need to look at those at all? Or is it just the structure? I think the question is, are you seeking any relief related to the parking? Is his question.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: No, I mean- Because it looks like it's already asphalt. It's it's it's basically asphalt up to up to this section in the back, and it's kind of dirt and gravel and around around there. There's some asphalt. It's kind of torn up. It's never really been cared for. But obviously, if we're doing work, it's going to be. Basically, I'm adding spaces. I've added some spaces here. There's a few spaces along here that are striped. They're really just the employees. It's not a retail store. But this fully complies with the parking. And if the second floor is going to be some additional office space for them so they can expand accordingly, then some of these spaces back there would be more appropriate for them, as opposed to right now, they mostly park in these spaces up here.

[Unidentified]: OK, great, thanks. Anybody else? Or can I get a motion to open for public comment?

[Mike Caldera]: I motion to open for public comment.

[Unidentified]: Do I have a second?

[Mike Caldera]: Second.

[Unidentified]: Okay. And all in favor by roll call, Mike. Yes. Jim. Yes. Andre. Hi. And Jacqueline is I okay. Um, Dennis, do we have anyone who, uh, from the public who wishes to speak on this matter?

[Denis MacDougall]: Um, if anyone does, you could either raise your hand, both either through the program itself or. if you want to just show your screen and wave that way, so.

[Unidentified]: I don't see anyone in the chat.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Well, I see two of my clients in there, the Nazaros. They're the clients, so.

[Unidentified]: Oh, I meant anyone in the chat asking us a question.

[Mike Caldera]: Sure. Motion to close public comment and open deliberations.

[Unidentified]: Do I have a second?

[Andre Leroux]: Seconded.

[Unidentified]: Okay, all in favor by roll call vote. Mike? Yes. Yvette? Aye. Jim? Yes. Andre? Aye. Jacqueline is aye. Okay, so deliberations. Folks, what do we think? I think on the finding, it seems like a great structure. And when I look at the criteria of whether it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, I don't see any detriment. What do you folks think?

[Andre Leroux]: I agree, agreed with you, Jackie. There's a limited, limited of butters. And I think that it's, you know, it is an industrial area. This is in keeping with that it's helps. In addition, and you know, not a zoning issue, but it helps keep a local small business growing.

[Unidentified]: Yeah. Which, you know, always a good thing to take into consideration. I agree. Any other anyone else from the board wanna weigh in on anything or make a motion?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I agree with Andre's assessment. I think given the butters and the district, I don't even think there'd be any detriment. I think it's a perfectly reasonable product that helps the business grow. So yeah, I think we meet the standard.

[Unidentified]: Okay, great. So do we want Does someone wanna make a motion that the board finds that the proposed extension of the prior nonconformity related to the side yard will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, and all in favor by roll call vote. Andre? Aye. Jim? Yes. Yvette. Aye. Mike. Yes. And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, folks, you have an addition. All right. Hey, I'm still undefeated. Well, if you bring us good proposals, we're going to approve them.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: Well, that's why I usually run them by the inspector first because, you know, if I feel, and this was, I know this was a tough one, but I personally, I don't, it's really, no one's going to see it from the back of the mall maybe, but it's about it.

[Unidentified]: Okay, well, good luck. We'll have a decision on two folks shortly.

[yW_ZzvRt6vQ_SPEAKER_01]: All right, thank you very much.

[Unidentified]: You're so welcome. Okay, last matter of the evening. Oh, hang on, actually, I have a note in the chat from Noreen and Colin Lynch. We have a question about 93 Governor's Ave when you have a chance, thank you. Folks, we continue that matter to, right? Yeah, so Governor's Ave has been continued to the hearing next month, so we won't be taking public comment on that this evening. Okay, so matter number six. Just give me one sec, folks. Okay, 180 Lincoln Road, case number A-2022-22. Applicant and owner Joseph Tonello is petitioning for a variance from the chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to construct a single family dwelling at 180 Lincoln Road in a single family one zoning district, allowed use with insufficient rear yard setback. Okay, and who do I have here for the applicant?

[SPEAKER_03]: Hello. Good evening, everyone. This is Anam Changwai. I'm the architect from Anduo. And here with us is also the applicant, Joe Tonello and Ellen Tonello. And we have David Paul from William Construction. And so I can present, I can share my screen and you can see the project. And well, first, I would like to start with a little bit of telling you a little bit of the Tonellos. I don't know if everyone probably know them already. They both were born and raised in Medford. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Mrs. and Mr. Tonello. And they have lived there in front of the project that we will present for the last 47 years. And they would like to stay in the neighborhood. And the current house is a two-story house And I can share the screen now with some pictures. Let me just... Sure, go right ahead.

[Unidentified]: Let's see how... Oh, I think it's this one. Oops.

[SPEAKER_03]: Using my screen.

[Unidentified]: So... I'm seeing a black, oh, there it is.

[SPEAKER_03]: There you go. Okay. So the one here in yellow is the project 180 Lincoln Street. They just live in front of it, 177 Lincoln Street. So let me see. So this is their current house. It's Lincoln Road. It's Lincoln Road. Lincoln Road, yes. Right. Because there's Lincoln Road and Lincoln Street. Oh, okay. So the current house is a two-story house over a garage, and they have 16 steps to go to the first floor. And so the other house, you can see it is just on the other side. And they have decided, because of health and age, they want to build a one-story house, fully accessible. And so that's why we're doing this project. And I can show you the drawings now. So in this, you can see it, isn't it? Yes. So the red line, I don't know if it's clear to see, is the existing house that is in the site. And then you see in dark gray, that's the proposal. So the existing house, we're keeping the same orientation of the existing house. And the existing house was already a non-conforming rear setback. We're seeking for this variant for a 3.7 rear setback and a 2.8 side setback. On the back, we have the Middlesex Fells reservation. So the red line, you see that's the existing house, we're just going over. And we're just asking for a 3.7 on the setback. And on the side, we have 190 Lincoln Road on the side. what is something different from these two site is that they already have a 20 feet separation between these two properties. So, and that's where we asking for a 2.8 side yard. So we just, even though we asking for a variance, they already 20 feet separated by these, it is called like an unknown area by the survey. And the program is similar, That's what they have now. They were looking for a three bedroom unit, everything in the same floor. And even the garage, everything is on the same floor. We just have an unfinished basement for mechanicals. And as I point before, it's just one story building that they're looking for. So I think it's, pretty much that it's just the rear setback and the side setback that we're seeking a relief and a variance.

[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks. I just have a quick question. Sure. So the rear setback, when you said, I see the, when I'm looking at it, I just wanna make sure, the red line for the existing and the gray line for the new, is that line gonna be the same

[SPEAKER_03]: No, no. So the red line is existing. How are we going to demo that? So that we'll make sure. I was just pointing out that it's already non-conforming. Of course, we're increasing that a little bit. But it's not that it's affecting the neighbor there because kind of the volume was in the same range.

[Unidentified]: I was thinking originally that maybe it would be an extension, but I guess if it's a full demolition, then that wouldn't go into it. Mike, did you have something you wanted to add?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just a clarifying question. So I've seen a picture of a red brick house with lots of steps and then a white house. And I don't know which one I should be. I don't know how to make two cents of it.

[SPEAKER_03]: Sure. The house here on the top is their existing house. I just show it. to point that that's where they live now, the applicants. That's across the street? That's across the street.

[Unidentified]: Oh, okay.

[SPEAKER_03]: So that's their existing house, and they want to move to this just in front of the street. And the reason they want to do everything accessible is because, as you see, their existing house has many steps.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Mike Caldera]: And then just one other clarification, because I don't believe I saw it in the document. So will, as part of this demolition and reconstruction, will there be a bunch of changes to the actual topography of the property? I'm having trouble fully understanding how switching to one story solves the steps.

[SPEAKER_03]: Well, the house inside will have any step. The house is just one story building.

[Mike Caldera]: But yeah, within the house. Okay.

[SPEAKER_03]: Within the house.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes. You still need to have like a driveway that will go up. But of course, that side of the street is down. I mean, it doesn't have a hill that height as the other side. So where the driver will be. Yes. Even the driver will be lower.

[Mike Caldera]: And actually, while we're looking at this one other clarifying question. So I know in the application and you also referenced it in the in your presentation, there's this 20 foot owner unknown region. So if I'm reading this correctly, there's currently a paved driveway for this property that's in that owner unknown region, is that right?

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, and that's on the existing house. That's currently how it is. We're just going to remove that and have a landscape.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. Okay, sorry, I keep I had one other one that's actually go for it.

[Unidentified]: Go for it.

[Mike Caldera]: So um, so I'm aware from what's written here and just from the the area plan and so on, that this property borders Middlesex Fells reservation. The right of way that that area is there any kind of Could you just elaborate on what that is exactly?

[SPEAKER_03]: Well, it's in the surveyors. It's only on plans because when you see it from the back, it looks like part of the reservation.

[Mike Caldera]: OK, but is it like right of way for public to just wander through or is it right of way for... It's, you know, it's in the drawings when you see the documents, that's how it shows.

[SPEAKER_03]: I don't know if at some point, you know, they wanted to do like a like a path But there is no physical definition or, you know, a fence or something. It's just all open and it looks like part of the reservation.

[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Okay, so one thing we always, you've probably now heard me say this a few times, we go through the statutory criteria for a variance. And the criteria is whether there is a condition relating to shape, topography, or soil that's unique to the parcel that gives rise to the hardship and that granting it wouldn't nullify the purpose of the zoning ordinance or be cause of detriment. What I'm looking at and seeing is that this is a very uniquely shaped property and I think my understanding here, and this isn't so much a question, is just to give you a sense of what I'm thinking and see what the other board members think before we open for public comment is that if you took this lot area and the shape of the parcel were a square or a regular rectangle, you would probably be able to fit this house in without needing the requested relief, because it does seem like the relief that's being requested is fairly minimal.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, that's correct. And it's because of the shape. And we wanted to keep the same orientation as the existing one. So that's exactly what it is.

[Unidentified]: And is the orientation, if I'm looking at this correct, when I was looking up the map, it's a cul-de-sac. So it's sort of round and all the houses face in. Yes. OK.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes. And we can see it on this one better, I think. So, yeah, that's the cul-de-sac.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's all the houses kind of facing into the center of the cul-de-sac.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, and the reservation is all around.

[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah, that's great. So that was it. Do any other board members have any questions for the applicant before we open for public comment? Oh, we can, and then would you mind stopping your screen share for me? Yes. Thank you. Oh, stop sharing, yeah. Thank you. Okay, board members, anyone have any questions for the applicant? Or does someone wanna make a motion to open for public comment?

[Mike Caldera]: I motion to open for public comment.

[Unidentified]: Do I have a second?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll second.

[Unidentified]: Okay, and by roll call vote, Yvette? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Yes. Mike? Yes. And Jacqueline is aye. Okay. Dennis, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this matter?

[Denis MacDougall]: We can answer the screen, but I should also point out that we received 11 letters of support from people around the neighborhood in support of this.

[Unidentified]: Folks, it sounds like your neighbors like you. We did see some of the letters of support. I don't think I realized there were 11. That is quite a high number for this. And I'm not seeing anyone else in the chat and I'm not seeing anyone else who has their hand raised. So could I get a motion to, if no one else wants to speak, could I get a motion to close the public comment portion of the hearing and open deliberations? And do I have a second? Okay, and by roll call vote, all in favor of that? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Yes. Mike? Yes. And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, folks, what do we think?

[Mike Caldera]: So a few things stand out to me. So first of all, the direct debutters, are both letters of support. So the folks who would be most impacted potentially by the requested dimensional variance are in support. The variance being requested is minimal. It looks like maybe, so the lot's clearly strange in shape. And it looks like maybe, with a different orientation, which would be less consistent with the neighbor's houses that wouldn't even be required. So this really seems like a case where the owner occupants are just trying to be good neighbors. And then furthermore, there's the owner unknown, which no matter who owns it, it can't Like so if some third party owned it, it can't be used to build anything. And so it's like the side yard isn't really in the spirit of a violation. And then in the rear yard, it's bordered by the fells, which in the ordinance, I had to double check this. we do still require 15 feet. And the fact that it's bordered by conservation land would only apply if the rear yard needed to be more than 15 feet. But in practically speaking, the rear yard, counting the fells is probably a couple of miles. So, yeah, I certainly think it's important This meets the statutory standard and, you know, fits well with the neighborhood and seems like the neighbors are in support and the dimensional variation, variances being requested are minimal.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I agree. I agree with everything you said. And especially when I think about that last piece of the criteria is whether this would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Um, I think it's a really nice looking design. I think it's been really well thought out and, um, I'm, I'm really happy to see, particularly in a community, we want to make sure that people can age in place. I'm really happy to see something that's coming in. That's all one floor that allows our aging population to stay in town. Great. Um, anyone else?

[Andre Leroux]: Oh, agreed with all those comments.

[Unidentified]: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to approve the variances for, hold on. Up to be safe.

[Unidentified]: Side yard and rear yard.

[Mike Caldera]: Side yard and rear yard setback for 180 Lincoln Road.

[Unidentified]: Okay, do I have a second? Second. Okay, and all in favor by roll call vote. Yvette? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Yes. Mike? Yes. And Jacqueline is aye. Folks, you got a new house. It looks great. Yeah, congratulations. Thank you. Congratulations.

[Andre Leroux]: Looks like a beautiful design.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, it looks great.

[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Okay, we will have that decision to you shortly and best of luck. Perfect, thank you very much. We're glad you're staying in Medford. Thanks folks. Okay, bye bye. Okay, so board members just give me a quick second. All right. Next item on the agenda is we don't have any more matters. Administrative updates. I don't have any. Dennis, do you have any?

[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing on my end, no.

[Unidentified]: Okay. Um, approval of meeting minutes and discussion of rules.

[Mike Caldera]: I don't think that we have minutes. Sorry. Just a question for Dennis. Dennis, um, do you have any updates on, uh, board renewals? Um, is it. Dennis. Oh, Dennis, you cut out.

[Unidentified]: Dennis, I heard him say, no, we, and then I, and then he cut out.

[Andre Leroux]: He can send an email update to us about that.

[Unidentified]: I guess so. Okay. Maybe if he comes back, we can get that. And then I, it sounds like we don't have, I didn't see meeting minutes. And I think Dennis said that we didn't have them to approve yet. And then that's it. That's the whole agenda. So. Unless there's anything else. Oh, Dennis said, Alicia is handling it with KP law. Okay. So that's the board renewals then. Thank you, Dennis. Thanks Dennis. Um, okay. So do I have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn? Uh, do I have a second second? It'd be pretty funny if someone voted not to adjourn. Um, okay. All in favor by roll call vote of that. I Andre. Hi, Jim. Yes. Mike. Yes. And Jacqueline is I. I mean, pretty impressed that we got through a bunch of stuff in 9-15 with six on the docket. Nicely done, team. All right, well, I think we're going to see each other in like a week and a half, so enjoy. All right. Bye, everybody. Thanks, Dennis.

[Andre Leroux]: Good night, everyone.