[Mike Caldera]: All right, hello and welcome to this regular meeting of the met for zoning board of appeals. I see. We currently have a. forum of members present, but I just want to give everybody a heads up that due to some unforeseen circumstances with a board member resigning and another board member or two board members with a personal conflict, we've reached out to the applicants for a lot of the cases today. We won't be able to hear those, unfortunately. So the intention here is to continue a number of cases. Some of the applicants have opted to continue or requested to continue the cases to next week, others to our next regular meeting, end of April. But yeah, to kick us off, we're just gonna do a quick roll call. So Jamie Thompson. Present. Jim Tirani. Here. Yvette Velez.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: I believe Andre LaRue is absent. And Mike Caldera, president. I'm going to appoint Jamie Thompson as a voting member for this meeting. All right, so we currently have a quorum. So Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. Let me just read the first. On March 29, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill which, among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting lot to March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language is not making 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. And I'll read the first item on our agenda is 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway case number 40B-2022-01, continued from March 27, 2023. The resumption of consideration of a petition of MVP Mystic LLC and affiliated Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Law's Chapter 40B for multifamily eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land at 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 350-unit rental apartment building consisting of a mix of studio, one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, with 25% of the total units being designated as portable housing to low- and moderate-income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. And so just for folks watching, so this petition is a 40B application that the board has been hearing over the course of a number of sessions. The most recent session was this past Monday. And so at the Monday session, we voted to continue the hearing to this meeting for a very technical procedural reason which is at that time there wasn't clarity yet as to whether the governor would sign into law an extension of the remote meeting allowance for public meetings beyond March. I've been informed that the governor has in fact signed that into law and so The plan all along was for the next hearing where we actually hear evidence and presentations for this meeting, for this petition to be held on April 12th. And so now that we have the clarity that in fact we can hold that remotely as originally intended, the chair awaits a motion to continue 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway after 7.30 p.m. on on April 12th, 2023. I moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to do a roll call vote. Jane? Aye. Jim?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: And Mike? Aye. So that's four in favor. The matters continue to April 12th. And so I believe at this point, Jim, unfortunately needs to drop off. So thank you for joining, Jim. And now, we will no longer have quorum to hear special permits or variances. And so most of the matters on the agenda or for one or the other, there's one that is just for a finding, which we will still be able to hear. Um, and, uh, so, so yeah, we're going to first just go through all the, uh, confirmed business. We, we, we don't have quorum for, um, that we've already communicated. We won't be hearing today. Um, and so I'm going to start with the two that requested to be heard next week. Um, Dennis, I just want to double check my, my recollection that's Governor Zav and, um,
[Denis MacDougall]: miss and the 114 mystic ab is that correct that is correct yes those two cases will be heard a week from tonight um on april 6th all right and so just show it to folks at home known just sort of to start if the link that you use to log on to tonight's meeting will work again next week so just use the same zoom link to come on to the meeting so for so we're going to be giving a few different dates so
[Mike Caldera]: We'll get through this, but. Sounds great. Okay. And so, Dennis, just procedurally, let's read. Yeah, there's out for and then we'll do a motion to continue.
[Denis MacDougall]: So, 93 governor's Avenue case number a dash 2022-21 continued from February 23rd applicant and owner Leonardo Blanco is petitioning for variance in the chapter 94 city of zoning. construct an attached garage with a room above at 93 Governor's Avenue, single family, one zoning district, insufficient side yard and rear yard setback. And then 114 Mystic Avenue, case number SP-2023-01, continued from February 23rd. Applicant and owner New England Organics LLC is positioning to operate a retail marijuana dispensary in an existing structure in a commercial two zoning district, thereby requiring a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Dennis. And so each of these applicants requested to be heard on April 6, as Dennis mentioned. And so to do that, the board needs to motion to continue these hearings to April 6. So would anyone like to make a motion?
[Unidentified]: Make a motion to continue 93 Governors Ave and 114 Mystic Avenue to the meeting scheduled for April 6th at 7.30 p.m. Do I have a second? Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Mike? Aye. All right, so that passes. Those are continued to April 6th. And then next Dennis, so I believe the ones that we don't have quorum for who requested to be continued to the next regular meeting are 436 Riverside Ave, 45 Bowen, and 590 Boston Ave. That is correct. I will read those notices.
[Denis MacDougall]: No. 436 Riverside Avenue, case number A-2022-19, continued from February 23rd. 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 the Industrial Zoning District, which is in violation of the City Method Zoning Ordinance 6.3.3, which stipulates that fences with posts over 7 feet tall need zoning approval. 45 Bowen Street. Case number A-2023-03. Applicant and owner, Joseph Musi, is petitioning for a variance in 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. 590 Boston Ave, case number A-2020-07, amended. Applicant and owner, Anteleto 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.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. And so for us, so again, we don't have quorum to hear these. And so for us to move them to our next regular meeting at the end of April, we need both to, oh, sorry, go ahead.
[Unidentified]: I think it's- It would be April 27th.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, the 27th, okay. So we would need a motion then to continue 436 Riverside Avenue, 45 Bowen Street, and 590 Boston Avenue to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 27th. I move. Do I have a second? All right, we'll do another roll call vote. Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Mike? Aye. All right. Thank you for your patience, everybody. And so that leaves us with one additional case on the agenda. That is 396 Main Street.
[Denis MacDougall]: So please go ahead. So 396 Main Street case number a dash 2023-04. Applicant and owner Peter Osborne is petitioning for a variance in the chapter 94 city efforts only to install and operate a bakery at 396 Main Street, which is an existing non conforming mixed use residential and commercial building located in general residence. So, and even place without a drive through is not allowed use in accordance with table G dash one.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Do we either have the applicant or a representative present? It looks like I see Peter.
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah. Yeah, I have a quick presentation I'd like to run through if that's all right.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, absolutely. Just a couple of things I want to get out of the way up front. I believe Dennis shared this with you. But so your petition, our current understanding is that it is eligible for consideration as a section six finding for a five member board. That means that if three members of the five member board vote in favor of making a finding. The finding is made and it essentially in cases where in alteration to a use or a structure meet certain parameters that then it basically enables you to do what you're trying to do without additional zoning relief. And so I just want you to be aware that because we're three today, all three of us would have to be in favor to grant this relief, whereas normally if we were a full five-member board, potentially there could be some disagreement. You would still need three votes. So I just wanted to make sure you're aware up front. I believe Dennis communicated that to you.
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, Dennis communicated that via email. So it's my understanding that I need a unanimous vote from all three members that are here today because two members are not available. Yeah, correct.
[Mike Caldera]: And then the other thing I just want to say, so our board is not precedent-setting in our decisions, but so Medford updated its zoning about a year ago, and as part of the updated zoning, we can consider petitions to change or substantially alter a structure via special permit. And so my reading of the Medford ordinance is that it is not a literal requirement that we use special permit, which would require four votes. instead of three, so we can still issue a section six finding. And so because we understand there's timeline implications, we're planning to proceed under the section six finding criteria. It's almost identical criteria for a special permit. And so my reading of the Medford ordinance is that really the intention is that we should typically be considering these as special permits. But the standard is the same, and given that we wouldn't have the votes for that today, and because the ordinance doesn't require us to do so, I'm comfortable proceeding with a finding. So this is just, frankly, I'm not sure if this is super relevant to you in particular. I'm just saying it for the benefit of those watching. It is my intention in general for these types of cases that we'll hear them as special permits, but today we'll do the section six. Um, yeah. Okay. Now that I got the logistical stuff out of the way, please go ahead. Yeah. If you have a short presentation, um, we'd love to hear it.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay, great. Um, yeah. And just, and thanks for, um, thanks for hearing us with all the implications and, and working, especially Dennis to coordinating that. We really appreciate that. So, um, so I can share my screen and that's should be okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. You're all set, Peter.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay, great. Sorry, just some technical stuff, but so my name is Peter Osborne. Just thank you all for being here and hearing our case. So our business is called Mish. We do sourdough bread and pastries. Um, so a quick introduction, we're proposing to open a storefront location at, um, 396 main street. Um, and it's an established business in which I own called Mish LLC. Um, Mish LLC is a European style bakery and makes artisanal sourdough breads and pastries. The proposed project will involve the adaptation of a mixed use residential and commercial building located currently in a GR zone. Um, so today we're going to address two questions for the finding. Question one, please provide a narrative of the project that you are planning at the subject property, which requires you to obtain the zoning relief that you are applying for. And question seven, please explain why your proposed proposal concerning the property will not be sustainable, will not be sustained, more detrimental to the property in its current state and or the current uses that are made on the property. So first we're going to go through question one. So a little bit about us and our story, our inception started back in 2019. Myself, owner and founder spent the past four years learning. sourdough baking techniques in Europe and different recipes and bread techniques from professionals. And in 2022, I moved back to the United States with my wife and started operating out of a shared kitchen space in Oren, Rhode Island. So our product is authentic European style breads and pastries. And we also are quite unique in that we source a lot of ingredients directly from Europe. And our goal is to deliver a unique experience that reminds you of Europe, but tastes like New England. As I kind of mentioned we've done over 40 farmers markets, while operating at the shared kitchen facilities in Rhode Island, and we've had five wholesale clients in those first four months, and we've had positive reception from. other partner businesses as well as customers and we've participated in to get to go which is a food waste prevention application that's becoming more and more popular in the United States. So 396 Main Street, you can find our property highlighted in yellow just here. And everything that you see in the blue square just north of it is C1 zoning. And then the white space around is the GR zoning. So you can see from this illustration that to add the C1 zoning to our space would be literally just an extension of this blue box that you find here. And if you look just north of our building, you'll find C1 commercial space that's currently in a GR zone. So it wouldn't, in our opinion, be out of the realm of what's already in place on Main Street. So here's a quick shot of our building as well as a site plan. So you can find on the site plan just left of us is John DeVito's Barbershop. Our space shares one wall with it and it's just on the right side. And then just above us is a residential space. And one of the owners who's with us today named Joe is occupying that top space. So proposed renovations, there'll be some upgrades to the flooring per the Department of Health's requirements, there'll be some aesthetic upgrades to wall and ceilings. We're going to install some cabinets for the display counter, there'll be some plumbing pipe and fixtures done. So this is a three-bay sink, hand wash sink, food wash sink per the Department of Health, and there'll be some wire lighting and electrical devices just for our equipment and for lighting up the space. So moving on to question number seven. Please explain why your proposal concerning the property will not be sustained more detrimental than in its current state. So we believe that our concept is new and unique to Main Street. We have a variety of European style products such as French baguettes, Norwegian rye breads, German breads, Swedish cinnamon, cardamom buns. Our techniques are quite unique because we've learned them in Europe and we import our flowers. from Europe, which based on our market research so far is pretty unique to most of the greater Boston area. We use some equipment that comes from Belgium, and we have a slightly different concept for our hours of operation than traditional bakeries. We are going to provide minimal disturbances on Main Street, we have a, we're going to have limited noise and disturbances during early hours, because unlike traditional bakeries, we're proposing to produce most of our products. Between six and 8am in the morning rather than your three to 5am. and then continue to bake throughout the day. Because in our opinion, American culture prefers bread in the evening, freshly baked out of the oven for dinner rather than first thing in the morning. So we're trying to meet our target market as well as provide minimal disturbances in the area. We also will be cycling to work as well so during early hours there won't be additional car or vehicular traffic on the road. So, also just to further our case the 396 Main Street has a history of commercial use. You can see the picture from on the left hand side, past use. This is a historical picture dated back from the 1920s, in which John DeVito's barbershop was a bakery and creamery, and the space that we're proposing was a, it looks like a plumbing electrical outfits store. Also, you can see from 1975 to 1995, there was a butcher shop there. From 95 to 98, there was a convenience store. 98 to 2004, there was a fudge and candy store. And then from 2004 to 2022, there was a construction office space there. And just, you can see the present pictures on the right as well. You can see John DeVito's spaces on the left and ours potential space will be on the right. We've also done due diligence and knocked on some of the local businesses, neighbors, and other members of the community. We've contacted them and received a lot of support for our bakery business. You can see some of these letters here. In conclusion, we just want to thank you all for the time that you've taken to listen to us, and we believe that questions one and seven were addressed and that our concept will be good for the community. We have Adam with us. He lives at 8 Wareham Street, and we just invited him to say a couple of words.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, so just to fill you in on kind of the pattern will follow. So if Adam is Presenting something specific about the property just beyond the public comment that any member of the public's able to make, we could hear Adam now, but typically what we'll do if Adam was just going to sort of generally share some some thoughts as a as a neighbor and a butter. What we'll do is the board will ask any clarifying questions to you first right now. Then we're going to open the hearing to public comment in which any member of the public, including Adam, can speak. And then we'll have a phase at the end where, as a board, we deliberate. So yeah, just wanted to clarify based on what I shared, should Adam be speaking during the public comment section or is there some kind of additional presentation or like collaboration with Adam on the presentation where Adam would be speaking now?
[SPEAKER_07]: That would just be public comment. Sorry about that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, no worries at all. OK, wonderful. So Jamie, Yvette, do you have any clarifying questions just about the presentation?
[Unidentified]: I do not.
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah, you did a great job, I feel like, of giving us all the pertinent information on the presentation.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, yeah, I concur. one or two questions, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding. So I'm familiar with this area, as you've mentioned, it's directly adjacent to a commercial district. So there's lots of nearby businesses, there's a business on the same property. It says there's four parking spaces, I believe, and that's not counting the street parking, right? So there's parking, It looks like it'll be hard to fit the cars in, but it looks like there's a small amount of on-prem parking, and then there's also the two-hour parking out front, or does that four include the two-hour parking out front? Do you know?
[SPEAKER_07]: That's not 100% clear to me. I'm not too sure about the parking spaces you're referring to. I don't know if they are for the residential property as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Are they on the side street or just a long main street that you're... Yeah, so there's essentially this zoning evaluation sheet that's part of the, application that I think Richard Meade filled out on your behalf. And so it says there's four existing parking spaces. I just wasn't sure kind of whether any of that pavement on site is usable for parking or if it's mainly the, it looks like maybe there's four street parking spaces, two on each street.
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, to the best of my understanding, yeah, they're just street parking.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. And then the other question. So you showed a bunch of letters of support from a Butters. And did, but are they, I'm trying to, I don't know if I got those specifically. So I'm just curious, have you reached out to the owner of the house directly next to where you'd be operating? Like, are they one of the letters by chance?
[SPEAKER_07]: We did knock on the doors of all the abutters, although not all of them did answer the door. We did go a couple of different times but I don't believe I don't know specifically which property you're talking about. If you're looking if the streets to your back. I think you're probably referring to the building just to the right.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, for 400 Main Street, I think.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay. Yeah, we did. I think we did talk to someone and we approached them with the letter and they said that they were in support of us, but they didn't feel comfortable signing a letter. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks. And then last question. I think this might be in your application, but I didn't I don't recall you saying it. So what was the most recent commercial use of the space that you're planning to occupy?
[SPEAKER_07]: So to the best of our knowledge, it was a construction office.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. OK, cool. So those were all my clarifying questions, unless there are others from Yvette or Jamie. The chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: Motion to open the public portion of the hearing for 396 Main Street. Second. Second. And Yvette? We're doing a roll call vote. Yvette? Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Oh, um, we'll, we'll finish the roll call vote and then I'll call on you first though. Uh, Mike, uh, yes. Um, okay. The public portion of the hearing is, is open. Uh, commissioner 40, you can talk in either portion. I'll call on, uh, commissioner 40 first. So please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just a couple of comments about, um, this particular project. Uh, I don't, uh, I'm not against it or for it. Obviously, this is certainly up to the board. But I just want to point out a couple of things. There is no on-site parking for this project, just so you know. I just looked at Google Earth, and it doesn't appear that there's anything that accommodates that. So that would not trigger off compliance with handicap accessible parking. However, I haven't had a chance to look at the use on this to determine if the use triggers off the requirements for vertical access, which in this case probably would be. a ramp. And if a ramp is constructed on here, it may change the plan slightly if a ramp is required and can be built within that front area. We didn't get that far with the review, but I'm going to say that it's likely that a ramp may end up having to be constructed here just by what I saw on Google Earth. So just something to keep in mind that the site plan may change. But I will just say this is that Any accessible ramps walkways and so forth and not subject to zoning regulations under 521 CMR so that that's my only comment. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So Commissioner for you just want to make sure I'm understanding so would The addition, the hypothetical addition of a ramp to the site plan after the board took action today, would it trigger the need for another visit to the ZBA or?
[Bill Forte]: No, in my opinion, no. First of all, the change is minor. The board could never vote to not have an accessible ramp. Again, accessible ramps are not subject to zoning setbacks. They could be right up to the public way without any kind of special relief. It would just be advised that whatever is decided here, I just want the public and the board to know that, you know, when we go to issue the permit itself, there may end up being a rampant front. And, you know, I don't see that there are any other proposed modifications to the building, but that was not on there. So that's just something to consider while you're taking your vote. It would be, it would really wouldn't take up any more spaces, no parking issues there because there's no on-site parking. So, and again, I don't see, I don't see any issues at this point, but just wanted to let you know.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, awesome. So what I'm hearing is essentially that. So you could, of course, change your assessment later after seeing the new plans. But you're telling us that you don't think a change like that would rise to the level of a substantial alteration. And so it wouldn't trigger the need for a finding.
[Bill Forte]: OK. No. please be advised that you probably just want to write into the order that there's a possibility that a accessible handicap ramp will be installed as part of the access to the new space. And I think that's really all you need to do. So it's mentioned on there.
[Mike Caldera]: I just, I'd be a little reluctant. Perhaps we could discuss this offline afterwards, but My only we actually I know we can't write anything in that that's like a contingent contingent on someone else's approval so that that would be my only so we could we could like. Yeah, so I think in principle, we could weigh in on a hypothetical finding for that just in case it happened. But I think in this case, we can touch base before writing the decision. But I think my understanding is it would essentially be if there was a modification, You do as commissioner would make a determination whether or not it was substantial if it was come back here. If you didn't, then it wouldn't, unless someone, you know, appealed or, or something of the sort. So yeah, that's right. Yeah. Director hunt. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. Um, for the public, I'm the director of planning development and sustainability. Um, I just two things I just wanted to sort of, I think that if I want to make sure I actually understand, I think that what the building commissioner is saying is that the zoning board would acknowledge that the plans might change to include a, a ramp if that was required and that they are not. changing their decisions if that happens. Is that what you're suggesting, that they just acknowledge that that might occur and that would not change their decision?
[Bill Forte]: I see that as being correct, yes.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. So then the other thing I just wanted to weigh in as our planning director that this sounds like a lovely addition to the city, that while our zoning and short of this particular building there, that in fact it is directly across from businesses, similar types of businesses, it is directly adjacent to others. And it seems that it's not only an appropriate use, but while It's been more of an office space over the last several years. It's clearly been this type of use in the history of this space. So we see it from a planning perspective as very appropriate, and almost makes you wonder why the line was drawn where it was drawn. So since that line was drawn in the 60s, I can't tell you that. I just say that it's odd.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Director Hunt. So Mr. Bezenes, did you want to speak?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, right, thanks. Yeah, I essentially live right across the street. Sorry, can I just jump in?
[Denis MacDougall]: Just for folks who are speaking, just, sorry, just give your name and address for the record, and then, so that goes for everyone. So if you're speaking on behalf, you know, just do that, and then we'll go.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you. My name's Adam Bezenis. I live at 8 Wareham Street, which is essentially right across the street. I can see their front door from my front door. I'm definitely in support of this bakery. I think it'd be a great addition to the neighborhood. And like the person who just spoke previously to me, I can't believe it's not in the zone that it could already exist. So it feels like a commercial zone. So that's about it. Thanks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, and I see someone named Andrew who's raising their hand. I'm gonna call on them in a minute. I didn't preface this portion by saying, so if you would like to speak, please do either use the raise hand function on Zoom, raise your hand on video. You can also type in the chat or send an email to Dennis D. McDougall at medford-ma.gov. And so it looks like Andrew has their hand raised. So Andrew, please go ahead, name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_01]: Good evening. My name is Andrew Rahedi. I live at 8 Bonner Avenue. My building, my house basically shares a backyard in general with the aforementioned building. So basically from my backyard, I look at the backyard. And to start with, I'm against this. I'm against this petition, motion, whatever it is. And I have several things to say, but I'll just go ad nauseum. Feel free to stop me if I've gone too long, but I'll just start my points. First of all, in your presentation. Mr. Osborne, you seem like a very good man.
[Mike Caldera]: Andrew, just a minor technical request. Please address your comments to me. So please don't address it.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sure. So Mr. Chairman, The petitioner seems like a very good person, but there are a few things that we just need to go through. First of all, in his presentation, he had listed a few people who supported his presentation. And then he mentioned Ali Rose Ganshin, and I might be mispronouncing their names, but they're there on the Google Drive. There's Mr. Carlos, there's Ms. McNamara. For those people, the addresses that they list, They, in the letter, it says they reside at those addresses and that leaves an impression that they live there, but they don't live there. One of them is a karate studio. The other is a tax, the tax office, and the other is a cafe. So just to be clear, if you're considering those letters in terms of support, just know that they incorrectly state that those people stay there because they don't stay there. Secondly, the other point I want to bring is the following. I live on Borna. I know the traffic that we get from people parking on our street going to Lakashia. I believe that we'll have the same, same, same problems with people going to this place and parking on our street and on Alexander. I think the traffic ramifications need to be looked at. You cannot ignore that. Not for the people who live on Alexander and Bonner. Those are big issues for us. And to be honest, this city has failed us in that respect. I would like you to look at the parking. Another point I want to bring up is the following. My understanding of this accommodation that might be given to them is this, which is they'll be given, they'll be allowed to have the occupancy of basically a place that you can eat without a driveway. That's my understanding from reading at least what the building commissioner basically presented. And my understanding is that it's not, That accommodation isn't for bakery, but it's for anyone who falls into that accommodation of a place where people can sit in and eat. That's my understanding. Which means this, which is if this petitioner's business goes belly up, basically it means that a Starbucks can move there, a Dunkin' Donuts can move there, if they don't make any changes. If I'm wrong, let me know. But my understanding is that that occupancy and accommodation is transferable in perpetuity. That will change the block and our neighborhood. Another point I wanna bring up is the following. In reading what they presented, whether we're saying a subway will be at the place, a bakery, a Dunkin' Donuts, wherever, they will have to exhaust their fumes out of their building to our backyards. In reviewing the various laws around, there is a question of order. And another thing should consider the following, which is the person who, so if you look at the building and the building plan, basically the side that they want to be on, basically, I dare say is less than 10 feet between the two buildings, which means that the exhausts from their bakery or their ovens, whatever they'll be using, will be going straight to 400 or to the building, the first building, Alexander, or to my house. I don't wanna be smelling bread, honestly, I don't want. You can put them on commercial street, I don't care. But I think it's very unfair for us, homeowners, who built our house, who bought our houses there, to basically be imposed on that, whereas that's what we signed up for. Another thing now let's go to a hyper comparing basically. and it was an office. Yes, it was an office. It was an office. Everybody here works in an office, okay? Or I mean, the house can be an office. Basically, the change from an office to a place to eat is substantial, okay? That's a different level of use, okay? If another office was going there, if a realtor, an accountant, somebody else was going there, that wouldn't be a problem. But if you look at the building code, the fire codes, all those things, that's a substantial difference between going from an office to a bakery, to even what could be a Starbucks or anything. So I think, honestly, oh, one last point I wanted to make is the following, which is this. If people, I live in the area, OK? When Colette opened down the street, I saw the lines forming around there. If Mr. Osman is as good as he is, basically what that means is that when we walk around a block, we may be encountering lines for people going there, okay? If it's the commercial side, the sea area, I don't care. I can avoid that. But you're forcing me in my residential area to encounter that. If people come with their Ubers, Guess what? You'd be backing up traffic in that area. If any of you people live in South Medford, you know that's the worst place for traffic. We people on Bonner, the way we escape all that is by making a corner down on Alexander. You would be making our lives really, really bad. I ask you guys, at least give due consideration to the residents who live in that area. Worst case, if you want to make a decision today, at least take some time to consult the residents in that area and make sure they understand what they're signing up for. That's it for me.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andrew. So you made a few points and you asked a clarifying question. So one thing I just want to be clear about is that a section six finding is not transferable. So essentially for any future change to the property, if that constitutes a change or substantial extension, which includes things like the use not reflecting the nature and the purpose of the use before it, difference in quality, character, or degree of the use, or if the use is different in kind and its effect on the neighborhood, it's going to trigger it's going to trigger a new requirement to come before the zoning board. So yeah, I just wanted to be clear about that. The hypothetical where say a Dunkin Donuts moves in later, it would be for the building commissioner to determine whether a hypothetical new tenant, their use was a change or substantial extension. But my hunch is that some of the hypotheticals you shared would certainly rise to that level and would come before the board. So I see you raised your hand again, and so if it's related to this specific point, please feel free to.
[SPEAKER_01]: I do, I do, I do. However, in real, the way zoning works is that you look for you look for substantial change. Basically, if, for example, like Dunkin' Donuts, what you're issuing is basically eating in. You're not issuing for a bakery. Am I right there?
[Mike Caldera]: Not exactly. So there's the There's the use under the zoning code, which according to Commissioner Forty in the permit refusal, I believe this use, sorry, I'm just pulling it back up, is classified as an eating place without drive-through. But I'll just reiterate that hypothetically, and we're not going to get deep into hypotheticals here, I'm just, this is purely for clarification sake, an eating place without drive-through that had substantially more eating would trigger a trip before the ZBA. So it's not, there's other types of zoning relief that are different from a finding. But for this particular case, I just want it to be clear. It's not that suddenly any eating place without drive-through would be allowed by right. And so unless there's any additional clarifications on that point, I'm going to move on. So I see that I see that the applicant has their hand raised. I do have a few clarifying questions for them. Perhaps they're seeking to clarify some of these points. And so I just want to, before we get into any comments or back and forth. So there were a few questions raised. So first of all, There's the building code. So I guess I'd like to first just check in with Commissioner Hordy in terms of the building code for a bakery and any vending requirements. Could you speak to what would be required for a bakery by the building code?
[Bill Forte]: So thank you Mister chair. So if there is no cooking equipment in there. The first of all the space has to be divided by I believe it's a 2 hour fire rated assembly depending on what is above it. There's a table of separations in the building code that there that the applicant would have to fall that's the first thing secondly they would need a commercial cooking equipment which would trigger off would trigger off. requirements with Ansel systems and and you know fire suppression at the cooking equipment itself. In addition to that the building code is the accessibility code and so on the requirements would have to be you know would have to meet would have to meet the minimum requirements where this is a change of use. You know from from an office to a retail that would trigger off the requirements for on accessibility beyond that what I did not see on this is a full plan and my question to the applicant would be through you Mister chair. Other is there seating in this bakery. Thank you, Commissioner Forte.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I actually had a similar question for the applicant. So yeah, there was a question about seating in the bakery. And then there was a question about any outdoor queuing, whether you'd have kind of like a planned queuing strategy, you know, for entry if you have a line outside.
[SPEAKER_07]: So, there will be no seating inside because there's not an accessible bathroom, there is a small bathroom. We do, we do have a floor plan that we can share with you guys we have available. But just to speak a little bit to the space. It's under 400 square feet, so like Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts would wouldn't have enough space to open up. in a place like this anyway, but, um, so it's, it's a really sort of micro setup for a small, uh, shop like myself and all of the equipment is, um, It's single phase cause we don't have access to three phase power. So it's, um, self contained units. So none of the units themselves require exhaust, um, dedicated exhaust or venting. That's not to say that there's, there might, there might need to be additional. fresh air in the space based on the building code, but our understanding is that there will be no big exhaust vent of any kind exhausting the smell of yeasty bread outside of our facility, if that makes sense. And it kind of speaks to the these Belgian style ovens that we've imported. They're really small footprint. They run off of essentially a dryer outlet plug in your house. They're made for a nano bakery, which is essentially kind of what we're starting off as.
[Mike Caldera]: And so, Mr. Osborne, do you have that plan ready? Could you share it now?
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, I can. Yeah, so, um, so you can see the the front door that's the exterior storefront there. So you would walk in, and basically, there would be maybe two to three customers, there'd be a front display here, we would have some sort of either telescoping panels or some sort of curtain separating the production space from the sales space, and then all the equipment would be located in the back here. So each of the numbers distinguish each product with the brand and model numbers and the electrical requirements. Yeah, so the line could be, there is quite a bit of concrete blacktop surface here, so there shouldn't be excessive queues down the street. And if there was, we would opt to implement some sort of, you know, either painting on the surface of the concrete to promote people to line accordingly so that it's not taking up or disturbing neighbors or anyone in the community. Any other comments or did we answer.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so you certainly answered my clarifying questions. I just want to, before we go back to any comments from other members of the public, I just want to check in with Yvette and Jamie. Did you have any additional clarifying questions on these topics?
[Unidentified]: I do not think I have them all for me. Thank you.
[Yvette Velez]: I don't know if the applicant maybe would like to just talk a little bit about, you know, those moments where you anticipate big crowds like opening and things of that nature. Like, do you have a plan already in place? Because while I understand the line separates the businesses from the residential, it's clear that this particular building is just one building on the residential block. So it does, one could say it doesn't fit in that specific space. So if you could just talk, if you've thought of that.
[SPEAKER_07]: I guess I would say the only maybe other thing that we've sort of been thinking about is, sorry, let me get to this slide here. Um, so there is a small alleyway here that potentially the queue could chew down. Um, there's an option. Um, it is, it is, um, five foot nine inches with, um, it, it may need a bit of, um, reorganizing to, to fit that need, but, um, Aside from that, there's not there's not too much pre planning that we've done this early in the stage. But that's not to say that we can't look into any of those possible concerns and address them. I do think it's a valid concern and we really don't know how many people or the flow in which the people will come. And I think part of what we can do is pre-orders and creating fast transactions. Um, so that when there, when there is a line, it doesn't, it doesn't ever remain too long. Um, so that it's quick moving. And I think that sort of speaks to our business model as well, because all of our products are either, you know, slightly prepackaged or put in a bag and the transactions should happen quite quickly. Um, uh, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so that, did you, did that answer your question?
[Yvette Velez]: Did yes. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Um, and so then, um, commissioner 40.
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, just, I wanted to bring up another point. Um, there is residential above this, um, this occupancy. And so, um, I'd have a little bit of a concern about, um, voters admitting from, from the space. I know that there is somewhere in zoning that any kind of manufacturing, even if it's light non-nuisance shouldn't generate odor and or noise or fumes. I would just say this is that Because this is in a residential zone, I think it might be a good idea to require the owner to provide charcoal exhaust fans so that the fumes not only don't build up. I mean, I don't know anybody that doesn't like the smell of a bakery. the smell of bread, but you know, that may not be good for everyone. In fact, some people might be sickened from it. And I've actually had cases where bakeries were allowed to be existing and they, you know, they were, you know, the source of complaints from neighbors because of the constant smell of, you know, bread and yeast and the things that we all love to eat and enjoy, you know, become a nuisance when they're long-term and they affect, you know, the neighborhood. And so just a recommendation that the petitioner be required to install fuel mitigation for the bakery.
[Mike Caldera]: In Commissioner 40 you said that the specific type of mitigation you had in mind is a is a charcoal. Yeah, there would be.
[Bill Forte]: There are many products out there it's it's not it's not cost prohibitive. It's something that, you know, could be taken care of. I don't know the cost of one but I would just say that. This is a commonplace thing in restaurants, especially in tight residential neighborhoods. And I don't see it being a cost prohibitive expense. But I think it would head off a lot of problems. Because even if you do issue this order and say you didn't put that in the order, I could enforce that under the zoning ordinance if it became a nuisance or a source of complaint for the abutters. So just an FYI.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, question for the applicant. So is that something you'd be willing to install as part of this?
[SPEAKER_07]: Something we will be happy to look into. Michael as well. We can look at that together.
[Mike Caldera]: I don't know who Michael is.
[SPEAKER_07]: Oh, sorry. He's the owner of the property. He's with us as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, I see. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, so basically then what I'm, if I understood Commissioner Ford correctly, so if the board chose, they could make it a condition of a finding, but even if the board didn't, Um, if commissioner 40 later, um, received complaints that that under the building code, that that's, that's something in your, in your power, is that correct? Commissioner? Yeah, that's correct. Yep. Um, so I see Andrew's hand is raised again. And before I call on Andrew, I just want to see if there's any other members of the public who haven't yet spoken, who would, would like to speak. Okay, so Andrew, I am gonna allow an additional comment from you, but I ask that you please restrict it just to the new topics that we've discussed since you last spoke. The intention here is this is not a dialogue, but I know some additional information has been shared. And so if you wanna speak to that, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sure. So in one of the questions, I think the response was that basically people could pre-call, pre-order and the likes. I guess my question here is this, due to the traffic issues we have in that area, can you basically mandate that there's no Uber Eats or similar sorts of services at that address? Because that would basically cause the neighbors in that area substantial harm. Is that something that you can mandate?
[Mike Caldera]: So that's certainly not in our purview. There's some types of conditions we can impose with the finding, but it would really be more pertaining to the manner in which the land is being used. We can't impose conditions on which, businesses, other businesses transact with and things of that nature.
[SPEAKER_01]: So the harm is left on us, the neighbors.
[Mike Caldera]: So as part of the hearing, one of the things the board considers is Substantial detriment to the public good, which is it's really an analysis of the impact on the neighbors and on the city in general of any proposal that we're considering requesting a finding. So in that sense, the board is only authorized to make a finding if we find no substantial detriment. That doesn't mean no detriment, but no substantial detriment.
[SPEAKER_01]: So that's in all due respect. So how do you come to that determination on traffic? I mean, I live in this neighborhood. I know what I'm talking about. The police have the reports. I mean, the traffic commission has these reports. I want to provide me reports with respect to traffic because that's a real issue for us.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so applicants are certainly welcome to present information about traffic. It's not a specific requirement for them to do so as part of the request for a finding. The applicants did speak a little bit to their expectations surrounding the pattern of business that they have. And unfortunately, it sounds like they don't know for certain. So we know the operating hours. But there's a lot of unknowns there. There's no requirement for a traffic study as part of these applications. All right. So I think we've addressed that question, so I'm going to move on. So are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? I do not see any, so the chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Unidentified]: Motion to close the public portion of hearing for 396 Main Street. Second. And open delivery. Second. All right, Yvette? Yes. Jamie?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. like I. All right, so the public portion of the hearing is now closed. And so we are deliberating. Yeah, and so just before we get too deep into deliberation, so essentially here, the that this is a substantial change or isn't at issue. So there's some criteria we would apply, but that's not being challenged here. And so essentially the standard for a section six finding is, sorry, just pulling up the specific language.
[Unidentified]: I was on the wrong page. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So, for us to grant this relief the board would need to find that this change to the use is not substantially more detrimental. to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use. And so the building itself is a commercial building in a GR zone. There is a change in use with this being an eatery without a drive-through. And then the other thing I just wanna double check. So I didn't see anything in Commissioner Forty's permit refusal letter indicating that there are new non-conformities. So am I correct, Commissioner Forty, that this would not trigger any additional non-conformities just beyond the change in use?
[Bill Forte]: That's correct Mister chair it would be a similar use not more detrimental to the existing uses that are already there are there may be a few increase in customer trips but the fact that it's a small space and that you know the impact is limited to to stay you know to to certain trips of the day I I don't see this as being any more detrimental or even the addition of the ramp creating any more not conformities. So I don't see that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So yeah, Jamie, what are you thinking?
[Yvette Velez]: I appreciate the presentation. I do have some hesitation at being like the one business that would bring activity in a residential area that is abutted on both sides, front and back. and on the top, right, on the second floor. But that being said, I see the equipment that is being used, and it all appears to be very thoughtful, and I think it's commonsensical, what was presented, that's not a word, but, on what could be done for, you know, if there were situations where the public would come in greater numbers than it originally anticipated. And then that being said, I do think at some point that's fairly normal and average and things become, you know, they sort of figure out where they land, right, in regards to like amount of people and timeframes. And I appreciate actually that the bakery is at a different timeframe because I think of like deliveries and, you know, folks wanting to get things, um, super early and that would not be the case here. So I actually see that as a, a plus, um, and an improvement in general, um, this business to the building. Um, I also see as a, as a plus. Um, so those are my, my general comments and thoughts right now.
[Unidentified]: Is that you, Jamie? So I think the applicant gave an excellent presentation on their intention for the use of the property. During the meeting, there was obviously a number of comments that the applicant is open to addressing. We spoke, and the infrastructure and equipment they're using is not intended to generate a substantial impact, and they're open to addressing any impact that it does create. With the area. I would discuss the neighborhood is, although the property is GR, the area is commercial with Harvard Street there, the businesses that are in that area. La Cache is further down the street. The zoning initially drawn is interesting, especially considering the building was already commercial at the time. And I think it's not a substantial impact of the change in the location.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, my take is similar. So I do think that the addition of this business would certainly generate some additional trips. So I think it's reasonable to assume that there would indeed be a traffic impact of a bakery being in this location. the property is already being used for commercial. So as a different type of commercial use, perhaps it wouldn't generate the same number of trips. But I am quite familiar with this area and there are so many businesses nearby, the parking problems are already there, right? Like the, frankly, like all the streets are already being used for all of the, reasons of concern and I don't think applying the standard of hey businesses can't go here anymore because you know parking is a problem. would really allow for any business in any location in this whole district to operate. Like if you were to apply that criteria, and I think it would just, you know, this area is known to have lots of people trying to park for short periods of time. And here we have a business that doesn't have seating and, you know, people are just gonna be popping in and out, which frankly, given the pattern of other businesses in the area is not, is not too different, and it's, you know, there's some businesses that people go and stay, and this is not even one of those. So, yeah, I think that the added trips are some detriment, but I don't think it's a substantial detriment. And then I also agree that, you know, certainly the applicants are taking necessary steps to try to reduce the impact on the neighboring properties. It sounds like there won't be this kind of venting concern, but that there may, because this is near some residential, it may be the case that in fact, Either we like we so we I think we should have a discussion about should should there be a requirement up front for us charcoal venting or equivalent system here. that as a building commissioner called out, it's within his power to require that later if indeed it's a nuisance. So we don't necessarily have to do that. But I do think as a board, we should at least discuss that before making a decision here. But yeah, those are my high-level thoughts. Oh, and then speaking to the benefits. So I mean, it sounds like this bread will be really yummy. there will be happy customers, hopefully. It's a source of additional property tax for the cities. So there's plenty of benefits having this kind of business move then. And I don't wanna discount that either. So yeah, do either of you folks have thoughts on like, do we need, if we were to find this not substantially more detrimental, would we need any, conditions to reach that conclusion, or are you comfortable with it as proposed?
[Unidentified]: Commissioner Forte, it seems like you might have a clarification you'd like to make.
[Bill Forte]: Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one thing. I think that adequately in the order if the board were to vote in the positive for this. I think that a one sentence paragraph should be that the petitioner will take measures to mitigate any odors emitting from the bakery and that should cover it. I don't think it's, I think from there, I was just looking on Google and there are fairly inexpensive options that could probably mitigate that. And I don't see, based on the equipment and the amount of floor space dedicated to cooking, that this is going to cause great odor. You know what I mean? It doesn't look like it's going to emit anything that's going to be detrimental, but just having that in there would just give me a little bit more teeth to enforce and say, you know, like, this is part of your order, and let's see how it goes. And, you know, if you need to take more stronger measures, then we can do that later. But I think if it's just a marginal reference, I think it'll serve its purpose, and I think that you know, I would be satisfied anyways, um, you know, if, if it pleases the board, thank you, commissioner 40.
[Unidentified]: Um, yeah, so that Jamie, what, what do you think?
[Yvette Velez]: Um, my, um, actually the parking and traffic, to be honest was not one of my concerns. Cause I do feel like that is a very congested area. Mine has to do more with the smells and the, um, what could come from the equipment itself. So I do feel it would be good to have that one sentence added to our decision. And then the people, because of course, the house next door, their stoop is a few feet away from their entrance. And it would be really discouraging as a neighbor you know, there wasn't a plan in place for, you know, the crowd that could be, and, you know, I wouldn't want folks to be on my property. So I just want to make it clear that I heard those complaints and those concerns from neighbors, for sure. But overall, the bakery has a lot of pluses, I think, for that neighborhood and space.
[Mike Caldera]: So then, Yvette, would you also want to add a condition then surrounding requiring the applicant to take appropriate measures to, I'm trying to think of the right way to word it, but just off the cuff, essentially.
[Yvette Velez]: I guess crowd control, maybe to some extent. You know, I think of like, You know, this, I mean, again, you don't know what it's going to be like, and I know you can't really make those, but I, and I would hate it to be on the back end in the sense of like, you know, I think of like Bova's in the North end, right? It's like, everybody's there. And so they had to work with the city and everybody and their neighbors, and they now have security, right? And they make, they buy security for that bakery. And not to say we need to put a condition that security for this bakery, but yes. Maybe we could add an additional like something about, you know, just being mindful of like other folks' property that's, you know, abutting it directly and things. That would be, I think, a reasonable expectation. You know, trash, you know, like it is a grab and go place, right? Are they gonna, you know, ideally folks would grab and go, you know, they're just hanging out there like, Anyway, so if we could formulate that, I think that might be helpful and help ease the thoughts and concerns of the area.
[Unidentified]: OK, thank you. Jamie, what are your thoughts? So I would definitely agree with an odor control solution, although the environment may not be venting a lot during their usage. with retail use, people will be in and out of the front door to a vet's point, their neighbor's stoop is right there, so you would have odors that may be released through opening of doors, so if there's something mitigating that during the generation of the goods, that would be something that I would agree should be handled by the applicant. On the aspect of, as Yvette pointed out, crowd control, with any new business opening, there's always going to be an interest initially, but that volume will die down over time. I wouldn't want to put something in place that would be a hindrance for the applicant for an initial period that isn't necessary in the long term.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm kind of on the fence, but my take is, I think it's really, it will be really hard to word a condition that kind of honors the spirit of what Yvette has in mind without the risk of it becoming like a just an operational challenge. I do think the applicant shared a number of strategies that would be both feasible with this property and reasonable crowd control measures. And I do believe that the city does have parts of the ordinance that if this became a real nuisance, they could enforce as well. So I think I'm comfortable not having a formal condition on the crowd management, but I do want to acknowledge that it's important that the applicants be observant and try to make sure they have a strategy in place so as not to become a nuisance to the neighbors.
[Unidentified]: I would agree. I get the feeling from observation of the the feedback from other neighbors and support that the applicant is looking to be a participant in the community with their business and they may are already involved in the area. I think they're looking to add to the community in this neighborhood and not create any additional challenges and are open to work with anything that may come up.
[Mike Caldera]: Does that seem reasonable to you or do you really want there to be a condition?
[Yvette Velez]: No, that's reasonable.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so just to summarize, I think that the three of us are in agreement that if there are appropriate measures taken for odor control, that there would be no substantial detriment to the neighborhood for this change of use. And so if I understood that correctly, then, the chair awaits a motion to find that there would be no substantial detriment to the neighborhood with this change of use subject to the condition that the applicant put adequate odor control measures in place for this use. And then we'll, as Commissioner Forty requested, we can put in the decision a reference to, that we understand that there may be a required handicap accessibility ramp to enter the building and that we don't think that that would fundamentally change our analysis. So yeah, would anyone like to make that motion? Do I have a second?
[Unidentified]: Second. All right, we're going to do a roll call vote. Yvette? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Amy? Aye. Mike? Aye. So the motion passes. It requires three votes on a five-member board. We have three votes. So yeah, congratulations, Mr. Osborne. You have your approval.
[Unidentified]: Best of luck.
[Mike Caldera]: um yeah so so that's that's it for this one, and I think this was the last. This was the last case on the agenda. Just pulling it back up. So the only other items on the agenda are administrative updates and then approval of meeting minutes, which I don't believe we have meeting minutes ready for this one. So yeah, I just wanna check in with Dennis, Alicia, Bill, are there any administrative updates that we should be discussing tonight?
[Unidentified]: Nothing on my end.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, not hearing anything. And Dennis, am I correct, there's no meeting minutes?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, no, my plan was to do them after last week's meeting and get them to you for this one, but then with everything happening, it sort of got shuffled to the bottom of the pile, so I will be working on them tomorrow.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sounds good.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so that so then that brings us to the end of the agenda. So Commissioner 40, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, thanks. Just as a matter of public information, we're currently working with the planning department on our first color coordinated zoning map, which I expect to have out sometime in the, in the mid to late spring. And we're very excited about having this not only as the first colored zoning map, but also be interactive on GIS so that people will be able to determine what zone they're in from their living room, which is what we're hoping to do. So just wanted to put that out as a point of public information. I could see Alicia Hunt's glee in the matter, and she's very excited about it. We're all very excited about it, and good things to come.
[Mike Caldera]: So thank you. That's awesome. Thank you. I certainly, for one, I'm really glad I'm not going to have to squint at a grayscale map anymore to figure out what district we're in. So thanks for the hard work on that. All right. Well, if there's nothing else, the chair awaits a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Do we have a second?
[Unidentified]: Second. All in favor? Aye. All right, good night, everyone.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Good night, everybody. Thank you.