[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome to this regular meeting of the Bedford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started.
[Unidentified]: Jamie Thompson? Present. Yvette Velez? Present. Jim Tirani? Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue? Present. Mike Caldera present. Uh, we have all five members present and, uh, we have quorum. So, uh, Dennis, can you kick us off, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023 governor Healy signed into law supplemented budget bill, which among other things extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2025. Typically this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location. and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language is not making any substantive changes to the open meeting law. I've been extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: And so the board received notification that there will be a request to continue a few matters. So we're going to take those out of order. I see we have an attorney for one of the applicants present. So why don't we kick off, Dennis, if you could read 590 Boston Ave.
[Denis MacDougall]: 590 Boston have case number a dash 2020-seven amended continues for April 27th. Applicant and owner and a little brothers incorporated are requesting a modification for the relief granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals recorded with city clerk on July 30 at 2021 and with an extension granted by the Zoning Board on January 5th, 2023. Modifications will result in the lot area of the project now seeking an additional 3000 square feet of release. Additional modifications will either decrease noncompliance or have no effect in the relief granted under the decision.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, great. Thank you, Dennis. I see we have Attorney Barone present. Hi, Attorney Barone. Any statement you'd like to make?
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Dennis. Just appearing on behalf of Analetto Brothers Incorporated, 590 Boston Avenue. My name is Michael Barone. I'm an attorney with Roberto Israel and Weiner of Boston, Massachusetts. We are still working with the Community Development Board to try to make sure that all considerations for this modification are in tandem with our zoning application. So at this time, I know the architect is still working with the Community Development Board, trying to get everything set up there relative to whether we're going to need to amend our site plan approval or go through a brand new site plan approval process. So we would request another continuance with the expectation that we will also be submitting an application to extend the validity of our existing permits.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Barone. Just one clarifying question that I have. So this matter is currently in front of the Medford Community Development Board. Is that right?
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: So we're trying to, it's not quite before the board. What had happened was with our initial approvals, we had gone through and received site plan approval, but as a result of our modifications, we're now trying to determine from the board whether we need a brand new site plan approval or we can move forward with an amended site plan approval. And we just want to make sure we have that squared away before we proceed with the variances here in the event that the board would like to see any modifications made to the plans beyond what we're proposing.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay and so then what's your confidence level that this will be resolved by next month's meeting? We're actually meeting not at the typical date so I believe our next meeting would be Thursday, June 13th. So do you anticipate that you know, these kind of dependent issues will be resolved by that point so that we could hear the matter then or do you need an extension beyond the July 13 or a continuance beyond the July 13 here.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: I am not confident that we'll have everything squared away with Community Development Board. I could be very well mistaken there. I do have a request into the architect who's been corresponding primarily with the Community Development Board as he tweaks those plans. But I do know we will be submitting the application to actually request the extension of our existing variants. So my intention is to get that application in either tomorrow or early next week in order to appear at the June 13th meeting, knowing now that it is going to be on the 13th.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks for that update. Board, any... Just FYI, it's July 13th. Sorry, that's what I meant, July, yes. Did I say June? I meant July 13th.
[Denis MacDougall]: I heard June a couple of different times, so I just wanted to confirm for everyone that it is July we are talking about.
[Mike Caldera]: So our June regular meeting, which would have been on, I think the, I don't actually remember the exact date. The 29th. The 29th. We will instead be holding on July 13th. Apologies if I misspoke.
[Andre Leroux]: Just a point of information. Attorney Barone, I'm just wondering if you could provide a very brief summary of how the project is changing. Is this a major modification?
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: You know what? I do not have the plans immediately in front of me, but I can run through those briefly if you'd like.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'm not looking for any detail. I'm just wondering, since it is an important project, You know, if this is a small change or if this is a redesign.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: It's it to an extent it to redesign however the changes are not substantial. We. There are certain circumstances dealing with how we had the parking set up originally. I believe if I recall correctly, it was originally going to be subterranean. We are now going to be putting the parking at grade due to some of the height of the neighboring MBTA locations. We're also increasing some of our setbacks and also addressing some of the allocation of the units. But I can pull that up to give you a little more information on that.
[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Barone, just a suggestion if Andre is amenable. We can hold off until the actual hearing. I don't want to set a precedent that we make presentations for continuous requests. So yeah, I think we can familiarize ourselves when the presentation is before the board. Is that all right with you, Andre? Yeah, that's fine. OK. Wonderful. So any other questions or any concerns from the board with granting this continuance? Okay, chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which to reiterate is on July 13th.
[Unidentified]: Do I have a second? Okay, we're gonna take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, the motion passes. So, Attorney Barone, we'll see you in a month and a half.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, have a good night.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: You too, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, and then, so the next matter we, We're told there's a request of continuance is for 36 Riverside Avenue, Dennis, you please read that one.
[Denis MacDougall]: For 36 Riverside Avenue case number a dash 2022-19 continued for April 27 applicant and owner Amarok LLC is positioning for variants in the chapter 94 city method zoning to construct a 10 foot high fence industrial don't in the district. which is in violation of city method zoning ordinance 6.3.3 stipulates that fences with posts over seven feet tall need zoning approval.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. I don't see a representative for the applicant. If there is one, please let us know. Otherwise I will check in with Dennis. Did we receive any correspondence from the applicant about the requested?
[Denis MacDougall]: I spoke to them. We're still trying to work out with the police chief because the whole aspect of needing the police chief's approval. And it's, it's been a little, we're trying to figure out the best way to go about it. And we, I've spoken to their attorney and we're going to speak next week with the chief, I believe, and kind of figure out exactly what the chief can provide that would helpfully let us go forward.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks for the update. Yeah, in general, I'm hopeful that we won't have a lot of cases where it's continue, continue, continue, but it seems like in this case, there was some ambiguity about the process and need to coordinate with the police chief. So it sounds like the process is still moving forward. So any, Any concerns from the board with continuing this matter to our next regular hearing as well?
[Unidentified]: Motion to continue to the next meeting. Do I have a second? Seconded. All right, we'll take another roll call. Yvette? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Mike, hi, all right, the matter is continued.
[Mike Caldera]: And then the next one, there might be a request to continue is 396 Main Street. Dennis, can you read that one?
[Denis MacDougall]: 396 Main Street, case number A-2023-04. Applicant and owner, Peter Osborne, is petitioning for variance. in Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to install and operate a bakery at 396 Main Street, which is an existing non-conforming mixed-use residential and commercial building located in the general residence GR zone. An even place without a drive-thru is not allowed use in accordance with Table G1. The purpose of this public hearing is to give the board an opportunity to further consider the application related procedural defects in the application and the vote of the board when it previously considered this application at its March 31st, 2023 meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. So folks, this matter came before the board about maybe a month and a half ago. And so at the time, the board issued a finding granting the requested relief. And we were since advised that under the new method of zoning ordinance, we should be granting findings by special permit, which we did not have the required four members present for that. And so this was added back to the agenda so that we could cure the procedural defect, go through the whole matter again. But so Dennis, I don't see the applicant present. So was the request to continue this matter to the next hearing or to withdraw or something else?
[Denis MacDougall]: I didn't get a formal request to withdraw. So I think at this point, I think probably it's best just to at least just continue until I get something in writing from the applicant basically stating what their intention is to go forward.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, I think that would be fine. So chair waits a motion to continue this matter to the next regular meeting.
[Unidentified]: Motion to continue 396 Main Street to the next monthly meeting. Have a second. Second. All right, we'll take a roll call Jim. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the matter is continued. And now we will revert back to the regular order of the agenda. So I guess that would be 17 Green Road.
[Denis MacDougall]: Actually, I was wondering if we could take that out of order, because the applicant for 17 Green Road is not on here right now. And I sent them an email at the start of the meeting and I have not heard back. So I'm just not sure if maybe there's some issue or something, but yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Sounds like a plan. Why don't we take 22 Alston Street out of order in that case?
[Denis MacDougall]: So 22 Alston Street, case number A-2023-09. Applicant and owner of the Medford Housing Authority is petitioning for a variance in the chapter 94 city method zoning to install fence over 10 feet tall at 22 also street in the single family run zoning district, which is not allowed to the city methods only one is chapter 94 dash 4.2 point four. Number five.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Do we have a representative for the applicant. Looks like Megan Tompkins.
[SPEAKER_10]: Hi. Yep. Megan Tompkins. From CBA Landscape Architects, I know that the applicant, Gabe Chickerella from the Medford Housing Authority is trying to get on the meeting. I know he thought we were going to be on a lot later. Sorry, he just texted me. Should I try to send him the, I don't want to waste your time, but can I try to send him the link?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, yeah, please go ahead. And here's where my command of Robert rules of order is not good enough.
[Unidentified]: Can I just order a recess or do we need to vote on a recess? Why don't we take a 10 minute recess?
[Mike Caldera]: I don't think we need to vote on that. So we'll reconvene at, That's 657.
[Unidentified]: Hi.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hi, just letting the folks know who came on just in the last minute or so. We're just taking a slight recess, waiting for folks to come into the call. So we'll be reconvening at 6 57. So please, you know, just.
[Unidentified]: Be patient and we'll be reconvening the meeting shortly. Hi, good evening for the folks who just joined us.
[Denis MacDougall]: We're taking a slight recess, waiting for people to join us, come out to the call. So we'll be reconvening in about six minutes.
[Unidentified]: So thank you for your patience. All right, recess will end in one minute.
[Mike Caldera]: And also, I looked it up while we were waiting. Does typically require a motion, but I saw unanimous consent. So I'm going to rule, we recessed by unanimous consent.
[Unidentified]: So in just one more minute, we will call the meeting back to order.
[Yvette Velez]: I'm here, I'm just eating a little something really quick, finishing it.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, sounds great. So it is now 6.57. So we are at the end of our recess. I'm calling the meeting back to order. Looks like we still have all five members present. So yeah, Megan Tompkins, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_10]: All right, hi. My name is Megan Tompkins. I'm a landscape architect with CBA Landscape Architects, and I'm representing the Medford Housing Authority on their variance application to install a higher fence than is allowed by zoning code at 22 Alston Street in Medford. Would you like me to go over the narrative or not quite sure how I should start here?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Yeah. So typically petitioners that they may want to make a brief presentation, just kind of summarizing the request. And then that will give the board we've reviewed what you submitted and we may ask some questions and we'll have public comment. So yeah.
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure. Okay. So, So the property in question is called Tempone Apartments. It's located at 22 Alston Street in Medford. It is a 100 unit, three-story building owned and operated by the Medford Housing Authority for elderly and disabled persons. And it's one large building with parking and some green space. And the purpose of the variance application is to replace a six foot high wood stockade fence with a 10 foot high chain link with privacy slats fence along one section of property line only, not the whole property or anything like that. Yes, and the butters, so I'll start with, by saying that this property is zoned single family one, so it's already a non-conforming use. Sure, it's a use that's been in place for a very long time. And the property in question that we are, the only other property that would be affected by this fence is also zoned as single family one, and it is also not being used as such. It is currently a construction business, property where they have, I think it's various construction businesses are headquartered on the property, so there's a lot of construction materials being stockpiled, a lot of trucks, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, and that, I'm sorry, and that property is 40 Canal Street. The other abutting properties to 22 Alston, just as a sort of big picture are MBTA commuter line, the Mystic River, and then there are rear properties off of Auburn Street. So this property 22 Alston is sort of a little dead end against the river. And I should say the reason that this variance is being sought is because the current adjacent use at 40 Canal because of the construction materials. They are so they're both visually and physically intrusive on the 22 Alston property. So they are both visible over the existing six foot fence they are sometimes hanging over the six foot fence and they are also sometimes blowing over the six foot fence onto the property. So this would be a taller fence along this particular property line would be an improvement for the residents of 22 Alston. Let me see, I saw a comment there, apologies. I thought I had a lot more time to get ready this evening. Let me see if I can find a photograph of that fence, would that be helpful?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah, I think. So there were a few things submitted with the application that I think would be helpful and you're certainly welcome to share them or if that's a challenge, we could have Dennis share them. So I know you provided some photos of the fence itself and some of the overhanging materials. There's the architectural plans, which show the proposed position of the fence. And then there's the area plan, which shows what you were just describing, the location of the property and its abutters. So I think all of those might be helpful context for the board and for the public.
[Unidentified]: All right. Once again, my apologies, I... No worries at all. Okay. Andre, were you gonna say something?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, if it's helpful, I could just share my screen with the Google Street map photo, just so you can see where it is.
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure.
[Unidentified]: That sounds helpful. Thank you. OK. Thanks, Andre. Loading. I think we'll see it eventually. There we go. So I'm assuming that this is the fence that we're talking about here.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes, that is the fence in question. As you can see, I'm not completely sure what that is, but I think it's ladders are a few feet above the fence. I have additional photos of them sort of hanging over as well.
[Andre Leroux]: The wooden stockade fence is deteriorating.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, it's ready to be replaced for sure.
[Andre Leroux]: It looks like the rest of the fencing around their property is in line with what you're proposing, the chain link with the shielding.
[Unidentified]: Is that right? Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Is the fence that we're talking about just this one line screenshot down there?
[SPEAKER_10]: Exactly. It's that one line from that corner, and then the far end is the MBTA line. So it would just be that line, none of the other property lines.
[Unidentified]: The parcel itself is sort of an odd shape, but it's just that one line that we're talking about. Okay. It's pretty straightforward.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I agree. Thanks for sharing, Andre. So I think the board has an understanding of the proposed location of the fence. One thing that as a board we need to understand and weigh in on to grant a variance is, so there's three prongs, that The need for this variance is owing to circumstances related to the soil condition, shape, or topography of the land or structures that are especially affecting such land or structures, but not generally affecting the zoning district. So here we have two non-conforming uses, and the position and the the height of the structures and in the case of the construction use, their storage yard, that would be one example of a potentially unique condition. And so we can talk about that. I want to just check in with you on the uniqueness and then Second is that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise. You know, so here would be, you know, some of the issues, the residents are experiencing, you know, with the unsightly views. And then the last is that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. So you know here there's the you know it seems like if I understood you correctly the The impact of the fence would mainly be to a commercial business that's not so where normally in a single family one if there was a request to have a 10 foot fence, it may have some negative impacts on the. The ability of the adjacent single family one home to to enjoy their own property but here you know it's there's this commercial use nearby that perhaps there would not be as big of a an impact so those are just some examples so again it's the. What about the property, whether it's soil condition, shape, or topography, the land or structures? Is the cause of the need for the zoning relief? So that's one thing. And so, yeah, was there anything you wanted to speak to specifically on that one?
[SPEAKER_10]: I think that's probably the hardest one to speak to on this. It's, I think, really the biggest issue is that it's the two non-conforming uses, so it's not a physical issue with the lot. It's that neither of the uses are, I mean, if this were two single family uses against each other, there would be no need.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, but so like I mentioned, it also extends to the structure. So you do have uniqueness in the type of structure and their positions relative to one another. So that would qualify as unique. Okay. Yeah. Sure. And then a literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship. So what's the hardship if it was only a six foot fence?
[SPEAKER_10]: I mean, I think the hardship if it's only a six foot fence, which it is now, is that it would be the same, you know, sort of, it would be visually unpleasant, but also, you know, potentially things coming over the fence and
[Ciccariello]: You know, coming into the property, Megan if I can speak to that this is Gabe Chick around the director of modernization procurement with the Medford housing authority. They've been with Medford for Hi, how are you, thank you guys for meeting with us this evening. So I've been with the Medford housing authority for about six years, and previously was at some will housing for 15 but since I've come to Medford. The residents at 22 Austin Street have been on the Medford Housing Authority to do something about this property line. So it's not the what ifs, we have had a history of damage from materials in high winds, or not even high winds, just gusts flying from, so the property is used as like a staging for multiple construction companies. So I'm sure it's difficult for the owner to get on the multiple renters to kind of clean up the property, but what it's generally used for along that property line there are conics boxes or rows of storage boxes. And inevitably these contractors stack shingles, they stack ladders, plywood on top of these boxes. So they extend way past six feet. And on multiple occasions, materials fly over the fence line and have damaged our residents' vehicles. So it's a safety thing. So the residents and high winds don't feel safe like walking to their cars in those instances. and we've had damage and it is just visually too. The property is just, it's pretty unsightly. It's just, it's not kept up well. So ideally getting the privacy slats and going with a chain link, going back with like a wooden fence or a vinyl fence for what they have going over there, it just wouldn't hold up. We've kind of like cut and pasted that fence as much as we can. It's really falling over. So we need to go with something heavy gauge and definitely over six feet to keep materials and stuff from flying over that fence and damaging property, damaging the vehicle. But I just wanted to throw that out there. I appreciate your time.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. And so then the last one is just that the relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating from the intent of the the zoning ordinance. So could you just walk through the sketch of that one?
[SPEAKER_10]: Um, sure. So I think as I, as I mentioned earlier on, the, you know, this is a, the, the properties that are being affected here are, you know, the housing authority, apartment building, and then the construction site, there are not additional, you know, residential properties that are close by or adjacent to this. At the very end is the MBTA line. I can show a plan if that helps, but I think we all kind of understand it. Additionally, it's a dead end, so we're not on a walking route or, you know, we're not near parks, playgrounds, schools, libraries. We're pretty far off, you know, regular, a beaten path that, you know, this might affect someone. And also, like I said earlier, it's the two sort of non-conforming uses thing. So I think it's that it's not, if they were two conforming uses, this would be, I think, more of a question for you, but it doesn't feel like we're breaking a rule. I'm trying to speak for you and I shouldn't be, but to me, from my end, it doesn't feel like as much of a rule break to do this. Okay, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, I would just, I would just jump in and say, I do think that this is very unusual for a single family district. I mean, we're talking about a very long property line. So I do think the shape of these parcels is comes into play or the size comes into play, you know, and they're both kind of strangely shaped as well. So, you know, I would be happy to, I feel comfortable with making a motion to approve the variance.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, well, so procedurally, Andre, we're going to check if there's any other questions from the board, then we're going to open for public comment, then we'll close public comment, enter deliberations, and then the board members can feel free to make any such motions. So are there other other questions from the board before we open for public comment? I'm seeing head shakes. No. Okay. Sure. Wait, some motion to open public comments.
[Unidentified]: Awesome street. So moved. Do I have a second? Okay, yeah, I think I saw Jim try, so I'll acknowledge that one.
[Mike Caldera]: And then we'll do a roll call vote. Andre? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so we are open for public comment. If you're a member of the public and would like to make a comment, please feel free to raise your hand on Zoom. turn on your camera and raise your hand that way, type something in chat. You can also email Dennis D. McDougall at medford-ma.gov.
[Unidentified]: We're gonna wait a little bit just to see if anyone does any of those things.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I'm not seeing any hands indicating member of the public would like to comment. So chair awaits a motion to close public comment for 22 Alston Street and open deliberations.
[Unidentified]: To close public comments and open deliberations. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're gonna take another roll call. Yvette? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike, aye. All right. So we're deliberating. And so, yeah, Andre, if I understood you correctly, you, in addition to what we were discussing about the kind of uniqueness of the uses and the position of those structures relative to one another in a single family zoning district, you also called out that the lot itself is unusual in shape. Yeah. Other So we talked a little bit about the different elements.
[Unidentified]: Other thoughts from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: I think it could be a hazard the way it currently exists. It looks like it is about to fall over. In addition to what was mentioned in regards to the wind blowing over the materials and I saw the pictures that were sent with the ladders hanging over the fence that currently exists.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Thanks, Yvette. Jamie, Jim, any thoughts? No?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so for me, I think we've got uniqueness, the uses, the positions of the structures relative to one another in a single family district, the certainly the lot shape itself is unique and given the position of the structure this is the right place for the fence and it's not adequately high to provide the desired privacy or protect the vehicles from clutter flying over the existing six foot fence. And then, seems like there would be a hardship, essentially these conditions would continue, which are damaging resident vehicles, lack of privacy, unsightly views. And then, as was mentioned, I think because the splash radius of this decision is pretty small, it's just the only really impacted property is the commercial use itself, which isn't gonna care as much about fence height, I do think that relief could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or derogating from the intent of the ordinance.
[Unidentified]: So would anyone like to make a motion?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm happy to make the motion to approve the variance for 22 Alston Street for the 10 foot fence.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? I'll second that.
[Unidentified]: All right, so we're gonna take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Yvette? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. So the request for the variance is granted. Congratulations, you have your fence.
[SPEAKER_10]: Thank you so much.
[Ciccariello]: Yeah, Dan, on behalf of our residents at 22 Alston Street, really, they're going to be ecstatic. Thank you so much for this. Appreciate it.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank all of you for the good work at the Housing Authority. Really appreciate it. It's very kind of you. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. Have a good evening.
[Denis MacDougall]: And just to let you all know, I'll be working on the decision. And then it'll just go out for review. And then once I get it in, it'll get filed in the clerk's office. And then there's the 20 days appeals period. And then you can get your building permit. So give me a little bit of time to work on the decision, because unfortunately, this is the third tall fence, height fence variance that we've had in the past three months. So I've got a pretty good base thing to work from. So it might go by a little bit more quickly than some others.
[SPEAKER_10]: That's good to hear. Thank you, Dennis.
[Ciccariello]: Thank you, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: And have a great holiday weekend. All right, thanks.
[SPEAKER_10]: Bye, everyone.
[Unidentified]: Bye, everyone. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so I think now we can revert back to the regular order and so I believe the next year is 17 green road.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, 17 green road case number a dash 2023-or late applicant and owner, Nicole Moochie positioning for variance and chapter 94 city record zoning to construct an addition and covered porch at 17 green road in a single family one zoning district. which is not allowed due to the insufficient front yard setbacks. City of Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94, table B, table of dimensional requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, do we have a representative for the applicant?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm honestly not sure, unless the person on the iPhone is their representative, then I don't know. I'll ask you to unmute, but I sent an email to the applicant right at the start of the meeting,
[Bill Forte]: basically stated that we were 40 I've got I've got the meeting on both because I've been losing my reception campgrounds. All right. Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, well, that's so um, so Dennis, my suggestion and um,
[Mike Caldera]: I don't necessarily want to make a habit of this, but this is the first meeting since we changed the time. So maybe we can move on to the administrative items. If we've got a little bit of time to spare and a member wants to make a motion to recess again until a minute or two after 730, I'd certainly be amenable. But yeah, I think we should, let's get through the remaining items and then we can make a call about what to do from there.
[Unidentified]: Next would be, are there any administrative updates for today? What's the next item?
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, I might actually just share with you, we've talked about some, a couple of zoning changes, at least one of which is just for you guys and administrative and that was that the idea of a second associate member got lost. Um, it's the shorthand. I had a city council meeting, the subcommittee this this evening, and we were talking about making some potential actual changes to the zoning around the use table. Councilor Bears indicated that he knew that there were administrative and other somewhat urgent and or technical changes that needed to happen, and he invited those, so I mentioned that to him. And so it is his intention to include the addition of a second associate member. It is extremely likely that we're gonna put forward some zoning changes for the next city council meeting in two weeks, and we would include that on it. There's another one that is directly related to this board that if somebody wanted to work with me on it offline, there's no reason why you need to discuss it in a public meeting. It's not like changing zoning isn't your business, but I need help with it. And that is the idea that findings were made special permits. And that's a high bar. Would you recommend that it not be special permit and or my bigger concern that with all special permits having to be referred to the CD board that technically means that every finding of the ZBA has to be referred to the CD board for comment, which seems. out of hand, like really above and beyond. So we would recommend one of those or both to be changed. And if somebody wanted to sort of work with me offline, because I don't have as good a strong grasp on findings as you all do at this point. But I think that we could actually ask for that change, because we're either breaking our zoning every time we don't refer a finding to the CD board, or we're about to inundate that board with like just noise that's completely unnecessary.
[Mike Caldera]: So yeah, certainly encourage any member of the board who'd like to work with Director Hunt on that to do so. Director Hunt, I'm happy to work with you offline. There's, in addition to what you called out, there's a few other ones that I would, purely in the administrative domain, that I would also call to your attention.
[Alicia Hunt]: That would be great. If we could literally pull those together between now and a week from today, that would be huge. We could get them on the council agenda and we could get them into hearings and we could have stuff changed by July.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Thank you. So, Director Hunt, what's the latest on the one associate member that we're currently allowed by ordinance? Do we have a someone who is in the late stages of selection and appointment at this point or what's the latest?
[Denis MacDougall]: Is that Dennis? I think all right so that's what I figured you're pointing me yeah I actually put in an email to someone that I was interested but they were away so I'm just waiting for them to get back so I want to actually have a talk with them instead of just reading like off the resume before they actually you know put forward to the mayor's office.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so what I'm hearing is there's, we put out the call for applications, we reviewed those, we have at least one candidate in mind that we're in discussion with.
[Denis MacDougall]: And so, okay, that sounds like- And with the hope that we get the second member, then, you know, I have a couple others in mind that I can go to, you know, from that list. So it should be much easier to get the second associate once we get the first, right after, once that gets approved.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sounds great. I'll just reiterate my earlier encouragement that I think there's value in getting that person appointed as soon as reasonably possible, especially heading into the summer.
[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, I'd hope to do it by this one, but just the person wasn't around. But by the next one, we've got the extra two weeks. So I can't see any reason why not. We won't have it by then.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Any other administrative updates?
[Alicia Hunt]: We had a housing planner start with my office. Barbara Hines is new this week. And we actually have a new CDBG and grants manager started last week. I don't know if any of you know Laurel Siegel. She's an active community member. She's new staff in our office.
[Unidentified]: Great. Thanks for the update.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, if there's nothing else, the next item is approval of meeting minutes. So Dennis, I did see that you sent out some meeting minutes.
[Unidentified]: Have folks had a chance to review those?
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, you had nodded yes. Did you find them to be in order and accurately reflecting what occurred at our last meeting?
[Unidentified]: Okay. Yeah. Great.
[Mike Caldera]: So would anyone like to propose amendments to those meeting minutes or otherwise chair awaits a motion to approve the meeting minutes for I believe this was
[Unidentified]: What was it, April? April 27th. April 27th. So chair awaits a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the April 27th meeting of the Medford zoning board of appeals. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We'll take a roll call. Jim. Aye. Andre. Aye. Jamie. Aye. Sveta. Aye. Mike. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. The meeting minutes are approved. So that brings us To the end of our agenda, except for the one matter we haven't taken up yet, which is 17 Green Road. We are right at our typical start time.
[Unidentified]: Would a member of the board like to propose a
[Mike Caldera]: three-minute recess, just while we give this applicant one last chance to hop on.
[Unidentified]: Commissioner Fordy, please.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, can you hear me OK? Yeah. OK. I just called the applicant, and they are going to log on within the next five minutes, OK?
[Mike Caldera]: Within the next five minutes, OK.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you for that. I didn't want to see them lose their opportunity, so I took the initiative.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah. Likewise, thank you for the update. In that case, there awaits a motion to recess for five minutes until 7.36. Motion to recess for five minutes until 7.36.
[Unidentified]: Second. Second. All right, we'll take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Beth? Aye. Jim?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, we are recessed until 736. See you all in five minutes.
[Unidentified]: Yes, honey. No, don't talk to her right now. Can you give her her lovey? Catherine. You need to stop. What does she want? All right, it's now 736.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
[Unidentified]: Looks like we have most of the board back. Okay, all the board back, wonderful.
[Mike Caldera]: So we are up to the application for 17 Green Road. Do we have a representative for the applicants?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, I'm right here.
[Mike Caldera]: Hello, could you please state your name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, it's a Nicole Mucci, 17 Green Road, Medford Mass, 02155.
[Mike Caldera]: Welcome. Yeah, so we received your application, we received the documents you submitted along with it. Customarily, the applicant will share some details with the board and the public if they're watching just, you know, to generally describe what you're trying to do and the relief you're requesting. So yeah, would you like to share some details with us about what you're, what you're trying to do with the property?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, you got a poll. Yes, we're trying to put a porch on and replicate it exactly the way it is, but with doing that and restoring the porch, we need a variance because we're getting a little too close to the sidewalk, but we want to keep everything exactly the same in the characteristics of the home.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and so just so we're clear, so the The replacement porch would be the same in every way, including even the same dimensions as the current porch?
[SPEAKER_09]: We're putting a little bit of an addition on there, which will be in the middle. So when we extend it a little bit, it will just go out a little further. But the way our property is, it's so unique that it is at an angle.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. And so Commissioner Forty, is it that kind of change in the footprint? Is that what triggered the need for relief here?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, I don't normally represent persons who are seeking relief from the zoning ordinance that I enforce. However, I think in this case, it would be appropriate if I just explain a little bit. Perhaps Dennis could bring up the site plan, that would be great. And then I can explain a little bit about what's going on. I've been kind of involved with this project from the beginning, trying to help Ms. Blucci through the process and I've been working with historical. So currently they have an application, they have a building permit to install the area here where the foundation is, which you can see here on the plan, uh, just the foundation area that's in hatch, um, that we've allowed that to, to go ahead and get started. Um, the project currently the, the porch, uh, is a wraparound porch and it extends around three sides of the house. As you can see here, it goes, um, it goes, uh, do, Do southeast, you know in the area where they're now gonna put a foundation in okay? So what they're doing is what they want to do to to keep the house aesthetically You know proper is to extend the porch out for as much so what you see here shaded and red is the amount of the amount of porch or the amount of encroachment into the front setback as required to get the aesthetics of the porch to, you know, to be moved in. Obviously the hardship here is unusual shape and I believe that there is an unusual topography here. I don't believe that this is a flat lot. It sits up high from the rest. And so it does definitely have an unusual shape. And I believe that the hardship here is that they actually have front setback around the entire lot. There's no side, rear, or front setback. It is pretty much all front setback. So regardless of what you call the front yard, the rear yard, the sides, or the back, You would always be in the front yard setback with this property. So here, they had gone through historical for a couple of hearings and historical, I believe that I see the historic chairs on the meeting tonight, has approved a plan that is, you know, reasonable and will, you know, basically fit into, you know, the aesthetics of required here is for the roof. The porch would actually be able to protrude into the front. Only caveat here is that they're looking for this area hatched in red as the covered roof to be the encroachment into the front setback, which otherwise might be a side or rear yard. Here is actually the houses addressed on Front Road, so would be considered to be the front yard. But other than that, that's the only nonconformity. I don't think that there are any other nonconformities here. And that really is the whole project in a nutshell.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner Forty. One clarifying question I have for you is really just about the permit refusal itself. So in Bjerkelen versus Boarding of Appeals, Norwell, there were several small scale improvements to preexisting single family structures that the court ruled do not require a finding. And one of those was the addition or enclosure of a porch or sunroom. So is it that the, the dimensions of the porch are somehow increasing. I'm just trying to figure out what's changing.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, that's right. So the porch is being extended from its original footprint, which if you look, there's a line going right in between the 20-foot measurement right there. That's the existing porch line. So the entire house and project and porch is expanding out that additional area beyond that line. Yes, correct. So where those trees are and everything else, that will be the new line of the porch. So the only part of that that encroaches is just the roof of the extended porch only. So the existing porch kind of comes in and goes eight feet beyond the corner of the house. where it exists on the existing dwelling and then and then it returns back in. So here now, they're expanding, you know, they're expanding the property. And again, the only thing that that violates the zoning ordinance, or the setbacks rather is the, the covering of the porch, not the The porch itself, if it didn't have a roof in that area, would be allowed by right because it can encroach up to eight feet or half the required. So once it becomes a roof, then it becomes a structure that potentially, like you said, could be enclosed. So.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you for that explanation. Ms. Mucci, was there anything else you wanted to? share with the board it seems the commissioner kind of described at a high level the the plan why why the relief is needed.
[SPEAKER_09]: No, the commission described everything great. Thank you, Bill.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, of course. Yes, of course.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Um, so there are a few things that the board will have to consider to grant a variance. And I'm just gonna pull that back up, but just going off of memory, I may paraphrase a little bit. So that circumstances related to the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the land or structures are the reason the relief is needed, that, it would present a hardship not to grant relief and that the relief could be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. And so if I understood Commissioner Forty correctly, essentially the relatively small relief is required here. The lot has a lot of unusual things about it. It would almost be hard to find something not unusual about it. So you've got all front yard, certainly a strange shape. And you've got the existing dwelling, so that sort of enforces the location of the porch. And then in addition, since it sounds like you've been working with a historic commission, you know, to to ensure the appropriateness of the new porch. You know, there's a there's a reason why it should be covered. And then if I understood it, the hardship is you basically can't build the porch. And yeah, that didn't didn't hear anything specific on on impact, but if I understood correctly, essentially, this would actually be allowed by right if it wasn't covered. And in doing it in a manner consistent with the architecture of the building, the porch actually fits better in with the neighborhood. Did I get that correctly, Ms. Mucci?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, correct, without having the porch the way it is and covered, it won't look the same, especially with the historical committee. It just takes away the replica of the house and the character of the house together.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood, thank you.
[Unidentified]: All right, what questions do we have from the board? I just want to kind of be explicit.
[Andre Leroux]: So the, uh, the addition itself is by right, and it's just the covered porch that requires a variance.
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Mike Caldera]: And, um, I guess a related question. So you've been working with the historic commission has that Has that matter essentially concluded? So whatever discussions you've had with the Historic Commission, have those... Yeah, Jennifer Keenan, I see you there. I'm gonna take you during public comment, which I intend to open in just a moment. So yeah, actually with that, you know, since Jennifer would like to speak, maybe we can just go straight to public comment.
[Andre Leroux]: So chair- We can open public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[Unidentified]: All right. And we'll take a roll call. Yvette? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. So we are open for public comment. Ms. Keenan, please go ahead.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi, Chair. I am Jennifer Keenan, 250 Grove Street here in Medford. I am the chair of the Historical Commission. So wasn't really here on official business, but since it came up, I'm happy to kind of chime in. So yeah, so the project at 17 Green Road went through demolition review. And they have, we have voted to release them from their demo delay, based on the plans that were submitted to us, which are the same plans that you're reviewing tonight. So we are in support of the porch staying as it's designed as it's being presented to the commission tonight to your to zoning zoning board excuse me tonight, to keep with the look of the house and the feel of the kind of the originality of it. It is a very large addition, and to, you know, if they were to have to kind of janky in the porch to fit within the setback it would completely change the look of the house. So yes, as far as we're concerned, most of our, you know, our process is done and the family at 17 Green Road, I think this is their last step in order for them to move forward fully on their project.
[Mike Caldera]: Awesome. Well, thank you very much for attending and for sharing those details.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Happy to.
[Unidentified]: Other comments from members of the public?
[Denis MacDougall]: just probably we should acknowledge we received 10 letters of support from this project from adjacent neighbors to the property.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you, Dennis. And I didn't see any letters in opposition. Did we receive any letters in opposition? We did not. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Unidentified]: Moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, I'll take a roll call. Yvette? Aye. Jim?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Andre? Aye.
[Unidentified]: Jamie? Mike? Aye. All right, we are now deliberating. What do you think, folks?
[Yvette Velez]: I looked at the area plan and it's truly a very unique property, an island in the middle of a, so every space looks like a front lawn to me. I see that. I don't think it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. It would be an improvement to stick with that plan that was presented to the historic commission. We should approve it. be supportive of it, reviewing the letters of support from all the neighbors. It looks like a good plan and well-suited.
[Unidentified]: Other comments from the board? Jim? I agree with Yvette. I think it will look nice. I'm in full agreement. All right, anyone else?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, I think since the only thing under our purview is whether there should be a covered porch or not, I think it's pretty straightforward. It's better for it to be consistent with its, you know, the look that it has now is more historical.
[Unidentified]: Jamie, any thoughts? I concur with everyone else based on what we're reviewing. I feel like the, you know, support from the neighbors, especially the direct abutting neighbors on that side. That's an easy review.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I agree. I'm also in support. I think, you know, this plan is keeping with the character of the house and the neighborhood, a lot certainly unique. seems like a benefit both to the homeowner and the neighborhood to allow the porch to be extended in this way. So yeah, I think we've got uniqueness. I think we've got hardship. If we take a literal enforcement, and I think we've got no substantial detriment.
[Unidentified]: So Chair awaits a motion. Motion to approve the variance for our covered porch at 17 Green Road. Do we have a second? Second.
[Mike Caldera]: And actually, I'd like to just make a friendly amendment to that motion.
[Unidentified]: So the variance would actually be for, hold on. Permit refusal, there we go. for front setback. So is that, are you accepting that friendly amendment, Andre? Yeah, absolutely. Okay, wonderful. So we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Yvette? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, hi. So that's five in favor. The variance is granted. Thank you, Ms.
[Unidentified]: Mucci. You have your report. You're on mute, but I think I saw you say thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you. Have a good long weekend.
[Denis MacDougall]: And just, Nicole, just a heads up. I'll be writing the decision that it'll go out to review just between one of the members of the board and also our legal counsel. So it might take a little while, and then once that's in, I'll let you know, it'll be filed in the clerk's office. Then there's a 20 days appeals period after it's filed in the clerk's office, then you get your permit. So we'll try to move this along pretty quickly for you, but it'll just take a little bit of time to get the ball rolling.
[Mike Caldera]: Ms. Bucci, you're on mute. Yeah, Mr. Chair. Yeah, just I really just want to, let Nicole speak briefly, and then we'll go to you, Bill. Were you going to say something, Ms. Mucci?
[SPEAKER_09]: You're still on mute. No, thank you so much, Dennis, for all your help. You and Teresa have been very helpful, and we'll just stay in touch and let me know when it goes through. Thank you for the easy process.
[Bill Forte]: Absolutely. Commissioner Forte, was there something you wanted to add? Yeah Mr. Chairman thank you. So I did issue a foundation permit so that this project could get underway with the assumption that if for some reason there was failure here at the ZBA or they did not succeed in their variance that they would that you know they agreed not to you know frame the roof over the porch. And so now that now that the ZBA has go ahead and approve the order. Obviously it'll have to come out in this legal waiting period. By the time that porch is actually framed, the order will have been recorded at the registry of deeds and they'll be on their way. So I just want to be clear that I'm probably going to issue the rest of the building permit. for the extension of the house and portions of the project that are not within the area that required the variance here tonight. I just wanted to make sure that the board understood I wasn't issuing that permit preemptively or outside of the scope of my authority. So the permit that will be issued is for everything except for the porch. And then again, memorialized after the order has been recorded. So I just wanted to be clear on that.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner McCarty. I appreciate you clarifying. All right. We are at the end of our agenda.
[Unidentified]: Chair awaits a motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Do I have a second? All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.