AI-generated transcript of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals 01-11-24

[Mike Caldera]: This is our regular meeting. And so I'm going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Yvette Villes?

[Yvette Velez]: Here. I'm here.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue? Present. Mary Lee?

[Mary Lee]: Present.

[Mike Caldera]: Jamie Thompson? Present. Jim Tirani? Present. Mike Caldera, present. All right, we have the full board, including Mary, our associate member. So let's get started. 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 the temporary provisions pertaining to the opening of the RAC on March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further Extensional as public bodies can you hold the meeting remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at the meeting location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language start making substantive changes to the open meeting rather than extending the expiration date and the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thanks, Dennis. And so my understanding is that we received a few couple requests for continuances. And so we can start with those.

[Unidentified]: I just need to pull it up.

[Denis MacDougall]: So one continuance is going to be $2.90 sale on the street because they're still working with the CD board. But they should be hopefully finished with that. Maybe not by our next meeting, but by the February meeting. So that.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. So, why don't why don't we start with that 1 then? Can you please read them?

[Denis MacDougall]: So, to 90, Salem Street, case number 8 dash 2023-14 continue from November 30th applicant and owner to 90, Salem Street LLC is pushing for a variance from the chapter 94 to city of Medford zoning to construct a 7 unit residential structure with commercial space in the power 1 zoning district lag use. with insufficient front and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and number of units per square foot of land. City of Metro Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 6, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant present?

[Denis MacDougall]: We do not. They sent me a request to continue because they're still working. They were working with the CD board and they made some changes to the project. So they continue to work on it before they appear before us.

[Mike Caldera]: Is the request to continue it to our next regular meeting on the 25th or beyond that?

[Denis MacDougall]: I think we should just do it there anyway, just to be sure. But yeah, it'll probably go longer. But I think just to make sure everything's corrected, just instead of continuing to February, just in case they find something they need to come before us with the next one.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, in that case, Chair awaits a motion to continue 290 Salem Street to the next regular meeting. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Since we're full strength and we haven't heard this, Mary's not voting on this one. So Jim, Jamie, Beth?

[Yvette Velez]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the matter is continued. So then we also have a couple of requests for extensions to variances that were, and special permits that were granted previously. So we're going to do those next. I believe the first one's 590 Boston Avenue. Is that one? Exactly.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. Oh, here. Oh, Michael is here. All right. So I didn't see you there. Michael apologies. So 590 Boston Ave, case number 8-2020-07 amended. Applicant and owner, Antelmoto Brothers Incorporated, requesting a six-month extension on the variance of special permit granted by the Board of Appeals. With the decision filed on July 30th, 2021, certificate of no appeal dated September 12th, 2021, with prior extension granted until January 12th, 2024, until July 12th, 2024, the demolition of existing gasoline station slash carwash construction of a five-story multiple dwelling consisting of 40 units and 1,343 square feet of retail space.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. I see we have Attorney Barone. Board did receive a letter from you, I believe, but please go ahead.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Unable to unmute.

[Alicia Hunt]: Because it's such a large meeting, you have to tell people, ask people to unmute. People can't unmute.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Got it. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the board, for the record, Michael Gordon with Roberto Israel & Weiner, 255 State Street, Boston, here on behalf of Anteleto Brothers. As this board's aware, and as Dennis indicated, we have received numerous extensions on this application. We were last before the board, if you recall, in November and received unanimous approval for several modifications to the variances, but because that decision has not yet been filed with the city clerk, we didn't want to risk our underlying approvals lapsing or expiring, so we just wanted to seek this extension pending the filing of that decision.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Barone. So this seems pretty straightforward to me. It's a procedural need to extend, so no concerns here. Would any member of the board like to discuss or do I have a motion?

[Andre Leroux]: Motion to extend the permit for 590 Boston Ave for six months till July 12th. Do I have a second? Or I guess it says it's seven months till July 12th. Was that the request?

[Mike Caldera]: Uh, let's double check it. I don't think it can be more than six months.

[Denis MacDougall]: So it's, uh, six months. Yeah, it's six months.

[Andre Leroux]: No, six months would be June.

[Mike Caldera]: Six, six months is July.

[Andre Leroux]: June is the sixth month.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so you're amending that motion to be six months to July 12th, yes. Do I have a second? Second. Oh, I'm sorry, Attorney Barone, was there something you wanted to say? Let me click the button again. Oops, try again. Oh, no. That one was me.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: This time, click it once, it'll work.

[Mike Caldera]: All right.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: All right. I apologize. I was just going to comment that whether it's June or July, we are indifferent on that date because we do expect the new decision to be filed well before then.

[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion that has been seconded. We're going to take a roll call vote. Jim Tirani? Is that the less I Andre LaRue I Thompson I like Caldera I right so has been granted for the decisions both so that will be filed soon All right, and then the next one requesting an extension is Zero Spring Street. Can you please read that one, Dennis?

[Denis MacDougall]: Zero Spring Street, case number A-2022-09. Applicant and owner, Kenneth Vlaska, is requesting six-month extension on a variant special permit granted by the Board of Appeals. The decision filed on August 31st, 2023, to construct a six-family dwelling, single-family dwelling, excuse me, on a vacant lot in a single-family, two-zoning district, insufficient lot.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, and do we have a representative for the applicant? Oh, yep, Attorney Desmond, please go ahead.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, good evening, Chairman Caldeira, board members. I'm here this evening requesting an extension. The building permit request has been filed. Most of the approvals have been received. There's a couple of items outstanding with respect to engineering on what is impervious, impervious surfaces, and also the parking site plan the building was, department was looking for it. I'm requesting a six-month extension out of an abundance of caution, first, because I think that they have exercised their rights under the variance, but secondly, because the decision was issued on June 30th by the board, and It's somewhat unsettled, honestly, as to whether or not it's the date of the hearing or the date when the appeal period runs. And, you know, in MCLE, there's a big question mark. So rather than litigate the question, I'd rather be safe and request an extension. We may under the, you know, if it was the date on which the appeal period told, the date would be March 20th that we would have on the original six month extension. But I just don't want to be in a situation where I have to explain myself to a court.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Attorney Desmond. Members of the board, anything we should discuss, or do I have a motion to extend, or extension to the special permit, I'm sorry.

[Unidentified]: Motion to extend the special permit for 0 Spring Street. Do I have a second?

[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call.

[Yvette Velez]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jim. Aye. Jamie. Aye. Mike. Aye. All right. So that has been extended. All right, so now we are done with the procedural cases. We did receive a request to take one matter out of order tonight, which the applicant prior on the agenda agreed to. So we're going to do 44 Terrace Road next. Dennis, could you please read that one?

[Denis MacDougall]: 44 terrace road case number a dash 2023-19 continue from November 30. After owner blueprint properties 23 is positioning for a variance with chapter 94 city metro zoning to rebuild a non-conforming single family drawing at an actor catastrophe in a single family one zoning district allowed you. With insufficient area in a different location than the original structure which requires special permit from the Board of Appeals City of Medford Dunn Wardens, Chapter 94, Section 5.7.13. The height of the original structure is unknown. Due to the graded terrace road, the structure will be over the allowable height of 35 feet in City of Medford Dunn Wardens, Chapter 94, Section 6, Table B1A, Table of Conventional Requirements.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, great, thank you. And so this matter was continued from a meeting that I believe Jim Tarani was absent from. Am I remembering that correctly, Jim? Okay, so Mary will be voting on this matter. All right, so I believe we have represented for the applicant, Attorney Desmond, so please go ahead.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, thank you chairman caldera 1st. I'd like to thank the Davis company for allowing us the courtesy of moving forward 1st with respect to the project itself. As, you know, we continue the hearing on November 30th to address the concerns with respect to the neighbors. and to take advantage of the opportunity to have a meeting with the neighbors in order to discuss possible revisions that would be acceptable to them. By way of background, the original plans called for the construction of a three-bedroom, single-family home with a finished gross of approximately 59 six-square feet, together with an attached two-car garage. the complaints or the the issues that were raised at the last meeting by both the board and neighbors was the proximity of the proposed structure to i believe it's 34 terrace road the the property to the left and also the the front The increase in the front of the structure that was incompatible with what had previously been on the property in the interest of time I've provided the board with the plans I can have. Adam go through those plans for you and highlight what those revisions are. I think we made progress with the neighbors and you know I dare to say that they're all more comfortable with the project as it stands now and we've gotten some positive feedback from them. So with that I can have Adam take the board through the revisions to the plans if you like.

[Mike Caldera]: Sounds good. Please go ahead, Adam. Oops, sorry. Someone beat me to the punch. I just muted you by accident. So, okay.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Do you want me to share my screen or you present? Who has the plans up? Should I be sharing my screen?

[Mike Caldera]: Preferably you or Attorney Desmond would be great.

[Denis MacDougall]: You're all set.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Okay. Okay. Everybody sees the cover page? Yes. Okay.

[Mike Caldera]: So our focus... Adam, now we don't see it anymore.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: We see... Oh, sorry. There we go.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: All right. So our focus was on reducing the size and the massing of the house was concentrated on the left side and in the rear. And to that end, we started by continuing this retaining wall to the left and leveling out the left side yard, which reduces substantially the amount of foundation wall that's visible from the street or from anywhere else in the yard. This deck, we continued all the way past the bump out, breaking up the massing and putting the focus of on the house from the deck level up, and it makes the basement level more concealed. It does, you know, reduces the appearance of a three-story structure. This left side, we originally, our original proposal, we were right at the 7 1⁄2 foot required setback, and we've brought it back another approximately 7 1⁄2 feet, so we've got about 15 feet between the lot line and the left side of the house. Our rear view has remained largely unchanged from these angles. This is the driveway coming into the garage. The left side elevation has been reduced and pulled back. The roof plan has not changed dramatically. Again, views from the street giving the appearance of a, I guess we'd call it a proper two-story house concealing the basement below the deck. behind the retaining wall and behind low landscaping. Our site plan, the setback line on the left side is here, and originally the house was pulled up to that setback line, and now we're another seven and a half feet back. I'll show you our comparison plan. The heavy blue line is where we were when we first came to the zoning board, right up to the setback line, and we've pulled it back to this green line doubling the area between the left side and the property line. Facing Terrace Road, our originally proposed deck followed the profile of this light blue line. We've pulled that back dramatically. We've pulled that whole side of the house back in some areas more than others. And it's also good to note that the original house was much closer to the, or a good part of it was closer to the setback, and we've pulled it back where we were putting in the garage and the driveway. Another diagram, this heavy red line is the previously existing house. This dashed red line is the deck, and we're pulling the house just a few feet beyond the original deck. A blow-up showing actual dimensions of how far we pulled back. 30 inches on the front, 7 feet on the side. The large corner bump out has been reduced to a much smaller bay window. Our The square foot of the house has reduced by approximately 20%. The above grade area originally was 4,455 square feet. It is now reduced to 3,723 square feet. That's a reduction of 732 square feet. When we look at all the levels, including the basement, our original proposal was at 5,906 square feet. We've brought that down to 4,780 square feet, reduction of 1,126 square feet, a 20% reduction of the house. And the basic concepts of the house have not changed. We've just pulled in the left side, pulled in the front. Garage remains on the left, family room, I'm sorry, this is below the garage on the lower level, the basement level, which will be habitable space, will be just a family room, a bathroom, and then the rest of the space is mechanical storage and utility. On the first floor, we've got our attached two-car garage, kitchen, dining, living, main entry have all remained in the same locations as previously proposed. Upstairs, we have our bedrooms and our office. The arrangements have remained unchanged, just the left side and the front have been pulled in. Our roof plan, the size of the playroom in the small attic space has been reduced. Height profiles showing how we've pulled the roof back, pulled the house back. It shows how we've created more openings to the sky. We've actually reduced the proposed building height over the main mass of the house down about a foot. Facing from the street, this is the most dramatic pullback from the left side. All of this area outlined in blue has been pulled back to the new proposed elevation. diagram showing the profile of the proposed house against the profile and approximate profile of the previous structure, which had a much higher roof line when faced from Terrace Road. Faced from the back, the same. The roof line has been pulled down substantially. And While the house has become longer, it's also become much, much shorter. In our building sections, these comparisons show the change in massing from the original structure to the proposed and original views of the previous house and the proposed. I think we'd say that the massing has become somewhat more elegant. It's become more horizontal. It's become lower to the ground. And with that, we'll take any questions or comments.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Adam, do you want to show the rendering?

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Oh, yeah, I could pull that up. I'm going to need a second for that.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I think I may have it.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, if you can pull that up quickly, that'd be great.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Oh my god, I did.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I originally had it.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: Just give me a second. I can grab it here. I forgot that in Medford, we shared screens.

[Unidentified]: One second.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: OK, here we go. Everybody see the rendering? Not really. All right, let me stop my share. All right, here we go. Everybody see the rendering now?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Qaq6dcp8mcM_SPEAKER_24]: OK. So originally, the house came about halfway between where it is now and where this fence is. We've enlarged the yard, added a lot more green space, more landscape buffer. We're proposing lower landscape elements in front of the retaining wall, but no tall canopy trees in order to maintain the views of our neighbors. And we've done our best to make this a home that fits in aesthetically with the neighborhood in style and in scale.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, so questions from the board? So I can go. Attorney Desmond, at the last hearing, There were some members of the public, most of whom were neighbors, who had expressed concerns with a few different areas. So it was the overall size of the previous proposed house. It was the shift forward and the potential to obstruct views on a road that's known for its views. It was some concerns about fire safety and water pressure and proximity to the lot line. And so I understand a number of changes have been made here. But I'm wondering if you could just kind of go through the high-level neighbor concerns and just speak to how they've been addressed with this new plan.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. Adam, could I share my screen?

[Mike Caldera]: Yes.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So in terms of the, and can everybody see this? Okay. In terms of the, the lot coverage issues uh... we have now brought down the lot coverage which was a concern is to the size thirty two to thirty two percent uh... as the board is aware for a single family structure uh... the maximum allowed is forty percent uh... the decrease in the lot size is four percent we've decreased the lot coverage by eight percent so you know even in terms of proportionality uh... we have have tried to deal with lot coverage reducing the size so that it's a better fit in the neighborhood. Also height from grade, the first submission was 34 feet that has been reduced overall to 32.8. The livable area has been decreased to 4,780 square feet. With respect to the above-grade livable area, that is now 3,723, which is commensurate with other single-family houses in the area. The basement is finished, which is where we pick up the additional square footage for livable area. In addition, the distance between the homes, it was 20 feet from the left and 20 now that's now 27 feet, nearly 15 feet from the left side, which is almost a corner lot requirement of 15 that you would have. as opposed to the seven and a half that's required. And now we're 29 feet away based on the difference between the house to the right, which is set off of the lot line, as well as the difference that we made with respect to the difference between the home. As Adam indicated, we also redesigned to a lower profile. with terrace grading so that we reduce the overall height appearance of it. If you look, Adam had given you this previously, which shows the existing house, and then the red line is where the height is with respect to the proposed house. Also, if you take a look at this picture, this was pre-fire, so you can see that in fact there was a great deal of trees and shrubberies that it obstructed views. With the new landscaping plan that's here, much of that's going to be lower in terms of greenery, shrubbery, so you're not going to have the trees that would block a view potentially. You may actually be increasing the ability to ability for views. And I don't think those were the main issues with respect to, you can see that the house previously was quite high and we've pulled it back to kind of close to where it was, at least from the porch. We did do two rounds of this. So we had an initial meeting on December 14th, where we proposed changes based on the original hearing. And we then took into account what the neighbors had to say at the meeting. And you'll see, I think you saw in Adam's plan, the two revisions. We've circulated those plans to the neighbors and I don't want to speak for them, but, you know, the emails that we've gotten back seem to be, you know, much more accepting of the plan and the request for a special permit based on the changes that we've made. Does that answer your question, I hope?

[Mike Caldera]: It does, thank you.

[Unidentified]: Other questions from the board? Jamie, go ahead. In regards to the neighbors' comments, do we have any submissions from the neighbors?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't have any submissions from the neighbors. I didn't feel comfortable sharing the emails that they sent to our client. We did advise them also of the change in the meeting from, you know, where we were on the list to first on the list. So, in looking at the participants tonight, I do believe several of the neighborhood members are here. But, you know, we did get from the Ammons, Jim to Christopher. Um, we got, you know, emails that that seem more accepting, certainly of the plan. Um, you know, change is hard and people, you know, like what was there before. But so I don't want to speak for them and say they're in full throated support, but but it was at least accepting.

[Unidentified]: Understood. Thank you. There are questions from the board.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, seeing none, so I just want to lead off with a recounting of what happened in the last meeting. So the applicant made a presentation. The board asked questions, opened the public portion of the hearing. Quite a few individuals made public comments. Those are all part of the public record. So they're already in the record. Then the board closed the public portion of the hearing. And at the very start, before we were really deliberating, there was a request from the applicant to continue so that there would be the opportunity to incorporate some of the public comment and revise the plans, which we now saw tonight. Members of the public have not had a chance to comment on the updated plans. And so procedurally, the board will have to reopen the public portion of the hearing to allow for public comment. One thing I want to reemphasize, members of the public who made comments at the last hearing, your comments are already part of the public record. So we're going to limit the public comment especially for anyone who already made a public comment at the last hearing to comments on what has changed in the plan. So if you already participated and you love the plans or you express some concerns with the plans, those are already in the public record. I hope I don't have to cut anyone off, but we're going to focus on what has changed in the plan. If you're a member of the public who would like to speak who did not get a chance at the last hearing, Please let me know in advance, and certainly we want to hear your feedback. Also, I know we have a lot of folks on, and so I'm planning to enforce 60 seconds after you introduce yourself per public comment. If we need to, at discretion, we might extend that, but in general, 60 seconds a person. If you already made a comment and your thoughts haven't changed, No need to make it again. But if you have comments on anything that has changed in the plans and how that relates to the board's decision, please feel free to chime in. As we mentioned at the last hearing, the standard here is that of a special permit because a reconstruction can be done by right within the building footprint. This changes the building footprint. And so the standard the board will apply is whether the proposed changes here, whether or not they're substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. So just wanted to get that all out of the way. I believe we also have the Zoom configured so that folks cannot unmute themselves. And so what we're going to do, we're going to use the raised hand cue. When I call on someone, I'll make sure to unmute them. And then you'll have your chance to speak. So chair awaits a motion to reopen the public portion of the hearing. I moved. Do I have a second? Seconded. All right. So we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Yvette?

[Alicia Hunt]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mary?

[Mary Lee]: Aye. Mike?

[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike, aye. All right. So 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, especially the revisions to the plan, please raise your hand on Zoom, turn your camera on and raise your hand in real life. type something in the chat. We will allow 60 seconds per speaker, and we will go in the order the requests are received. All right, I do see a member of the public with their hand raised. So we will go to Tara Mello. Please state your name and address for the record. And then you have 60 seconds.

[SPEAKER_15]: Tara Mello, I live at 36 Terrace Road, direct to Butter, to the south of 44 Terrace. I had an opportunity to meet with Ned in person, and we had a really nice conversation. And I appreciate all the changes that were made to address my concerns with such a large building being beside us. So I just wanted to put that out on record. I appreciate the cost that this must be and the effort that you're making to address the concerns I had for my open space. Thank you. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Next, I see a Jim DeCristofaro. So please state your name and address for the record after I unmute you. And then you have 60 seconds.

[SPEAKER_04]: Hey, everyone. Jim DeCristofaro. I'm the butter on the other side. I've also had a discussion with Ned and Nikki, and yeah, they've accommodated the requests that we've made. So yeah, I wanted to say thank you to them and just have that on the record as well. Great. Thank you. Sorry, 48 said that.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, can you repeat that? I would say I was talking over you.

[SPEAKER_04]: 48 Terrace. So the other butter.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep.

[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. I do not presently see any other members of the public that want to speak on this matter. All right. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberation. So moved. Second. OK, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?

[Yvette Velez]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mary? Aye. Amy? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, we are now deliberating. So we didn't get very far last time. So what do you think, folks?

[Andre Leroux]: I can start off. I'm really pleased that the proponent met with the abutters and was able to be responsive. I think that the changes are in line with the concerns that we had at the last meeting. I think that the house is actually a more attractive design, and I appreciate the work that everybody's put into this. This is sort of how the process is supposed to work, so thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Andre Leroux]: Other thoughts from the board?

[Unidentified]: Jamie, go ahead. I'll concur with Andre. The adjustments that were made to the property are very impressive in line with what the residents and the abutters had raised as concerns. And the design changes on the landscaping are actually really nice. I think they make the scale of the height of the building a lot more Again, making it seem like, oh, up here is a two-story, especially from the front. The front design is actually very impressive. Thank you, guys. And I appreciate the comments from the neighbors as well. All right. Thank you, Jamie.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Is that Mary Botts?

[Mary Lee]: Well, again, I want to express my appreciation for everybody's effort. It's a nice project.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Yeah, so I didn't really get a chance to share my thoughts last meeting, but I certainly had some concerns when it came to the substantial detriment based on what the neighbors shared at that time. These new plans have improved in all of the areas the neighbors called out, at least the ones that I can recall. And I agree, the plans look beautiful. And it's great that both of the direct abutters you know, that you engage with them, they seem supportive of the new plans. So yeah, in terms of the standard of not substantially more detrimental, I think it's a lot easier to make that determination tonight than it was last meeting. So those are my general thoughts.

[Unidentified]: Other thoughts from the board?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Otherwise, chair awaits a motion.

[Mike Caldera]: And so, again, this is approved.

[Unidentified]: Sorry? This is a special permit, just to be clear, so. Thank you. I motion to approve the special permit for 44 Terrace Road. Do I have a second?

[Mary Lee]: Second.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. We're going to take a roll call. Yvette?

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre? Aye. Mary? Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So the special permit is granted. Thank you, folks, for taking the time to listen to the neighbors and make those adjustments. Looks like a great project.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. And I'll prepare a decision for the board's review.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Please. Thank you, Attorney Desmond.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, now I believe we can revert back to the regular order. Dennis, will you please read the next matter?

[Denis MacDougall]: 970 Fellsway, case number 40B-2023-01, continued from November 30th. The resumption consideration of petition of DIV Fellsway LLC The Davis companies for comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts general laws chapter 40 B for multifamily 6 story apartment development located approximately 3.4 acres land at 970 property ID 7 dash 0 2 dash 10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 289 units, consuming 270 units of multifamily housing and 11 townhomes with 73, 25% of the total units of them being designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households. The applicant will be discussing the traffic impact assessment initially filed on March 20th, 2020.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. I see we have multiple representatives for the applicant. Attorney Tam, you were Beating things off last time we would like to start.

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Okay. Yes, I.

[SPEAKER_17]: Hi.

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, chair and members of the board. Thank you. Pat noon here from the Davis companies. I will kick things off and run through a couple of slides of the PowerPoint. If I can start sharing my screen here and then get things going.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.

[SPEAKER_17]: Sorry. Here we go. Can everyone see that?

[Mike Caldera]: Currently, we'd see, I think, the presenter view.

[SPEAKER_17]: Let's see.

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: There we go. Sorry for that. Is that better?

[Mike Caldera]: Still see the presenter view.

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Still see the presenter view. Okay.

[SPEAKER_17]: How about that? Okay. All right.

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Did that work? Sorry for the technical difficulties. Thank you everyone, Mr. Chair, members of the board, for having us on the agenda tonight. As Dennis mentioned, we are here with a brief agenda where we will I will get to that slide where we will provide some updates from the previous hearing and run through just sort of where we are, what we've submitted and where we stand with the peer reviewers. And then we will then transition to an update from Scott Thornton from Van Ness to do a summary of the transportation impact assessment and provide an update on I'm going to go through the agenda items. I'm going to talk about where they are and what they will be presenting on in the future as a means of an update to that report. From there, taking some questions and comments from that portion of the presentation and then handing it off to attorney Tim to close it out and discuss some of the suggested next steps and set forth For my part, I will provide some of the project updates here. To start this afternoon, we provided a formal written response to comments that we received at the November 30th, 2023 hearing. We filed that for review with the board and review for the public. The goal of the written response to comments is just to acknowledge and try to respond to questions that we heard. We are not intending to present on that this evening. It's for informational purposes that it was filed. We do understand that there's some frustration with the length of the process and with some of the unanswered questions that have have been out there for some time. The goal of this document was, we want to start the process of just trying to provide thoughtful answers for the board and the public to be able to review as a part of a process where we continue to work with the board and the neighbors to answer questions as they come. We want to be responsive and thoughtful. We just thought that this document was a step in the right direction. That was filed this afternoon. We are working on that. Some other updates, as it relates to the peer review consultants. Since the last hearing, we have engaged with both beta and the Davis square architect team. With beta, we have coordinated to file documentation at the end of this week. And that is, uh, follow up is anticipated prior to the next hearing from a traffic perspective, and you will get more on this from. Scott in just a few minutes, but they are in the process of updating their study and it will be completed and filed at the end of January. At that point in time, the peer review process can commence in February. With Davis Square Architects, we did file our documentation with them earlier this month, and that included our SketchUp model, shadow study, architectural plans, and site sections. And we did have our initial peer review meeting with Cliff Bowler from Davis Square Architects yesterday afternoon. So we received some feedback and we'll continue to work with Cliff over the course of the next several weeks with the intent of being able to have Cliff present to the board at a hearing at the end of the month on the 30th. So we are excited to report that we, you know, there's progress and things are moving forward since the last hearing. Thank you for working with us in that process to get the peer review consultants engaged and to be working with us. So with that, I will now turn it over to Scott who will step in and provide the traffic assessment update.

[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you, Pat, Mr. Chairman members of the board. My name is Scott Thornton. I'm with Vanessa and associates. And what I'd like to do tonight is give a given an update of where we stand in the update of the traffic study. And then just go through some of the components of the process for the study and some additional study points related to the neighborhood, related to traffic mitigation, parking, and then end on a review of the site circulation. At this point, as Pat mentioned, we're just at the beginning of the process, so I think it's more helpful to give just an overview, and I know you've got a lot of other items on your agenda. But it's important to note that this is just an overview of the process. There'll be more information coming later. We do anticipate working with the city director of transportation and traffic as well as the peer reviewer for traffic. I know there was mention made of the original traffic study. that was completed in 2020. Since we're updating that study with all new traffic counts, all new background development assumptions, new trip generation, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to go over that study because a lot of the conclusions are not relevant given it's three, four years later. Instead, what I'd like to do is just go through an overview of what we're planning to update. I've referenced the director of the Traffic and Transportation Department for Medford. We met with him early in the process, and he had mapped out these locations shown in this graphic, 14 intersections in total, stretching from Riverside Avenue intersection with Fellsway, including the site driveway, Myrtle Street. Central Avenue intersections with Fellsway, a number of intersections with Central Avenue, a number of intersections with Spring Street, all the way down to Riverside. And this is a fairly extensive study area. And as you can see, it focuses on neighborhood locations. We're going to be doing traffic counts at these locations to get a new picture of the traffic flow and operations. We're also going to be performing a safety review, looking at motor vehicle crash data, site distances, transit services in the area. We'll also look at data from the U.S. Census to get an idea of where residents in this area of Medford work. and what modes of transportation they use. I know there was some discussion in the November 30th meeting about the way the attention paid to transit was a little light. There's a lot more information that's available now, so we can adopt that and incorporate it into the updated study. We'll develop estimates of project trip generation for daily and peak hour time periods, since that's the protocol for traffic studies. We'll do level of service analysis for existing future no build. and future build conditions. Those future conditions will allow us to incorporate projects such as the Encore Casino development or expansion, which was referenced on November 30th. We've been in contact with the city planning staff trying to get traffic information on that project and other developments as well that we should include if they're expected to affect traffic volumes in the study area. Additional points of study include neighborhood considerations, looking at pedestrian facilities, parking conditions, curb use regulations. We'll eventually be looking at potential improvements to mitigate the project's impact. That's one of the last steps that we have in the process and one step that we look at once we know what the impacts are. We'll also look at parking, both in terms of demand and supply. We anticipate the parking to be contained on site. We heard loud and clear the concerns of the neighbors, particularly with regard to traffic and parking on Myrtle street. And that's 1 area we'll be paying close attention to. We think that the way the site is proposed to be laid out, the circulation. Will minimize the use of Myrtle street by project residents and Pat, I don't know if you can go to the. The next slide, which shows the existing site circulation. And you can see that the existing site, as a number of parking spaces, has access to the Fells Way, to the intersection of Amaranth Ave and Myrtle Streets and Lawrence. as well as a driveway coming in from the site, making that intersection a 6-way or a 6-leg intersection. There's also access to the site through the southern end of Amaranth. And we think that the way the existing site is laid out, it sort of lends itself to a splitting up of the traffic, the traffic flow and circulation both from larger trucks that may be accessing the site, as well as smaller vehicles and smaller trucks going to the storage side of the business. The next slide shows proposed site circulation, and you can see that the curb cut to the Fellsway is retained, but the curb cut to the Myrtle Street and Amaranth Ave intersection has been closed or discontinued. There is access that's proposed to the garage through Amaranth Ave. to the south end, similar to what's there now, but we feel that the way the site is laid out with the access to the garage available right off of Fellsway, pretty much, and the proximity of the parking or the way the parking is, is situated around the site, including the potential for shared parking along the portion of the site that's expected to remain. We think that this is going to serve to really increase the use of the Fellsway curb cut and minimize the use of of Myrtle Street. Obviously, there's likely to be some traffic that will use Myrtle Street and use some of the other streets in the neighborhood. But, you know, we think that the majority of it will be on Fellsway. And again, I would expect that a lot of the mitigation that we would be looking at would be ways to address any neighborhood impacts from the project. So that's sort of a 50,000 foot view of where we stand with the update to the traffic study. I think counts were being done this week. So as Pat mentioned, we should have that information incorporated into the study and turned around towards the end of the month and ready for review with the peer reviewer and with the city staff. I'll turn it back over to you, Pat.

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. So we just need to. Thanks, Scott. So I think just before moving on to discuss next steps, we wanted to pause and just, I think, take questions and comments related to Scott's presentation or anything that I may have said earlier, but just giving the opportunity to have questions or comments come in there.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you. So I'd love to hear any questions we have from the board. We are going to have a chance to come back to traffic in a future session. So we'll have a dedicated session that includes more details on the traffic study, some of the peer review feedback. That will be the session where we take public comment on the traffic as well. We already got some high level comments in our kickoff meeting. So yeah, if there's questions from members of the board or things that you're hoping to see in that future hearing, now would be a great time to ask. Not immediately seeing indication from any member of the board. I see a hand from a member of the public.

[Andre Leroux]: Actually, Mike, sorry for jumping in late. I just... Go ahead, Andre. One thing that I'd love to see in any kind of a traffic study would be looking at connections to transit centers, and in particular, looking at micromobility, looking at shared car spaces and usage, bikes, things like that. So for me, it's not just about vehicular traffic, but all the other things that we might be able to do.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you, Andre. Other questions from members of the board?

[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, what I was starting to say, so I do see a hand from a member of the public. I just want to clarify. So 40B hearings tend to be long processes with multiple sessions. There's going to be multiple sessions of this hearing. In this particular meeting, the intention was to provide a brief update. And so we're not taking public comment today. However, the board is going to be discussing with the applicant tonight, and we'll be working with them offline to set the schedule and topics for the remainder of the hearing. And so we do intend to discuss all aspects of the project, including traffic, in future sessions of the hearing, which will be made available in the folder on the ZBA website. So I just wanted to clarify, we're not taking public comment tonight because we're not really going deep into anything tonight. All right, I just wanna say, so I think this was addressed a little bit in Scott's update. I hear the concerns that were raised Thus far, and I think we're included in one of the original department headletters surrounding the traffic flow. So Scott spoke to how the proposal aims to address that. That's an area that I definitely am going to want to get deep into at the appropriate time in the hearing, because I do think if If there's too much traffic flow into some of the adjacent one-way streets, especially with the street parking on the side and so on, it could cause some transportation issues. So I know we're going to be speaking to that, but I just want to call that out up front. I intend for us to zoom in on that aspect especially.

[Unidentified]: Other questions or comments from the board?

[Mike Caldera]: All right, so thank you both. Appreciate the update. And so next, we're turning it over to Attorney Tam, is that correct?

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, turning it over to Attorney Tam to discuss proposed next steps. All right, we will unmute you.

[Unidentified]: Please go ahead, Attorney Tam.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'll be very brief. I think as Pat alluded to, we're really pleased and appreciative of the coordination by staff to get these peer reviews well underway at this stage and to be able to coordinate and provide for updates to the materials that were originally submitted several years ago in 2020. Wanted to take the opportunity to work with the board on some scheduling so that we can have some reasonable goals to meet and we didn't want to be presumptuous, but we offer up some ideas based on the discussions that have been had to date. I think based upon the discussions between Qube 3 and your consultant Davis Square, we'd expect that those productive discussions that started this week will continue so that We and presumably your consultant at Davis Square can be in a position to provide the board and the public an update on the comments, considerations, and any potential modifications that may be made or may need to be made to the plans that have been shown to you back on November 30th. So we think that that would be an opportune way to use our time on the 30th. And the reason why I'm focused on scheduling a few months out is because obviously there is a statutory time clock that, as you know, has been running. It's no fault of ours and it's no fault of this board's, but that clock is running and by my count, and I can review this with Dennis and Alicia, really that 180 day clock will run through April 1st. I think we're going to be reasonable in terms of what the board may require if additional time is in fact necessary. But we want to at least achieve what we can during that 180-day time period. So if the 30th, and this is at your discretion, if the 30th makes sense to spend some time on design review and to drill down on some of those issues, that seems appropriate to us. If there's time remaining, your civil peer review consultant may be afforded some opportunity provide comment on from the civil side based on what Bowler has previously submitted and what they have proactively will be submitting this week. That essentially will give them two full weeks to at least provide some comments if time permits. And then I understood that you had a subsequent session kind of calendared as we had talked about, I think on the 15th of February. So coming out of Valentine's Day, we might, assuming that Scott completes his updated traffic impact analysis, might be the right time to hear from your consultant at Beta with respect to any outstanding civil issues as well as potentially traffic-related and transportation-related issues. And Mr. Chair, we hear you on both the site circulation as well as the transit concerns that have previously been identified. And I think Pat in his update to you indicates that we're working actively on those issues as well.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Tam. Yeah. So a few things to say on these topics. So first of all, we did talk about the opening hearing, the 30th and the 15th. And so it is our intention to proceed with those dates. Cliff Bomer didn't know for certain at that time whether he'd be retained as the architectural peer review consultant, but I believe he did confirm in that meeting his availability for the 30th. I haven't had a chance to check with Beta on their availability for the 15th. Dennis, is that something we've checked with them?

[Denis MacDougall]: They are aware of the dates, and they seem to think that that is fine. They have no issues with that.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, wonderful. Yeah, so my intention is to split this up topically, and so to the point of If we have a hearing, should we move on to the next topic? I'm inclined to avoid that, at least in the earlier stages of this hearing, just so that members of the public know the appropriate meeting to tune into. We could do shorter updates on other areas as long as we're not doing the focal presentation for that topic. Design on the 30th sounds great. Sounds civil on the 15th, provided everything's submitted to beta on time. Let's plan on it. And I do think for this hearing, doing traffic as a standalone hearing is worthwhile. So it's my intention to coordinate outside of this meeting on the specific dates for the rest of the hearing. But the sketch you've proposed here, I think the thing that's a little unclear at this point that may cause some changes later in the schedule is just to go through this in the most efficient way possible, we would basically need for each of the three areas, your plans plus the peer review feedback, And maybe even you having already seen that and incorporated it, or maybe we do follow ups, but you know if if we have situations where. we aren't able to parallelize everything. We may have to have follow-ups just to ensure that the applicant has a chance to respond to any peer review feedback that they aren't able to respond to and address in the same meeting. So it's my intention to propose a schedule for the rest of the hearing offline to make sure everyone's available on the required dates for the 30th and the 15th. The dates and topics were locked in. I did see clarification from the city legal counsel as to the statutory timeline. And so my understanding is that we have until May 21st. And so the schedule I put forth will be premised based on that assumption, but Attorney Tam, if you have an alternate legal theory that you want to share with city staff, I'm happy to consider that. As I mentioned in our reopening of the hearing, it's my intention to run a timely and efficient hearing. And so the statutory timeline is just a shared understanding of how long we have if required in the scenario where it seems like up until this point, the applicant has been very motivated and responsive and working with the relevant parties at B to move things along. If that pattern continues, then it's quite possible we will not need the full time. The schedule I put forth is not going to be waiting until the last possible moment. There will be some dates identified through May 21st if needed for, you know, for follow-up sessions for things we don't really have line of sight on today. But yeah, I just wanted to clarify that is my understanding for speaking with City Legal. We have until the 21st of May if so required.

[Adam Hurtubise]: And Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate that. And we'll work with you and staff to support that schedule. I don't have an alternate legal theory. I just have math. And the math tells me it's an earlier date. But we won't quibble with it now. We can address that with counsel and with Dennis and Alicia offline.

[Mike Caldera]: Yes, that sounds great. My legal theory is math too, so we'll figure it out. Yeah, Andre, please go ahead.

[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mr. Chair. The last meeting was our first meeting really absorbing this project, and so I didn't feel comfortable asking this question, but I think it's important to pose it before too much time has gone by. The site which the proponent has control over is larger than the housing portion of it, obviously. It was explained that the self-storage part of the site is still a profitable enterprise, and that's why they're keeping that. You know, it's really hard to evaluate this project in the absence of that entire site. And this is something that's really kind of sticking in my craw a little bit, which is anybody who would redevelop and design the site as a whole would step up from the neighborhood towards the Route 28 and put more of the density along Route 28. That's not possible with what the proponent is going forward with in its design. I want to ask this in a public forum. Why are you not considering the site as a whole? And also, I think the neighbors raised very legitimate questions, which is, once you do this part of the site, what's to prevent the self-storage part of the site from being developed in an equally dense manner?

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andre. Yeah, we can certainly ask the applicant to share some details on that tonight and perhaps discuss it at a future hearing. I just want to say up front that I can get clarification on it, but there are elements to that question that may go outside the bounds of what we're able to consider in the context of this hearing. So I just I'll get a clarification on exactly what's in and out of scope, which we can bring into future sessions. But if there's a member of the applicant's team that would like to speak at a high level to that, please go ahead.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chair, I certainly can respond. And I suspect that Pat may have additional information to share but just having been involved throughout these years in the infancy of this project and the design development and obviously the applicant owns the site. Not all applicants own their site, right? There's no attempt at any sort of bait and switch here. The self-storage facility is a viable functioning business with a lease in place. whereas this space has been underutilized. And so the opportunity on a large site like this is to develop housing that meets the needs of the community and the region. And so the 40B comprehensive permit application focuses on a three and a half acre portion of the overall large site. That is the project that is squarely in this board's domain. And it's an industrial district. We've identified the reasons why we think this is a transitional use is appropriate between industry and between a residential neighborhood. And certainly the remaining industrial property could be redeveloped in the future. But I can say on behalf of Davis Companies, there's no present intent to do so. there's a lease in place, and that this is the project before you. So through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. LaRue, you come to projects with different contexts. In this one, you have the confidence that you have an owner-applicant, which is a real advantage when you're looking at a project, because they're not going away. they're going to redevelop this site. And so you can count on that, and they want to commit and invest in the redevelopment of this site. As for the remainder of the site, there could be dense redevelopment in the future, but I'll tell you one thing, it in all likelihood will not be a comprehensive permit, because through this project and others, the city will have met safe harbor and their requirements under state law. So, I mean, you could speculate and say that about any development site around the city. So I think, Mr. Chair, to your point, there is no intention at this time to do anything on the remainder of the site. But at the same time, I need to be quite frank and say certainly it's possible. It's possible that any site in the city of Medford be redeveloped in the future. And so in terms of urban planning and preferences for where the density lies, I think those types of decisions are somewhat subjective. And we think that this site and this portion of the site is appropriate for this use and we're going to work with you and with your consultants to ensure that the site is developed responsibly. Pat, I don't know if you have anything else to add.

[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Not much. Attorney Tim, thank you, provided a very thorough answer. I guess I can just add, speaking for the applicant, as the applicant, Attorney Tim is correct. It is not our intention to to redevelop the storage site. Just to provide some clarity as well, it is a single site now. As we go through the process, the residential site and the self-storage site will be separated. They will be separate parcels. That is our intention and it is not our intention to redevelop on the self-storage site. So just hearing it directly from the applicant and echoing attorney Tim's statement, that is that is accurate.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andrew, did you have any follow up questions or comments on that? No, thank you. OK.

[Unidentified]: Thanks. Other. Questions or comments from the board.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, so Attorney Tam, we can certainly take the discussion of math offline, and then I will work on piecing together the rest of the schedule for the team's review. I think I will check in with members of the board on specific dates and work with city staff to confirm availability of our peer review consultants. And then, um, we should have that to you. Um, I think with, within, within the next week, um, hopefully sooner. So we'll get that started and, um, and we can go back and forth, but, uh, yeah, for our next two hearings, the intention is that it will be on January 30th. Uh, the design. the February 15th, the civil. I'm inclined for the most part throughout this hearing to try to avoid what happened tonight where we're doubling up the regular meeting just as a courtesy to some of the other applicants. So we'll just typically try to schedule a dedicated meeting in close proximity if needed. But we'll figure that out as we align on the schedule for the rest of the hearing. Does that sound good? Wonderful, all right. Anything else we should be discussing on this matter tonight?

[Andre Leroux]: Do not see any indications. Yeah, sorry, I do have a question, Mike. So I believe we have a new 40B consultant for the board, and I'm wondering what the process is for working with that consultant.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, absolutely. So let me introduce them. So we have Paul Haverty is our 40B consultant. Welcome, Paul. Do you want to maybe briefly introduce yourself and just answer Andre's question? You are, oh, you're on mute, so I'm going to unmute you. Okay, you got it. Press the button so you should, there you go. Oops, we'll try it again.

[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Are we good? Can you hear me?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, we can hear you.

[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So for the record, my name is Paul Haverty. I'm an attorney at Blattman, Bobrowski, Haverty & Silverstein in Concord, Massachusetts. I've got 20-plus years of experience on Chapter 40B developments, representing both developers and municipalities. I've acted as an MHP technical review consultant For the past seven or eight years, I've represented dozens of boards of appeals in 40B processes. The role of MHP technical review consultant is to assist the board with the process, provide advice as the hearing moves forward. So I'm available to answer any questions that you have that pertain to how Chapter 40B works.

[Mike Caldera]: And so, Attorney Haverty, please let me know if I didn't recall correctly. So any member of the board could ask you a question directly just for clarification. Also, if the board collectively wanted to discuss a matter with you that for whatever reason wasn't appropriate to discuss in a public meeting, we could potentially under certain conditions enter executive session, but in general, we would be otherwise engaging with you in the public meetings themselves. Is that right?

[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Yes, so you obviously want to avoid any open meeting log concerns regarding serial deliberations. So you can't really have 1 member ask a question that another member asked the same question and get multiple responses. There are very. Express terms of 1 of board is allowed to enter into executive session if any of those. requirements are met, then an executive session would be proper. If not, then it wouldn't. And obviously, you know, I would advise you if and when that eventuality occurred, whether or not an executive session would be appropriate. But certainly any member can ask me a question. You can certainly ask me questions during public hearings. I'm also happy to answer questions raised, you know, by the neighbors or by the applicants team as well. Thank you. Welcome.

[SPEAKER_02]: Any follow up questions on that, Andre?

[Andre Leroux]: No, but I was curious if we're going to schedule a site visit as well.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh, I would love to. So let's discuss the scheduling matter offline since that's not something we need to do in public. But yeah, let's get one scheduled. All right, great. Well, if there is nothing else, Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the January 30th special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals.

[Unidentified]: So moved. Do we have a second?

[Andre Leroux]: second.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.

[Mike Caldera]: So we're going to take a roll call. So Mary's going to be participating throughout, and we'll figure out voting at the very end. But for now, Mary's our associate member, so I won't be calling on her. So Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?

[Yvette Velez]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jim? I Mike I all right so this is continue to January 30th, thank you folks excited to see the progress and we'll see you then.

[Denis MacDougall]: I might just jump into the president to. are at the meeting and as we said before, the same Zoom information will be applicable for all of these meetings. So whatever the Zoom login information that you logged on tonight, that will be the same one for any of our meetings coming in the future. So just want to make sure you're aware of that. And if you have any questions, you can email me at DMACC Google. I'm going to put it in the chat I put it in once before. And also, I'll put in our office's number. If you have any questions, please feel free to send me an email or call our office.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Yeah. Thank you, Dennis. And so as I previously stated, on the 30th, the topic focus is going to be architectural design considerations. And so we do intend to take public comment on architectural design considerations during that session of the hearing. All right.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, folks.

[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis, can you read the next matter, please? 120 Winthrop Street, case number 80-2023-21. Applicant and owner, Sandra Bartolomeo-Dorenzo, are petitioning for a variance from Chapter 94 City Method Zoning to construct a four-foot fence at 120 Winthrop Street on the front lot line of a corner, which is not allowed per the City Method Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 6.3.10, corner visibility.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: Do we have someone for the applicant present?

[Denis MacDougall]: There's a lot of people here, so I'm trying to look to see if they're on, but I spoke to the applicant's contractor today, and he stated he was going to be on the call, so I'm just... All right.

[Mike Caldera]: And because we I think I have unmuting disabled right now. If you are attempting to speak for the applicant, please just type a message in chat if you can, or at least indicate on camera or raise your hand.

[Alicia Hunt]: We have a couple of people on the phone, you can use star nine on your phone to raise your hand and so that if you're one of the phone numbers that would indicate to us.

[Mike Caldera]: We'll give it another minute.

[Adam Hurtubise]: There's somebody. Sorry. Yes. Yeah.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So I'm clicking the ask to unmute button now. So the Hello. Are you a representative for the applicant? Yes. Okay, wonderful. Welcome. You can please introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about the proposal.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: My name is Steve D'Souza. Yeah, we just proposing to put a full foot fence on a corner lot on a corner one trip in Marshall. There was hedges there previous. So anything new would actually be more visible than what was prior. Pretty much it. I have the homeowners here as well.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yeah. Um, the board would love any details just to help us understand kind of what, what you have in mind. Um, so we did receive some documents related to your application, but, um, just anything that could help us make it a little bit more tangible would be great.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: Yep. So yeah, we're just, it's, it's basically, I, yeah, I don't know. It's just a fence. It's a four foot fence. I don't know how much more detail. I mean, it's, uh, scalloped white picket fence. It's spaced. I don't know how much detail can go into it. I mean, I can, I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I could write a novel and everything, but it's a pretty simple project. I mean, we just put it up. There's plenty of visibility. I don't know.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean,

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: I don't know how much more detail is needed on it.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, you can. If you could at least describe the existing conditions, or I don't know if you have any visuals, anything to help the board understand.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: We got stopped during the work, so there was five to six foot hedges around that range. They had been there for ever, you know, the homeowner can state.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. Can I make, my name is Bartolomeo Di Renzo. I'm the homeowner and Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for letting me speak. All I want to say is just a few things. Before the fence, there was an edge, like Steve says, I was almost as tall as the fence, if not taller. And I own this property for 34 years. I never see an accident. I never witness. I never see any accident that involve me or anybody coming out from Marshall Street into Winthrop Street. That's all I can say. And I don't know, a simple project became so complicated. That's all I want to say.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Yeah, so to the specific question, I think it's just that because the fence is taller than typically allowed on the front lot line, that's what triggered the.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, it's on the corners. on a corner lot, 35 feet from curb. Well, it can be, it can be read in many ways. I mean, however you want to take it. I mean, if you read it, I think if everybody read it, you know, it can be taken in different ways. But then when it was finally explained, I guess, 35 feet off the sidewalk and like no higher than 30 inches is normal because of corner lot for visibility. In this situation, I don't really think visibility, it's going to block visibility. It's actually going to strengthen it, like give more visibility because there was hedges there. Um, to the right there is, I mean, eight foot tall hedges. Um, you can't see anything to the left. You can actually see. So I, you know, I don't know. I, you know, so yeah.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, all right. Well, Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: Sorry if I can't give you like more, I just, it's just, it's, it's literally a fence. Um, you know what I mean? To me, I, I understand the visibility if it played, if I thought it played a role in visibility, then obviously we would not be installing what we were installing. We would think there would need to be some sort of cutout or roundabout installed, but I mean, so typically, you know, when we, um,

[Mike Caldera]: When the board sees an application, and I understand this is a small request, a site plan, perhaps, that indicates the location of the fence, or there's a fence marker. We could pull something up on Street View. Right now, the application is somewhat sparse on the details. front, there isn't small, but anything to make it a little bit tangible for us, I think would just help.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: So a front lot line is pretty much where it would be installed. I mean, like any other fence that you would, you know, drive by in Sydney, um, I would think, you know, There is not much. I mean, I don't know how much I am supposed to make my customers spend for a simple basic fence. You know what I mean? I, I, there was a point where it gets, it gets a little silly. You know what I mean? I can understand, but I mean, it's not like I'm, I'm not building a structure. We're not doing anything absurd. I mean, it's just a fence on a law line. I think that anybody on the council can understand what that would be. I don't think that needs us to draw up sketches or to be treated like a massive project, like traffic rerouted or anything. It's just not what it is. I mean, and I'm not trying to be rude, condescending. It's just what it is. And I understand what you're doing. I appreciate what you do. But on something like this, I think it's a waste of everybody's time. But it is what it is. Yeah. It's a four-foot through, there'd be more visibility. If someone decided to park a car where they could, there, you would have less, it would block all visibility you would have anyways. So I don't understand how the fence would obstruct the view.

[Mike Caldera]: So that's, yeah, that's, I don't know. Thank you. So I see Commissioner Fordy has his hand raised. Please go ahead, Bill.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just a couple of things for the board to consider. I don't oppose or support the applicant in any way. Most cities and towns have a corner clearance requirement and residential zones. You won't see the same thing in commercial zones. And the reason being is that you know, residential neighborhoods are more prone to people kind of jumping forth on stop signs and people are, you know, there's more local traffic. And so most cities and towns have a 30-foot corner clearance requirement for the purpose of traffic safety in residential neighborhoods, which is more likely to have an accident when there's not a traffic light. So that's kind of the origin of the whole thing. I think it's not unreasonable to have, I don't think that the applicant would need to go through the requirements of having a survey done, but But clearly here, if you can't even visualize what the obstruction in the corner is, because I have a truck that's six foot high and I'm so far above traffic I can see over a six foot fence, literally. But people who drive things like Teslas and so forth, people that are low to the ground or with compact cars, you don't have that same visibility. The reason why the 30 inches is there or the ability to be able to bring that fence back. There's nothing here that would disallow the owner to have a four-foot fence provided that they met where the two corners of the straight parallel line intersect. that's where it's measured. So I know that the applicant was talking about it reading a couple of different ways or you can read it where whichever way you want. That's not the case. The case is that the two parallel points of the outside corner of the curb line is where that goes. And so I think that it wouldn't be unreasonable to have the applicant go back. And we have a really good GIS tool that should be able to spell this out. I don't think that the board should approve this without some kind of plan. And I would just implore you to take, certainly this is a serious matter. It's not a variance that should be granted. It's just simply, it's a traffic violation. And every city and town has the same thing. And normally, and sometimes when bushes get overgrown, the DPW will come and cut them down for you. So, you know, this is observed statewide. It is a kind of a home rule here in New England. And I would just perhaps maybe have the applicant go back and do a little homework and present to this board next month on how this wouldn't be detrimental or dangerous to the to the intersection. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I think I pulled it up on Street View, so I'm going to try to share it. Can folks see the Street View and just the Street View? Is that what we're looking at right now? Does anyone see anything?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, we can see it.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yeah. So am I correctly understanding that these posts here are the partially constructed fence that was stopped that needs the relief? Is that right? Yep. Yes. And so, Commissioner Forty, at what point in this view, approximately, of course, I'm not expecting an exact measurement, could something of this height extend by right before it starts to run into this corner requirement here?

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so essentially, Mr. Chairman, the second post in from the very corner, pretty much parallel measure to the other side would probably not violate the requirements of the ordinance, nor would it have brought the attention of my staff, which I understand had stopped this, which was a good thing because rather than take something down, you know, there are alternatives to this. I've seen Things like granite posts with with short rails to give it kind of an old fashioned farm house look type thing, you know that there's other things that can be done here besides a variance. I would think that, you know, obviously, there has to be some kind of hardship here. And I just, you know, I don't see that the applicant has provided any hardship here. And the detriment to the neighborhood is that if you allow it here, you may have to allow it in other corners and I just don't think it's a good precedent to start. I think that the yard's big enough where accommodations could be made to at least put it back to a point at which it's not going to be an obstruction, you know. So, you know, I think allowing this fence to go right out to the corner could be an obstruction. I mean, it does help that it's an open picket fence, and I don't see that that's, you know, Obviously, that's not a big problem. You do have some visibility there with a transparent or semi-transparent fence. But here, again, I would just caution the board that you may set a precedence here where everybody has a core lot and everybody's going to want to take the maximum amount of their property. I could see, obviously, the need for some privacy or some isolation, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Again, as I say, the ordinance is there for a reason, and the reason here is public safety. All right.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so for the applicant, there's a few options here. So if you'd like, we can continue the hearing. We can discuss this. The board can ask clarifying questions. We'll open for public comment, and then the board will deliberate. The standard for a variance is that the board needs to be able to establish that due to the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the lot or structure prior to the beginning of the construction, that's the source of the hardship that requires an exception to the four-foot rule for a corner fence. So if you'd like, we can proceed down that path, and the board could make a decision tonight. Like I was alluding to the materials you provided. Aren't as descriptive as the board is accustomed to, but perhaps the board could. utilize your written description, your verbal descriptions and some images like this to reach the right conclusion. You also could request to continue this matter to a future hearing and provide some additional details just to help the board make its decision. Or you could try to re-engage with the building department and identify a solution that achieves the spirit of what you were trying to accomplish that could be done by right. So those are the three options as I see them. So yeah, happy to discuss further, happy to clarify anything, but please let me know your preference.

[SPEAKER_02]: What would you like me to do?

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: I mean, yeah, I mean, if you feel I need more than that, I mean, I guess I can try to put something together. I guess, I mean, I'd like to continue with it and have a vote, but I mean, if you feel like you need more, you know, I mean, yeah, I mean, so what, when we were brought it to the attention, we were, you know, figured that, you know, if we want to bring it to the corner a lot, if we have to diagonal something, we want to be told what we can do here. I guess we have to bring that to your attention. I don't, you know, just don't really, I don't know. So I, for me, I understand where visibility, but for me, it's hard to understand Because there's always vehicles that are always parked on that, all the way up to that crosswalk, always parked there. And there is no visibility that would be met. We would not be blocking visibility. So it's hard for me to understand. In this case, unless that's enforced where vehicles can't be parked there all the way up, then where is it being blocked? If you look on the other side, I mean, you can't see anything. And on the neighbor right across, you have no visibility. I understand why it's in place, but does it really, I mean, for me, it's just hard. I don't, yeah, I don't know. If more information is needed, then I guess we proceed. With getting you more information, if that's what you need, if that's what the council members want, I guess I do that. I just sketch stuff up. I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory. But yeah, whatever. I don't know. Well, so, I mean... In this case, I'm not trying to be rude. I know I might come off that way. I'm just not... I just... I think things when the meetings are very like this, this is very small. And I just saw it. And I understand what they're saying, you accept it one place, you accept that everywhere. I get that. But that's not true. There is definitely in this case, I mean, if you can picture a vehicle parked there, then if a vehicle is parked in right in with a crosswalk, which they always are, then how is the fence blocking it? Like how is the fence blocking the obstructing if the vehicle's in the way already? Like I, so I just, we can talk about everything. We can make a case for anything, but I mean, I just, I, I just, I, I'd rather, I'd rather come up with solutions than problems. And like, this is like, I feel like I have to bring every single problem to you. I think we can figure that out ourselves. I mean, I don't know.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah. I certainly understand the, I'm sensing frustration, so I'll call it frustration. I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I agree it's a simple enough project that we could perhaps discuss it verbally. So if I had to guess based on what you shared, and you could certainly correct me, the intention would be to box off this fence and so it would just run along the whole property line or something of that nature. I don't think it would take place.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: Previously, before we installed the fence, they had bushes just like the other side. I understand that they will cut them for you. I guess we were told that. Yeah. I mean, I think he would honestly have kept the bushes if the city was voluntary to come and trim them all the time. But as he's getting older, he wanted something a little more simple. Yeah. I think most people want.

[Mike Caldera]: Absolutely. Yeah, that makes sense. So yeah, so anyway. I think the board could work with the information we have and ask clarifying questions. We do not literally require you to submit something different, especially now that we have some visuals. We could potentially address in the language of any decision some of the specifics that are currently left to the imagination of the exact location of the fence and so on. The one thing that I just want to be clear about, I'm just stating facts here. a view of what we'd like to be the case. I'm just stating what is actually the case. And so essentially, like I mentioned, the board's going to have to make a decision based on whether there's some aspect of the shape, topography, soil conditions of the lot or structure that requires or that would create a hardship if we didn't grant a variance here. And we also need to establish that there would not be substantial detriment to the public good. which includes considerations of things like safety and so on. And then also, we'd need to establish that it wouldn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance. So essentially, providing the relief wouldn't go against the purpose of the ordinance. In terms of the, The actual location that people park in, that's not really something the board can consider. The board would be considering the location of the street parking if the parking ordinance were to be enforced. If the parking ordinance is not being enforced, that's something that can be reported to the board. the parking department who by ordinance is supposed to enforce it. So yeah, I just want to be really clear about that. The board's analysis doesn't include kind of reasoning purely on a like a pragmatic level. It's a specific analysis based on the law and its intent and all of these other things. And so as chair, I'm not going to give you advice one way or the other, but I'll just say that it sounds like you alluded to one of your options in this discussion, which is to clarify with the building department that enforces these things what you could do by right and what would be some minor modifications, perhaps, to what was originally planned that would not trigger this stuff. Otherwise, if we proceed, the board's going to basically have to reason about, well, if cars were parked according to the parking ordinance, would this fence filled out create a safety hazard for someone? I guess it's a one-way street, so someone turning and all of this other stuff. It's a somewhat complicated analysis for what you've stated, and I agree it's a simple project, and there might be a simpler path out there for you. But ultimately, it's the applicant's call, so I'm happy to proceed with all three of the options we discussed. suggest not continuing this merely to provide us information that we could gather today. So if you're just going to give me or us a few extra pictures and just do something you could verbally describe tonight anyway, maybe we just discuss it tonight. But yeah, so that's my take. I see a member has their hand raised. So Andre, did you want to say anything?

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, I'll just put in my 2 cents, which is I would really like to see the, the applicant work with the city to on a solution and come back in a month with it resolved. And I, you know, I understand the building commissioner and his staff. They need to follow the letter of the law. I also, from a common sense perspective, see that this is an improvement to a site for a long-term homeowner who would like to continue living in his home. And I think that there should be some kind of a uh, a workable solution here. I, you know, I, I think that I'm assuming that this, uh, the rest of this fence is going to look like that one little section of fence that's to the right of the, uh, of the gate. If you could go over a little bit more, right? So that there, I mean, there is some visibility there. The slats do kind of come down. I don't know if we could measure from that point, but I'd really like to see this resolved. And I do agree that this is really not something I want to be spending a lot of time on in this board.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andre. Yeah, so just to summarize Andre's idea, the thought here would be, If you wanted to request a continuation, not so much to provide additional documentation, but more to take the opportunity over the next couple of weeks. It is a couple of weeks to our next meeting. I mean, we could continue to a future meeting, but a couple of weeks to discuss with the building department some potential solutions, then you'd have the opportunity and you'd be, as a hearing that was continued, you'd be towards the top of the agenda to just provide an update. So that is one option that I'm sure the board would be happy to entertain if you so wish, or we could just continue. It's up to you.

[MCM00000648_SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, that's fine. We can, yeah, I'll just put it to the next. That's fine. I'll just, I'll work with them. I had asked them prior to doing this work. I should do. what they wanted. So I guess I can go back and I guess discuss it. So, I mean, I was told to go this way and ask for the fence. That's what I was told to do. So I, you know, that's what I was told to do.

[Andre Leroux]: And I don't know who the appropriate city staff is, but I'd strongly urge them to work with the homeowner here.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, so worst case, if the discussions take a little longer, you can certainly email Dennis and let him know. So you don't have to show up to a meeting if you're not ready. We can just continue it in your absence. So I'm hearing the applicants requesting to continue this matter. Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is on January 25th. Sorry, before we do that, I see Commissioner Forte has his hand raised.

[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just to the applicant, you can email me and we can discuss something that would work in your favor that probably would require some form of variance, but I've had to deal with these things before and I'd be more than happy to give you some guidance on what you need to do that would satisfy the intent of the ordinance along with a minimum risk of any traffic issues. So, okay. Appreciate it.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, very good. Thank you so now chair waits a motion to continue this to the next regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals on January 25 so moved of a second second. All right we're going to take a roll call Jamie. I. Jim. Hi. Andre. Hi. Mike. Hi. All right. So this is continued to January 25th. So Commissioner Fordy has offered, you can reach out to him, talk to him. Could you share your email, Bill, if they don't have it already? Or Dennis can send it. Oh, you're on mute, but yeah. Sorry about that. Yeah, Dennis, feel free, please. Thank you. So Dennis will send it. And then, yeah, like I said, if you're able to have that discussion, figure out an agreeable solution prior to that hearing, we'll take up the matter then. Otherwise, we can just continue it to a future date as needed. So thank you. Thank you. All right.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Next matter, please, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: 66 Irving Street, case number A-2023-22. Applicant and owner, Joe Brown, is petitioning for a variance with Chapter 94 City Methods Zoning to install a fence over six feet tall at 66 Irving Street, which is not allowed per the City Methods Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 4.2.5.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, thank you. Do we have a representative for the applicants?

[Mike Caldera]: We don't have the ability to unmute turned on, so you will need to either type something in chat, raise your hand on Zoom, or turn on your camera and wave so we know who to unmute. Oh, and if you're on a phone, I don't know the hot key, but I believe Director Hunt said it's star nine to unmute or to raise your hand, something like that.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, Director Hunt said so star nine.

[Denis MacDougall]: I've spoken to Earlier and. I wasn't, he might not have been able to make it onto the call. So I'm wondering if we don't hear anything in the next. You know, we just continue to the next 1 and I try and get ahold of him tomorrow just to. Because I mean, next thing is only in 2 weeks.

[Mike Caldera]: So. Yeah, I think that. What we can do, so I'm not seeing anything. And we can just. For now, move on to the next matter on the agenda and then we'll check for time at the end and worst case, we can continue it. Yeah.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, next matter, please Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: 38 Pearl Street case number a dash 2023-23 applicant and owner Nelson over there is pushing for a variance in chapter 94 city, Michigan zoning to convert a single family at 38 Pearl Street into a two family drawing, which is not allowed to use in a single family to district for the city of Michigan zoning ordinance chapter 94 table a table of use and parking regulations a three.

[Mike Caldera]: Dennis. So we have, is it Attorney Desmond, you're representing the applicant, is that right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I am. Correct. Good evening, Chairman Caldera, board members, Attorney Kathleen Desmond for the petitioner. I'm here this evening with the applicant, Nelson Oliveira, manager of NPO Properties LLC, and Mariana Gastian of MGW Staging of Boston. The petition before you seeks relief by way of a use variance, which is permitted under section 11.4.2.2 of the ordinance. to convert the existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling, which is not an allowed use within the SF2 district. The subject property, 38 Pearl Street, is an approximately 8,190 square foot lot on which an existing single-family dwelling originally constructed in 1851 sits. The existing single-family dwelling has a history of being utilized over the years periodically as a two-family dwelling and is presently assessed by the City of Medford as a two-family dwelling. In addition to the generous size of the lot that would adequately support the dimensional requirements of a two-family, the shape and the layout of the existing structure also support the previous use as a two family. And if I could share my screen, I'd just like to show one of the photos, which... Attorney Desmond, you're all set.

[Denis MacDougall]: You should be able to share now.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. Can you folks... Wait a minute, hold on. Why did Zoom change this whole thing? I have them all pulled up like I'm supposed to. Let me see. Can you see that? No, you can't, right? My presentation, your photo. Can you folks see that?

[Mike Caldera]: Presently, we're just seeing a folder.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. Let me do. Is that photo appearing?

[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it's still the folder.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. I don't know why. previously used to be able to just pull up your, I'm sorry.

[Alicia Hunt]: Are you doing share window or share screen?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Trying to do share screen, which is not, it's not showing. I have my, well, I had them up, in the presentation. Let me go back and... Mariana, are you able to show the... I can share on my end if you like. Yeah, if you could share the existing photo, the rear photo of the property.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: If you could enable, that'd be great. Okay.

[Adam Hurtubise]: You should be able to now.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: Okay, just a second.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Can you see?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, we can.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes. So if you could show the pictures of the existing house, which I think is slide two. And there's a rare slide, a rare picture, rare photo, which shows.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: I'm not sure if we have an actual rare photo. But these are the three photos of the actual existing house, currently.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So the rear photo, if I could share it, let me see if I can. I don't know why. The rear, if you look, well, let's look at the, could you go to the survey?

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: We have the survey, survey, survey, survey.

[Kathleen Desmond]: A member of the public seems to think the first slide was the rear photo, but I... No, so the property as it currently stands, and I'll try to get that up for you, is the back... portion of the property is what is essentially a separate unit. It has an entrance, its own entrance, its own exit. There's a living area, dining room, and a kitchen in the property, and two bedrooms on the second floor. So the property itself is laid out as a two-family unit. You can kind of see back here where that that second unit is but but there is a better picture of it that I'll try to come back to and share once we go through the plans. Pursuant to 48 section 7 the layout of the structure makes the dwelling pre-existing legally non-conforming because the dwelling itself has existed that way for over 10 years but the use isn't allowed under that ordinance so the use itself as a two-family dwelling even though it's established structurally as a two-family is not permitted without a variance. Currently, as evidenced by the floor plans that we'll show, the structure includes approximately nine rooms, including bathrooms and a closet and laundry area. With respect to the conversion of the two-family, there's no request in this application for dimensional relief. The proposed lot coverage is 30.6, which is 10% roughly less than what is allowed for a single-family home in the district, which would be 40%. And also, in terms of a two-family, it's less than what the... the maximum lock coverage is for two family which is 35 percent. The conversion of the property would also comply with the height frontage width and depth requirements. They've also included, although I think we're in the transit area, two spaces are only required. The plans will show that there's four parking spaces which is commensurate with what's required for the SF2 district. The applicant is seeking a use variance based on the shape of the existing The existing structure that is laid out as a 2 family dwelling. In addition, the property is unique due to its age and there's a preservation of the existing structure by just adding an addition on to the rear of the property. That is not that's unique and is something that is different in the district. I'll have Mariana go through the plans, the proposed plans, shows the existing and proposed, and I will try to get my picture of the back so that I can show you what the back entrance looks like at this point. I had all my acrobat adobes lined up, but for some reason, now there's this whiteboard that is confusing me just a bit.

[Mike Caldera]: So, Attorney Desmond, perhaps Mariana is going to end up answering this question. Yes. But just one thing I want to clear up. Earlier in the hearing is so the you mentioned how it's assessed as a two family and how there's this separate unit with entrance and exit and then the permit refusal. states that it's a single family dwelling. So I just want to make sure the board applies the correct analysis and so any details you or Mariana can provide along the way to help us understand the current state of things would be great.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So, as indicated, the property was built in 1851. There isn't a card that indicates that it is a two-family. However, it's been assessed as a two-family. Periodically over the years, it's been used as a two-family, and I think the building inspector could indicate to you that there was an application for a variance in 74. to make it a two-family, which was denied by the board. But subsequent to that, there have been enforcement actions because it has been continued to be used as a two-family. And so, you know, there's been a use that hasn't been allowed, per se, but the structure itself has been in existence for more than 10 years. So under 48, Section 7, it's beyond an enforcement action, and it actually becomes a preexisting legal non-conforming structure, but that doesn't mean that the use is allowed. And Mariana is able to pull up the photo now, and I think it's being shared, so that you can see that there's an entrance here, which goes into that unit, and then another entrance coming out of that unit. So there's always been this push and pull with this property with regard to You know, it being a two family, it not being a two family, but it's continued to be assessed by the city as a two family. And so that's sort of the history. And it's why we're here looking for a use variance, because due to the enforcement actions and the time periods, the two year lapses, it hasn't been continuous since 1925. there isn't a ability to have it deemed to be a pre-existing non-conforming two-family structure with a corresponding use. So I hope that that... Yeah, that helps.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. And then Mariana, if you want to go through the existing and the proposed plans, that would be great.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: Just one second for me. It would be better if I do it this way. So we would start, this is the obviously proposed plan, but this is the house currently, front, side, and corner. Here we go. This is, as you can see from our rendering, the current house as it sits on the overall plot land, and this is with the addition proposed. So the back of building is connected to what we saw originally in slide two, or rather the original photo I had shared with the back entrance of the building.

[Unidentified]: Just one second for me.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: I have like eight million tabs open.

[Unidentified]: Just a question. It looks like the original extension is being demoed and then the main structure of the house is being extended. Is that correct? I don't think you have the screen before.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: OK. No, nothing is being demoed. Sorry. So nothing is being demolished. It's just being added on to. That's the existing unit in the back of the house. That was being used as the unofficial second unit. And this, as you can see, the connection is with that.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, but I agree with Jamie. I mean, the current piece of the house that's in the back is smaller and lower than the existing house. And what you're showing here is a much bigger structure.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: Well, it's being added on too. So it's going to be bigger. I mean, that's our proposal.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe that there's 1,000 square feet being added to each floor of the second unit when I calculated the additional square footage that was being included. So the thought process is to make this two, three bedroom units. and add on to that back addition and bring it kind of sideways.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: And also keep in mind, everything is being stained with the original of the house.

[Unidentified]: You said two, three bedrooms, I thought it was documented as two, four bedrooms.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: So actually, let me continue by telling you the layout. So this will be, this is the existing basement plan. And this is with the addition of the two units combined. And then as we move to the first floor, this is the original existing ground floor plan, which you'll see, and then this is the expansion. So we've highlighted the two sections, one darker, one lighter, to kind of differentiate between the two units. So the first floor we'll have for an office space slash den, flex space, which combines with the living room, dining room, kitchen. And then it's the second floor, which where all the bedrooms will be. Three bedrooms, two bathrooms, sorry, three bathrooms. So that's the addition.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And Jamie, to answer your question with regard to the plans, I had sent Dennis a revised plan because when we were speaking yesterday and we went over the number of bedrooms, the intent was to have three bedrooms, not four. So those plans have been revised, and I sent a copy of the revised plans on to Dennis to show that the intent is not to have two four-bedroom units, but instead two three-bedroom units on the property.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: Does anyone have any questions up to this point, or can I continue? And this is the top floor, the attic, which is, sorry, I moved too fast here. Move back. The existing floor plan, and then this with the addition. And this is the exterior, and this is the proposed, existing, and the proposed.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Questions from members of the board? So Attorney Desmond, I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear on this. So the structure at some point had a second unit. It's a little ambiguous as to when that started. It's assessed as being two structures or two units. And there was some historical enforcement action that has prevented it from converting into a two-family. That's the part I'm a little unclear on.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So, in 1975, there was an application, it had been worked on. And it was there was a 2nd dwelling back is back as far as 7475 had that had been done the. permit was denied, but it appears that that retained its stature because this isn't new work and the structure itself is quite old. And as you can see from the structure, the existing structure has two entrances and two exits. when the prior owner owned it, there's a letter in the file which indicated that there were multiple tenants in the property and that it should be utilized only as a single family. But the property continued to be assessed as a two-family, and it today is being assessed as a two-family. And it maintains the character in terms of the dwelling, as a two family, and then it has a separate kitchen, bathroom, living area, two bedrooms on the top floor, and then two exits and entrances. So there's that side entrance with two doors, one that goes into the smaller apartment, and then an entrance into the main home. And then there's the back entrance that you saw in that rear picture. So it has the required exits and entrances for the property. There was also, you know, in terms of, and I wish I could share my screen. I don't know why it's not working, but there are a number of two families in the, in the area, I believe there's 20 by count and I have the area plan if I can share it. Let me see if it.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: While she's looking for it, I'll just like to also point out that we do intend to keep the integrity of the historical aspect of the building. So none of the exterior of what is considered and deemed historic is going to be changed or modified.

[Kathleen Desmond]: do you want to um excuse me has there been any interaction with the the historic commission i mean is this uh something there hasn't been and there will there may very well need to be um but i guess the question is before you you go that route where this experience that that's being sought rather than um You know, just a dimensional variance that that the question, you know, before the board as to whether or not they would even be willing to entertain a use very in this in this instance would. you know, be determinative of where that that goes next. I mean, there is a preservation of the existing structure with an addition to the back. I'm not sure under the current rules how between building and historic as to how that would play out, whether they would actually need to go before them on a demolition permit, whether there is any intent to change the the the main house structure. But But in terms of pathways, if the board were not willing to entertain or were not, you know, if it was a flat out rejection of the use variance based on the fact that it's a use variance versus a dimensional variance, then, you know, the filing of the demolition permit and going through that process doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense as of now.

[Andre Leroux]: Can you tell me the existing square footage of the house as it currently exists and what the combined square footage will be?

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: The current house as it sits is 3,484.55 square feet. So 3,484.55. And with the proposed addition, it will be 6,557 square feet roughly. That includes the basement, that includes the attic entirely.

[Andre Leroux]: I guess I'm giving you my first impression here is because conceptually, I would like to be supportive when I saw it on the agenda. Unfortunately, look, you know, looking at the designs, it is seems to me less a two family, which would be two apartments and more to full size, single family homes stuck together. And I feel like, you know, it's a beautiful historic structure right now. I'm not loving the design of the, you know, of the addition. And, uh, It's pretty big. That's all I can say.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, I guess if that's because, you know, you experiences are always difficult to deal with and the expense to the client to go forward in that event, if it's not something that's going to be entertained by the board or considered, because, you know, it's a higher standard, certainly. And there have been some cases where it's been I think the the applicant would be willing to come back and work on a design and you know perhaps speak with historical in that regard as to design if if there was a sense from the board and I'm obviously I can't ask you to take a vote on it that it would be something that would be considered. Because, you know, there are a lot of two families in this area. I think in terms of substantial detriment to the neighborhood and, you know, subrogation, the subversion of the zoning ordinance, that on the ground, this is really a general residence neighborhood. There's a number of two-family residences and some threes and some fours, and I know that in looking at the comprehensive zoning changes that there's been some discussion about allowing two families within the SF2 zones. So, you know, certainly my client would be willing to look at designs if this was something that the board isn't, you know, outright in opposition to.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: There's also one point I forgot to mention in this proposed plan changes. The house currently has two parking spaces off street and the update will include addition of two more parking spaces. So it will not be added to the street parking volume.

[Mike Caldera]: So Attorney Desmond, a few thoughts. So, hold on, just need to gather up. For me, the questions I have, which could answer today, or maybe answer in a future hearing, really pertain to the aspect of the hardship that wasn't self-created by some prior owner and thus kind of inherited by the new ownership here. So, you know, if before the board is a a building that, according to the building commissioner, is a single family. And as you alluded to, there is this process whereby in the absence of an enforcement action, eventually it shifts from non-compliant to non-conforming. That's not the case here, right? So it's- That's correct. Yeah.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And they asked for that in terms of relief because it was on the evidence and what's in the building jacket. That wasn't something that that I could I could make an argument for.

[Mike Caldera]: So understood. Yeah. So so on the on the books, it's a single family. It seemed clearly there's two units. You know, the proposal here is a large extension of the unit that at one point was perhaps non-complying or maybe still is. My default is like, okay, well, a portion of that hardship is self-created by some prior owner. I really want to understand the aspect of the hardship that isn't self-created, you know, as part of the analysis of a use variance. So, so yeah, that's, that's the big thing for me. And then there was one other, one other bit. Oh, yeah. So in terms of the intent of the ordinance, the current zoning map has this SF2, right? So when I think about intents, intent is single family. And I understand there's some examples to point to of where this neighborhood has diverged. But then when I go through the analysis of like, well, even though we're not setting precedent here, if we were to apply the analysis of, well, there's enough neighboring properties that are different, and that And it isn't the intent that this GR, it quickly spirals, right? Like there's parts of Medford where you have gas stations next to residential homes. It is one gas station mean that suddenly a whole street could be gas stations. I'm not saying that would happen, but so yeah, for me, it's intended the current zoning map and then the, portion of the hardship that's not self-created that I think would be important to my analysis. So I just wanted to be upfront about that.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So if I could address a little bit of it, and I'd be happy to brief it as well. I mean, in terms of the structure itself, I think under 40A section 7, it's a non-conforming, pre-existing non-conforming structure that has protections now, because clearly it's beyond 10 10 years of enforcement. And so then you've got a use that you can't use with that. I suppose that creates a hardship because you've got this dwelling. You would have to expend funds, which could be substantial, to take that portion and make it a single family. And I think When we did 6 George Street, I raised Tucker versus Stein, which kind of had the same thing where you had an internal structure which was set up in a specific manner that to undo would create financial hardship. And then you also have the Creasa versus Milford case. you know, which indicates that if it's allowed in other areas, it is somewhat of a hardship that it wouldn't be allowed with respect to this particular unit. But I think over and above that, you have the fact that it was, you know, constructed in 1851, and nobody's looking to demolish it, which is also hardship. And the fact that you've got a structure which is legally nonconforming, preexisting, the structure, but what's the use at that point? And then you would have to, revamp the walls, take out what's there. You couldn't use anything in terms of the structure, the entrances and the exits. So you'd be changing the structure much like Tucker versus Stein, where they allowed them to take a, I think it was a commercial structure and make it a residential condominium building. And that was kind of also the same analysis on the George Street property. So, you know, I'd be happy to add support to that. But but, you know, in terms of hardship, I think that's that's a piece of it that you have the structure that's been used. And also, you know, from the city's perspective, in terms of substantial derogation from and it has to be substantial. derogation from the zoning bylaw. There is this thought that this discussion about allowing two families in the in the area, you also have at least 20 in that area on smaller lots on three, four thousand square foot lots. So you're not substantially derogating from the intent of the bylaw at this point. And and it can be distinguished from other houses because it is set up as a two family, the structure itself at this point. So that would be my answer to that.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Yeah, Andre.

[Andre Leroux]: But Attorney Desmond, I would take issue with what you're saying, because I think that the way this property has been historically used, you call it a two family, which, uh, you know, I would agree with, but it's a, it's a two family under. you know, within its existing shape. You're talking about creating, basically, a new 2,500-square-foot single-family home stuck on the back of this home. That's not a two-family. That's two single-family homes, I would say. It's not a townhouse. It's not a double-decker. I live in a double-decker myself. We're not talking about a 1,000 square foot unit here. If you had this house with that back existing portion, wanting to turn that into an accessory dwelling unit or even a modest addition to make it a little bit bigger, I would be totally on board. But this is just wildly out of scale with what the zoning ordinance calls for.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Then I guess that the question is, you know, whether we could continue and, you know, see if we can come up with a plan that that maybe would work or, you know, withdraw without prejudice and and refile, you know, maybe a continuance initially to two months to see if there's something that that may be, and I'm certainly willing to brief the issue with respect to the use variance as well.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Attorney Desmond, I would definitely want to see the brief. I'm open to consider, you know, that information, absolutely. And the Yeah, I do understand Andre's point as well about the scale. So ultimately, the criteria we're going to be applying for the analysis. So yeah, if you think it would be worthwhile to continue and take the time, And please do write that brief. Certainly willing to do that. If you prefer to withdraw without prejudice, that's fine too.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_27]: We're actually happy to provide an amended floor plan to make it smaller and kind of redesign if need be to present better the concerns. We could take a continuance.

[Kathleen Desmond]: For the February hearing.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the February hearing, let me just pull up a calendar.

[Unidentified]: So. It will actually be a weekday, February 29th. February 29th.

[SPEAKER_17]: Once in 4 years.

[Yvette Velez]: I think it might be helpful. Kathy, if you added up. The surrounding area 1. buildings in the surrounding neighborhood look like? Because I actually think the setback of this addition isn't core. And in that area, the two families, they look and all the buildings, they're up closer to the street and look actually quite large, right, compared to the existing building. And so adding the addition in the back doesn't, in my opinion, I think it matches the surrounding So I think that might be helpful, too, is to bring back those images.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I'm sorry, Yvette. You were kind of going in and out. You wanted me to take a look at the other units. Is that? Yes. OK.

[Yvette Velez]: The spaces in the surrounding neighborhood, just to demonstrate that I think it matches the surrounding area. OK.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the February regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is on February 29. I moved.

[SPEAKER_17]: Second.

[Mike Caldera]: Second. Heard a second, but I couldn't place who it was.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.

[Mike Caldera]: OK. I thought it was you, Jim. All right. Andre?

[Andre Leroux]: Aye.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie. Aye. Yvette.

[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Jim.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Mike. Aye. All right. So this is continued to the 29th. And so we'll plan at that point to review any updates to the plans as well as the legal brief and comparisons of some of the nearby units.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night, folks.

[Mike Caldera]: Good night. All right. Dennis, I don't know if we have to read it out loud and full again, but there was the one other one where the app wasn't on yet. So let's just check if they're here again. So I think that was, is that the Irving Street one, right?

[SPEAKER_13]: 66 Irving Street?

[Denis MacDougall]: It was, yeah. The computer went a little kabooey at one point, so I kind of lost some things, but I had agreed to bring things up.

[Mike Caldera]: Do we have a representative for 66 Irving Street? We had called the case earlier, but didn't see anyone at that time. All right, I'm not seeing any representative for the applicant, so Chair awaits a motion to continue Irving Street to the next regular meeting on January 25th.

[Andre Leroux]: So moved.

[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Beth?

[Yvette Velez]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jamie?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre I. I, all right, it is continued to the 25th.

[Denis MacDougall]: So, just for the folks who are here on the call, who were interested in pro street, as we stated, this matter will be continued until our February 29th meeting. At the same time, you can still use the same zoom info to log on. And then at that point if the applicant is going forward then we'll take questions, take comments from others regarding the updated proposal.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. All right. So I think we're through the cases. We had a couple other items on the agenda.

[SPEAKER_13]: So can you read the next one, please? Sure, there's administrative updates and then approval of meeting minutes and discussion of rules. All right do we have any administrative updates.

[Denis MacDougall]: I'm going for a new member for the board hopefully by the meeting on the 25th we should have a member of an additional associate member in place. So hopefully that will work it's been a. We've had a few people that expressed interest and then weren't able to join, so we've got someone that I'm going to recommend to the mayor, and hopefully everything will be sorted.

[Mike Caldera]: Awesome, thanks for that update. Yeah, and just in that theme, so we're approaching March, which is when some of the terms kind of switch over. And so I just appreciate, Dennis, if you could be in touch with anyone who's in that situation and discuss, of course, with the mayor or whoever is required to figure out continuity and so on in terms of those.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we can go through the mayor's office and do that. Thank you. Other administrative updates?

[Alicia Hunt]: Mike, the one other thing that we'd like to share is that our office has some new staff. We had a new housing planner start last week, Aditi Mugar. A new economic development planner start last week, Jessica Martinez. And we have a new economic development director starting on Tuesday. Sal, I'm not sure off the top of my head, I can come up with his last name because it's very similar to several other, hold on. Sal DeStefano.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Great, that's exciting.

[Alicia Hunt]: So yeah, so we'll have, at that point, all of our positions in our office that we have available will be filled.

[Bill Forte]: Perfect. I have an announcement too, Mike. So we do have a new building commissioner that'll be coming on as of February 5th. I will stay on for probably a couple more weeks to get the new building commissioner acclimated, and then I'll probably cut loose. So you'll be seeing my smiling face for at least another month, but that's good news. And hopefully he can kind of carry on the mission that I've tried to strike up here in Medford, and it's been a pleasure serving.

[Mike Caldera]: We will miss you, but I can't wait.

[Bill Forte]: I think I'm just going to hang out here at night. I'm going to make sure to get on at least one of these things. You're going to be like, why is Bill on this meeting? It's awesome. No, it's been a pleasure working with you all. You're a great board. And I really do appreciate all the thoughtfulness and the thoroughness that you know, this board goes through and I certainly appreciate your work and it's been a pleasure serving with you here in the city of Medford. So if you don't hear me say it again, please take it to heart and I mean it. Thank you, Bill. It's been a pleasure working with you. Great. All right, I'm signing off.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Good night. Other administrative updates? I don't think there's anything.

[Denis MacDougall]: just, yeah, I think we're good on that. We don't really bring it up, but I sat in on the meeting yesterday between Cliff and their architectural team. It was very positive. It was good to see their interactions, which is nice to hear. Granted, a lot of it was high-level architectural talk, which went way over my head, but it was very amicable, which is nice to see.

[Mike Caldera]: Great. That's awesome. All right. So for meeting minutes, I believe we have the, um, the November 2nd and the November 30th. Yeah. November 2nd, November 30th. Thank you. Um, so, so yeah, folks, have you had a chance to read through the meeting minutes?

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm going back. I just had one grammar check. I hate to be the grammar guy, but it was, uh, no, no, that's fine.

[Denis MacDougall]: You want just, uh. I just know, yeah, yeah, just a minor correction. Um, there was a difference and then we're doing the approval just sort of say, with the corrections indicated. So, I don't have to, like, make the changes, send them to you and get them re, approved if you just sort of put it in the. In the, in the okay. for the, you know, the motion.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I don't think we have to go too low level, Jamie. So if you think if you've got a grammar issue, and you're committing to send it to Dennis, I think we can just take on that.

[Denis MacDougall]: It doesn't change the bottom. It was like, you know, I didn't say that. And yeah, or it's like, you know, I actually meant something like that. But if it's actual just grammar stuff, we can just sort of say, you know, with grammar corrections.

[Unidentified]: For future reference, I'll just say. I'll skip those.

[Mike Caldera]: Sounds good. So there awaits a motion to approve the meeting minutes for November 2nd and November 30th as amended by Jamie.

[Andre Leroux]: Well, Mike, I wasn't there for a November, the first one. So I can't remember.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, we might have to split them.

[Mike Caldera]: So okay, so the so which one had the grammar error?

[Unidentified]: Jamie, it was the November second.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, chair awaits a motion to approve the minutes for November 2, as amended by Jamie. So moved. All right. Do I have a second? Okay. Seconded. So Andre, you're just going to... I actually don't know. So you're going to abstain? Abstain, I guess.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, so I guess Mary was at the meeting.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's right. It should be the people at the meeting.

[Denis MacDougall]: And then for the 30th, Jim can't vote on that. And Mary will vote on that one too. So Mary will vote on both of them. And then Andre votes on the second one. Jim votes on the first.

[Mike Caldera]: That sounds good. OK. So Jamie? Aye. Yvette?

[Yvette Velez]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jim? I saw an aye. Mary? Aye. Like I all right, those meeting minutes are approved now chair awaits a motion to approve The meeting minutes for november 30th as written Okay, um, do I have a second second, okay, uh andre, hi jamie Is that I very

[Yvette Velez]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right. So both sets of meeting minutes are approved. I believe we were done with the agenda. Yes, Dennis? That is correct. Awesome. Well, thanks, folks. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.

[Mary Lee]: Motion.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. And so we need to take a roll call. I've learned so. Mary? Aye. Jim? All right, we're adjourned. Thanks, everybody.