[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome to this regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to kick things off by taking a quick roll call. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim Tirani? Present. Andre LaRue? Present. Mike Caldera? present and, uh, Jamie Thompson is absent. So we have, we're a five member board. We have four members present. That is a quorum. Um, and so, uh, we are going to proceed. So, uh, Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, governor Healy signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting on March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. And I've been informed that we have a couple of cases on the agenda that have requested continuances in advance. And so we're going to do those out of order first. One such case is 436 Riverside Avenue. Can you please read that one, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: 436 Riverside Avenue, case number A-2022-19, continued from March 30th. Applicant and owner Amarok LLC is petitioning for a variance from the Chapter 94 City Method Zoning to construct a 10-foot high fence in an industrial zoning district, which is in violation of City Method Zoning Order 6.3.3, which stipulate that fences with posts over 7 feet tall need zoning approval.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I don't see anyone from the applicant. I just want to double check if anyone's on in case they'd like to speak.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, this is the issue with we just need that it was one thing which we kind of were referencing another time about the ordinance putting something in there that is is so that it's it's they just need to get meet with the police chief and figure it out what the police chief needs or requires before it can come back to us so we're working on that great um thanks dennis so sounds good and i know that this case uh has already waived the statutory timelines um when we
[Mike Caldera]: continued it previously, so the chair awaits a motion to continue 436 Riverside Avenue to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the matter is continued. So the next one that has requested a continuance is 590 Boston Avenue. Dennis, could you please read the matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: 590 Boston Avenue, case-A-2020-07 amended. Excuse me. Continued from March 30th. Applicant and owner, Antelito Brothers Incorporated, are requesting a modification for the relief granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, recorded with the city clerk on July 30th, 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 3,000 square feet of relief. Additional modifications need to decrease non-compliance or have no effect on the relief granted under the decision.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: And we have Attorney Barone here.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, Attorney Barone.
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Thank you. My name is Michael Barone. I'm an attorney with Roberto Israel and Weiner out of Boston, 255 State Street, here on behalf of Anteleto Brothers Incorporated, the property owner and proposed developer at 590 Boston Avenue. As Dennis stated, we are seeking some modifications to existing relief. However, we understand that Because of those modifications in light of the new zoning ordinance or the revised zoning ordinance, I should say, there may be some impact to our existing site plan approval. We're just trying to work through with the Community Development Board whether that's going to require an amendment and or new approvals. We'd like to pursue all approvals in tandem with one another. We're just seeking time to work that out with the Community Development Board.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Attorney Brown. And so my recollection is that you previously waived the statutory time limit for this case. Is that right?
[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Correct. I believe we did.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Any concerns from the board with continuing the matter? Not seeing any. So chair awaits a motion to continue 590 Boston Avenue to the next regular meeting of the Board of Appeals.
[Andre Leroux]: to continue 590 Boston Avenue to the next scheduled meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. The matter is continued. Thank you, Attorney Brown.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. All right, next matter please, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: 45 Bowling Street, case number A-2023-03. Continued from March 30th. Applicant and owner, Joseph Musi, is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City of Medford to install an off-street parking space in the front yard of an existing non-conforming single-family dwelling in the General Residence Zoning District, not allowed. Section 6.1.4, number three.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[Joe Musi]: Yes, we do. Joseph is on, and also his attorney, Henry Rafa. And just a correction, it's a two-family dwelling, not a single family.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, sorry. Thank you. All right. So would either of you like to make a presentation? Attorney Rafa, I think we need to unmute you.
[Henry Rappa]: Okay. Can everyone hear me now? We can. Yes. Thank you. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Henry Rapa, Jr. I'm counsel to Joseph Musi with respect to this request for a zoning variance. Currently, the property has two parking spaces. Zoning requires four. So it's nonconforming. The petitioner's plan will actually reduce that nonconformity by one spot. So he'll have three parking spaces on site. His driveway is actually blocked in some aspects by people parking on the street. One of the submissions in the package has a picture that shows a car parked in front of his driveway extending out. So it actually becomes quite problematical for him to access his driveway when people are parking beyond where the curb ends. So he has nowhere else to park except in the front yard. The property does not allow access to the backyard. The house itself blocks that type of access to park anywhere other than the front. And as you can see from the picture submitted, It can be very challenging to get in and out of his driveway with that people parking beyond the curb cut. So based on the circumstances, the four-prong test, we submit to be satisfied. And we ask the members of the board to grant his request for relief to park in the front yard.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. Um, and so, um, the board has had a chance to review your application. Um, in that you share some details about the actual, um, intended position of the parking space, its size, some details about the curb cut that would expand, and so on. Would either of you like to share any details about that?
[Henry Rappa]: Certainly. One of the nice things about this is he's adding a parking space, which is going to cut down on street congestion. And it actually benefits the public good because the space that would be lost on the street isn't really even a full space. It's about eight and a half feet. So it certainly benefits the public good to have less on street congestion. And especially on a clog street where people getting in and out of driveways can be very difficult by its own right. And it certainly benefits in that aspect as well as reducing the nonconformity that currently exists at the property, where it only has the two spaces rather than the four. And in the picture, it appears to have pavers there, so it's a nice clean look.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm wondering if we could get a screen share, either from one of you or maybe Dennis, just so the board and any members of the public can see the proposed plan. But in particular, there's a plot plan, I think, which shows the location of the parking spot.
[Henry Rappa]: Yeah. If Dennis is able to do that, I'm not as proficient at screen sharing as I should be, but. Yep, I'm on it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Let me just.
[Mike Caldera]: Awesome. So we can see that. So it looks like we've got the details on the proposed curb cut widening and the location of the parking space. So was there anything you wanted to tell us about that?
[Henry Rappa]: parking space actually fits in really well with the two existing spaces that are in the driveway. And again, the benefit of this is the curb cut being extended isn't really even costing a full parking space on the street, but we're adding a parking space in the driveway. So again, not to be repetitive, it will certainly help cut down on existing congestion on the street, which is, obviously something that benefits the community at large.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then, so I just want to make sure we're clear on the relief being sought here. So in terms of the permit refusal, part of it is that the off street parking space is in the front yard. of the building, which is not allowed. And then the other relief, if I understood correctly from the application, is that the dimensions of the parking space are slightly smaller than what's allowed. Is that right?
[Henry Rappa]: That is correct. The permit refusal was based on the the parking in the front yard, but the space that's on the plan is slightly smaller. So we just wanted to be extra safe and ask the board for consideration of that as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. Okay, thank you. I'll pause there and check with the board. What questions does the board have for the applicant?
[Unidentified]: How much of the curb is being cut?
[Henry Rappa]: I would say we need 8 1⁄2 to 10 feet. If you look at the existing plan, it shows 8 1⁄2 feet along the side edge, which I think is what would be necessary. The surveyor also has a curb cut widening of 10 feet, but I don't think from looking at it that we actually need the 10 feet. And hence, that's why I've been saying that we're not even losing a full parking space on the street. And that's why I was bringing up that picture that shows someone actually parking in a space extending out into the existing driveway of Mr. Musi. So the parking space we see on there, with the eight and a half feet along the frontage of Bowen Avenue looks like the correct amount. It would be the eight and a half feet.
[Unidentified]: Oh, it's not 10 feet.
[Henry Rappa]: I don't believe we're going to need 10 feet because if you look at where they have the space is eight and a half feet. So the frontage of the space is eight and a half feet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: What other questions do we have from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: So when you're looking at the property, and I see that people do park in front of it, and I know the picture that you sent where someone is parking to obstruct the driveway that currently exists. But if you're cutting in the additional eight and a half, what is left, people could still park. Like you're not removing a full parking spot. Is that right? Because right now it appears to be like one and a half, is what you're telling me, that it's in front of the house.
[Henry Rappa]: Well, what it looks like is they have what amounts to a 10 foot curb cut. and it looks to be a parking for two vehicles in that access by that 10 foot curb cut. The next eight and a half feet would allow access in to the new parking space.
[Joe Musi]: Just to summarize, that is correct. It's about a spot and a half. There's never more than one car. You can't fit more than one car there. So you can only put one car there now and after the proposed curb cut, you can only keep one car there on the street in the future.
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you for that clarification. So you're not removing basically any additional spots to the public?
[Joe Musi]: No, we are not, no.
[Henry Rappa]: And that's why we've been talking about the net gain to the public because there's gonna be no real loss of spots on the street and the gain of taking a car that was on the street off and putting it into the driveway.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. When the curb cut, the new curb cut is constructed, are you going to reconstruct the sidewalk there and keep it level? Because I noticed that the existing curb cut, you know, it looks old. The driveway kind of merges into the street without much of a ramp. Is that going to be rebuilt, the whole thing?
[Henry Rappa]: Well, I think whatever measures would be necessary for safety to keep it safe for the public and for the people of the house would have to be taken.
[Andre Leroux]: I think what's important to us is to continue the pedestrian plan of the sidewalk. Um, so I would want to see that. I'm not a big fan, obviously, of, uh, of permitting kind of new parking in front of homes, but this is a situation where it seems to make sense. It's a two family building. There's only two parking spaces right there and they'd have to be tandem. So, um, you know, so, so I think that I'm, I'm okay with this. I would just like to see the sidewalk rebuilt as part of the curb cut there.
[Henry Rappa]: Well, again, I think whatever necessary was necessary for the safety would be done, um, in order to keep it safe for everybody as they walk by the area.
[Mike Caldera]: No issues. Uh, commissioner 40, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just a couple of comments about this. So, um, first of all, Any sidewalk repair that has to take place or any sidewalk crossing is going to be under the jurisdiction of the engineering department. And so they have a minimum standard. There may be a requirement to replace a good portion of the sidewalk, depending on what kind of shape it's in. In addition to that, I just want it to be noteworthy and made public is that up till recently, the building commissioner would decide the position of curb cuts. And in my opinion, Um, that matter is that that procedure or that order of things is incorrect. Um, you know, it should be up to the building commissioner and his designee to look at the zoning, uh, portion of parking. We really don't have any jurisdiction, um, on public ways. And so. It's not appropriate for us to make that determination. So ultimately, you know, whether the permit comes into the building department or comes in through the engineering department, ultimately any curb cut. decisions or any kind of permits on public ways will now be ultimately decided obviously in conjunction with police engineering and the building department, but ultimately they will have the determination on curb cuts. So that approval will still have to be obtained if the board decides to approve this. The other noteworthy thing I think you should just pay attention to here is this doesn't meet the requirements for a standard parking spot. This is actually the standard for a compact parking spot. And so in my experience, when these things have been approved or let go by a zoning board, it's been my experience that a lot of times, if there are vehicles that are above a compact car or just a normal sedan, it can be problematic in that vehicles do tend to project out into the sidewalk and in the public way, which may cause danger to a pedestrian that's walking by if you force them out into the street. And so I would just recommend that In this order that it be mentioned that this is a substandard parking space, and certainly you know that's fine. There's not a problem with that but it should be mentioned that it is a compact parking space so that you don't end up with a guy like me, who has a truck that's 22 feet. sticking out into the sidewalk, because ultimately that may end up happening if it's not regulated by order. And that'll just give us a little bit more authority when this thing is done and it's paved. And then if we happen to get a call that there's a vehicle sticking out here, then we have a pathway of enforcement. to make sure that any vehicles don't project out into the public way. It's problematic with front row parking, you know, with front yard parking, and that's why it's not allowed by the zoning ordinance because it's extremely difficult to regulate. So I just thought I would advise the board on that. And that's it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Fordy. So just want to double check with the applicant. If the board imposed a condition requiring that this be a compact only space. Is that something you're amenable to?
[Joe Musi]: Yes, that is something that would be okay. It will not be a large vehicle there, it will be a compact vehicle.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So I just wanna, I know Attorney Rapp, you mentioned the prongs, I just wanna double check. We've walked through them and the argument here. So first prong, owing to circumstances related to the soil condition, shape, poverty of such land structures, and especially affecting such land structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. So you have to establish something about the property that requires the variance. So what's the circumstances related to the soil condition, shape, or topography of the land and structures that requires the variance here?
[Henry Rappa]: If you look at the actual plan that's up on the screen, there's no, as I started when I was saying at the beginning, there's no way to access parking anywhere else on the premises. It is a five and a half foot area on the left side when you face from the street, there's no way to get a car down there. There's also open porches and a shed. So the only place to put that parking is in the front. So that becomes the issue with the structure in the topography.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, got it. So size and position of the structure limit the possible locations for an additional parking space.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, that is correct.
[Mike Caldera]: And then the next one is a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. So what's the hardship?
[Henry Rappa]: in this case? It's extremely difficult with respect to parking to find that third space for the structure, for the dwelling. The off-street parking is extremely tight and congested. And again, as we talked about, the setup of it is people are parking in front of this driveway. They're extending beyond the curb cut. That is creating an unsafe condition for Mr. Musi and the occupants of his dwelling when they have to leave the property. It doesn't leave them any room to really move laterally left or right. So that is an extreme hardship for him and people who park in his dwelling.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then the last one is 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 ordinance or bylaw. So if I understood your presentation earlier correctly, it doesn't actually remove a street parking space and it's closer to conforming with the zoning ordinance. Is that kind of the high level argument for that one?
[Henry Rappa]: Yes, that is exactly the situation.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. Any other questions from the board before we open for public comment?
[Yvette Velez]: I have one more question. If you open it up, it's not possible for the car to be parked, because right now they'd be parallel spots, but you couldn't put a car the other way, parallel to the street, correct? Like, could we write to make sure that doesn't happen? Even if someone just, you know, oh, I'm moving, let's put it this way so that it's easier to, you know, access the front door. Just because I noticed that the whole, right, it's already paved, it already has the pavers, like, I could see easily that folks could
[Henry Rappa]: could do that? It would have to be a vertical space coming in. The actual horizontal area of the space wouldn't be enough to get a car in sideways, so to speak. It would have to come in from the street and be vertical.
[Yvette Velez]: Great. Thanks for confirming that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. And so, Yvette, if I understood you correctly, the question was essentially, It almost sounded like the car would come in the expanded curve cut and actually go beyond the dimensions of the space here. So just sort of be parallel right up by the steps. Is that the high level concern?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Or.
[Yvette Velez]: Right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If that corrects.
[Yvette Velez]: That they could theoretically, because if there's no grass right there now, there's nothing but pavers. Right. So could someone just slide in and they could obstruct the sidewalk a bit more? And I think that could just naturally happen. So I guess I would like a confirmation that that type of thing doesn't happen. And I don't know if it needs to be written in.
[Joe Musi]: That won't happen. Thank you for bringing that up, but that won't happen, especially if there's another car on the street. If you pull in like that, you wouldn't be able to get out. So I don't see that being a practical. approach to pulling in a vehicle. But thank you for bringing that up.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, my understanding is that in the event that any property were to park a car in something that's not a spot, that would be enforceable. So as a board, we don't have to contemplate, well, could someone park in a weird configuration? This is the approved spot. Do we approve it, yes or no? So this is a vertical spot.
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair. Please, go ahead. Yeah, sure. Um, so, um, we would enforce this and I'm sure that we would get a call almost right away on this. If somebody were parked, um, outside of what this space looks like, um, I would imagine that we would get a call and we would enforce it immediately. Um, plus having a, uh, having an order from this board will actually ensure and kind of solidify the fact that this is the only place that would be allowed to be parked. Uh, you know, nothing would prevent you from having lawn chairs out there and sitting out there and have a cup of coffee. you know, but certainly, um, parking wouldn't be allowed. And, um, you know, because we have this controlling plan now, um, even better.
[Mike Caldera]: So thank you. Um, chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing, open the public portion of the hearing for the second.
[Andre Leroux]: I'll second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. We're going to take a roll call. Um, a bet.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public who would like to speak on this matter, you can use the raised hand feature on Zoom. You can raise hand on your camera. You can email Dennis at dmcdougal at medford-ma.gov. So yeah, please let us know if you would like to speak on this matter. I do not see any members of the public indicating the desire to speak. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. Motion to close the public hearing. And open deliberations. And open deliberations. Okay, we'll take another roll call. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, public portion of the hearing is now closed and we are deliberating So folks, just a friendly reminder, the three conditions are the ones that went over with the applicant, so there needs to be circumstances related to the soil condition, shape, or topography of the land or structures. literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship and desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. So that's the decision criteria. So what do you think, folks? Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: I agree, I feel like there's no place else to put this parking space. It's a two unit building. There's not enough space for two separate units to get in and out. Currently, I think that there are so I think it meets the hardship definition. I think in terms of in terms of benefit or detriment to the neighborhood. I think there'll be improvement to the sidewalk and a safer curb cut exiting. So I'm in favor of it.
[SPEAKER_07]: Jim?
[Unidentified]: I agree with Andre as well. Okay. Yvette, any thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: No additional comments other than to be sure that we add the, that it is a compact space that is part of the conversation.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, sounds good. I'm in agreement with you Yvette, so I think The three prongs have been met here. I would have more reservations without the restriction to make it a compact space because, I mean, it's close on length to the dimensions of a standard space, but I certainly don't want Um, us to be making a habit of approving spaces that are going to have cars spilling into the sidewalk. So the applicant is amenable to that restriction. I think that addresses the concern for public safety and just kind of the nuisance of having cars in the sidewalk, which addresses my, what would have otherwise been my only concern. I agree also with this being a two family. And with the curb cut not actually removing a proper parking space, it seems like an improvement. It makes it more conforming. So, all right. So, I believe the board Um. Has discussed the following, so it would be. Emotion to approve or so the chair awaits. Emotion to approve. The variance requested for 45 Bowen Street. Um or. Um. Um. for that space to be smaller than the standard dimensions of a parking space, subject to the condition that this parking space be restricted to compact vehicles.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to approve the variance for a compact parking space. Have a 2nd, 2nd.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we'll take a roll call that. Hi, Jim. Hi, Andre. I think you said I, you're on mute. Yeah, yes, I. Mike I all right so we have 4 in favor which is the requirement to prove variance so the application is approved.
[Joe Musi]: Thank you very much. Thank you more to the board.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, absolutely thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just one thing for a turn around usually we just ask in situations like this if you just come up with like a rough draft decision and send. To me here, and then, you know, we can get this started a little bit quicker just to accelerate the process.
[Henry Rappa]: It will be out tomorrow or Monday.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Okay, great. Thank you.
[Henry Rappa]: Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Henry Rappa]: Enjoy the evening.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, Dennis, what is the next matter on agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: 20 Macklin road case number a dash 2023-05. Applicant and owner James Tom's petitioning for a variance in the chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to erect an eight foot fence in a single family one zoning district which is not allowed according to the zoning ordinance section 4.2 dimensional requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And so I see we have Jason Tom's on. Please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_00]: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Thank you for talking this evening. So my fiance and I are seeking approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct the fence around our property. Specifically, we're looking for a variance for one section on the northwest section of the property. Essentially, we're looking to accomplish two things with this fence is to improve security for our property and then also to enhance some of the privacy The fence on the northwest side of our yard basically is on a very steep slope and gradient. Our street is parallel to McCormick and because of the gradient and the slope, basically our neighbors on McCormick sort of have a direct view into our yard and also our home. Additionally, we sit on a bit of a rock ledge and there's a safety issue. There's approximately about like a four foot drop between our property and our neighbors on McCormick. Um, so also looking to eliminate a bit of a safety concern. There's quite a bit of overbrush and, um, you know, trees sort of growing in that area. So looking to kind of seal that off in the yard to eliminate any safety concerns. Additionally, from a security perspective, our neighbors to the north are the resources for human development, and we have a really great relationship with them. They're a nonprofit that provides care for several developmentally disabled adults. We've had a few instances where one of the residents has come in and basically into the yard without permission, has damaged some of our lighting. So again, just looking for some enhanced security and privacy in constructing this fence. Basically, again, in terms of the variance request, the idea behind the two-foot extension is to just give us a little bit more privacy and less visibility from the Cormac app.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. The board has had a chance to review the files you submitted. And so I know you shared a few photos of the drop-off. And then you also have a site plan, which is, wait, hold on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Too many things open. I pulled up the wrong one.
[Mike Caldera]: Macklin Road, there we go. So you have a, yeah, so the site plan has some details, it looks like, both about the elevations and the location of the fence. So could you maybe screen share and just sort of walk us through the portion of the property that needs the relief? Sure, I'd be happy to do that.
[Andre Leroux]: I don't know, but I don't recall seeing photos. So if you do have any photos, that would be helpful to visualize what you're talking about.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure. I'd be happy to share that. My ability to screen share... Oh, there we go.
[Unidentified]: I think... Let's see.
[SPEAKER_00]: You're all set now. Are you guys able to... It's just, it's grayed out when I try to do my screen share here. We don't see anything yet. Sorry about that. I think, does that, are you able to see my screen? Yes. Okay. So firstly, just to show you kind of the plan, you know, this is essentially what we're looking to construct. It's just this panel here, which the yard sort of slopes down on a gradient. So the extra two feet, again, would just kind of give us some privacy in the back of the house. So it's just that panel that we're looking for the variance for. And then just to show you the pictures. I apologize. I know the scans are not particularly clear. But essentially, if you can see, this line is basically the edge of my yard. And then this is the drop-off where there's a bunch of undergrowth trees. There's basically quite a large gap here, which a young child or someone not being careful could easily fall into. So the idea is the fence would run along here and basically prevent anyone from accidentally falling in there.
[Mike Caldera]: So just one clarifying question I have. So is the height of the fence somehow related to the ability to maintain the safety at this point? Or are those kind of two separate issues? So one is having a fence there, period, helps on the safety front. And then there's the privacy issue for the height of the cross.
[SPEAKER_00]: Correct, Mr. Chair. I would say that the privacy issue is more impacted by the variance. So basically, the slope and the gradient of it is the primary reason for the request.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. And then it's also a little hard for me, at least, to understand from this photo and also the written description. So is the property on the other side of that drop-off, is the elevation higher than your property?
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm sorry, it's hard to see. It's actually lower. So they're down off of that. It's sort of like a rock ledge. And this is sort of the top of the ledge here. And they are actually quite a bit lower in comparison.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, just to clarify, excluding the drop off. So clearly, there's like a big drop. But then on the other side of the drop off, are they still lower?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, they are all over on the other side. This would be 17 McCormick. They sit quite a bit lower than the drop.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. What questions does the board have?
[Yvette Velez]: I guess I misunderstood because I thought it was a high requirement was for no one to look over. But if you're saying it's lower, how would they look over that's lower?
[SPEAKER_00]: So the gradient of the yard, basically it's a sloping backyard. So our backyard is quite a bit lower, but our home sits up much higher. So the part of the yard where we actually sit and enjoy it, it basically has a direct view from our neighbors, you know, across on, that would be parallel in McCormick. So they have a direct facing view. The two extra feet would sort of give us some level of privacy in our backyard.
[Mike Caldera]: Does that answer your question of that?
[Yvette Velez]: I think so. We're not, we weren't talking about the neighbors behind the building. We're talking about the neighbors to the, not behind the building.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm sorry. So the neighbors just to reference the plan here. So basically, the neighbors sit essentially right here. And then also another neighbor across 30 McCormick, I believe, is sort of over here that would have much more of a direct line of sight if it were to be a six foot fence. You know, basically, we have like the slope comes down. And so by having the eight foot, it would just give us a higher level of privacy. We generally enjoy this portion of the yard, which is up on a much sort of higher section of the backyard.
[Mike Caldera]: To that point, I know you also submitted a site plan. It was a little hard for me. I saw elevations on there, but it was a bit faded and it was a little hard for me to make sense of, so at this, let's say roughly at the base of your house in the backyard, how much higher is the elevation there than right at the proposed fence line?
[SPEAKER_00]: I would estimate it to be somewhere, I would guess it's probably somewhere between like seven to nine feet, roughly. In terms of the slope, like the gradient going down?
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, I saw you reacted. Were you going to chime in to say something?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I've got the map up. It is a little faded to see, but I can bring it up and I can read some of the lines and go over some of the numbers, which might help.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that would be great. Thanks. All right, so I'm just going to.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, can everyone see this? Everyone get a visual now?
[Denis MacDougall]: So it is a little faded, but right here, basically, this is 165, or 16.5. It looks like 165, though. And then it looks like it flips down. All the way down here, you have 159. So basically, from here to here, that's about a six-foot drop, give or take. you know it's kind of at an angle so it kind of it's like a little bit of a berm and it sort of flows this way and this way and this way but from you know this looks relatively flat like here and then that's about 159 there and on this side you can see 158 on the other side. Thank you Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions from the board?
[Unidentified]: Who is there? Question, was there ever a fence there before? There was not, no.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just an FYI, this is new construction, so this house is only put in probably in the last, what, three years?
[SPEAKER_00]: Correct, I moved in in September of last year.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I would think that it would be just as much a safety issue as well as a privacy issue.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Jim. Other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: To understand, so the fence as proposed would be where in regards to that rock ledge with the photo that you showed us. So is it at the top of that rock ledge and then there's that ditch, I guess, that would be on the other side?
[SPEAKER_00]: It would be before the rock ledge. So basically, we would sort of cut off the rock ledge, so the rock ledge would no longer be visible from my section of the yard. We would put it behind it.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And have you talked to the abutters about this?
[SPEAKER_00]: I have. Yeah, I've received approval from all of my directly abutting neighbors.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Okay, thanks. I don't think I have other questions.
[Yvette Velez]: I have one final question. That's you're matching the fencing that currently exists. That's small fence. Go on.
[SPEAKER_00]: Um, so for the, uh, they're basically looking to create like a perimeter. So our intention is to build like a gate on the left and the right side of the home, but those would be six foot gates. The only eight foot panel that we're looking to install is on that Northwest side, um, on the, on the downward part of the slope.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. Um, chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of this hearing. So moved.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we'll take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. Like I said before, if you're a member of the public, we'd like to speak. You can use the raise hand reaction. You can raise your hand on video and type in chat. You can email Dennis. I do not see any residents who would like to speak. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. So moved. Second. All right, we'll do another roll call. Is that?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, we are now deliberating. What do you think, folks? And I should say, so this is another variance. So the standard's the same as the last one. So there needs to be circumstances related to the soil condition, shape, or topography of the land or structures. There needs to be a hardship. And relief needs to be able to be granted without detriment to the public good or derogating from the intent of the ordinance.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I think we have that here. I think that the ditch at the end of the property combined with the kind of sloping and different directions of the abutters and their yard meets the test, in my opinion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: It's more of a comment. It's just interesting that the developer didn't add this initially when half, from what the pictures I see, half of it is already fenced. But I also see that it meets everything. So I don't see why it didn't happen already, I guess is my point.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so for me, I think the criteria are clearly met here. So one of the things we think about when it comes to a fence are the different established uses for a fence. One is privacy. And so clearly the topography of this land reduces the privacy that would be provided by a six-foot fence, given the position of the primary residence. And also I'm glad to hear that the applicant did check with the butters who expressed no concerns. And then certainly I think having some fence there, I don't think it needs to be an eight foot fence, but it helps from a safety perspective. So I do think the standard is met here as well. All right, so unless there's other topics the board would like to discuss, Chair awaits a motion to approve the variance for fence height for 20 Macklin Road. So moved. Seconded. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike, aye. All right, so that's four in favor, which is enough to approve by supermajority. So the petition is approved. Congratulations, you have your fence.
[SPEAKER_00]: Awesome. Thank you so much, everybody. Really appreciate it.
[Mike Caldera]: Good night.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, just as a reminder, so it'll take us a little time to write the decision. We'll get you a decision and then there's a 20 days appeals period after that. So it's, it's, you know, don't come in tomorrow asking for the permit. So it's going to take a little bit of time.
[SPEAKER_00]: Understood. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, I put my glasses back on 12 George street case number eight dash 20, 23-Oh six applicant and owner Richard Smith, Jr.
[Denis MacDougall]: Carol Smith and. Louise Petruelli a petitioning for various in the chapter 94 city record Tony for the two family dwelling at 12 George Street to a three family dwelling in apartment one zoning district allowed use insufficient lot area lot with side yard setback and usable open space.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening Chairman Caldera and board members. Kathleen Desmond from Touchstone Law Offices here this evening with the applicants Christian Austin and Brian Chute, managers of Kev's LLC, and the project architect Mark Shriver of Lancaster Mass. The petition before you seeks relief By way of a variance and special permit to convert an approximately 7 bedroom, 13 overall room, nonconforming to family dwelling 2 or 3 family dwelling and allowed use within the apartment. 1 district. The subject property 12 George Street is approximately 7140 square foot lot of land on which an existing two family dwelling originally constructed in 19 1888 sits the existing two family dwelling is non conforming due to its failure to comply with the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet. The location of the structure on the lot contributes to that nonconformity as the existing setback, if you're looking at the property on the left-hand side of the property, is 23.4 feet. The existing structure is an oddly shaped structure, generous in size with a GFA of approximately 4,836 square feet that would comfortably support the inclusion of additional dwelling unit. The structure has also been identified by the method historical commission as having some historical significance and eligibility. to be included within a historic district, and I believe that I forwarded the form A along to the board previously. With respect to the conversion of the two-family, there is no intent to extend the footprint of the structure. The existing and the proposed lot coverage is 22.9%, as indicated in the zoning evaluation sheet. Maximum lot coverage in an apartment one district is 30%. It is also of some significance to note that the maximum lot coverage with respect to a two family is 35%. So in actuality, the structure could be much larger. The conversion of the property would comply with height, frontage, depth, and lot area per dwelling unit, which would only require an area of 5,500 square feet. If you're looking at the, the area per dwelling unit. Although the law does not comply with usable open space requirements because of the dimensional requirements of open space, you'll note again on the zoning evaluation that the landscaped open space provided exceeds the requirement of 10% by an additional 30%. It's approximately 41%. If you want me to share, if I can share my screen, Dennis,
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Attorney Desmond, just one clarifying question before we get into the presentation. So you mentioned the 5,500 lot area. I thought it was 4,500 plus 4,500 plus 1,000 for a three-family. No, it's 4,500 combined for the first and second units. You suddenly got a bit softer.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sorry, it's combined. The two units are 4,500. And then the requirement of 1,000 per lot area is 1,000 each dwelling thereafter. If you look at the table of dimensions for multifamily, it indicates
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I did. So that was my point of confusion because it says, the column says per unit. And so it says per unit for the first and the second unit. So my interpretation is that's added, not combined.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But it says total. It says first and second dwelling units total.
[Mike Caldera]: Commissioner Forty, can you just let me know your interpretation? This is in the table of dimensional requirements.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I was trying to review the materials as attorney Desmond was speaking. Could you repeat the question, please?
[Mike Caldera]: So essentially, and I'm pulling it up too. So in the table, I believe that issue is in the table of dimensional requirements. under multiple dwelling, there's a column that says lot area per unit, and there's two rows. One row, I don't have up, so I'm going to miss the exact wording, but I think it's essentially first and second unit, and then it has the value 4500 there and then third unit is in a separate row and it has a thousand. So the question is, is your interpretation that for a three unit multiple dwelling, according to this table, that the combined minimum requirement for the lot area based on that column is 5,500 or 1,000?
[SPEAKER_07]: So 4,500 for one and two together plus 1,000, or is it 4,500 plus 4,500 plus 1,000?
[Bill Forte]: It's going to take me a couple of minutes. I'm just going to look up the zoning ordinance here online and get into the table of dimensions. And I will get back to you, OK? OK. Sounds great.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could, Chairman Caldeira, I think when you're looking at, because it's confusing on and of itself, and we've always calculated this way when we do the live area, but the multiple dwelling, which is 4A, 4A is first and second dwelling units total. Then on the second page, there are another series, which can get confusing. The assisted living residence is actually first and second dwelling units total. Each drawing each additional unit 4500 so it's. I believe what you're referring to is the assisted living, which is 4500 and not the multifamily.
[Mike Caldera]: Let me just double check that. I I'm also happy, um, since it seems commissioner 40 is looking it up too. If you'd like to proceed, I'm going to want an answer on that, but I don't think it really, um, affects my interpretation of the rest of the presentation. So if you want to carry on, that's fine. Um, I'm trying to, I'm trying to look it up now. Um, oh, I just pulled it up actually. Um, so the, so specifically, um, I'm referring to table B. table of dimensional requirements. I have an offline copy, so I don't know if the page numbers match that of the version on MuniCode, but it's basically at the very end. It's like the last three pages. And so there's a line four, or sorry, an item four in the table, multiple dwelling. And so there's a column, It's lot, then area square feet, and then per dwelling unit. And then there's a row, A, first and second dwelling units, comma, total. So the question is, is the correct interpretation that first and second units combined, dwelling units combined, have a minimum required lot area of 4,500? Or is it that the per dwelling unit area for the first and second dwelling units is 4,500 and thus first and second dwelling units would be 9,000 total? That's the question.
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, I agree with Attorney Desmond. This is in the assisted living. Um, so we would want to go back to, um, I'm talking about it.
[Mike Caldera]: Maybe I don't, it's possible to, there's been a change scriminators change since I seen it, but I'm not talking about four B I'm talking about four. Right.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Multiple dwelling, right. First and second dwelling units total 4,500 per dwelling unit. So that's 9,000 square feet. And then each additional unit. on the first three floors is 1,000 square feet, or on or above the fourth floor is 600. This is a three-story dwelling, correct?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so that's consistent, yeah, it's three-story, and so that's consistent with my understanding, Commissioner Ford, thank you. So in some respects, it's kind of moot because it also says for any multiple dwelling, the minimum lot area is 10,000, so basically it's just, by this interpretation is 10,000 for each column. So it's the same core number. But yeah, attorney Desmond, that's my interpretation as well. It's per dwelling unit. So it's 4,500.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could, however, that would mean that with respect to any multifamily dwelling, that three units would be 10,000 square feet. So you have multifamily dwellings that are six units, seven units. You can't possibly get to that on a 10,000 square foot lot if it's 4,500 for the first unit and 4,500 for the second unit. It has always been held that that 4,500 applies to the first two. And for example, on a 10,000 square foot lot, you would be able to put as of right for the lot per dwelling unit. seven units because you'd have 4,500 plus for the two and then five, which would be seven. I mean, otherwise you'd be limited on a 10,000 square foot lot to a three family dwelling. So respectfully, that has always been first and second dwelling units total, meaning 4,500, you count for the first two units. And then from that point forward, you move up a thousand per unit. Because otherwise you got to 10,000 and you're already at 10,000 with three units on a multifamily.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I mean, 10,000 is the minimum plot size anyway, so it's not the maximum, but anyway.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I understand, but I guess it's significant from the point of you know, a lot, a lot coverage in, in, in, in comparing multifamilies that are five, six, seven, eight units versus a unit, which is three.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Mr. Mr. Chair. Yeah, I would, um, now that I'm looking at this again, it does not appear that it is 4,500 square feet because it says, uh, if you look at number four and then you look at a, the first and second dwelling units total, the word total gives it the 4,500, as I would agree. with attorney Desmond. And then the additional unit is on the first three floors is 1000 square feet per dwelling unit. And then on the fourth floor, it would be 600. So that to answer your question correctly, it looks to me like it would be 5500 square feet total is required for three units on this.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, but so then the, thank you for clarifying, but so that it, so it's 5,500 for three units according to the first column, but then it's still 10,000. So ultimately it needs 10,000. Is that right?
[Bill Forte]: That's on a conforming lot here. It's not conforming.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Yeah. But for it to be built by right, any multiple dwellings, the minimum lot area would be 10,000. Correct.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, that's right.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. All right. Thank you. Sorry to, um, get a sidetracked attorney Desmond. I just wanted to make sure my understanding was correct. So, um, please go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So, um, to, to, to move back to what we're looking for, um, in terms of relief, although the lot doesn't comply with useful open space requirement, the landscaped open space provides, I think, 41%, which is 30% more than what's required. Three parking spaces have been provided, and if I could share my screen.
[Unidentified]: Let me see if I can find mine.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Just one second. The survey. And everybody see that or no. Now, I able to share.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, you're all set your you should be able to do so.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So, the can you see that now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not yet.
[Kathleen Desmond]: It doesn't seem like I can share my screen.
[Mike Caldera]: We still can't see it. We're also having a little trouble hearing you, or at least I am.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I don't know why I can't bring up my share the screen. It doesn't seem to be allowing me to do that. It says one participant can share at a time. Oh.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No one's sharing. So, okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Can you see that now? Okay. I'm sorry. I don't know what that new angle item was on my screen, but in any event we have three parking spaces situated on the left hand side of the property parallel parked. This particular property qualifies for the 0.8 frequency, high-frequency transit category based on the fact that there's bus 96, which is right across the street, and then there's another bus stop on Main and George, Route 101, which takes you into Malvern. The applicant is seeking variances as to lot area, which is what we just discussed. I think that my point in that regard with respect to the lot area of 10,000 versus the lot area per dwelling unit was a comparison as to what is required based on the number of units requested. It also requires a variance as to width and usable open space and a finding or special permit with respect to the side yard setback, which is already non-conforming. We take the position that this warrants a variance in this instance based on both the shape of the lot, which is narrower in width versus depth. It's 103 in depth and 68 in width, and also the shape of the structure itself, and to a degree, the historic nature of the structure, which creates a circumstance with both the structure and the land that is unique to the property itself and not the subjects of the surrounding neighborhood. And I did provide to the board the case of Tucker versus Stein for your review. At this point, I'd like to turn the presentation over to the project architect to walk you through the plans of the existing house and the floor plans and also the um proposed plans and and you know to to navigate through what the um challenges are with respect to um to this property in terms of maintaining it as a two-family so with that i'd like to uh stop sharing and uh have mark mark
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Hello, good evening. This is Mark Scriver, the architect on the project. And we've spent a lot of time and effort looking at the property and the potential of the property in trying to keep the existing structure, which I know when working with the historic commission is the most desirable thing. It is an asset to the neighborhood, although it is very blighted and has had a lot of inappropriate additions and changes over time. So our focus in looking at the property was that with the property being currently two units, the amount of work it's going to take to reconstruct this, make it historically appropriate, it doesn't make sense for two units. As you're spreading that cost out over two units, the numbers just don't work for the developer. And that is why we tended toward going to the three units because that third unit really creates you know, everybody has to make money on a project. So it creates a profitable project versus a project that is not profitable. Um, you know, it's a blighted house. There's handicap ramps and decks and things that aren't historic on the property that just, uh, aren't appropriate. So when we looked at this, um, from the front, the first thing that stood out was we need to make this more of a symmetrical, um, in front entry to the house, which is what historically it was. So we've kind of got to have a common entry for two units on the front, and then we have side entry and rear entry as well. So sorry to interject.
[Mike Caldera]: Mark, are you trying to screen share? I don't see anything right now.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: I have not. I can. I've got the 3D model open. I don't know how much you would like to see if you want to see the plans or just the 3D piece.
[Mike Caldera]: just yeah, I mean, if there's a visual aid, you know, for whatever you're describing, I think that would, I would certainly find that helpful.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Sure, sure. So, so basically, just move this. So what we're looking at is reason. So this is what we're proposing relative to the new cleaned up version of the house. So we're essentially creating a new front entry. We're taking this current sloped roof and making it more of a historic, almost a manser type roof, putting a single dorm around the front. and keeping the conical tower element, and we're eliminating a bunch of mess here and creating a deck. So you can see from the front and the side, we're more regularizing, we're putting gables where the gables are meant to be. So now if I show you what's existing, and I'm sure you guys have looked at know, what's there now. But we've got, you know, we've got Widow Walk Peaks here, the Essex kind of Widow Walk. We've got this really, you know, horrible kind of addition that occurred to create a bedroom up here with an octagonal window. You know, we've got this ramp with a series of decks and stairs going to the second floor. And this is the side entry. with the kind of just the simple shed roof, you know, and this funky dormer up top. So historically it was a beautiful house back in the day when it was built, and it's just been, for lack of a better term, bastardized over time. So, but the problem always rolls back to finances because we can only afford, you know, to make this a historic structure with a nice entry and a graceful entry porch, you know, spreading the cost out over three units. To make this a two unit and rehab it, it just, the numbers just simply don't work, unfortunately. As we all know, cost of construction has gone up over time. And it really is kind of, in a sense, outpaced the property values per se. This is meant to be three condo units, so it will be for sale units. And currently, I think one of the units is a rental. You know, in my mind, it'll benefit the neighborhood and the neighbors by having more of a stable, you know, group of people in the residence where with rental, you get people in and out all the time and all their stuff. So I think the property will be better, you know, positioned and looked at and looked after being a wholly owned by three units on the site. So essentially we're reclaiming some basement area to go with the first floor units. And then we have second floor and a third floor unit. So we have a second floor and the third floor is the third unit.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Mark, do you want me to share my screen? Do you have your floor plans just to show what the existing plans are versus?
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Sure, I can open that quickly as well. So again, these are all the views that was provided in the project, um, submission. And then we have, as far as existing goes, um, we basically have, um, a lot of everything that you see that's dashed is really demolition. So it's to, to create, to create proper living, you know, more modernized living areas. Um, we're really regularizing things inside. So we're keeping a bearing position down the middle, which kind of follows the center bearing line. And then basically everything else is, it's a kind of a gut rehab. It needs new windows. It needs to be fully insulated. The electrical needs to be updated. So it's just, again, it's at a point where I'd hate to see the house lost. I sit in historic commission in the town I live in. I've worked at Frank Lloyd Wright homes in the past. you know, historical, um, you know, qualities and nature of those homes is very important. Um, and I think if we lost this in this neighborhood and somebody ripped it down and just built a McMansion, I don't think it would fit in the neighborhood like this, this facility will, um, or this building will with three units. So on the basement, we have the kind of salmon color is one unit that goes with the first floor area. In the green color, you can see we've got a bathroom in the basement. We've got a home office, living area in the basement, and laundry. And then when we get to the first floor, we've got a unit on one side, a unit on the other that, again, links to the basement with the stair. And then on the second floor, we've got a master suite for the first floor, two units. And then we've got all the living area, the orangish color in the front, has this roof deck that overlooks the street, which is a very nice amenity. And then we've got the stair which goes up to the third floor where we've got a master suite in the back with a closet, and then we've got an additional two bedrooms. So that's basically it. We're really simplifying the plans, updating everything relative to code, relative to finishes, you know, more of a modern kitchen where it's not just kind of a galley type scenario, which is existing now. But I think keeping the turret, it's a very interesting and cool look. New siding everywhere, new windows everywhere. Just refreshing the building is very important. And like I said, if this doesn't go through and isn't approved, my feeling is somebody will come along and say, I'll do something as of right. And like I said, the chances are that they won't want to invest this kind of money in just two units. They'll rip it down and they'll just build something as of right. You know, I've seen horrible things built from a historic perspective. I've seen things that are very simple, very cost effective to build, but it's going to be a, you know, not an eyesore, but it's not going to fit into the context of the neighborhood. You know, we've got the very historic park and buildings across the street. that directly view onto this property. And, um, like I said, if we lose this structure and it's in its form, the, the, the overall massing of the building is beautiful if you take away the elements that have been added to it. Um, so that's, we've got a letter and support from the historic commission. Um, and again, unfortunately the finances only work if we have three units to make this work. Thank you. Any questions?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Uh, what questions do we have from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Shriver, I'm wondering if you could just, uh, talk a little bit more about the interaction that you had with the historic commission.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Sure. Sure. So, um, I've done several different projects in Medford. Um, recently 29 summer street was one additional one. And, um, you know, the first and foremost premise is that we wanted to keep the structure and keep the most original elements, which were the turret and the main gable on the house. So those were the two facets and features that we wanted to preserve. Other than that, you know, bringing the symmetrical front entry back, you know, it just doesn't work when you look at a side entry, you know, non-symmetrical nature, When these homes were built, they had certain elements that created kind of an asymmetry. But again, the side entry and the concrete steps in this dorm up here just were not historic. you know, in our conversations, those were the first things to go. You know, all these windows are non-historic, they're just added, nothing matches in these elements up here. This was added to get a stair up to the third floor to make it code worthy. And then this element back here that's just kind of hanging out by itself, and then this flat roof area, you know, just the overall massing and shape of it, you know, for me as an architect, it's hideous. So those were the kind of important things were to A, clean it up, bring it, you know, we had to create some additional living area, but to really bring it back to more of a simple massing, and then focusing on the front, that front roof deck area and making that shed roof go away. Those were the key elements.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Lou, are you referring to the meeting itself? Did you want some?
[Yvette Velez]: I can't hear her.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Did you want some context on the meeting itself? Historical?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, please.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So we brought this before the historical commission. And I believe if I can share my screen, I have the form A. Is that, can you see that now?
[Mike Caldera]: I think Mr. Shriver will need to stop sharing for you to do that.
[MCM00000645_SPEAKER_01]: Yep, I stopped sharing.
[Yvette Velez]: Okay, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't see it yet.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So this is the Form B on the building. And as you can see, this is the existing building as it stands now. There are also some other pictures which you've seen drawings of, but if I can scroll down, you can take a look at the front, the side, the backside with all the different angles. And I thought I had a rare but I don't believe I have a rare picture of this, but in any event, when we went before the Historical Commission on this this wasn't a full demolition, it's only a demolition to create a dormer. And you can see from the form be that that. was presented by the historical commission there is some historical significance and it is potentially a house that would fit into a historic district and they name at the bottom of the page the other items which it would go which would be included what other significant properties in the area were to be looked at those properties as indicated in the report are all in very good condition, well-preserved. The feeling of the board with this particular project was that given the fact that it wasn't a full-on demolition, that it was only a partial demolition, and that the design actually improved what was existing with respect to the elements of Aquinion, that this project would not be subject to a demolition delay and we could move forward with the project. And I should mention that the applicant is under a purchase and sale agreement. So one of the contingencies of that agreement was the historical commission, whether or not there would be the imposition of a demolition delay. There was not the imposition of a demolition delay on this, and the members were very supportive of the design that was presented with regard to the three-family unit. And as I said previously, I think that this fits into the case Tucker v. Stein, which I provided the board with, that dealt with a not a lot here I think it actually was a lot per dwelling area, which is, is, is a distinction of and with, and, and the expenses related to making that a single or two family were in excess of. not cost-effective to taking that property, which admittedly was a commercial property, but it is analogous to this in the sense that it had historical overtones as this property does. That property, it was not cost-effective to place that back into a two-family structure. I think you can see here and I can show the floor plans as well. There's much that could be improved when you look at this, the existing exterior of the structure and the proposed exterior of the structure. In addition to the exterior of the structure, however, um, you have an interior structure, which you've got, um, seven bedrooms, um, 13 unassigned rooms. And if you want, I can, um, share that with you. Um, and, um, I'm just trying to find my plans. I'm sorry. Well, I don't want to take up the time. There are a number of unassigned rooms in those houses. In addition, there's sundry closets and laundry rooms, and there's a lot of space existing. And my client is here, and he can speak to when I wanted him to speak to the costs associated with you know, reframing it to make it some cognizable two-family dwelling, because originally this was a single-family dwelling that was essentially converted for purposes of a family member occupying the second floor. So it wasn't thought out in terms of a conventional second unit and to bring it within what would be a homeowner who wants to occupy the first floor and rent out the second floor. There'd be much work that would be need to be done. In addition, this is a fieldstone foundation and there is foundation work that needs to be done. But my client is here, the developer, and he can speak to you. and give you a sense as to what the challenges are with bringing this to a two-family versus the benefits of having it as a three-family in what is an apartment one district. Christian, could you provide an overview of what the construction is and the costs and what would have to be done in that regard?
[SPEAKER_04]: Can everyone hear me? Thank you Kathy and members of the board. As Kathy and Mark mentioned, I am a prospective purchaser of the property. Two of the items that Kathy mentioned, just to give you background on my experience, I have my general contractor's license.
[Denis MacDougall]: Could you just state your name for the record?
[SPEAKER_04]: My name is Christian Austin. To give you my background, I have a general contractor's license. I am a developer. I've done projects like this before in Medford and other towns as well. Two of the items that Kathy touched upon, one being the basements of the property. There is going to need substantial foundation work to this property. The foundation walls need remediation. It's a field stone foundation. The plan is to also put in a French drain system and to dig down to get the head height in the basement as well and lay a slab. All that work will be in excess of about $100,000, could be more than that depending on the amount of foundation work to the property. The point is, even if we were not digging down, putting in a new slab, the foundation itself needs a substantial amount of work for whoever purchases this property. and renovates it or just keeps it as is for structural reasons. Number two that Kathy mentioned is just the layout in general of the property. This was a single family property at one point. The owners converted it into a two-family for a family member and the framing as Mark showed inside of the house is really An afterthought, if you want to say that, it was framed out so that there was a second unit so that the family members could live upstairs. There's many rooms that could potentially be used as bedrooms that are not bedrooms. They're just space in the house. For example, the turret structure is just a large living area that in the upstairs, I believe, is being used as a bedroom at this point. There's a large amount of wasted space. The front galley area has a historic fireplace in it. It's just in a common area the staircase which used to go up to the second floor of a single family goes up to the second unit, and there's a closet in the common area elements like that are just not an efficient use of the space. For anyone who would purchase this property, even if they were not doing a substantial rehab on it, they would have to do some type of reframing on the second unit at least. And in my experience, what happens when you start reframing a property, you end up doing demo on the walls, you start reframing it, one thing leads to another, and then all the systems that are old start needing replacement, you end up with a gut rehab anyway. even if the next owner is just going to do a minor reframing, or they think they're going to do that to make more efficient use of the second unit, to make it more like a two-family building representative of Watson Medford, they're likely going to run into having to do a more extensive demolition and rehab than they were expecting on the second floor, at the very least, if not the whole house. So in summary, basement is going to need work regardless of the extent of the rehab. And even for a rental unit for the second floor, if you want to have a efficient use of space in your rental, there's going to be substantial framing, which can lead to substantial demolition and potentially a full rehab of the property anyway. Back to you, Kathy.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So in terms of the variance, the variance requests, the lot area, you know, I do think it is significant that with a three family, the lot per dwelling unit is only 5,500 square feet. If this lot was a 10,000 square foot lot, just straight on the numbers based on lot per dwelling unit, you would be looking at a seven unit structure if it were a 10,000 square foot. This is a much smaller project. It maintains the footprint of the existing property which is 28%. And, and even if you had someone who came in, and who decided that they, they couldn't renovate this property and chose to demolish it and and constructed to family in its place. You know, a new to family, they, the area that could be used as 35% of the actual lot so this is actually Less intrusive in terms of a structure, then you could possibly have with a new to family if that were to be what somebody was able to do now, perhaps it would be a demo delay. But, you know, in terms of of. exhausting those possibilities which would be rehabbing the structure, um, you know, they could foreseeably put a new structure on it, which was larger than what's existing. Um, and and as you know, demolition, you know, of a good building is waste and that would constitute hardship. Um, so with respect to the lot area, um, we do need a variance from that. I think the hardship, um, it is that you have a structure which is unique in the sense that it's been designated as something that could be on the National Register. It also is oddly shaped and needs a lot of work both inside and out just in terms of the structure of the structure. And then you have the basement which also would need to have some reparations with regard to the Fieldstone Foundation. So, under the Tucker Stein analysis which again is analogous to this instance, I think that the shape of the structure. the circumstances, a special nature of the structure, um, is sufficient to meet those two prong tests. In addition to that, I provided the board with Garcia versus Milford zoning board of appeals. Um, and in this particular case, there are a number of structures that do not meet, um, the requirements as an area in the, um, in the general vicinity. And I can, I have a, um, I have a, Stop it. I have a example of that if I can just bring that up. So here we have a listing of properties within the immediate area that show what you've got. You've got on Stanley Street, you know, 1887 it was built. The square footage is only 3,400 square feet. You've got an apartment on Pearl Street, which is 7,470 square feet. in down the list, which shows that there are a number of structures within the immediate neighborhood that are less than what the required square footage for area requires in the zone. And if you look at the Christia versus Milford case, they do indicate that that can can constitute a hardship, and that failing to provide the leniency that would be provided with the other units which are non conforming doesn't itself constitute a hardship. And in that case also refers to with I believe the board received a letter from an abutter who indicated that the widths in the general area were less than what would be required. And I would suggest that the Cracie case would support a variance on the basis of some leniency and some hardship based on the other properties within the area. With respect to usable open space, It's a situation where you have to have open space, which is 10 feet away from a lot any lot line, 10 feet away from a structure, and then have has to meet a 15 horizontal dimension. So, usable open space in terms of availability is difficult. to achieve but as I indicated in this instance the actual landscaping is 41% where the requirement is only 10 and if you look at the survey this entire area in the back is grassed and it's anticipated that the paved area back here will also be grassed as well because we only need the three spaces in the drive so although it doesn't meet technically The usable open space requirements, it does in spirit meet the usable open space requirements because you've got 30% over and above what's required for landscape. So I believe those are the variances we're looking for in terms of the side yet set back I believe that would be a special permit or finding of not substantially more detrimental because as it exists it's already deficient the requirements 7.5 and I believe it's 5.8 and And largely that's due based on the positioning of the structure. If you actually add the two side yards together, I think overall you come down even on a three family is only 0.8 in differential, but the bulk of the side yard is to the left of the property and not to the right. So, based on a Tucker versus Stein analysis, and the uniqueness of the property. I think there's a lot of benefits to public good here. It's an apartment one district so you're, you're increasing the availability of housing, you're restoring a property which is historic which was built in 1888 to a, you know, a beneficial neighborhood structure. You also are sprinkling the property. I know that there have been some fires on George Street, and that was a concern that was had with one of the residents. When you have a three-family in Medford, they require that the structure be sprinkled, and my client is more than willing to comply with that requirement from the fire department. So there's an additional benefit with the sprinkling that you wouldn't have you know with with the existing building certainly if it maintained itself as as a two family in some fashion or if somebody were to demolish it and and even create a new structure you'd have probably better fire protection but you still wouldn't have a sprinkler system which you would have In this instance, and I think that's a benefit to the community. Certainly. So, you know, I think in terms of a substantial detriment to the neighborhood, I don't see how you're improving a property. You're sprinkling it. And you're creating housing in an apartment one district, which is very close to bus transportation so there's an ease of public transportation. And as to the hardship, you know, I think my client made the point that to keep this as a true to and try to rehab it. It's just. very costly and if someone were to come in and purchase it and want to rent the second floor, even apart from the exterior of the structure, there's a lot of work that would have to be done to bring it up to a level where you could actually have a third party renter who would enjoy renting that second unit.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, attorney. So in terms of the relief being sought, what you described is consistent with my understanding, but I didn't see a zoning analysis. I just want to double check my understanding to make sure that we're looking at the right relief. So essentially there's the four, there's the four, Dimensional relief needed. So it's the insufficient lot area insufficient lot with insufficient side yard insufficient usable open space. And so the reason why the lot area width and usable open space require a variance is because for a two family, these are dimensions that the lot is already conforming with. So by essentially by, even though the footprint is the same, by making it a three family, it increases the required lot area width and usable open space. And then, those three are now dimensional violations. And then the side yard, that's an existing nonconformity, which is not So it's not creating a new nonconformity, and it's also not even being extended. And so, yeah, my understanding is that we can grant by special permit. We got a clarification from the city's legal representation that under the ordinance, we issue findings by special permit, but the actual criteria we use is essentially the same as a section six finding. So just wanted to double check with you that I'm interpreting that correctly. That was for Attorney Desmond. So it's the reason why you need a variance for the three is because going from a two family to a three family creates new nonconformities, is that right?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Oh, correct.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, okay, cool. Thank you. And then, oh, sorry, what questions do we have from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I don't have any questions at this time. I think that presentation was, was very thorough.
[Yvette Velez]: No questions as well. Um, and I, I appreciate all the letters of, um, um, support.
[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, I think the presentation was very thorough. The one thing I just wanted to double check is the circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape or topography of the land or structures that you're claiming here for the three variances.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So in terms of the lot shape, the lot depth is 103 feet, and I believe the lot width is 68. So it is somewhat narrow with respect to shape, as to the lot. With respect to the structure, you know, I think we've seen the picture and I don't know if you want me to put it back up but but certainly the shape of the structure. It is is odd oddly shaped. There are a lot of angles, a lot of, you know, different, different. facets which have been added on over the time that create an oddly shaped structure. In addition to that, I think under the Tucker versus Stein case with respect to the structure, I think you're also permitted to consider the historical nature of the structure and the fact that the shape of the structure and the historical nature of the structure provide a unique circumstance that would be different from the surrounding structures within the area. The report itself, the Form B, indicates that there are, I think, three or four other properties that could be considered, but the Form B also indicates that those are well preserved. And in this particular instance, I think everyone from the historical commission and from what you've seen from our architect indicate that there's been a lot of haphazard additions and items which would make the structure oddly shaped. In addition, the inside, as well as my client indicated, there are stairs that go up to hallways and closets. You can see on the plans when you've looked at them, that you've got closets and you've got laundry rooms, that there's a closet almost everywhere, and then undefined rooms that aren't really defined as bedrooms, living area, whatnot. So in terms of the shape of the structure, both the interior and the exterior create an unusual circumstance or a unique circumstance in the district.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and if I understood you correctly for that area, you you drew our attention to that there's a lot of three plus families on smaller lots in the area and so essentially um you know here i think was that the one you were referencing um
[Kathleen Desmond]: the CREASA case.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, CREASA case.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And in addition to that, it's not only the threes, but if along George Street, which becomes an SF2, you've got a number of two families, which would be restricted both as to use and as to dimension and on smaller lots. So in terms of the pristineness of the district in the neighborhood, there's already been some, derogation of the bylaw.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions from the board before we open for public comment? Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim. Aye. Andre.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike. Aye. The public portion of the hearing is now open. Please use the raise hand reaction, raise your hand on video, type in the chat or email Dennis. I see we have a resident William Navar with his hand raised. Please go ahead and name and address for the record.
[William Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Bedford Street, apartment 1B. I just want to say, I like this project. I particularly want to comment on the fact that it was quite an echo. All right. I just wanted to say that with respect to the fact that they're subdividing a two unit into three units, I think this makes a lot of sense given our housing situation. The housing production plan sort of did an assessment of the statistics and household sizes are going down in Medford as they are across the country. And also I just wanted to comment that I'm excited to see a project come before that's taken advantage of the lower parking minimums near transit. That's very exciting. Thank you, that's my comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And then I saw in the chat, Caroline Smith would like to speak. Please state your name and address for the record.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Hi everyone, Caroline Smith here at 104 Golden in Medford. I just wanted to comment mostly on a letter that I helped submit that I believe the Zoning Board has reviewed. I just haven't heard anything here today that would Qualify this lot in property to be granted a variance under general laws chapter 48 section 10. While I fully understand that the shape of the structure is unique and funky, I have not seen anything from the applicant that the board could vote on and approve this variance. Section 10 does require that there's special soil condition, shape, or topography that exists that doesn't affect the district in general. And I haven't seen anything from the applicant other than that the lot is pretty narrow. And I think if you take a look at just the general area, that lot width seems to be pretty average. So meaning that it affects the general district area. And with respect to the side setback. I thought I heard the chair say that it wasn't going to increase the non conformity but I believe that this becomes a three family. it is increasing the nonconformity by about 10 feet. It's only deficient now by about 2.7-ish feet. And if I'm remembering correctly, if it becomes a three-family, the nonconformity deficiency increases to about 10 feet. Another point, the shape of the building itself is not a reason to grant a variance. And I think the spirit of the shape of the structure being considered is if the soil condition, shape, or topography of the lot required such a change in structure, different from then what could have been erected on the lot. And to me, it just doesn't seem, looking at the neighboring lots, all these houses are old. You have the royal house right across the street that's you know, a normal rectangular shape. Another point I just wanted to hit on is the I haven't seen anything from the applicant's hardship. It's functioning currently as a two family, presumably making income. The only hardship that I have seen the applicant cite to is that the law is better suited to a three family, which I don't necessarily agree with. And I will say I have not had a chance to read the cases that the applicant's attorney was submitted. So I don't have that knowledge. And. I just want to echo what the applicant's attorney stated about, you know, fire is a concern with these close buildings as you probably all saw the four alarm fire just nine blocks down. And I understand there'll be hopefully a better sprinkler system, but you know, that's not guaranteed to, you know, avoid any damage to neighboring lots. So I think it is a big concern. It's a tight, all these lots are tight and fire is a great concern to, the health and safety of people in the buildings surrounding them. And then finally, I'll just finish with the spirit of a variance is something very unique, very peculiar. This lot, the layout of the lot is not unique or peculiar. And the building itself, well, odd. That was the owner at the time, their decision to build a quirky home when they could have built a cookie cutter home. So I would just finish with that, that, you know, these bylaws were, you know, put into law and voted on, you know, to preserve and try to make better the spacing and zoning and of the neighborhood. So, you know, with every variance, we kind of deviate from that. So I just asked the commission to, you know, follow the outline of section 10 and thank you for your time.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And actually, one thing I would like to speak to, I do think that's a good point on the side yard. So it is an extension of an existing nonconformity. It doesn't change the relief required, but I do just want to acknowledge that I had misstated that earlier. So the reason why it doesn't, is that, so in section 5.3 of the zoning ordinance, 5.3.1, permissible changes include changes to a non-conforming structure, or sorry, hold on, I'm pulling up the wrong thing. Okay. Yeah, so the Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a nonconforming structure in accordance with the section only if it determines that such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. And so we can consider alterations and both variants is required only if it creates a new nonconformity. So we are still going to proceed with the special permit criterion for that one, but I do want to acknowledge that I misspoke earlier, so thank you for pointing that out. All right, I see a Toni Silvestro in the chat who would also like to speak. Please state your name and address for the record.
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_01]: Hi, my name is Toni Silvestro and I live at 5 Royal Street, Method Mass. I can see that house directly from my house, right through the park, and it's, it's a detriment to the neighborhood they made a mess out of it. I would love to see this project go through it is a historic house. It's a historic neighborhood. When Dr. Lannigan's house was sold 25 years ago, they made a mess out of it. They cut it all up. It's a two family. I don't know who lives in there. There's multiple people living in there. And I would love to see this project go through. I mean, I met Christian on Saturday. He's a lovely man. And it would be great to just see It's something nice going there, and I love the front of it. And it's cleaned the yard up and everything else. So that's all I have to say, and I really would like you to approve the project.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: Excuse me, Chair. I received an email during the meeting that from someone on the street. So I will read that into the record. This is from Susan Smith, 29 George Street. And I am concerned that three tandem parking spots for the proposed new structure are severely inadequate. As such, the already overburdened parking spots in the street will not be able to absorb the overflow of cars from a three-unit building. Average household in Massachusetts has 1.9 cars. Thank you, Susan Smith.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And so, as was previously stated, under the new Medford zoning ordinance, properties within a certain proximity of high-frequency transit have a lesser parking requirement. So my understanding is that this project does not require any parking relief. And also, I believe, So we also received an earlier letter from Susan Smith, I think Carolyn Smith was referring to. It's about two and a half pages long. It was against the project for some of the reasons stated. And then we also received a couple of statements of support from nearby residents. Any other public comment? All right, the chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to close public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. The public portion of the hearing is now closed. Attorney Desmond, I saw you reacted. Was there something you wanted to say before we deliver?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, could I speak to the comments of Patricia Smith and her daughter briefly? Well, we're in opposition in the letter that was sent.
[Mike Caldera]: So we closed the public portion of the hearing, and I anyway don't want there to be back and forth dialogues, but if you'd like to clarify any questions that were made, then that's fine.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Certainly. I think it's significant to note that Ms. Smith is located in a different district than the existing property. Her property is located in SF2 district, and this is an apartment one, so that the rules are somewhat different than they would be otherwise. And, you know, with regard to density of the structure, you know, I think that the structure is large and there was some comment from the public that, in fact, it's, it's, there's many people there currently. I think that having three separate units actually serves to reduce that versus having a larger property with multiple bedrooms and rooms that are undesignated as either a kitchen or a dining room. And I'll leave it at that. But those would be my two points in that regard.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So we are deliberating thoughts from the board. Um, and so we are, because there's, um, multiple pieces of relief being sought. We're going to have to go through all of them. Um, but why don't we, so there's three variances required. And so the criteria for that are the same as earlier cases, soil condition, shape or topography of land or structures, uh, literal enforcement creates a hardship. really may be granted without substantial detriment or without substantially derogating from the intended ordinance. So that's the criteria for three of them. We can separately talk through the special permit, which is the same standard as a finding. which is that it would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use. So anyway, yeah. Why don't we just talk high level first, I'd love to get thoughts from the board, and then we can go through the individual pieces of relief being sought.
[Andre Leroux]: I can jump in on a few of the easy points that stick out to me. Well one is that since this is an apart in the apartment one district it does seem to me that the, the intention is aligned with Medford existing zoning. I think that also since the footprint of the building is not changing, the fact that the regulations are changing around it is a little unfortunate, but I think that there's, I don't see detriment to the neighborhood. In fact, I see a number of very positive benefits to improving and maintaining this historic property and fixing it up for the long term.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Andre. Other thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: I echo Andre's comments also. I think it's bringing positive benefits to the neighborhood.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yvette, any thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: Uh, no, no, no additional thoughts. Um, other, um, I agree with what has already been said. I do. Sorry to interrupt. Um, my, my one slight concern was, um, the, the parking in tandem. Um, but I recognize that, um, when buildings are created, those types of things are, are figured out. Um, Amongst the tenants, so while I'm slightly concerned in that area of the neighborhood, with the general improvements, I know that can be figured out.
[Andre Leroux]: Just to clarify on that event, I mean, my understanding, unless I'm misreading it, is that there's room. Those are like parallel parking spots. So it's not tandem that there's room. There's like a two car width of the driveway. So you can drive in and then parallel park in the spot.
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you, Andre, for clarifying that for me.
[Andre Leroux]: The other thing that I was just going to jump in on is that, you know, I think it's very valid the point about, you know, concern for for fires, but I feel that this is actually an improvement because the property is going to be sprinkler. So I think that's just just something important to know.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So I mean, my general thoughts are the project seems to be keeping true to the historical character of the building. It's great to see a building with such historical significance getting rehabbed in a period-appropriate way, especially when some other design decisions have been made. using the earlier word. And also, I think we may have the statutory criteria met on a condition-by-condition basis. I just wanna make sure, so I wanna talk through it. So for the, for the variances. So we need to establish, if this were to be granted, that the variances are required owing to circumstances related to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or structures. So I do want to clarify, because there was a question from a member of the public about this earlier, the structure is a factor in this, both its position and potentially its features. But we do need to connect the relief, or basically the claimed circumstance back to the actual relief being sought. So it's not enough to simply say, hey, this lot is weird. This lot is weird in a way that makes this dimensional requirement hard to satisfy. So in terms of the lot width, it's narrow. That was the claim. And it's long, so it's narrow and long. And then for the usable open space, the claim, let me pull it back up. So essentially there's a lot more landscaped open space It's just that the space that is usable as it's defined in the ordinance is less than the threshold. So I believe part of it had to do with distances from the principal structure. That was my understanding. And then for the area, What I heard is that there's an existing two family on this lot in a part one district that has a lot of three families on similarly sized lots. So essentially the unique circumstances here is that other lots in this district of similar size already have three families. And I do want to emphasize as a board, we shouldn't be considering as much the transition point. So the part of George Street that's only allows two families by right, this is the part of George Street that allows apartment one. So yeah, those were the That's my understanding of the circumstances claimed for each of the three variances being sought here. So I just wanted to get the board's take on those. Do we think that the need for each of these three variances is in fact owing to circumstances relating to either the I guess in this case, it's mainly the shape of the lot. So it's long and it's narrow. And then the position of the structure, as well as the uniqueness of this is a two family in an apartment one with similar size lots that has a lot of three families on those lots. What does the board think?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think there's another dimension to the hardship, too, that I would point out. And I recognize what the Smiths are saying in terms of why is this a particular hardship over other ones. But I would say that this is a very common situation in historic communities, where I think by the very fact that you're inheriting these buildings on these particular lots that were that are non-conforming with the existing zoning, that they were built at a time when the zoning wasn't in place at all, I think that is a hardship for current owners to deal with. Clearly, the zoning, in my opinion, is in line with what this project is, and I think that it's a hardship not to be able to to do a three-unit building in an apartment in one district, given what they have to historically, what's been built there and what they're inheriting. And I think it would be far more detrimental to the neighborhood to have to tear it down and create a new building.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andre. Yeah, I hadn't even gotten to hardship, I agree with you on that one. Other thoughts from the board on hardship and or the circumstances related to the shape of the land and the position of the structure? Okay. Well, in that case, yeah. So like I said, my take is these prongs are met. And just to be to pile on to what Andre said, hardship here would essentially be, yeah. You're in an apartment in one district, already has a bunch of three families on similar lots, not letting the owner to construct something similar. I think that's the hardship. And the variance is required. It's stemming from the allowed change, other than the dimensional violations, from a two-family to a three-family. And then, so the last one 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 ordinance or bylaws. So what are folks thoughts on that one?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, sorry, that's what I've already been saying. So I'll just leave it. I won't say it again.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so, I mean, for, for me, I do think the historic commissions support does carry some weight here. That gives me some. comfort, because I do generally think that we should be very cautious when it comes to historic buildings in terms of how we interpret this substantial detriment. And then, I mean, it just looks like a really great refresh of the building. So it was done in good taste. It fits in with this historic neighborhood, which I understand is not an easy feat. from an architecture perspective. And it's an apartment one zoning district. This is allowed by right. So I certainly don't think it's derogating from the intent of the bylaw or causing a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. What are other thoughts?
[Andre Leroux]: As I mentioned, I think there's a lot of upside here. I think that the alternative would be more detrimental to the neighborhood. And this is an important area on an important street, and I think that this is a proper enhancement of the property.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then, um, so if there's no other comments on those issues, so the last one is, um, the different, um, criteria for, uh, special permit for, um, for changes to a nonconforming building. And so here it is, um, uh, Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a non-conforming structure in accordance with this section only if it determines such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure. So here we have an alteration to an existing structure with an existing side yard nonconformity. It does increase the nature of the nonconformity under the ordinance. The footprint has not changed. And the variance is only required here if it creates a new nonconformity. So yeah, the standard is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So what do folks think about the dimensional violation on the side yard? Is that or is that not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, the increase in the side yard setback violation for this alteration?
[Andre Leroux]: Again, my position on this is that it's the regulation that's changing. It's not the building. So it's already nonconforming. I don't see additional detriment since the building itself is not changing. I agree.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. I mean, so the building is increasing in height a little bit. But I don't. So I want to acknowledge the possibility that for some multifamilies, you know, maybe the the side yard should be different. But but here, yeah, they've stayed true to the building footprint. It's really, I don't see why it would create any detriment to the public good more than the existing violation. It's basically the same core structure with just some alterations, same distance from the neighboring building. So yeah, I don't think that this would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. All right, so I think we've had a chance to talk through all the issues. And so the dimensional relief being sought here is a variance for, sorry, I've got too many things up, for lot area, lot width, and usable open space, and then a special permit for side yard. The chair awaits a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to approve the variances for the ones that you just said. I don't have it in front of me. For lot area, lot width, lot width, usable open space. Thank you. Lot width, lot area, and usable open space. and then the special permit for side yard? Right, are we doing that with a separate vote? I was going to do that differently.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, up to you. So we can do it, we can split it up however we want. So you can put it all to a vote or we can do it separate.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm happy to do it all together. And a motion to approve the special permit for the side yard setback. Do I have a second? I'll second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so the variances and the special permit are approved. Congratulations, you have your projects. Attorney Desmond, we can't hear you right now.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I might have... I'm sorry for the technical difficulties that I've experienced tonight, which ultimately was my power cord I had to go running for and I left my mic on. So I apologize for any of that. I found my power cord and I didn't lose my screen. So it's a success. Thank you, folks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, everybody. Will you take a crack at drafting of the decision?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Absolutely.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you and good luck. Thanks, everybody. All right, Dennis, next matter, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, 22 Wilfrid Street case number a dash 2023-07. Applicant and owner Jennifer company to show Lee is petitioning for a variance in chapter 94 city zoning to construct a roof over front open deck at 22 Wilson Street in the single family to zoning district, which is not allowed due to insufficient front yard setback.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. And I see we have Jen Julie here. Please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_12]: Hi there. Good evening. Everyone. Is this my time to talk now?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so we've had a chance to review your application, but you're welcome to make a short presentation, if you'd like, just to tell us about the project.
[SPEAKER_12]: Sure thing, I will keep it super small. So the home I'm currently living in at 22 Wilson Street belonged to my grandparents, who have both passed away. My mom and her siblings took over the house. sold it to my daughter and I in 2018 we lived there for a few years, decided to do some renovation without knocking down the home as my grandfather was the one who built the home and dug the foundation and everything. So I wanted to keep that as is, and went through the permit process to what first started just remodeling the first floor, then moved into applying for a second permit to do a second floor. And then after building the second floor, I decided that I wanted to take off the existing front structure, which was a closed in porch and open it up and just make a farmer's porch on the front of the house just to add to the aesthetics of the house. And I do realize that I am super close to the street, but all the houses that are there are literally built on Wilson Street. Everything I try to do at my home is to beautify it and make it better for the neighborhood. My grandparents are very fortunate that when they bought it, it is a huge lot of land. However, there is a ton of ledge all throughout the property, even in my basement. Parts of my basement floor are raised because of all the ledge that was hand dug out. So that's why I applied for the variance, because in my original proposal, my farmer's porch was approved, but it was approved without a roof. which will then make it look like my house has a deck on the front of my house, which actually would look a little bit funnier without having a roof so that's why i'm asking just to put a hip style roof on the front of the House just to enhance the way it looks. that's it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And so with your application, you submitted some architectural plans. Would you mind just kind of showing us what you're trying to do?
[SPEAKER_12]: Sure, absolutely. I don't know if I'm able to share.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You are now.
[SPEAKER_12]: Gave me a lot of power with a co-host. Okay, it's been a while since I've Zoomed, so let's try this.
[SPEAKER_01]: Basic desktop preview. Why won't it go?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh God, hold on, let's see.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, gosh, Jen, if you want, I can bring them up and you can just tell me when to.
[SPEAKER_12]: That would be great. I had I don't even remember now Dennis what I submitted to, but I had my 1st plans.
[SPEAKER_01]: Let's see.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, if you want to scroll down, that would be great. You can if yes so um so that's the side view of my house, the back part of my house and then the bottom right picture is the old existing front porch that was there, it was a closed in structure, but just wasn't used. properly, so I'm taking, my goal was to take that space and just extend it the length of my house, keep it the same width, and then just add a roof. So I wasn't looking to even make it any wider. It's only a four foot porch, so it's still relatively small, but the new drawings that the architect did, which might be on a separate one, so that's the picture with the roof on the bottom, but the new ones without having a roof on it and just having a front porch, literally looks like a deck that would belong on the back of your house. And now since I took my house from a one story with just a small Cape style roof to a full two story and a full access attic, the front of my house looks quite massive now. So having the porch with a roof would just break up the look of the front of the house. So it wouldn't be so much in your face, if that makes sense.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so one clarifying question just to make sure I'm understanding so it sounds like there was. an existing covered porch that was also in the front setback and then a sequence of renovations and it's not clear to me if at some point the porch got demolished or what the current state is, but you have plans that could be approved by right that wouldn't have the the roof but what you basically want to do instead is have it be covered just like when you started that the porch was. Is that right?
[SPEAKER_12]: I think so. I think that's all correct what you said. I really wish I could share this photo with you. Yes, so the front porch was demolished because in my original plans the front porch was approved. And then when I went to finalize the plans with my second permit with adding the second floor, that's when they kicked it back. And I had to resubmit drawings without a roof. And then apply, they said, apply for the variance to add the roof to it later.
[Andre Leroux]: And Mike, I can share my screen. I just, I think this is like the picture of the, of what it looked like. This is just from Google. Oh, is it is that that's it.
[SPEAKER_12]: I'm not saying yes, so that is what the old structure look like.
[Andre Leroux]: Right so that was just what year ago says March 2022. Right? So.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, so this yes, this project started in April of 2022 actually, the end of April, beginning of May by the time all the permits got through.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[SPEAKER_01]: Wish there was a way.
[Mike Caldera]: Are there other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, like, this is a pretty easy 1.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, I hope so. That last one was complicated enough.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think I asked to tune into all our meetings.
[SPEAKER_12]: I do not miss the zoom.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Well, okay. So in terms of next steps, if the board doesn't have any additional questions, we're going to need to open it to public comment. and then close it and then we'll deliberate. We'll walk through the statutory criteria. So yeah, chair awaits a motion to open public comment for this hearing.
[Unidentified]: Jim, you're on mute. Motion to open to public comment. Seconded. All right, we'll do a roll call.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Yes. Mike, yes. All right, so we're open for public comment. Looks like there's someone on the phone. So yeah, if there's anybody who has a comment they'd like to make, please, you could type in chat. You could email Dennis. I guess if you're on the phone, you can unmute yourself and let us know.
[SPEAKER_12]: I do believe one neighbor said that they did send an email. They weren't able to join because they have young kiddos. Her name is Danielle.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let's take a look. Dennis, do you have that?
[Denis MacDougall]: I accidentally shut off outlook a second ago, so I think I had something, but let me just check. Okay. Taking a little bit to reload.
[Yvette Velez]: No worries.
[Denis MacDougall]: Actually, it's taking a lot longer because I had a bunch of things open, and it's reopening all of them. Almost there. I have way, way too many windows open on my emails.
[SPEAKER_01]: No worries.
[Unidentified]: Almost there. Thanks.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis is a popular guy.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, he is. Dennis has been great with help. Oh, can you see my screen now?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, yeah, we can.
[SPEAKER_12]: Okay, sorry, this was the picture that I wanted to show. So the top one was the house that my grandfather built. And then the bottom one with the new blue siding now is what I have built. So I made it significantly bigger. And just adding the porch, I feel like would just bring so much more value to the neighborhood. It just, it needs something with a roof to just break up that big front in the beginning.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yeah. And so it looks like you even did this on the same footprint. Is that right? Or you got it.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, so I left the original basement and I just, I left the first floor also, and then just built up with the second floor. I didn't want to get rid of it just because, you know, it still has so many memories. It's a huge lot of land. So if the house wasn't kept in the family, someone would have knocked this down and built this big, massive center entrance colonial over there, because I am on a lot and a half over there. And I do have, you can see way up in the back, way up here. There is a backyard, but again, it's all this ledge that's back here. I don't know if you can really see it in my garage, but even the garage itself is built up because it's all rock. So all of this that he built was hand dug out.
[Denis MacDougall]: And I have the email, so I will read it. It's Danielle Balaka, 17 Wilson Street. I will not be able to make it to the hearing on Thursday, but I wanted to make sure to express my support for Jennifer Carpenter's construction to the roof over a porch on 22 Wilson Street. We are across the street, 17 Wilson Street, and I'm in full support of Jen's work. The changes to her house do not change the previous home's footprint, and we are happy that she's able to make such beautiful improvements to our home. We hope that you approve her request.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Awesome. Thanks, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for sharing that. Yeah, and I don't see any other indication of a comment, so I think that might be the only one. So Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. So moved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second. All right, we'll do a roll call, Jim. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Okay. All right. Uh, what do you think folks?
[Yvette Velez]: It looks great. It's an improvement upon an improvement. Um, it's nice to see a, um, historic home. Uh, that's been kept in the family and maintained. Um, it's clear that the. the ledge, the rock impacts the design and why things happened the way they happened. This small porch would be an asset to the building and the neighborhood.
[Unidentified]: Other thoughts? In addition to making it look even better, it'll keep you nice and dry too. When you're sitting out there in the rain, Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: I agree with what's been said I think that the, you know, the house is positioned pretty far forward because of the ledge in the back so this makes sense it's no different than what was there before.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I agree. I think it's a nice addition. The position of the house, the main house, which the footprint was kept, and it sounds like even for the first floor, is the circumstances. that require the variance. So essentially the front porch could be built as a right if it were positioned differently, but we have the drop-off and the position of the existing structure. It would be a hardship to require moving the house to address that. neighbor seems to be supportive, looks nice. I see no detriment to the public good or derogation from the intent of the bylaw. So yeah, I agree. I think to Andre's earlier comments, this one's a pretty easy one. So yeah, so chair awaits a motion. And this would specifically be, let me just pull up the permit refusal. Well, me pulling up the permit refusal isn't something we need to move. So the chair waits a motion regarding the variance requested for insufficient front yard setback. Jim. So moved. Seconded. So that's a motion to approve or deny? Approve. Okay. And seconded. Okay. We're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. Congratulations. You have your covered porch.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yay. Thank you all so much. I hope you get to end this call now and go home.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you all. What I sort of mentioned earlier, it'll take me a little bit of time to write the decision. I write it, I give it to you. If it's filed on the clerk's office, then there's still a 20 days appeals period after that. So it's, you know, it's going to give or take, you know, a little bit of time, not a ton, but just so I get it done. I'll let you know. And that'll start the 20 day clock.
[SPEAKER_12]: That sounds perfect. Thank you again for your help. I appreciate it. Have a great day.
[Yvette Velez]: Can we talk about moving this meeting?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, yeah. Yeah. So, uh, I, that's, that's my intention of that. I think we. First we'll do an administrative updates. Then we'll do meeting minutes and then discussion of rules, which would include the possibility of moving it. So those are our three things left. So are there any administrative updates? Just want to double check.
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing on my end. I'm just totally working through the old decisions and we're making our way through them. So there might be a few more for you all to sign in the next few days, hopefully. Then we can start cutting those down.
[Mike Caldera]: But aside from that, no. I guess one question I have, I think this is a quick one to answer, but any headway in terms of finding our new associate? I know that it went out in the call for applications.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, we've got a few Alicia and I have been sort of going over some of the applicants and hopefully we're going to bring some people in to talk to and then we'll get them on before the next meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm trying to stop. Yeah, yeah. I foresee having someone appointed as an associate member before the next hearing and hopefully then once they Changes so we can have 2 associates that's sort of the point of doing this. We've got 3, we've got a few people in mind and then we'll sort of talk to them and 1 will be an associate right now. And then hopefully when the 2nd associate comes up. That'll jump in, but I feel she has her hand up. So we shouldn't jump in.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll just sort of piggyback on that to say that we, I was mentioning this before the meeting started. I am working with the city council on making some changes to things that are administrative. Something like adding a second associate member would fall very squarely in that. And so I just wanna make it clear to any of the board members, if there are things that you think we should be looking at, unintended consequences or burdensome things that could be tweaked in the procedures that are dictated in the zoning, please make sure, send them to me in email, copy Dennis, and we will look at them. And one of the things we're gonna do is we will engage a lawyer to vet that what we're doing is that each and every one of them is legal, but we're not gonna wait for a whole planning revamp of all the zoning in order to address things that are administrative in nature. So I just want to make you guys aware of that. If the public is watching and people are aware of administrative hurdles that have come up, I'm open to hearing them. And there'll be more cracks at this in the future. I just, as long as we're doing it, let's take care of the things that are really bugging people.
[Andre Leroux]: Alicia, can you just give an example of what you mean?
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, well one is that missing that late at night, let me think. There's some stuff that's come up around, oh, Dover uses. Well, I guess that was a little bit policy, but it used to be that only anything that was a major project came in front of the CD board for special permit. And now anything that is not, anything that Tufts wants to do that's a building permit, the way the rule is written, has to go in front of the CD board for a special permit, anything. and not just things that would require a site plan review. The building commissioners use some discretion. So if they're looking for just an internal fix, it's not, but it's sort of become quite cumbersome. Another is that they change all special permits have to go in front of the CD board for review and referral every single special permit. And that I don't think was ever intended. So things, Any special permit that you hear is actually supposed to go to the CD board for opinion the way the words were written into the ordinance this time. Those are some examples.
[Bill Forte]: what I said earlier about, you know, two principal buildings on the same lot, you know, it should exclude commercial, you know, it should exclude commercial lots. And in cases where there's more than one principal residential building, then that would probably get vetted by a special permit, but definitely a conflict there, no question.
[Andre Leroux]: But these are still things that require like changes, right? Edits to the ordinance.
[Alicia Hunt]: It would have to go through the full zoning process. So it would have to go be proposed to the city council. It would have to be referred to the CD board for opinion and public hearing. It would have to go back to the city council for public hearing. But it shouldn't wait 18 months for us to do massing studies and assessments of uses in various districts. These are things that we thought we could move forward in a few months, like a month or a couple months. We could put on the table and be considering by the end of May, early June, rather than waiting 18 months to finish the planning study we're trying to do.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, and I think, Alicia, to really add on to that, I think at that point, we will have our first draft of our zoning map to be adopted, the colored zoning map that we're working on. Right.
[Alicia Hunt]: And that's technically an administrative zoning update because we wouldn't change anything. We wouldn't change the classification of any parcels through that we would serve, we would just be adopting it. The electronic version, rather than the paper version, and a nice clean printed version.
[Andre Leroux]: TAB, Alex Weinheimerer): would like a printed version of the zoning or can have that I think it'd be really helpful, so I don't know if Dennis if we could pick that up by the office at some point.
[Yvette Velez]: TAB, Alex Weinheimerer.:
[Bill Forte]: : I see you. TAB, Mark McIntyre ): i'm sorry Alicia we just recently got a plot a plotter in back in engineering, so now we can print again. At one point, I had to go out to get copies at Staples. We do currently have the second draft should be coming out maybe at the end of next week. We don't want to release anything until we have something that we all agree is going to be correct. So I would say that that is up and coming, Andre. I would say within the next three to four weeks, as soon as we have something that we're going to propose, to city council, you know, be more than happy to give his wallpaper the entire city hall with them. So very excited about it.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. I assume you're familiar with the old black and white thick lines. That's that is the legal map right now.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Right. And I hand colored it in just to get a just a base version. Alicia will tell you, I did a lot of coloring and I stayed between the lines. That's all good. But one of her interns is really working hard at it with Steve Morse. And Steve is in the middle of the first round of changes. And I would say that one more round of looking at it, and I think we're going to be ready. It's not that much of a mess. It's actually in pretty good shape.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. And all of this is a full process, the full zoning change process.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. So just back to the earlier update. So yeah, it sounds like a plan. It would be great if we could have an associate appointed by May, especially since we know in June we'll have four. So we want to get out of this scenario where an unexpected absence loses us quorum. And so if the matter comes up in May and then gets continued, We kind of need, it's helpful to have that associate already appointed. So anyway, just glad to hear we're getting close. Okay, meeting minutes. So Dennis, I saw you sent them out. I don't know if you saw, it looked like Andre had a requested change. It was a pretty small one. It was just to add to the minutes a question.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, regarding 93 Governor's Avenue. I have that and that'll be included in. I'll include that in there.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, so have folks had a chance to read the meeting minutes? Other than that change, do they seem to be in order? Yeah. Right. Um, so chair waits a motion to approve the meeting minutes. This should be all three meeting minutes. Yeah, exactly. So this would be specifically the meeting minutes, um, for January 5th, January 26 and, uh, February 23rd. Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to approve the meeting minutes for January 5th, January 26th, and February 23rd.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Andre Leroux]: All right. As amended, I should say. As amended. All right, Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? And Mike, aye. All right, meeting minutes are approved. And now to the topic of the night. There was a proposal to move our regular meeting time earlier to start at 6.30 to try to end earlier. As we've all experienced firsthand, some of these meetings can go long. One thing I do want to say, I'm personally reluctant whatever we decide to apply it to the 40 B just because we've already kind of set expectations out of the cadence there. I'm open to consider whatever the board wants, but, but I think, um, at a minimum, we should be talking about the regular meetings. So the one in late may and so on. Um, so yeah. What do folks think? Um, The proposal was to start at 630 rather than 730.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm flexible. I would defer to those of you who have kids and other commitments. So whatever you think is best. Same here.
[Unidentified]: I'm flexible.
[Yvette Velez]: Yvette, what do you think? I'd like to move it earlier now. I think things have changed. You know, as long as the MBTA works properly, I will have no problem. And 630 will be absolutely fine.
[Mike Caldera]: Very risky. And I know Jamie, even though he's absent, seemed to be in favor of it. I'm in favor of it. I think that, yeah, I think it'll be It'll add some logistics to getting the meeting on time, but I think it'll more than pay off in us ending earlier. I think most participants, whether it's us, staff, or residents would appreciate it moving up a little bit.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I would just say I would like to make sure that starting an hour earlier doesn't mean we can take an extra hour to do our duties.
[Mike Caldera]: Believe it or not, Andre, I'm actually trying to get through this stuff as fast as possible. I've gotten better.
[Andre Leroux]: You know, we've been finishing at 1030. So with the new ones, like we should be done by nine. Right.
[Yvette Velez]: Um, can we talk a little bit about like, is there, can we do a system or create something that once we hit like three, um, proposals or then we boot it till the next meeting or we have to create a new meeting because I think reasonably, like this is, it's getting a little, like, I mean, I signed up for this. I know I'm one of the oldest folks in the room, but I remember sitting down and they were like, it never goes past blank time. Right. And then I think since I've been on the board, every meeting has been this, like, this is not, this is actually the normal, this is not, even when we started at 6.30, like the moment I started, suddenly Metro decided to develop everything. I don't know what happened, but.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and it's like three times the number of meetings you signed up for because the 40B is going every other week, you know.
[Mike Caldera]: 140B is more meetings in a year than the, we've been doing with the regular. So yeah. So like double the workload.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Well, just to sort of jump in with. Go ahead. I mean, I get the filing. So part of the issue is that if we get one, we have to like, you know, if somebody submits, we have a certain timeframe in which to actually have the hearing. So it's, I will sometimes try to get people to be like, can we wait until the next month for you to file or file a little bit after the, because usually the deadline is, the deadline that I usually work with is the midpoint of the month prior. So basically, so for like next month, the deadline was basically last week, within the last week. So if I didn't get anything the last week, it doesn't get on there. So, but then sometimes, you know, and, you know, I get like, but unfortunately, you know, if I get four of them all dropped off in that one week, I could ask if any of them want to wait a month, but they really can't. I mean, the other thing we could do is like, I could find one, who just wants to continue like someone who's in a rush we can actually still have it on the agenda but with the knowledge that they're astrocontinuous but i mean the other option is to do have meetings twice a month we could do that as well or should we have the possibility of twice a month that's really the only other option is to so it's
[Yvette Velez]: And do your and your deadline, is this a debt an actual deadline? Or this is what am I understanding this to be your arbitrary deadline? Like, can we create it like, two weeks before like, because then the reason I sort of just put the reason I it's sort of a timing one for that.
[Denis MacDougall]: So. I kind of work backwards. So, like, legal ads have to go in two weeks prior to the meeting. And our meetings are on Thursday, so it's two weeks prior. And it actually has to be in the paper a week before that. So, that's three weeks. So, I work three weeks back from that. And that gives me, like, a week or two just to review and go over things and make sure that I have everything in hand. You know, because sometimes it might look like it's a complete filing, and then all of a sudden you start going through it, and you're like, well, this is incomplete. This is, you know, I need. And those I could probably kick back, but at that point, It's tricky. I mean, I probably could be tougher in kicking things back and saying this is incomplete. I can probably start doing that. But, I mean, especially Yvette, you've known me long enough that I'm a bit of a softie. So I try to be a little more, you know, harsher on them and just say, nope, this is incomplete. You know, I can't put it in there. But.
[Yvette Velez]: So I'm all for, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm all for firm deadlines. And yes, I do think you could be a little bit more firm. But I also want to be aware that you are the clerk, and you're the one handling most of the paperwork. So is it more of a burden to have a meeting twice a month for you? Or is it better to do it once a month so that you do all the paperwork within that one month?
[Denis MacDougall]: The only sort of positive for just doing once a month is in terms of the statutory deadlines things is just once. So if I, if we do it twice a month, I have to sort of, I mean, I can do it. It's just a matter of probably a spreadsheet or something that just sort of calculates when things are due by, you know, I get something in, this is a meeting date, this is when it has to go in. I think it's doable. I just have to sort of adjust my brain to it. I can, let me, let me kind of work on a, way to do that and see if I can figure out what that would be. Because the other issue is right now our meetings are the last Thursday of the month. So in some months I have five, some months I only have four. So it would be a matter of figuring when would that second meeting be. It would be the second or the, it has to be the second. But then some, in the months, I don't know, yeah, I'm sort of, it's getting late so I'm starting to ramble. I think it's, it's not. Yeah. But, uh, I think it could be an option. Um, Bill, you were going to say something running an hour and a half, 45 minutes.
[Bill Forte]: One meeting. Yeah. Hey, listen, I love you all. It's been great. It's been a lot of fun, but it's past my bedtime. Hey, listen, have a great night. Thank you. Yep. Take care.
[Andre Leroux]: I just personally, I prefer if we can keep it to once a month, that'd be great. I just think we should try to keep the pace of the meetings up as much as possible. And the easy stuff, let's keep it easy and brief as much as we can.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, well, to that point, Alicia was telling me that there are some administratives kind of pre, like shortcuts, I'll call it, that other communities take that can speed things up substantially. Like I'm trying my best and I'm sure there's other opportunities, just running the meeting alone for me to speed it up, but you got to touch on all the criteria somehow. So, so yeah, direct, director.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I think, so Danielle, who's our new senior planner, was on the ZBA in Somerville for 15 years, and she has a whole bunch of suggestions about how they did things with staff recommendations and memos. And I think it would make sense to actually have her either sit with Mike or stop by a board meeting to sort of say, here are things they do that speed things up she's like they would hear 10 cases in like two and a half hours. And you might not be comfortable with all of them, but some of them you might say oh there's a gem let's take that one. And so I think it might be a good idea. One night, when it's not 11 o'clock at night to have her sit with you and go through like ideas and see which of them she's also staffed boards in Watertown and I can never remember the third board, the third community she was in. where she can bring other ideas. So I'm just putting that forward as let's figure out a time that's not late at night for her to sort of give you guys some, a bunch of ideas.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I would just, my recommendation, if the board's amenable, I'd just like to sit with her one-on-one normal business hours sometime, have her share the shortcuts and then report back to the board and the administrative updates. It's possible. Some of these we could just implement unilaterally. Maybe some of them require amending our rules, but I think that's the most efficient way to do it. I can just sit with her, try to get the report out, and then bring it back to the board if that works. That's good for it. Okay, cool. Well, we don't need a vote on moving the regular meeting time, it's moved. So moving forward, regular meetings only for now. For new special meetings, we can discuss that as they come. So the May regular meeting will start after 6.30 rather than after 7.30. Sound good?
[Unidentified]: Sounds good.
[Mike Caldera]: Cool. All right. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn. A second? All in favor? 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.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 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.