[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome to this regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Jim Tirani? Present. Jamie Thompson? Present. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: I believe Andre LaRue is absent. Then we've got Mary Lee.
[Mary Lee]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: I'd like to welcome Chris D'Avetta, our new associate member. So Chris. Present. And then Mike Caldera present. All right. So we have six members of the board present. I'm going to be designating Mary Lee as the voting member for the cases we hear tonight. Some were continued from a prior hearing. Some are net new. And so, yeah, it is a packed agenda tonight. I will be doing my best to keep things moving along while making sure every applicant has a chance to share their information. So with that being said, we have a quorum. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemented budget bill, which, among other things, extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting on March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language that may be substantive change to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, and Dennis, my understanding is that we did get a request from 120 Winthrop Street to continue, is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct, yes.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So then we'll take that one out of order. Dennis, can you read that one, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 120 Wentworth Street, case number 8-2023-21, continued from January 25th. Applicant and owner Sandra and Bartolomeo DiRenzo are petitioning for a variance with 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 for the City Method Zoning Ordinance Chapter 94 Section 6.3.10 corner visibility.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. And so I saw it in an email update. I believe this applicant is taking some additional time to meet with our new building commissioner, Steve VanderWaal, who's on the call. And yeah, so I'll just double check to see if the applicant is present. I do not see them on. Okay, yeah, so this is a suggestion the board made at the last hearing to try to work out a solution for this petition for a fence that's non-conforming. So yeah, the applicant communicated in advance the request to continue. Chair awaits a motion to continue 120 Winthrop Street to the next regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals.
[Mary Lee]: Motion to continue.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. All right. We're going to take a roll call. Jamie Thompson? Aye. Yvette Velez?
[Michael Pardek]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim Tirani? Aye. Jerry Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike Caldera? Aye. All right, that matter is continued to our next meeting.
[Alicia Hunt]: Mike, before you go on, say the date and time so that it's the date and time certain. Sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I mean, the next regular meeting is a date and time certain, but yes, in case there is any ambiguity, that is the last Thursday of March, which is, let me just pull up a calendar. It is March 28th. Yeah, March 28th at 6.30pm. So I do not aware of any other request to continue and so. Dennis, if that's indeed the case, let's go ahead back to the regular order of business.
[Denis MacDougall]: 290 Salem Street case number 8 dash 2023-14 continues from January 25th. Applicant and owner, 290 Salem Street LLC is positioning for variance in the Chapter 94 City Method Zoning to construct a seven-unit residential structure with commercial space, and in Part 1 zoning district-allowed use, with insufficient front and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and number of units per square foot of land, City Method Zoning, Chapter 94, Section 6, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. All right, who do we have on for 290 Salem Street?
[Adam Barnosky]: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Adam Barnosky, 255 State Street, attorney for the applicant. With me is Fernando Bento, the principal and owner of the property, as well as the project architect, Jacob Levine. Good evening. Thank you. Can I provide an overview of the project? Please, go ahead. All right, thank you. So we're here relative to zoning relief for a new mixed-use building development at 290 Salem Street. Specifically, the zoning request is relative to dimensional relief for the structure and a use relative to one of the two commercial units on the first floor. I'll provide a background and an overview of the project, followed by a presentation of the architect, and then talk a little bit about the zoning relief that we're seeking. So 298 Salem Street LLC is the record owner of the property, which is located on the northeast corner of Salem Street and Park Street. It is comprised of two tax parcels measuring approximately 8,842 square feet. The property is a polygonal lot with 96.6 feet of frontage along Salem Street and 145 feet of frontage along Park Street, the entirety of which is located in the apartment one zoning district. This was formerly a commercial industrial space. The prior structure has been demolished and the property is now vacant. The applicant seeks to construct a new three-story mixed-use building consisting of two commercial units on the first floor, seven residential units, eight parking spaces that grade, a roof deck and other amenities including a mailroom and covered bike storage with charging capabilities. The two units, as I mentioned, will be located on the ground level. It's the intent of the developer to utilize them as a neighborhood retail and potentially a coffee shop. The second floor will have three two-bedroom units and one-bedroom unit, and the third floor will have three two-bedroom units. The development will consist of a single building having a gross square footage of 12,522 square feet and a net square footage of 10,000 square feet approximately excluding the roof deck. The proposed building has a lot total coverage of 5,093 square feet or 57%. So digging into the relief that we're seeking before the board today, as detailed in the application materials, the project requires certain dimensional variances from the board pursuant to section 4.1.1, table B of the zoning ordinance, in addition to a de minimis use variance under section 3.2. That's for the coffee shop or eating establishment without a drive-thru. The dimensional variances, I do detail these in the application materials. I'm happy to walk through as much or as little really as the chair would like about the relief that we're seeing. But just broadly, it's for lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, front yard setback, left side yard setback, right side yard setback, lot coverage, and lastly, a variance for the commercial unit as an eating place without drive-through. So I'll talk about the arguments in support of the variance momentarily, but thought it might be a good opportunity for the team to give an overview to the board of the design here, if I may.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Attorney Barnowski, one clarifying question before we transition to that. So in the permit refusal, it mentions how there's lots being combined here and that they should be combined by 81X or ANR. And so is that something you need any relief for? I'm a little unclear on kind of what's going on there.
[Adam Barnosky]: Well, let me take a look at the refusal letter, if I may, potentially while we look through the design. They are two tax parcels. They are owned by the same entity, which I believe for zoning purposes, merges the lots by operation of law. But I will get back to you momentarily on that. Okay. All right. Sounds good. Thank you. So Jacob is on as SL House Group. I'm not sure if he can be promoted to share his screen.
[Mike Caldera]: Hi, Jacob. I think you should have permissions to share now.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Fantastic. Good evening, everybody. And thank you very much for this opportunity to present to you this project. As our attorney said, this is a totaling of seven units, and it's a mix of one bedroom and two bedrooms on the corner of Salem Street, which you could see down here. Currently, that has been demolished. I'm sure we've all driven past it enough to notice a hit in the ground. My units are about 1,100 square feet, some a little bit smaller, some a little bit larger. But for an average, it's 1,100 square feet for a two bed, which is a very nice unit. So I'm going to start just walking you through a little bit how the building is laid out. On the first floor holding the corner on Salem and Park Street we have our two commercial spots. The in and out of the site access is going to happen through Park Street with our eight parking spaces in total including bike storage and EV ready spots. This is a close to commuter rail slash T station so it's kind of a transit good place for people to essentially you know carpool bike trans orientated design sort of style. The lot itself is a odd shaped lot and we're doing our best to try to have a building that fits the. feel and make up of that neighborhood. So we want to be relatively tight to the sidewalk and actually use the site and have a building that fits versus trying to build something that would be a box essentially that would satisfy the setbacks in the zoning. So you can see we kind of have this sharp corner on Salem and Park Street, trying to break it down with either an open space deck on the upper floor. So it softens that corner a little bit. And we only have two floors of residential in the first floor. It's commercial. And then the top floor would be a shared access to the, uh, common roof deck. This will be set back significantly off the side of the building. So people from the ground floor and on the street would not be able to see anything that's going on on the roof. We also want to prepare it for an all electric build out. So it would be solar panels in the back and solar panel ready. moving through the look and feel the facades of the building. We're trying to play off essentially the context of the neighborhood. There's a lot of brick with the old historic building across the way, including the classic Bostonian balcony bump outs. So we're trying to do something in a light manner, we want to actually do the reverse and do a brick on the first story to have Have power with glass and black storefront, similar to what they have a can across the street. And we also want to do something with our bump outs that match a similar detail. We're looking at doing some sort of fiber cement. Or terracotta, even with some of the facades. We're trying to have a building that looks like it's always been there. You know, we don't need something metal panel that's flashy, that stands out. But you can see kind of the odd shape lot is one of the things we're up against. And we really want to do the best job we can to have a presence on this site and actually develop this intersection and look like a building that should have always been there. So at this moment, I'm going to pass it back. And that's what we have for the architecture design at this point.
[Adam Barnosky]: Attorney Bernaske, you're on mute. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm going to check to see about whether we need to come before any of the boards relative to the 81X or ANR. As I mentioned, the doctrine of merger does state that for zoning purposes, these two lots are merged and they're treated as one for the purposes of anything before this board tonight. So we are not there. So maybe I can discuss with the building commissioner separately about that requirement. But certainly I don't believe that that would require any purview between this board.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it sounds right. That's my understanding. So the subdivision control is not within our purview. So yeah, we just want to make sure that the project is buildable. But it sounds like you've got a path to do that. So we'll just proceed with the understanding that that's something that this board can't help with. And then you'll be pursuing that separately.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, thank you. And so, Mr. Chair, if I may, can I talk about the variances and some of the arguments in support? Please go ahead. So, as the board is aware, we require variances for the dimensional and use relief. This is pursuant to general law 48, section 10, and we can demonstrate that owing to the circumstances relating to the shape of this lot, which does generally not affect the apartment one zoning district, a literal enforcement, of the ordinance would involve substantial practical and financial hardship to the petitioner and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or derogating from the intent of the zoning ordinance. Regarding the first prong related to unique circumstances of the lot. This property has an irregular shape. It's compounded by the acute angle formed by the intersection of Park Street and Salem Street, which is unique to this lot and does present a formidable challenge to development. The apartment one zoning district is typified mostly by rectangular lots and square lots, which are either more appropriately suited to the confines of the ordinances, dimensional requirements, or they are pre-existing non-conforming lots or structures which predate the enactment of the zoning code. The subject lot at 290 Salem narrows significantly along Park Street before widening irregularly, creating what appears to be a cinched lot. And this unique configuration has been present since at least 1923. It's not a product of a recent subdivision. And this is a uniqueness of the law, which does not generally affect the zoning districts. And more importantly, it ties into the second prong, which is substantial hardship. Here, strict adherence to the zoning ordinance would severely limit the property's development potential. The irregular shape coupled with current dimensional regulations impose significant practical and economic burdens on development. Any multifamily development on the property of which the use is otherwise permitted by right in the zoning districts would trigger the requirement for dimensional relief from the CBA. That's mostly due to this irregular shape of the lot. And particularly the zoning requirements, if they were strictly applied, given the shape and measurements of the lot, the buildable area would be severely restricted. Individually, the lots are not suitable for construction. As we did mention, for the purposes of zoning, they are merged here. But building in accordance with the applicable zoning requirements would result in a significantly smaller building than those that are currently found both in the zoning district and along Salem Street. So the literal application of the dimensional requirements would render the proposed project or most any other proposed alternative project infeasible from both a practical and economic perspective. And it really would be like, for example, if they would put a single family home on the property, it would be inconsistent. While consistent with the dimensional regulations and compliant in a by right project under zoning, it really would be inconsistent with what else you're seeing in the neighborhood, particularly across the street. It'd be a very unusual location for a structure like that. Moreover, on the use variance, the non residential uses permitted as of right at the property are very limited. The apartment one zoning district provides few commercial uses that can be operated in a modest space and that are desirable for an area. an area or a neighborhood such as Salem Street, despite the fact that numerous commercial spaces exist in the immediate neighborhood. Here we find that a coffee shop use or a small eating establishment use would be very much consistent with the neighborhood and would be an amenity, would not be a detriment. So regarding the next prong, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or derogating from the intent of the ordinance. As I was mentioning, the proposed development aligns with the community's needs and objectives and will contribute greatly to the neighborhood. First, the primary proposed use that being a multifamily use is permitted at the property as of right under the zoning ordinance and the dimensional variances requested will have little impact on the neighboring properties. The proposed commercial use would be an amenity to the surrounding area. The applicant's proposed development is a good fit for the area. It's in substantial conformity with the character uses and streetscape of Salem Street and the broader neighborhood. Along Salem Street alone, there are multiple mixed-use buildings similarly situated to the property with first floor commercial uses fronting on Salem Street and residential uses above. Specifically similar mixed-use developments are located directly across the street from the property and due east of the property. Moreover, the applicant's proposed building will be much more attractive than the former commercial building, which had a significantly smaller front and side yard setbacks. The proposed building provides more than one parking spot per unit and offers covered bicycle storage with charging capabilities outside the residence. And finally, there will be no nullification to the ordinance or detriment to the public good. This proposal remains in harmony with the zoning ordinances underlying intent. If you look at section 94-1 of the ordinance provides that's purpose is to promote health, safety, morals, convenience, and general welfare of its habitants, to lessen danger from fire, congestion, confusion, improve and beautify the city. We believe that that is really what this project is doing, to replace a former commercial and industrial structure with a proposed modern multi-use development, which is relatively modest in size considering other developments you're seeing in the city. It will not only promote general welfare and safety, but will be more in line with the character of this neighborhood. Also, when you consider the close proximity to the buses, to the MBTA stations, walking distance to shops and the bicycle storage here, we do expect that this building will attract residents who are looking to avoid daily automobile use and instead elect to walk, to bike, to take mass transit around the city, promoting convenience and safety of the city by also decreasing congestion. So we do feel that the project clearly meets the standards under 48 section 10. Each of these standards was dealt with in more detail, with more specifics in the application materials provided to the board, but we're certainly happy to answer any questions you may have.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So, Attorney Barnowski, I know you mentioned it twice, but I just, I'm gonna ask explicitly to make sure there's no misunderstandings here. So, in the permit refusal letter, it doesn't specifically call out the need for a use variance, but you do in fact need a use variance because this mixed use is not allowed by right in apartment one zoning. Is that consistent with your understanding?
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, that is consistent with our understanding.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Wonderful, thank you. So I'm gonna open it up to questions and comments from the board.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Mary, go ahead.
[Mary Lee]: Yes, so can we look at that architectural picture again? It looks like the top protrudes out from the first floor. I may be wrong, but from just looking at this picture, that's what it looks like. Is that what it reflects?
[Mike Caldera]: If I understood Mary correctly, you're asking is the essentially the footprint of the roof larger than the footprint of the.
[Mary Lee]: Right, yeah, yeah, that's more. Yeah. So I'm just wondering how much how much is that larger that extends from from the 1st floor? From the second floor up beyond the ground floor, how much, what is the, how much is that?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: This is Jacob Levine, the architect. I think, so on the first floor, essentially we have the parking underneath. So our first floor is a 2000 square feet, and then the second and third floor, the exact same floor plate, and those are 5000 square feet. So it's 3,000 square feet greater, but all three of these floors stack. So this is all on the same horizontal plane, if that makes sense. It's just we're parking underneath the building in the back. I hope that answers your question.
[Mary Lee]: Maybe I'm not asking the correct question. So you look at the first ground floor and on the second floor, it extends out. No, this is in line. No, the other side. Right there. Yes, yes. You see that the first floor and the second floor, it looks like the second floor extends out. I'm just wondering how much is that?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: It does not extend out. This is in line with this. These two lines, this wall is aligned. I'm not understanding the question. So it's a line? Yes, ma'am.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: Um, so I have, uh, can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Um, I have just a couple of questions and then, um. 1 or 2 comments, of course, I question trash, you know, where is it existing? How's it getting removed? And, you know, I think of what previously was there, you know, it was a 1 story residential. And so what does that look like in the future with all these units? And I see it's a very small parking lot anyway. So. That would be trash removal and of course, no, and then. I actually disagree. I don't think this building really matches the area exactly. It matches in the sense of, yes, of course, there's commercial space, but across the street, yes, there is a higher building, but that's the only multi-story building in this space. Even across the other way, you have a commercial building. real estate office that looks like a house, and then it's directly next to another house on the other side. So this building actually looks quite large and very more commercial than the commercial building that had previously stood there. Because the previous building was a very, it was not only significantly smaller and one floor, but it had a slanted roof. And then my other question was in regards to the roof deck itself, I noticed, what was, is there, so it's a very much, you know, you don't have a lot of green space at all. You've taken it all and I didn't really see much. So then on the roof was, was that, what is that? I guess, can you explain, like, is that gardens used for the tenants and whatnot? Like, can you just talk a little bit more about what that was? That's it.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Adam, do you mind if I if I discuss some of these comments? Yeah, please, please do it. Well, thank you for for all that feedback. I mean, more the mayor. I'll start with the trash. This has come up quite a bit in some of our meetings. So what we're trying with the goal would be would be to have these kind of roll out rollable trash. dumpsters over on kind of fenced in on this side of the property. So essentially trash would work through Park Street snow removal. We have dedicated corners for the actual where the snow would be piled up. So I mean, at least that has been thought about at this point. So the trash would come in and out from Park Street. Uh, green space is something that, you know, not only is the city mandate that we need, but where we, as, you know, designers really care about the heat island effect and trying to bring in green space, especially for people who want to live there. So, as much as possible, we have a great site plan and a great site plan team on board trying to utilize. All the open space availability, you can see where those two trash dumpsters are to be here, but everything else, including this would be a nice flex lawn space, which is kind of a cool idea for the commercial space if they want to utilize that or it could go back to the tenants of some regard. But the idea would be to fill up the entire perimeter of the building with green space and then the roof deck itself, actually serves as outdoor space for the tenants themselves. I think we would have more, you know, planters and green space up there again for that kind of heat island effect by having more trees up there, you're not taking as much heat and you're naturally cooling the building. So work what you're kind of seeing here would be more like planters and actually a green roof. And then the solar in the back as well. And then just, you know, touching on the fabric of the neighborhood a little bit. I mean, we do have, you know, the there's the firehouse, there's the school, they've built some multifamily buildings down here. Obviously, as you head this way on Salem Street, you start you go underneath the highway, and you start heading into, you know, downtown Medford, if you want to call it that over by City Hall itself. So, you know, you can see it here, that one-story building here was just this massive flat plane. And I mean, I like to think here's a three-story, two-and-a-half-story building right next to it. You have this big building in the back. So I feel like our three-story building kind of fits actually quite well there. But that's my take on it. So thank you.
[Adam Barnosky]: And if I may provide just some additional comments, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Sure. So just to echo some of the comments from Jacob that had more to do with massing. Also, it is worth noting that The streetscape photos of this building, you'll notice, do not include the Verdant landscape plan that is providing the submission materials. Jacob and his team are in the process of putting that together for our subsequent and second Community Development Board meeting, which deals with the issues of really the site plan and how the building looks. and particularly with the landscaping. The building itself from the street view will look significantly more beautified with the inclusion of the trees, the planters, and the landscaping that you're seeing on the screen here. Mr. Chair, just on your question about use, I just wanted to clarify, it is not stated in the refusal letter. When we were talking more about the development of this building, and we were speaking with planning staff, it was always the intent to have some sort of a dining establishment here. We understand that boards often don't like when you go before them and get piecemeal relief, because boards like to see what's the totality of the relief that you're seeking here. And based on the building across the street, the Potter building, which has in adjacent to it has a roast beef shop, as I understand it, a bakery, a beauty salon. We thought that having a coffee shop or some similar amenity across the street would be both consistent with that use and would provide the board with the full picture of what's going on here.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Attorney Bernaske. Other questions or comments from the board? Jim Tarani.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, question. For deliveries, especially the commercial units below and for pickup and for people moving in, do you have any special parking for that?
[Adam Barnosky]: I can speak to parking. The Community Development Board did request that at least one spot be designated for the exclusive use of the commercial unit or units. So that is a discussion that the developer is strongly considering and we think would make sense here so the focus wasn't on all residential. Regarding Was your second question regarding deliveries?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Deliveries for the commercial units and deliveries for, let's say, people that are going to be entering the commercial units. Is that going to be all street parking?
[Adam Barnosky]: Well, if people were approaching by car, it would have to be street parking. The other parking spaces are pursuant to the zoning code. We have to have a certain amount of spaces per dwelling unit. But again, we anticipate that this will be more of an amenity for people who live in the building, people who work in the area, people who live in We wouldn't anticipate that folks would be driving in from far away to go to a, you know, a small neighborhood coffee shop.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: There are two retail spaces? Yes. So one, how big are each, how large are the retail spaces?
[Adam Barnosky]: Jacob, can you, can you answer that?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, thank you. Um, hopefully y'all can still see my screen. Commercial space one is about 830 square feet and commercial two is about 790 square feet. Um, you know, so you figure all said and done once it's fit out somewhere around 800 square feet each.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: So is there any type of cooking in any of those spaces?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Uh, we don't, we're not too sure yet. We were kind of thinking more like cafe cooking than, you know, commercial industrial kitchen. Obviously, you know, it depends on the use group. If you have a commercial, um, fit out kitchen, you know, that, that could be a different occupancy than, you know, a business, which we're kind of gearing for here. the occupancy.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yeah. And specifically the uses that we're looking for. One is a neighborhood retail use. And the second would be the, uh, a restaurant without drive through with the intent of it being a coffee shop. But there is no, there's no distinction between those clarifications in the table of uses. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions or comments from the board?
[Unidentified]: All of mine were covered, either in the site plan or in the questions already. I just have one question. Do we have any communications from a Butters or from the community development board?
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, do we have any?
[Denis MacDougall]: We didn't receive anything from any Butters and the way that this procedure is sort of going, they're still going before the community development board and the We should start raising and maybe she can express going to this better than I can.
[Mike Caldera]: Director Hunt, please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sure. I apologize. We had hoped to get you sort of a brief memo update, but unfortunately, the senior planner who normally does that has the flu and had not the capacity to do any letters for tonight. I think it is helpful to share that the Community Development Board had a number of questions on the details of this around the look and feel, the shadow, et cetera, but that they felt that it actually really did fit the neighborhood and particularly liked a cafe use because this is almost directly across the street from an elementary school. So they felt that this in a big picture way they were amenable with it, but there are many details that they're still looking for from the applicant for the next round of site plan review to work out the details of this, and because of the way. This needs zoning relief in order to be approved. They can't approve the site plan unless the zoning relief goes through. If the zoning were to be denied, the project in theory could be redesigned or it could go away. But if it was a project that could be redesigned, that would dramatically impact the site plan. Honestly, I didn't analyze the variances that were needed here, but they would not finish the site plan review until this board has ruled. I hope that's that's helpful and I apologize if there's no written memo was not. I actually have to stop this is out sick today.
[Adam Hurtubise]: He's right.
[Unidentified]: Yep, and similarly I again I I see the style fitting with the. area, the building across the street, the condo building behind that one, the other buildings. I do like that it is mixed use, adding some more retail space to that area. And especially with the walkability with a school there, I definitely see the value of having a coffee shop or some sort of restaurant there.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Jamie. Jim, I saw your hand raised. Was there something else you wanted to ask? Oh, you're on mute.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I just wanted to comment. I do like the style of it. I do feel that it fits in nice in that area. Just my opinion.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Jim. Other questions or comments from the board? Yeah, Chris, go ahead.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Hello. I would just like the architect, perhaps, to comment on this side yard setbacks. or the setbacks from the two abutters? And what, you know, it's the physical setbacks, and do you have any elevations or renderings from those perspectives?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Adam, I'm going to let you hop on the setback comment there.
[Adam Barnosky]: Sure, sure. Let me just pull up my notes here.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Because I know there is like an average setback done from the curb to the building based off the neighbors, something like that specifically to let you handle the language on that.
[Adam Barnosky]: Sure, well, so for. What I can tell you as far as the, it might be helpful actually to have this up while I'm talking through the figures. The setback relief is front yard, left side yard, and right side yard. On the front side yard setback, 17.76 feet is required under the code. This project is proposing 2.9 feet. So the variance that we're requesting relative to front yard is 14.7 feet. And then with the left side yard setback, code requires 25.5 feet. We are proposing a 5.9 yard setback requiring 19.3 feet of relief. And then finally on the right side yard, 20.7 feet is required. The applicant is proposing 14.3 requiring 6.4 feet of relief.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then the back. On the rear step back, Adam.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. What's that? He was just asking about the rear setback.
[Adam Barnosky]: Oh, well, let me take a look here. I don't know that we... So the rear setback, we are not seeking relief from the rear yard setback. I don't have that figure in front of me just because we haven't run the analysis because it wasn't cited and we didn't seek relief from it.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, because the building is, you know, step back on the first floor all the way. Right. And then I guess just, you know, why we are at that level of setback, you know, when we were looking at the buildings going up and down Salem Street, we kind of looked at an average where they were, and it's actually better than, you know, the old building that sat there footprint wise. It's a little bit more room than you had existing wise. And again, just trying to get enough square footage that the building actually can lay out. comfortably, uh, for, for the units and the commercial space and all the site utility work that's going to have to happen, meaning, you know, how occupants are going to come in and out of the building. There's comfortable room, you know, with the doors opening, we can, if you come back to our, you know, green space plan, there's enough green space around. So the, so the building can naturally breathe a little bit better. Um, so there's, there's consideration why we, um, put the building where we did.
[Mary Lee]: do you mind showing on the street view photo where the requested relief, not this one, but the existing street photo? Yeah, this one. Can you point as to where you're seeking the relief for with respect to this photo?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: So correct me if I'm wrong, Adam, we're seeking relief on the left side, the right side, everything except the back.
[Adam Barnosky]: That's correct.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: And, you know, if we did it by right, you know, essentially the building would fit something really small like that back there. If we had to hit the setbacks the way they were governed.
[Adam Barnosky]: And if you'll notice the picture that's right before the board with the white house that is adjacent to the previously existing structure, that was right up to the lot line. If you have a look at a street view of this, you have the house and then you have that structure that was all the way up. There's a reduction in the nonconformity here. And in its place where the building stood before, there will now be, as the landscape plan shows, a green space and planters, which I think is going to, at least from a privacy standpoint, increase the privacy of that abutting parcel.
[Mike Caldera]: And just to add to Mary, because the prior structures have been demolished, the relief is just from the general dimensional requirements. So I think in some of the dimensions for the applicant seeking relief, if you were to compare against the prior structures nonconformity, it's actually lessened, but it's just a completely different structure. So it's a different analysis.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so I'll go ahead, Chris.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I just wanted to clarify something. If the rear setback is not required, that is because it's open air. The second floor begins the structure at the rear. So you have parking, open air. And then you have a structure on pylons, essentially.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so if I understood the question, is the reason why no dimensional relief is required because you have parking underneath the second floor footprint? So if it was just completely stacked and you didn't have the parking underneath, Is this is the second floor, you know, getting into the rear yard setback. I think from what I saw, it was like 20 some odd feet, but
[Adam Barnosky]: Right. And I can't, if that question is for me, I can't obviously step into the shoes of the building commissioner's analysis. I don't, from my understanding, I don't believe that simply having open air alleviates the requirement for dimension relief for side yard setbacks. So I would assume that when the original plans were being reviewed from a zoning compliance standpoint, the edge of the building regardless of it being at grade or second or third floor was measured for the relief being sought here or which does not require relief here. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so I'll ask my question then. So I'd like to better understand the facade on Salem Street and some of the design decisions that went into that. I see that there are those, I'll call them and obey windows that seem to be trying to mirror the Potter building across the street. But like location of the decks and choices of materials and so on. I just like to have a better understanding of some of the considerations that went into that.
[Adam Barnosky]: Jacob, you want to take that?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I just want to make sure we're on the same are we reviewing design here going looking at zoning things because how deep do you want to go into like the culmination of this facade today with everybody online.
[Mike Caldera]: So, to answer my question we do not need to go deep. board does need to consider if something's being proposed and it's a new use and whether it does or doesn't kind of fit in with the neighborhood. So that's mostly the interest of my question.
[Adam Barnosky]: And Jacob, you might want to just touch upon some of the comments that were made by the planning board last week and how some of those aesthetic changes might be adjusted during the site plan review process.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Absolutely. Things are sometimes subjective to what one person likes and what someone else doesn't. But at least from the design standpoint, the whole idea here was there's been a lot of things built in this area that feel a little bit foreign. And we've been working on this project for several years now, especially working with people at Medford and in the city. department, trying to understand, you know, what would be best on this site. And we've just really been instructed to really look at some of the more historical buildings, that of which being, of course, the one directly across the street. Having said that, you know, we really are keen on these balconies. We had some feedback last week, potentially, you know, there's a, is there an opportunity to look at, you know, instead of having this corner eroded and a deck, you know, what would that look like if it was actually filled in and it actually holds the corner a little bit stronger. So instead of having a void here, this was solid. You know, it comes to at a fault where if you actually think of that as usable space in a room, you know, having a less acute angle like that doesn't really connote usable space. So there's kind of a play on what's best, but really the bump outs are just such a historically Bostonian feature that we wanted to bring back to this building. I mean, I grew up like in the East Boston area and I see just so many flat facades being built now. I think there's, something beautiful about this rotunda style, detailed out facade that actually has texture and depth and creates shadow and movement on the facade. And I just feel like this corridor now with nice green space, having not something that's just plain and flat, would do a nice job, again, filling this void on this corner. And we really like the wood, obviously, that they had, you know, here, the original wood. So we were looking at doing like a kind of a plank style fiber cement board. And then kind of trimming all this out in ASAC, not just doing PVC or anything cheap like that. And then actually, you know, looking at either brick or terracotta on the first floor and trying to really bring a nice material look to this building that's not necessarily, you know, metal panel or Ephesus, but something that really feels historic in that sense. Then the banding on it just really helps break up the facade a little bit, just the more detail you can get. So this one has banding, but it's cleverly done in the headers above the window, in the lintel above the stone, and then you have the banding with the Potter building logo. So us trying to do something similar in that regard, having the banding here, we felt like it's a nice homage to what's going on, and that banding would continue around the entire building. um colors are still kind of being worked out a little bit but we wanted to actually do something maybe a little different than what's across the street but instead of the green you know we would essentially do the blue um so that's kind of how the the design is developed along the way trying to just use what's in front of us instead of rewriting the rule book and coming up with something a little bit more modern. I hope that helped answer your question a little bit without getting too into the weeds. Yes, yeah, it does, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, other questions or comments from the board? All right, seeing none, Chair, oh, yeah, yeah, Commissioner Vanderwaal.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Hi, I'm kind of listening on the conversation about what we call the rear or the side, or that depends on what the definition of it is. But, you know, setbacks are three-dimensional. They're length, width, and the height of whatever's allowed. So the second floor, the third floor, all that's a part of the setback. And I don't, I guess I'm getting the sense that it's not really addressed in this application as to what is the current dimension off that fourth side of the building, or at least I have picked up on it. Can someone clarify that?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, could we get at least, if not an exact measurement, something?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I guess we noted for the record in this application some passion. So you know what you're approving, so it doesn't come out dramatically different. But if it's not addressed, it needs to be.
[Adam Barnosky]: And just to clarify, is the question, what is the setback on the, I guess what we're calling the rear yard?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, I don't know if it's a rear or side until I review the dimensions, but yeah, what is the setback you're proposing for that fourth side that we haven't talked about?
[Mike Caldera]: So I'll just say what I, so the board does have the zoning evaluation sheet, and according to that, The required rear yard is 15 feet and 15.6 feet divided here. So if those measurements are accurate, then no relief is required in the back.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Correct, we just, earlier I'd sort of not been clear on that and wanted to just make sure it was clear. In response to the other members' question.
[Mike Caldera]: Absolutely, yeah, thank you for pointing that out. And Director Hunt, I saw your hand briefly, were you raising your hand to say something similar?
[Alicia Hunt]: Just gonna point out you had the evaluation.
[Mike Caldera]: Yep, yep, yep, cool. All right, sorry, was there something that you wanted to say?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing everyone else said, you know, we had it right on our cover of all the setbacks. We had the 15 foot six in the back. I wasn't implying I'm sorry if I confused everybody. Obviously, you know, the setback starts at the building itself, you know, here, but that's our 15 foot six from here to the lot line. I was just saying, you know, on the first floor, it feels like a better setback just because you don't have this massive presence on the back. You know, it's cantilevered essentially. But our setback is 15 foot 6, which complies to the required 15 feet.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. So I didn't see any other questions or comments from the board. So chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. All right. Let's make a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Um, yeah, if you'd like to speak on this matter now is the time.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Mike Caldera]: I do not see any members of the public indicating that they would like to speak on this matter. Um, so chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and entered deliberations.
[Mary Lee]: Motion.
[Mike Caldera]: Second. Jamie seconded by Mary. We're going to do another roll call. Mary.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim. Aye. Jamie. Mike. Aye. All right. We are now deliberating. What do you think
[Mary Lee]: I like a clarification as to what exactly the dimensions that we're voting for. I think the commissioner had reference to that, and that portion was shown on the share screen, but it was very quick.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so hold on. So I believe it's in the permit refusal letter and also on the zoning worksheet. So the lot area conforming would be 10,000 square foot. This lot is 8842 square feet, or the combined lot rather. The Number of units per square foot of land is insufficient. So again, it's 8842 square feet provided, and the requirement is 9500 square feet. The front and side setback and the lot coverage are insufficient. And so on the side yard on the left, required is 25.5 feet and provided is 5.9 feet. So that's a 19.6 foot variance. And then on the right side yard, the requirement is 20.7 feet provided is 14.3 feet. So that's a 6.4 foot variance required. And then lastly, on the lot coverage, Required is no more than 30% and provided is 57%. So that's a 27% or a 2440 square foot dimensional variation. And then on the use front, there's a variety of uses allowed by right in the apartment, one district, but the mixed use with a restaurant without drive-in and a retail use is not allowed by right. I think that's everything.
[Mary Lee]: Thanks. And also another question, Alicia mentioned that there is a memo that was not included in this?
[Mike Caldera]: I think there was a desire to write a memo, which the city's trying to do for projects like this, but there was some illnesses and it didn't happen.
[Mary Lee]: My question is how would that memo affect or lack of that memo affect our decision on this?
[Mike Caldera]: In general, the board isn't required to consider any information from the city. The memos are sometimes written to share some of the details that Director Hunt-Tenay shared verbally about the status of the project and what the planning department has been working on with the applicant. Okay, thanks. All right, so what do we think, folks?
[Unidentified]: So for me, I think the building does fit in with the area. Some of my concerns that will be taken care of by the community development board, shadow study, lighting, things like that. I really do like the fact that they're adding landscaping there. I think it'll look good with the design of the building. I do have some concerns about the design of the facade, but again, that'll be covered in community development. They're obviously already discussing that based on Alicia and the applicant's comments. Um, the side yard setbacks, obviously one side is a street. The other side is another, um, building. Uh, well, it was a house, but I believe that a butter on that side is, is that butter to the side, although it's a house, is that used as retail or is that a home?
[Mike Caldera]: Do we know across the street? It's commercial. Um, on the other side, I don't know.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Um, so I, I expect the community development board to take that into consideration. Um, but obviously the 14.3 feet on that side, you know, considering what they're looking to build here and adding units, um, I think it's going to be a good use of that space.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. I think on the, um, I guess this would be Eastern side of the building on Salem street. There, there is still an existing residential building. And then to the east of that is a commercial building.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's what I saw as well. I just wasn't sure on 302. Gotcha.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. All right. Other thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: I appreciate all the explanations in regards to the questions that I had. what I had brought up, I think, and I thank you, Michael, for talking about the, you know, what's being decided to be used for the facade and whatnot, but I still am struggling with the mass of the building. While I agree that this is an area that a multi-family needs to be and a mixed use is like a wonderful addition to our community and all of that. When I see this space in this area, I actually see roofs that don't align and I see some peaks. Again, I'm not an architect in that regard of knowing all the, there's ridges and gables and things of that nature. I just feel like this building looks really big in that space. Well, I recognize they have Tried to set it, they've set it back some to fit and put some landscaping around the edges. I just, I think it's a lot. I just hope that the community development board is looking at really helping push further what it exactly will be there. So yeah, I mean, It's, I think it's a big building and that's all I have to say right now.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Other thoughts from the board?
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, I'm in alignment with Yvette's thinking because the deck, it looks like, again, I'm not an architect, but it just looks like it protrudes out greater than what is on the first floor from the picture. And I also hope that the community development would address some of those issues. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mary. Other thoughts from the board? Yeah, so my take here is as follows. I think clearly the shape of the lots are regular. That explains a lot of the required dimensional variations. use variance is a harder standard because it still needs to be associated with the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the lot. Here, I do think one of the unusual things about this building is it is at this focal location in a square that is directly across from a mixed-use building, a historical building. So I certainly see a scenario where, because some efforts have been made to kind of blend in with the Potter building across the street, you know, this unusual, these unusual aspects about location, you know, we could potentially justify a use variance on those grounds. I'm unconvinced that the design work done on the front of the building, so the Salem Street frontage, is really sufficient to integrate this into the neighborhood. I think the bump outs certainly match. I appreciate that some of the other elements like the striping and so on are trying to mirror the building across the street. I certainly don't want the board to go too deep into architectural considerations on a project that requires site plan review. And so I'm mindful of that. I also have seen firsthand what the Community Development Board has been able to achieve in working with applicants through that process to make a project better. Here, I'm a little reluctant to go the route of, Um, you know, just assuming that the, um, you know, that the community development board will address this and just approving. in advance, like ultimately still need to be able to establish that granting the relief sought here would not cause substantial detriment to the public good. And I think one of the considerations there is how well this does integrate with the neighborhood. And so there are a few elements of this project, especially on that Salem Street frontage, where I'm of the opinion that don't integrate that well, that The decks are awkward. Some of the material choices don't really fully fit in to several members' points. There are some potential issues with the massing, because not all buildings are like the Potter building. There's some smaller buildings nearby. I don't really see a need for the board to vote on this tonight, given that this is actively before the Community Development Board anyway. And they could just make their recommendations as part of site plan review. And then the board will know. We don't have to guess. I see Director Hunt, were you raising your hand? Yeah, go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I was going to get up. So the difficulty is that the Community Development Board is the site plan review special permit granting agency. So the site plan review is not a recommendation to the ZBA, but the CD board has to approve it as a special permit. And they can't vote on the special permit if the dimensional, if it's Not in alignment with dimensional variances right if they're, if the dimensional variances haven't been approved, they can approve a site plan that is not in conformance with zoning. So what I'm trying to say, we'll agree with you that there's work to be done and that will change it. But, and I just. You can decide to continue it tonight. I don't have a problem with that, but I wanted you to know that the CD board would then at their next hearing continue to work with them, but would continue it. And hopefully what would come back to this board would be the revised plans. And this board would still need to vote on it before and then CD board would have to have a third meeting, which is fine. to then vote on it after the variances were approved. I just want you to know the flow. That's an okay thing, though.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So just double-checking, though. So you didn't say it expressly, but I'm making a small logical jump here. So this would still also be the case if the board voted just on the dimensional variances but not on the use variance? The CD board still couldn't approve some of the plans?
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh that's an interesting question I hadn't contemplated and I think that is true because the site plan includes the commercial uses which would then at that time not be allowable under zoning.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I will say if this board thought it was going to go that way, I'm just going to say it, even though I'm going back and forth in my head, that the CD board would want some level of assurance that they thought this was going to get approved because there is this question always, it's the chicken and an egg. Should we spend hours and hours with the developer trying to get it better if the variances are just going to get denied, right? If the board was like, no, we actually would never allow this, then it's a waste of the CD board's time, right? But then again, you would then just deny it tonight if it was just never going to happen.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I understand that, Director Hines. My claim is that that's more of a consideration for an applicant than a CD board. So I think the CD board should review whatever comes before it. But yeah, the intention here is not to make this a long, drawn-out process, just calling out that there are some members of the zoning board that are currently expressing some concerns, mostly with the the massing and the facade. So I mean, it is a chicken egg, but it is kind of an applicant call. So I see Attorney Barnowski has his hand raised. Please go ahead.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, thank you. And I think certainly all of the comments that were made today are good comments, particularly some of that, I think most of them really share some of the comments that were brought to the Community Development Board at the hearing, particularly regarding, it seems like the one common thread seems to be the decks, the decks in the corner. And so the discussion that was had last week was that there would be some attention paid to those decks and that it was our assumption that any changes that would be made would reduce the nonconformity on those floors, but they wouldn't reduce the relief that we're seeking before the board today. So while there might be a visual impact, the relief would be the same because the relief is what's at ground level or really going on up. But if there would be a reduction in those areas that it wouldn't change what we're here. It is a bit of a challenge from an applicant's perspective, but I know that the process has changed at the city and it is very much a chicken or the egg thing. So we're trying to find a way to create any efficiency as we can. So if there are any ways that the board would like to approve it with the understanding that the visual and aesthetic concerns will be addressed by the Community Development Board. That would certainly be what we would prefer to see happen. Mr. Chair, I do understand what you're saying about the zoning variance, I'm sorry, the use variance. I do think that in the context of this broader application, the use variance is probably, is the less important component here. I would not say to not move forward if there were some issues with that, you could certainly come back. This is two years, this is gonna take to build. We're not expecting to have a tenant there for some time, so we could talk about that and go through that process if need be at a later date. But we would love to see this progress to the next stop to kind of avoid too much of a ping pong. But of course, we're happy to do whatever works for these boards. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah. So procedurally, the options I'm aware of are so the board could vote tonight, in which case it would have the option to approve, approve with conditions, or deny based on the statutory criteria. we could continue and things could progress with the Community Development Board. It would be a bit of a ping pong back and forth, but then the board would be voting possibly with an updated design that reflects some of the Community Development Board's feedback, which might impact the analysis in terms of detriment to the public good. And then the third option, as I understand it, is the board could not issue a section six finding, but could issue a finding about just about anything under the sun. So it could vote to find that certain criteria are or aren't met without granting any variances. So I think those are kind of the three three options as I see them. So I would be willing to explore all three. And I want to make sure that the applicant understands that third one, because I don't think it's commonly done. But, you know, essentially, the board could, you know, a member could make a motion to find that, you know, due to the due to the topography of the lot, or sorry, the shape of the lot that the certain dimensional variances would not be derogating from the intent of the ordinance or something like that. So it could be like sort of a partial thing without voting on the variance itself. I don't know, what would be most preferable from your perspective, Bernie Bernowski?
[Adam Barnosky]: Well, I mean, it's I think I think it depends on what gets us there. I think if there's if there's support on the project to to have the board vote and vote on that today, I think that that would be that would be the the preferred action here. I mean, it is worth noting, I'm not sure if there were letters of support that were provided to the city. I believe every single abutter is in favor of the project. So I don't know if there's any concern from the folks in the immediate neighborhood as far as any sort of detriment to the public good. And I would just say again that we're happy to make some of the aesthetic changes, but that I And I don't think that anything that the Community Development Board has asked for would change anything relative to the masking or really what's going to be before this board. So I think our preference would be to try to move it forward, but to stay on the record here, and Ms. Hong is available as a representative from the Community Development Board to kind of take us, you know, make sure that those items that were addressed by her board and by this board are dealt with during the site plan special permit review before the community development board.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. Thank you to Attorney Bronowski for saying that, because he triggered it for me. And I didn't realize this, but there were letters that were delivered, hand-delivered to our office and given to the CD board. And I'm now realizing that they were not addressed to either the CD board or the ZBA, but just generically To whom it may concern about these proper this project, and they were. They were not provided to Dennis to give to this board. They were only given to the CD board. So there were 19 very standard letters that each one says, to whom it may concern, I blank, and the name is filled in, am a Medford resident currently residing at, and the address, please allow this letter to serve as my show of support for the proposed project at 290 Salem Street, Medford, Mass. I'm right now scanning through to see if any of these addresses match that immediate next door neighbor that somebody asked about.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, that's 302 Salem that Jamie was asking about.
[Alicia Hunt]: 302 Salem, is that what you just said? Yeah. Yeah, that one's on here. Philip Messina, 302 Salem Street is one of the letters on here. 301 Salem Street, which is Eddie's place across the street. So I'm sorry, my apologies if these didn't get to your board. I'll talk to our clerk about like next time how to handle something like this.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. All right, so we have a few options before us folks. Attorney Bernowski shared the preference here. I think I'm generally getting some feedback from the city and the applicant that there's a desire to continue iterating on this project through the site plan review process. So yeah, I presented a few options in terms of where we could go from here. So with that being said, chair awaits a motion. Options are, approve, approve with conditions, deny, continue, or to issue some partial finding.
[Unidentified]: I didn't hear any specific conditions come out of our contract.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I didn't either. So yeah, I mean, presumably the motion wouldn't have conditions unless somebody would like to suggest some now.
[Mary Lee]: So, Mike, are you looking for a motion with the three listed either to continue, condition, or approve? Is that what you're looking for?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Or, I mean, it could be a motion to deny, but typically affirmative motions are better. So, yeah. Essentially, we've deliberated. Everyone's shared their piece. We need to take an action as a board. So, I'm awaiting a motion.
[Mary Lee]: because I think there's certain issues that I like to have some clarification before making an affirmative or non-affirmative decision, because I feel like I'm not fully informed, especially about the deck, the facade.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so the motion is to continue and you would specifically like to see, Mary, additional details on the deck and the facade and how that evolves in discussions with Community Development Board. Is that right?
[Mary Lee]: That's correct. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Do we have a second?
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so the motion to continue has been seconded. We're going to take a roll call. Jim Tirani? Aye. Jamie Thompson?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Nay.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, you raised your hand, and it looked like you were saying aye, but then I heard a nay. So was it a nay? Nay. Nay. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary Lee. Aye. And Mike Caldera. Aye. For one, the matter is continued to the next regular meeting on March 28th at 6.30 p.m. I'm interpreting that as a signal, Attorney Bernowski, that the board just wants to get an update, maybe a letter from the CD board or maybe a presentation from the applicant about any changes. And then in our next meeting, we'll just plan to pick up from there. Sound good? Thank you. I appreciate all your time today. Likewise. Thank you. All right, Dennis, can you please read the next matter? I think that's 38 girls. It is, yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: I just, I had a bunch of different windows open, so I wanted to just get the right one. 38 Pearl Street case number A-2023-23, continued from January 25th. Applicant and owner Nelson Olvera is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City Methods only to convert a single family at 38 Pearl Street into a two-family dwelling, which is not allowed use in a single-family, two-district. Per the City Methods only ordinance, Chapter 94, Table A, Table of Use of Parking Regulations 8.3.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. I see we have Some folks here for the applicant attorney Desmond or either 1 right?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes. Good evening. Chairman Caldera board members attorney Kathleen Desmond here for the petitioner. I'm here this evening with the applicant Nelson Olivera manager of P. N. P. O. properties LLC Marina Gaussian of of M. G. W. staging of Boston in. the project architect Mark Schrier of Lancaster. As Dennis mentioned, this was continued from the January meeting. At the initial meeting, we requested the opportunity to both brief the use variance and to also revise the architectural plans by reducing the overall GFA of the proposed second unit. The project architect is here this evening, and I'm going to defer to him quickly to go through the revised term plans. In terms of the overall changes, as to dimensions, the lot coverage has been reduced from 30.6% to 23.57%, which is only an increase from the existing 17.7 of 5.87%. We also reduced the gross living area of the second unit by approximately 686 square feet, And the main house essentially remains unchanged, but as he goes through the plans, that is, is what we, we, we reduced in terms of lock coverage dimensional. Those floor area and whatnot so with that, I'm going to hand it over to Mark Shire, and he can take you through the plans.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sure, so I'll go ahead and share screen and I can go through basically what we're talking about. So I'll actually start with the visual. So what we started with, let me just get to that. There we go. So this is the the previous submission that we had. So you can see we both had a gable on the back end of the addition as well as a very, very visually. you know, standing out entry on the side back with a gable. So from, you know, from that, basically, we recrafted it. We eliminated the gable on the back, we pulled the, the backyard forward by approximately 12 feet. And what we did was we reduced the ridge from the existing so that the massing of the house, the ridges dropped and down, as well as the back addition is set back from the original house. And ultimately, what that does is that creates a much smaller massing for the house. So when I go through this, the scenes that were submitted, basically, as you're driving down Pearl Street, you've got a vision of the main house. And when I go to screen two, you can kind of see, I left these lines on the house. That's the original configuration. So you can see we've added approximately 12 and a half feet to the back. And then we've added a second story above that to create a really, you know, a livable second unit. So when we go from that scene to scene three, there's really no change to the front elevation. When we go to scene four, this is kind of the telling one. you really don't see the entry with the existing landscape dropped into the model. You really don't even see the entry as you're driving by or looking at the property. From the perspective of the dead on from the street looking back, you really do not see the entry. compared to what we had previously designed. Again, when I go to the last scene, basically, it's just an extension of the main house and we dropped off the gable and the side yard extension. As Kathleen had mentioned, we dropped a significant amount of square footage, 680 square feet from the second unit. So essentially we dropped a den on the first floor and we lost a bedroom on the second floor. So we went from three bedrooms to two bedrooms. relative to the existing plans and new plans I can kind of share this is the original design that we had so you can kind of see you know the side entry was very visible from the street we had an office space slash den so that's the original first floor second original compared to the new first floor, we lost that den, we have a one foot setback to the new addition, and then we have a side entry. So it's- We're not seeing anything different on the screen.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think we're, so we're seeing the, it's titled 38 Pro Revised, SketchUp Pro 2022, so I think we're seeing the new design. My recollection is it was kind of L-shaped in the prior design.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sure, so let me just grab... Can we see that now? Yes, we can see that. Okay, perfect. My apologies. On the original design, we had an L-shaped extension, which had, here's the main house to the left, Pearl Streets to the left of the front door. The addition is really this whole area, if you will. It had a very visible side entry that you saw from the street, office den space here, and then the open concept living. That was the original design that was last submitted. The new design. We set this back a foot, so the new wall is back from the original house massing. We have a side entry. We lost that den slash office, created a small mudroom, moved the half bath around, and left the open concept plan. So the addition is only 13 1⁄2 feet from this white line represents the original house configuration. So we're adding 13 1⁄2 feet back. And then no side addition now. So we really lopped that off. That's where we lost a significant amount of square footage. Same thing on the second floor. We had a bedroom here with that jog. So essentially we had one, two, three bedrooms. The new plan is basically two bedrooms and then two bathrooms over here with the stair headed down. So everything that was kind of the side yard that was a very visual element to the house as previously proposed has now been changed. So that's basically it through the plans. Like I said, the main house, the only thing that's changing on the main house is they're utilizing the attic for the master suite. But that's all under an existing roof. So that really is not a square footage impact or an impact as far as an addition on the house. You know, so we've tried to reduce this as far as feasible to make it less visually impactful, as well as still maintaining enough square footage to make it a true living unit. And the biggest thing with the existing main house is that It just doesn't have, the back unit is very small, and it's in very poor condition. So one of the real impetus and the focus is really to create a new space that kind of rebuilds the existing, because it's in poor condition, and it brings it up to current living standards. So that's basically the 3D changes that we've made and then the planning changes we've made to the floor plans.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Um, so attorney Desmond, uh, I believe you did send a pretty detailed, uh, select supplement, uh, regarding some of the issues that were also being talked about at the last hearing with the whole, um, um, The so there is a second unit already, but then it was non complying and there was the enforcement action. Was there anything you wanted to share with the board about that? Or were you just providing it so that the board had that information?
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, you know, I think that goes to the issue of special circumstances shape of the structure because it says if you look and walk like a duck, you're a duck. Essentially, the structure itself is set up as a two-family. In speaking with the architect and looking closer at the foundation of the existing second portion addition, it's clear that that was built in the early 1900s because it's brick. It was built in 1910, 1920, In around that vicinity, so that that separate unit, which is distinctly set off from from the main house has been in existence for quite some time. And I think I indicated to in the memorandum in 1975, and the building card that I provided. It's difficult to tell whether or not that was his violation or whether those existed and it was part of an enforcement action. And I think if you look at the other enforcement letters that I included in the file, it has been continually subject to enforcement because the structure is set up as a two family with two separate entrances and exits. There's a wall. I think I discussed in my brief with respect to hardship, that you have the bedrooms and to put this back to a traditional single family you would have to demolish a portion of the existing structure and break in and add corridors and you know to hit the four bedrooms that are existing because they're blocked off from each other and the entrances are separate. So in terms of special circumstance I think the fact that the structure is a pre-existing has been given pre-existing status under chapter 48 section 7 because it's over 10 years that it's been in existence that that creates a special circumstance and from that a hardship because with the hardship the petitioner would have to give up number one if he was going to put back to a traditional what what our legal legal improvements, legally pre-existing, deemed legally pre-existing improvements. Or he could, I suppose, keep it the same way and work with what is there, but it would be a hardship to have to demolish it to create a traditional single family. And it would be a hardship to have to give up what he has in terms of pre-existing legal non-conforming status. So that is the reason why I spent so much time going through Chapter 48, Section 7, because I do think it transitions to the special circumstances and the hardship that's created. So that's that answer to that. And I think I've gone through special circumstance and hardship at this point. The structure is historical probably in all likelihood. So certainly any demolition would create a hardship. And, you know, I gave you Joseph's case, which deals with the restructuring of interior space that diminishes space and how that has been viewed as a hardship as well. In addition, I provided to you The field cards for several houses on the street which are 2 families. So that goes to hardship under the Chrissy a case. And it also goes to substantial detriment to the neighborhood. This this property is located at the intersection of an apartment district general residence district and SF 2. And if you look at the SF 2 district and I can share my screen. See if I can share. I see. Dennis, why is my screen not showing the one I want? Can you see that, folks, or no?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Currently, we don't see it. OK.
[Kathleen Desmond]: All right, hold on. Put that back in the box. Dennis, could you? I don't know why this is.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, so now we're seeing it, but it's the- Yeah, it's okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, so if you take a look at this area plan, the orange are two families within the circumference, the green are Maltese, and the blue, those are three families, I'm sorry, and the blue are four to eight families. So if you look at the neighborhood, it looks more like a general residence neighborhood then it does in SF SF to district I believe they were out of the 20 houses along Pearl Street that are in the SF to seven of them are duplexes one and I attached the variance so that you had that for 19. 19 Pearl Street, so one was by variance, the others was pre-existing. And I take the position on this that 38 Pearl is probably somewhere in the middle. I mean, there's not enough to track and there were enforcement actions, but clearly it's been set up as a two since the early 1900s. And, you know, it would be a hardship for them to have to, to reassemble that structure. And also, it's not really a substantial detriment to the neighborhood, because if you look at the area plan, there are a number of pre-existing and one granted by variance and some that are multi. The other thing is that this is an 8,000 square foot lot, which exceeds what's required for a two family, which is only 6,000. So, you know, I detailed it, It was more detailed in my briefing in case law specific, but I think that based on the structure as it stands now, which is a pre-existing legal non-conforming under Chapter 48, Section 7, and the change to a traditional would be a hardship. You'd either have to demolish the whole thing or cut through walls and lose space. And then with regard to substantial detriment, there are a number of houses in the neighborhood that are two families. And under the Cresilla case, It indicates that even not having the same type of leniency can create a hardship. So that's in essence what the argument is in that regard.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Questions or comments from the board? All right, I'm not seeing any. I do think that was a pretty thorough presentation, so thank you. Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing. So moved. Second.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette? Aye. Mary?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, if you are a member of the public and you'd like to speak on the matter of 38 Pearl Street, please raise your hand on Zoom. Please turn on your camera and raise your hand. Please type something in the chat or email denisdmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. All right, I do not see. Oh, OK. There is someone by the name of Loberta's iPad. Please go ahead. Please state your name and address for the record. You're currently on mute, and we can't see your camera. We don't need to see your camera, but we can't hear you presently.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm going to attempt to unmute you.
[Mike Caldera]: You should be able to unmute yourself. So there's a button that is towards the bottom left with a little microphone. And you have to cross through it. And if you press that, you should be able to unmute yourself. you're running into issues, you can also type it into chat. So I see a different resident. briefly unmuted themselves. I haven't called on them. I'm assuming they're not the same person. So there's someone by the name of Norma Johnson whose microphone is unmuted. Did you want to speak, or is that just an accidental unmute?
[SPEAKER_24]: Hi, are you able to hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes. Yeah. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes. Norma Johnson. I'm at 42 Pearl Street. So I'm next door to 38th. Okay. And I'm not understanding why this is being referred to as a two family. I've lived here since 1973 and it's always been a single family. And preferably, I'd like it to stay that way. I mean, we've had students across the street that caused lots of loud noise. And it would be nice just to have a nice family in there.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so to that point, my understanding is that this is legally considered a single family. It currently has two units, and they're not connected. They have separate entrances and exits. But the back was never legally allowed. That's my understanding, although it's been there for some time. Is that consistent with your understanding, or is there something else?
[SPEAKER_30]: Hi, my name is Paul Johnson. I'm Norma's husband. I do not agree with those entrances and exits. There is a front exit, front entrance, a back exit, and a side entrance for access to the driveway. There is not two entrances, nor has there ever been two separate entrances for each unit.
[Mike Caldera]: That's a misrepresentation. So the plans the board has seen. show no doorways connecting the portion that has an entrance slash exit in the back and the front. So that's why we're operating under this assumption. I see Attorney Desmond has her hand raised. Maybe she's planning it. Right.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So Mark, if you could bring up the existing plans, there's a common that side entrance way is a common entrance way. And then there's two doors, which leads to the main house. and then to the back house as it currently stands. So you can see that they come in and then there's an entrance here and an entrance here, but there's a wall that separates both and a staircase which goes up to the two bedrooms. And then there's no connector between these two other than through that common hallway. So it's a separate egress for each house.
[SPEAKER_01]: Right, there's a front entry off the front stair and the stoop. And then there's the back porch with the back door. And you're right, Kathleen, each one has their entry, as well as a stair, separate stair going up to the second floor. And you can see at the second floor, they like you had mentioned previously, they don't communicate. There's a party wall, a demising wall between the units. And the back unit has two bedrooms on the second floor. And the front unit has two bedrooms on the second floor. So it's clearly, since they don't communicate, it's clearly designated as unit with a separate kitchen in the back. And then this unit has a kitchen here, dining room, living room. So this is kind of a combined space, kitchen, dining, living on the first floor. It's very small. But again, they do have both separate entries and exits as well as separate stairs. So it is set up as a two-family.
[SPEAKER_30]: Well, that's never been used. That may be a kitchen area, but it's certainly not a kitchen because they have required the prior unit to remove anything that resembles making that a living kitchen.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So if I could speak to that, I think the building records indicate that there have been enforcement actions in 1975 as recently as 2008. And then again, I think there were two with the existing owner. where there were complaints about tenants being in the second unit. Um, so we're going by the building records and, and, and I believe I provided to the board a picture photograph of the second kitchen bath area in the materials that I had provided. Um, and, and in 1975 there was Um, and order, but it's unclear whether that was ever enforced because the kitchen and the bath are still there. Um, and, and they did go to the zoning board of appeals and it was denied at that point. But, um, whether or not that was removed, um, does not appear to be the case. I mean, the picture looks like it's something out of the 1970s, 1980s. Um, and I think we have that, they have that on my, um, So in terms of tenants, it's clearly been used as a two via the building department records and enforcement actions. But we're not making the argument at this point that it's a legal use, it's not. That's why we're here before the board. But certainly, it has been subject over the years to enforcement actions because it is set up as a two family. And at this point, under 48 section seven, those improvements are grandfathered and in 2016, they were held to be legally, you know, legally nonconforming. They used to still be illegal, but in 2016, they changed the statute and the statute provides, gave them legal nonconforming status.
[Mike Caldera]: My connection dropped it in unfortunate time. I heard most of that, but I missed the earliest part of the clarification. So I see there is actually a door connecting. It looks like it's in kind of this three-door corridor. So maybe one of the doors is intended to be closed most of the time. That's a little unclear. So if I understood correctly, The clarification is that these units are indeed connected, and then I think I heard the rest about how it's been used as a second unit, and there have been the enforcement actions. Did I miss anything?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, the second bedrooms, Chairman Caldera, if you go to the second floor, it shows that they're not connected.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So there isn't any way to get from the first two bedrooms to the second two bedrooms. They're totally separate. You would have to be in the second union to access those bedrooms.
[SPEAKER_30]: Well, you mentioned tenants and a two-family unit. There have only been two tenants in the last 51 years, short-term tenants, one being the prior owner that was just deceased prior to this property being sold. And the other was a short-term foreign student at Tufts that was there for no more than two months. And that was strictly the amount of tenants, if you want to use the plural tenants. Certainly wasn't used as a two-family.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. And Mr. Johnson, were there other Comments you or your wife wanted to make publicly. I see another resident made a comment in the chat, but I just want to make sure. Each of you have had a chance to make your public comments before we move on.
[SPEAKER_30]: Oh, that's fine. You can let somebody else speak.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you for listening. Thank you. So there's a message in the chat from. Liberta Mirabella, who resides at 28 Pearl Street. I'm going to read it out loud because there's some folks who may be watching this who can't see the chat. So Liberta's comment is, this still looks like two separate dwellings, not the typical two families we have on the street. And Liberta has some questions about whether the new owner is going to live there and whether the new owner would have to live there in order to claim partnership. And then there's a question about whether the current owner was aware of this issue before buying it. So on a couple of those questions, I think there's a clear-cut answer, so I can just speak to those. In owners, whether they occupy a structure or not is not a consideration that the board. ways in terms of assessing hardship. And in fact, ownership in its entirety is not something that the board considers. There's a bunch of precedent from the land court that it's not a basis to approve or deny relief, the ownership structure of a given building. And then, on the topic of whether the applicant was or wasn't aware of this issue before buying it, that ends up being moot for the board's consideration in the other direction. Because there is a presumption that an applicant that takes over a property where something was done that was non-complying or where there's a dimensional relief required that they basically inherit that as part of being the new owner. So whether they were aware or not, that is part of the board's consideration. they don't get, no applicant would receive like a special dispensation just because they bought something and weren't aware of a condition created by the prior owner. So hopefully I answered those questions. I'm inclined not to ask whether the new owner is going to live there just because it's not really within the board's calculus here. But then lastly, I'll just say, so Liberta does state that they are not in favor of this well. Attorney Desmond, did you want to speak to that?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I just wanted to clarify or point out, because I know we discussed this at the last meeting, that this has been assessed as well as a two-family and not as a single family. I think it's in the materials, and I know that we raised that at the point, but I just wanted to reiterate that it has been assessed as a two and not as a single. I know it's not conclusive, but it is some evidence.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Do we have other members of public who have not yet spoken on this matter who would like to make a comment? I do not see any, so chair awaits a motion to close public comment and enter deliberation. Do I have a second? Second heard a second. I think that was Mary. So, we're going to take a roll call Jim. Jamie. Hi, Mary.
[Yvette Velez]: Hi, that I.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, hi. All right, we're now deliberating. So I know we talked about this a little bit last time. There were some concerns about the L-shaped footprint. The applicant has presented newer plans that have reduced that. Yeah, so what do we think, folks?
[Yvette Velez]: appreciated the newer plans. I actually heard everything that we had previous concerns with being addressed at this point. That's all I have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: So for me, I agree with the vet. The changes made to the plans definitely address the concerns that we had about the large massing that the appearance of a, you know, a home being attached to a home. This does is more in line with the framing and the design of the other two families on the adjacent streets. Although, as Attorney Desmond pointed out on that map, there's a couple of three families further down the street, but it didn't appear that there were as many two families on the street. It appeared to be on adjacent streets. I believe we've heard from both abutters, one on this call, one via letter. that are against the design. And we have 28 Pearl also against, so we've heard from three neighbors that are against the design. I'm sorry, Attorney Haslam, go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I just wanted to clarify on the letter that was received from the other rebutter. I think she had indicated that it had been tenanted before and that she didn't like the original plans, which called for three to four bedrooms. I believe the letter said that she was accepting of something that was two bedrooms, which is what this is. If I read that correctly.
[Unidentified]: I apologize. I'll run through that again myself. I do have that. I'm going to pull that up.
[Mike Caldera]: So this was a letter we had prior to last hearing. Is that right?
[Unidentified]: No, this came in on the 29th, I believe. Yeah, early this morning. Dennis emailed it to us.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, yeah. Here we go.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm just going to read a summary version of it. So this is in the public record, which is why I'm not going to read the whole thing. So Kathy McLaughlin from 32 Pearl Street mentions that the prior owner who passed away Their house could accommodate a family of three or four members given the three bedrooms. Mentions the back apartment that's suitable for one adult or couple or two grad students. Kathy mentions that she and her husband would love to see it made legal and expressed that they did not like a three-bedroom apartment extending out. Yeah, so there's a little bit of ambiguity in the letter, but I'm just going to say my reading of it is not a strong indication that Kathy is in favor of a lesser number of bedrooms. I think I'm interpreting the made legal would be converted to a single family. But there is some ambiguity there. The thing that Kathy expressly said they were in favor of was a three bedroom apartment extending out. So there's a little bit that's left to the board's imagination there. All right. Thank you, Jamie. Other thoughts from members of the board? All right, well, then I'll go. I do think that the configuration of the existing building does present challenges in using this land and structure effectively. It is a larger lot. It is while not legally. So it is effectively a two-family right now. And the applicant is not requesting dimensional relief. I think if the board were to deny the request here, the applicant only has a sequence of bad options. It's do you demolish the illegal second unit and part of the wall of the first structure and then extend it? Or do you, I mean, I guess that's really the, or do you keep it? There's not a lot of freedom to make use of the space that dimensionally they're allowed to make use of by right. And so I do think that the position of the structures relative to one another and their configuration and their connectedness is unusual about the lot and not particularly affecting that zoning district. And also I am I do see that there are a whole lot of two families plus in the vicinity. So it's a larger lot, an area that it does feel a little bit more like a GR. It's not a GR. The city council needs to change that if they want to change that. But yeah, this configuration is unusual, and I do I do see some hardship here in terms of ways to renovate and better use the space. Other thoughts from the board?
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Hearing none, chair awaits a motion. The request before us is a use variance, basically, for it to be a two-family.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, I was just looking at the language. Motion to approve the use variance as a two-family for 38 Pearl Street.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. Second. I think I heard Mary first. All right, so we're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. So the variance is approved.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And so, Attorney Desmond, if you could draft the decision and send that over to Dennis, that would be great.
[SPEAKER_01]: Will do. Terrific.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thanks, everybody.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Dennis, can you read the next matter, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 694 Winthrop Street, case number A-2023-24. Applicant and owner Sharon Wentworth is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City of Medford Zoning to install an eight-foot fence at 694 Winthrop Street, which is not allowed per City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 4.2.4.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Who do we have for the applicant?
[Sharon Wentworth]: Sharon. Sharon Wentworth, 694 Winthrop Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hello.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Hi. Can you hear me?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Please go ahead. So the back of the yard, there's no privacy at all. On the right side, The house is very close to our house, especially in the summer. So in the back of the yard faces the cemetery. So from the hill, you can see right into the yard. So we just wanted to go a couple of feet more for privacy. OK.
[Mike Caldera]: And so I see you did share a number of photos with your application.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Yeah, the barbecues are right up against that fence. So we did try to put some privacy on our deck. But it's like we can't use the rest of the yard.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and so in your plan, so would this be an eight foot fence all around or would there just be a portion that's eight foot?
[Sharon Wentworth]: Just in the backyard, mainly on the right side and on the back, like facing the cemetery side.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and it looks like from the area plan that the cemetery is like three lots over, is that right?
[Sharon Wentworth]: Can you say that again?
[Mike Caldera]: So I'm looking at the area plan, and I see, I'll call it an island formed by Winthrop Street and the loop that's Robinson Road. And so is the cemetery not your rear neighbor, but if you cross Robinson Road behind the houses there? OK.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Yes. Do you see the hill? Can you see it?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, we're not looking at a street view right now. So we're just mainly, I'm looking at the photos you sent in.
[Sharon Wentworth]: I don't think I sent in one of the cemetery in the back.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Let's see.
[Sharon Wentworth]: But mainly it's like that whole side there where the barbecues are and all the wood stacked. which is interfering with privacy. We did put up some bushes and some trees. There used to be the yard years, many years ago, it was all filled with pine trees, but a lot of them rotted and we removed. And so once we removed it, the backyard, some of the construction on some of the other houses overlook our backyard.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. OK. And so one of the things the board is going to have to assess as part of this case is whether there's something unusual about the shape, topography, or soil conditions of your lot that would create a hardship if we were to literally apply the zoning ordinance that caps the fence at six feet. So things like the barbecues would not, I'm gonna claim, would not qualify. The board can, of course, discuss that. Proximity to something like the cemetery might. You are two lots over. So can you just maybe clarify for the board what specifically it is about your lot rather than just kind of how your neighbor is using their land that would lead to a hardship if we didn't grant the variance for eight foot?
[Sharon Wentworth]: Well, those are just the two main reasons. It's the cemetery you can see right in from that hill going up, all the cars that go around. And then you said the barbecue, that's facing exactly right into the yard. So if you're taller, which a lot of people are taller than the six feet, it doesn't create any privacy. I mean, the only other thing we can do is just to keep putting up I mean, if you look at the back where the Brady's are, they put up the the bushes that go very, very high. I guess we could do that, but we really didn't want to. We'd rather do a fence because of the animals too. I mean, the eight feet doesn't have to do with all the animals that are coming in the yard, but between the coyotes and the deers and the rabbits and the turkeys. Sorry, I'm just gonna plug this. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So is your lot,
[Mike Caldera]: low relative to the two portions of the cemetery? Like, is the cemetery nearby? Is there a portion of it that is raised such that a six-foot fence doesn't provide the desired privacy? I'm a little unclear on that. It looks, you know, eyeballing it, some similar elevations. There might be a few hills in the cemetery, but I'm not, I can't really see it on street view or anything. Is there, can you speak to that a little bit?
[Sharon Wentworth]: It goes in the back. You can see it through the houses. It goes up the hill and you can see the cars up there going that way.
[SPEAKER_09]: But if you see the deck, my name is Bashir, the husband of Sharon. If you see the deck, the level of the deck when you're sitting, you can see everything. Even though the 8.1, it will give us a little bit of privacy, but you will see. Because if you come and see in the house, where's the deck in the house, it's like a curve. It's down. It's not like a level. If it was a level, maybe you will see maybe six you will do it, but eight, it will give us that small, small privacy.
[Sharon Wentworth]: I did look around in the area to see where there's maybe some other eight foot fences. 28 Woodford Road, I think it was. And 572.
[SPEAKER_09]: We barely use the deck because we don't have no privacy. I mean, every week you sit in over there, have a cup of coffee in the morning, the weekend or just everybody. You can see everybody will look on that side.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Vaccination went upstreet, looks like a twenty eight Winford way.
[Mike Caldera]: So one of the photos you you sent. There's a. house with a red brick fireplace and a reddish roof. And then there's an area with no fence and some small plants. So is that is that your that's your neighbor on the sides house? Is that right? Or?
[Sharon Wentworth]: It should be on the right. I don't think so. There's nobody with a red roof.
[SPEAKER_09]: There's no red roof here.
[Yvette Velez]: It says... Hey, Mike, can you please share those pictures?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I mean, I'm trying to... Maybe, Dennis, can you put up the pictures? It's a little hard to facilitate and screen share at the same time. All right, thank you. So yeah, so there's several photos.
[Sharon Wentworth]: And there are all the poison ivies coming through.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the cord of wood.
[SPEAKER_09]: That one is the right side of the neighbor.
[Mike Caldera]: Right side neighbor, okay. And then, yeah, this is the one I was talking about.
[Sharon Wentworth]: This is the back one. And then the back one. Yeah, you can't see the cemetery. Oh, you can, sort of. See between the two white houses?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yep. You see on the back of the small gray house on the back behind the red roof down. You can see that. I mean, the coyote can see them sometimes.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, but so the right now we are if we were taking this photo, we would be standing. in your yard looking at your neighbor? So that red. That's the backyard.
[SPEAKER_09]: That's the backyard.
[Mike Caldera]: That's the backyard. So this is where you want the fence. You want an eight foot fence here.
[Sharon Wentworth]: On the back and on the right.
[Mike Caldera]: And on the right. Okay. So I do see that you have at least one neighbor that's elevated. Yeah. So there's that, I'll call it large white, house that's kind of towards the back right that is elevated. OK. So your lot is at least lower than that one in a way that would impact your privacy relative to that building. And yeah, I guess it looks like the cemetery is at least on plane with that White House, if not a bit higher. OK. Do we have other questions from the board? Seeing none, Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right. We're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Amy. Aye. Jim.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike. Aye. All right. The public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public and would like to speak on 694 Winthrop Street, please raise your hand on Zoom. Turn on your camera and raise your hand, type something in the chat or email denistmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. I do not currently see any members of the public who want to speak on this matter. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Do we have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take another roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Yvette? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now closed and we are deliberating. So for me,
[Unidentified]: A lot of the reasons that the applicant brought up were negligible with regards to the height of the fence. I do see on the back side of the yard, you can see the slope up for the land there, going up to the neighbors and towards the cemetery. I would be challenged, within the scope of the code, I'd be challenged on okaying something on the side yards.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, so you, if I understood correctly, you think that there might be a basis under the statute for the rear yard but not the side yard. Is that right?
[Unidentified]: From what we can see from the pictures, that's what I'm observing. I don't know the scope of, if you allow one side, do you allow all three? That's my question.
[Mike Caldera]: No, we would be allowing, there would be a control and site plan, so it would be whatever's proposed here. It wouldn't be a free pass to do whatever.
[Denis MacDougall]: And Jamie, it would be specified in the order. So it would be like, you know, along this property line between this property and this property would have it allowed and no other ones would. If you want that, Rob. Thank you.
[Sharon Wentworth]: What about the large house on the right side?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so if you'd like to make a clarification, please go ahead. At this point in the hearing, we don't do like that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: But yeah, no, since that was called into question, if you'd like to, you know, rather than discuss it, just, you know, clarify for the right side, what it is that is hindering your privacy, please, please go ahead.
[Sharon Wentworth]: There, I wasn't thinking, but there is another large house after the two houses on the other side.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so it's, you're saying the, how many? Your neighbor's house is large, is that the?
[Sharon Wentworth]: Not the one on the right side, but the one after that. There's a big screen porch screened in like for maybe vegetables that's very large. And then after that, there's a huge white house.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying. So we'll get back to deliberations now.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other thoughts from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: I mean, I'm not hearing any objections from, like, neighbors or anything, and it looks like a significant, you know, everybody has large yards in that general area, so I don't see this being, I think an eight-foot fence to block those slope views would be okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Right? Other thoughts from the board? Mary, you were starting to say something too.
[Mary Lee]: Is the applicant requesting for eight feet to the side as well? I think I understand that she wants eight.
[Mike Caldera]: It's eight foot on the rear and the right side.
[Mary Lee]: And we didn't get any oppositions from the neighbor on the side.
[Mike Caldera]: To my knowledge, the neighbor has not provided a written opposition. No one spoke here. Since two members brought it up, I'll just say that from an evidentiary standpoint, the board can't really deduce anything from the absence of a comment. So there's nothing. in opposition on file, but there's also nothing in favor on file, so it's kind of a wash. Mary, was there something else you wanted to say before I go to Jim, or should I go to Jim?
[Mary Lee]: Oh, I'm okay, thank you.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Okay, Jim, go ahead. Would it be possible to look at a picture of the right side again,
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Dennis, could you share that? There's the picture of the cord of wood and the grill, I think. Those are the right side.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: All right, so you can't really see any of the homes.
[Unidentified]: Okay, there it is.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah. And this picture is taken from the deck. So you see how the level of between the deck.
[Sharon Wentworth]: There's no other picture that goes forward towards the right.
[Mike Caldera]: So there was one with a grill. Yeah, there was one with a grill that might have been the closest we have to that.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, that's one.
[Sharon Wentworth]: See the screen thing and then back of that is a huge White House.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: How is that land?
[SPEAKER_09]: So it's, it's the, the, um, the second, the second house on entrance of the, um, Winchester. So the big, huge house, you can't, you can't see everything from that house. They can't see everything.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_09]: On the back, you see on the back between the, um, like there has two, two roof, white one.
[Mike Caldera]: I do. Yes, we see that. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thanks again for clarifying. So we'll go back to the rating.
[Mary Lee]: And is that, sorry, is that an entrance to the house in the back? I see stairs.
[SPEAKER_09]: On the right side, yes. On the right side, it's on the right side. No, it's not an entrance, it's not an entrance, it's just on the right.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it looks like a back door onto a deck or something.
[SPEAKER_09]: Because on the left side, there's like an entrance too. So both sides have the entrance, but the main entrance sits on the front.
[Mary Lee]: Okay. And the neighbors uses that versus the front?
[SPEAKER_09]: They use all the time the side of the gate. And sometimes they use the front too.
[Sharon Wentworth]: No, to come into the house, see? Oh, to come to the house, yeah. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_09]: But he used some of the back. The gate.
[Sharon Wentworth]: They come out on the deck. Yes, they come out the back of the house on the deck.
[Mary Lee]: Can you point out the gate? Where is that gate?
[Sharon Wentworth]: The gate is on their land. It's kind of hard. It's attached to their house. It goes up and to the right towards their house, the gate. There's no gate like on our property.
[SPEAKER_09]: It's open wide our property. So if you see the fence, the fence here on the right at the end, there's a small gate door.
[Sharon Wentworth]: It does an L shape onto their property and there's a gate over there. It's not near us.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, what I'm hearing is that your neighbor on the right hand side, at the front of their property, if they were to use the side yard that directly abuts you, they have a fence, it's adjacent to their house that they can open and enter their
[SPEAKER_09]: yes yeah yeah do you see on the back you see on the um on the back there's the um there's the uh the the level of the deck with the uh the white one here the white one you see the white and the the deck it's the it's the floor down you see how much is high
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, all right.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Talking about the gate, the gate is on there.
[SPEAKER_09]: Sometime when they sit in the deck they can't see everything. I know but we're talking about the gate. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. All right, thank you. Does any member of the board have additional clarifying questions for the applicant or should we go back to delivery? All right, so we're deliberating now, so just the board is going to talk at this point. Okay. Yeah, Mary, go ahead.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, so from the picture that we just saw at that deck, I see that deck, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see that deck was elevated to the same level as the grill. So my understanding was that when the neighbors use that deck that's elevated, then they can see to the applicant's yard. I see. I think that's what she was saying, right? And also, in addition to the gate and the back door, it's like that deck. Every time they use that deck, they can see the applicant's yard. Or am I missing that? Because that's the impression I got.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Yeah. Sounds reasonable. Other thoughts from the board? All right, well, so from my perspective, I tend to fall into Jamie's camp on this one. It's a little unclear to me if the neighbor on the right-hand side's deck is nonconforming and higher than allowed, but I'm not really aware of any real limits on the height of a deck. So on the rear, there is this topography issue where this lot is tilting slightly downward. And the lots two away are elevated, which does present a privacy issue. on the right hand side, it sounds like there's some movable objects like the cord of wood in the grill that at least with a chain like fence are easily seen. You know, it's a little bit of a stretch from my perspective to grant relief on the height and the side yard because the two away neighbors that are on the same topography have a larger house or because the deck of the neighbor is slightly elevated. I think that's kind of getting into territory where the stringent criteria for a variance just simply aren't met here. I know the city is considering changes to the zoning to make fence height relief not a variance, but it is a variance right now. And yeah, I don't really see a topography issue to justify eight foot on the right-hand side. So there's a few options here. I'm just one member of the board, so we could vote on the variance as requested. We could double check with the applicant whether they would consider amending their request to just be eight foot on the rear. If they were amenable to that, we could vote on that instead. I think we have the info, so I don't know if continuing makes sense. Yeah, so look into the board. Either for a motion or for an indication that we should check in with the applicant on the right hand side.
[Mary Lee]: So what is the allowable height, six feet? Six foot, yes. Okay. So I think maybe we should check with the applicant. As you proposed, we vote on the back fence.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so I'd like to check back with the applicant. It sounds like there's, we haven't voted yet, but it sounds like there may be more support from the board on a variance for the rear fence than for the rear and the right-hand side. Would you like us to vote just on the rear or on both, or how would you like to proceed?
[Sharon Wentworth]: We, we really wanted to do both of them. Um, I mean, cause once it goes up, it goes up. Um, and we can't like we submitted this last year in July. Um, we can't even price it cause we don't know if it's going to be six feet or eight feet. Um, And I mean, the reason why we submitted it is because those are the two areas in the yard. We've been here. I've never had a fence before. I've been here at least, I think, about 40 years. But with all the changes that are going on and not being able to use the yard, and also people using it as a pass through to Winthrop Street. This has forced us into having to get the fence and it's just, I think putting the six foot fence, I mean, it will help in the back, but on the right side, it's not gonna, alleviate the issue that we're having. So I don't know what I have to do.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, yeah, just I guess one thing to make clear. So I think the board does understand some of the issues you described with the right hand side. The board has to evaluate a very specific set of criteria to grant any variance. And it's essentially we have to associate something about the shape, topography or soil conditions of your land or structures with the hardship that needs relief. And so, you know, in a future world where Medford changes zoning and makes it a special permit, then the standard might be different. It might be just is there a substantial detriment. That's not what the board has to consider here. And so what I heard in the deliberation is that members of the board do see a topography issue to the rear because of the elevated lots behind you, whereas to the right, there isn't really an elevated lot. There's just a neighbor who's using their land in a particular way. So I think that that's the dilemma. So yeah, I understand that you need to kind of know for the sake of pricing it and so on what the configuration is. The board will either Yeah, I guess the board would just like to know, we could vote on it in steps if you'd like, but we basically want to know if your options were, so the most preferred would of course be what you're specifically requesting, eight foot in the rear, eight foot on the side. If for whatever reason, there wasn't the four votes in favor from the board required to grant that relief, Would you prefer to have eight foot on the rear and six foot on the side, or six foot all around? And the board doesn't really know your preference there.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Well, I think since we're here, we should do it in steps. That way there, if we decide we're going to do the eight foot in the back, we have that there. and then hopefully see what the board says on the right side, I guess. I mean, Mary did bring up that the deck is higher raised.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, understood. Yeah, so the board will take all that under advisement in forming its votes. So, okay, sounds good. We'll tackle this in pieces. The chair awaits a motion regarding the fence height variance requested for the rear yard.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve an eight-foot fence for the rear yard at 694 Winthrop Street. Do we have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right. We're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Mike? Aye. All right. And so next, Chair awaits a motion regarding the requested variance for the right side yard fence to be eight feet.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve the variance for the right side yards at eight feet at 694 Winthrop Street.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Do I have a second? All right. Chair can second. There we go. Mary seconded. So OK. So we're going to do a roll call on that. Sorry, there's a point of inquiry.
[Unidentified]: No, just point of a guide. Sorry. Go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, OK, so as far as I'm concerned, there's a motion and a second. So we're going to vote. But OK, cool. So Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Nay. Mike? Nay. So that variance is not granted. And so, yeah, like we discussed, I think the concern is that It just doesn't meet the standard for a variance. It's not that we necessarily don't understand the desire there, but the variances for fence height are somewhat limiting in what we can and can't grant. So yeah, in light of that, the board is happy to put together a decision, if you'd like to proceed with a plan where it's still an eight foot fence in the back rather than six foot all around, we can write a decision and get that filed so that you can at least have eight. feet in the back. You're also certainly, you know, welcome if you change your mind, and you just want to do six feet all around, you can, you can withdraw at any point. So, so yeah, sorry, it's not the full support you were, you're hoping for, but at least you do get some relief in the rear should you choose to go that avenue. All right, Dennis, can you please read the next matter?
[Sharon Wentworth]: OK, so do I have to do anything?
[Mike Caldera]: So Dennis often chimes in and clarifies some of the policy elements, but I'll just do my best, Dennis. OK, why don't you do it, Dennis? You do the honor.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sharon, I'll write up the decision. And when I send it to you, there's the 20 days appeals period on it. Once the appeals period is finished that you can go file and get your permit.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, Dennis, give you the next matter, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: 85 Morton Avenue applicant and owner Don Marino is petitioning for a variance with chapter 94 city methods only convert a single family residents at 85 Morton Avenue into two-family dwelling, which is an allowed use in a general residence zone with a sufficient lot area, lot frontage, lot width, and side yard setback per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Conventional Requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you. Who do we have for the applicant tonight?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Kathleen Desmond for the applicant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Please go ahead, Attorney Desmond.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. And just to clarify, we're looking for a finding of no substantial detriment on this. I'll go through it, but essentially it's a non-conforming structure. We're not creating any new non-conformities. And so under Diedrich and Bellotta, with the single and two families, we're only looking for a special permit and a finding of no substantial detriment. So I am here this evening with the petitioner, Don Marino. and the project architect Jim Zegowitz of the MZO group in Stoneham. The petition before you seeks to construct a second story addition and convert the existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling, which is an allowed use within the general residence district. The property is located at the end of Morton Avenue, a dead-end street. It's adjacent to the new MBTA line. The property is non-conforming as to lot area with frontage and the westerly side yard setback. With respect to the frontage and the side yard setback, the violations are de minimis. It's two-tenths of a foot with respect to the side yard. And if I could share my screen, let me see if I can do this. Can you see this? No, of course you can't. One second. I don't know why I hit it first, and then let me do it this way. Stop sharing share screen. Oh, wait a minute. It's there. I'm sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, yeah. Yeah.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Is that there now?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, yeah.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. Yes. Okay. Um, so if I could just take you to the survey. Scroll up here. So this is the existing dwelling as it stands now. You'll see the seven and a half side yard setback line dotted here, and it is seven and a half feet until I had Medford Engineering drawing this line today. They had the point at its closest point, which was 6.9, but it is 7.4 here at the end of the structure. But for the majority of the existing dwelling, it's at seven and a half see if I can slide this over in terms of the new the proposed addition the architect has slid it over he intended to slide this over to 7.5 and there's no issue with that so the the enclosed porch which exists here which is now going to become part of existing dwelling itself which will have a second story that we can we can adjust the 7.3 so that this he actually did try to bring it in so that it is at 7.5 so that it meets the entire setback so the issue that you have with regard to the side yard setback is just here which abuts the railway line for the balance of the the the structure meets the side and set back. This is almost, um, and I'll have him take you through the plans for us. I know I'm jumping ahead, but this is almost an as of right under 5.5. Um, because area in frontage, as long as you meet current setbacks and the yard and the building coverage and height, um, the building commissioner could permit issue a permit on the non-conforming structure. The only portion and it's 5.513 on encroachment, which is here, this is the portion which encroaches. We were adding increasing height to add a second story. So this is the area, essentially, which requires the relief by special permit. We're not increasing the gross floor area by 100%, so that doesn't apply. Frontage and lot area, if it's insufficient, as long as it meets current setback yard building coverage and building height, the building commissioner can issue a permit. So this is the area which causes the requirement of a special permit. just so that everybody's clear on why we're looking for the relief that we're looking for. By way of background, my client inherited the property from her grandmother who has lived on the property for over 20 years. It has sentimental value to her and she'd like to keep it in the family. She did buy out relatives with respect to the inheritance of it. And so she wants to improve it so that she can make some improvements to the structure and a second unit will allow her to do that. While I'm here, because I am here, if you look at the neighborhood, this is the existing structure here. And that's green, which I've detailed for single families. If you look at the majority of, let me reduce the size of this so it's brought in a little bit. If you look at the majority of the oranges are two families, the reds are three families, And you'll see this is not more than a handful of single family dwellings in this neighborhood. This I marked as a two-family, which is incorrect. It's actually a garage. So that's a commercial use across the street. But the majority of the lots in the neighborhood are undersized lots. And the twos and threes are predominant, and they're very large. So the introduction of a second floor on this house, we would argue, would not be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, it would be substantially beneficial to the current house, because it's buttressed on one side with the rail line, and then on the other, very large structures all along this portion of Morton Ave. So with that, I'll turn the screen over to Jim Zagowitz, so he can walk you through what the plans are for the project.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, before we get into the plans, I just wanna By one point, I'm almost certain I understood you, but I just want to make sure it's clear to the board and any members of the public listening. So alterations to nonconforming structures, especially those that are single or two family, do have additional protections by right under the the Medford Zoning Ordinance. And so I believe what you were referring to earlier is in section 94.5.5.1. It lists out permissible changes to non-conforming single and two-family residential structures. These are the things that would be allowed by right. And so there's three criteria or there's three cases in insufficient area, insufficient frontage and encroachment. And if I understood you correctly, the reason why this is not allowed by right is simply because. So the structure does encroach on the required setback. And while this alteration does comply with setback yard and building coverage, it will result in an increase in building height in the area of encroachment. So therefore, yep. And so basically now the board needs to assess for a special permit. So it's permitted for there to be a change in use and other changes, but it requires the board to find that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So it's because there isn't any dimension, any additional dimensional violations, no variance is required.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, correct. And with respect to that side yard setback again, it's point, It's a 10th of a foot for that limited area at the front of the dwelling.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you for confirming. I just wanted to make sure that was made explicit in case folks had questions.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So we can... And that actually tracks 48 section six, which is what the new ordinance tracks and the cases Bellotta and Diedrich, which indicate no new conformity is only requires a finding.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great, yeah, let's take a look at the plans.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Jim, are you there? We had a wrap ready for you, because he goes by JC.
[SPEAKER_26]: I was muted for clearing my throat here. Let's see if I can share the screen with you, see if I can pull this one off. How about that one? How about that, can you see the plans? Yes. Excellent. Okay, so let me see if I can run through this with you real quick. So what we have is an existing two-bedroom, tiny little ranch. The existing house is just a shade over 20 feet wide, measuring in at 20 foot 3 inches, and it's just a shade under 40 feet long, not including the basement egress out the back or the covered front porch. So this two bedroom, it's interestingly enough, it's 833 square feet, I think it was, on the first floor, which is essentially the entire unit. The basement's kind of scrapped together. It's got the laundry and the mechanical room and some other space down there. But essentially, we're talking about 833 square feet. Interestingly enough, earlier in the evening, we heard somebody talking about the multifamily that they were designed in two bedrooms over 1,000 that were comfortable. Just as a point of reference. The existing building height is about 15.5 feet. On the left-hand side of the building, Which you don't show here in the drawings, but if I could drag this, can you see that? The Google?
[Mike Caldera]: I don't think we can see the click and drag now.
[SPEAKER_26]: Ah, that's too bad. OK. What I was trying to show you was just the Google view from the street. On the left-hand side of the building, you have about a 26-foot tall concrete wall for the T tracks that are within probably 8 to 10 feet of the side of the building. On the right-hand side, you have a nice, looks like a very similar, It presents very similar to what we're proposing, two and a half story residential building. And as Kathleen mentioned, across the street, we have a concrete block commercial type building. So we intend to add a story and a half to make the building up to two and a half stories. The height, the overall height that we're proposing, although you can see if we zoom in a little bit here, We're well underneath the 35 foot maximum height requirement and we are about. I think we're down about 31 feet proposed to the existing, to the proposed ridge. So we're just barely peeking up over the T-tracks to the left, and we're just about the same sort of mass as the building on the right. The first floor, let's see, so the building will be composed of two units. The first floor in the basement is unit one. That will be, the first floor again, exists at 833 square feet. And when what we're proposing is 946 square feet, the additional square footage, I'm sorry, that's the basement. The additional square footage comes in the enclosure of part of the front porch area. Strictly that there is an existing porch out there, but we're going to put a real foundation. Under our work right now that front porch sits on some concrete blocks and is tilting and leaning depending on on the conditions of the soil out there. So, the 1st floor. again, would remain essentially the same. We would certainly modernize the kitchen, open some walls up there, but essentially walk into the building. We're going to add a foyer out to take part of that front porch as a part of a foyer space, so we're not just blasting right into the living room. I think if you take a look, let me zoom back here. If we look at the first floor, the existing door is shown dashed there. There's really not a heck of a lot of living room space and dining room space. So what we propose to do is, rather than leave that exterior wall right where it is, we're going to push it out halfway out the porch. That way it'll allow the door swing to come into the space without bashing into the dining room table. Cancel that. or into the living room space. The remainder of it stays pretty much the same on that first floor unit. There's a couple of bedrooms in the back. As you can see, they're pretty small. The one on the left is 1011 by eight foot five, and the one on the right is 911 by 10 foot six. Let's see, moving on to the next, up to unit two. Let's see, so the unit two is proposed to be a three-bedroom unit. We're gonna have on that second floor, you come up a front staircase, again, occupying part of that existing front deck area. As Kathleen mentioned, we're showing the That enclosure pushed in about eight inches off the front left corner, which is the encroaching part of the existing building. And there's no magic to that eight inches. We would push that in, whatever it would take to get us into conformance on that. There's plenty of room in that stair to squeeze that over and still get us up to the second floor. On the second floor, we'd have a small deck out. And on the second floor, right outside when you get into the unit, Same kind of layout as the first floor living room, foyer, dining area in the front, kitchen, and then just one bedroom in the back. with a common bath, small little office-type space, and then a stair out the back, out to the ground level, out the back is an emergency egress, and then up to the second floor. Second floor would have two small, or one small and a reasonable-sized bedroom up there, and another common bath and the laundry. In terms of the language, just to bring the square footage into. On the third floor, we're showing 486 square feet at the seven-foot level as defined by the half-story portion of the zoning ordinance. I know Kathleen, you had a question about this too. We show 618 gross square feet. I was curious in terms of just how to qualify that. That 618 is what I'm used to in terms of the building code that we would take to the outside face of the outside. wall that's enclosing the space, but in terms of the zoning ordinance, it says you can't be higher than half the floor below you at seven feet, which we are not, because the roof slopes in and you lose headroom and all that kind of stuff. So, again, conformance that way, there's our roof plan, pretty, pretty basic stuff. And in terms of the elevation, very straightforward, very similar language that. that you see on the rest of the street actually are neighbor to the right. The facade has a very similar flavor to it. There's a front porch. There's an octagon bay that sticks out. They have a 10 to 12 pitch roof as it presents to the street. There's some other stuff in the back, but the massing and the general nature of the architecture is very similar to things elsewhere found on the street. think that's about it, if you look closely at the cross section here, I guess we could zoom in a little bit. You can see the existing roof here and the additional second and a half story on top. Is there any questions? Are there any questions?
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Questions from the board? I am not seeing any. I think it was pretty straightforward for me. Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Mike Caldera]: Second. We're going to take a roll call. Jim. Aye. Jamie.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public and you would like to speak on this matter, you can raise your hand on Zoom. You can Raise your hand on your camera. You can type something in the chat. You can email DennisDMcDougall at Medford-MA.gov. I see we have somebody with Lonnie Mimmo. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_25]: Hi, Lonnie Mimmo and 81 more now. So our biggest concern is the parking issues we have on the street. That house already has at least three cars, and it's being rented, and there's someone that lives in the basement. So what is going to happen with the parking if you're going to add another four or five cars to the street? There's no parking on our street. The city, it's permit parking only, and the city doesn't take it.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Desmond, just to clarify, with this new configuration, is there any deficiency in the number of parking spaces required?
[Kathleen Desmond]: We were not cited for parking because we come within the high-speed transit requirement on that. And in addition, if I could just show, I can probably show, um, let me see if I can share my screen. Um, there's two parking spaces in, um, but on street parking, there's no parking on one side, but I do believe that there is parking permitted, um, on the house, the side where the house is situated. Um, I know that, um, my client's grandmother had at one point, um, a, uh, parking, uh, can you see this or you probably can't, right? trying to get the, hold on one second. She had a, a, a handicapped parking space in front of, of her house. Um, and also, you know, in terms of parking, there are the two spaces that are required. Um, I think 81 itself is, is a three family, um, dwelling located.
[SPEAKER_25]: 81 is a two family and 85 is a, I'm sorry, 83 is a one family. You have it as a two family on your paper.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_25]: So the house right next door is a one.
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's assessed as a three, I believe, on the assessor's card. 81 is 81. 81, I believe it is.
[SPEAKER_25]: 81 and 79 is a two-family, where one unit, where one house, and it's a two-family. It's never been a three-family.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can't seem to share my screen.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm looking on Street View, that checks out.
[SPEAKER_25]: And then 85 is a one family. I'm sorry, 83 is a one family and 85 is a one family.
[Mike Caldera]: So Lani, just to be clear, we're checking in with the applicant. You'll get a chance to finish your public comment. There's not a back and forth in public comment.
[Unidentified]: Sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: But I can tell there is a curb that, as of February 2022, had a handicap sign directly adjacent to the property. And then 81 and 79 are a two-family. And then 83, it's less clear to me what that is. Right.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And we are at a dead end of the street. So in terms of parking on that side, it would be directly in front if there was overflow from that. But in terms of the parking zoning regulations themselves, we're not in non-compliance. We weren't cited for that. Under the old ordinance, even with a two family, there would have to be two spaces in that. That's what this has.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so, so Lonnie, you can finish your public comment I just want to be like fill you in on what the board is going to have to assess. So in cases where the proposed building is already in compliance with the parking. portion of the ordinance. The parking is not a consideration that the board would factor as a detriment to the neighborhood. It's the relief being sought, which in this case is the, I think it's a few inches, is raising the height of the building in a situation where it's encroaching by a few inches on the side yard directly next to the train tracks, if that would create a substantial detriment to the neighborhood?
[SPEAKER_25]: So like I said, like I've talked to a couple of neighbors, and the biggest concern is the parking issue. With bringing in another family into the neighborhood, there's already no parking on the street. And I understand what you're saying, but how come when you add a whole nother unit, the parking doesn't become an issue. That you know what I'm saying?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I know what you're saying. So I think if I understood you correctly, the intuitive analysis would be we have some number of streets, the cars that are already parked, and we're adding a unit. And so cars will be added. And what is the impact of that? Yeah. So I think I understand you. Was there anything else you wanted to say on this matter?
[SPEAKER_25]: No, I mean, I don't have a problem with it being a bigger unit, but just adding a whole nother family is bringing another two to three cars into the street when we already have a full street.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. Do we have any other members of the public that would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. I move it. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Beth? Aye. Mary?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, we are now deliberating. What do we think, folks? Well, I'll just say, so the criteria here is whether the added The alteration of this building, which is adding height in a situation where the building is encroaching by a couple of inches at one point on the giant wall by the train tracks, whether it would cause substantial detriment to the neighborhood if we were to allow this alteration in that case. building were two inches over, then my understanding is this could just be done by right. So yeah, for me, I think it's pretty clear that the encroachment on the giant wall, being two inches closer to that, isn't really a detriment to the neighborhood over the thing that could be done by right. you know, two inches in the other direction. So I think we meet the standard for a finding here, but I'd like to hear, or a special permit under the finding criteria, but I'd like to hear other thoughts as well.
[Unidentified]: So I would agree. The encouragement on the corner there being the deciding factor. The finding is easily too easy to make. I understand the concerns about the parking, but because the train station is right around the corner there, they are within scope to provide the two spaces that they've got for the units.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Other thoughts from the board? I'm in agreement with that too. Other thoughts from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Seeing none, chair awaits a motion. So we're considering a special permit here for the alteration.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve the special permit for 85 Morton Ave. Do I have a second?
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: I saw Jim first, so I'll say Jim second. And we're going to take a roll call. Mary? Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I. Jamie.
[Mike Caldera]: I am I like I all right so the special permit is granted. Thank you. I mean so the attorney doesn't seem same as before on this set up and send it over that would be great thank you have a good night folks. All right, Dennis, next matter, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: 65 Burgett Avenue. Applicant and owner, Steven Andrade, is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94, City of Medford zoning to convert a one-family house to a two-family house at 65 Burgett Avenue, which is not allowed in a single-family two-zone.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[Michael Pardek]: Bill Lewandowski from LR Design, one of the architects on the project.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hello, good evening. Please go ahead. Ready to go? Yeah, ready to go. Please go ahead.
[Michael Pardek]: All right, well, we have a property at $65,000 for a jet. I'll let the screen share.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just a question, you're on sort of, your picture's on one thing, your voice is on another, which one do you want the screen share for?
[Michael Pardek]: You know what, let me unmute my screen. Your picture, your picture. My picture, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, got it. All right. So Peter, OK, got it. Thanks.
[Michael Pardek]: Thank you. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: It might actually be better the other way around. I think there might be some echo.
[Alicia Hunt]: The echo comes from having the sound playing from the other computer in your room. I muted the other ones, but it's your sound is coming out of the other computer and is being picked up by the mic on your computer.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, exactly. So if the other computer, if you're able to turn off its sound, so you couldn't hear your own computer, then that should address the issue. Otherwise we might want to flip it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, yeah, let's just do that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep.
[Michael Pardek]: All right. He pulled the right windows up for me, which is not why it's not showing screen. What we have is. Here's a property in question. It's 65 Burgett. 65 Burgett is actually a double lot. There is a property line where the two parcels are combined or 7,196 square feet. They're actually approximately 36 and 3,500 square foot lots that are there right now. What we're requesting is a use variance. are two family homes or possibly a couple of three family homes in the neighborhood also. So basically this parcel is in keeping with the site of what we're trying to do. So here's an existing site plan of the existing house. The red outline is existing property. This outline that's here we are keeping is the main part of the first floor of the house. We're adding the second story onto the main house and then we're adding onto the left-hand side of the property. Per all the zoning requirements that we have for Medford, we actually conform to all the requirements. There's no relief required for any setbacks, height, area coverages required. What we have is We'll be adding on to the left-hand side of the property. We'll be adding on upstairs onto the existing structure and onto the extended structure. And then there'll be a loft open space on the attic floor, which will be half story of the floor below. Here's the front elevation. Here's the left-hand side with a smaller dormer. Here's the rear elevation. And here's the right-hand side. We have a rendering of the front location of what it looked like. We are under the height limit requirements. The right gable on the side is a little bit taller than the left gable because it meets, it follows the outline of the existing structure. We're just adding a second story or going up actually. That's why the dimension of the width of the, left side unit is a little bit narrower than the right hand side. We've got a connector in between with a garage for each unit and parking out front. So basically we meet all the parking requirements. We did have a meeting back in December with the neighbors and I believe the board has letters from the neighbors. I think 11 or 13 of them in support of the project. The neighbor directly to the left And the neighbor's electric therapy to the right is in support of the project also. So again, the only item that we're asking for is relief of the use, which is not just dimensions of the neighborhood, it's kind of in keeping with what the neighborhood is, even though it's an SF2 zone.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And just to be clear, I want to make sure the board understands. So what are the circumstances pertaining to the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the lot that would lead to a hardship if the use variance weren't?
[Michael Pardek]: Because the lot is almost, it's a double lot. So based on large oversize lots, it creates an unusual condition, which is basically, so it doesn't create a precedent. That would be the difficulty on the parcel, is that it is an oversized lot, and it's 71, or possibly 72 hundred square feet. But under the assumptions of math, it's actually two parcels.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it, okay, thank you. Other questions from the board?
[Unidentified]: I just had a quick question on the letters of support. From reviewing them, it looks like only three of them are from abutters. Is that correct?
[Michael Pardek]: I believe the board got 11 of them.
[Unidentified]: We got 11 letters, but there's only three that are fallen to the abutters.
[Michael Pardek]: I apologize then, the three should be the neighbors of the left and the right. I'm not sure exactly what the third one would be, but we did have a neighborhood meeting and other neighbors had any concerns or questions about it.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm just scanning through now. So there was 36 Burgett. Um, two letters from 36 forget. And I think it's two separate letters. Hold on. Just making sure. Yeah. Two letters from them. And then, um, Um, one letter from one 45 forget. Uh, and that is all. So yeah, I'm not seeing, let's see. I'm trying to orient myself.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, we've got a separate letter from 55, so four in total, two from one residence. So three residences, four letters at the port from Butters.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, but so we don't have a letter from one of the side of Butters, I think.
[Unidentified]: Direct to Butters.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, right. OK, got it.
[Unidentified]: That was my point. So we have four letters from the abutters list. One is a direct abutter, and the other eight are from residents outside the area of the abutters list. I see. They're Medford residents, but they're not abutters.
[Mike Caldera]: And it might be... Is that a two family next to it? I see 61.
[Michael Pardek]: There's several all around. Behind? Yeah. The dots up here. The circle didn't expand any further, but there's properties to the south and to the west also. I think there's a couple of street families in the neighborhood also. Yeah. Let's see. And again, you can see by the yellow outline that the size of the lots are a lot smaller. And this is a double lot. It wouldn't conform as too single, because they'd still be shy of the area requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I think it looks like 61 and 63 forget there are two family right next door. So it's two letters from one family in the direct of Butters. But then the other family, we don't have a letter from either. OK. Other questions from the board? Seeing none, Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I move.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second from Jim. We're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Beth?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary? Aye. Mike, aye. All right. The public portion of the hearing is now open. If you are a member of the public and you'd like to speak on this matter, please do so now. You can raise your hand on Zoom. You can type in the chat. You can raise your hand on camera. You can email Dennis. All right, I do not see any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter. So the chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. So moved. Do I have a second?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, we're going to take another roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Lizette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mike? Aye. All right, what do we think, folks?
[Mike Caldera]: Right, I can go. So there are... I can go before you. Yeah, go ahead.
[Unidentified]: I know you don't like going first. So, I mean, from the lot size, obviously the conformity is all there. If this were the appropriate zoning, I think everything fits in. with the setbacks and the ordinance for the property outside of the fact that it's not zoned to support a two-family. Again, letters of support from our butters, we've got three, four, counting two from the same residence. We don't have any letters against or any that we've heard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Jamie. thoughts from the board.
[Yvette Velez]: Um, I am agreeing with Jamie and I think it fits the neighborhood and everything but I am hard pressed to hear about why what's what's the I guess I need it repeated to me where the hardship is or what is it that Oh, we can grant this. Why? Um, but otherwise it's a great design. Looks good. Fits the space and all the things.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that I was, I was gonna speak to that. So this is already something that is well precedented by the land court. And in general, too big of a lot is not considered a hardship. So as far as I'm concerned, the this is a beautiful looking proposal, there's no known opposition. It is a disallowed use. There is no hardship that the land court considers a hardship that has been identified to do with the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the structure. I don't really see any avenue to grant a variance here. Too big lot just isn't. That has gone all the way through the courts, and the result is that is not a hardship.
[Michael Pardek]: Well, if I may, I don't think the lot is too big of a lot. I think the housing requirement that we're actually adding housing in the area that who needs it and we could have another additional unit in an area that is basically within the same capacity. So it's not like we're adding, creating a precedent where you're allowing something that, I mean, there's a couple of things where it's a hardship for a precedent and we're not creating a precedent because there is additional housing in that area that meets two and three family units. So the question would be is that the use part of it, we're not asking for variances or any relief because of a hardship, because of a lot condition or because of the size of the lot or topography, we're actually requesting a use variance based purely on that part of it. And I don't know if it's, you know, there's no nonconformity as far as that part is, so I don't know if a lot is necessarily a hardship requirement.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah, thank you. Yeah, so in any decision, we make sure to quote the relevant precedent. I don't remember it off the top of my head, but there is a case what we can include in the decision surrounding this. Having extra lot area is not a hardship. The land court has found that. And then the other criteria that we have to to conclude as part of our analysis is that allowing a two family in something that is owned SF1 in this case would not substantially derogate from the intent of the ordinance. And I'm seeing a community that's mostly, if not exclusively, single family homes in a single family two district. So I think I have concerns in terms of derogating from the intent of the ordinance, as well as that there isn't really a statutory basis for the, or there isn't really a basis for the hardship that land court has recognized as valid. So, but I'm just one member of the board. I'm just putting that out there. Other thoughts from the board?
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, chair awaits a motion.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve the use variance for 65 Virgin Ave.
[Mike Caldera]: Move a second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: I saw Jim second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So recognize Jim's second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. And then we'll take a roll call. Mary?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye. Jamie? Nay. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Nay.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Nay. Mike, nay. So that's one in favor, four against. So the variance is the nine.
[Mary Lee]: Oh, sorry. It's Mary. I meant nay. Oh. I changed my vote. Nay. Nay.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thanks for clarifying, Mary. So that's five nays. So yeah, unfortunately, there just isn't, you didn't demonstrate the hardship. Too big of a lot isn't a hardship. So I see the benefit in having more housing. But yeah, unfortunately, we can't proceed with the variance. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Dennis, can you please read the next matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: 4864 Commercial Street. Applicant and owner James Almonte is petitioning for a variance from Chapter 94 City of Medford Zoning to demolish an existing structure, a two-story structure, 4864 Commercial Street with a proposed site of 46.5, which does not comply with City of Medford Zoning Ordinance Chapter 94, Table E, Dimensional Requirements for Building Height and Industrial District.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I see we have some representatives for the applicant. Please go ahead.
[Dash]: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Attorney Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street in Somerville, representing the applicant Noner Empire Management Corporation. With me is Bernard Gibbons of ABG Realty as the broker and representative of Empire Management, Edward Hargrave of Tria Design, project architect, and James Almonte of Lane Design Collaborative. Who's the civil engineering and landscape architecture firm who will be driving the slides? If you could give Mr. Almonte the privilege, Dennis, that would be great. Excellent. You're good. That says you're all set. James? Okay. Can we go to the next slide? What we're proposing here, and I will explain, is that this is 48 to 64 Commercial Street is currently two adjoining parcels, which total about 193,437 square feet of land. There's the development team I just introduced. We want to go to the next one. Great. So this abuts wetlands. The most recent uses of the property have been as a construction staging yard at 48 and a vacant industrial building at 64. The property is surrounded by other commercial uses. The applicant seeks to repurpose this underutilized lot by demolishing the existing building and by erecting a new two-story building with 57 square foot research and testing laboratory building with a 50,716 square foot approximate footprint. This matter is going before the Community Development Board in March for site plan review due to being a non-residential structure of over 10,000 square feet. But what we're here for tonight is a height variance of 16 and a half feet because the industrial district in which it sits only allows 30 feet in height, which is not tall enough for lab use, as we will elaborate. We'll go to the next slide. And the next one. So these are some photographs to sort of orient you towards it. The red arrow on the left shows you the view you're looking at. Jim can give you the outline of the lot. You can see at the top of the screen, there's sort of the vacant part of the lot that you're looking at to the right, just paved. And then below that, you see the building part of the lot, which would come down. Next slide. We have a series of photographs from various angles. You can see the what I would politely call the underutilized condition of the lot, not the best and highest use of it. Next slide. You can keep scrolling through the pictures. I think we can. Yeah, you can see it's there's the staging area. Again, not the greatest use for the city right now. Move forward. Yep. This is what's been going with what the condition of the lot is today, but overgrown, entirely paved and such. Okay, let me stop there. So this is the site plan. As you can see, the lot is oddly shaped, and I would note that also it is contaminated with an activity and use limitation. You can see that on the, which is currently being circled. That is on the left portion of the lot. This is going to involve soil management in order to deal with that. This creates a hardship in being unable to easily lower the building into the ground to meet a height requirement. or to have a building that is wider rather than taller, to minimizing the impact on the soil as well as allowing the lab use. I should also note that the AUL has restrictions on what users can go on the lot, which limits the ability to utilize the lot for other purposes. The project is otherwise dimensionally compliant, including to the number of stories. It is just the height of those stories which is triggering the relief. I'm going to have architect Edward Hargrave now show you the proposed plans, Ed.
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: So we're going to walk through some design drawings and then quickly get to the site section that addresses the points that Adam was referring to about the building height. This is a site plan, and Commercial Street is along the bottom of this drawing. It was to the side in the earlier photographs. The building is the white box on the left, the new building. It looks as though it's two overlapping squares. And we'll show you a little more detail about that in a second. The staff parking is to the right, and the loading dock is on what I believe is the west side of the building, otherwise known as the rear of the building. And we had a couple of main drivers in locating the building and the siding. The first and the foremost was to mitigate any traffic impacts on Commercial Street, particularly with the truck traffic. that the building will generate. Second was to improve the streetscape, this being a major addition to commercial street and wanting to set a high bar for the buildings that will follow. So, what we've done to address that is to locate the loading dock on the back of the building again to separate the vehicular traffic, the staff traffic from the truck traffic. And then we've also pushed the building, face of the building along commercial street back. And this will be more evident in the building section, but we've held it back and we have a planting strip. along the building adjacent to Commercial Street. And we also have a landscaped plaza between Commercial Street and the building, which also benefits the tenants of the building, of course, and also provides outdoor space for the tenants to use and essentially softens the edge of the building. And, as we'll see in a second, mitigates the additional height, the 16 1⁄2 feet that we're going to show you in a few minutes. Next slide. Thanks. So this is the first floor plan of the building, otherwise known as the ground floor, I suppose. Again, Commercial Street is along the bottom of the building. And the building, again, is a pair of rectangles that overlap. And we've done this to provide some interest to the shape of the building so it's not just a big, dumb box sitting along the side of the road, but something that can be much more attractive to look at. This also allows us to potentially identify two footprints for two tenants in the building, or maybe three tenants in the building, and have some identity for them as well, or just as easily support one tenant. On the lower right-hand side, you'll see that that is the entrance area, that's the lobby. And we're really not thinking of it as a lobby in a ceremonial or monumental way, but rather a collaboration and interaction space for the tenants where they can share thoughts in a non-confidential manner, of course. Celebrate their areas of interest and perhaps that could also be used for neighborhood outreach advance because it's got parking. It's got the outdoor space. And so it's a very cool little place to hang out as well. And again, the loading dock is on the backside of the draw of the building. Next slide. Next slide is the second floor plan, which is essentially identical to the first floor. The exterior walls are essentially straight and go all the way up to the roof. There's no three-dimensional modeling per se. The exception to that is the fact that the lobby is a two-story space. I'm not going to call it a lobby again. The interaction area is a two-story space, so there's a little less square footage on the second floor as a result. Next slide. So what does this thing look like? Well, these are the two elevations that maybe are most important. The building elevation on the top is the commercial street elevation. The elevation below it is the elevation that faces the new parking lot. And we think that the building should have a contemporary modern expression because of the nature of the activities that are going on inside state of the art laboratory state of the art light manufacturing essentially activities that are moving us forward as a. as a civilization, and we think the building ought to reflect that. So the materials that we're proposing are glass and metal, modern materials. Focusing on glass for a second, we're not thinking mirrored glass or bronze glass or any of the glass types that you may be familiar with for office buildings or industrial buildings, but rather clear glass with the appropriate low-E coating on them. and that that glass will be in fairly large sections to reflect the large spaces that are inside. And the glass will be in curtain wall, meaning it will be in a metal frame. The rest of the building would be clad in metal panels, and those metal panels would be of the same proportion, fairly large, and they would be painted but the panels would be flat. And when we say flat, we mean not corrugated like an industrial metal panel, like you might see on a warehouse or a utility building. These would be flat panels that would have a finished look to them and look more refined. We think that the metal panels may have one color to begin with, but there may be some panels that are a flat color. Some may have a mild reflectance to them, and some may have a little bit of more reflectance to them, so that it breaks up the overall massing, but isn't garish and isn't overwhelming, subtle. There is also a roof screen above the second floor, which hides all of the mechanical equipment on the roof that will make sure that the building air is purified and make sure it's cleansed on the way out. That metal screen, that roof screen would also be a metal material, could be galvanized and have a grayish hue or it could be painted the same color as the building. The point being that this would look like one building holistically and not a nice building with a utilitarian roof screen above it. Much more, have a much better presence on the street. Next slide. And so this is, Pardon the expression, the rear of the building, if you will, not the commercial street side, not the parking lot side. We're proposing to use the same materials across the entire building. There would, granted, be less glass on the rear sides of the building where the loading docks are. the building mechanical infrastructure spaces that want to be on the ground floor, and probably the warehouse areas for the tenants where materials are coming in and out. It just doesn't make sense to put glass into those areas, so we wouldn't do that. But the salient point is that we would be using the same high-quality metal panel, and where there is glass, the same glass that's on the front of the building. So holistically, it reads as one building. Next slide. So here's the section that is really the principal focus of this conversation. This is a site section that runs from south, sorry, we're standing in Commercial Street. Go ahead.
[hUaFTg-SXts_SPEAKER_00]: West on the left side, east on the right. Thank you.
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: West, west, east. Couldn't get it out. Looking north. And with Commercial Street here. To the left of us, Acardi Foods and CubeSmart beyond, behind. Bacardi is 30 feet tall, and CubeSmart is 50, using the calculations per the zoning ordinances. Our building is on the right, and so you can see that we've set it back. Again, to mitigate the apparent height of the building, although it's not, it's actually shorter than CubeSmart. But again, just a step to reduce the impact. You'll see the trees there for the planted strip. This section is taken through the lobby. You can see a two-story space or the indication of a two-story space with a connecting stair. And then to the right are the two floors of the tenant space in the rectangle of tenant space closest to the parking lot. And then beyond is the part of the building that projects out slightly. So here's the point of this effort. Our floor-to-floor heights in a building of this nature are 20 feet, and that's required for a laboratory building because there is far more ductwork in a building that is pumping this much air through to provide a clean environment for the research activities. Far more ductwork. That ductwork is bigger because there is more air moving and it needs to move at a rate that doesn't generate a lot of noise. There are laboratory utilities and building utilities piping that's being going through the spaces as well, all of that ideally occurs above a finished ceiling in a laboratory space and underneath the floor structure above you. And that's where the 20 feet comes in. And we're envisioning the building as having that laboratory capacity on both floors, both the ground floor and the second floor. So two floors at 20 feet. And that's essentially the industry standard for buildings of this use. So that puts us at the 46 foot 5 inch mark, which is the 16 and a half foot difference between what's allowed and what we're asking for. And we think that this section shows that there is no negative impact on the streetscape. And in fact, we're actually consistent with some of the neighbors and going above and beyond that by improving the streetscape in the process.
[Dash]: Thank you, Ed. Next, we're going to have James Almonte from the Civil Engineering and Landscape Architecture firm show you how the shadow studies and what the property experience is. Jim. Thanks. Thanks.
[hUaFTg-SXts_SPEAKER_00]: So, just, I know the primary focus is on the, on the building and the building high variance requests, but I'll just briefly walk you through the site. I know it touched on it briefly, but this is essentially the layout materials plan. There are 2 points of access through the frontage on commercial street. 1, centrally located here, which will be primarily for the. employees and visitors and the North driveway will be dedicated more towards the truck traffic to get to the loading dock. Parking, as I mentioned, is on the South side of the building spaces for about 214 vehicles, which include electric vehicle charging stations, accessible parking. We also have some provisions for bike racks adjacent to the building for approximately 22 bicycles. Um, so the majority of the parking lot will actually be screen. There is a finger projection wetland that runs between commercial street. And our site, which is vegetated, so that'll provide a natural screening to most of the parking lot. So, you won't actually see it as you're traveling down commercial street. Um, as I mentioned, the loading dock is located on the North East side of the building, which will be screened by the building from commercial streets. So you won't really see that at all. And on the North and East property line, I will have vegetation along those property lines. So it'll be screened from adjacent properties as well. adjacent to the interior common gathering space. We're proposing an outdoor gathering plaza for people to hang out outside on a nice day. There'll be some seating walls and some landscaping in that area. So, people can go out there and enjoy their lunch or coffee on a nice day or have a conversation with some of their colleagues. And we're also providing a pedestrian connection with a. A tree lined curved sidewalk along commercial street, which will provide pedestrian access into the site as well as a pedestrian connection along the North property line to the Jason shopping Plaza. We're also proposing to have a connection to the existing sidewalk on the West side of commercial street. only because there's the wetland prohibits having that extend along the east property line. So that'll tie into the existing sidewalk on the west side of Commercial Street. Approximately or just about 100% of the site is currently impervious surface, whether it's covered by the existing building or pavement. So under the proposed conditions, we're looking at about 18% landscaped area, whether it be landscape or naturally vegetated open space. So quite an improvement there from that standpoint. Uh, so circulation, these next couple of diagrams illustrate the vehicular circulation through the site. So, this 1st slide shows the fire apparatus, the most restrictive movements, which would be coming from the South, entering the site at the front of the building, full access around the back and side and then egress out the North driveway traveling North on commercial street. And this is this is showing a. An aerial ladder truck fire apparatus. And this 1 just shows the truck traffic, which traveling north on commercial street, entering the North driveway, entering the site, backing into the loading docks and then traveling traveling out the central driveway. So this is I won't spend much time on this but this is just the basically engineering plan, the drainage and utilities designed to meet the state stormwater standards and the local regulations as well. These large rectangular squares will be subsurface. as chambers to handle the stormwater. And again, that's all been designed to meet the state stormwater regulations, as well as the local requirements. And we provided the full stormwater report as part of this filing, as well as the filing with the Community Development Board. So these are some of the shade studies that we've provided. We've done a number of studies showing various times of day and we did them for both the summer solstice and the winter solstice. So we'll start with the summer solstice. And we did both the studies based on a compliant 30-foot tall building, which is shown here on the left. And you'll see that carry through the next several slides. So this is a compliant 30-foot tall building. And then this is our proposed building on the right-hand side. So this is the summer solstice at 6 a.m., which the shadows will be cast off straight up the pages north. At 6 a.m. during the summer solstice, shadows will be cast off to the southwest. So you can see the shadows here. As you'll see through all of these slides, there's really not a big difference between our proposed building and the compliant building. So this is the first slide at 6 a.m. in the summer. Next one, sun fully up at 10 a.m., and you'll see the shadows. There are barely any shadows during the summer at this point. These are the darker shaded areas adjacent to the building. Again, the compliant building on the left side and our proposed building on the right-hand side. So that's 10 a.m., that's noon, really no shadows at all. 3 p.m., the shadows start to get cast to the other side of the building. Again, the difference between the two buildings is really negligible. And then as you get later in today, you see the longer shadows, again, 30-foot tall building and then our proposed building here. And then at night, 7 p.m., you start to really see the shadows. But again, the difference between the two is really minimal. So that's the summer. Winter solstice, 6 a.m. I think we all dread these images with the sun not up at 6 a.m. in the winter, so really no shadows here. 10 a.m., you'll see now in the winter, the shadows are cast more towards the northwest. Difference between the two, really minimal. Noontime in the winter, hardly any shadows, but again, they're kind of heading off to the northeast now. And then 3 p.m., longer shadows, obviously in the winter. But the difference between the two is really minimal. And then 5 p.m., the sun's pretty much down at that point. So those were the shade studies and now I'll just walk you through some of the proposed views that we have for the site. So this is obviously a before picture. Our site shown here off to the right. This is the existing building here, kind of a dilapidated building. The parking here, broken pavement, and then the construction yard to the north on this commercial street here, CubeSmart and Arcadia Foods stop and shop is located here. And that's Harbor Freight. So that's a before image. And this is what we're proposing for the improvements to the site. So these other views are from kind of a bird's eye view from Commercial Street looking back into the site. You can see, now you really start to see the architecture of the building here, the outdoor gathering area, the pedestrian connections along Commercial Street and the streetscapes, and parking off to the right. And this is more of a vehicular approach into the site. Again, the outdoor gathering area here, the nice glass common area, some really neat architectural elements provided on the building. And this would be the pedestrian entrance into the site from Commercial Street, the sidewalks with the main entrance to the building here, and the outdoor gathering area, interior common area. This is kind of looking back across the front of the building to the lobby or common area to the right, outdoor plaza to the left. You can see kind of the bike racks off in the distance, some seating walls in that area. This is more of the same image looking back towards the front of the building. This is more towards the rear of the site looking back towards the building on the south side. the loading docks in the back of the building, and then kind of a bird's-eye view looking back towards the site, looking to the east. You can kind of see some of the Boston skyline in the background. I believe that's Encore Casino there. And then this is kind of a fly-through of the site. It gives you a better perspective. And then you can see some of the nearby landmarks off in the distance there. So that's pretty much the site. And with that, I'll hand it back over to Adam.
[Dash]: Thank you, Jim. As you can see, the project will greatly enhance this underutilized industrial property, creating a magnet for good tech jobs in Medford, which has a history of making cutting-edge things, going back to its clippership days, provide stormwater controls that don't exist now, decrease the impervious area, provide a walkway to amenities to the north, create a more attractive streetscape, replace the old industrial use with the cleaner use, and add a stylish new building to the city. And to do all of this, the applicant requires the height variance, because without the variance, the lab use, which is allowed in the zone, will not work due to the floor-to-ceiling requirements and mechanical requirements that were described. The impact of this additional 16 1⁄2 feet that we're seeking is minimal when compared to a building by right at 30 feet, as you saw. Literal enforcement of the height requirement would prevent a permitted tech use of the property. And the uses are already restricted due to the activity and use limitations, soil conditions, and restrictions that go along with it on uses. And it's odd shape of the lot, which makes the building have to be sized as it is where it is on the lot. An applicant could have trouble finding an economically feasible height compliant user which would meet the city's goals and provide for the public good without this variance. I should note that other properties nearby exceed the 30-foot height limit, including the self-storage facility and the recently approved development at 4054 to 4060 Mystic Valley Parkway. The mayor has submitted a letter of support for the project, which I hope you've seen, saying that it will help transform that area of the industrial corridor, grow the commercial tax base, and provide numerous job opportunities. I would add that the lab use will help diversify the jobs available in the city, but tech jobs cannot happen without the tight variance. So applicant respectfully requests approval of the height variance site. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Dash and team. So I just want to double check something before we go to the board question. So if I understood correctly, the hardship here, so the lot itself is irregular, but also due to the soil conditions, it's not feasible to go down. and the floor-to-ceiling height requirements of this use are in excess of what would be allowed by right in a building that is first floor and above. So basically the soil conditions prevent building something floor-to-ceiling that still conforms with the height. Did I understand that correctly?
[Dash]: That is correct, Mr. Chair. just to clarify that the two stories is permitted. It's the height that is the issue because we have the two stories that's compliant. It's that the height of the stories because of the use goes over the limit of the height, but not the number of stories, just to be clear.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Questions and or comments from the board?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Jim, go ahead. You had mentioned that the soil is contaminated. Yes. Would you be cleaning that up?
[Dash]: Yes. We actually have a licensed site professional who have been using BETA. And they have stated that in order to do this, they're going to be treating, while the AOL is on 48, they're conservatively treating the entire lot, including 64, as contaminated as well. and that the soil materials would be managed consistent with the AUL conditions implemented for the site on both sides, which would require a soil management plan and a health safety plan, which would be supervised by a licensed site professional, and a release abatement measure report would be filed, a RAM plan with the state DEP, and that the soil would have to be specially treated and removed specially, which is why this becomes economically infeasible without the variance.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I'm just curious, how long the time frame is that, will that take to clean up that soil?
[Dash]: That is an interesting question. I do not have the answer to that, sir, because we were really just talking about the height tonight, so I told the LSP she could take the night off. But yeah, I mean, there's going to be some work involved for sure in doing that. As you can see, we're not putting parking under the building because of this very issue. That's why there's a parking lot and not a parking garage, because we cannot overly disturb the soil. And the beauty of this is that the building will sort of act as a cap. as will the parking lot. So the idea is to not cause any trouble here or violate anything. But it's all going to be under supervision of both our LSP and the Department of Environmental Protection at the state. So they're pretty robust on that sort of thing. The timeline of it, I guess it's hard to say.
[SPEAKER_02]: I would mention on the timeline that this site, the soil here is much similar to a lot of the soils in the entire area, a lot of the buildings that will be built. We feel like the construction project in its entirety should take about one year from start to finish. We can refine that schedule. the soil management would be taking place concurrently with the construction of the site.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Great.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you for that.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Roger. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mary Lee]: Yeah. I thought I heard something about the ventilation to clean the air before it discharges. Can someone elaborate about that?
[Dash]: I think that was you, Ed.
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, I think that's an Ed question. Unmute. You're absolutely correct. You may have seen on the roofscape, we won't go backwards, but the mechanical systems that would be installed would include incoming air handlers to create clean air to supply the building, and then on the outgoing side, The building would most likely, and we say most likely because we're not building the infrastructure for the tenants themselves, but this is the standard that the tenants would be held to. There are exhaust fans which, by numerous permitting requirements, insist that the air that leaves the building is clean. and that the building will not harm folks, of course. I mean, there's just no way around that. It's just part of the building profile, part of the requirements. And that's done with large fans. They generally are called high discharge fans that send the outgoing stream from things like chemical fume hoods or exhaust devices that have contaminated air. It sends it out at a very, very, very high velocity, very, very far up into the atmosphere where the dispersion occurs, which then provides the allowable particulate counts for clean air.
[Mary Lee]: So what kind of lab do you anticipate this to be? I mean, there are different types of labs.
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: Well, if you're familiar with the BSL classifications by your safety levels, this building would be BSL 2 or less. There would not be a BSL 3 occupancy in the building. That's a completely different animal. And of course, BSL 4, we shouldn't even be talking about it. But a BSL 2 classification is essentially what you'll see in just about every spec lab office building. You won't see it, but it is the classification that most of the spec lab office buildings have been designed to. And that's what we're designing to.
[Mary Lee]: So this will be something like a bio lab, right?
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: It could be a wet bio lab. But as you probably know, Boston is swimming in wet lab, spec lab, office space buildings at the moment. What Bernard and his team are envisioning is a building that could support other kinds of research activities that sometimes are referred to as light manufacturing. or tough tech, it doesn't mean they're any dirtier. It doesn't implicate, it doesn't imply that by any stretch of the imagination, but what it does require, does suggest is that those activities like the ones you're seeing in these slides may include robotics types of manufacturing processes and equipment that is taller than what you would see in a typical wet lab with a person standing at a bench. Oftentimes there are equipment cranes to move the robotics, and that's part of where the 20-foot floor-to-floor height comes from. doesn't mean they're dangerous. It just means that the apparatus and the activities that are occurring in a light manufacturing environment require additional height in addition to the duct work. But typical types of spaces you might see could be medical device manufacturing, non-manufacturing in the sense that there's forging or metal working activities. probably more along the lines of assembly, but an activity that isn't wet lab, but is medical related. Could also be battery research. And it could also be any kind of robotics activities where there is an automated process to something that humans used to do through the application of endless hours of manual labor. And again, that requires more floor-to-floor height.
[Mary Lee]: And how many tenants do you anticipate this facility will house?
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: Bernard, would you like to take that?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I mean, I think we sort of contemplate this building to be multi-tenanted. I think, you know, there's a very underserved community of businesses in the Boston area, like Ed had mentioned, around robotics, clean technology, battery technology, a lot of sciences and research companies that aren't necessarily biotech or pharmaceutical related. are in a desperate need for high bay space that's close to the city. So we think Medford's a very attractive location where we can bring some of these companies from Somerville and Charlestown a short distance to Medford. and have them collaborate here and grow their businesses here. If we have 100,000 square feet, we may have suites of 20,000 feet, 10,000 feet. We may have a tenant at 50,000 feet. We're somewhat limited. This is not a huge building. It's only 100,000 square feet in total. It's actually very modest. It's a very modest massing considering the land that's available. So yeah, we just feel it's really an attractive opportunity because we're offering high bay space plus very, very ample parking, which is hard to find in a lot of these other places. Yeah, so that's kind of it. So it could be multi-tenanted, but there may be someone who shows up on day one and says, I want the whole building. We're just open-minded about it. But my sense is it's probably be three, four, maybe five separate tenants, which I think adds to the community in Medford.
[Mary Lee]: How do you address waste from these tenants? potentially is a biomedical research.
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: Generally, every tenant contracts with a certified waste removal company, of which there are many in the Boston area.
[Mary Lee]: So the waste will be contracted to a third party.
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: Correct. Most tenants in their premises on their floor planning or their space planning would have some number of bio waste or lab waste storage areas. And the third party folks would have access to those spaces only by coming in from the outside. And there are several in the greater Boston area that have become very facile at that, very safe, very non-intrusive, and very effective and safe, safe again.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry to interject. I just want to clarify a couple items that will maybe help with this discussion. So I just want to double check my understanding. So this is an allowed use in an industrial district, and furthermore, this is a use that's subject to numerous safety requirements that the tenants would be required to conform to. Am I correct in that understanding? You are, sir. Okay, great, thanks. Sorry, Mary, please go ahead.
[Mary Lee]: So I'm just curious, could you elaborate a little bit about the loading area? That seems to be a huge part of that building. Does that have anything to do with the third party? waste management contractors?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, I think that because of the nature of these types of businesses, you know, they will have products that will come and go that need to be delivered. But we only specified four loading docks for a building of this size because the truck traffic to this this type of building is not a high volume affair like you might have in a distribution center or other types of warehousing, industrial buildings in the area, like for example, Akati Foods. They'll have a lot more deliveries than we will just because of the nature of their business. We may have one or two truck deliveries per day delivering. A lot of these businesses, they produce products, but they're not high volume. The actual space they take up in these deliveries is minimal compared to other types of industries. I think the truck traffic here is not going to be, not that it's negligible, but four loading docks is not a huge number of loading docks for an industrial building. We had looked at other types of buildings here. For example, Amazon wanted to put a building here, but they wanted to have 18 loading docks in a single-story building, and we just determined that the truck traffic was just going to be too high, and it just wasn't going to work in a neighborhood like this. We think that's also a modest calculation to have only four loading docks in this building, and we'll probably have one or two deliveries per day as a rule.
[Mary Lee]: And is there any waste management facility that's part of this building structure? Because I don't remember seeing anything.
[rHW3832dHik_SPEAKER_12]: Well, we. James, do you want to talk about compact or location?
[Dash]: I mean, I don't know, Mr. Chair, how much you want to get in. I mean, we're happy to answer whatever questions. We're here for the height variance, to be honest. And the use is allowed, as you stated, by right. I don't want to shut it all down, but I know it's getting late. So I'm just trying to see what your pleasure is. We can certainly go as deep into anything as you like.
[Mike Caldera]: So my position is we should be going as as needed to assess the height variance and no more. So yeah, I want to make sure every member of the board has the information they need to assess the height variance. This is subject to site plan review. It's subject to a lot of regulation. I don't think we need a full description of all of it unless a member needs those details to get to an answer on the height variance. Director Hunt, I see you have your hand raised.
[Alicia Hunt]: Certainly, Mr. chair, I thought it might be helpful for the members of the board to know that. In this area, this is an industrial area, and this is these are all very appropriate uses for this area. The difficulty here is that our zoning hasn't been updated. to match the needs of modern industrial uses. So a lot of the concerns that some of the members have are in fact very regulated and some of the details about loading etc will be covered through site plan review but the staff feel that this is absolutely a very not just appropriate but a good use in the city of Medford and in this particular area that's an industrial area and Hopefully in the next year, we'll be updating our zoning to accommodate the fact that floor-to-floor heights are different these days than they were when our zoning was written in the 1960s. Thanks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Yeah, and to that end, I know Attorney Dash mentioned earlier the support from the mayor. So the board did receive a letter from the mayor, which is in the public record, but it's also pretty short. So the mayor said she's writing in favor of the Fellsway Innovation Center located at 48 and 64 Commercial Street and the site plan they're proposing. The project has been reviewed by our economic development team and the office planning development and sustainability. This is a 100,000 square foot technology and life science building that will help transform that area of our industrial corridor and in turn will help grow our commercial tax base. Yeah, I just wanted to make it clear because that was referenced earlier. That was the letter that the mayor sent the board. So anyway, I just want to double check with the board. Are there other questions we need to ask to inform the analysis of the height variance? Or shall we move on to public comments? All right, Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing. Do I have a second? Second. Take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mary? Aye. Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public and you would like to speak on this matter, you can raise your hand on Zoom, you can turn on your camera and raise your hand, you can type something in the chat, or you can email dennisdmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. I do not see any members of the public wishing to speak on this matter. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberation. Do I have a second? A second from Jim. We're going to take another roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, we are now deliberating. So folks, we have the soil condition concern. We have the height requirements for this use. What do you think? Jim, go ahead.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I think it's great. I just think it's a great opportunity for our city and bring more jobs. And I just think it's a, I'm looking forward to it if this project goes through.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Jim. I think Mary wanted to speak next. Please go ahead.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, I think it's a great idea, but I just want to make sure that it's whatever the facility is, is subject to other regulatory agencies approval, right, as well.
[Mike Caldera]: So my understanding is there are some stringent safety requirements for the use. Yeah. And then like Director Hunt mentioned, this wouldn't specifically be about the regulatory safety, but this is subject to site plan review. So things like the loading docks and so on, the Community Development Board will be evaluating. All right. Other thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: And it's a great project. Glad the soil condition is going to be actively managed versus the runoff and whatever's happening there today. It's a great project, great opportunity for the city. Completely understand the height requirements and the challenges getting there.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll echo those sentiments. seems like a really exciting project. City is supportive. It'll bring in, hopefully, some new businesses, you know, to bring new commercial uses to Medford. There's clearly a hardship here that we can connect to the soil conditions and the height requirements for the use. So I think this meets the statutory criteria for variance. upper height. All right, uh, chair awaits emotion.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Motion to approve.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll recognize Jim. Go ahead, Jim.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Motion to approve the variance.
[Mike Caldera]: Have a second.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. We're gonna take a roll call. Mary Aye. Yvette? Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. The variance is approved. So thank you, folks. So I guess as a next step, you're working with the Community Development Board, but I hope that works out for you and you have your height variance.
[Dash]: Thank you very much Mister chairman is the board have a good evening.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, thank you. Mister chairman, sorry, excuse me. Um, just ask attorney dash if he could write up a draft decision for us and that way we get the process moving a lot quicker. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_02]: Good night everybody. Um,
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, there's a there's a hand raised that was the attorney for the next case. So I think she's just signifying that she's next.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. I will say before we move on to the next case, I will say at this point, I have a bit of a dilemma. I've been trying to move this meeting along as quickly as reasonably possible while giving everybody a chance to make their case. We're approaching 11 p.m. which is getting into the realm where if members of the public wanted to participate, they may be asleep. And we still have three cases left on the agenda. So I don't really see any scenario where it's consistent with the open meeting law and reasonable for us to just turn through the next three cases in our best case scenario here. I understand folks have been on the call for a while, and I also don't want to disappoint. I know it would be especially frustrating to be on the call this long and then have a case continued, not at your own request. But yeah, that's my current thinking. I don't know. This is sort of a gray area, as I understand it, Dennis, but I'm inclined to call 11 p.m. the hard stop to this meeting, so we don't really have time to do anything else if that's what we're doing.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, I mean, in the past, we have gone past 11, and I know, like, just more recently, the council has. I think... My recommendation is, I don't want to jinx anything. And so by saying this, I am not saying this is a guarantee. I'm hope my expectation just historically just from being on these meetings. I don't think any of them are going to be that long. If that's I don't want to say long, but like, they're all relatively straightforward cases.
[Mike Caldera]: Right.
[Denis MacDougall]: There's a couple of things, but I think the only issue is if we have a butter issues, if we have like a lot of a butter, you know, which we just, it's hard to tell, but especially at 11 PM, if the butters are already asleep and, but that's, I mean, I just know in that situation, that's, you know, we've, we've opened it up. It doesn't really affect the open meeting a lot because we've actually provided the option of people jump off. That isn't against it.
[Mike Caldera]: So there was a question in the chat about the order of the cases remaining. So it's 75 Bristol Street, which is a petition to construct a full third floor in a GR zone. Then there's 9 Lincoln Street, which is a petition to convert an attached garage into a finished living space. And then there's 129 Forest Street, which is a petition to build an open deck two feet from the property line. Director Hunt, were you going to say something?
[Alicia Hunt]: It is not uncommon for meetings to run this long. I'm concerned about the ability of the board to make good decisions late at night. On the other hand, I actually would have more concern about the fact that there are statutory timelines around cases that telling somebody who has waited for four hours that now we're not going to hear their case is more of a concern and making them wait another month, another month, depending on what these are, could cost them money, right? It could be a real harm to some of them. I don't know that because I don't really know very much about the cases. I think you should give them the opportunity to choose to continue. And if they prefer not to continue, then I think the board has an obligation to hear them at this point.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so here's what I'm going to do. I don't know if I agree to that last proposition, but I certainly understand the no-win situation here. We're going to try to get through all three cases, and we're doing our due diligence. We're not going to try to rush you. We're going to make the statutorily correct decision. If you are in a situation where you do not have that time pressure and are willing to have this be heard next month when at the top of the agenda, I guess you'd be second from the top, feel free to drop off and we will happily continue things. But otherwise, we'll assume if you stay on that you would like to be heard tonight. All right, with that being said, Dennis, can you read the next matter, please? Yes.
[Denis MacDougall]: 75 Bristol Road. Applicant and owner Steven Laverty is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City and Metro Zoning Constructed Full Third Floor at 75 Bristol Road, which is not allowed in the General Residence Zone per the City and Metro Zoning Orders Chapter 94 Table of Five-Dimensional Requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, do we have a representative for the-?
[Anne Vigorito]: Yes, good evening. Attorney Ann Vigarito, 424--. On this evening by Joe the architect, the office. They are here, Steve Laverty and Brianna Morey, they're the applicants. So I would just ask Dennis if you could give hosting rights over to the architect, because they put together a small PowerPoint and- Mr. Chairman, in light of what you said, our presentation should be very quick, we're hoping. And if you feel that because if there is a butters that have too many questions or concerns, we could then continue based on your direction.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you for your flexibility. My guidance is, yeah, please make good use of time, but do not rush in any way that would somehow limit what you need to convey for the board to make its decision. So you have as much time as you need, but yeah, I agree if there's a lot of resident pushback, that might be a signal that it's best to continue just in case there were some other folks who wanted to speak who had to drop off.
[Anne Vigorito]: Absolutely, so we'll be mindful of that. This is the application of Steven Laverty and Brianna Murray. She's actually not on the notice, but she is the fiance of Mr. Laverty. They're seeking a variance from Chapter 94 of the City of Medford zoning to construct a full third floor at 75 Bristol Road, which is not allowed in a general resident zone per the City of Medford zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, table B, the dimensional requirements. At this time, I'm going to shut my camera off and mute myself and allow the architect to start the slideshow. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_33]: Hi. If you can give me a co-host so I can share my screen.
[Mike Caldera]: You are now co-host.
[SPEAKER_33]: OK. Good evening, Chairman and Board. I'm Mayra Cabrera. I'm part of the JTA team working on the project. Let me start the presentation. We started the project in 75 Bristol. SonyMab, as Anne mentioned, it's a GR, it's General Residence and Location. Next slide. We have existing flood plan. and where it kind of shows that the existing structure is not conforming in setbacks, except on the setback is yes. So it's kind of difficult to kind of expand in other way of going up to the third floor. Let me go to the... Next slide. So basically, we are asking for a relief to exceed the two and a half stories. The renovation, it's based on the third floor. It's adding a home office, additional two bedrooms, and a bathroom. The opportunity to the owner, Steve and Brian, to stay on the neighborhood and own the property. They have been on the property for nine years. And we're using Gambrill roof to kind of like similar to create similar roof profile as existing in the street and neighborhood. So here we have the third floor renovation with existing on the left and the proposed on the right. Short plan of the second floor and third floor, giving kind of like diagrams of floor area, kind of showing that we are Asking for exceeding the two and a half. Elevations, this is the proposed elevations, the front and the back, existing at the moment. We're not exceeding the height. We're under the 35 feet permitted. Side elevations, existing and proposed And in terms of material, the new siding will be matching existing new paint, exterior molding, and the gambrel roof finish to match existing. So here's the neighboring homes. This is the 75 Bristol. And then you can see the 24 and 81 are kind of in the similar gambrel shape that we are proposing. Then you have the street elevation within the same side of the street, the 75, 77, 79, and 81 with the gambrel as well. Here we have a panoramic street view from the porch on the second floor of 75 Bristol showing that you have one, two, three, four, five different gambrels in the same street on the other side of the street. And the diagram here kind of shows the profile of the 3D, meaning the Gambriel profile, three stories. And then the yellow dot, it kind of shows what appears to be greater than two and a half feet homes in the neighborhood. I don't know, and if you guys want to go, we have 1 of the neighbors of waters in the 7779 wrote a letter in support of of the of the renovation.
[Anne Vigorito]: Yes, he is here this evening as well, but that will be in the public commenting portion. We did include the letter as a slide because we received the letter from Mr. Fleming yesterday. We can also generate copies for the board and I know Mr. plumbing will speak to his letter this evening. If you can go to the next slide. That would be great, Mara, thank you. So relative to the variances being sought, showing of good cause and sufficient cause, this home improvement will revitalize the existing structure and reinvigorate the setting as part of this well-established neighborhood in Medford. And a determination to fail a failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the homeowners, Steve and Brianna. They've always hoped to raise a family in this neighborhood and they'd like to remain with their growing family unless they wouldn't be able to because they wouldn't be able to expand the space to accommodate. for their family. They have aging parents who will also soon need some care and without the renovation, they'd be unable to support their needs and without the opportunity to have a multi-generational family under one roof. Steve and Brianna love this neighborhood and they want to continue to invest in it as owners and residents as well. and a determination that the granting variance will not result in increased flood heights. Since the grading, the footprint and boundaries are not changing. There's no threats to public safety or expenses to the public or surrounding abutters. There'll be no creation of nuisances or fraud or victimization to the public. The name of Bill Fleming, who lives next door at 7779 Bristol Road, he reviewed the plans with Steve and Brianna and expressed his great support and excitement for the renovation. Also, the shape of the lot would not allow for this renovation to occur in any other fashion. So, this is the only way to do an expansion of the property. So, that's why we'd be seeking the variance, the approval from this board. At this time, if you have any questions for myself or the team, we are here. and are able to speak to it. Maybe, Myra, if you wanna shut down the slideshow so that we can hear. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Questions or comments from the board?
[Unidentified]: So I've got a question on the dormers. So the houses that you indicate are three-story in the neighborhood. Have you confirmed that by the square footage on those third levels? Because from looking at the properties, they've got much smaller dormers. So I challenge whether they exceed the half floor square footage requirement.
[Anne Vigorito]: Chris from Joe, the architect's office is also on. Chris, could you answer that question for us, please?
[SPEAKER_07]: Hey, good evening. I don't know if we could completely, obviously can't survey people's houses. What we can do is have a relatively good understanding of how a gambrel roof geometrically projects upward and the footprint of that third level sort of how it can be judged and determined. Several of those gambrels, or actually most of the gambrels, have a transverse gable gambrel off to the side. So it's a little deceptive when you look at it just face-on from the photos we have. That said, I would reason to bet that most of them do exceed two and a half. to what degree past that, and I agree with you, maybe not up to a full three full footprints of level. So somewhere between 2 1⁄2 and 3 is probably where most of those gamble roofs land. There are also a fair number of regular just gable roofs as well that may actually be around 2 1⁄2. from our determination, but to your point, we don't, we have not surveyed everyone's house.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Other questions or comments from the board? All right, seeing none, chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing. So moved. Second. I'm just going to do Jim. Jamie's the second. We're going to take a roll call. Jamie. Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim. Aye. Beth.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right. The public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public who would like to speak on this matter, you can raise your hand on Zoom. You can raise your hand on your camera on Zoom. You can type in the chat or you can email Dennis to emcdougall at Medford-MA.gov. I see we have someone by the name of Bill Fleming who would like to speak on this matter. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_05]: Hi there. I'm Bill Fleming. I am I'm a resident at 77 slash 79 Coastal Road. I live directly next door to 75th Street.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, please go ahead. Oh, you're just saying, that's your comment, your support, or yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: Oh, whatever, I'm basically just, added to the letter that I sent. Yeah, I fully endorse this addition. It's in keeping with the neighborhood. Gambrill-style houses are super common here. Having a third floor, many of the homes are originally built with third floors. Well, that's considered two and a half floors with third floors. From my perspective, it's still a third story. uh, and this is very much in keeping with it. I also know it's very rare to have own occupied, um, people and Steve and Brianna are taking great care with, um, uh, the work that they've done so far with their house. And I have every, uh, faith, uh, based on what I've seen throughout the years, what they're doing is the right thing and the proper thing. So with that, I'm giving my, wholehearted endorsement of what they're looking to do. And my drive, my window in front of me, I can see their house. So I'm the one that's going to be most affected by it. And I'm perfectly okay with what they're going to do, what they want to do.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. Do we have other comments from members of the public? Seeing none, Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved.
[Mike Caldera]: I have a second. All right. I'm going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Amy? Aye. Mike, aye. All right. public portion of the hearing is now closed and we are deliberating. What do you think, folks?
[Yvette Velez]: It looks good. It is in line with the housing in the area. And there's no detriment to the neighbors as the one who's most impacted has already supported in person and in letter.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other
[Adam Hurtubise]: thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: It's very much in style with the other houses in the area. I am just concerned from a compliance perspective, obviously, the dormer sizes are much larger than what's on the other houses, which obviously for development and the build-out makes sense for the space that the family is looking to use. No, but with the camera roof, it does line up with many of the houses in the area.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you for your thoughts. Yeah, Dennis, there's something you wanted to add.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry to jump in this sort of reflected some of what Jamie was asking. I kind of did a quick little look for a number of the houses with the gambrel style and most of them pretty much like especially all in that row there. They're not up. they're at least 75% of the floor space of the second floor. So they're, they're all clearly over the two and a half. There's like that run across the street where there's like four or five in a row. I did, cause we, I can look up on the city's access website, like the vision cards. And it basically says, you know, like living area, 10 66 on the second floor, based on the third floor, seven 61, a number of them were pretty much that percentage.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. Thank you, Dennis. Other thoughts from members of the board? So for me, I think that the shape of the lot and the position of the structure on it takes away other avenues to grow. The only option is to grow up. And here, you know, what's unusual is that there are, you know, a lot of other homes in the area that already have something that by, you know, Medford zoning would be classified as a full third floor. And so here, yeah, it seems one of the direct abutters is in support and the, Certainly the design is consistent with the style in the neighborhood. It looks nice. So I don't really see a substantial detriment here. And I don't think it's derogating from the intent of the bylaw. So I don't have any real concerns on this one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts from the board?
[Unidentified]: Is this a special permit or variance?
[Mike Caldera]: I think it's a variance, right? Did I get that wrong?
[Anne Vigorito]: Variance.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. I mean, what I just walked through is the variance criteria. So if it was a special permit, I don't know.
[Unidentified]: It would have been a lot longer. Yeah. All right. Motion to approve the variance for 75 Bristol Road.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Jim, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Amy? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. The variance is granted. So you have your project. Attorney Vigarito, if you could please draft a decision and send that over to Dennis, we'll take it from there.
[Anne Vigorito]: Awesome. Thanks so much. Have a great evening, everyone. Thank you so much.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Next item, please, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: 9 Lincoln Street. Applicant and owner Mickey Harvey is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City Method zoning to convert an attached garage at 9 Lincoln Street into a finished living space. The property is an existing non-conforming single-family house with only one parking spot instead of the two required spaces. finishing the garage with the property with 0 parking stations which is not allowed to the city met the donor is chapter 94 section 6.1 point 3 parking code.
[Mike Caldera]: A. Right. I see we have Mickey Harvey. Let's go ahead.
[SPEAKER_00]: Good evening. Mister chair and members of the board. Thank you so much for continuing the meeting and for allowing us to speak. So, yes, I am requiring zoning relief to convert our existing attached garage into a living space for our family. The space will have multiple uses. Basically, my elderly mother came to live with us a year ago, and we just need the extra space to accommodate her needs, but also The rooms that she now takes up and what was displaced from that will be in the new space that was the garage or is the garage, I should say. So we're seeking relief from the section 6.1.3 of the parking code A. It's a special permit that I'm requiring, not a variance. The footprint of the house is not changing. There is no height difference or difference on the side of the house. Everything stays exactly the same. It's just that we'll be using what is now deemed a garage for living space. So what I wanted to say in terms of describing the circumstances at present, The garage is very small inside. It's never actually been used for parking. I've been here for 24 years and we've never parked in the garage. It's been used for storage space, for tools and garden stuff, and mainly my children. Over the last year, we've emptied that out and we're still not able to drive the car in and open the doors so that the passenger and the driver can get out at the same time. had deemed to be the driveway to park. We have a driveway in front of the garage with the curb cut, and we have a space in front of our house for visitors. For the last three years, I haven't actually had a car, so visitors usually park in the driveway. It was only when I received the The notification that I had to apply for my permit had been declined, that I was told that it was a non-conforming single family. and that it wasn't, what I thought was the driveway was actually considered a setback. So when I did some research on that, I just, I think it's about, I'm still not completely clear, but I think it's around measurements. Our driveway is just under 15 feet. And I think that, I'm not completely sure I must say, because when I looked up, some of the wordage around setback relief. The only thing I could find was it said, unfortunately, the specific setback relief for driveways in Medford is not explicitly mentioned in the materials. So I'm not sure what to say about that. But the house was built, as far as I know, with this garage. And so I inherited the dimensions of the space. For me, the hardship to change this would be to demolish the garage or part of the garage, which would be extraordinarily expensive. We've never had any problem parking in that parking space. It's more than big enough for us. The other hardship would of course be that my mother has come to live with us and we can't afford to put her in a retirement home, nor can we afford to, or would we want to, move from this area and buy another house. That's not a possibility for me at this point in time. And I wish to stay in this neighborhood. I've invested time, energy, and love in this neighborhood, in the community center, and people have been extraordinarily supportive of my mom and her moving here. I did contact as many of the neighbors as I could opposite, and I think it was within 600 feet of the house was the requirement. I did not I did not contact people in the road behind me. And when I was listed for this meeting, I did receive a list of abutters. And some of the people on the list included people behind me. So I did go and speak with them, but I wasn't able to get letters in. And I explained the project so that they understood. So it wasn't just that they were saying, oh, yes, that's fine. They understood what it was that we were trying to do and what the implications were. And everybody I spoke to was very supportive, very supportive. And so I think you have at least five or six letters from my neighbors across the street and down a bit. On your rebutters list, it talks about Debco management. It's a two family that has been built next door to us. And we have letters from both of those people, but it doesn't say Debco. It's the people who actually live there. And one person at number 12, Lincoln, that is actually Mrs. Douglas, Sidney Douglas. I don't know who that name is, but the person, I also have letters from her. So I would like for you to consider. this special permit to keep our family together and with the understanding that we have really only ever parked in that driveway and it has been sufficient for us.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, so just for the board. So this does just require a special permit. The standard is similar to that of a finding. So this is an alteration of a use. It does. So there's an existing nonconformity with respect to parking. So in terms of the issue of whether the space in the driveway, the footprint of the driveway does or doesn't count as a space is kind of moved because the requirement would be two. It's less than two, so it's already nonconforming. And so here there's a proposal to convert this garage, which isn't currently being used for parking, into another space, which on paper removes a parking space, but it's not presently being used if I understood correctly.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if I may say, Mr. Colroy, it's not even that it's not present being used, we've never been able to use it. We've, you know, we did have a car many years ago that we could drive in. And then very carefully, if there's only one person in the car, get out on one side, but we weren't able to, it wasn't, it was built many, many years ago, when the cars were different sizes and shapes, I think. And so it just doesn't suit the purpose. And it's I understand the zoning law, but we've never been able to park in there. And I didn't realize, as I said, that what I deem to be our driveway, which is where we've always parked, is not considered a driveway. And actually, just to say that I did walk the neighborhood, and there are quite a few other houses that have short driveways where they park their cars. And even across the street, actually, I think it's, I can't remember which number it is, but it's across the street and two houses down to the right. They don't have a garage at all, and they have a short driveway, and they have two cars. We're a one-car family. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, I see that you did send some photos in with your application. I'm not sure if anything in the application gives a exact measurement, but certainly you have some photos.
[SPEAKER_00]: I did in section 5, question 5. Yeah, on the application question five, if this application for variance is allowed, it will create no substantial detriment to the public good. And in there, I said, you know, historically, I've always parked in the driveway. And I did go out and measure the driveway. And it's 10 feet wide.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sorry, I wasn't referring to that. Oh, sorry. I meant the I don't know if we got a measurement of the actual garage dimensions but eyeballing it seeing a car next to it. It does look small relative to modern cars and garages. So yeah, I think I
[SPEAKER_00]: My daughter parked her car, which is the biggest car that we've had parked there. It's a Mazda and it fits in the space perfectly, but you can see that it would be pretty tricky to drive it through the doors and then open the door. We've only ever used it for storage and it's a terrible waste of space given that we have more pressing family needs to keep the family together at this point.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, do we have questions from the board? All right, I'm not seeing any other questions. Chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing. Do I have a second? Second. Jim, we're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mary.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Beth.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike. Aye. Public portion of the hearing is now open. If you're a member of the public and you would like to speak on this matter, please raise your hand on Zoom, turn on your camera and raise your hand, type in the chat or email Dennis. I do not see any members of the public who are indicating they wish to speak on this matter. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberation. Do I have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, we're going to take another roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mary? Aye. Like I, all right, the public portion of the hearing is now closed and we are deliberating. What do you think, folks?
[Unidentified]: For me, obviously it's already non-conforming. It's only having one space, which is the garage. I know we've talked previously about, you know, the concern about parking cars in front of a home. Obviously the way it's designed, it's designed that way. And they're currently parking that way. So again, it just increases the amount of informity. But I absolutely understand the need. And it kind of falls into, in my mind, something along the lines of, although it's not a full ADU, it's more of a need for living space for family.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. Other thoughts from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not seeing any. Yeah, so I think the applicant has done a good job reaching out to the direct abutters. It seems like there's general support for the project. Any detriment to the public good will be minimal to none because currently nothing is parked in that location, and so converting it even though on paper it removes a parking spot, in practice it doesn't. And I do think there would, well, the standard's not a hardship for a special permit, but I do think the other alternatives would present a hardship. So yeah, no concerns on my end. Chair awaits a motion.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve the, oh, sorry, special permit grant. Motion to approve the special permit for 9 Lincoln Street.
[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Amy? Aye. Mary?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the special permit is approved. So congratulations, you have your garage conversion.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you so much. Thank you very much.
[Denis MacDougall]: And then, Mickey, I'm going to write the decision. When it's written, it'll get filed in the city clerk's office. And then there's a 20-day appeals period before you can get the permit. So I'll let you know when it's filed there. You'll get a copy. But then after that, there's still going to be 20 days before you can actually get the bill. Start work? I see. Yes, exactly.
[SPEAKER_00]: OK, OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: That'll give you an idea as to when to get everything done with your contractor, to let them know that after this date, you know, barring any bar, as long as there's no appeals, you'll be able to get rolling on the work.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, yes. Okay, well, thank you so much. I very much appreciate everyone's comments. Thank you. Good night. Thank you. Have a good night.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, next matter is 129 Forest Street.
[Denis MacDougall]: Applicant and owner Paul Tarantino is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City Method Zoning to build an open deck at 129 Forest Street, two feet from the front property line. Open decks are required to be eight feet from the front property line for the City Method Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 4.2.3, Article 3. This is a corner lot and has two front yards.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. I see we have an Anthony Tarantino. Please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_27]: Yeah, hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the ZBA. Thanks so much for hanging in there tonight and hearing our request. This is Paul Tarantino. He's the property owner. I'm his son, and I'm speaking on his behalf tonight. I've got a couple of pictures and some drawings that maybe I might be able to share with you folks. But obviously, yeah, we're seeking A variance from the setback requirement on the side yard, which as we have recently learned is also a front yard. The request is really not to add an open porch, but it's really to add a second first floor egress. to the property. The original plan that was approved had a second egress on the south side of the property that was approved, and that, you know, the property is essentially nonconforming as it was, and that was going to be very close to the abutters driveway. The hardship is The design looked great on paper, and when the builder went to build it, it required some extensive disassembly of the foundation. The existing foundation is granite, and the concern was If we were going to disturb the foundation, it was potentially going to cause a lot of problems to that type of foundation and the sort of underpinning for the sill. The decision was made. With the, the designer and the contractor to try and move it to the other side of the house. I think we got some bad information from our designer about the side set back and we weren't really clear that we needed to run it back through the zoning board for approval. So we didn't really know what we were doing. And I think we got some. Not so great advice. So we just went with it. I'll show you some pictures of what I'm talking about. But again, putting it in the proposed location was going to cause a pretty significant hardship because it was potentially going to add a lot of cost to the project. So if I could share my screen, I can just show you a few pictures of what I'm talking about. I didn't add these to the application, but I figured it would be worth showing you, if that's OK. Yeah, you're all ahead to share. OK, great. I'll see if I can get this to work, too. I think I'm just going to share. this, and hopefully this should work out. So these are some pictures of the house itself. The house is a fire rebuild. The house burned down on September 5th of 2021. We, again, submitted plans and got them approved. The house has been since rebuilt. It's nearly completed. If you look at the front view, this is the front of the house, the two front entries. This is the side of the house where the original second first floor egress was proposed. It was proposed to be towards this side of the lot, which would have been really close to the setback. It was approved. Again, we've got a stone foundation that was the problem, which resulted in the hardship. It was moved to the north side of the house This was, again, the slider. Here's a closer view of it, a little bit closer. This was the second egress with steps going back. When we talked to the builder and the architect, this was intended to be the second form of egress. Since we had the opportunity, we decided that we would connect it to the front porch, which would provide some outdoor space for my elderly parents, which is why it's connected. There's a top view of the of the structure. So this is the door out. This is, again, sort of the platform for the egress, and it would exit to the back of the property. And this is the connection to the front part of the house. Here's some dimensions here. These are just a couple of close-ups of things. This is the closest section, which, if you can see, is roughly, you know, roughly 38 inches off the sidewalk. There's a stone wall there already, and that's the closest portion to the property line. I think the next closest portion is somewhere around, depending on where you take it, anywhere from 49 to 63 inches. If you look at So then, you know, the other thing to look at is, let's see if I can get this, are the sort of plot plans here. So the existing plot plan, The plot plan for the structure that burned down, and that was actually in September 22, not 21, already sort of had a variance here. The setback was only 6.3 feet on that side, and it was kind of similar. On the other side, and again, this was where the original egress was proposed. This is where it is now. If you look at the new the new plot plan. for the new structure. This is where it is, and it's about 2.4 feet off of the property line. So that's the variance we're seeking. I know the requirement is eight feet, so there's that. I also, I don't know if you folks care to see this, but this was the original approved plan, which shows The egress, the proposed egress on the south side. Here's the problem. This foundation is about a foot wide, and the contractor was concerned that in order to get this platform through the wall, we had to deconstruct the foundation. And again, everyone that we had spoken to had warned against doing that because it could potentially cause some significant damage to the stone foundation. That's why we took the advice of the builder and the architect and went with the current plan. Unfortunately, we didn't run it through the ZBAs and it got caught on inspection by the inspector who then made us stop work here and then presented to the ZBA. So that's why we're here. Those are the pictures. It's already existing. The hardship is that we couldn't really make, we couldn't act, the contractor couldn't construct the plan as it was drafted because in reality it didn't work. with the existing foundation. The problem is we didn't run it through the ZBA before we changed the plan, and we told the contractor to go ahead with it. And right now, again, here we are with a partial build. And yeah, we're just kind of stuck. with what we can do here. So this again would be a second first floor egress for the first floor unit. So that's what the situation is, and that's what we're looking at. And again, the hardship would be that we couldn't build the plan as proposed and as approved. because of the potential risk to the granite foundation. We kept the original footprint of the building and we kept the original foundation because We didn't have enough funding to replace everything. And the concern is the foundation was at risk if we tried to modify it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So I just want to double check that I understood the situation correctly. And I'll also just share some details on how the ZBA approaches cases like this. So I guess I'll start with the latter. So in situations where something is in some stage of having already been built, and then There's a stop work notice based on some inspection. The ZBA will do its analysis as though the work hadn't commenced yet. So essentially, we're considering, if you came to us beforehand and sort of realized this potential issue and needed the relief, could we or could we not grant the relief under the ZBA? the zoning ordinance. But in terms of my understanding, so it sounds like there was a structure that was once here. There was a fire. You, under the zoning, are allowed to do a rebuild by right under certain conditions. And so this was a by right rebuild on the same footprint that the building commissioner approved, and so thus it never had to go to the ZBA. The approved plans had a second egress on the... South side. South side, right. And then at some point in the building process after your permit was already approved, You learn that, hey, actually, it's going to be expensive and or completely impossible to put the egress here. And so then the contractor identified an alternate means of egress, and the second means of egress is required. uh by the building code today and so this was it and and then so so basically you need the second means of egress it was located on the other side as a result of this issue and then you kind of learned halfway through constructing it that you needed additional relief is that is that the situation yes okay okay great thanks for clarifying um all right so then the uh In cases like these, we do need a variance. Because in this case, and I want to double check some details, because maybe I think it's the case, but I'm not 100%. The reason why we need a variance is because the prior structure didn't have a deck in this location. So essentially the deck was added to this location as a means of egress. And so before it was just like a house that was too close to its second front yard under the zoning ordinance. But then now it's a house with a deck that's too close to the second front yard. Am I understanding that correctly?
[SPEAKER_27]: Yeah. Again, we're looking at it as the second egress. We had to make accommodations to the design of the house to make sure that the second unit had a proper second means of egress which aid into the original second egress on the first floor. We had to relocate that and this is where it ended up.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. OK, great. Yeah, so basically then, so this is a by right rebuild. It would have been costly to move the footprint of the building anyway. So the footprint stayed the same. You need a second means of egress. And so the standard here is a variant. So we have to establish whether something to do with the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the land or the structure Josh Triplett, Applicant OLIV, PB – he, him, his): Creates the hardship and that includes the position of the structure on the existing lot which is a regular so so if the board were to find that the lot is a regularly shaped it's a it's also a corner lot and the structure is already positioned. Uh, you know, encroaching on the second front yard and you need this mean of means of egress and it's not practical to move the footprint of the building. Then, you know, that would be one way we could evaluate whether having a deck that's adding a deck that's in violation of the, um, dimensional requirements would be okay. So anyway, I just wanted to get that out there. So the board, um, kind of knew the analysis and you knew what we were going to be talking through. But with that, I will turn it over to members of the board for any questions or comments. Jamie, please go ahead.
[Unidentified]: So I just wanted to add on to that conversation. My question is, you know, the deck was the chosen way to design that. But could that have simply been a set of stairs down to a walkway that would then be compliant?
[SPEAKER_27]: The original way to deal with it was a similar set of stairs on the south side. It still would have been close to the setback, but we opted to put it on the north side. That was essentially going to be, you need a platform. I believe there is a platform that's required to get when you leave the house so you can exit towards the stairs. So you do need a certain amount of a landing to step out onto. At least that's what we were told. And that would have been most of what is there. And so that would have caused a non-conformity anyway. I don't think you can just have steps that
[Unidentified]: No, you would need to exit out of the side of the house.
[SPEAKER_27]: You need a landing. So the landing is four feet wide. That's what the deck is. And then it just exits out towards the rear of the building.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. So the wraparound is a convenience. But even if you had done a standard landing with stairs, it would have effectively had a similar Um, setback is violation. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. Uh, other questions or comments from the board? All right.
[Mike Caldera]: I do not see any. Uh, and so, uh, chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing. So I'm going to have a second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Gary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Beth?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, the public portion of the hearing is now open. I see potentially one member of the public still on the call. There is a member of the public who would like to speak on this matter. Please indicate your desire to do so by raising your hand on Zoom, turning on your camera and raising your hand, typing in chat or emailing Dennis. I do not see any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take another roll call.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mary?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, we are now deliberating. What do you think, folks?
[Unidentified]: So, obviously, design decision for the second egress was a necessity to move that from the other side of the property. The egress could have been on this side from the beginning. Obviously, the deck would have come up at that point. Design requirements do have a requirement with the slider that you have that landing, which would have been out of compliance with the, would have been in the setback to begin with, so they would have needed a variance if they had just a landing with a staircase. Now, the decision to wrap it around, integrate it with the front gives actually a better opportunity. You can go either direction as an egress in the event of a safety need. So, I see the need for it.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Any other thoughts from the board?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I'm in full agreement with what Jamie just said. My thoughts as well. Other thoughts from members of the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Not seeing any yet. So here the lot itself is unusual in shape. It's also a corner lot. The existing building is located in a difficult location on the lot that limits possible and feasible spots for the second egress. Also, the location of the one foot thick foundation further limits that. So clearly, there are a number of dimensional things that are unusual about the lot and structures. literal enforcement of the zoning would create a hardship because by building code, there must be a second egress. And there's not a lot of places to put it without moving or changing the structure in a material way and doesn't derogate from the intent of the zoning bylaw or cause substantial detriment to the public good. So yeah, I don't, I don't have any concerns. I think we meet the criteria for a variance here. Other thoughts? Seeing none, Chair awaits a motion.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve the variance for 129 Forest Street.
[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mary? Aye. Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, your variance is approved. And so there are some procedural steps before you get the all clear to resume work, right? But we'll work on a decision, Dennis, and then it's a 20-day appeal period, and then they can get started again.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, so I'll tell you the minute it's filed with the clerk's office, and I'll send you a copy, and then it'll be 20 days from then. But that'll give you a time frame.
[SPEAKER_27]: Thank you so much. I really appreciate everyone hanging in tonight. And thanks for your consideration. So have a great night. And thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right. Do we have any administrative updates tonight? None on my end. I don't think so. All right. And then do we have, I didn't see any meeting minutes. Do we have any meeting minutes?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm not, maybe I didn't. They're done for the last two meetings. You guys didn't get them?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, there was one. Oh, did we get them?
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, I think I sent you the one for the 40B, but not this one. I got them all done. So we'll do the 40B one and the 40B hearings, and then it might make more sense.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, you can send all the meeting minutes.
[Denis MacDougall]: And I'll send you the other ones before I leave tonight, because they're done. Both January hearings are done, so I'll get you those.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Great. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn. All right, we're going to take a roll call.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mary?
[Mike Caldera]: I think this is one of the few things Chris can vote on tonight. So Chris, if you're still with us.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I can vote on this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. All right. Mike, six in favor. Thanks for hanging in there, folks. They're normally not listening Thursday. No. Thank you all so very much.