[Unidentified]: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the Thursday, March 28th meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We have four cases today. Dennis, do you want to read in the language for the Zoom?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill which, among other things, extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at any location, and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting law, other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Our chair, Mike Caldera, is away today. I'll be filling in for him as chair. Do you want to read in the first item 290 Salem Street? Yes.
[Denis MacDougall]: 290 Salem Street case number 8-2023-14 continued from February 29th. Applicant and owner 290 Salem Street LLC is petitioning for a variance in the chapter 94 city micro zoning to construct a seven-unit residential structure with commercial space and a department one zoning district allowed use. With insufficient front and side yard setbacks, block coverage, lot area, and number of units per square foot of land, City of Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, section 6, table B, table of dimensional requirements.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. And do we have a representative for the applicant?
[Adam Barnosky]: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Adam Barnosky, for the record, 255 State Street, Boston. I'm an attorney for the applicant. With me tonight is Fernando Vento, the principal and owner of the property, as well as the project architect, Jacob Levine. So we are here on a continued hearing relative to zoning only for new mixed-use development at 290 Salem. At a hearing last month, we went through this project before the board in detail. As you might recall, this board was supportive of the project and the request for relief, but due to the subsequent continued Community Development Board hearing, this board wanted to ensure that no changes would be requested by the Community Development Board that would affect the dimensions of the project and the related relief that we're seeking. As such, the board, the ZBA, continued the matter to allow the applicant to appear before this Community Development Board, which it did last week. So now, due to recent changes in the zoning ordinance, as this board is likely aware, the Community Development Board cannot approve the site plan until the underlying zoning is approved. So as a result, we do have another hearing before the Community Development Board in order to approve the site plan in the proper order. But the Community Development Board did make clear on the record at last week's hearing that it was the requests that it's made, which are very minor considering the scope of the project relate only to aesthetics and there would be no request on anything that would affect the footprint, the use, the dimensions or anything else that could affect the zoning. I believe that a memo was sent to the board by community development staff. this afternoon to that effect. So with that being said, Mr. Chair, if you'd like, understanding that there's no real impact to zoning, so there's no changes to this project that are new, that affect any relief that this board is granting, if you please, we could go through some of the changes that we made to impact the visual and streetscape of the building.
[Unidentified]: I put is just let let me interrupt I skipped a step we do need to do a roll call. And then we'll proceed. So just a real roll call for members. Jim Torani. Christie about it. Mary Lee present. You've got the last president and Jamie Thompson present. And voting today, we are missing both Mike Caldera and Andre LaRue. So Mary and Christy Vetta will be voting members today. Back to 290 Salem Street. Thank you. Attorney Baranski, go ahead.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yeah, so that was really the end of my preliminary comments. I wanted to see if the board wanted to see the updates to the project, which we could go through relatively succinctly. No, we appreciate it. Thank you. Sure, I'll pass it off to Jacob Levine.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Good evening, board. My name is Jacob Levine. I am at 27 Congress Street in Salem, Mass. And I will share with everybody our updates. So receiving feedback from the Community Development Board, there were a couple topics that wanted to be clarified with the project. First of all was a look at the 3D with a little bit more landscape to match the actual landscape plan. So as we walk through this update, you will see the landscape in the drawings and in the 3D. The other topic of consideration was the corner on Salem Street and Park Street, and we'll show after this presentation a quick study of what we looked at this corner and where we landed on that design. And the other change that you'll be able to see in 3D is just Before we had this two-foot projection here on the balcony, we just opened up that balcony, gave that as open space to the tenant, and kept the bump out on Salem Street. But on Park Street, we're just going to make it green space for them. So I'm going to run through this presentation. There are no changes to the floor plan, to the floor plate, to the ground floor, to our actual size of building or unit layouts. Again, the only changes are we took the bump out here and gave them some outdoor space, which we felt like the Community Development Board appreciated. Roof deck. We wanted to provide a little bit more clarification on the materials of the building before we were showing kind of a red brick to match what was across the street. And contextually, we ended up going with more of a textured color brick to match the lower floors. We're going to have a glass curtain wall of some sort. We were suggested to look at a project on Cabot Street over by Assembly Square. They have a glass corner there. You know, at this time, we're just showing glass, but in reality, it will be a form of curtain wall with spandrel panels and whatnot. It won't be all clear glass. And then a composite siding. Before we were showing some more colors and trying to match and.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry about that. I was trying to. Let someone in and I think I actually clicked on so I think you should be fine. Thank you.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: You're all good. Sorry about that. No problem. So we wanted to show in context, the building and what it would look like on the corner. Again, taking some feedback from the community development board. We went with more of a gray scheme with this nice colored brick to try to match what's across the street, and then keeping in line the same bump outs that they have on Salem Street to try to create a unity looking down this street. And then on Park Street would actually have the curved balconies. But again, no change to the floor plan, floor plate, or anything of that matter. We were also suggested to look at a shadow study, which we've presented to the Community Development Board, which everyone appreciated. There's any questions on this I can answer them after but I'm just going to move to that. We're also asked to present a figure ground drawing so you could just kind of see how on the first floor where the building actually sits in relation to the site, along with a solar study showing how much solar panels we would fit on the back half of the building and what the actual outcome would be and the positive benefit of having a green quote space on the ground floor and then the solar panels on the top and the effect that would have on the micro environment. And then lastly, we were asked just to kind of present a couple more images in context to show that massing on the building and how it might sit on the figure ground again, in relation to the street and in relation to its neighbors. We again are showing the updated landscape plan and this new fancy corner. So I'm going to just show briefly a slide here. that, again, the Community Development Board appreciated. We started with this open concept on the corner with the balconies, with the rounded part on Park Street. Then we continued to develop the idea of balconies, and then looking at glass, and then looking at a solid with punch-outs. That's what left us with the idea of the void, which was always the concept of the design there. A lot of thought went into that corner. And then if anyone has any questions, I also have the civil plans and the landscape plans, which had no changes since the last time we presented this to you last month. So at this point, I'm open for questions and same with the rest of the team. And if there's anything else we can answer, please let us know. We appreciate this opportunity and your time tonight. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, I do. Jamie, my question would be, could you show us where the commercial space is? Could you point that out?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Absolutely. So the commercial space would come in right off Salem State Street. So we have two spaces here. We have one and two, um, and it would be directly off Salem Street. And then on Park Street, the entry for tenants would be either parking and coming through this door, or if they're walking or taking public transit, uh, coming through this door here. So commercial space one and two, pretty much the whole ground floor is dedicated to commercial space.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: OK, any other questions from the board?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Go ahead, Chris. Thank you. I appreciate the additional drawings, and especially the ground plate site plan drawing there. It's good. I asked a question a few weeks ago about, the angle, the elevation, if you will, on Park Street looking, I guess, east. And it wasn't clear to me what the back or rear of the building, I think, if I could call it that, the part farthest away from Salem Street would look like. And do you have any oblique angles from that direction. I see the elevation. There was one rendering, an aerial that you showed earlier, that sort of showed what the rear may look like, but it's the Yeah. But there's no angle from Park Street looking at the back of that, correct?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: You would be referring to if I was standing where my mouse is over here on Park Street looking back at the building? I don't have a 3D shot of that. It's a pretty matching facade on the back. Um, just in terms of the same band, the same composites. And then we were actually recommended by the board. I'm just gonna open the floor plan. Uh, so it kind of be bedrooms back there and maybe a living space that if there's an opportunity, because this part is actually covered parking. So is there an opportunity where we have a fence line here to do something more of like a green wall, or a kind of a nicer look at, you know, what could be possible with this, you know, rear, rear fence, which we appreciated and, you know, our landscape team was was looking at an option for that, you know, down the line. on what that could be. But in terms of just like a 3D shot of the rear of the building, I do not have it. That would be the closest you could get. But it's just the similar facade. It's just the ribbon that wraps.
[Chris D'Aveta]: OK. And is that going to be the service area where any trucks for the businesses would load and the dumpster would be kept?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: So we've been thinking that the dumpster would actually be kept in here and service would happen through Park Street. So back there would just be parking for tenants actually. I have a just a simple kind of on that figure ground. It just kind of shows where they plan to do roll out dumpsters so that we have what we call the lawn here on the site plan. And then the dumpster and service spot would be here that kind of gets rolled out and picked up.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, and just again on the rear of the building, there's no variance being requested for that, because you're 15 feet from the line, I believe?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we are just looking at front and side yard setbacks.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay. OK, that's my question for now. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I appreciate it.
[Yvette Velez]: I'd like for you to expand a little bit more about the dumpster trash plan there. It looks like a strained area for a dumpster to pass through, especially because the building overhangs. And those spots are assigned spots for tenants, correct? So that dumpster would be pulled out and sitting on a curb on waiting for it to be picked up and the same with recycling bins and things of that nature. I also live in a building and I recognize that those bins get taken out every week. All of them rolled out, all lined up, taking up a specific spot in our parking lot. But if we didn't have that spot in our parking lot, it would be on the sidewalk. For this particular building, where would it live while they're waiting to get picked up?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: Sure. I are, Adam are our site plan team isn't on right now are they are the civil team.
[Adam Barnosky]: No, they are not but from what I recall. that they mentioned during the Community Development Board last week. And Jacob, if you have anything to add to this, let me know. But from what I recall, they said that they anticipated it would really depend on the company that was doing the picking up of the waste, but that they anticipated being able to hire a company that would park and pull the dumpster into location, empty it, and put it back to location, right? That would seem to be the preferred method. Otherwise, it would create problems with folks within the building that were parking.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: So I guess to answer that question as well, there is a dedicated spot for the dumpster where it lives, let's say, you know, 6.8 times out of the week. And then the dumpster truck comes in, it gets rolled out by the, um, you know, the property management team and disposed of, and then rolled back into its, its spot, which has been designated on the civil plan, the architecture plan, and, uh, the landscape plan has it as well. Um, scale wise, you know, we're looking at those rollout dumpsters. which are something similar to that in nature. So one recycling, one trash, and it's seven units. So it's not, you know, we're not talking about 30 units worth of trash and recycling here. So it seems like that's a manageable route.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board?
[Mary Lee]: So in total, there's two dumpsters, one for the trash and one for recycle. Is that correct?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_04]: That is correct.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board? All right, chair awaits a motion to open for public comment. So moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. All right, we are open for public comment. If anybody from the public is on the meeting, if you would raise your hand. You can also email Dennis at Dennis, if you could put your email address in the chat. I'll just give it a minute to see if we have anybody that wants to speak. Okay dentistry have any emails.
[Denis MacDougall]: We did not receive anything. Thank you for your email or or in office correspondence.
[Unidentified]: Jerry it's a motion to close public comment.
[Yvette Velez]: Motion.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. For the board, we do have a letter that was received from the Community Development Board. It was late this afternoon. I just want to read in a portion of that related to the meeting that was presented at March 20th, 2024. Board members present at the meeting, Chair Jackie McPherson, Vice-Chair Emily Hedman, Ari Fishman, Rita Calves, Sally Akiki, Pam Mariansky, and Sharad Bajracharya were absent. The applicant presented the revised plans. The CDB were appreciative of the design changes and did have concerns regarding the glass curtain wall, which was presented and will be part of the living area of one of the residential units. We do privacy, potential light glare, practicality of furniture placement, additional feedback related to the high visibility of the podium parking on the Park Street elevation, and request the applicant to explore screening the parking and better visually anchor the building, which has a top-heavy feel. The city board directed planning staff to convey to the ZBA that any rare mining design concerns that need to be addressed would not impact the footprint of the building or requested dimensional relief. So for the board discussion on this project.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I, I'd like to say I like the improvements very much. I think it makes it look much better.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Jim. Okay, so specific for this project, 290 Salem Street, we are looking at insufficient front and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and the number of units per square foot. We'll vote on each of those individually. I just wanna check and see if anybody has any questions before we move forward. Okay, for these, this is a variant. So again, taking into consideration the circumstances relating to soil condition, shape or topography of the land or structures, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise impact to the petitioner. Also taking into consideration that the relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intended purpose of the bylaw. With regards to front and yard, side yard setbacks, I'd like to do a roll call vote. Jim Torani? Aye. Yvette Velez?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Christy Evanna?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mister chair, I'm not sure if I can vote.
[Unidentified]: Actually, uh, this is a continuing ship. You're correct for the continuance. You cannot. Thank you. And Jamie Thompson. I have four eyes, uh, side and front and side. You had setbacks are approved with regards to the lot coverage. Uh, Jim Torani. Hi. Hi, Mary Lee.
[Yvette Velez]: Hi.
[Unidentified]: And Jamie Thompson, aye. Four votes affirmative. With regards to the lot area and number of units per square foot. Jim Tarani. Aye. Yvette Velez.
[Danielle Evans]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mary Lee. Aye. And Jamie Thompson, aye. So we have approval of all the variances for 290 Salem Street. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you all. You're welcome. Dennis if you could read the next project.
[Denis MacDougall]: 1.21 3rd Street case number 8 as 2023-21. Can you from every 20. Applicant and owner Sandra and Bartolomeo Dorenzo a petition for a variance in chapter 94 see what we're going to start or put fence. at 121th Street on the front line of a corner, which is not allowed for the City of Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, section 6.3.10, corner visibility.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative from the applicant? I see Mr. Donovan. We can't hear you. You're on mute.
[SPEAKER_12]: I'm Mister Donovan, and this is the contract of Steve.
[Unidentified]: Thank you for that.
[SPEAKER_13]: Go ahead, Steve. Can you pull up the Google thing that you pulled up last time, the GSA maps, so we can get a picture of what we're looking at?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, I was doing two things at once.
[SPEAKER_13]: What was the other thing? You'll be able to pull up what you pulled up last time for me with like what the existing kind of looks like.
[Denis MacDougall]: The drawing?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, hold on.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, just so they can.
[Denis MacDougall]: 30 seconds. There you go.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Can everyone see that?
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Okay. I think if you just switch to street view down at the bottom, there you go.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yep. Yep. Thank you. So yeah, we're just trying to construct, continue the fence. It was stopped because of the corner visibility ordinance. Last meeting, William Forte, previous building commissioner, had some issues with it. And I was supposed to go back with him, but he was no longer there. So I spoke to Scott, and he had checked it out, Scott Vander, Wally. And I don't see that he has any issues with that as well. So we'd like to construct it the way it is, continue it down Marshall Street. It's pretty much, I don't know what it is. I don't know if there's any questions.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I have a question through the chair. OK. I thought that, did you get to work with anyone from the city?
[SPEAKER_13]: As of like the first time when I was trying to work with the city, when I had stopped in, he had told me, you know, stop in. And he, you know, William told me that just to go to the meeting. And then obviously last meeting he had an issue, but I did not have tried to reach out, never got anything. I spoke to Scott. Um, he's, um, the new commissioner, he stopped over and he really did not have an issue with, I mean, he's here, he's on the main as well with the visibility of it as well.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: So I thought Bill was going to give you some ideas. He had some ideas for this project.
[SPEAKER_13]: Um, yeah, I didn't get any ideas from him. I, he did not respond to me.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: So we, uh, through the chair, could we hear from Scott to get his opinion?
[Unidentified]: Building Commissioner, are you on, are you available? I guess so, there it is.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I did look at the site. I did speak to the contractor. We acknowledged that it, you know, to make it fully compliant, it'd be basically at the front door due to all the restrictions. What I did suggest was that he try to make some accommodations to comply with the law and find some balancing point. I don't see a strong balancing point here, but they make some proposals and suggest it to the board. But when I was out there, all the parking spaces were clogged with vehicles. I couldn't even see the fence, quite frankly, behind some of the vehicles that were sitting there. I would like to see a little bit of accommodation. which was my suggestion to him, try to find a balancing point between what bylaws ordinance requires and what the needs and expectations of, which in my mind would be, at least bring it back a couple of feet, maybe four feet, and maybe blunt off the edge, the corner a little bit. Some combination in there, but I wasn't gonna make a strong suggestion, just I would not oppose some reasonable effort to pull it back a little bit.
[Yvette Velez]: Couldn't he just cut it off at the end and angle it versus like pulling it completely back?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, he could do a lot of things. I mean, the technical language of the ordinance says you have to be so many feet back from the corner. It's like 20 plus feet. So that's not entirely feasible. That would put it on his front door. So the idea was to find some sort of accommodation between what he's asked for right here and what the literal interpretation of the ordinance is. Yeah, the whole idea is to simply give some view around the corner, but I wouldn't, I'd poke my head out a lot farther than the edge of that fence before I would pull out into that street just because of all the traffic that's around there. So, and certainly many other houses on the streets, you can see across the street, they've got bushes that totally obscure the opposite direction, so. I think there's a happy medium point for everybody somewhere and it may be blunting it off or pulling back a little bit.
[SPEAKER_13]: You okay with that? We needed to do that.
[Unidentified]: So from a direction perspective, are we looking at some, I guess, if I could ask the building commissioner, we're looking at something along that. So at that corner, there is a post, then we have the first post back, the second post back, when you refer to blunting it, are you referring to bringing the fence to that second post and then continuing over to Marshall at an angle?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, something like that would be something like that. Yeah, if you take it to the first post, you're going to hit that tree right in the corner. I would suggest maybe that second post or somewhere in between and just 45 degree in that corner. So you get a reasonable view. The fact is, you're still going to pull out much farther than that before you dare stick your nose out. Just because of all the cars that are parked there on a regular basis. I had asked the contractor if he could, is okay with wanting it back on the corner 45 in it.
[SPEAKER_13]: I don't mind if we had to, um, you know, I initially, that's what I kind of, before we even brought it originally was asking, um, William about was, should I just bring it back to section and angle it? So that's, that's kind of what I spoke to him about originally. And then he told me to bring it this way originally. So, um, that's kind of where I was. I figured a section or so just are maybe six feet or so, whatever, whatever makes it work, where like I can use it, you did a foot section, you know what I mean? Like cleanly. So when I did double pulse that section, basically the diagonal, I think that curves it enough. I mean, it gives it, you know,
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, I might, I'd also suggest that I would not oppose that.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Um, so I guess, uh, from the applicant's perspective, is there anything, any other guide that you want to provide us as we move forward in the discussion?
[SPEAKER_12]: To me, folks, I, um, I was brought on, um, and as you can see, That's at the beginning of the walk on Marshall Street. Like the commissioner said, you have to pull out before you can get to Winthrop Street, which is the main drag. And unlike when this picture was taken, on most days, that's parking on both sides of the road. I've pulled out of this intersection about a thousand times since I've been in the family, and I haven't been closed once. I am an ex-law enforcement in Woburn. I have reconstructed accidents. I do know offense has never been blamed for an accident, it's usually failure to yield. And that's a driver's issue, not the property owner's issue. And I just think they are open to cutting it back, like the commissioner said.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Any questions from the board?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Well, I guess I don't have a question, but I do see what is being explained. You could see that that road comes out a lot further than that fence, and that one wouldn't be stopping at that fence in order to see what's out here on the main drive. And I guess if there were cars parked there, you would still have to pull out further before whether the fence was there or not to see it. But there's going to be, you're going to have some space between the, I guess you have, if we could go back and look at the fence that you have up just to see an example of the fence.
[SPEAKER_13]: That's a space, it's called spaced.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: But I mean, there are spaces there where you can still see through. Will that be carried all the way down?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes, we'll continue this section. That's, yeah, it's already done to the right. We'll continue the same way.
[SPEAKER_12]: Right. It's going to be throughout the whole fence.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Right. I do want to comment the day that I did tour it with another inspector, there was a large red pickup truck parked as tight as they could get to the crosswalk. So you really couldn't see the fence until you sort of pulled out and saw it behind you. So based on that, I said, hey, we can cut it off a little bit, give a little bit more view. The fact that the fence runs all the way along is a little bit mooted by the fact you can't even see the fence itself.
[Unidentified]: OK, thank you. Daniel Evans, City Planner.
[Danielle Evans]: Hi, good evening, Daniel Evans, senior planner. There shouldn't be cars parking right up against the sidewalk. That's state law that there should be space there. It's not an actual parking space, so perhaps we should direct traffic and parking to that area as a non-parking space, or a condition of any approval would be to do that.
[SPEAKER_12]: Daniella, you're talking about the crosswalk itself?
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, you're not supposed to. You can't park right up against the crosswalk. It's not an actual parking space.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, no, I understand that. I think what the commissioner was saying, they were parked in the crosswalk.
[Danielle Evans]: You can't park up against it. There has to be some visibility.
[SPEAKER_12]: I agree.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. Around the city, there's been striping and putting flex posts to prevent people from parking in those spaces. It's starting to be enforced.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Planner Evans, would you, not in relation to the project, but outside of the project that we should reach out to DPW for that?
[Danielle Evans]: Good to share. I would say the Director of Traffic and Transportation, Todd Blake, is leading where the striping is happening, but yet within DPW engineering.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. I can take that action.
[Unidentified]: All right. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Seeing none, board awaits a motion to open for public comment.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Motion.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Second.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. We are now open for public comment with regards to 120 Winthrop Street, construction of a four-foot fence along that property. If anybody from the public would like to speak, please raise your hand or email Dennis McDougall, dmcdougall, at medford-ma.gov.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just give that a minute.
[Unidentified]: Okay, uh, no hands raised. Dennis, do you have anything in email?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I do not.
[Unidentified]: Uh, chair awaits a motion to close the public comment.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Motion to close the public comment.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. I apologize. I'm supposed to be taking a roll call for that. Uh, Jim Tron. Aye. Yvette Gilles.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mary Lee.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: And Kristi Yvette. Aye. We are now in deliberations for the board. It sounds to me as though we're going to discuss the fence as we've seen it with a cutoff from the second post from the corner to then continuing down Marshall Street.
[Yvette Velez]: I'm sorry, Jamie. Can you please repeat that? I couldn't hear you.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry. So the proposal at the moment is for the fence to, from the second post in, I'm sorry, third post in from the corner, to make, have that cut from that post to Marshall Street and then to continue down the side of the house, side of the sidewalk.
[Yvette Velez]: So that's meeting it halfway, right? That's the, from what is allowed to like what is, so the condition would be that from that, from what you described, that's what would be added. Correct. Okay. I think that to me sounds reasonable. And, you know, I think it's, nice when neighbors want to add fences to their properties and to some extent they should be able to. And so I think, you know, and unfortunately they have a corner unit and they have to comply with what's required. And so I think that's a good halfway point for both the community and the property owner.
[SPEAKER_13]: So what post are we saying?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so you have the post, we're in deliberation right now, but it will be, you have that first post at the corner, the second post, and then the third post. Okay. Question from building commissioner.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I wonder if it might not be easier for everybody to more be defined a distance is not less than six or eight feet from the corner and let him lay out the post in any shape he wants. It's easier for us to verify a footage requirement than posts because that's somewhat unclear.
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you, Commissioner. I think that looked like eight feet to me. The contractor confirmed that that was about eight feet?
[SPEAKER_13]: It's about eight feet to the second post. The next post to the right would be eight feet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. So I guess I have a clarification there. Is it eight feet between each post? Or is it four feet between each post?
[Scott Vandewalle]: eight feet. I think I would suggest the intent dissension is to bring back the sensing at least eight feet, no less than eight feet back from the corner in both opposing directions. That would give it eight by eight by whatever the hypotenuse is clear space that we can easily measure from that corner of the concrete right there.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions from the, any other comments from the board? Okay, are we clear on the delineation of the line? Okay, so, I apologize.
[Yvette Velez]: And can we have a, can we add then because I thought I, I heard Danielle talk about maybe asking traffic commissioner to review that corner. Like, is that part of can I ask is that part of this? this conversation or is that completely separate? Like is that part of the, can we add?
[Unidentified]: I'll take the action to talk with Todd Blake with regards to the street corner and potentially lining from that crosswalk so that parking would be better identified on what point the parking is allowable on that lane.
[Mary Lee]: Okay.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: So Jamie, would we be making a motion to bring it back eight feet?
[Unidentified]: So what we will be, so we have a, this is a special permit. Am I correct? No, I'm sorry, this is a variance. Again, for the four foot fence and the vote we will be making, Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I think you need to be clear. The variance is both for the fence up at the sidewalk line, because normally it should be 20 feet back. The accommodation from sidewalk on sidewalk is to blunt off the corner. So you're going to give them a variance to place it to the back of the sidewalk on the two opposing sides, but to cut off the corner to a distance not less than eight feet back on both directions. So you really give them the whole thing as the variance. Otherwise he's got to be uptight to house.
[Unidentified]: Because the variance, you're identifying that the fence along the sidewalk is also requiring a variance.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, the ordinance requires that all fence you be 20 ft back from the sidewalk on both sides because he's in the corner lot. So you're giving them a variance along, but most of it up by the sidewalk and then as an accommodation from going to the corner, we're going to sort of cut off that corner to a distance, not less than eight ft back. That is sort of the whole meat of of the true variance.
[Unidentified]: Uh, director, have you had your hand raised?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that if not now for the decision, we're going to actually need to know. So I noticed that the, I went to see what the ordinance actually said with regards to this so that we would be clear. And in the ad for this, it cites a corner visibility section 6310. which doesn't have any measurements at all, and it's completely subjective, which is perhaps why you're running into this issue, that one building commissioner thought one thing and another thinks another, because it is completely subjective what's in the zoning. So I have put a pin in that to fix for the future. However, if the current commissioner feels that we need a variance for setbacks or where the fence is located, We will need at least to write the decision, if not now, to know where in the ordinance it says that so that it can be cited correctly.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I think part of it comes from the definitions as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: OK. And I'm not arguing at all. Our zoning is complicated, and I was trying to find the right thing to also ensure you're giving the right variances and permits. So yeah.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so that is one.
[Alicia Hunt]: So the original in the ad was 6310, which basically says visibility requirements. And that no planting or anything or wall or whatever can be constructed that obstructs the vision at any point within the corner visibility space. But there is no definition of corner visibility space that I have been able to find.
[Scott Vandewalle]: There is further clarification. There is a little bit further definition that talks about a space from two and a half feet above ground to seven feet above ground shall not be impacted from a distance of a corner where the two curbs meet to the outside. So when you mix the two of those together, that's sort of what we're looking for a variance from.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay.
[Scott Vandewalle]: And the variance could just say to allow the applicant to variance from any setbacks required or visibility requirements, such as to place the fence on both sides behind the sidewalk and then blocked off the corner distance not less than eight feet from the corner.
[Alicia Hunt]: Dennis may need to play back the recording to get that. But that's the language that should be used.
[Unidentified]: And I just, from my, I took notes down that I know in the case filing we listed this as a variance, but in my notes, for some reason I wrote it down as a special permit. Because of the visibility.
[Alicia Hunt]: 6 310 visibility 6 311 says special permit this SPGA you may buy special permit. Reduce or waive the provision of this section if warranted considering among other things. Okay, so I think that's I think what you were looking at. But a variance may be a variance was what they were seeking and may be sufficient.
[Unidentified]: All right, so for the board, we're looking at a variance with the language that the commissioner just recently spoke with regards to the fence being along the sidewalk and blunted eight feet from the corner. We'll get specific language for that decision from the recording. And again, owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, topography of the land or structure, whereas little enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance of Bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance of a Bylaw. We'll take that vote. Jim Torani? So moved. Aye. Yvette Velez? Aye. Oh, I apologize. You're correct. I'm rushing. Do we have a motion? So moved. Thank you. And do we have a second? Second. Thank you. And roll call vote. Jim Torani? Aye. And that was. Mary Lee. And Jerry Thompson I. Thank you very much for your patience you have a fence.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you folks appreciate it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you just as a heads up so I'll be writing the decision. Turnovers, it's variable, but I'm actually, I'm not gonna be around, I'm going away for like a few days, so I won't be able to even start it until next week. So just as a heads up, I'll get it, once it's approved and filed, then I'll send it to you, and then from there, it's 20 days appeals period after that, and then you can get your permit. So it's a little bit of a, it's not like you're approved, you can start right away. So just letting you know.
[Unidentified]: Thank you folks. Dennis, could you read the next case?
[Denis MacDougall]: 38 Harvard Avenue, case number 8-2024-03. Applicant and owner, 38 Harvard A.V. Nominee Trust is petitioning for variance in Chapter 94, City Method Zoning. So class to use motor vehicles at 38 Harvard Avenue, which is not allowed in the commercial one zoning district for the city of Medford zoning ordinance chapter, 94 table, a table of use and parking regulations.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Do we ever represent.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening, Acting Chairman Thompson. Kathleen Desmond here for the petitioner. I'm here this evening with Orbelin Abazi, manager and principal of Obie's Auto Service Collision, located at 38 Harvard Avenue. His wife and manager is also here, Barbara Bochich, they're both on the call. Petition before you is a request for an extension and or change of a pre-existing non-conforming use in accordance with Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. alternatively I did also petition for use variance but that would not be necessary if section 5.2 applies. I did also send to the board Titcom versus the Board of Sandwich, Zoning Board of Sandwich for purposes of just outlining what the board's authority is and the fact that They are authorized to make a change in use because our ordinance allows for it under 5.2 and specifically indicates that a use variance is not required if a finding is made. The property itself is situated in a C1 zoning district where the sale of new vehicles is permitted by special permit by the CD board. The sale of used vehicles is not permitted. And this is looking for a class two auto sales license use. The petitioner, just to make a note, will also need to obtain the license from city council, but that's the use has to first be established as as permitted. The property itself is 31,101 square feet on which an 8,380 square foot single story building that houses a repair and auto body shop is situated. The property conforms to the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. I provided the board with my initial materials with a memorandum dated February 9th, 2022. from then building commissioner Paul Mokey which confirms the status of the property as a pre-existing non-conforming use. I also provided some historical context by providing a lease that was provided to North Ford Inc., which showed that in the 60s, this was actually a dealership which had a repair and also had vehicles that were sold. The petitioner's proposal is very minimal. He proposes to provide a limited number of used cars for sale on site. The vehicles will be located in the rear yard Let me see, Dennis, can I share my screen and hope that this goes well? Okay. Sorry, I'm waiting. Okay. Can you see that? No? Share screen. Okay. So this is the presentation slides that I'll show you. So this is the actual, let me see if I can, yeah, it's always caught in behind here. the survey which was provided. This is the front of the building, which is on Harvard Ave. There is parking located at the front, but it's not the owner's intention. He's fine with the restriction that the for sale cars are not located in the front of the building. To the side on Bower Street, as you enter, these are the nine spaces that were proposed to be provided for the used vehicles. Again, we're not tied to a location in the back. He anticipates actually that there's probably going to be generally six vehicles for sale at any given time, but the plan provided indicates nine. In terms of signage, there's no intent to have signage with regard to the sale of the vehicles. This is essentially, he runs a business that's an auto collision repair shop. So he frequently has customers, which unfortunately their cars have been totaled. And in terms of the insurance settlement, they're kind of at a loss as to what to do. So this would provide his existing customers with reasonably priced cars. The price point on these cars is between you know, $8,000 and $12,000 so that it's more reasonably priced for, you know, I think we've all been through this with our kids. If you have kids that you're looking for a vehicle that is safe and reliable, but isn't, you know, $20,000. So this is, you know, from a community standpoint, this fills a need for his customers and also people in the community that are looking for less expensive used vehicles that are reliable. He has a repair shop, which is required under Chapter 40, Section 58 of the general laws. If you have a Class 2 license, you have to have, and I provided the statute to the board, you have to have place or an availability of a repair shop, which he obviously has. He intends to advertise only by internet and to customers. So in terms of the disruption to the neighborhood, it would be minimal. This isn't a situation where you're going to have lights or you're going to have signage. In addition, the repair shop at this point is open from eight to five Monday through Friday. Those hours aren't going to change and there's not going to be any increase in hours based on based on the vehicles that he intends to sell. And just take a look. There was one other item that I wanted to raise, but I don't, it escapes me at this point. But in terms of the overall package, it's not an extensive change or extension of use. You know, this is only so that he can service his customers. And certainly there were, I think, four or five letters of support that were provided to the board. And it allows customers to buy a vehicle from a mechanic that they trust. I mean, when anyone buys a used vehicle, you know, the first thing you're told to do is before you buy it, to take it to your mechanic, which, you know, in the process of things kind of gets left out often. But in this instance, which is another benefit to the community, they're buying it from I would like to make sure that we have the trust of the mechanic who has purchased the vehicle and gone through it already. his letters of support. If you look on Google and Google his business, he's probably the only mechanic I've ever seen who has five stars with more than 10 reviews. So there's about 40 reviews when you look at Google and it all comes out to five stars and they all say he's wonderful. So this is just trying to add to his business. to support his customer base, and also, you know, it provides to the community a vehicle that's less expensive, that, you know, is available for kids, for elderly people who are just looking for something to get them around. So I think 5.2 governs that. If you want me to go through the variance standard, I can certainly do that. But I think under 5.2, it would be an expansion of non-conforming years.
[Unidentified]: Commissioner.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I would be of the opinion you cannot entertain this as an extension of a use under 5.2 because it's clearly advertising the agenda as a variance. You can't do both. You got to do what the agenda says you have to do.
[Kathleen Desmond]: The variant finding was included in the application. I don't know if
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, the application says you're appealing to the decision of the building inspector, but it's advertised as a variance. There's no reference, neither one of those to 5.2 looking for a special permit. So I would hate to have this turned back because it was heard incorrectly. The ultimate to go with what's advertised in the agenda.
[Kathleen Desmond]: if that if that's the case if that's the board's decision because the worksheet included the the reference under under 5.2 for what I was looking for for relief that was supplied if that's the case I know in instances I've always led alternate alternate forms of relief and that hasn't been an issue but if you find it to be an issue and if the board finds it to be an issue because I think this is more of a finding case than a variance case. And I'd ask that we continue it and re-advertise as a finding.
[Unidentified]: Commissioner, do you still have additional or?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, I've got to look at the application. They checked off application for a special permit. They checked off petition for variance. And then he stated this is an appeal from the order of decision of the building commission, which is another section. within Chapter 48. So I'm kind of confused as to what they're actually asking for. Ultimately, I go for the agenda, which is the published issue. Agenda is very clear to the variance. So you really can't entertain another form of release outside of the agenda without re-advertising this under the correct setup. So I think there's enough confusion here to put this into play for a conversation, perhaps consult with KB Law on this, or ask them to correct the language for the next hearing.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If that's the board's decision on that, I don't have an issue with that. In terms of what was cited, in terms of the violation at the bottom, that was a violation that was cited on the building permanent refusal, I believe itself, which is what I was asking for the variance from the table A use.
[Unidentified]: I do have a refusal to take away. But I do, it is documented as a variance. In addition, so I guess, I do have one question, Attorney Desmond. You mentioned that you need to go before the City Council for a license as well?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct. So if the use were approved, and I think Mr. I'm sorry, I call him OB. So that kind of struggling here, but I, he originally went before the city council on this for a class two license for the property. Um, and the licenses to the, the individual. So he was told that he would have to go to the zoning board of appeals first or to whoever who could grant the use of the property for the sale of, of class two, um, vehicles. Um, and then if that's granted, then he's able to go and ask for a license from the city council for him to sell the class two vehicles.
[Unidentified]: Is one of the difficulties I know that the record you provided from the other case, but that board was the special permit provider. We are not the special permit provider for car sales. Although this is an additional use, we are not that permitting board for it as a primary use.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, so. So, this is a pre existing non conforming. Use and under the ordinance under 5.2. Any extension or change in that use the zoning board of appeals. Is the is the special permit graining authority. In terms of the use in. as a primary use where it's allowed as a use. The CD board is the granting authority and that would be in the C2 district. So you're allowed to issue special permits as to pre-existing non-conforming uses which are changing or being extended. But if under the table of uses, which under the table of uses in this district, is no for class two licenses, then that is before the ZBA based on a non-conforming change to pre-existing non-conforming use. It used to be a substitution of use under the... Building Commission,
[Unidentified]: Do you have additional?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, with all the confusion, I would recommend that they withdraw at this time. And we go through with the correct language and get everything lined up accordingly. So that it's clear. I'd hate to have you guys make a decision when we're not sure what you're making a decision on here, and what the order of it should be and who should be doing what we could use the time to do a little bit of research. I can certainly bring it back when they we've got it all sorted out.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'm willing to withdraw at this point if necessary. I think in terms of this application, I think it's really just the advertising piece of it because the application asked for alternative relief as between a variance or a finding. If the board determined that a finding wasn't appropriate, then I had also requested relief per variance. So that if for some reason it was not within the purview of a finding that the board could then consider a variance.
[Unidentified]: Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just gonna suggest, is there a reason why it would need to be a withdrawal and not a continuance? I just don't wanna drag things out extra long so that you can, we may need to re-notice it, but I just am a little nervous that if it gets withdrawn that things seem to take a very long time when they're new applications.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I'm suggesting withdrawal with a chance to do that. If we simply continue it, then we have to be worried of the time frames and constructive approval. So they would have to sign a waiver of the time frames. And then we can come back. If continuance, you can't change the language. Withdrawal and reapply, we can change and alter the language of the application and the agenda. You're just continuing an agenda that's already missed leading in a sense, which all allows us to reapply under the correct language and redo the agenda correctly.
[Kathleen Desmond]: In terms of the application itself, um, what exactly is the issue that you see? Um, I believe I it's advertised as a variance, the advertisement, but not not the application itself.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I think we need to figure that out. If you're going to continue You can't correct the agenda because you've already advertised it. The case is opened as a variance. Continues to say, we're going to come back and look at it as a variance. Withdrawal allows us to re-advertise it correctly as a special permit here. So you're either going to continue something that's incorrect, or you're going to withdraw and correct it and then re-advertise it.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, we would only be adding the finding as an additional relief under the advertisement.
[Scott Vandewalle]: The advertising has been set to the voters within 300 feet and everybody else. So in a sense, they would be misled if it was to include new language for a different form of relief. I think council would suggest that you withdraw. City council would suggest that you withdraw, correct all your mistakes, and then re-advertise and re-notify.
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's kind of an interim solution to that. If we were to continue and if KP law were to indicate that we needed to withdraw for purposes of refiling to include the special permit, then I could submit to the board a withdrawal just so that it's still on the agenda if KP determines that you can re-advertise where the application call for both a variance and a special permit. And if they don't, if they believe that we need to withdraw, then I can certainly do that.
[Unidentified]: I mean, the application is documented as a variance. This is a use variance.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think the application has both the special permit, the application itself, if I'm not Yeah application for a finding special permit.
[Scott Vandewalle]: They were both. Forges advertises what is advertised and that's a conflict there.
[Unidentified]: Right I mean that's the title of the form and in item 2 petition seeking to use variance to include will be an accessory used to sell class 2 automobiles on premise that used to not permitted C1. So it is documented as a variance in the application.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, the agenda has to clearly state all of the relief thoughts that those who are notified have a full understanding of what relief is. If you misdo it, then it's faulted.
[Unidentified]: So reading the worksheet, it is documented in the worksheet as a variance. I see it on the application. You can check both items there.
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's also the binding language. Chairman Thompson also had is included number seven. So the worksheet included alternative relief. Because if the board didn't agree with me that the finding applied, then it also allows me to move forward on the variance application and not have to file a second time under the same set of facts for under a different, same set of facts for the same relief. So, if we were to continue it and get a determination as to KP law, whether the finding language could be added for the next hearing or whether it needed. In fact, to be withdrawn and refiled, then I would submit a withdrawal at that point. If KP law determines that.
[Unidentified]: That's what's needed to be done and I just want to. So I read that the, I just want to go back out. So that is acceptable to continue in my mind. The one item that I had concern on is the, I know this is a additional use on a non-conforming, but you mentioned a use of the CD board was a permitting authority for car. So I thought I would say yes on 5.2.
[Kathleen Desmond]: The board of appeals may award a special permit to change or extend a non-conforming use in accordance with this section, then only if it determines if such change or extension is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing conforming use.
[Unidentified]: Yep. But the city council is responsible for licensing and also for use for car sales. And you've got to go to them for the license anyways. Okay, I see where we're going.
[Kathleen Desmond]: The license, right. And that runs not with the land, but with the individual. So that's why he would need that licensing. And as I said, he kind of started this in reverse and started with City Council. And then was told that he would have to go to the Board of Appeals first.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Correct. The City Council issues your Class 1, 2, and 3 licenses under a different ordinance than the zoning ordinance. And they have a whole different set of criteria to follow. It conforms with state regulations for that stuff.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so I guess we have two options at the moment. We can move forward tonight as a use variance. Or if you want to continue to determine if we can do a finding for a special permit under 5.2.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I would prefer to continue. you know, move forward, at least with the finding, if the board determines that a finding isn't proper in this instance, then move to the use variance argument. And I certainly will assign an extension of the time within which to, for a decision to be rendered under Chapter 48, Section 9.
[Unidentified]: Then do I have a motion to continue 38 Harvard Avenue to the next scheduled Zoning Board of Appeals. Do I need a date and time?
[Mary Lee]: I have a question. If the application, it seems like there's a discrepancy between the application and the published notice. Am I correct? I don't know. I think that's what I heard.
[Unidentified]: That's the disturbance we've got right now.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so I think that the notice, it's really critical that it conforms to what really is because that impacts the public as well as the governing body. So I think even though it could be interpreted as not as important, but I think it's really important that the notice itself conforms to the application. That's just my thought, and also the notice should be consistent with the application. So if we continue this, then the notice will not necessarily comply with the application's requests.
[Unidentified]: That's correct. And Tony Desmond has indicated that if after discussion with KP law that the finding cannot be ruled on based on the notice that would withdraw and reapply. Is that correct attorney Desmond?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I mean, I think the question and the issue is, is can the notice be amended for the next hearing to reflect that it is also for a variance because you're going to republish? You'd have to republish, but can that be done on a continuance basis? Does it have to be withdrawn? Where the application was correct, but the notice was not fully correct.
[Mary Lee]: OK, so you're proposing to amend the notice that was issued for today, correct? OK, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so the direction I have at the moment is to move for continuance with discussion with KP Law for an amendment to the notice. Or is that correct? Attorney Desmond? Yes. Okay. So the chair awaits a motion to continue 38 Harvard Ave to
[Mary Lee]: Next, Jamie, sorry, it's America. I, I would say, maybe I missed, I would say that the continues will be condition. Upon the part that the amendment to the notice. So, so we won't if we can't amend the notice. That would be actually yeah, so it will be conditioned so that it continues will be conditioned. Upon the amendment to the notice.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'd only say to that, and I haven't researched it myself, but, you know, looking at the notice provisions, I'm not so sure that. That the relief specifically has to be there has to be really, but there has to be sufficient facts to understand what it is. I'm not so sure that. The special permit isn't kind of a lesser included in that, so I wouldn't want it to be conditioned because KP law may say that that the notice was sufficient and certainly if it needs to be changed. And and I can't change it with a continued hearing, then I'd withdraw. But I don't the condition of the continuance because you're granting the continuance, so it can't really be conditioned. You know, I'm going to withdraw in the event that. that they don't approve the change in the notice and allowing it to move forward on that.
[Mary Lee]: But how will we reflect the withdrawal part if we don't place a condition on the notice?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'd file a withdrawal, which I would have to do. And if I showed up at the hearing, then we just go forward with what there is if they can't change the notice. And that would be at my own risk, which is not something that I want to do.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I think the board should just continue this with the idea of sending it to KP law for guidance and clarification. Whatever that turns out to be, they'll follow it. And I'll just add this. I've worked with KP Law and Zillion for over 10 years. We've had this exact condition happen before. And their answer was, if there's any misclarification, correct it and re-advertise. It's the safest way to get through the process without having an objection. So I anticipate it'll go somewhere down that line with them again.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't disagree. It's just a question of whether it can be rectified, amended, and then brought forward.
[Unidentified]: OK, does the board have any other questions before I request a motion? All right, chair awaits a motion to continue 38 Harvard Ave to the April 25th, 6.30 PM meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: So moved.
[Unidentified]: Do I have a second? Second. uh, eventful as the world called it a bit less. Hi, Jim Tronny. Hi, Christina. Hi, Mary Lee. Hi, Jamie Thompson. Hi. Uh, we are continuing to 38. Thank you.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Enjoy your Easter.
[Unidentified]: Uh, Dennis, could you read the next case, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: Zero Windsor Road, case number A-2024-06. Applicant and owner, Tim Harrington, is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94, City of Mexico zoning to construct a single-family house on an empty lot at the corner of Windsor Road and Hinsdale Street, and allowed use in a general residence zoning district with insufficient lot area, front yard, setback, and lot width for the City of Mexico zoning order in Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[Unidentified]: And we have a representative for the applicant.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, good evening. Hello again I'm Mr. Chair, members of the board, Adam Barnosky, 255 State Street, Boston, attorney for the applicant Timothy Harrington. We are here regarding the property located at Zero Windsor Road in Medford. As a way of background, Mr. Harrington, the record owner of the property, seeks to construct a new single-family residence on an empty lot, which is currently improved by a rundown shed on the property in otherwise vacant land. The property is situated on an empty rectangular corner lot consisting of approximately 3,048 square feet in the general residential zoning district. on the corner of Windsor Road and Hinsdale Street, immediately north of Alumni Fields. The proposed single-family dwelling would front on Windsor Road, stand 2.5 stories tall, including a dormer attic, and 24 feet wide by 43 feet deep, running along Hinsdale Street. Mr. Harrington is interested in building this new home with his wife, Andrea, who was born and raised in Medford, graduated from Medford High, class of 87. The family has strong roots in the city with Tim's in-laws. Andrea's parents have been lifetime residents of the city as well, with four children, including two in high school. Tim and Andrea are interested in building a home on this vacant parcel so they can continue to enjoy and thrive in the community. About the home, it will be located on the end of the street on a corner dead-end lot with nice sun exposure, and the structure is designed to maximize these environmental aspects. Compared to other homes in the neighborhood in immediate vicinity, which are almost exclusively two-family homes of significant bulk footprint and height, this is a modest build consisting of a single-family configuration, 2,250 square feet of living space, 2.5 stories with dormers and the roof, unfinished basement for mechanicals and storage, a living room, dining room, and kitchen on the first floor, four bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, and a driveway parking and two cars. The home will be constructed and built according to municipal building codes with a pest management plan, and the Harringtons will work with the local builder to ensure the home is finished with sustainable and appropriate building materials and finishes consistent with the aesthetic of the neighborhood. And Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to go through first the zoning relief that's required and then some of the facts that support the variance here. So, pursuant to Chapter 94 of the Medford Zoning Ordinance, the project requires the following relief from the code, all of which are dimensional in nature, under Section 94-4.11, Table B, Item 1. So, lot area, the regs require lot area of 5,000 square feet. The property has a lot area of 3,048 square feet, requiring a variance of 1,952 square feet. We also require a variance for frontage. The regs require a frontage of 50 feet. The applicant proposes frontage of 40 feet requiring a variance of 10. Front yard setbacks, regulations require 15 feet front yard setback. The applicant proposes 6 feet along Insdale Street and 14.5, 6 feet setback along Windsor Road. The applicant therefore requires a variance of 9 feet and 0.44 feet respectively from the front. and front yard setback requirements. One clarification regarding rear yard setback and we do have the building commissioner on here tonight. So rear yard setback was not cited for relief in a refusal letter. We did want to bring it up just to clarify to ensure that we're getting all the relief that's needed here tonight. So the building is compliant with rear yard setback, 17 feet from the rear lot line. Setback requires 15 feet. There is a porch that was in the plans that are 7.1 feet from the rear lot line. I would just recognize this as we were going through some of the dimensional tables today. And I just wanted to ensure that relief wouldn't be required relative to the deck. And if it is, it would be 7.9 feet. We want to include that in the discussion tonight. So I don't know if the building commissioner can opine on that on the fly. But if not, we can just go by the language of the refusal letter as stated.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, my opinion is the deck is a part of the structure and it is a structure, so it has to comply as well as anything else. That's standard practice. If you want to build a deck in the blue or put a front porch on, you have to comply with setbacks. This would be no different.
[Adam Barnosky]: Thank you. So just to clarify, in addition to the three that I mentioned, lot area, frontage, front yard setback, there is also a requirement for a rear yard setback, which is very much consistent with the same discussions overall we're having this evening. It's also worth noting that due to the shed that's currently on site, this rear DAC is actually going to make the rear lot line more compliant than it currently is. Now, I'd like to get briefly into the reasons why this law and proposed project are well within the qualifications for a variance under General Law Section 40A, Chapter 40A, Section 10, and why in addition to the legal reasoning, it's a good project for a good reason. in just about the most appropriate location. So first about the property. The property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot whereby the property cannot be improved without some form of zoning relief. As to the first prong under 40A, this is a corner lot which directly impacts its effective size and buildable shape due to the dimensional requirements treating, as I just mentioned, it treats the side yard as a front yard with increased setback requirements. This results in a narrowing of the property that is in the area of the property in which one could build without the need for dimensional variance. and that is very specific to a corner lot. But the shape of the lot is also unique. You can see that each property located on Windsor Road has an angular rear lot line that creates a shorter western property line for each lot. However, as you move down the road from east to west, this angle narrows and tightens each lot line at the rear lot line with the effect of shortening each lot as you move from east to west. So this starts off with each block off of Windsor Road at Charlton, Sterling, Renfrew, Fleming, and Ryncliffe from east to west. And it creates a situation where zero Windsor has a small in more squeezed shape and size than other properties along Windsor. Now historically, from what I can see, this configuration appears to have been created to allow for additional lots on side streets to the south of the neighborhood. as can be seen on the side street homes off of Buzzles Lane to the south. I did provide a screenshot through Dennis McDougal earlier today that kind of gives you a better sense of what the neighborhood looks like and kind of can give you some reference points as I'm speaking here. But this property is unique because unlike the others that I mentioned to the south, there is no other homes or residential lots to the south. It's just the athletic fields and yet the construction layout, I'm sorry, the constricting layout still affects this lot. configuration that can rarely be found elsewhere within the city or the zoning district. So the uniqueness as it relates to shape in conjunction with its features as a corner lot, pre-existing nonconformity, and two front yard requirements presents circumstances that makes the locus unique and affects the locus in a proposed structure. And this directly relates to prong B, which is a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance when it involves substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would render this property unbuildable, essentially. It's undersized and without sufficient frontage. Literally nothing can be built here without some kind of dimensional relief. And this involves a substantial hardship to the petitioner, both financial and otherwise, as it's wholly unable to use the property for uses allowed by right in zoning districts. And that's notwithstanding that nearly every single lot in this area is dimensionally non-compliant. This includes the entirety of Windsor Road and Frederick, Stanley, and Stearns Road to the north, running the entirety of at least four city blocks from College Ave to Main Street. Dozens upon dozens of properties and homes uniform in their dimensional non-compliance. That is oversized homes on undersized lots, which relates directly to prong C, no substantial detriment to the public good. This is currently a vacant lot. It's on a dead end street. It abuts a public park to its rear. And given the nature of the neighborhood, including all immediate neighbors, which are two-family homes of significant bulk and footprints, it's difficult to make a good-faith argument that a single-family home of equal or lesser setbacks, lesser bulk, lesser square footage, and lesser use would somehow create a detriment to the public good or to the neighborhood. And finally, to the last prong, subsection D, that relief can be granted here without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. The circumstances here are unique and would not be found elsewhere in the zoning district or potentially the city. Granting relief would not nullify the zoning ordinance or derogate from the ordinance, particularly given the nature of this neighborhood. So if you back up and you view this in the light of the general residential district, the neighborhood and Windsor Road, it's a reasonable proposal, entirely consistent with a residential neighborhood. And stepping away from just the clearly legal criteria under 48 section 10, this is a good project. It's a modest home on an empty lot in an area of the region of the city that's in dire need of new housing. the applicants are local and what they seek is to build would be a net positive for the community. So I'm happy to walk through any questions you have on the proposal or the criteria. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Attorney Banowski. Any questions from the board for the applicant?
[Yvette Velez]: I think it might be helpful if you just pulled up the plans and the situation of like where it's going to be laid out. And, you know, you speak of, you know, the property itself and being narrowed in areas and to be able to actually point that out would be helpful. And then I know, I mean, even on the Google Maps, right, somebody's parking in that shed and whatnot. And so does that mean that parking is being lost? You know, I think it just to get more context, if we could see that.
[Adam Barnosky]: Sure. Now, Dennis, do you have the ability to share the plans on your screen? I don't. From my setup right here, I don't have the ability to. Our architect is unable to attend this evening. So I don't know if you're able to either share the plans or potentially also share the neighborhood layout that was presented there or sent over earlier today.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I can do that. Give me a few seconds. Thank you. Which one do you want first, the neighborhood layout or the?
[Adam Barnosky]: Well, I think, I think, you know, I think potentially the plans. I mean, I thought, you know, my, my, my thought was that the, you know, the board would have it in their packet. And it's a relatively straightforward plan. But yeah, I mean, if it would help just to kind of, you can just maybe flip through the renderings just so you could see the one family, a single family proposal here. So that shows, so this first slide is really a site plan here. So you can see it's the property that's on the top there. That would be the new single family home. You can see the garage in the left hand that's shaded a bit, that's what will be removed. So you can see the configuration of that single family home is, and it appears to be more setback than the immediately adjacent neighbor there. It's funny, though, the way that this is positioned here, it almost makes it seem as though Windsor Road is the angled lot line. But if you look on the overall configuration of the neighborhood, it's actually the rear lot line that is angled there. So you can get a sense that the front setback is 14.56 feet. So that is nearly compliant. It requires a 15 yard setback. But the side yard setback is really what triggers an issue here. Because like we said, it's an undersized lot. So regarding the width of the lot or the undersized nature of the lot, there's really nothing that can be done there regarding what you build. But as far as the side yard setback up at the top off of Hinsdale, the zoning code treats a corner lot, they treat the corner and the side yard the same as the front yard. So that would otherwise be compliant if it was being treated like a standard side yard there. To that extent, it's nearly compliant. Then the rear yard, like we said, the rear yard, the building itself is compliant, but the deck would jut into the rear yard there. The setbacks are primarily what the issue is relative to what we're building today, and then the width and the size of the lot are the uncontrollable factors there.
[Unidentified]: being just from a calculations perspective, the deck is 10 ft, correct? Yes, that is correct. So the rear yard setback, it would be 7.9 ft variance, correct?
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes, exactly.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I want to ask the applicant if he plans on seeking a side variance for the parking spaces, which should be a minimum of three feet from any side lot.
[Adam Barnosky]: So, Tim, could you, if it's not, it doesn't appear to be clear on that plan, if you're available, could you just describe where the location of the parking would be, whether it be in the front
[SPEAKER_11]: Can you hear me okay? Yeah. Yeah, so the way it was drawn was the parking was in between the two structures, the existing two-fam and the proposed building.
[Adam Barnosky]: So would it be the one and the two side yard there? Yes.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Okay, but the zoning code requires that there be a minimum of three foot setback from the sideline to the parking spaces and you have none and only one foot left to play with on that setback. So I'm just asking if you're going to be applying for a variance for that as well.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, I guess it was not cited. So this is a surprise and news to me. So it's in the zoning book. You're still responsible for it. Understood. Yeah, understood.
[Adam Barnosky]: Yeah, thank you. We appreciate you bringing that to our attention. So that would either be one that we would need to reapply for, or in the context of the variances we see today, if the board would be amenable to including those, we could certainly address specifically what's needed there.
[Yvette Velez]: And going off of that, if you're putting spots in that space, does that mean the front lot, the public is losing parking because you're going to be adding a driveway? And then is the public recuperating the parking on the Hinsdale side of the street where you're removing that shed and garage area?
[Adam Barnosky]: Yeah, it would presumably be, yeah, like a net neutral because you would be removing, presumably removing a curve cut on one location adding it to another.
[Yvette Velez]: Where are you putting your trash barrels?
[SPEAKER_11]: They're in the backyard near the deck. There's a bulkhead back there.
[Denis MacDougall]: Would you want me to go to another screen?
[Adam Barnosky]: Oh, yeah, sure. Thank you, Dennis. Yeah, I guess if you could go to the actual drawings there of the proposed home.
[Unidentified]: Chris, just talk.
[Chris D'Aveta]: While we bring that up, go ahead, Chris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to the applicant and his representative, if you don't mind, the history of this undersized lot, how did it come to be? Was it attached to the adjacent house and subdivided at some point? Do you know?
[Adam Barnosky]: I don't know. I don't believe there's been any subdivision on the property. It has been its own lot. I don't unfortunately have a long-standing history of them. It's my understanding there's never been anything other than the rear structure constructed here. But if you look at the layout of this lot, particularly as it relates to all of the other lots on Hinsdale and Windsor and Frederick and Stanley, it's wholly consistent with every other lot. So it is kind of curious that there never was a structure or there isn't currently a structure there as as it sinks up size-wise with the other undersized lots.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Who owns the garage at the rear of the property?
[Adam Barnosky]: Well, the garage is owned by the applicant owns the property, which the garage is part of the property.
[Chris D'Aveta]: But who parks there if there's no house?
[Adam Barnosky]: Who parks there? I'm not sure, Tim. Is the structure actively being used?
[SPEAKER_11]: No.
[Unidentified]: I just see Senior Planner Evans had a question.
[Danielle Evans]: It looked like when I was looking at Google Street View that there was a car that was using that or parking there. So this is the, so Mr. Harrington owns both properties. It's, I mean, a double lot is not an uncommon occurrence in the city. Even my house has two lots. One of them has my garage on it. I'm not putting a single family house on it. So this is a two-family that's on the adjacent lot that you use as a rental for folks. Is that correct?
[SPEAKER_11]: Yes, correct.
[Danielle Evans]: So where do they park? Because there's no driveway for this.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, no driveway. No driveway parking.
[Danielle Evans]: It's effectively one lot. because they're both under size and it's being used for the same, for that house. So.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, there's no second lot here. These combine out of merger doctrine.
[Danielle Evans]: Parking for the two families. So if you're developing this as a single, so I don't worry, where's the parking going for the two family?
[SPEAKER_11]: Well, the parking for the two fam is preexisting nonconforming. So parking, you know, it hasn't, you know, there hasn't been parking with the two families.
[Danielle Evans]: Maybe it's a question for legal, but isn't there the whole concept of merger doctrine? You're using the two lots for the one property. If it's been used for parking for the two family, I don't understand how.
[SPEAKER_11]: I don't know whose car was in Google Maps, but there's no parking with this two-family property.
[Scott Vandewalle]: But if I may clarify, merger doctrine says any lot that's undersized and common ownership would have combined. These lots are a GR district, requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet. This lot here is what, 3,000? So technically, these lots long ago combined for zoning purposes under merger doctrine, there is no second lot here.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I don't even understand how this is before your board. I don't even see how this would be an act on.
[Chris D'Aveta]: It does have its own map block and number, though, correct?
[Scott Vandewalle]: No, that's how a merger doctor says, though.
[Danielle Evans]: Ask them how often those maps get updated.
[Scott Vandewalle]: The point of merger doctrine is it's in chapter 48. Lots will merge for purposes of greater conformance to the local zoning. 5,000 square feet is required.
[Yvette Velez]: So was there any discussion about creating, like adding to the existing building that they own versus adding a completely separate building?
[Adam Barnosky]: No, I think the idea here was that, as I understand it, this property has always been separate and distinct from the two family next door. The thought process was to build a new single family on the property. And as far as kind of what brought us from here to there, when the refusal was kicked back, the application that was made was in conjunction with the refusal and the relief that was cited on the refusals. That's kind of what brought us here today. Historically, as the applicant has mentioned, the the lot in the parking at that lot has never been used in conjunction with the other pre-existing non-conforming house, which is consistent with the other pre-existing non-conforming properties on the road that may or may not have parking. So this was being treated as its own project, although I do understand the comments of the building commissioner.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I think if I may clarify, Mr. Chair, through you to the building commissioner, if a structure such as the garage in that, which is on the property in question that we are talking about, someone constructed that at some point, perhaps not compliant with zoning or with the law, but it is, in theory, attached to the adjacent building. Would you clarify that for us? Who are you asking? I'm asking you, Mr. Commissioner.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, again, Chapter 48, I can't remember if it's Section 6 or which, but it says, non-conforming lots must be viewed in combination for purposes of zoning. They must combine under the merger doctrine for purposes of zoning if they're undersized. In other words, the original lot is well undersized current zoning of 5,000 square foot. When they combine, you basically have four purposes of zoning in a single lot here. You cannot treat that as a separate lot building lot.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yes. Thank you. But just to clarify, if the structure was constructed on the lot in question, the lot for which we are discussing right now, does that lend any validity or more validity to the argument that there is a merger between the two?
[Scott Vandewalle]: merger doctrine in chapter 40 doesn't discuss that per se. If it had a primary principle use as a residence on which is the primary allowed use, there might be a slightly different conversation. But this is not a principle use, it's an accessory use at best. Certainly not allowed. It's not an allowed principle use, therefore it has no protection. So it really doesn't come into play in the conversation.
[Adam Barnosky]: Would we be able to, you know, because there is this issue, you know, that was not, you know, I anticipate that if the review was if the refusal letter was made with the understanding of the common ownership between the two parcels, that a different refusal might have been issued. I'm wondering if it makes sense to request, if the board were granted a continuance in the matter, to see if if we might be able to retool that or simply just seek a different refusal because ultimately the way I see this is that it's going to be the same argument will be made, whether it's two properties on an oversized lot, or one new addition, I'm sorry, two buildings on an oversized lot, which is gonna trigger probably a use issue under the general residential, although we'd have to look at the use table.
[Scott Vandewalle]: But if no evidence was submitted to the commissioner at the time, defining the ownership of these properties, then he wouldn't have been able to opine correctly on the merger. I'm relying now upon your conversation statements that these are both owned by the same owner, which triggers this merger conversation, perhaps for the first time.
[Adam Barnosky]: Oh yeah, of course. No harm, no foul on the side of the building department. I have to confirm because In my review, I would have to confirm that that actually is the same ownership. Whether it's owned as a rental property by the applicant in a different entity or if it is in fact the same ownership, which is why I think we might want to review this to determine whether is merger applicable. If it is, what are the steps to finding an approval for the project or is it going to be a situation where There, in fact, is not common ownership and we're back before the board on really on the same issue. But I think ultimately, when there's a willingness from the board and the community, I think that there would be a way to define our way forward here. I know that we've dealt with this challenging issue before within the past year or two in some other properties before this board. We could certainly address that as well.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Right. I believe recent zoning passed last year would allow by Daniel can correct me if his variance or special permit will allow two principal structures, therefore two principal uses a lot. But that's a different form of relief than you're seeking here. So yeah, it needs to be clarified as to whether or not these are in common ownership that merge the purposes of zoning. And if this is a is no longer a path that you can follow, you need to follow a different path.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.
[Adam Barnosky]: So with that, Mr. Chair, could we request a continuance and then have, look into this more, we can coordinate through the clerk.
[Unidentified]: Yep, seeing if that happens.
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you, yeah, I was just going to say that I was looking at the assessor's database and it's both the same ownership. So, as I said, this is a very common format. format in the city, as I'm sure you're well aware as well. And Building Commissioner is correct that the recent zoning changes allow two principal structures on a lot. And in the GR zone, I think it might be by right or it might be a special permit, but it would be together. So you could kind of master plan this and accommodate parking for both of your structures But if you're going to hold these as rental properties, as you have the two-family as well. But unfortunately, I mean, one of the things that we're looking to do in the zoning overhaul is this internal zoning. We don't have that yet. So I would caution the board against granting variances for undersized lots at this point. Because there's other ways in the zoning ordinance to develop this land.
[Unidentified]: Understood. Attorney Bronowski, do you want to proceed with a continuance request?
[Adam Barnosky]: Yeah, I think so. I just don't want to make any decisions either to proceed or withdraw without prejudice in haste. And I just want to look into this a little bit further and have a discussion with Mr. Harrington on a few of the aspects that we've discussed here. But I certainly appreciate everyone's input, as I always do. And we do thank you for your time tonight.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. The board awaits motion for continuance for zero Windsor Road to the April 25th, 6.30 PM meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Don't move.
[Unidentified]: Second. Roll call vote. Mary Lee.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Jim Tarani. Aye. Yvette Valez.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Christy Yvette. Aye. And Jamie Thompson, hi. I believe that is everything from a case perspective. Thank you, Attorney Baranski. Thank you for Applicant Harrington. And Dennis, do we have any administrative? We've got one set of meeting minutes. Oh, you're on mute. Dennis, you're on mute. Dennis, you're on mute.
[Denis MacDougall]: I know, I know, I know, sorry. No, with the eight decisions that were sort of going through me on the last, and among other things, I just never got to the minutes for this month, so I'll get it to you before the next one.
[Unidentified]: Oh, I apologize, that was the 40B folder.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, we got you got a bunch of 40 be able to several 40 be with that's what I thought of that was the 40 B. But.
[Unidentified]: And. Chair awaits a motion.
[Mary Lee]: Motion.
[Unidentified]: Jim raise your hand. Second. Thank you. I will call vote and that the last. Mary Lee.
[Mary Lee]: I.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Jim Torani. Aye. And Jamie Thompson. Aye. Thank you everybody for your time tonight.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Great job, Jamie. Thank you. Good night. Yes.