[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome to this regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're gonna take a quick roll call to get started and then we'll kick it off. Jamie Thompson. Present. Yvette Velez. Present. Jim Tirani.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, I think Mary just joined.
[Mary Lee]: Sorry, I'm late.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, no worries. We just got started, Mary. So Mary, uh, is present. Uh, and then, um, Andre LaRue, uh, communicated in advance. He he's absent today. Um, and Mike Caldera present. So we have five members of the board present. Mary is our associate member. I will be appointing Mary as a voting member for all matters in this meeting that weren't continued from a meeting before Mary joined the board. All right, with that having been said, I see we have a quorum. Dennis, could you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Haley signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things, extends temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting lot to March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting lot 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, thank you, Dennis. And so while we're getting Mary co-host capabilities, my understanding is that there are a few items on the agenda where we have received a request in advance from the applicant that they would like to continue. So there is, um, 590 Boston Avenue. We actually don't have to take any action on that because back in July, that was continued to October 26 hearing. So we're not there yet. Um, and then my understanding is that 290-277 Middlesex Avenue, um, each would like to continue. Um, so we're going to take those out of order. So, uh, Dennis, could you please, um, Read 290 Salem Street.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. 290 Salem Street, case number A-2023-14. Applicant and owner, 290 Salem Street, LLC, is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94, City of Mayford Zoning, to construct a seven-unit residential structure with commercial space in Department 1 Zoning District allowed use, with insufficient front and side yard setback spot coverage, lot area, and number of units per square foot of land. City of Mayford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 6, Table B, Table of Conventional Requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. And so like I said, my understanding is there's a request to continue this one that was provided in writing. I just want to double check. Do we have anyone for the applicant who would like to make a statement before the board acts?
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't think there'll be anyone here, but they sent me a letter with a request.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. And so the request was just to continue it to our next regular meeting? Yes.
[Unidentified]: That's correct.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Chair, a motion to continue 290 Salem Street to the next regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals? So moved. Do I have a second? All right. It looks like Jim seconded, although he was muted. All right. So we're going to take a roll call. Jim Tirani? Aye. Jamie Thompson? Aye. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary Lee?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike Caldera? Aye. Alright, the matter is continued to our next regular meeting. Next up we'll take 277 Middlesex Avenue. Dennis, can you please read that one?
[Denis MacDougall]: 277 Middlesex Avenue, case number A-2023-18. Applicant and owner of 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 in commercial one-zoning district not allowed, which is considered an extension of a non-conforming use requiring a special permit in accordance with the City Method Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 5.2.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. And so this one as well, we received a request in writing to continue to the next regular meeting, is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, they, unfortunately, the applicant's representative had conflict tonight and asked to continue until the next hearing.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Okay, wonderful. So chair writes a motion to continue 277 Middlesex Avenue to the next regular meeting of the Methodist Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. We'll take another roll call. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. That matter is continued. And so at this point, my understanding is we can, revert back to the regular order of business. Going up is 436 Riverside Avenue. Dennis, can you please read that one?
[Denis MacDougall]: 436 Riverside Avenue, case number A-2022-19, continued from August 24th. Applicant and owner Amarok LLC is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City of Medford Zoning to construct a 10-foot high fence in the Industrial Zoning District, which is in violation of City of Medford Zoning Ordinance 6.3.3, which stipulates that fences with posts over 7 feet tall need zoning approval.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, great. And so I see we have Cindy Lundy, who I believe is here to present for the applicant. So this is a case that was continued from a few prior hearings. There is a kind of open issue surrounding a security plan. And so I believe, Cindy, do you have an update for us today?
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I don't have an update submitted the security plan to Dennis, and I think Dennis is having difficulty finding a third party vendor that can approve any of these security plans, because your police chief said he is not the one to do it.
[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct. Yes, I've received it. I've contacted this. I've contacted a few folks. There's a security company up in Hampshire I tried to get in contact with. They said they were unable to do it. I contacted Tufts University to see if they had maybe someone available to do it. I actually even contacted a friend of mine who works for the state police to see if he might know someone. And so far, I've just been unable to find someone to say they're willing to do it. And so I can keep trying, but it's
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: So, a couple of comments here, or do you need to say more or at some point just just one.
[Mike Caldera]: So, one thing I just want to double check so Dennis I, I haven't personally seen the security plan, but is that something the board has access yeah I'm sorry I thought I sent that to you when when somebody sent it to me that's right so okay hold on, let me just.
[Denis MacDougall]: as he said to me earlier this month.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it's possible I just missed it, but I don't know if I've seen it. And then we can certainly go to use, Sandra.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: OK.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, actually, while we're waiting for that, please go ahead.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: OK, well, I'm sorry. I think I have a lot of glare. I'll turn this light off. It seems to be glaring in everybody's eyes. Um, you know, let me just I don't even know if you're aware of what we've been doing here, but we first came to this board in January, and we were told at that time that what we had submitted. because you have recently updated your code was not the sufficient paperwork, even though we had been led to do that. But because your code now says that you have to submit the security plan to be approved by the police chief, we could no longer do a variance. We had to do our special use. I think we can no longer do the special use. We had to go to the variance. So they continued me that night saying, you need to change exactly what we're asking for and get in front of the proper people. So then I went back on. We never could get back on an agenda until June 29, I got on agenda there, and you had no quorum. So I got on a July 13 agenda, we waited 30 minutes for a quorum. And then I think that was the one, is that the one? Yeah. And then the police department submitted a letter, which I fully respect that he said he does not feel like he's the person to be able, that he is capable of approving anybody's security plan, not just mine, anybody's. So from July to now it's the end of September, we are still trying to find a way for your city to enforce code that it implemented that it really has no way of enforcing because your language says that the chief of police must submit a security plan and he is not the person to do it. So you're already going against what the code says by trying to get a third party, which I respect that too. But this is getting a little bit ridiculous, you know, we have now been waiting this on this for nine months, and we got to find a way to either get past your code with a temporary administrative approval or something but you know you're. you're holding us at hostage and you're holding Penske at hostage from being able to protect their property. And I can probably, Dennis and I had this conversation earlier in the month and I told him, I said, Dennis, I seriously doubt you're going to find a third party vendor that is going to know enough about this system that is not an expert on this system that's going to approve a security plan for you. It's just kind of a out there requirement that your city has adopted that you're really not able to enforce and therefore is keeping us from putting a security plan together. So are you telling me that since January to the end of September for the past nine months, nobody in Medford has been able to install any kind of alarm system or security system because the police chief hasn't approved it? I don't know where we're going, but we're spinning wheels and we're getting nowhere. And we are not able to protect the Penske site with the system that they want, with any security system. Because if it falls under security system, what I understand your code to read is it has to be approved, a security plan has to be approved. And I guess I just want to know, what are we going to do about this?
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Ms. Lundy. I certainly understand your frustration. The, so I just want to double check. Um, I did just receive an email from Dennis that has two files, um, DSS, SGS, and a 23 S U W 0 0 0 1 1. And then S U W or a. 1-0-3-5-0-L-S-T-0-1. Neither looks to be a security plan to me, so it was also a little unclear to me whether you had one, because I was led to believe from the first comment that you do, but then it sounded like you said you're waiting.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I can easily explain that.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: You have not provided any format for us to submit a security plan. We have asked. We have asked since, I guess since, I don't know which meeting it was. I think it was the January meeting. We have said, okay, tell us what you want us to submit. If we have to submit a security plan, give me the form. Tell me what you want. Do you want a site plan? Do you want a documentation? And Dennis has been so great to work with us. I can't say enough about how he's been taking phone calls. He has given us any kind of information he had. But he said, I don't have a form for this. So we said, we're just going to submit you stuff on the safety and how the system works. And if you provide me a format or a document, we'll be happy to follow that. But until then, we can't just sit around and wait. We got to give you something so you can try to get a security plan approved. And again, you don't have that format in place. So again, you've got code out there. You've changed your laws that you're not able to enforce. or you're not able to accommodate. You don't have a security plan format and you don't have a chief police, you don't have anybody to approve a security plan. And again, I'm not saying anything against the chief. I totally feel that he made a very good, his letter was very good and I totally agree with him.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so thank you. Those details. A few bits of information because I believe some, some or all of this has been communicated to you, but I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page. So, essentially. The, I believe you are correct that the city of Medford has not adopted a standard form for a security plan. My understanding is that there is plenty of precedent within the industry as to what the typical content that is required in a security plan would be. And so in the absence of a specified form, you are welcome to submit a security plan in a form of your choosing, what you've submitted, by my assessment, is not a security plan. Now, I have on multiple occasions requested a security plan, sought clarification as to why we don't have a security plan yet. We still don't have a security plan. Now I understand how that's difficult and you don't want to spend the effort in the absence of clarity on what that's supposed to look like, but that's the position the board finds itself in today. There is no security plan, even if the chief of police were to reconsider his publicly stated opinion in the letter he sent to the board surrounding his ability to approve a security plan, no such plan exists, and thus even the chief of police could not presently today unblock this issue.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Tell me what you're looking for in a security plan. We submitted what we had.
[Mike Caldera]: Excuse me? No, I'm talking. So the path that the city did provide, which we clarified with the city's legal representation, is that the the Board of Appeals is capable under the ordinance to waive this requirement. And to do so, we need to, I can pull up the exact standard, but we essentially need to find that waiving this requirement would not derogate from the purpose of the ordinance and would be still consistent with the the public interest. There's specific language, which, again, I can bring up. So the board has that power. That is the path provided. Dennis and the city offered to help recommend and even apparently help source some security consultants that would be able to review the circumstances, help put together a security plan, which could then be shared and could be certified and shared with the board, which would enable the board with confidence to waive that requirement. And what I'm hearing today is that no such vendor has been found, no such security plan exists. So it is within the board's powers to still waive this requirement in the absence of any security plan. I am not inclined to do so. I find that this application is incomplete and the absence of a security plan, which I'm happy to discuss further, but that's the situation we find ourselves in. So I understand your frustration. Uh, I acknowledge what you've observed and experienced, uh, firsthand surrounding how language in the current zoning ordinance results in an approval chain for a plan that doesn't yet exist, that doesn't have a required specified form to be approved by an approver who says they're not comfortable doing the approval. So I completely understand the frustration. The board does not have a security plan. Nothing is stopping you from providing a security plan. security plan, I wasn't expecting at the first meeting, given the, the, you know, the misunderstanding, but we've had plenty of meetings, plenty of months. There could be a security plan. There is not a security plan. That is a situation the board finds itself in. So, um, let's have a discussion and figure out what to do. And certainly happy to have the board take a vote about whether we would be willing to waive that requirement in the absence of any security plan, depending on the outcome of that vote, that would set the stage for whether the board could consider the rest of the application. Because in the absence of that relief, the whole application, it's moved because it's not legal according to the Medford ordinance. Please go ahead if there's something else you wanted to say.
[Unidentified]: But let me, you're muted.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay. When we had the last conversation with Dennis. He told us there was no, you did not have a security plan format. You didn't know what a security plan entail. So we told him we would submit everything we had regarding security and safety for this, which we did. We said, Dennis, is this good? Yes, this looks sufficient. So in lieu of the fact that you don't have a format, I don't know how you can reject what I sent when you're telling me send it in any format you choose. I sent it. We sent it to you. And that's been three weeks ago, and it's been accepted as a security plan when we sent it, and no one has said this is not sufficient. And no one also told us that you would try to reach out to a vendor for us to work with to write such security plan. You just told us that you were reaching out to vendors to try to get them to approve our system. We were not told that we needed to work with them. I mean, I even submitted suggestions for experts that do know this system. And I submitted contact information, phone number and email, and the credentials of this gentleman that does know this system. And I said, I feel sure you could reach out to him, and he would be able to approve this plan. But I don't know what you want in a plan. You find a security plan, and I can submit it. But I think you're being very unfair to me to drag this out another month when we have been told that you didn't have a format for a security plan and that what we submitted would suffice for a security plan. And now we've not been told that it didn't. And now you're telling me that you want me to work with a third party vendor to write a security plan for me. That has never been broached, period. In the least has that ever been said. So you tell me what you want me to do. If you can waive the requirement, what is it that you want? You want the safety information? Do you want to know? how what you know their guard schedule do you want to know i don't know what you mean for a security plan if you're talking about an overall security plan give me some definition and we'll be happy to do it but you got to tell me what you want so miss lindy to to be crystal clear here the board is an
[Mike Caldera]: independent body from the city staff you've been working with. The board has told you no such things. So the board wants a security plan. It seems what you've provided has been accepted as a security plan. I've let you know my opinion. It doesn't look like a security plan to me. So your options are, you're welcome to present your security plan, your accepted security plan to us. And then we're going to pull up the ordinance and I can do it right now. There's a standard that we have to apply and we're going to assess that standard based on the security plan that you've provided and rule on whether we're going to waive that requirement. That is an option that you're welcome to pursue. The other option is you can choose to continue this matter or to request to continue to this matter while you seek out and gather the details to provide a security plan that fits the commonly accepted form of security plans in the, in the industry. So I'm not providing any advice. You're welcome to do whatever you choose. No one is blocking you. I'm just letting you know. What I'm looking at, to me, doesn't look like a security plan. So let me pull up the specific language just so that we're clear.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: You can't tell me what you're looking for in a security plan. You're telling me what I submitted is not a security plan, but you can't tell me what a security plan entails. So I don't know if what I submitted can be acceptable as a security plan. And if you're waiving the requirement, do you really need a security plan, a formal security plan?
[Mike Caldera]: So the board has not voted yet on whether it will waive the requirement. So let me just clarify from the ordinance. So this particular requirement for a security plan lives in, I believe it's section 94.6.4.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I've got the code. Yeah, I know what it says.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: There shall be a certification by the police chief if the petitioner has provided a written plan for site security, which plan has been approved by the police chief.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Right. And so, yeah, so the, so the later on in that same section, it states, the special permit granting authority, which in this case is us, in the course of granting a special permit or a site plan approval for a non-residential multiple dwelling development as defined in this section may waive any of these performance standards where such waiver is not inconsistent with public health and safety. and where such waiver does not derogate from the purposes of this section because the proposed development will adequately serve the goals and objectives set forth in this section. So essentially, if we proceed with the security plan that you've submitted, that the city has accepted, you can present the details that you would like surrounding that And then the, so the, the burden of proof is on you to establish the criteria that we're assessing. And so, uh, the board is empowered to waive this requirement by a special permit. Um, if granting such waiver in our assessment is not inconsistent with public health and safety and doesn't derogate from the purposes of this section. So each of us have our own subjective assessment of what that means. The presentation should clarify for us how allowing this is not inconsistent with public health and safety, mainly. So yeah, you're welcome to do whatever you prefer. The security plan has been accepted. So if you'd like to present it and have the board vote, you're welcome to do so.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Can I ask you what it is I'm really seeking? Because in our original January variants, we were only seeking relief from seven or ten feet height. There was no mention of electric. There was no problem with electric. It was a height variance that we were seeking. Is that still all I'm asking for, is a height variance?
[Mike Caldera]: You're asking for a height variance and a waiver of the performance standards for a non-residential development that requires you to have a security plan.
[Denis MacDougall]: Actually, Mike, can I jump in? I mean, technically, it could just be a waiver for just the pipe fence. And could we just get that done? And then PB, John Gerstle, PB – David Ensign – he, him, his): worry about the security, the actual part of it later, because I think I mean if they can at least get the fence up I think that would probably help. PB, John Gerstle, PB – David Ensign – he, him, his.:
[Mike Caldera]: : penske. PB, Peter Vitale PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his.:
[Denis MacDougall]: : I don't.
[Mike Caldera]: PB, Peter Vitale PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his.: : know it's a good it's a good to go I don't intend to consider. PB, Peter Vitale PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he, him, his.: : Proceeding with granting a variance for something that's unbuildable so so in the absence of this additional waiver the project can't proceed anyway so. The yeah.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: So can I just clarify what it is that we are seeking? What we do not comply with that we need variance. I know we need it on high. Is that all we are seeking compliance for? Is everything else allowed in the city?
[Mike Caldera]: You're you're seeking a waiver for. Or security plan that has not been approved by the chief of police, right?
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: But the only.
[Mike Caldera]: You have to establish. that it is not inconsistent with public health and safety for us to grant such waiver.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: For the height to be taller. That's all I'm having to justify? Just the height?
[Mike Caldera]: Because that's the- In the absence of a security plan approved by the chief of police.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So you have to justify that it is not inconsistent with public health and safety to waive the requirement for this fence proposal to have a security plan that is approved by the chief of police and that fence happens to be electric.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I understand. So is an electric fence allowed in your city? That's what I'm asking you. Is the only thing that you have a problem with?
[Mike Caldera]: My understanding is that an electric fence is allowed in the city of Bedford as long as there is for a non-residential development, a approved security plan by the chief of police, and that it meets the height and dimensional requirements. That's the standard. I see Commissioner... Please go ahead, Commissioner Ford.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that I think might need a little clarity, I know that I try to do some research on this. The requirements for an electrified fence, okay, are not mentioned anywhere in the zoning ordinance, nor are they mentioned in the state building code, okay? I did some research on this because this question was asked before this came to the Board of Appeals. My concerns are firstly, you know, that I just look through the material one more time to find, you know, what safety or risk factors, an electric fence pose to a person who otherwise might break in. I think that's one of the criteria in which we would want to see a security plan. And I'm just trying to get to a resolution so that the petitioner can provide the necessary information. I'm not on anybody's side with this, but the first thing I see is the information based on when this fence is energized, what does it do? I see no information on that. And the fact that it's 10 feet high is imposing. The structural calculations are as such that This has been looked at by a registered professional engineer, but I saw no information on the voltage carrying on the cautions nor on the product. So, that might be one thing that I would see in a security plan is how does this thing work? What does it do? I mean, we all have these misconceptions about electrified fences. Now, obviously, the ZBA may want to stay away from things that are outside of their jurisdiction. Certainly, I think it's reasonable to ask for this plan. I don't think that it's out of your purview. In fact, I think it's well within your purview. And so I'm suggesting that a security plan include basically the manufacturer's cut sheet on this, what the recommendations are, how the voltage is supplied, these sorts of things. I think if this is a dead 10-foot fence, I don't think that this would be an issue, but what I see here is that obviously there are some safety concerns. The second thing that I would look at is I was expecting to find in the material a means of egress plan from the building under the current building code and any code before that prior to means of egress. from a building must empty out into a public way. Your exit discharge must go directly to a public way. I do see that there are security gates here inside the facility's lot, but again, not really specified. I would have some concern about that as well. From a safety standpoint, who knows, if the fire department has to go in and rescue someone, you know, are these gates electrified? Are the fences electrified? What if the gates are malfunctioning? What if the power's out? You know, there's a lot of concern with a 10-foot barrier that otherwise might stop fire and life safety. I would get the fire chief's opinion on this. I think that it's well within his, you know, his purview as the fire safety officer to be aware of this. I don't know that, I don't disagree with the chief, although, You know, the petitioner does have a point that he's directed by ordinance to do so. And, you know, his opinion of whether or not he should be an expert or not, I don't think is relevant. He's required by ordinance. So if he can't perform the function, honestly, you know, I hate to say it publicly, but he you know, he needs to get a consultant on his behalf to to perform his function. It's his duty. It's he is ordered by ordinance. It's not a matter of opinion. It's ordered by the zoning ordinance. And so I feel as though this isn't completely relieved from the police chief. I think that somehow that mechanism needs to be met. I can't just refuse to do my job. Neither can the police chief. He doesn't have that authority. So I'm of the opinion that I think the petitioner needs a little bit more time, but I also think that the security plan should include a consultation with the fire chief. It should include a design professional to do an analysis on the means of egress, show the means of egress path of travel, show the distance between the fences, a little bit more detail I think would perhaps maybe make the zoning board feel a little bit more secure in the finding. So that's kind of how I see it here. I don't know if there's any questions that I can answer for the board. But I do feel as though this is something that we can get through, we can get past. But I do think that there probably hasn't been a lot of clarity. And obviously, basically, to speak for the ZBA, it's really not their purview to tell you what they need. it's for you to present it as the petitioner. So they're not obligated to tell you how to design a project nor how to get it approved. They are obviously the permit granting authority, and the burden of proof lies on you as the petitioner. So enough said for me.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner Fordy. So since Commissioner Fordy offered, I do just want to double check with the board members if they had any clarifying questions on what he just said. Okay. I'm getting some, some head shakes now. So it was, yeah. So just to, to, to harp on some key points commissioner 40 said the, the standard that the board needs to apply as non-experts in public safety is would waiving this standard in the absence of the police chief's approval, be not be inconsistent with public health and safety. So we're, we're happy to. hear a presentation at any time in any forum, you know, and in our unexpert opinion, make that assessment, whether there's expert opinions that are part of your presentation or not. And we'll either waive the requirement or we won't. I think commissioner 40, uh, points out some potential holes in the currently accepted plan. So the ball is in your court. been requesting this plan for months. The board has spent a lot of meeting time on this particular issue. I understand you've spent a lot of calendar time waiting, and I empathize with kind of the mixed messages and all this stuff. It is my intention, whenever we next hear this case, whether it's you making a presentation today or continuing to a date certain and you making a presentation then, the board's going to vote on it. There's been plenty of time. let us know what you'd like to do. Would you like to make a presentation now and have the board vote? Or would you like to continue to a future date and attempt to provide a security plan that provides sufficient information for the board to find that it is not inconsistent with public health and safety to waive this requirement?
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Are you asking me now? Yeah. Okay, obviously, obviously, we cannot go forward tonight, because you've already told me that what we submitted and was accepted by staff as a security plan, you feel is not a security plan. So we obviously- That's just my opinion.
[Mike Caldera]: We do have five members. So every member has an opinion. If the other four members disagree with me, which they're welcome to do, and I hope they don't, you know, I'm not steering them one way or the other. Everyone is going to make their own independent assessment after your presentation and we're going to vote. And I haven't heard your presentation. So maybe your presentation will get me to a point where I could find that it's not inconsistent with public health and safety to grant this waiver. I just wanted to be proactive and warn you that the form of the security plan I'm seeing on its face without having heard your presentation does not seem particularly substantive or informative.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay. I'm going to ask for continuance, but I'm also going to say that this board has not asked me for that kind of information for months.
[Mike Caldera]: As Commissioner Fordy stated, I've been asking for a security plan for months. It's recorded.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: You're welcome to look at the recordings. in multiple meetings, so we can continue this to, would you like it to be your next regular meeting or something else?
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: May we please continue this to the next regular meeting if you can give me that date, if you can tell me what that date is. I'll have to look at my calendar.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Dennis, what date is that? I believe it's, so it should be the, I think it's the last Thursday in October.
[Yvette Velez]: 26? October 26?
[Mike Caldera]: I believe so. Yeah, is that, Dennis, can you just confirm that one? October 26?
[Unidentified]: I'm just gonna pull it up on my calendar. I'm almost positive.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: The last Thursday of October is the 26th, yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Yep, Thursday, October 26, 630. You know, if there are other continuances, we'll take those out of order. You'll be the first item on the agenda. All right, Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the next regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals on October 26th at 630 p.m.
[Unidentified]: So moved. Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Come on.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, we're voting. Yeah, you can you can say something afterwards. We're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, hi. All right, the matter is continued to the next meeting. Ms. Lundy, if you wanted to say something that's not a presentation briefly, please go ahead.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, I just wanna make sure that we're not going down another rabbit hole here, that if the police chief is not qualified, doesn't feel qualified to approve a security plan, I wanna make sure that when we come back to the board, that you feel that you are qualified to approve a security plan, and it won't come back to, Well, we understand what you're saying, but we don't feel like we can make I mean, I know you have the option to make a waiver of requiring a security plan. But are you making a waiver that you're still requiring a security plan, but you are the qualified ones to approve it? Is that what we're going to be having at the next board? I just want to make sure that we get the right things.
[Mike Caldera]: So the board having no special expertise in security plans is certain as the power to waive the requirement that you have a security plan that is approved by the Medford chief of police if we find that it is, shoot, I lost it. Well, I said it earlier, but essentially not inconsistent with public health and safety to do so, and doesn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance. So that is the board standard.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: You're not waiving the requirement for a security plan. You're just changing it that you, the board, is going to approve it instead of the police chief. Is that basically what we're doing?
[Mike Caldera]: No, actually the board does not have the power to do that. So what the board has the power to do is to waive the requirement that there be a security plan approved by the chief of police under those conditions. And so what that means is the board could waive that requirement in the absence of any security plan. The board could waive that requirement in the presence of a security plan that has not been approved by the chief of police. But the board would not be approving that plan. The board is not authorized to approve that plan. It would be waiving the requirement in its entirety. And the burden of proof, as Commissioner Fordy mentioned, is always on the applicant. So no matter what the issue, it's incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient information for the board, in this case, in its non-expert opinion, to determine whether or not it's inconsistent with public health and safety to waive that requirement. So I see Commissioner Forty has his hand raised. Please go ahead. Ms. Lundy, just a moment. Commissioner Forty, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Just a further point of clarity. I just want to be sure that although the ZBA may or may not approve a plan that is, you know, let's just say it is sufficient and the board finds that because the security plan, even though it's not been approved by the police chief, Is adequate. I just want to be sure that that becomes part of the public record. Okay, and enforceable. Okay, as a condition of the, you know, of the approval of the fence. So in other words, she's not going to go, you know, the petition is not going to go through. all that planning and give us something and then we're not going to put it on record or enforce it because I just I just want to be clear that obviously this would be a deciding factor and and what what we call an operative fact um you know based on the decision so I just just if Mr. Chair if you could just maybe clarify that thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah thank you Commissioner Forty that that's correct so it is also within the board's power when granting waivers if reasonable conditions are required to achieve the standard in the ordinance. So if, for example, and Commissioner Fordy is alluding to this, if the board were to find that there is a security plan that hasn't been certified and you present it to the board and you find that it is not inconsistent with public health and safety to approve, or sorry, to waive the requirement, we might, in a scenario where we just waive it outright, and it's not even a controlling document, say, oh, that is inconsistent with public health and safety. But it is in the board's power to impose a condition that the security plan that's not approved that you present be essentially the required security plan for that bill. Yeah. So it's within the board's power, but procedurally, I think that makes sense. I don't really see any reason why, if you have a security plan that hasn't been approved by the police chief, that the board would decide to waive the requirement and not expect you to perform to that plan.
[MCM00000618_SPEAKER_00]: I think I'm getting hung up on the word security plan. Do you really just want to know about my system? I don't know all of Penske's corporate security, which would seem to me an overall security plan would be. I can only speak to, and we're only asking, we're not asking you to change anything else. I can speak to you, all those things that Mr. Fort, I'm not sure how you say your name, mentioned are in all those documents that we submitted that are not in a formal security plan. So are we getting, am I getting confused by the word security plan? Because I can't give you an overall security plan. I can only give you what our system, how it fits in and what it does for the security of the property. But I can't tell you all the corporate security. That's not even in question here.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so, Ms. Lundy, my understanding is that you're presenting on behalf of the applicant, which is Penske. And I presume Penske does. Yeah, regarding this. Right. So so so you are not asking us for relief. Penske is asking us for relief and you are presenting on Penske's behalf. So the standard is that Penske and its representatives provide a security plan that is either approved by the chief of police or if you so prefer, the board, as stated, is willing to entertain waiving that requirement if we're able to find it is not inconsistent with public health and safety to do so. So it's incumbent on Penn State and the representatives to figure out how to do that. All right. Thank you. Dennis, can you please read the next matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: 42 Fulbright Street case number a dash 2023-17 applicant and owner aim realty method LLC is petitioning for a special permit to reconstruct existing car wash and a commercial to zoning district allowed to use with a vertical extension of the structure, which encroaches into the required front yard setback, requiring a special permit accordance with the city method zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 5.4.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening, Chairman Caldera and board members. Kathleen Desmond for the applicant, AIM Realty of Medford and Scrub-a-Dub Auto Wash Centers represented here tonight by Matthew Pencer and Daniel Pazner, the principals of the company. Also with me here this evening is the project engineer, and Casey Birch of Solly Engineering Millwood. Before you this evening is a request for a special permit in accordance with Section 945.3 in connection with the renovation of an existing car wash facility located at 42 Fulbright Street. By way of background, the subject property is a 12,716 square foot parcel of land on which the existing 5,058 square foot car wash facility sits. The property abuts Route 93 to the east and Colonial Volkswagen to the southwest. The petitioners intend to renovate the structure and continue with its historical use as a car wash facility. The existing structure is nonconforming in nature as it presently does not conform to the front and rear setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. The petitioner requires zoning relief as to the renovations of the car wash for purposes of including the construction of two towers, which will increase the height of the structure at a certain point by three feet from approximately 24 feet to 27 feet. While the height of the towers do not themselves violate the maximum height requirements of the ordinance, because the towers are located and encroach within the front yard setback, it requires a finding of this board as to not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. We think overall when you take a look through the plans this evening, it will be evident to you that the renovations significantly reduce the existing nonconformities with respect to front yard setback. With respect to use, this is an allowed use pursuant to the special permit issued by the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. in 1966 to Silk Realty Trust relative to the operating of a car washing facility. The special permit as to use did not contain any restrictions or conditions that would serve to restrict the special permit's duration or the transfer of the special permit to a subsequent owner. The car wash facility itself, operated by Silk Realty, the Medford Minuteman Car Wash Company, was one of the first of the automated car washes in New England. The Minuteman Car Wash Company grew quickly, becoming known for its high volume express car wash service locations. I'm going to let Matt Pazner, Pazner, I'm sorry, explain the history of his company and their background. But they intend to continue on with the tradition of an automated car wash system. And with that, I'll turn it over to Matt Paisner. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, actually, just a quick clarifying question before we go to Matt. So in the application itself, you also talk about an alternate legal theory where you don't need the special permit at all. Or is that an avenue we're pursuing? Are we just going a special permit route? Are you content to go that route today?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, I think what you're referring to, as I said, arguably, it's an intensification of the non-conforming. That's right. I mean, It is, and I intend to request a special permit because I was cited for it. But, you know, I think the point I was trying to make in that paragraph was that it's within the height maximum requirements of the ordinance.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, OK.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah. So in that case, let's just proceed. We don't have to spend a lot of time on it unless it unless it comes back up. So sounds great. Matt Paisner, please go ahead.
[Matthew Paisner]: Good evening, members of the board. Thank you for taking the time to hear our application this evening. I'm going to let Sam, our civil engineer, share our slide deck on the screen. And I'll just cover the first couple of slides before I turn it over to him.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Chairman, do you mind allowing me to share my screen?
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, can you please help Sam to share?
[Denis MacDougall]: You should be all set now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, looks like we're good. We can see.
[Matthew Paisner]: Great. As I said, good evening, members of the board. Thank you, Chair and other board members for taking the time to hear our application this evening. My name is Matthew Paisner, and I'm part of the third generation family ownership team at Scrub-It-Up Auto Wash Centers. My grandparents, Marshall and Elaine, who you see pictured here, built one of the first automated car washes on the East Coast in 1966 in Watertown, Massachusetts. Marshall and Elaine helped invent and pioneer many of the earliest automated pieces of car wash equipment that you see in car washes today. They founded the New England Car Wash Association to help the industry grow. And my grandfather, my father, my uncle, and myself have all served as past presidents of the New England Car Wash Association and helping the industry grow. We're blessed that through living our family core values, we've been able to grow as a family business across the second and now third generation. and now become a leader across four states of New England. I mentioned a little bit about our family core values, which have been critical to our success. And as you can see from the next slide, one of our pillars of our business and our family is partnering with the communities where we do business. So for over 50 years, from our first car wash in Watertown to our 20th location, Our family and our incredible employees have committed countless hours and time to rolling up our sleeves and partnering with the community and the nonprofits where we operate to volunteer, give back, fundraise, and support the local business community. So here you can see just a few of our partnerships with Cradles to Crayons, which provides clothing and school supplies to children ages zero to 12 living below the poverty line locally in Medford and across Massachusetts. And also see our partnership with community servings where we volunteer in their kitchen to provide meals to residents of Medford and across Massachusetts who are homebound with life threatening illness like cancer and. I serve on the advisory board for several of these organizations and this is really a core part of who we are as a family. Tonight, we're really excited to talk to you about this car wash project, because this Medford Minuteman car wash, which we have acquired, is one of the original six Massachusetts Minuteman franchise locations. As Kathy noted, it opened to the public in 1968, just two years after my grandparents opened our first car wash. All the original Minuteman car washes in Massachusetts were designed to be highly efficient with state-of-the-art equipment, including this Medford location, which went on to wash hundreds of thousands of cars annually. The Minut car washes, including this one, were typically located near major highways to attract a high volume of customers, and the basic design of automated car washes from the 1960s to today has gone largely unchanged. Automated car washes like this Medford property have a conveyor belt that carries cars through a series of cleaning stations, including soap, water, brushes, and drying. Today, we still use the conveyor belt system to move the car through the same cleaning process, although the chemistry and the equipment has become more compact and more precise. This original Medford car wash equipment package from 1968 actually mirrors the system that you see inside the car wash presently today at the present day property and the proposed scrub-a-dub car wash that we're discussing this evening. The changes that we plan to make at this location are simply to make the property more efficient. more beautiful, and more environmentally friendly for the Medford community. So we will be using our eco-friendly biodegradable soap, which is a proprietary formula that we manufacture at a factory in Connecticut. And we plan to shrink the size of the building significantly and reduce the impervious area on the property. And I'll turn it over to our civil engineer, Sam, who will walk you through the site plan and some of these changes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Please go ahead, Sam. Good evening. So for the record, my name is Samuel Cronkey with Soli Engineering offices based in Norwood, Mass. 11 Vanderbilt Ave. So this is the site plan we're discussing tonight. We are proposing to demolish 35 feet of the existing building on the northern side of the building and 10 feet on the southern side of the building for a total proposed square footage of 3,728 compared to existing building which is 5,058 square feet. As Matt was explaining, the proposal includes two automated pay stations that will merge into a single lane car wash as it does in existing conditions. We are proposing four vacuum spaces to the north of the building and eight parallel spaces within Fulbright Street. This is a figure here that kind of gives a better representation.
[Mike Caldera]: Actually, just to interject, just a clarifying question I had that I think this is a good time for me to ask. So the eight spaces on Fulbright Street, those are in the public way, correct?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So Fulbright Street is actually a private 50-foot ride Oh, I think I can answer that question.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I had provided the building inspector with the case law that allows on spaces on a private way on your half, they own to the midline. And and I know CM will mention this, but but the actual width of the street is 50 feet of Fulbright Street. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, all right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks for clarifying. Please go So this is a little, it's a zoomed in figure that kind of shows the existing outline of the building in red. And the proposed building is shown in black with a kind of a hatch behind it. It kind of furthers the areas that are proposed to be demolished both on the north and south sides of the building. It also kind of zooms in on the eight spaces without all the call outs and the dimensions that are proposed within Fulbright Street. from the Western curve line to the edge of the parking spaces. This distance here is approximately 30 feet for our travel lane. This is a site rendering we have to portray the impervious and pervious areas of the site. Obviously, as Matt mentioned, with this project, it's going to be a beautification of the site. And we're proposing in existing conditions, the site is 100% impervious area. I was actually doing double checking my map before the meeting, and it is 100% impervious. And we're proposing about 3000 square feet of pervious surface, which will be landscaped with trees, shrubs and perennials and lawn areas as well. That's a significant improvement from existing conditions. The site has Kathy mentioned originally, it's 12,716 square feet. And we can go into the building elevations here. So the proposal includes two tower structures, which are located kind of on the southwestern corner and the eastern corner. This is the north elevation if you were kind of driving on I-93, what you would see. Most visible would be Tower 2, which has a height of 24 feet. In the background would be Tower 1, which has a height of 27 feet. And the roofline has a maximum height of about 18 feet. It's probably wise now to discuss the pylon sign. The pylon sign that's existing is proposed to be maintained and the sign board will be repaneled, and the pole will be painted, but the sign board will be repaneled with scrubber dubs, new signage, but the actual structure and sign dimension will remain the same. Here is the south elevation facing Fulbright Street. Now you have the opposite, it's tower one, On the South side and tower to base 993, which you'll see the backside. The elevations are the same. It's 27 feet, 24 feet and the roof line is proposed. Roughly 18 feet. So, that's. That's kind of the end of my presentation. I'll kick it back to Kathy and Matt if they have anything to add with the elevations and the setbacks.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So in terms of the elevations, I think it's also important to note that the elevation of the current building is 24 feet. So for much of the structure, the actual elevation of the structure is being reduced. to 18 feet. It's only where the towers are placed that there's an increase to 24 and 27. And again, with respect to the tower, which is 27, that's not on the Route 93 side of the project. I know there was an opposition letter that came in that had some concerns regarding distractions from 93. I'm not quite sure what to make of that. But in terms of the board's information, that higher tower will be situated on the Fulbright Street side of the property. I think also, Mr. Chair, in reference to your question about parking, you know, sometimes we run afoul of this just because the ordinance is new, but 6.1.3 of the ordinance actually waives minimum parking requirements for commercial buildings with less than 5,000 gross leasable space. And in this particular instance, there is 3,728. So I don't believe that the minimum parking requirements would apply to this project, but we did provide spaces on the private way for employees. Um, and you know, I know that the board has the memorandum, um, that we, um, that I presented to the building commissioner in reference to this in early March. Um, and a lot of that deals with the issues that were raised with respect to the opposition that was filed, and I'm not clear who filed the opposition either. That's a question that I would have, but, um, In terms of employees, they talk about an inordinate number of employees. Now, when Minuteman Car Wash was in existence, they did provide custom interior vacuuming and whatnot. It wasn't a strictly self-serve facility. So it's very likely that Minuteman had more employees than is anticipated by Scrub-a-Dub. I believe, and I can defer to Matt on this and correct me if I'm wrong, But the maximum employees likely to be on site would be five. Typically, it would be three people on site, a greeter who greets the customers coming in, and then a manager on site and perhaps another person. In terms of the traffic and the two-lane system, The Tulane system, and Matt can elaborate on this if you like, the reduction of the building actually works to decrease the traffic along Fulbright Street. And in terms of the automated pay stations that was raised, many of the members of Car Wash is now a premier members and they have a tag, which is like an easy pass. so that the automated pay station is only for customers that don't have a premier account with Scrub-a-Dub. So in terms of the opposition, I think a lot of it was dressed in the memorandum that I had provided to the commissioner and with regard to the special permit and the fact that there's no conditions existing on the special permit. Um, in terms of substantial detriment to the neighborhood, um, you know, it's our position that, number one, we're reducing impervious surfaces. We're reducing the size of the building, which, by virtue of reduction, reduces the encroachment in the front yard and the rear yard. Um, we're reducing pretty much the overall height of the structure, um, and providing landscaping for beautification. So, in terms of- of what- what we're seeking in terms of a special permit as to increase in height, I would maintain that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, we are mitigating much of what is already a nonconformity.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. What questions do we have from the board?
[Mary Lee]: Does the towers serve any function?
[Kathleen Desmond]: The towers serve function for storage because the conveyor belts in the actual body of the car wash utilize most of the space within that area. There's also in one of the towers an office so that a manager can go up and look at what is going on in terms of the facility down below. So they do serve a function beyond just artistic content or architectural content. And the towers are, you know, three feet, the tallest tower is three feet under what is allowed for maximum height for a structure in the C2 district. And Sam, what is the width of those towers?
[Adam Hurtubise]: The width, linearly, I'm not entirely sure from this plan shown here. It looks roughly about 20 feet, but I can confirm that.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary, did that answer your question?
[Mary Lee]: Yes, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, great. Other questions from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: This is a complete demolish. I know you keep referencing keeping.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, it's a renovation of the existing structure, so they're going to Um, I don't know if you can explain it, Matt. Perhaps you could explain. They're going to wrap the structure and design it. But the structure itself is maintaining. They're just adding the two towers to the existing. We discussed renovation versus demolition. It can be renovated. And that was the path that was chosen by the client.
[Matthew Paisner]: multiple times on the plan here to originally was we were hoping to demolish but ultimately discuss the plan to move forward with renovating. And so we will be keeping the entire existing structure will be using ACM panel. But on the outside of the building but will actually be removing the brick facade down to the concrete, so that we will not be in increasing the overall thickness on the exterior of the structure when we attach the ACM panel on the The only modification that has been discussed already is the addition of these towers and sort of the starburst design that you see on the entrance and exit of the property. And obviously, interiorly, we'll be putting in new equipment. And that will require moving some of the interior design, but all of this has been discussed at length with the commissioner.
[Yvette Velez]: And there's like no trash associated with this.
[Kathleen Desmond]: There's a dumpster located here at that corner of the property. So there is a dumpster located within the property. But the trash should be minimal, Yvette.
[Yvette Velez]: So there's no need for new, I know there's been upgrades and car washes that sounds like for the soaps and sustainable and things of all that nature. But so because you're reusing the building, it sounds like drainage is great over there, things of that nature, it's all getting upgraded.
[Matthew Paisner]: We'll be using the existing drainage, the existing pits. I mean, the building was built as a state-of-the-art facility originally. I mean, we'll be upgrading the interior and equipment, but this building was built extraordinarily well. And we can thank the Silk family of Medford for that. And they kept this business in their family for, I believe, three generations as well.
[Mary Lee]: Do you anticipate any exterior attachments to the towers?
[Matthew Paisner]: No, nothing beyond what's shown. It'll have corrugated metal panel as well as ACM panel on the towers themselves. And it will follow our color palette, which can be seen at many of our nearby locations, Brighton, Chelsea, Roslindale, Blueburn. We're in the process of getting ready to open a new location like this in Worcester.
[Mary Lee]: So, what I'm seeing now in this picture for this, the tower. I noticed that there's no windows was so is that. Would that be the storage or.
[Matthew Paisner]: Oh, so this this side of the tower, you don't see any windows, but the tower actually does the way that the acrylic roof is designed, and it is lower than the existing roof line. It's designed in such a way that the acrylic roof actually attaches up to a portion of the tower where the manager's office has a window in front that can see down on the entire operation and supervise everything from above. an observation decks, but there's no window facing Fulbright Street. Or or the highway for that matter.
[Unidentified]: Alright, other questions from the. Yep, go ahead James. So the the system was mentioned as an automated cleaning system. Can you speak to the hours of operation time that staff is on site and with regards to the vacuum stations, if those are operational outside of those hours, as well as the lighting plan?
[Matthew Paisner]: Yeah, all of our car washes follow the same hourly schedule. It's 7.30 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and Sunday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. We generally do cut power to the vacuums when the car wash is closed to prevent any loitering on the property. And we, as far as a lighting plan goes, I'm not sure, Sam, if there's anything on that matter that you want to address. The site does have some existing lighting. Yeah, so the site will be lighted
[Adam Hurtubise]: will be lit via wall packs on the building, vacuum lights and probably one pole-mounted light in the vacuum area to illuminate that area, provide foot candles that will be sufficient for pedestrian and vehicular movements, minimizing the light spillage over the property. That will be submitted when we move forward.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. All right. Other questions from the board? Mike, do we want to talk about and can we cover the topics that were brought up in the objection letter?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so my proposal, which I'm happy happy to get the board's thoughts on this before we proceed with it. So the letter the board was sent, it doesn't conform with board custom in that it doesn't clarify whether the attorney that wrote the letter is writing so on their own behalf or whether they represent someone. So I don't have the info, uh, that we typically, uh, expect, uh, to accept public comment into the record. Um, but I know that. Right. I see that individual is on the call and I presume they plan to speak at which point they can clarify that. So, um, my thought is, uh, we should be mindful. uh, that this letter and their comment will be in the record. And so you have, if you've read through it and you have, um, specific questions, um, or if you've on your own kind of come to the same conclusion and have some questions, we can ask them now. We can cover some of it in deliberation, but you know, officially right now, as of right now, I haven't decided whether this letter even is in the record. Cause I don't have details on the. who this person represents, but I believe they plan to clarify that when they, if you choose to speak. So I think it will get resolved.
[Unidentified]: Understood. Okay. I'll leave it till deliberation.
[Mike Caldera]: And so to that point, I mean, yeah, so that, yeah, I think we can cover some of it in deliberation. The, so there is an intensification of a use here, right? And so I think when we think about intensification in the context of a car wash, the volume of, you know, of traffic is something I'd like to know about. We do have some details in the memorandum that we received. It's titled Memorandum 37-2023. Attorney Desmond spoke a little bit to it. So, yeah, I mean, It answers my own questions on the matter. But if, you know, if any member of the board wants to clarify now some of the kind of traffic flow stop, I think this would be a good time to do so.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could speak to that issue of increased usage of the special permit. Because we spent a lot of time with the Community Development Board and also with the building commissioner on this issue, and it would be our position that the special permit, and I think the Cumberland Farms case in the memorandum puts forth the difference between what you have with a special permit versus what you have with a with a non-conforming use. And we went through all of that. And I believe that we were not cited for an increase in usage or a need for a modification of the special permit as to use because the building's commissioner was satisfied in consultation with the community development staff as to the fact that the special permit, because it contained no conditions, duration, operation. And because even the history of this car wash itself was in the heyday, it was, you know, one of the busiest car washes in the state, but that's irrelevant. when considering a special permit versus a nonconforming use. And we went through that, you know, I spent half of my vacation in St. Martin writing the brief on that and pulling the cases out on that. And, you know, that's not what, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, but we weren't cited for it as part of the application. And that's not, the board can, you know, the board has within its purview to do what they want to do, but I would just say that I think that was vetted at the time, and it was determined that the special permit was sufficient and use was not an issue. It was allowed under the, under the ordinance to continue as a car wash, and that the only issue was the increase in height.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for those details, Attorney Desmond. So I see Commissioner Forty has his hand raised. I'm going to call on him in a minute. I do just want to clarify my reading of things right now. So as I understand it, the building commissioner identified one avenue in which the plans changed the building in a manner that triggered section 5.3 of the ordinance. If the board were to find an intensification, that's also going to trigger section 5.3 of the ordinance. So from my perspective, I'm not convinced whether it is or isn't an intensification is relevant to the board's analysis, but I acknowledge your call out, and it's a good one, that the building commissioner permit refusal does not specifically classify this as an intensification, and instead, if I understand it, and we'll check in with Commissioner Forty, it's most viewing this as like a procedural, like it the mere height extension of the structure triggered a procedural need for a new special permit. So anyway, that's my current interpretation, but I'll go to Commissioner Forty. Please go ahead, Bill.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So after going back and forth with Attorney Desmond and the owners on this, you know, we were able to, myself in consultation with the planning director, We're able to make some determination that firstly, what the only nonconformity of the property right now is the fact that the structure rests on the property line. And any change to the structure, essentially by virtue of its change, could mean a different impact. It's all one in the same when you look at it, whether it's a continuation or renewal of the special permit that was issued by the ZBA, which I think was a use variance, I believe, back in 67. It wasn't a use variance, it was a special permit, right?
[Kathleen Desmond]: they're two very different things. They're apples and oranges in terms of the special permit as to use and non-conforming uses. And the one distinguishing factor that's called out in the Cumberland Farms case is that with a non-conforming use, it was never permitted, never allowed. that's not what this is. This is a use that's permitted under the ordinance by virtue of a special permit, which was granted. And so I think they're two separate items, and that's why we worked so hard in March to try and resolve this issue, because to conflate the intensification of the use with the, you know, The change to the structure, which creates an intensification of the nonconforming structure, are two very different things. I mean, we have before this board all the time, I bring cases before this board where the use is allowed, but I'm looking for dimensional relief. And that's essentially how I saw the building permit that was the refusal that we received dealt with the dimensional relief of the of the towers being placed within height, but within the front yard encroachment on the property. But I don't, you know, I'm certain as much as I can be in an opinion that the use here is allowed. A car wash is a car wash. And I think I distinguished between what you look at with a non-conforming use in the powers test versus a special permit. And if you look at the Cumberland Farms case, there were two items in that. There was the convenience store, which was already granted by special permit. And there was the liquor store, which was a non-conforming use. And the judge went through two separate analysis on that case. The special permit It was allowed, that's what the special permit, the judge pointed out that there were no conditions contained in the special permit, much like what we have here. But the analysis went on with respect to the liquor store, because that was an unconforming use.
[Mike Caldera]: And Mr. Chair, if I may finish. Sorry. I'm kind of in the middle of. Finish Bill, and then I'll make a clarification as well. Please go ahead, Commissioner Fuller.
[Bill Forte]: Sure. So continuing with what I was discussing, The by virtue of the extension of of the non conforming structure it does the reason why I didn't cite this as an increase in the intensity of use or a different uses because Attorney Desmond is correct. in that she asserts that the use hasn't changed. One of my concerns was the number of trips. Now, I think it's certainly within the purview of this board to ask how many trips there are in an hour. I'm not convinced that this car wash You know did a 100 cars an hour or whatever or you know, whatever the high speed efficiency is I know I have some concerns about cars, you know congregate and drying off. I mean that's what I do when I go to the car wash or pull over and I drive drive it off. You know there are some considerations here that the board might want to you know put in into the scope but but again the use is legal under the current permit. And it is, it is no really substantively no different from what was approved in 1967. And again, just to be clear, the Board of Appeals can grant a special permit in the C2 zone currently today. So if this never existed, this could additionally be a special permit. This is more as a continuation of that special permit with the caveat that the building has changed and and you know to their point obviously there's less impact environmentally, you know, structurally, there's some changes, and again, you know, some increase in the in the non conforming. Part of the structure and and again, not the, you know, not the not the use but but I think that the board might want to take the opportunity to look at the operation. This is I can tell you by this site plan that I see here. This is a lot less impacted from where we started. I think that this minimized, you know, I think what they did was they minimized a lot of the impact that I thought was going to be here. There aren't as many backing stations as what we started with. The turning directions appear to be appropriate. It doesn't appear that there's anything here that they haven't worked on. So I'm not in favor or oppose the project. I'll just say that, you know, that I'm surprised that it looks as tight as it does and you know again we have gone back and forth quite some time about what you know what the special permit said and it would lack you know great detail and so on here again. You know that I think that what's before the board respectfully is you know firstly is to continue that same allowed use by special permit. With you know with a new controlling site plan and those changes. So that's it thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner Fordy. So, please, Attorney Desmond, just let me say this. It may address what you want to speak to. So I have done some digging prior to this hearing based on the information provided. I'm just going to state my position and why I think the arguments moot unless Attorney Desmond or members of the board think it's necessary that we pursue this alternate path. So my reading is that Shrewsbury-Edgemere Associates Limited Partnership versus Board of Appeals Shrewsbury clarifies the definition of non-conforming in a manner such that a, in this case, a car wash that was granted, let's just say as Attorney Desmond has asserted, and this is a paraphrase, basically either very limited condition or no condition prior special permit. So this is something that was not allowed by right at the time, but a special permit was granted with few limitations, making it allowed use. That is still not an allowed use now. My reading of Shrewsbury-Edgemere Associates Limited Partnership versus Board of Appeals Shrewsbury is that, because it required a special permit under the bylaw at the time it received such special permit that we should be treating this under Medford's current ordinance as a non-conforming structure when we're considering the special permits that are required under 5.3.1. So essentially, this is a change to, by my interpretation of the precedent, a prior nonconforming structure that was allowed by special permit. And so the issue is whether anything about the change, whether it's an intensification, the increase of the height or whatever, triggers the need for a special permit. My read is it does. And so I don't personally see a reason to overrule the commissioner's determination here. But happy to, you know, happy to pursue that, you know, if the applicant so desires. And lastly, I'll just say, we've got too many things open. That's one of the tricky things about these Zoom meetings. So the standard for us in this case, so we have got a building commissioner's permit letter or a permit refusal letter that states, The permit is refused because it's in the setback and you're increasing the height, but it's still within the allowed parameters for the district. And so the standard is, would that change and potential intensification, which according to the memorandum results in 20 additional cars an hour, 10 days a year, is that substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. So that that's my interpretation and why I I'm happy to explore and have the board vote, you know, whether we think this should just be allowed by right into, uh, you know, to, to overturn the, the, the commissioner's refusal. My reading is that commissioners on point here, whether it's an intensification or not, whether it's just merely the adding of the height it's otherwise an allowed, it's not an issue. The standard we need to apply is simply is the change. Substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure. That's my interpretation, but Attorney Desmond, please go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If we're getting into use,
[Mike Caldera]: Um, I don't know if it's just me. I'm sorry.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'd like to be able to review the case and, and, uh, brief it. Um, if, if, if we're talking about, um, if we're talking about use, because, you know, I don't think that, um, well, you know, if they were to continue on with this building, which they could. and just refurbish the inside of it and not add the towers, then, you know, I don't think that we're talking about anything that would affect that special permit. And by virtue of that, I think that's an example of how you can't conflate, use and structures are two very different, they're apples and they're oranges. There's dimension and then there's use. And so I would like the opportunity to look at that case in detail, because I think that case could be distinguished by some event. And actually, if I had known beforehand that that was an issue, I would have taken a look at the case specifically. But I think they're apples and oranges. And so if we're getting into the use the use area, then I would like an opportunity to take a look at that case in detail and respond if that's where we're going.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. So I'm not getting into use. So let me attempt to clarify. My reading is simply because. Previously, this was a use only allowed by special permit. That the added height triggers the need for a separate special permit that merely says adding the height is not substantially more detrimental than the existing use already approved with limited conditions by special permit. So it's, we're talking about dimensions. At least I'm talking about dimensions. I'm not talking about use, but I'm agreeing with the commissioner's ruling, although I'm offering we can explore alternative theories that a separate special permit, merely pertaining a change to the already approved by special permit use is required. That is all. So I'm not getting into use personally.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But I guess when we're talking about traffic and whatnot, that that's not dimensional. Unless there was, you know, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: So so I'm just I was acknowledging because the board received a letter that we don't know yet whether or not we're going to accept in the public record, because it doesn't fit the form of what we accept in the public record, that asserts that this is an intensification of use. So I figured while we were at it, if anyone had any questions pertaining to that, they could ask them. All right. Other questions from the board before we move on to public comment? All right, chair awaits a motion to open public comment.
[Unidentified]: Motion to open public comment for Senator Fulbright's team.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I didn't have it at the top of my head, so I didn't include it. So thank you, Jamie. Do I have a second?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to do a roll call. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette? Jamie? Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so public comment is now open. So if you're a member of the public and you would like to speak, you may raise your hand on Zoom. You may raise your hand on camera. You may let us know in the chat. You can send an email to Dennis, whose email address is dmcdougall medford-ma.gov, and we are happy to hear your comment. I see we have Attorney Dim on the call, and since I believe Attorney Dim is the one who sent the letter, Attorney Dim, if you'd like to speak and at least clarify whether you were speaking on behalf of yourself in that letter or whether you represent someone, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, thanks. And good evening, Mr. Chairman and the board. I do represent Peter Tufts of 551 Riverside Ave. He is a resident of the city of Medford. I submitted a letter dated today's date as you referenced, Mr. Chair, and I'm happy to resubmit it in whichever form you'd like me to, whichever form complies with your requirements. I did attempt- That sounds good.
[Mike Caldera]: So what we can do, Attorney Dim, is we can just, in our meeting notes, we will let that record reflect who you represent. And I think your letter plus the meeting notes is sufficient. So your letter is accepted into the record. So please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay, thank you very much. And just, I did attempt to email Mr. McDougall before the meeting today, but I did a sort of a crazy day. So the board's read my letter and I can see that the applicant has as well. I essentially have two main, I guess, main positions in the letter. The first is with respect to parking. As I see the plan, there are essentially no onsite parking spots that are being created. Because of the 12 spots that were referenced, four look like they're vacuum spots, I'm not sure they're considered parking spaces, but they're for use while vacuuming. And then there's eight that are on Fulbright Street. And so there are no parking spots to park in on the site. And in fact, if you look at, I've attached a few color pictures to my letter. And if the board would just take a look at them, for instance, exhibit, Exhibit A is a picture of Fulbright Street sort of shooting down Fulbright Street towards the Jersey Bears at the end. And I would submit to you, and as I say in my letter, that employees and or customers of the auto dealership that's to the left in this picture use Fulbright Street for parking. I visited the site a few times, and each time I visited the site, I've seen multiple cars there. And as I understand, or as I read the site plan, those eight spots are on are parallel to the building on Fulbright Street and the four vacuum spots which I understand are being considered as part of the parking are farther down Fulbright Street behind the behind the car wash the proposed building and none of them are parking spots for purposes of visitors to the building. The other sort of And again, not to just read my letter, but sort of the other main points I have in my letter deal with traffic. And I'm perfectly willing to accept this if I missed it, but I don't see that there was a traffic study done. I would like to see one, a traffic impact plan is required. Ms. Desmond, I think discussed in her presentation that she had discussed the impacts of traffic on the site, maybe with the building commissioner, I don't see that a plan was submitted and I haven't read one. So I guess the next two points in my letter, I deal with traffic generated by the project. And just to sort of jump ahead and I wanna make sure that I'm using sort of the same underlying facts as the board and the applicant are. My understanding of the proposed project is that there will be not one but two lanes in the car wash, is that accurate?
[Mike Caldera]: My understanding is yes, but no, no, it's into it, but it's one lane through. That's all right.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay. And so I, I'm not aware of, of, of data of the data that would show or tell the board what the increased capacity of that carwash would mean for the, for the neighborhood and for the traffic in the neighborhood, because I haven't seen a traffic study and I don't know what the proposal is for. the increased traffic flow through the building. I guess on the issue of traffic flow, my understanding is that the proposal is to use, and I'll get the name wrong, but some sort of automated system for getting cars into the car wash. And I assume the purpose of that automated system is to is to decrease the time it takes for a car to get through and decrease the transactional time for a car to go through that and for cars waiting in line. So my assumption there given that is that in fact, the number of cars using the car wash or that the car wash could service per day will significantly increase from what it had been in a car wash that was built in 1966. I guess the other The other issues that I raised in my letter, I'd be happy to discuss if you had any questions, Mr. Chair. But really the two primary issues that my client is concerned with is traffic density, traffic congestion, and the lack of parking on the site.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So in terms of the The traffic study specifically I just want to check in with commissioner for the so it. Mister 40 is that something that is required for this sort of development.
[Bill Forte]: So Mister chair all trend kind of carefully on this so my my discussions with with attorney does been basically what what rounded up to otherwise. A not a significant change in the number of trips so so given back in the day that this. particular, you know, that this particular car wash was permitted, right? Cars were probably bigger. It was probably less of them. And the machinery certainly wasn't as rapid as it is today. It probably takes less than a minute to go from one end of that tunnel to the other, maybe a minute and 20 seconds. I'm not exactly sure because I'm not the expert. I did bring up the concerns of congestion on the private way. I also have concerns about about the barriers but but I I thought I would leave it up to public hearing for those things to be otherwise discussed and that I really don't have an opinion on it I would just say that. When when looking at the use because the original special permit lack detail. These are the things obviously that that would be discussed here today. Whether they're relevant to the to the board or not. You know it's not out of the question you know to have a traffic study of this is a brand new project I would imagine that it would be part of it all but here again that the you know the the existence of the car wash hasn't changed and you know perhaps the impacts made, but again, that's kind of outside of my realm. It's not something that I'm ordered to evaluate in the zoning ordinance nor require, so that would all be up to the commissioner.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Commissioner Forde. Yeah, so my read is that it's a little ambiguous. I think there's an argument to be made that under 94.6.4.7, I think, that one might be required, even in scenarios where the expected impact is minor. This came up earlier. It is within the board's purview to waive that requirement if the board were to find that it's not inconsistent with public health and safety and doesn't derogate from the purpose of the section to do so. So that's something, um, I think the board may want to consider during deliberation, um, if there's a need to waive, uh, that standard, uh, and whether it would meet the standard to do so. Uh, but, uh, the, the, the permit refusal does not cite that. And the chair also understands the interpretation that in this case, it's not required. So I think that's something for the board to discuss, but I think I just wanna acknowledge if I understood Attorney Dimm correctly, that perhaps that's what they were referring to. I see Attorney Desmond has her hand raised. Please go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So part of the discussion before filing or after filing with the Board of Appeals was that provision that distinguishes between the Board of Appeals findings of non-substantially detrimental or the special permit with regard to uses that had to go to the CD board and then to the ZBA. That has been fixed by the City Council two weeks ago by adoption of the amendment where there was no requirement to go to the CD board with respect to this special permit. And this isn't a major project as defined under the ordinance that would trip the questions with respect to traffic studies. We did, as part of our submission to the building commissioner, submit data from my client's own files to demonstrate the traffic and what it would be. With respect to the parking, again, under the new ordinance, This building is 3715 square feet. So the minimum parking requirements don't pertain to it. And with respect to the letter, Council mentions that there are vehicles parked on colonial of belonging to colonial Volkswagen on the road on the other side of the private way, which would be their half of the private way. And if you take the 50 feet, which is the width of the private way, and and take the 18 feet off for the width required on both vehicles, you still have 32 feet, which is more than the 24-foot lane that will be required for two-way traffic. So.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Attorney Desmond. All right, do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter?
[SPEAKER_01]: Mr. Sheriff, if I just could say one other thing.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Attorney Dim, that's fine, so long as we don't devolve into like a back and forth discussion, but if you didn't finish your comment, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_01]: I did not, sorry, and this will be very mercifully quick. I think when we talk about the intensification of the use, this is sort of what I was getting at with the traffic study. It just, it sort of defies logic, I think, for us to assume that the same traffic or the same number of cars or the same kind of density of use would occur now in 2023 with this fully automated car wash than would have occurred in 1966 or 68 when the special permit was first allowed. Given the automation and the speed by which these things are now accomplished, I didn't, Mr. Forty referenced the minute or minute and 20 seconds. And it sort of, just in terms of the intensification of use and the sort of increasing nonconformity, I would say, logic would tell you, and given these plans, that many more cars are going to pass through this, in fact, than ever did prior to this change. And that would be one reason that I would suggest that perhaps some more formal traffic study would be required here, rather than the board waiving that requirement.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Do we have other members of the public that would like to speak? Seeing none, the chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberations.
[Unidentified]: I move.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. We're going to take a roll call. Yvette? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Amy? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So the board is now in deliberation. So like we talked about, Folks, the standard here is that the change in height of the use already allowed by special permit, which is lower than the maximum height in the district, as well as perhaps the change in technology or throughput, whether that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use and structure. And it seems that parking is in conformance based on what we've been told. And then there's the question of traffic impact and whether a study is required. And it would be in our power to waive that should we determine that it's necessary and that it would be not inconsistent with public health and safety to waive it and not derogate from the intent of the ordinance. So that's the criteria. What do we think, folks?
[Mary Lee]: I think considering the fact that with the very limited parking, I think it's reasonable to request for a feasibility traffic study for the area. Because the increase in technology, you presume that would increase the flow and the quantity of the cars that requires that the car washes services. I mean, that's just common sense. I think in terms of feasibility, it just seems like there will definitely be an increase in the flow or in the traffic.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks Mary. And so I want to kind of unpack two separate but related things. So on the On the parking side, there's, um, there's 12 spaces, which, um, is consistent with the number of spaces required in the ordinance, but four of them are vacuum spaces and eight of them are on the street, which as attorney Desmond pointed out, um, because it's a private way, um, count. So is, is, so on the, I'd like to know your thoughts on the parking specifically, kind of which piece of that triggers the concern. And then separately, you mentioned the traffic in general, which, you know, whether or not those people are parking, I think the new technology could change that. So yeah, could you just kind of clarify for each of the two items, like what are you looking for? What are you hoping to get out of the study?
[Mary Lee]: I think that the traffic part goes into the intensity impact intensity that we previously discussed during that discussion. And I think having a traffic feasibility study would address that issue. And in terms of the parking, because of the use of the private parking spaces, I think we need to have some clarification on that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Mary. Other thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: So obviously, we've gone through a lot, I think from within the scope of the request, and also with the discussion on what the threats to the traffic we are in a commercial area, traffic flow that goes to the property. Although I agree that the use will likely intensify the traffic flow. I don't believe it's going to be more detrimental to the area since it is commercial, and I believe the two businesses there are the bank on one side and the car dealership on the other. The car dealership does have an entry in the back, but it also does have access points in front of the building as well from Mystic Out. So I don't feel that the potential increase to traffic flow would be a detriment to the area. Okay, thank you. Other thoughts from members of the board? Kim or Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Previously when I was looking at the plans, you know, clearly an improvement and it would be nice to have an additional car wash in the area, to commercial, Thanks. The design elements all need modernization of car washes, so it makes sense. I initially don't think the traffic study would be warranted here because the street is long enough coming in. Am I correct? I didn't miss it, right? Cars are flipping around and coming back out on the same street.
[Mike Caldera]: That's right.
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah. which I think is appropriate, even the width of the street looks good. But I also recognize that the whole street as it exists now, there is going to be improvement by the car wash itself, but not necessarily down the whole street. I know cars park all throughout that area and it can be a little thing. So now it has me just hesitating or thinking that maybe, you know, a traffic study shouldn't be waived because, you know, when you come off 93. And then this is vast streets across the street if I'm not, if I recollect the. Yeah, like the Burger King and so and I've been in that area and it can get a little hectic sometimes with like, because it's British. people are sort of fast paced and going out across the way all four lanes coming off that you know coming from the other side. I'm anticipating folks coming out of Fulbright needing to make that left it getting a little precarious and so that's so part of me thinks even not only just the side street but then coming out onto the main street. You know, maybe that needs to be looked at because there are no lights there, right? And it's like, but you can still make the left. And we do need a car wash and I anticipate that this is going to be pretty big to be honest. I mean, I've seen the car washes down in. The neighboring towns, and they get so much traffic. Pulled out to the to the main streets, you know, I think. You know, so I don't think. you're off the mark, Mary, to think that maybe we do need a traffic study, and it is warranted after all.
[Mike Caldera]: So Yvette, just one clarifying question about something you said. So you mentioned how parking is tight elsewhere on the street. So is part of your concern that the parking in front of the car wash would be taken up by other people not using the car wash that can park?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes. So yes, the public and folks I assume from these other businesses are using those spots across the way.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. Does anyone know if this street is permit parking? It is a I guess, sorry, it's a private way. Does anyone know if there's any signage indicating that the public is not allowed to park there?
[Kathleen Desmond]: There isn't currently signage, but on a private way, as indicated, you own to the middle. And this came up on another project, 16 Foster Court, where we had the ability to have two spaces in the front, because that also was a private way. And you are entitled to put signage there, if you like, because you own the property to the midpoint, exclusively restricting parking to that, which is related to your business. And in terms of the case that deals with that, it's Brassard versus Flynn, which is a 1967 case, but it's still good law. And I can send that over to the board.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Attorney Desmond. I saw Director Hunt's hand next, so I'll go to Director Hunt, and then we'll go to Jim. Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, I just wanted to good evening board I just wanted to speak briefly about the private way in the signage, it is not always true that you own to the middle line it depends on the ownership of that property and that parcel each parcel has to each private ways to be looked at differently. Um, I just want actually the board to know I'm also I am a member of the traffic commission so private way and permit parking questions come in front of me very frequently. Um, so you're aware on a private way the city cannot sign and enforce parking, we have found that the city of Medford does in fact have. permit parking signs on some private ways in the city. That is something that is being dealt with on a case by case basis as we come across them. But we do not, our current police force and traffic department, understand that they do not have the legal ability to enforce parking signs on private ways. However, Attorney Desmond is correct on any private way, it is actually the butters of that private way so the people whose, whose parcels are on it, who can determine if they want to have signage controlling parking on that way, they do have the authority to do that, and the city just asked that they. register that desire like if they're going to put no parking residents only signs up, they actually have the ability to do that they have the ability to put tow signs up, and they must register that with the city so that the city is aware that they are enforcing that on their street. But that said, if Scrub-A-Dub is one of two parcels on this, then they have absolutely the right to put parking along their way and to have it be public parking or for their private employees if that was preferred.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks Director Hunt. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. So if the applicant were to either of their own volition or, uh, based on some board condition that they agreed to, uh, to designate the proposed, uh, parking spaces on the private way as private. So clearly sign them as private and install signage indicating, um, that, um, that the towing may occur. the, they, it would be within their, um, their right to do so. And the city would just require, uh, request, expect, uh, it's a little unclear to me. What did they, did they register, uh, whatever they're doing with the city? Am I understanding you correctly? You're on mute.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, sorry, it is late. I'm dropping the link in the chat to our page on that, but the language in question is actually, I just grabbed it off our webpage. If a resident or property owner on a private way would like to have a vehicle towed, please note that you must first post signage, see documents below for details, and submit a form to the Medford Police Department. The form is available here and at the link below. So that is what we as a city are using as our policy based on the legal advice that we've received.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And I'll come back to Jim in just a second. I want to double check with Attorney Desmond. So if the board were to determine that, you know, to grant the special permit being requested, that a condition of that granted permit required the posting of signage indicating that the spaces on the private way are for use by scrub-a-dub customers and or employees only and that improper use would potentially result in towing. Is that something the applicant would be amenable to?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'll defer to my clients on that. But, you know, I'd also be mindful of the fact that, and I'm not saying we wouldn't agree to the condition, but that it's also, you know, we're in a situation where the minimum parking don't is not required under the ordinance. So I don't have an issue with that necessarily as long as my client is okay with that. Matt, can you respond to that?
[Matthew Paisner]: Yeah, we have no problem with posting any signage. So that's not a concern for us.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. All right, Jim, thanks for your patience. Please go ahead. You're welcome.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I'm just a little confused. I know if I'm thinking the same area over by where Century Bank was, and then you have colonial. It's set in the back. Are there residential homes in that area or is it just all one private street? I don't recall homes being in that area. And from what I recall, and I could be wrong, I thought that there was ample parking where Century Bank is, that building, and they have a large lot where there's plenty of parking there. I don't know why any, one from that building would want to park out on the street. And the same with Colonial. They have a sufficient amount of parking. So I'm a little confused on when we're talking about these parking spaces, who's occupying these spaces?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, great question, Jim. So I don't know that answer, but what I can certainly say is there are not, uh, residential abutters. So it appears that this is a street, uh, that, um, at least as of, well, it's a somewhat old, um, street view, but it's even, uh, blocked off in one location, uh, that, that seems to directly abut, um, just the car wash itself and the Volkswagen.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you. And as far as parking, outside of the employees that might be working at the car wash, how many other folks are trying to get parking spots in there?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, is that something the applicant could speak to? I think we may have touched on it briefly, but what is the realistic parking footprint based on your other businesses for a facility of this nature for employees and guests.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Matt, do you want to speak to that? I can speak to the employees because we've discussed it. But in terms of the practice of customers parking for any period of time, maybe you could speak to that as a business practice.
[Matthew Paisner]: Yeah, I mean, sure. And I'm not sure if Danny, who's also an owner, wants to comment on this. I mean, as far as employees go, as Kathy noted, we generally will have no more than three employees max at the property parking. Additionally, it should be noted that the prior owner of this property put vacuums on the private way where we are delineating parking spaces. So we believe this is actually a safety improvement we have relocated the vacuums onto the property off of the private way and separated them from the car wash exit so that vehicles exiting actually have to go onto the private way as opposed to head on into the vacuums and then come back into the exit end of the property to use the vacuum. So the prior owner had vacuums both at the exit directly as cars were exiting from the car wash and had vacuums on the private way. We believe that what we have shown in our design is a significant safety improvement to this by removing the vacuums from the private way and also separating the egress from the car wash, from the ingress to the vacuum area. As far as parking goes with our customers, we heat the air that we use inside of our car wash. It's not something that A lot of car washes do, but we spend money on substantial heaters and plumbing with natural gas to dry the car as efficiently as possible. Majority of customers enter the car wash and exit and leave and head home. So there's a very small amount of customers that will typically stop. And if they do, they're going over to the self-serve vacuums to use the vacuums. But as was noted by Sam and by Kathy, the length of the private way and the width of the private way provide more than substantial space for the amount of people who are using the facility to park if they desire to and not impact the traffic passing through on the street.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you for that. And I do agree with you on the safety. There's more safety now with the removal of those. So I do agree with that.
[Matthew Paisner]: But thank you, thank you for around. So we believe the overall design here of what we're showing is a significant improvement over the existing design. But we could continue running the car wash as is, you know, without the height increase that's being discussed here today from the towers. And so I, you know, and I think that that's important to know.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Jim, was it was there something else you wanted to know?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: That was good. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: I appreciate the Okay, awesome. Yeah, so my thoughts are as follows. There's ample parking being provided. It's a little unclear to me if any parking is required, but even so, when I was preparing for this case, I just sort of looked at the parking code for this use, and it says the 12th. And so we have the 12th, yes, for vacuum, but I think there's plenty of parking, especially in light of this being a street that isn't, or at least it shouldn't be competing with residential parking, if it were appropriately signed. So, you know, for me, I think, especially if there was a condition surrounding some of the signage, just to help address that concern, I think the parking is fine. You know, I don't really think it's even an intensification of the use because, As Mr. Paisner mentioned, they could, by right, do some renovations that don't change the building envelope, which by my reading of the Massachusetts law could include installing up-to-date car wash equipment. And so it's merely that. technology has changed over the course of 60 years, uh, so that car washes can have a little bit more throughput on the same building envelope. I don't, I don't think the proposed height increase, which is, which would otherwise be allowed by right, is really contributing to that. Um, and similarly, um, the, by right without a traffic study, um, you know, within that envelope, um, The car wash could operate to do some renovations and operate. So, you know. I'm willing to entertain if the board thinks they need. That information, you know, the possibility of. Requesting a traffic impact study, it might be prudent since there's some. differing opinions about this for us to at least vote on whether we think this meets the standard for a waiver. That might inform the next steps. I'll share my opinion. I think it does. I don't really see a public health or safety detriment that would be created by waiving that. that standard here, because again, they could retrofit the existing building envelope and maybe get some more throughput. And certainly we can figure the parking lot to have two lanes coming in. And I don't really see how that's going to cause a public safety impact above and beyond the existing use. And I don't think waiving it would derogate from the intent of the ordinance. we may want to take a vote on that just so we can sort of put it to rest and clarify if a traffic impact study is even necessary. I think the height changes would otherwise be allowed by right. So I'm really viewing this as like a procedural need for a special permit. So I see nothing here that would prevent me from asserting that or finding that there's no substantial detriment from the proposed change. So that's my position. What else should we discuss before we move towards voting procedure?
[Mary Lee]: I just have a question. I think what happened, this is a car wash, and every time after a big snowstorm, there's usually, you know, more people would utilize a car wash. And with consideration of, you know, the speed of traffic and the location of, and with addition of snow, I think that in the worst scenario, that would cause a bit of a chaos, especially right after snow storms. So I just want to make a comment on that.
[Unidentified]: OK, thank you, Mary. Other comments or thoughts from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: There's no detailing that's done at this shop, right? So there's no reason cars would be parked for the detailing.
[Matthew Paisner]: There's no detailing. We've actually removed that component of the operation they did use to offer that service as well, which added to more congestion. And it's important to note that for over 50 years, this has been an automated car wash, utilizing the length of the private way to queue cars. As was noted, it was one of the busiest car washes in the state. It's weathered numerous snowstorms, but we will be removing the detail component. And also the equipment inside the present day car wash is not from the 1960s. The family who owned the car wash updated the equipment approximately 15 years ago.
[Mary Lee]: Do you see any increase in terms of the volume, say from 10 years ago versus five years ago? Is there an increase in the volume? of usage, of the utilization of the car wash.
[Matthew Paisner]: Are you asking, generally speaking, are more cars being washed today than they were 10 years ago?
[Mary Lee]: Specifically with this business, was there an increase from 10 years ago versus, say, five years ago versus today in terms of the business volume?
[Mike Caldera]: So if I'm understanding correctly, Mary, the question is, um, the prior business through to take, uh, the, the last point in time where it was operational, which is a little unclear to me when that was. And then if we were to kind of compare the traffic volumes or the customer volumes that it was doing, uh, on or about that time against the volumes five or 10 years prior, you want to know whether the volumes at the most recent data point were higher? Is that right?
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, I just want to see whether there was an increase between that prior, let's say five years ago versus the most recent time.
[Matthew Paisner]: So, Chair, to just answer the, I think, Your question, the car wash was operational up until maybe six weeks before we completed the purchase and sale agreement. So, they gradually closed over the past year or so and had to terminate their employees. And then with regards to the volume of car wash data, I'm not sure I understand the question fully whether we have the specific data that that is being asked. I know that the data that was shared within the memorandum specifically highlights actual volume data from our Brookline location on Harvard Street in Coolidge Corner, which is an extraordinarily busy road in a very high, equally as densely populated area, and demonstrates how a car wash of the same size with the same equipment as is shown at the property today, would wash a similar amount of cars to what the prior owner noted was the maximum volume of this car wash on an hourly basis.
[Mary Lee]: And what is that on an hourly basis?
[Matthew Paisner]: We would have to go, I don't want to be reckless with the facts, we'd have to go to the memorandum specifically.
[Mike Caldera]: I have it up. Attorney Desmond might too. So in the memorandum has a spot where it talks about the difference.
[Unidentified]: So just scrolling down, I think it might be in one of the attachments.
[Mike Caldera]: Keyword search for Brooklyn. There we go. Um, so there's a data sheet. Uh, that, um, states the average hourly number of vehicles utilizing scrubbed up car wash in Brooklyn. Uh, which has over 350 people in 3 miles. And there's only one car wash versus the three in the vicinity in Medford and the fourth nearby in Somerville. So in Brooklyn, 350,000 people in three miles, one car wash is 94 vehicles per hour during the busiest days of the month. So that would equate to what, like a vehicle every, 40 seconds or something. I'm doing math on the fly here. So, yeah.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead, Jamie. There's a previous statement earlier on that the peak period occurs on average 10 times per year.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, that's right. Yeah, so 10 times per year predominantly in the winter. There is If we were to project out from Brooklyn, which perhaps there's ways an analysis could be done to get any closer. But I think the argument is that because Brooklyn has less car washes and a lot of people in the area, that it's a good proxy. And so 94 vehicles per hour, 10 days a year during a period in the winter is sort of the, the expectation from Brooklyn and this memorandum asserts that it's likely going to be less than that here. So that's my reading. Let me know if I misstated anything.
[Matthew Paisner]: I believe that's correct. Kathy, go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think also, you know, we were discussing it today earlier. In terms of those peak times, Scrub-a-Dub has been in the business for decades now. So they certainly know when to anticipate that they're going to have a peak issue. And we discussed at that time, if you have a situation like that, they have typically a greeter and then another employee out there to process the vehicle so that they move through quickly and there isn't any traffic backup along the roadway. But they certainly can anticipate what those days are, peak period.
[Mike Caldera]: So actually, a related clarifying question for Mr. Paisner. So as part of your standard operating model for these car washes, can you tell us a little bit about the plowing standard that you employ during this peak period in the event of snow?
[Matthew Paisner]: Yeah, all of the car washes are plowed regularly after a snowstorm. snow removal procedures. As Kathy noted, because we've been operating over 50 years and across the 20 locations, we wash millions of cars per year. One of our key performance metrics that we focus on is production efficiency of our car wash. So one of the ways that, as Kathy noted, that we do manage production efficiency during the busiest times of year is using wireless tablets out on the queue line in order to process transactions even faster before the customer hits the point of sale, similar to what you would see at a Chick-fil-A or even a Raising Cane's drive-through. So that is typically how our model operates. Does that answer your question?
[Mike Caldera]: It does.
[Matthew Paisner]: Thank you. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Other thoughts? from the board.
[Mary Lee]: Oh, Mike, earlier you mentioned the Shrewsbury case. I'm sorry, I didn't take a look at that. What was the, I thought I kind of got that, what you were saying.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh yeah, sure. Yeah, happy to clarify. So you just want me to clarify, Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, and what is that impact on this case?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the impact from my read is merely that the attorney Desmond put forth an argument that perhaps this could be done entirely by right. And my read with the existing broad special permit, I should clarify, and my read of the Shrewsbury case is merely that it clarifies that a use of a property that existed prior to the enactment of the zoning bylaw that would require a special permit under the law, it qualifies as non-conforming. So I'm basically using that case to connect to the need for dimensional only reasons for a special permit rather than accepting the legal theory that this can be done by right. So that's all. So if that wasn't the case, there was a state of the world where we might just be discussing, well, no relief needed, allowed by right. But yeah, so here I'm taking a position, a special permit is required not for the use, merely for changing a structure and increasing its height under section 5.3.1. because of that case.
[Mary Lee]: And if we are voting tonight, we're voting based on the structure or?
[Mike Caldera]: So yeah, so the the vote that we definitely need to do tonight. And here's where too many things open comes to bite me again, is that
[Unidentified]: I think I've veered off.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Uh, so under section 5.3, under section 5.3.1, uh, we can allow a, uh, structural change to an existing nonconforming structure, which I'm claiming this is based on that precedent. So we can allow a structural change so long as that structural change does not create a new nonconformity. It does not. So the height is allowed by right if this were some other building type. If we find that that change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. So the analysis that we definitely need to do is adding the height, is changing the structure in a material way more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure. The use is not an issue. A lawyer representing a member of the public has claimed that we may also need to either request a traffic impact study or we are, I've pointed out that we are empowered to waive that requirement should we, and here's where I'm jumping around too much, but I think essentially find that it is not inconsistent with public health and safety and not derogating from the intent of the ordinance for us to waive that requirement. So I'm, suggesting to the board, but it's for the board to decide whether this is even required, that perhaps we may want to vote on whether we can waive that requirement. If the vote is yes, then we proceed with the analysis of substantial detriment merely on the structural change. If the outcome of that vote is no, then I would be prepared to request the applicant submit a traffic study and continue the matter.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, thank you. I got it. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So, Chair has recommended that we vote on whether to waive that requirement, but Chair awaits a motion.
[Mary Lee]: I motion.
[Mike Caldera]: So you motion to waive the performance standard requiring uh, traffic impact assessment and find that it is not inconsistent with public health and safety. It doesn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance for us to do so. Is that what you're saying?
[Mary Lee]: I'm motioning to vote.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, you got it. So I'm going to recommend, and I know this has tripped up the board before you do an affirmative motion. So you can, you're not binding yourself to say, yes, I would, I would motion to waive the requirement if you're so inclined, someone can second it, and that way a yes vote indicates waive the requirement and a no vote indicates don't waive the requirement.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so you're proposing to waive the requirement. Okay, no, no, I withdraw, I withdraw.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I saw Jamie's hand first, sorry.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I make a motion to waive the requirement.
[Mike Caldera]: Just to clarify, Jamie, did you want to say something or were you going to do something similar? Jamie?
[Unidentified]: So my question was, you're recommending that it is not required, correct?
[Mike Caldera]: It is for us to find whether or not it's required. So if you want to do a friendly amendment that we motion to find that if If it's required, this is the case, feel free. But I don't want to overcomplicate things. So I'm just recommending because someone could, in the absence of that waiver, someone could, in principle, challenge after the fact that we just covered that case this year. So Jim has motioned to waive that requirement and find that it's not inconsistent with public health and safety. It doesn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance for us to do so. All right, so we're gonna take a roll call. Yvette? Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Nay.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. So that's four in favor, one opposed. The motion carries, so that requirement is waived. And so at this point, we just need to vote on the special permit being requested itself, which again, the standard there under section 5.3.1 is, is it or so if we find that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood to alter the structure in this way, then that would be the grounds that would allow us to grant a special permit. So chair awaits a motion.
[Unidentified]: I'll correct this if you need to. Motion to approve the special permit or 42 Fulbright Street. It is not more detrimental to the neighborhood based on discussion.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim, you seconded? You're still second? Okay. We're going to take another roll call. We'll go Jim. Aye. Jamie. Yvette.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary. Aye. Mike. Hi. All right. So that is unanimous. So the special permit is granted. Congratulations. You have your updated car wash. Thank you very much.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you, folks. And I'll prepare a draft decision as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thanks for joining us. All right. Dennis, I know we're done with the cases. Let's just run through the rest of the agenda. So what's the next item on the agenda? The approval of the meeting minutes from the hearing in August. All right, wonderful. And so I did see those come through earlier today. Have folks had a time to review the meeting minutes? I'm getting some head nods. Yes. All right. So would anyone like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as written for the August? I missed it. Who motioned that? Okay. So Jamie motioned and Jim seconded. So we're going to take a roll call. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? All right, the meeting minutes are approved. I think we skipped over administrative updates. So Dennis, are there any administrative updates for this month?
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing on my end. Although actually Alicia did mention to me that I believe we are city council approvable for a second alternate number. I'm going to be working on that when I get back. I'm taking tomorrow off, but when I get back next week, I talked to some folks before, so I'm going to see if we can get a second one on, second person on, to thereby give you guys a little bit more leeway if you unexpectedly can't make it to a meeting. It's really up to you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Dennis, just a clarifying question about that. So at one point, I familiarized myself with it, but the take away as it's complicated so is this like all the way past or is it just past like a first reading or something like that?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm not sure if Felicia's still on or not but I had mentioned it to her that I was because I knew it was coming up so um there we go.
[Alicia Hunt]: Hey yes sorry I had actually stepped away for a minute um it did pass completely um we had it went through the whole the whole process. That's the extra member, right? Sorry, I was aware. I heard you across the room. In fact, when Attorney Desmond was talking about the package that passed a couple of weeks ago, that included the member, it included reinserting all the missing definitions. I don't know if you guys have read our zoning, but there are a bunch of definitions that were missing. So those are all officially reinserted. And not requiring every single kind of special permit to go to site plan review and the CD board, but only special permits for use variances, those go to the CD board, but all the other random little special permits don't need to. Of the top of my head, those were the big, there's some minor things in inclusionary zoning that wouldn't affect this board at all. Did we not, sorry, I thought I had asked one of my staff to forward the final package that was approved to you guys just so that you'd have it for reference.
[Mike Caldera]: I don't believe I received it, so if you could just- It would have been like two weeks ago. Um, yeah, I don't, I don't think I have, but yeah, maybe if you could just, just to be safe. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Dennis, can you just, um, send me a shoot me a quick email right now. And then that'll remind me to ask clamor Danielle to send it. I don't maybe actually. I'm afraid that at this point, I will like send the wrong thing. So I just want to think about it while I'm in the office tomorrow and not trying to do it from home tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll even, I can email you Alicia.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh yeah. If you want to do that, that would be great.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll just email the group and say, Hey, we'd love to see the new packet. Sounds good.
[Alicia Hunt]: That would be great. And then we'll paste the right thing in there because I want to, the other thing that I'm trying to be very careful about is that for a number of things, you know, there was the original, there was the CD board recommendations, they adopted all the CD board recommendations. So I want to send you the final version. as it was approved. And actually come to think of it, I'm gonna ask the city clerk for the final copy of the minutes because he was in that having a final version that was, this is the version that was voted on. So that's what I'll send you. Because it did also change the as of right uses for a number of types of uses on mystic have, and that goes into effect at the point that they pull their building permit. So anybody who had pulled the building permit. before this was passed, right, so pulled, sorry, not pulled, applied for the building permit. So because one of the things I was thinking is that I don't remember how, if it might affect car washes, because it was a lot of like vehicle uses on Mystic Ave were made to be special permits. But if somebody applied for their building permit, especially before this vote occurred the first week of September, then they would be under the old version. And so when they, so the case tonight, in order to be in front of you tonight, they applied for a building permit, they were refused, that's what sent them to you. And so the date that we would use is the date that they originally applied with the building department, which way predated this zoning change.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks for that context. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: You'll see a bunch of changes. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: It sounds great. Email sense as well. So, all right. Any other administrative updates?
[Alicia Hunt]: You know what? I'll just advertise it. We are now looking for a new housing planner. So unfortunately our housing planner, um, the short version, she is returning home to Pennsylvania. Um, so even though she loved working here, she has decided she needs to move home. We are looking for a housing planner. If you know anybody, that job description went up on the city's website at like six o'clock tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, noted. Thank you. All right. So that brings us to the end of our agenda. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn. All right, awesome. Thanks, everybody.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Good night, everyone.
[Mike Caldera]: Good night.