[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. Jamie Thompson? Present. Andre LaRue?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette Velez, I don't think is present yet. Jim Tarani, also I don't think is present yet. Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Chris D'Avetta. Here. And Mike Caldera present. So we have five members of the board present. And so we'll get started. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which, among other things, extends the 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 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 and the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And folks, before we get started with our typical agenda items, the board is required annually to elect a chair from its membership. So we're just going to quickly go through that procedural step. And so the way this works, I will ask members for nominations. If a member is nominated and they accept, then once we know who has been nominated, we're going to vote. in our new chair. And so one thing I'll just lead off in saying is that it has been my absolute pleasure to serve as chair of this body over the past year. I really genuinely enjoy it and I think we've done a bunch of good work. I'm planning to give another member a turn. I think it will be healthy for the board to have multiple members who are capable of serving in the chair capacity. And so for that reason, I would like to nominate Jamie Thompson as the next chair of the Medford Zoning Board. I'd like to make a motion. OK. Thank you, Andre. So that's seconded. Are there any other members who would like to nominate someone else as our next chair? And by the way, Mary and Chris, you're designated voting for this. All right. Jamie, I didn't hear if you said anything. Do you accept the nomination? I do accept. Thank you. OK. Wonderful. So then we're going to take a vote. Um, it's a roll call vote. Um, Mary Lee. Hi, Christy. Aveda. Hi, Andre LaRue. Hi, Jamie Thompson. Jamie, your connection may have cut out at an opportune time. You probably have some stain anyways. Well, customarily, but you don't actually have to. Um, well, we'll count that as an abstain. Yep. I just turned video off or suddenly reconsidering life choices. Um, Mike Caldera. I, all right. Uh, congratulations, Jamie. You are now officially ZBA chair. I will change my title accordingly. Am I back? You are back. And you are chair. Please take it away. All right, looks like Jamie's having some technical issues. So we're going to at least dispense of the business that I think requested continuation or needed to be continued or withdrawn. So let me just pull up my notes. OK. My understanding, Dennis, is that we received a request to withdraw without prejudice from Zero Windsor Road. Is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct, yes.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Do we have anyone for Zero Windsor Road that would like to speak on this matter before the board votes? Okay, I don't see it. So my understanding from members of the public is that during the last hearing, there was a question of whether the lots in question had merged under the merger doctrine, and so didn't get a full explanation for the withdrawal, but that might be an indication the applicant's rethinking their strategy, but wants to preserve options. So I see no reason to not to grant the request, but I want to check in with the board if anyone has thoughts before we vote. OK, don't see any. Acting chair awaits a motion to allow Zero Windsor to withdraw without prejudice. Seconded. Someone needs to make the motion, so that can be you, Chris. I will make the motion. Do I have a second? Seconded. All right. We're going to take a roll call. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Chris? Aye. Jamie? Aye. OK, that worked. Yay. Am I back? Mike, aye. All right, so that matter is withdrawn, and I will hand it back to Jamie.
[Unidentified]: So we'll see if this is stable. All right. Thank you, guys. I assume the vote went well?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, so you're the chair. We did zero Windsor, and that was withdrawn without prejudice. And so I think the one other one that needs action out of order is, which one is it? 65 Sydney. 65 Sydney Street, yeah. So go ahead, Jamie.
[Unidentified]: Dennis, could you read 65 Sydney Street for us? Sure.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, 65 Sydney, case number 824-2024-10. Appointed owner Matthew Salamone, substituting for a variance of Chapter 94, City of Medford Zoning, to construct a shed over 2 pence square feet at 65 Sydney Street, which is too close to the existing house on the side lot line, which is not allowed per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 4.3.2. Okay, and I could sort of jump in. So Mike and I talked about this before, you know, and basically what they submitted wasn't really enough to really move forward with the vote. So we're just going to, I'm asking the applicant to come into the office. He's coming in on Monday and he will, we're going to like just make sure we can get everything done because I was trying to speak to him before and he was unavailable to come in for a little bit. And we just want to make sure that they have a more full application other than what we had. Okay, do we want to vote on this worksheet and basically the worksheet really and some and maybe even just a hand drawn that sort of showing what's the location of it? Yeah, I think that would probably be enough to move forward. So we can put them on the agenda for next month and stuff. Anyone's here for, um, sitting 65 Sydney won't be hearing it tonight, but we will be hearing it under next meeting. Hopefully the plan is, and if we do, I'll send out notices to you all. basically telling you what time and day the meeting will be held. Yes, Mr. Commissioner.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I did want to comment. We do have a photograph of it, which is almost the best possible evidence, so he could come down to our office and we could print that up and he can attach it to the application.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, great. Yeah, he's supposed to be here on Monday, so when he does, I'll bring him down.
[Unidentified]: All right, so we don't have a formal application, so we don't even have to vote on a continuance. Exactly. Okay. Next item, then we'll go back to regular flow.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, so the next item is... 38 Harvard. 38 Harvard Avenue, case number A-2024-03, continuing from March 28th. Applicant and owner of 38 Harvard AV nominee trust restriction for variance in chapter 94 city methods only. So, class to use motor vehicles at 38 Harvard Avenue, which is not allowed in the question 1 zoning district for the city efforts on chapter 94 table a table of use and parking regulations.
[Unidentified]: and representative for the applicant.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening Chairman Thompson and board members. I had to cross out Caldera on my notepad and write in Thompson. I'm here this evening with the manager of Obie's Auto Service and Collision, Orbelini Abazi. As you know, the petition was before you as a request. for an extension or change to a pre-existing non-conforming use in accordance with section 5.2 of the ordinance or alternatively a use variance to allow for the sale of a limited number of class 2 use vehicles on the premises. At the meeting we had gone through the pretty much the facts and I'll go through those again but there was a question at the meeting with regard to the notice and whether it was sufficient to as it didn't include notices to the request for a special permit. The application and the signage, which was posted by the applicant, were in compliance and did indicate the fact that the applicant was looking for a special permit, alternatively a variance. There's also, I understand, a question from the building commissioner as to whether or not this can proceed under a special permit analysis as opposed to a variance request. I'd maintain that the case are, and in particular, the case that I had provided the board, Tickum, would indicate that this could go forward as a special permit inquiry as we have a pre-existing non-conforming use. This is an alteration or change of that use and under 5.2.1.2 it indicates specifically that if the board were to allow that use that no use variance would be required with regard to the use. And this provision is not unlike, there was a similar provision under the prior code which allowed for a substitution of a non-conforming use from one non-conforming use to the other. I don't want to speak for the building commissioner in this instance but I did have some conversations with him and my understanding from the building commissioner is that he's taken the position that The structure itself, the auto body repair shop, is all that is under the pre-existing non-conforming umbrella. I maintain that, you know, that might be the case in a situation where you had, say, a shopping plaza and you had a non-conforming use within a plaza. and you were substituting something in. But this is a collision and repair auto body shop where it would be atypical not to have a yard where you had vehicles which were being held for repair, vehicles that were repaired. And in collision as well, there are appraisals that occur. So there's operations vital to the business itself which occur within that parking area. I'd also point out to the board that under the parking regulations, any use related to a non-conforming principal use, if it were not pre-existing non-conforming, would need ZBA approval. So they would have had to have benevirians included in that. I had provided to the board previously the letter from Commissioner Moki, which after conferring with council, He indicated to the city council one point, I believe, when the petitioner was going for class to license that it was a pre-existing nonconforming use at 38 Harvard Ave. So I would maintain on that basis in the case law that we have a permissive zoning one bylaw, which is above and beyond what is permitted under section six, that the board could make a finding under this and issue a special permit rather than a variance. So that's a threshold question. I can certainly go through the presentation again for members who weren't here and move forward in that regard unless the board has questions at this point.
[Unidentified]: So I'll open up to the board. Does the board, any members have any questions?
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so I have a question here. So currently the premises, it sounds like it's a selling of services, correct?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's an auto body and collision shop, so it's auto repair and, you know, collision, so auto body and auto repair. So services. Correct.
[Mary Lee]: Correct.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Vehicles in.
[Mary Lee]: So your request is for the selling of all those.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right.
[Mary Lee]: And it's very limited.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct. It's very limited, and he would still have to obtain a class two license. But what he's looking for, Dennis, can I share my screen? Let's see if this is here. Can you see? No. It is here. Can you see that? Can everybody see the screen at this point? Yeah. So what he's proposing to do, this is the existing auto body shop. There are spaces out here for parking for customer. There's also this large back parking area where, like I said, vehicles are brought in, towed in, that need to be repaired because he handles a lot of insurance adjustment. claims for vehicles and repairs those based on you know losses coverage um so the vehicles that are repaired and already are here vehicles that need repair are here you know essentially it's a yard that services the repair the repair uh building uh the auto body shop itself what he proposes given the size of this is to to place 9 spaces are here on the plan. He doesn't anticipate that there would be more than 6 used vehicles for sale at any given time. But it wouldn't, there would be no vehicles out in front of the premises. As I indicated at the last meeting, there isn't any intent to actually put any signage of any kind. or advertisement on the property itself, it would be all to customers because frequently he has clients who come in, the vehicle's totaled, the insurance company says it's not fixable, and then they're looking at that point Where can I get a vehicle to get myself around? So this would be a service for existing customers and also internet sales. On a very small scale, sort of an accessory used to the auto repair, auto body shop that's existing. As I indicated previously, I think I indicated previously, although the use itself would require to employee parking spaces just by virtue of the ordinance itself. There isn't any intent to hire any sales staff as a part of this operation. It would just be cars that were fixed that he had. Sometimes customers come in and they don't want their car and might need some fine tuning or whatnot, but could be sold to somebody who's looking for a vehicle. But there isn't any intent to change the hours of operation, which are eight to five, Monday through Friday. There's no intent to have any additional sales staff. It's not going to be any signage of any kind. This is more of an opportunity for him to, to when he has vehicles that have been fixed and, or, you know, he can fix possibly that, that have been totaled by an insurance company that, that he could sell those to existing customers or, or, you know, people in the community who are looking for, lower-priced vehicles. I mean, we all know what vehicles cost these days, and this would be, you know, vehicles that were probably in the more affordable range, which is typical with a Class 2, so it would be, you know, in the range of $8,000 to $12,000. But in terms of the site itself, he's already operating the auto body repair shop, and these spaces are, you know, used in connection with the operation of the auto body repair shop. He's just looking to is an accessory used essentially, be able to sell a limited number of class two vehicles on the site to existing customers, because certainly there's a market for that. And also for community members who might be looking for a less expensive car than you would find at your dealership vehicles, which the sale of those vehicles are permitted in the C1 district by special permit, just not the class two.
[Mary Lee]: Does that answer the question? So I'm trying to understand. So, is there a change of use from services to a change of services to selling product? Because isn't there's a distinction if there is 1.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, and I had given to the board originally originally this property was a dealership with a with a. With an auto body shop included, so to any of the short answer to your question is, yes, it would be a change or extension of what's existing pre existing nonconforming. And that's permitted under 5.2.1 to change. a non-conforming use or to extend it. So in that regard, yes, it would be. But it would be not a, I don't think you could qualify this as a primary or principal use of the property because he's still going to maintain the auto service, you know, the auto body collision business. This is more or less to have, you know, cars available that he's, fixed, repaired, that would then be available for sale. And, you know, it's not, it's, you know, it's not unusual to have this kind of an arrangement. And actually, under Chapter 140, Section 58, there is a requirement that any Class II dealership or car salesmen have access to a repair auto body shop for purposes of making warranty repairs. So that, you know, in this situation, it sort of all fits together in terms of use. The class two needs the auto body repair shop. He has that existing. It was previously back in the day a dealership. I'm not arguing that that is a continuing pre-existing use because clearly that was abandoned. But yeah, I mean, this would be an extension or change of the existing views. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Mike, you've got your hand up.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Jamie, just to start up a point of order. So at the last hearing, I believe there were five members present, yourself, Yvette, Mary, Chris, and Jim Tarani. And I think Andre and I were absent. So there's four of you present right now. I know I watched the recording. I don't know, Andre, if you have or haven't. But I just want to double check who's voting on this.
[Unidentified]: OK, so Yvette, myself, Mary, And Chris, so I guess, and Jim is not here, so we will mean, I guess, so Mike, can you be the fifth?
[Mike Caldera]: Sure, yeah, so I'll just publicly attest. I have viewed the recording, so.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Commissioner? I would suggest that, Mike, just as a technical thing, you sign the actual Mullins affidavit to put into the file to show not just your attestation, but it's legally allowed to vote on this option. I will do so. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner. Jamie, I also had just something in general to say, if I may. Yep. Okay, great. So my understanding is that in the Medford zoning ordinance, there are two distinctly different uses at play here. So there's the auto repair shop and there's a class two auto sales. So I think whether a use variance is required boils down to the powers test. So would changing this non-conforming auto repair use reflect a different nature and purpose of the non-conforming use? Whether that change would result in a difference in the quality, character, or degree of the resulting use, or if the resulting use is different in kind in its effect on the neighborhood. So essentially, if it triggers any one of those, then my position is that a use variance would be required. But if the answer is no to all three, then it would not be required.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could address that, so in terms of the powers test, my understanding of the powers test is if there's no change in character, and we kind of went through this on the scrub-a-dub case, if there's no, under the powers test, essentially the question becomes whether or not you are entitled as a right to maintain as a continued use pre-existing non-conforming use or whether you need a finding. And there's also another layer on that because you have the Section 48, Section 6, which is the floor essentially for a determination as to whether or not you're in compliance with the pre-existing non-conforming requirements. And then on top of that, you have the Bellotta case, which indicates that that's a floor, but that you can certainly be more permissive in your allowance of variations from the preexisting nonconforming uses, which is what Tickum refers to in talks in terms of if your ordinance allows you to, to allow substitution or change of non-conforming uses, then you still have to make a finding and a special permit still has to issue, but it's not a variant standard. And I would argue that based on the fact that under 5.2.1 of the ordinance, it indicates in fact that a use variance shall not be required specifically if there's a finding then. I would argue that a special permit is allowable. Certainly that's within the board's purview to decide. But I think the powers test as a threshold indicates whether or not you have to go to the next step for a finding. And then if it's a section six and you don't have a permissive ordinance or bylaw, then you're correct. Then that would be a requirement where you needed to actually have use variance because it would have it would have to conform but if you're if your ordinance goes beyond that and indicates that it's permissive as a special permit and and I again I would argue in this case where specifically indicates that no use variance is required then I think the board is within its with its purview to issue a special permit but again that that's the voice decision and this isn't an easy area of the law to to navigate, certainly. I spent the last two weeks looking at it.
[Unidentified]: Mike, you had a question.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so just piling on to what Attorney Desmond said, so yes, my understanding is that if the powers test triggers, that just means that additional relief is required, or if it doesn't, then no, special relief is required. And so just to clarify my earlier statement, for me, because this is an addition of a use, and it's also an accessory use, which isn't allowed at all as an accessory use under the ordinance, My read is that unless the power test didn't satisfy any of the criteria, that some relief would be required. And my position is that relief would be a use variance because it's a new use, not just a change in use. Anyway, just wanted to clarify that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so I guess the point we're at now is this is change an extension or an accessory use. And
[Kathleen Desmond]: And in that regard, just, you know, there are additions always. The Tickham case is an addition of a Dunkin' Donuts to what was in existing use. So, you know, always in these cases, you have additions. So when I was referring to it as accessory, and I think the fact that it's not listed as not allowed or allowed, you know, doesn't mean it. It's prohibited necessarily either, but it is an addition, but I don't think that necessarily takes it out of the extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use. Because again, in the Tickham case, there was an addition of a Dunkin' Donuts to the mix in that particular case.
[Mary Lee]: So I'm trying to understand the distinction between selling of services versus selling of a product. Are they the same use? Are they different use? On the one hand, we're talking about just selling services. On the other hand, there's a product. So can you clarify that, Attorney Desmond?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, it kind of all comes down to cars. So I guess, yeah, it's two separate functions, in essence. One's repairing and restoring, and the other is selling. So it is two separate functions, certainly. But they're interrelated in the sense that in order to have a Class 2 license and to operate a class two uh cars car dealership uh for lack of a better word you have to under the statute under chapter 140 section 58 have the ability to have your warranty repairs um performed so you have to have access to a repair facility in order to qualify for the class two license. So they are interrelated in that sense and that you have to have the ability to have both in order to have the class two license follow up. So in other words, if it was in a situation where you just had a straight, you had a parcel of land and you were going to open a class two dealership, you would have to have some association with a repair shop in order to meet the requirements under Class 2 to make warranty repairs. So, in that sense, where this parcel brings both together, they're interrelated, the two uses. Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I did want to make a couple of clarifications just for sake. There are three classes of licensing for automobiles. Class one is basically new, class two is basically used, and class three is basically a junkyard. You're selling the parts from the car. The uses we're talking about are on section H of the use table, which has seven different uses to it. I believe that the existing repair station will be number two in motor vehicle repair establishment. And what they're looking to do in the parking lot would be number six, which is class to use motor vehicle sales. So we're talking about the distinction between those two and whether or not that is an extension or change within your purview and jurisdiction. That's all.
[Unidentified]: And from a licensing perspective, that falls to the city council, not the zoning board.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, and that would be a second step that would have to be taken, but this has to happen first, because you have to have a place before you can obtain a license.
[Unidentified]: Yes. And I think that's what has me leaning towards a variance, because even in the previous, in the case you referenced, that the zoning board was the licensing board for that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, but they're two separate and distinct issues. The licensing to obtain the license, which is personal to the, to the party seeking it versus the, you know, the special permit for the, well, the special permit can be personal to the person. It can certainly be conditioned in that sense, but it runs with the land versus versus the license which runs to the person and that ability, that person's ability, you know, the bonding and all those issues that come into it. So it's not, it's more about the person and whether they're worthy of the license itself to sell the vehicles. So it's an examination of the business and the business and the, you know, there's a bonding requirement and all of that. It's not related to the use of the land.
[Unidentified]: Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I have a question for Attorney Desmond through the chair. So in the ordinance for primary uses, let's just keep it simple. The good point that it's not expressly permitted or disallowed as an accessory use, but for primary uses in this district, it states that the A special permit granting authority for that primary use in this district is city council. So, and it sounds like they're also the body that issues the license. So, if this were just. starting over, you know, just like a vacant lot that was completely conforming, what would your process be? Wouldn't you just go before city council and they would weigh in on the use and the license?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think, Mike, that what you're looking at, there's a typo maybe in the use, because in C1, and I had to change it in mine, In C1, it's not a permitted use as a principal use to Class 2, but it might have C1 next to it. There might be two C1s, because the only special permit use that's permitted is the new vehicle. but it's not, so it's not a city council, because it would still have to come before the ZBA if it was new and there was no preexisting use as a use variance. But I think there is a C1 is printed twice possibly on it, because I know at one point.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I'm referring to MuniCode, the MuniCode version. I'm just scrolling down. Class 2 motor vehicle sales, item H6, that on Muni code says, oh, it's C2. I see. So this is a C1 district.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, my mistake. Well, Jamie, yeah, it would be variance no matter what from us.
[Unidentified]: Okay. That's, yeah, I was scrolling up and down that chart trying to figure out what that column was. Okay. So, Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I will take your recommendation that as we're currently working on redoing the zoning, we will probably want to redo that table so we have the headings at the top of each page. And since we have Alicia on board that will pass it along.
[Alicia Hunt]: But I'll just interject that it's actually how Unicode uploaded it, not how the city provided it. Sorry about those headaches.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Alicia. OK, so we are in a use variance.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So in terms of the use variance, you've got a parcel which is over 30,000 square feet, 31,000 square feet in area. It is unusually shaped. The lot runs from here and comes out to like an upside down T or an L. In addition to that, you have a substantial building which runs long and narrow which runs the length of the the first part they're probably two-thirds of the the existing parcel repair shop as I think we've talked about in in in some details is is and the shape of the lot and the ability to have area where you have working space for the repair shop to maintain vehicles that need to be repaired, have been repaired or being appraised. You also have additional space which could afford the use for a small number of accessory vehicles for sale. You know, it allows for a unique situation in the sense that you have a building which allows you to facilitate the repairs that are necessary under 140 section section 58 and you know in the hardship here is certainly that you have all of that in place you have the the repair building you have the area And it creates a hardship because this is what it does. And there's obviously vehicles that he repairs that could be placed for sale to customers and to those in the area. In terms of derogation from the bylaw, you're working from what is already a pre-existing non-conforming lot so in terms of derogation it has to be substantial and you're not this this additional use isn't going to substantially change of the the workings of what is existing as I said before this there's no intent for any signage there's no intent for any additional employees, um, there's no intent to change the hours. Essentially, uh, this is what it has always been, um, an eight to five, uh, business Monday through Friday. So that still would be no weekend, um, weekend use. And, and in terms of public good, um, you know, I think in the record that we provided at this meeting, and I don't think there's been any opposition, at least that I'm aware of at this point, uh, there were a number of, of neighbors, who were supportive of this endeavor and thought it would be helpful to those surrounding in the community who actually rely on Mr. Agassi for repairs. I think one of the things that we always get told and sometimes we don't do is when you buy a car to take it to your mechanic and have him check it out, you know, before you go and purchase it. I mean, this is a situation where you have your mechanic and you can buy a vehicle from a mechanic that you trust and that you work with. And I think, as I indicated last time, he has five stars, which I don't think I've ever seen when it comes to a repair shop. And the letters of support certainly indicate that he's, you know, an asset to the surrounding area in the community in terms of repairing vehicles. So in terms of substantial derogation. And in terms of public good, you know, I think that this is a situation where you're offering vehicles that are reasonably priced, um, that, you know, would be available that are, that are not 20 or $30,000. Um, it also provides customers that have lost their vehicle as, as part of an insurance claim been total loss that scrambling for vehicles that there's, you know, vehicles ready to, to look at and, and possibly purchase, um, for use in the immediate term. And, you know, so I think the shape of the lot, the existing building, the shape, and also what the function of it is as a repair shop, which is required, again, under the requirement for a Class II license. Derogation, again, this is a preexisting nonconforming use. I'd argue it would be special permit, but even if that's not the case, the derogation from the bylaw isn't isn't going to change substantially from, from what it is existing, um, where there aren't going to be a number of cars only in, in, in very comfortable in terms of conditions and limiting, um, what, what is permitted in this instance, certainly. Um, but the traffic, there wouldn't be any, you know, increased traffic necessarily in this, because you're not going to have signage. You're not going to have any call of attention to, um, the use. Essentially, it's internet sales. If somebody sees it or customers who come in and who are in need of a vehicle, um, you know that that's the intent of the use.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Attorney guys. Um, from the board, uh, before we go to, um public comment, any question, any additional follow up from the board?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a general question, I suppose, to other board members and perhaps to the planning director as well. If there's any institutional knowledge of these sorts of things happening where one business besides to expand into another area. I seem to recall from listening to city and attending city council meetings over the years that there have been a few of these sorts of special permits and I suppose variances as well granted I can't recall specific instances or businesses, but I do seem to recall that there have been similar businesses doing this sort of thing. Does anyone recall that? And that's the first part. And the second part is, I suppose, to the building commissioner, through you, Mr. Chair, who keeps track of For instance, in this case, the number of cars for sale in the lot, being told it's a certain amount. And how is that tracked? Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Chris. Commissioner, can you speak to the inspectional aspect of that?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, since it really doesn't fall under the building code or in the ordinances we normally enforce, I'm not aware that we keep track of it in any way. Typically, what I see is the city council, if it's under their jurisdiction, issue the license, may from time to time ask a department to go investigate it, maybe police in this case, but we don't track it.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So in the worksheet itself, the request is for the ability to sell no more than nine vehicles. So I just want to double check with Attorney Desmond if if that's a condition that the applicant would be comfortable having on any variance here, a limit on the number of vehicles. I ask because the zoning code for Medford is silent on this accessory use, and at least in my head, an accessory use should have a limit before it becomes a primary use, essentially.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, the applicant is comfortable with that as a condition. I think in my presentation, and Mr. Abbasi is on the call, but I think he said it's more likely that at any given time it would be more in the vicinity of six as opposed to nine. So nine being the outer number, but certainly no more than that.
[Mary Lee]: Any other questions from the board? I think I need some clarification. It sounds like this particular request requires the city council's approval.
[Unidentified]: So for this, Mary, the business license requires the City Council approval, but they cannot move forward with requesting that license without having a use variance from us.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Now, Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I guess I did want to clarify slightly. If someone is getting a class two dealers license to the city council, any restrictions on the number of cars would be placed by them, who their enforcing agent is typically the police. In this case, if you put a condition on it as a matter of zoning, then I become the enforcing agent for that in the event of a complaint, because it's a zoning issue. So you can decide to put a condition on it, or you could leave that up to city council, just depends on which way you wanna go.
[Unidentified]: and Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was debating whether I should sort of say anything on this case at all, partially because I am familiar with the applicant services. But as a Medford resident, I am familiar with many businesses and their services in the city. It goes without saying. We haven't had anything like this in the past four years since I've been the planning director. And I will say that there was a lesser, how laws and zoning, et cetera, were applied and managed in the city really did change in 2020. Things perhaps were not as as strict about going through all the correct hoops at all the right times as they have been since this administration took over in 2020. So I just wanted to share that from a planning perspective. We don't have any objections to this. We really were. I am familiar with the business, how it works next to the brewery next door. And with the idea that he would not be having vehicles out front with signs on them saying for sale. I understand how that would work. And it doesn't seem like it would be a detriment to the neighborhood because people would not really be coming there to buy vehicles. It would be like, as he describes an accessory, I will say that if somebody is familiar with the business, I believe him. That's it all helpful. So.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, director. Okay, seeing no other hands raised from the board, Chair awaits a motion to open public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to open public comment.
[Unidentified]: Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mary. Roll call vote. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Andrew, you are not voting for this one, correct? Right, I'm at- Christy Evita? Yes, aye. Yvette Pelez?
[Danielle Evans]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: And Mike Caldera? Aye. And Jamie Thompson, aye. All right, we're open for public comment. Anybody from the public here to speak for 38 Harvard Ave? If anybody wants to submit via email, email, Dennis at DMACDougall. Actually, Dennis, could you just read off your email and put it in the chat? And that's DMACDougall at Medford-MA.gov. We don't have anyone in the meeting Dennis do you have anything.
[Denis MacDougall]: No nothing come through regarding this.
[Unidentified]: Chair with a motion to close public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: A motion to close. The public portion of the hearing and the operation.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you Chris. Michael there. Mary I. And I we're now in deliberation and open up to anybody from the board. I think we covered a lot during the question period. Go ahead, Mary.
[Mary Lee]: So I thought I heard the word investigation during the first portion of this. Can someone clarify that, what the investigation involves? I think someone mentioned about applications like this involve some type of investigation.
[Unidentified]: They do not, if you're referring to the initial meeting, there was a. I think it was mentioned today.
[Mary Lee]: The word was mentioned today. So, I just maybe I'm.
[Scott Vandewalle]: It's not uncommon in a class one, two or three application through the business licensing entity, the city council, that they need to get approval letter from the police department and things like that. So that may be the sense of investigation that is referenced more on that and not necessarily on the zoning end.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so keeping in mind, we do need to discuss this as a use variance, so that would require us to consider, one, the circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape, topography of the land and structures, where literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance of By-law would involve hardships, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner, and two, that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance or bylaw. I guess for the board, any other input other than what we've already discussed?
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so a question that came to my mind is that the license itself is for nine cars, and the applicant made some assurances that it will be no more than six or six. But are there any enforcement mechanisms built into this type of a decision? How is that being monitored? I mean, what if, you know, someone just changed that after the permission is granted from six to nine or placing signs all over the, you know.
[Unidentified]: So the licensing would be fall under the city council, the commissioner mentioned that would be more than likely enforcement via the police through either an awareness made to the city council or the city about a violation or a concern of the business from somebody from the public or from the city about the business.
[Yvette Velez]: All right, thank you. I think, Mary, what you were trying to say was, I think this is what I'm understanding you to say was, like, who's going to be counting the cars periodically, right? And I think the answer to that is probably nobody, unless the neighbors were to notice it, and then they would then report it to whichever, you know, whether it's the council or if it was the commissioner, you know, that things were not being followed. At least that's how I understood your question, but.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, I'm just wondering if this decision how. Having the number of specific cars or having having or not having these big advertisements through our, even though the representation was made during this presentation, but post the decision, how would that. Yeah, monitor that's exactly what I was saying. So, thank you that. Continuously, and and I understand that certain components will be granted by the city council through the insurance of license, but, but that. It sounded to me like this, it's a 2 separate. Application process to to 2 different. Bodies and 1 is not crossing over. with the functions of the others. And it just seems to me that there's that question about what if arbitrarily that the applicant decided to increase that number to nine, the number of cars to nine versus what is represented today as six.
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah, I mean, I suppose we could make that recommendation that the city council does that in their review for the license if we don't want to put that in ours to give it over to the commissioner to enforce. And then at least that's what I would understand it. And correct me anybody if I'm not understanding that.
[Unidentified]: Um, I believe that's correct. Uh, director hunt as part of our vote, if we move this forward, can we notify the city council of what we're looking for for a limit based on the application? I believe the application as Mike pointed out was nine.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, it seems to me that it's always within the purview of this board to send a memo or a letter of recommendation to another board, including the city council. There's no reason why you shouldn't. Honestly, I feel that they would welcome more letters of recommendation from the other boards, so.
[Unidentified]: Absolutely. Yeah, it's very similar to Mary and Yvette to what we've seen where other I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.
[Yvette Velez]: I think that's a good point.
[Mike Caldera]: I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. the pairing of these uses and kind of what it does for the business and its customers seems very reasonable and low stakes. And even the city council has to license it anyway. So if there was some oversight on our part, I think there's checks in place for that. When I think about the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance says that class 2 motor vehicle sales are not allowed in C1 districts. And it's silent on whether they are or aren't allowed as an accessory use in any district. I presume the intent of the bylaw, you know, omitting that from the accessory use table was not to, for example, allow class two auto sales as an accessory use in residential districts. So, you know, I think for me, I would be erring on the side of caution and say if it's omitted from the accessory table, you know, probably the right thing to consult is what's allowed in the primary use table and here it's not allowed in C1 districts. So I think for me the intent is that this is not an allowed use in this district and maybe that will change with some of the zoning updates, but that's the part that would concern me here, even though it seems like a modest introduction of this use. It's not allowed in this district, and we would be essentially overriding the zoning ordinance based on the other good aspects of this proposal.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mike. Anyone else from the board? Chris?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I hear Mike's point quite well. And I think that's why I sort of asked the question a few minutes ago about similar instances or businesses that have gone through this and whether or not, you know, applicant knows of such instances or any of the members here. Like I say, I seem to recall that other businesses have done this, but I don't know if any of them were in a C1 district. And I guess that gives me some pause as well. I think that the number, the physical space of this particular proposal is pretty limiting. So I don't see it necessarily getting out of hand unless one were to start parking cars that are for sale on the local road or something of that nature. It's a pretty small space. So that part seems to limit the intrusion, if you will, on the local, the abutting residential neighborhood.
[Unidentified]: Attorney Desmond, are you providing clarification?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, and I guess also through the Chair to the Community Development Director. In terms of clarification, under the old ordinance there was frequently substitutions of uses that were not allowed, non-conforming uses. One that I was involved in, for instance, it didn't come up that frequently, but on the West Fells Way, there was a Chinese restaurant, and now that is a hair salon. Neither one of them were permitted, as I recall, as a right, because it's a residential, I think it's an SF2 district. But that was the existing Chinese restaurant, and we went before the board on a substitution of a non-conforming use and substituted it with the hair salon that is currently in that place. That's why in terms of the special permit, provisions that are there I think are more permissive than they were previously, but it was even in the old code substitution of non-conforming uses that we frequently utilized where you had an existing use that you were going to substitute With respect to the director, if there were going to be changes in the ordinance, obviously if the board goes through and votes and the votes is not favorable, then unless there's some change and maybe the change of ordinance would be sufficient, it may very well be, but would be subject to the two year rule in terms of bringing a petition forward. I don't know if that's anything that's being considered in the new zoning in any manner. or not that I've seen, I've tried to follow along.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Senior Planner Evan.
[Danielle Evans]: Good evening. I just wanted to comment on the substitution of the non-conforming use. So there is a provision you can change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, but I don't think this would apply because you're not you're not keeping or you are keeping the auto repair. So you say you were switching from an auto repair to a used car dealership, then maybe that would apply, but I don't think it would in this case.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. Not to belabor the point, but I think under the take-home case where you have an addition, it's still within that change extension that would, but we're kind of past that at this point, we're at the use variance, and I understand that in terms of where we are. I think we just disagree as to where that goes on the special permit.
[Unidentified]: And go ahead, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, one thing I, Didn't notice when I was speaking to intent, that's an interesting counterpoint is motor vehicle repair. It gets the same treatment. So the primary nonconforming use gets the same treatment in the table of uses as class two motor vehicle sales. So both are not allowed in a C1. and require a special permit from the city council in a C2. So here it would be adding a use that receives not identical but similar treatment in the zoning ordinance to a non-conforming use. So maybe there's a case to be made for, you know, the impact of that use is similar or something of that nature.
[Unidentified]: So I just wanted to point that out as well. Thank you for calling that out. Okay. Anything else? Anyone else from the board? I'd comment. Go ahead.
[Yvette Velez]: I would just like to add that I actually think this is It's I think, because of the restrictive property and what they've already decided, you know, they're so limited to the number of cars and and I don't think anybody could sell cars on the. Park any of the cars that are being sold in the public spots. I think neighbors would complain very quickly. But that street itself is just relatively busy. And I think this is not detrimental to the neighborhood. I'm actually really in favor of this. And while I hear and understand what you are saying, Michael, but I think one of the Great things about being on the board right is that we can we can look at this in a more. Public use and way and nobody has none of the neighbors and nobody's come forward to. Be strongly opposed to this, so I think this would be something that would be a really great asset to the community and. Obviously, for the business owner, and we want to support our local businesses. So. I just like to comment on on that in in that way.
[Unidentified]: Okay, just my own feedback as well. Absolutely see that the intent from the applicant is a good value add for the service to his customers. I feel the placement obviously is not going to be detrimental to the area with vehicles that are already taking up spaces in the back. They're not going to be in the front. no signage on the property and I think in some aspects the licensing structure that we have for uses is geared not just with restriction but for competition as well. You don't want to have multiple car dealerships in the same location. I don't feel that this is an intent to compete in that market and this is just an added service to existing customer base. To Mike's point, now that we have a better understanding of the use and the table for service as well as the sales aspect, I think that it gives us an interesting opportunity that the current primary use is already non-conforming. And this is, as we've talked about, an accessory, not detrimental to the area. The one aspect of the variance that I was struggled with, and I think Mike gave us a good piece of information to take into consideration, was the substantial hardship or derogation from the zoning ordinance. I think we, with Mike's point, that became a little bit easier. So if anybody else does not have anything, I would open the floor to, oh, Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I should have asked this earlier. So in the application, it states there would not be anticipated signage of any kind. Is that something that we would need to impose in the form of a condition if we felt that was an important aspect of the analysis? Or will the sign ordinances already cover that?
[Unidentified]: Do you have something else?
[Danielle Evans]: I have something else, but I can respond to that. If you don't condition the prohibition of signage, then whatever is allowed by right, they can just apply for a sign permit. So we'd have to analyze what they're allowed. It's a formula. If it's an appropriate time now, if you're inclined to approve this request, I would offer a condition regarding the frontage along Bower Street. It's currently a chain link fence with barbed wire and you can see right into the huge surface parking lot with, you know, it's an auto repair shop. So it's, you know, it's not real pretty back there with, you know, broken cars and crane and things like that. I would think that a way to mitigate this non-conforming use and an additional use if not allowed there would be to put a solid fence up without barbed wire. Any opportunities that we have to remove barbed wire in the city We like to try to do that. It's not a dangerous neighborhood. I don't know why it needs to be there. But yeah, that's all I have.
[Unidentified]: I like that, especially for the conditions and obviously not being a detriment to the community. That would be an improvement as well. Just have to make sure it's the right height so it doesn't come back here. All right. The chair awaits a motion on 38 Harvard Ave.
[Mike Caldera]: I missed what you said, Jamie, because I was reading something. I was trying to pull up the signage stuff. So you were saying that you think that that is a good condition that we should impose, or you were
[Unidentified]: I think that's a benefit to the community considering that it seems like we are moving forward. So I think right now we are looking at conditions. Can we condition by the fence or would that need to be in our letter to, I think that's us, not the city council.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, we would, we could, I mean, the applicant, we want to make sure the applicant was okay, but with it, but we, we could impose a condition that the fence be replaced with some parameters.
[Kathleen Desmond]: The only question with that, in confirming with my client, is that he's a lessee, not the landlord. So he would need to get permission from the landlord. I don't see that as being an obstacle. Obviously, if he can't meet the condition, then that's an issue. But he didn't put the fence in, and he's the applicant as the lessee, not the owner. So he would have to get permission under his lease agreement to be able to do that. but certainly the condition is part of the application as an issue. There's just that one hurdle that he would have. You know, if it means we have to come back to the board, if that's a condition, if there's some kind of change that the landowner wants, I suppose that we could do that if need be. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Commissioner.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I will note that in section 94-6.38 of the zoning bylaw, there is a line called unsightly uses areas which says exposed storage areas. And other ugly, unsightly uses shall be screened from view using plantings, berms, walls, or tight fences. So if you wanted to cite that as something in accommodation with that, it would get an awful lot of choices to the landlord to find a way to screen it reasonably, whether it's a fence or some other choice.
[Unidentified]: And that was 94-638? Yes. Thank you. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to approve the accessory use variance to allow the class two auto sales subject to the condition that the rear fence be or the rear screening be modified to comply with section 6.3.8 of the zoning ordinance and subject to the condition that there shall be no signage on the property advertising this use.
[Mary Lee]: And Mike, can I also add, Mike, can I also add subject to the number of cars that the applicant had represented to six?
[Unidentified]: We're not including that, Mary. We're going to send that as a letter to the city council for the license. Okay, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, so that'll... Go ahead, Mike. That's my motion. So I motion to approve subject to those two conditions.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you, Mary. Roll call vote. Yvette Valez?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Kristi Avena? Aye. Mike Galvera? Aye. Jamie Townsend? Aye. Thank you everybody for your patience and work on that one.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much, appreciate it.
[Unidentified]: And Dennis, can we move to the next item?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure, just for Attorney Desmond, if we get a draft of the, thank you. On here is 28 Winford Way, case number A-2024-07. Applicant and owner, Anthony Monaco, is petitioning for a variance from Chapter 94, City of Medford Zoning, to install a fence over six, excuse me, six feet tall at 28 Winford Way, which is not allowed per the City of Medford Zoned Ordinance, Chapter 94, Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 4.2.5. I think do we have a representative from the applicant? Hmm. doesn't appear we do just see if I can.
[Scott Vandewalle]: If you wish I can give you some background on this issue because it does stem from a formal complaint to us.
[Unidentified]: without the applicant here. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I've had an opportunity to review some of the materials submitted, and I'd like to proceed with this hearing. So if the building commissioner could share some details, I think we have enough info to act on this one.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Commissioner, go ahead.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Uh, yeah, this house was remodeled a year or two ago. Anthony Monaco, for reference, I believe, was the former president of Tufts, and he put up a wood fence. It's more of a horizontally oriented fence, put it up at seven feet tall, and a buddy neighbor filed a complaint that it was too tall and has continued to pursue that complaint that it's too tall. It is seven feet tall, Louis, six feet tall. We've been encouraging Mr. Monaco to come in and file a variance to clarify this issue once for all and it's taken quite some time to get to this far in the process, but it is in response to an abutting neighbor's complaint, identified that the fence was taller than allowed by zoning. For a point of clarification, a seven-foot fence does not require a building permit. So despite discordance between zoning and building, it was a part of a larger full gut and remodel.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Commissioner. Okay, so what we have on our is a seven-foot fence that does not comply with the ordinance of a six-foot limit. We do have to evaluate this in this scenario as if the fence were not built. I see a hand raised, Lisa DeFabritis, are you here for the applicant?
[Lisa Defabritiis]: No, I'm the adjacent neighbor to the property.
[Unidentified]: Okay. We can have you speak when we open public comment.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. I guess any questions from the board for the commissioner?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I guess I will, kind of in the form of a question to the commissioner, just summarize my understanding to make sure we're not missing anything. So hold on, I'm just pulling up the application, 28 Windsor. So, or Winford. Winford. OK, so if I understood the zoning worksheet request correctly, the argument is that this property is lower than the neighboring properties. And this is the unusual aspect about the topography that would warrant a variance. So I guess I want to double check my understanding of that with the building commissioner. And then also, I did look up this property. I see the topography is unusual, but I didn't see that the property is actually lower than the neighbors and the areas where the fence is beyond the ordinance. So I wonder if the building commissioner could also speak to that. Is this a case where the abutting properties are higher elevation than the fence line.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Um, there is definitely a height difference and noticeably different difficult difference between say the left to the right side and the neighbor is on the right side and the fence says that seven foot is up high towards her property. It does drop down across the backyard and by the time it gets the opposite side yard. Yeah, the elevation substantially lower. They're sort of on their way up a hill up into the Winchester area right there. But the primary issue of concern is the fence that is right on the property line, which is probably the full height of seven at the neighbor's backyard.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. That's my question.
[Unidentified]: And next, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Just a follow up to the commissioner. I'm wondering if you have a recommendation on this matter.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, certainly if you choose not to approve this, the fence can be modified in place without substantial work to bring it down. It's not a chain link fence, it's a wood fence. They were encouraged, I believe, at one time and talked to the inspector to just go around and cut it one foot short. They chose instead, I believe, to apply for the variance.
[Andre Leroux]: And kind of a nuanced follow up on that is, excuse me, since we haven't seen, you know, walk the perimeter of the property and the topography, would all sides of the fence need to be modified in your opinion?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Technically, all sides of the fence are seven feet tall.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes. Well, and I guess the reason why I asked that is because this board has approved in the past offenses that have been taller when there has been, you know, a topographical difference among the properties. And so I'm just wondering if it would be, you know, maybe not the entire perimeter would
[Scott Vandewalle]: I guess I will defer the level of complaint to the abutter as to whether or not this is primarily about the section that they share in common, or if it should or is expected to include those that are on the opposite side of the house that maybe she cannot see from her property. By literal interpretation of the rule, everything has to be six foot, not seven foot, unless you allow some sort of partial exemption. Right.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you and thank you commissioner. Any other questions from the board for the commissioner. Chair awaits a motion to open public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to open public comment.
[Unidentified]: Second we have a second. Thank you. Yes. Andrea LaRue. Aye. Yvette Velez.
[Danielle Evans]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: And Mary Lynn. Do we lose Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mary. And Jamie Thompson. Aye. Okay, we'll open up to public comment. First hand raised, I see Lisa Deferberti, if I can pronounce it correctly.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Deferberti, yes, thank you. So yes, I am the neighbor who contacted the city almost a year ago. And with all due respect, I have images of the fence that I emailed to Dennis this morning. And that fence is not seven feet tall. It's like nine feet tall. So I'm not sure where the seven foot came up. And I'm happy to throw up a couple of images of the fence if you'll let me share my screen. And the request, so that's the biggest point. We're not talking just like six feet, oh, it's a seven foot. The building department has been involved and has been contacting the owner for almost a year. They've been sending them letters. They've been finding them. They have not been responsive. The only reason that we're having this hearing today is because they got a final letter from the building department that if they do not bring the fence down to code, that this will be passed off to the legal department to pursue this matter legally. So that's the only reason we're here, because for almost a year, they've just ignored every attempt by the city and the building department for them to bring this fence down to code, which is six feet. And as I mentioned, that fence is not seven feet, it's closer to nine feet. I have images, I sent it to Dennis this morning, and can share my screen or other. It looks like, and I've talked to many of my neighbors, I've been living here for 20 years, and the comment that most of my neighbors share is, it looks like a prison wall. It's an eyesore. I have a six foot white vinyl fence on my property. And beside their side, you see this enormous nine foot high wooden fence. So when I'm in my yard, I see an extra at least three feet of wood, brown wood. on top of above my white fence. It's an eyesore. It's literally an eyesore. If this didn't affect other residents or other homeowners, I could care less. I wouldn't be here complaining. But the fact of the matter is, I live next door. I go out my yard and I see this eyesore. And I got to look at this every day for the rest of my life. No, I'm sorry. And they just do You know, there's a reason we have codes, right? To make people follow codes. If you want to do something exception, you go make a request. They've already submitted a permit, I guess, a couple of months ago. The city building department rejected it. And then they didn't respond. They were fined continuously. And now they got this final letter. And that's why we're here today. So I'm not sure why the commissioner mentioned that the owner was a prior president of Tufts, because I really don't know what difference, what that has to do with this at all, who the person is. No one is above the law, as we are famous saying, we say this often. Everybody has the same rights, and everybody should be following the law and do a following procedure. No one is any different than anyone else. And as I mentioned, It's not just myself, I see my other neighbors, a couple of my other neighbors on this line, and I'm sure they'll be deferring to add their comments. But as the prior case mentioned, there was no one else on that auto case prior to this conversation that had objections. I've been injecting for a year and the building department has sided with me to date on this matter. So it's not like, oh, they didn't need a permit. So I've been very upset. I put a lot of time in this. I've been very unhappy. My neighbors are too. I don't understand why, like, as the Commissioner mentioned, it's a very easy cut. When they purchased this home, the home was, I believe, closer to COLE, six feet. I believe, from my understanding from another neighbor, they had requested to the contractor to make it higher. It was them who wanted, supposedly, had it higher. And additionally, I would just add this last comment. In the fall, The owners, after purchasing the house and having that fence high in the back, they had a contractor put a fence all the way down to the street and in front of the property. And they were doing it the same height of nine feet. It just so happens one of the building assessors from the building department came by while they were working and saw it and told them, don't even put that up there. You can't do that. And they stopped. They cut it and they put it to code. So again, my thing is me and my husband and I strongly object to this. We are not happy. We have not been happy. There's a code in place. It's not seven feet. It's not six feet. It's approximately nine feet. It's a horrible eyesore, not just to me, my neighbors, but even when you walk on the street, because the house is a little bit apart, you can see that enormous wall in the back. And they even put the fence in the front, but that's their right, and it's up to code. But again, it's like a prison. It's just aesthetically ugly. So I will stop there. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Dennis, do you have the? pictures that were sent to you that you could share?
[Denis MacDougall]: Did you get the email that I sent you this morning at the minute?
[Yvette Velez]: I thought we had to look at the fences if the fence wasn't built.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Yeah, I do have that. Sorry.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay. I can, if you want, I can call them up though. I can bring them.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. It would be helpful for me if we could display them. I know I've reviewed them this morning, but I would love to see them displayed here for everyone.
[Denis MacDougall]: But Jamie, did you get the message I sent you?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: Uh, an email or just now?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, literally just now in the, in the, in the zoom chat.
[Andre Leroux]: I can share my screen if that's easier.
[Unidentified]: Gotcha. Procedurally, do we need to finish public comment and then can we go back?
[Denis MacDougall]: That's what I'm not honestly sure about. I'm trying to figure out. That's why I'm kind of scrambling a little bit back here. I think we're already in public comment.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, the prior resident offered to show those photos, so I think that's part of her testimony.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, this is a separate matter. The applicant's rep is on the line right now, and I guess there was an issue getting on, so I'm just trying to know if we can go back to the applicant's rep now, or do we wait until we finish public comment?
[Andre Leroux]: Got it.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: I'm happy to share my screen and show the pitches.
[Denis MacDougall]: I can show them it was sort of another procedural matter that we're trying to figure out.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Can we have them speak as public comment? I think that would be acceptable.
[Denis MacDougall]: I think that would probably be the best way to go. Yes. Actually, nowhere.
[Unidentified]: Anybody from the board? Robert's Rules question of the applicant is now here. So the question is, can we step back, or do we just allow them to speak as part of public comment?
[Mike Caldera]: Point of order. I think we can. Thank you, Michael. I think we could step back. I don't know if we need to. So we might want to, as a courtesy to the applicant and to the residents who want to speak on this matter, who may want to hear the applicant, we could let the applicant's representative go next in public. I mean, they wouldn't be making a public comment. They would be representing the applicant, but they could make their presentation for this portion. Any residents that want to speak could continue to speak after that. And if the resident who already spoke has an additional comment, they could share that. So I don't see the need to close public comment, hear the presentation, and then reopen it. Although procedurally, I think the board could follow Robert's rules.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I just want to make sure we don't make any procedural issues. OK. Why don't we let the representative for the applicant go next?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: All right, good evening. Can you guys hear me okay? We can, yes. Thank you. All right, I apologize. I kept on trying to join the meeting earlier. You gave me a message that was waiting for the host to join. I was filing to get through now. My name is Skyke Rodriguez. I'm the builder of the property, and I'm also the applicant here representing Anthony and the family. You guys received the application as we explained on there. And just to reference back to the neighbor, and we can grab some measuring and double check on what she said. The fence is above six feet in some areas. It's not all around the property. It is in just some specifics. And as far as the aesthetically pleasing or not, I would also say that's just subjective to the eye of the beholder. the client is seeking to have the fence to be at the current height, not due to just safety, but to also conclude the overall design features of the property. As you guys can see, I'm not sure if you have the pictures, the lot is higher in some instances, in some places, and the fence would have to be a little higher in some of those places to continue to provide safety. The abutus properties are on a higher plane, as you can see.
[Unidentified]: If you have something to share, you can show that. We don't have any visuals right now.
[SPEAKER_04]: Let me see if I can give you this one second.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: Can you see my screen? Yes. So this is a direct picture of the fence where exactly is higher than six feet. It's in these areas here. And it provides tons of, you know, clearance from the street view to the properties nearby and the client on their backyard. I mean, I don't have a picture from this side of the backyard, but as you can see from these angles, it will provide greater privacy for the client so they can enjoy actually their backyard. And as you can see, The property is sitting on a plane, a higher plane, in reference to the neighbors behind them. And to the left of them as well. And I can... I can provide actual measurements of the fence just to respond to the neighbors where I think I heard somewhere around the nine feet, which is not accurate if we're measuring from the actual top to bottom of the fence.
[Unidentified]: I've got a question from a board member, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I would just like to better understand in terms of the topography. Is the topography issue that the house is on a higher plane than the border of the of your own property or the applicant's own property or is it that the neighbor's houses are on a higher plane? So is it just that this house is elevated and then it slopes down and then it continues to either be flat or slope down past the neighbor or are the neighbors actually, are their properties too on a higher plane?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: So the home of 28 Winford is, of course, only is on an incline hill. The property is sitting lower as far as elevation wise in comparison to the neighbors behind and to the right side of the property. And that's just because and I can go back to that view. you know, the foundation of the property was, you know, digged in and the property sits lower than the neighboring houses. Hence why the fence being a little higher in some areas will provide that extra privacy to the owner. And that's just because of the typography of where the house is sitting at. You know, the neighboring houses will have, you know, direct sight of everything, including the backyard. They will have direct sight into the, you know, there's a nice open kitchen to living room area. So there'll be direct sight through there without the fence being present. It would just be completely open, not just the neighbors, you know, we trust the neighbors, but to anyone else walking by, they'll have direct access and view into the property.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, through the chair, I'll just say, for me, it's not obvious looking at the street view that there's a large difference in the height of the abutting property. So it does look like the house is on one elevation, and then its own yard slopes down. But it's not, I'm not seeing, maybe on the, I don't know the directionality here, but the brick building, maybe that's higher. It looks like the neighbor, the white building is lower, if anything.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that White House is definitely lower than, and I, from my, especially from Google Maps, I'm saying the same. On the right side, they seem to be on the same plane. I can't tell from the back. For the applicant, do you have anything else to add?
[Andre Leroux]: Can you just zoom in a little bit on this photo? Sorry, I just want to be able to kind of see that a little better.
[Unidentified]: There's the fence in the back.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, so this is in the rear of the property. This is a question for the applicant.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: I can't hear you here speaking. Sorry, I was on mute again. So this gives you a better view of what we're talking about as far as the elevation on the property, right? It's different levels, especially on the backyard, as you can see, it's a lot higher than on the sides. So that's why the fence here needed to be taller to provide actual privacy to this side of the house.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, what and so how high is the fence right here?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: 7 feet and we have our land surveyor went in. He took measurements of everything and I believe I submitted that to the board. It's in it's about 6 feet. Most of the areas and everywhere else 7 feet a little taller than that. I might have documentations here. Give me a 2nd.
[SPEAKER_04]: So let's see if this is where.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: So under six feet, all in this side of the lot, over six feet through the rear. But it's not nine, it's seven and a quarter. And this was done by Medford Survey. We didn't do this ourselves. Right. Well, over six feet doesn't really answer the question. Yeah. I can get direct, I can get direct measurements and I can submit it to the board again as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Also just, I mean, from that image, like it's, it's past the roof line of the white house. So, I mean, yeah.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: The photo is taken from a lower angle. Um, the person isn't standing straight with a camera, you know, at eye level. So, um, I can't, I can't use this photo to make judgment. Um, But if it helps, I can get direct measurements from pretty much every square inch around the fence. And I can submit that to the board if that will help suffice.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I would definitely like accurate measurements of this before making a decision, but, you know, I mean, I think for our purposes right now, we should kind of continue the public hearing, hear the comments and then, you know, deliberate as a board about the next step. Okay. Thanks for sharing those images.
[Unidentified]: I'll get the emails from Lane about her as well. I can share those.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'd like to see those photos.
[Unidentified]: So this is the, I believe this is the, I'm better on the rear.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: No, that's me. I'm on the right. And that's the image that Mr. Rodriguez did not show you. He showed you every side of the property in the back, except mine. This is mine and this is what I see. I took this today.
[Mike Caldera]: Through the chair, is the white fence six foot?
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Yes. From the ground to the top of the fence is six foot. And I would like to also, if I can at this moment, go back since I said, with regards to the measurement, I mean, the building department, Paul Smith, has gone out many times there. I mean, I would like to request that he measure this fence. I think we should have an unbiased person who works for the building department, who has already gone out there several times, measure this fence. As you can see, look at the height difference, which Mr. Rodriguez didn't show you one image of my side of the fence. Also, I'd like to add the image that he showed you was an old image. If you see on the left of this image, see the fence? It goes all the way down to the street. That's in code. I'm not disputing it. But do you see the difference from the height from what's the new fence that they added after the pictures that he just showed you? Because those were old pictures. These are new pictures, right? These are today. and you can see the fence how it goes on the left, that's cold. Do you see on the top the difference in height? I'm sorry, but this is not seven feet, it's not six feet and a quarter, this is closer to nine. I respectfully ask that an independent person from the building department go out and measure, not the contractor who's defending and trying to represent the owner.
[Andre Leroux]: Mrs. DeFabregas, a question. Are you in the Brick House or the White House?
[Lisa Defabritiis]: I'm in the Brick House.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: And there's another image if you can, Dennis, if you're able to, yeah, there you go. And I like to go back to, Mr. Rodriguez mentioned safety. What safety issues are we talking about that justifies a fence that's ridiculously high like this? Where's the safety concerns here?
[Unidentified]: We don't typically have the applicant respond to public comment.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: This goes back to my comment that it's like a prison wall. If you saw the pictures today of this property, the entire house is barricaded in. That's their right to do so. Don't get me wrong. But the height of the fence is ridiculously absurd high in the back. And I see two of my neighbors who have got their hands raised, and I'd like to let them you know, chime in and express their comments, because as you're going to see, I'm not the only one who, you know, feels strongly that this is ridiculous. So I'm going to I like to defer to the Amigos on Jennifer Schnabel.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Lisa. I see you, Wayne Amigo.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_21]: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Wayne and Len Amigo, 24 Alden Lane. We appreciate the opportunity to talk tonight. I guess we want to start off. I do have some images I'd like to share with you as well. We don't necessarily object to the fence along our portion of the property line. We wanted to understand what this hearing was about tonight. We wanted to make sure that the applicant or his builder are not interested in increasing the height of the fence and just to I guess assuage any misunderstanding. I took measurements yesterday. They range from 9 1⁄2 feet, 9, 8 1⁄2, 8, 6, 6, 5 1⁄2, 5, 4 1⁄2, and 4, all the way down on the property line between 28 Winford and 24 Alden, from the back near the Schnabels to the street line, which is 4 feet. It ranges from 9 1⁄2 feet to 4 feet. have those measurements. I'm actually a registered professional engineer. Be glad to certify those measurements if you'd like me to. But they are accurate based on the tape measure that I used yesterday. I do have some images that are very persuasive I could just share. It looks like somebody has to give me permission to share. Excellent, thank you. Screen two, okay. Hopefully, bear with me. Can you see my photos? We can see them. Okay, so this is standing in the backyard, 28 Alden Lane. This is the measurement, it was 24, sorry. Roughly nine and a half feet, and you can see it progressively go down. I took some pictures, you can see it. And then this is the retaining wall between our properties. This drops down in the five and a half foot, and then farther down to four feet here at the street line. And this section is clearly on the applicant's property, no question. And as I said, we don't necessarily object to the height along our perimeter, but I'm hearing all these different dimensions. And the second one Lisa mentioned, clearly, A good portion of this fence is nine to nine and a half feet high. I don't know if you want to add anything.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. So the builder was nice enough when we did talk to him because my father was living in the house. He's now passed. But that fence that comes down to the to the sidewalk was so high, my dad couldn't even back up without being into the street. So he was nice enough to cut that down. Again, it goes up gradually. Then it does go up. So the unfortunate pictures he did show you was when the fence was not finished and they added a whole nother row Section on there, there was another, like, 3 feet tall. So, again, I don't particularly love the fence either. Aesthetically, I think a white fence or something, but that's not for me to say, but on our side of the property, it gives us. definitely some privacy from them, too. But it cannot go any higher. So if he's saying he wants to add another two feet to the end and keep going up to going up seven feet from the sidewalk area, we won't be able to back up a car without getting killed. So talk about safety. That's my issue is it's OK on our side the way it is, even though it is rather tall. but I just can't have it being any taller than it is right now. And if he wants a seven-foot tall fence or higher, it can't be any taller. So we'd be willing to live with it the way it is, but nothing can be adjusted or added to our section. And then our other neighbor next to us, who'll talk next, his, I believe, is 10 feet tall, but he can talk about that. So thank you. Thank you for the update.
[Unidentified]: If you could, for me, show the next picture. where you showed your retaining wall? The next one, I think he wants you, yeah. Okay, so that, yeah.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_21]: So that's, what do we measure that at? That varied, it was, I think if I remember right, let me look at my measurements. I think that was six, six in that area. That was around six feet. And do you know how high it is above the retaining wall? I'm guessing it's probably two feet or so above that retaining wall.
[Unidentified]: And then the concern on the front of the house, I think you're raising is because the street is curved. Visibility is an issue.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_00]: Oh yeah, we cannot back out of that driveway. We will get killed. We'd have to literally be into the street. And that's his right to have that. I wish that wasn't there, that part of it. I wish it wasn't there, but it is. So at least he cut it down so my father wouldn't get killed backing up. So but it can't be like you can't say, OK, now I want to set a seven foot fence all the way around, because then I'll get killed backing out of my own driveway.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_21]: This is this is a copy of mass just to give you guys proximity. This is twenty eight. 24 is here, here's the property line. My father-in-law's driveway is here. The fence is roughly right there along that property line. And to Dylan's point, the fence comes out right to the property line, which is his right. But if you're backing out, you could not see over your right shoulder if it was any taller than it was.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_00]: So like I said, my concern is now that he wants to make a fence even taller, where is this fence going to be taller? It can't be. I mean, it just would be ridiculous. And it is an eyesore, but again, they have the right to have offense, but it has to be properly done and safe for everybody. And this being the shorter end definitely makes it safe getting out of our driveway.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: Yes, and I appreciate everything you guys said. And just to answer your question, the homeowner doesn't plan on making the fence any taller. Like you mentioned, it was already addressed that you guys had no visibility when backing out of your house. And that's why the fence is lower on that side. The whole purpose of the meeting is not to make it any taller. It's just to make sure that the surrounding neighbors are okay and happy with it being taller in some areas. It's not going to change. It should ideally remain the way it is.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_21]: We appreciate that, and we appreciate what you did to modify that at our request, so thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. I see Lisa D. Fabritas, you still have your hand up.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: I'll let Jennifer go first. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. I see Jennifer Schnabel has her hand up.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_20]: Hi, Fred and Jenny Schnabel at 22 Alden Lane, where the abutter is on the backside of the property in question. And I just wanted to raise as a point of fact that by my measurements, we're between well over eight and a half and nine and a half feet of depending where along the line you measure. So it is quite tall from our perspective.
[3tlRdpeIbkM_SPEAKER_00]: I'll add that we are at a higher level, so their view would be looking up into our dining room or deck. So privacy, we understand why they wanted to make a taller fence. Aesthetically, the fence is fine with us, but it is much, much taller than the area.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_20]: Well, I would say also the previous owners had about a six foot fence there, and we never could see into their backyard at all. from any angle. And also would like to just confirm that indeed this fence was put up in two stages. I don't remember the chronology, but it was put up at probably about six feet. And then sometime later, an additional section was added all the way around to make it the approximate nine plus feet that now. That's all we have.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_21]: what Fred stated is accurate as well. This is Wayne again, sorry. If you're interested, I could share. You can actually see the joints where the additional fence was added on, for what it's worth. Again, not that you have to object with it, but just for clarification.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we're looking at it from the perspective of it did not exist and it's been, and looking at what it would be allowed to be.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm just wondering if, you know, the photos that the amigos took could be sent to Dennis and, you know, shared with the board and be part of the public record.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_21]: I'll do that right now. Be glad to.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Thank you. So, as a me goes mentioned on their side, it's lower and they had asked when they extended the fence to the sidewalk, there were, as I, as I stated, they initially were putting it much higher and they. asked the contractor to make it lower and they accommodated. So as you can see from their photos, it is lower, it's within code and they're accepting of that height. But as you can see in the back and as stated, in contrary to what has been stated by the contractor, that this is not seven feet, this is well like nine feet. And the fact that they're okay with it because it's lower and they're lower and it's not that high for them. You know, on my pictures and my side, it's significantly higher. And as I showed you in my pictures, it's it's aesthetically ugly. I am very unhappy with it. They added it was six feet, but they decided the owners, from my understanding, wanted it higher. There's nothing about privacy here. I mean, they have privacy. The fence gives you privacy. I mean, I don't understand how much higher you want to do to prevent me from the sun, to not see anything. I have a neighbor who's got two-story house on my other side. I can see that they can look into my house. What am I going to do, put a fence all the way up to their roof? I mean, it's ridiculous. There's codes for a reason. The code is six foot. Unless everybody's in agreement or the butters are okay with it, I can understand why this meeting's here and you would approve something like this. But I'm upset about it. As Jennifer mentioned, she doesn't think it's the prettiest fence either, but it gives her privacy. And everybody's basically said it's not aesthetically, it's an eyesore. And I'm the one who's actually, because I have my fence, the amigos don't have a fence. So for them, that's the only fence. Aesthetically, it looks nice for them because there's not another fence. The wood fence is overpowering this, right? The Schnabel's, the same thing. They don't have a fence. That wooden fence is the only fence between their two properties, right? On my side, which is, okay, which is, again, is the nine and a half, 10 feet, as you can see in the pictures. I have a fence of six foot and all you see is this extra three and a half foot of brown ugly fence that contrasts and just makes my fence and my yard look aesthetically ugly and it's very upsetting to me. I think I have a right to express that and say I don't approve and I think it's we have to all go back to the initial purpose of this is There's a code. But they were supposed to get a permit for this. They didn't. They've ignored the building department for almost a year now. They have been fined several times for noncompliance, for not responding. They're only here today because they got a final letter from the building department that if they don't cut the fence, they're giving it to legal. That's the only reason we're here today, because they just think they can do whatever they want. I'm sorry. I'm very upset, as you can see. And I think people, you know, I wasted a year of my time calling, staying in touch and keeping us because as you can see, I'm very upset about the aesthetically how this makes my house look in my yard. And I hope that the this the this the committee will take all this into consideration and make these make the owners bring the fence down to code the way it should be, because that's it. I mean, nobody's Nobody should be exempt from the way the law works and the whole process works. I don't care if someone is the ex-president of the task. They know better than me or anybody else. I'm sorry.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. DeFabritis. Any other public comment? Chair awaits a motion to close public comment and enter deliberation.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to close public comment and enter deliberation. Second.
[Unidentified]: And we will do a roll. Mike Caldera? Aye. Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Yvette Velez?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Andre LaRue? Aye. And Jamie Thompson? Aye. All right, so for the board, again, we do have to look at this from the perspective that the fence does not currently exist and is being requested to be built. We obviously have seen pictures of the condition. What are your thoughts?
[SPEAKER_04]: Andre?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so I have a few thoughts. So one is that people's aesthetics are different. For me, a house very beautiful, attractive, modernist, fence goes with the style, but the problem obviously is the height of the fence. I am disturbed by the fact that the applicant never actually was an applicant and did not come in front of us to proactively deal with this issue when they were building the fence. I think the challenge for me is just the topography a little bit in the back. I would not be averse to allowing the fence to go somewhat over six feet if you know, to adjust for some of the difference in topography there. But I found the, you know, the photos by the, the Amigos very compelling that, I mean, that was extraordinary at the corner of the property. That's an extraordinarily tall fence. And I understand from that perspective, you know, why it might look like a barricade. So, You know, I guess not having the actual dimensions of the fence is problematic for me because there's no way for us to try to address this in a way that accommodates, you know, the homeowner's desires for privacy and consistency of the fence with the, you know, butters' desires to have the fence be at six feet, which is, you know, our ordinance. So I just want to raise those points. I'm still processing this right now, and I'll be happy to hear from the other board members.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andrew. Mike, go ahead. Yeah, so the topography of the lot is clearly unusual. However, the applicant has not provided enough information to speak to the hardship that that literal enforcement imposes here. Just to pick an extreme example, and this isn't exactly the case here, but I think it may come to play, at least for part of the lot. If someone had a house on a hill under the, analysis a zoning board goes through that doesn't present a hardship that would enable them to essentially erect a castle wall around their hill. If the neighbors are all on a lower elevation and you're on a higher elevation, well, you bought a house on a hill. That's not entirely the case here. I think there's perhaps a case to be made for a portion of the lot where the topography really does present a hardship that would impact the typical privacy that any landowner that wants a fence would enjoy. Applicant did not provide that information. The applicant has offered to provide more information. And so, you know, continuing would potentially get the board the information it needs to weigh in on that. From where I'm sitting, clearly this fence as proposed is a detriment, is a substantial detriment to the public good in some aspects. Maybe not the whole thing, but in some aspects, it's a substantial detriment to the public good. From my perspective, we could, have the applicant come back and give any measurements outside of the whole fence is six foot and that wouldn't change. I think the photos we're seeing of the impact to the neighbor's property who has a six foot fence is concerning to say the least. And it does not appear to be at all necessary to get the privacy that a fence typically affords. So for me, I do not think that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment of the public good. I think it's pretty clear cut. And so, yeah, I I do not see a path to grant a variance here. If the applicant wants to come back and either request the board reconsider, if there's an unfavorable vote here, they're welcome to do so. But we need to see a plan for a fence that actually just has the added height in the areas where the added height is necessary, not this high all over the place fence that's really causing problems for the neighbors.
[Unidentified]: Thank you for that perspective, Mike. And I'll just ask, you brought up the perspective of continuance. I'll just ask the applicant's representative, based on the information you've heard, are you considering requesting a continuance to bring us more information with which the request can be discussed, or do you want us to continue to move forward.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: Yes, that would be ideal. If we can meet again, I can provide additional documentation. I can sit with the owner and talk about what's possible. We don't want to be a burden to the neighbors, and I understand where they're coming from. So I'd like to sit with the owner and see what we can do in regards to the continuation of the meeting.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Chair awaits a motion to continue 28 Winford Way to the next scheduled meeting.
[Denis MacDougall]: It's May 30th.
[Unidentified]: So moved. Thank you. I wrote a call. Under the roof. And that the last. Mary Lee. Michael there. And Jamie Thompson I. So the applicant. Obviously, we are looking for more data to understand the hardship and the difficulty for the owner. At the next meeting.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_18]: Thank you, Jamie. Appreciate it.
[Unidentified]: Dennis, can you take us to the next one?
[Denis MacDougall]: 86 Orchard Street, case number 8-2024-08. Applicant and owner, Kevin McLaughlin, is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94, City of Medford zoning to renovate third floor apartment at 86 Orchard Street. Three family houses are not allowed in the general residence zone for the City of Medford zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, Table A, table of use in parking regulations.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, Bruce Simmons on behalf of Kevin McLaughlin.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mr. Fitzsimmons.
[SPEAKER_19]: Go ahead. So as I laid out in my memorandum that accompanied the application, 86 Orchard Street is in a GR district. It is a residential property that has been used for a very long time, has a three family. And to evidence that I've provided with the memorandum, voting records that go back to 1928. And when you look through those records, what you see consistently is three sets of tenants at the property, either individual tenants in an apartment or a married couple based on the same last name or kin. And that seems to have been, as I said, a continuous use all through up to the present time. Supplementing the voting records, I've also provided a copy of a letter from a longtime tenant in Natasha Merkulov, which is part of the package that I submitted, evidencing her statement that it's been used as a three-family for the entire time of her tenancy. The property is actually laid out to function as a three-family. There are three separate apartments, each with their separate means or two forms of egress. each with their own kitchen, each with their own bathroom. It's separately metered for utilities as well. The file, oh, and two other things. The assessor's record card shows that the property was constructed in 1910, so 15 years before the first zoning ordinance in Medford, and the assessor has it listed as a three-family. When my client was buying the property, the smoke detector certificate that was issued by the fire department, the fee was charged for $150, which would be three times the $50 per unit rate. So on a number of different city records, this property is recognized as a three-family, but not with the building department. So when you go through the building department's records, you'll see various permits that were issued from time to time, but until January of this year, there had never been a certificate of occupancy. So until January, the actual legal occupancy was in doubt. And what we're asking you to do tonight is to find that this property is a preexisting non-conforming use. When I read a relatively recent decision of the board, which is in the application filed by Richard Brown pertaining to 80 Canal Street, which was docket A2023-15, the board found that a four-unit residential dwelling in the GR zoning district was a preexisting nonconforming use. And what particularly struck me about the board's decision in that case was the statement that the assessor's record showed that that use had existed for some time. So it wasn't. specifically tied to a particular version of the zoning ordinance. And I think the rationale behind that is that it shows that the board has some flexibility in looking at these cases, excuse me, when The record evidence, we're trying to figure out what was happening 100 years ago at the property. And in some cases, there just isn't a voting registration book that I could find for 1924 or 1925. So I can't tell you for certain what was going on in 1925. I can for 1928. And I think, you know, the board can make a reasonable inference that that was the same actual use of the property when the first zoning ordinance went into effect. I do have a couple of comments on what I would refer to as policy arguments, not necessarily a legal argument, but one of the benefits that would come from granting the relief. So the first is that, as I think we all hear and read, The greater Boston area is having a bit of a housing crisis. It's hard to find housing, particularly rental housing. So by granting the relief sought by the petitioner in this case, you are really maintaining the status quo for this property that has existed for the last 96 years. Denying that relief would subtract one unit of rental housing from Medford's rental housing inventory, which I would argue is a move in the wrong direction, given the context of the times. The other policy argument is that when municipalities allow greater density, It ideally should be transit oriented. This property is a five minute walk from the intersection of North Street and Boston Avenue, which is a bus stop for three different MBTA bus lines. So you'd be furthering that public policy goal of having a slightly greater density near public transit. Give me just a second here. Oh, I did submit architectural plans of what my client proposes to do at the site, as well as the existing conditions versus proposed conditions. There's really not a lot that's going to change here. There is going to be an addition at the rear of the building for a new series of decks and egress. but that would not impact the rear yard setback. It would extend the rear of the building by, I believe, eight feet, but it would still be more than 15 feet to the rear lot line. The other thing, though, that is changing is that my client would be eliminating the side yard deck. As you face the building from Orchard Street, that would be on the left-hand side. That's a non-conformity now, but eliminating that deck would reduce the non-conformity and get the side yard set back, taking it from three feet, three and a half feet maybe, to 10 feet. So that's an improvement, and we're decreasing an existing non-conformity by doing that. So I would ask that the board, based on the preponderance of the evidence, find that this property qualifies as a legal non-conforming property and remand the matter back to the building commissioner to revise the certificate of occupancy that was issued in January to reflect that the property is a three-unit residential dwelling. Oh, one last thing I forgot to add, I'm sorry. I'm indebted to Michael Cohen, who is one of our participants today. Michael is a real estate broker with Compass Realty. He found, I believe, that there are 16 other three-family dwellings, legal nonconforming dwellings, in this neighborhood, six of which are on Orchard Street. So granting the requested relief would not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Um, it would not create any new burden on the city's, uh, health and safety and welfare concerns. Uh, because basically, it's gonna be the same number of tenants that have been there for the last 100 years.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Attorney Fitzsimmons. Any questions from the board for the applicant?
[Andre Leroux]: Andrew? Yeah, thank you. You answered and provided a lot of information on questions that I might have otherwise had. The one thing that you didn't address, though, is parking. And I'm wondering, just from looking at the Google Maps, it looks pretty tight. So how are you handling that?
[SPEAKER_19]: I was speaking with my client about that. He had indicated that he would like to, and Mr. McLaughlin is here, so he can nod his head yes or no if I'm not saying this correctly, but I think the intent is to add some additional parking. We can get more specific on that when the application for the building permit is renewed with the building commissioner. I'm really only speaking to the question of pre-existing non-conforming use tonight.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Commissioner? I would argue that remanding it to the building department to reconsider it as a pre-existing non-conforming use may not be the proper avenue here. You know, if the CFO was issued in January, they had their customary 30 days to appeal that as an administrative appeal of a decision of the building commissioner. That was not done. So they are here seeking a variance, which I think is the appropriate, and it is a different process and a different, Conclusion at the end is the correct thing to be doing at this time, not to be remanding it. I think that time has passed.
[3tlRdpeIbkM_SPEAKER_00]: We can apply.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike. Yeah, I threw you Jamie. I just have a clarifying question for the commissioner on that. So, um. If I'm understanding you correctly, your position is that, or if I'm understanding the commissioner correctly, sorry, I'm trying to use right words. The commissioner's position is that the certificate of occupancy stated two family and even though other resources like the assessor's database and some of the historical information indicate that perhaps this was in fact a non-conforming three family at one point, that because There was no administrative appeal within 30 days of the certificate of occupancy that said it's a two-family, that therefore... whether or not that was a prior non-conforming use, now the only path forward for the applicant would be a variance because that 30-day period has lapsed.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yes. Yes, it gains standing as the final decision, essentially, after 30 days. It's not appealed. So now we have to entertain this all anew here a couple of months later, and a variance is the only open avenue I see to consider creating a third use, which would make it conforming, not necessarily pre-existing non-conforming. Each comes with its own baggage in terms of how he proceeds forward, but he is asking for a variance. He's made it clear in his petition here. So I don't think that's, his other recommendation is appropriate avenue to go.
[Mike Caldera]: I have one other question for the commissioner through the chair. Is there a, procedure by which the building department itself, outside of this administrative appeal period, might revise or reconsider a certificate of occupancy it issued such that a variance, if the building department chose to do so, would not be required.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, the challenge here is that a use does not have protection under the statutes of limitations unless it was granted by a permit. There's no evidence that a permit was granted at any point. There's also no evidence presented that the use was never vacated for a period of two years. So we really don't know it's true history. So, and I didn't make that decision does go back before my time. So at this point, I will have to take it as the inspectors of the time viewed all of the evidence and made the best decision they could. And that's what stands. and it wasn't appealed, so we're going to look at this all brand new. We certainly would consider it if somebody could bring us some level of information that meets the requirements, but it would take a heck of a lot more research, I think, versus going for the variance just to make it fully conforming at this time.
[Mike Caldera]: What if the board found that prior to, and I'm not suggesting that we will, I'm just clarifying, what if the board found that prior to the issuance of this certificate of occupancy that this was in fact a non-conforming three-family? Would that be evidence that would perhaps influence the building department in a decision whether or not to revise the certificate of occupancy?
[Scott Vandewalle]: It might. That's a particular case I've never had to deal with in the past, but it could. We might want to consult with KP Law before I make any final determinations. Just it's a mucky issue. I mean, it's a mucky issue. It goes way back in time. And as typical, the older they get, the less evidence there really is to stake toward it. And unfortunately, the assessment records are based more around they'll tax what moves rather than conferring any sort of legality upon it. So it's a mucky issue. Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board for the applicant? No. Mr. McLaughlin.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hi. We had, when they did the certificate of occupancy, we had Jack Kenney come out on like December 26th. And once he walked through, you know, he, you know, he verbally said, you know, everything that he could see was a legal tree family. And then, you know, he said he had no issues with it as being a tree family. And he thought because of the egress was so old and the plumbing and the third floor and the heating system was older, you know, that it was definitely a tree family. And then in January, I think like January 12th, we had Dennis, another building inspector come out to do a separate inspection and he talked to the tenant who was on the first floor and who had been there for like 34 years. Dennis asked her, has it been a tree family and she told him she moved there 34 years ago and she lived in the third floor for the first year, you know, or the first year living there. And it was the same thing when he left the property, you know, he said, you know, Kevin, this is, you know, as far as we know, it's got everything, you know, it's got three heating systems, three electric meters, three hot water tanks, it's got the egress, it's got the smoke detectors. You know, he said, as far as he says, it's got everything. You know, he said, we're going to, you know, pretty much, you know, we can't say anything that's not a tree family. So, you know, that's where we were at. That's why we came here, you know, to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Unidentified]: Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so this questions for the applicant, you may have spoken to a bit in your written application, but can you just speak to the so if this were to stay as a two family with the current certificate of occupancy, what what would that mean for the building? What's the what's the hardship for you in that case?
[SPEAKER_19]: Well, I think that the hardship is that, obviously, you need to make a lot of alterations at the building to sort of reverse this from a three-family to a two-unit apartment. Obviously, there's the financial hardship, less rent, but there's also, as I said, the cost of undoing the current layout. Okay, thank you.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, we have, sorry, the other issue was the parking and, you know, I talked with Dennis, the building inspector, and he was on the property and he said, you know, if it was granted, he said he wouldn't have an issue with the parking because the lot's shaped like a funnel lot, you know, because it's on a corner. And there was like a good lot of extra space, you know, in the top corner. And then the back of the property goes to the railroad track. And it's the bridge that goes over on North Street. So, you know, it's not even, you know, there's no butters really in the back and there is, you know, a good, you can probably park six cars, tandem parking, you know, in the back corner. And then the next property next to that, sorry, the property next door, that's where the same people parked the car. So it's going to be a driveway next to a driveway. And the owner next door was all for, you know, we talked to him about it. You know, we told him we were going for the variants and that, and he was like, good luck and, you know, hope you get it and everything. It's always been a tree family. You know, as far as he's lived there for a long time, he said he always thought it was a tree family. That's what he thought it was.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin. Chris?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Lou, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the applicant has just spoken to the point that I wanted to make and that Andre brought up earlier, which is that the neighbors may find that they're looking out onto a parking lot, but if they don't have a problem with it, then it seems like it's okay. You know, that would be my concern is that not the use, which seems to, and I know the neighborhood very well, the use probably does go back a hundred years. It's that, you know, all of a sudden the whole lot is paved over and the neighbors are, you know, looking at a parking lot instead of a yard.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Any other questions from the board for the applicant? I just have a question. We've heard a couple of terms tossed around at the moment. The application was documented as a finding. And again, it may have been my misspoken. I heard the statement of a variance. I believe we're here for a finding. Is that correct?
[SPEAKER_19]: That's how the petition was filed. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. And I know Commissioner, you brought up the comment that we'll go into that further when we go to debate.
[Andre Leroux]: Just a question, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Hunter. I'm not sure. One of the lawyers should try to clarify this. So procedurally, it seems like we will consider a finding, and then based on that finding, also vote on a variance or just one or the other.
[Unidentified]: I believe to Mike's earlier comment or question to the commissioner, and we can discuss this as we go into today, is approaching this as a finding that the property has been legally nonconforming three family prior to the certificate of occupancy. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, if I may. So my understanding from what the building commissioner shared is that his position is the only surefire way to grant the relief being sought here is to pursue a variance. So it's within the board's powers to issue findings on a variety of matters. The commissioner pointed out that we're outside of the administrative appeal period, and so if the board were to issue a finding merely remanding it back to the building department, there would be potential procedural issues there. So that's when I started asking the questions about other types of findings we could make. So I do think there's a procedural question. If a variance is the relief needed, and this was noticed as a finding, maybe today the only thing we could do is issue some sort of finding. But yeah. Commissioner pointed out something that may indicate a finding is inadequate to provide the full desired relief in this case.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. That sort of gets to my question as what is, you know, we could make a finding and therefore on the basis of that finding grant the variance or whether one precludes the other. That's really my question.
[SPEAKER_19]: Well, I don't think that it would preclude it. And I guess, you know, I would defer to the board and the board's counsel as to the correct procedural path. But if the building commissioners of the opinion that a variance is really what needs to be done. I think we could ask that the board grant a variance based on finding that it's a pre-existing non-conforming use. And I would just add to that, I mean, it's a little different from the typical variance test that was articulated earlier in the first case that you had by Mr. Caldara that, you know, we're really talking so much about topography or soil conditions or dimensions of the lot specific to the lot. It's more of a determination that this has been a three-family since more or less since the time that it was built and predates zoning.
[Mike Caldera]: appointed information. So I'm looking at the agenda now. It appears this was noticed as a variance. So the board actually could proceed with analysis on whether or not to grant a variance. And then findings, I mean, we can, findings don't need to be noticed. We can find on a variety of topics without that being noticed.
[Unidentified]: Thank you for pointing that out, Mike. Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I will note that under, I think it's section 94.11.42, powers of the board, you are empowered to consider and grant a use variance. So use variance is this per case. Bear in mind there are some differences between a variance making this a fully conforming structure and not subject to any limitations that might be imposed upon a pre-existing non-conforming structure. They are subtly different than they have some different pluses and minuses. If you're leading towards a variance that probably is the best choice. It certainly would make it fully conforming and not a subject of any restrictions that pre-existing non-conforming uses instructors may have upon them. So it has its upsides as well.
[Unidentified]: Thank you for catching that, Mike. That was my concern was a procedural with the notice. So we have noticed that the variance would be considered. Mr. McLaughlin.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I mean, one other thing was that whenever we did get the certificate of occupancy, or sorry, whenever they did the walkthroughs, it was near the end of the temporary building commissioner. You know, he was like, you can probably just see what happens with the new gang, you know, to see if, you know, it's okay by the building department. And that was probably part of the delay where we were just, you know, looking for more for approval from the building commissioner. than we were for like filing, you know, inside the 30 days.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. So I believe that this, go ahead, Andrew. Yeah, I'd just like to make a motion to open for public comment.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Roll call vote. Andrew, in the room. Aye. Mary Lee.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Yvette Velez.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mike Caldera. Aye. Jamie Thompson. Aye. We are open for public comment if anybody would like to speak to this project. And you can email Dennis McDougall at dmcdougall at mentra-ma.gov. We'll give that just a minute. see if anybody submits anything. I do not see any hands raised at this time.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to close public hearings.
[Mike Caldera]: make the front and then close the public hearing and open deliberation.
[Unidentified]: And I'll second it. I see you're under a second you're just on mute.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, no, I was. Absolutely. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Mary Lee. I met the list. I make Caldera. I. Jamie Thompson, I. So, it looks, I believe the conversation right now is for a variance in this case. What does everybody think.
[Andre Leroux]: I do find it compelling that the property was built as and has been occupied as a three-family. I do think given the fact that it's already got all the utilities and infrastructure there for it, I do think that it would be a hardship to limit it to a two-family and would be inclined to just for the record, make a finding that it is a pre-existing non-conforming three-family, and then we grant the use variance to formalize it as a three-family.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. That makes sense. Anyone else? Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Generally in agreement with Andre, so here it's the configuration of the structure itself. It's already set up as a three-family and it appears to have been used as such for some time to the point at which there are some signals, although not with legal force, that even Medford considered it to be a three-family. And so a literal enforcement of the law The ordinance, now that it has unfortunately lost that status for administrative reasons, would involve substantial hardship. It would be a costly reconfiguration of this existing structure. It seems that we could grant this relief without substantial detriment to the public good because this building has been seemingly functioning as a three family for quite some time. And so, yeah, I agree with Andre on this one.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Becky. Anything else? Anyone else from the board? All right, Chair awaits a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to, I assume we have to make two motions here. The first one would be for, to make a finding that this property is a non-conforming, pre-existing non-conforming three-family residence. Procedurally, I think that would be the right call.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm less convinced because I agree with the building commissioner's accounting of events. And so if there was an appeals period that lapsed, even if it lapsed with good intention, then it lost that status. So we would be risking making a finding of fact that is actually factually not the case from a legal perspective anymore. And it's not a necessary step in granting the relief. So if the board approves the variance, then it's moot whether it was non-conforming three-family. And it's also moot whether it is non-conforming three-family. It will then become a, by variance, I guess, conforming three-family.
[Unidentified]: Okay, I just want to check with the applicant since the application was filled as a finding. Attorney Fitzsimmons, are you comfortable with us moving forward only with the variance?
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, we'd be glad to convert this into a request for a variance.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. I'd like to withdraw my motion and offer a new motion. You don't have to, it wasn't seconded. Okay. Go ahead. I'd like to motion that we find the 86 Orchard Street. We offer them a use variance as a three-family residential.
[Unidentified]: Second. All right. Roll call vote. Yvette Valez? Aye. Mike Calderon? Aye. Andrew Leroux? Mary Lee? I. And Jamie Thompson, I. Thank you, Attorney Fitzsimmons. If you could, could you provide a draft for us to review and finalize? Certainly. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Dennis, we're good for the next one.
[Denis MacDougall]: 178 Fulton Street, case number A-2024-09. Applicant and owner, James Reed, was petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94, City of Medford Zoning, to install a new curb, cut, and driveway in the front yard of the property at 178 Fulton Street, which is not allowed per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 6.1.4, Subset 3.
[Henry Rappa]: Do we have a representative for the applicant? Yes, good evening members of the board. My name is Henry Rapa and I'm appearing on behalf of James Reed and his wife. With respect to this and as of tomorrow at this time, hopefully a newborn baby. So congratulations. Yes, very exciting time for them. So what we have here, I don't know how much you've reviewed the materials. This is hopefully much simpler than some of the ones you've had this evening. What we have here is the property is upon Fulton Street on a downward curve. So entering, exiting the property, it's a significant risk of safety to the occupants of the property and also those pedestrians or motorists on Fulton Street. In our petition, we've included three pictures that actually show what it looks like as one would access the street. There's also a letter of support from a neighbor stating the risk of entering, exiting the property with its current configuration. So the requested relief would allow my clients to have an ability to access to move through ST Francis S Fulton Street in a much s of where is on the downw One of the letters of support states that the previous owner never even used the existing driveway. And I'm pretty confident that my client would be concerned about using the existing driveway in its configuration once they're backing out of that driveway with a car seat with a baby in the back. So the lot itself creates a hardship for various purposes. And obviously the public good would be served by having both the occupants of the home, motorists and pedestrians on Fulton Street protected from an alternate access route that is going to significantly decrease any risk to the parties. and would also be reducing some congestion on the street by allowing a vehicle in the yard to be parked in the driveway. So our position is that the public good is served, and there's certainly no detriment to the bylaw, because the bylaws, as you all know, is to protect safety and reduce congestion. So this relief would be beneficial to not only my client, but also the neighborhood in general. It would provide safety and it would certainly eliminate the risk of a severe crash backing out onto Fulton Street on the downward curve area. I don't know if the board has any questions for me on this.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mr. Abbott. Any questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I noticed that on St. Francis Street, there's a fire hydrant and a telephone pole on that side. I'm just wondering if they're going to be affected at all.
[Henry Rappa]: I would say no. I did a site visit. I'm looking at the plan. Neither of those things look like they're not affected from what his construction was going to be, and I can't see in any way, shape, or form the hydrant or the pole being impacted by the requested relief.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Yeah, just double checking my understanding. So because this is a corner lot, am I correct that the existing driveway with its existing unused or underused parking space, if that didn't exist and you had a driveway going to the other side, that actually this would also be parking in the front yard to add the existing driveway?
[Henry Rappa]: Well, the existing driveway is already there.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, but if it weren't there. So basically, like I'm trying to understand if what you're asking to do here is fundamentally different than what the existing driveway at the time was doing.
[Henry Rappa]: Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, well, I think, you know, in light of the fact that Fulton Street is a fairly high volume traffic street, and in light of the fact that the previous owner wasn't even using the driveway, and my clients have a very and the ability to really utilize it to its strength. This provides for use of a driveway to provide parking for the house that isn't really going to exist without the relief. I would say if the board didn't grant relief, they'd probably be forced to be keeping a car on the street somewhere because I think they're going to be relatively concerned about backing out onto that street with a car seat with a child in the back. I know when I first had my kids, I was terrified backing out to a street that had nobody traversing it. So I can only imagine that as a new parent on a busy street what they're going to feel. I think the way the plan was drawn, it was to provide them the access they need for their benefit as well as those people in the neighborhood. OK, thank you.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_20]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board? All right. Chair waits motion to open for public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to open public comment.
[Andre Leroux]: Can I get a second? Seconded. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Annette Gilles?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Andrea LaRue? Aye. Mike Gelder? Aye. Jamie Thompson? Aye. Any comments from the public on 178 Fulton Street? You may email Dennis McDougal at dmcdougal at medford-ma.gov. Give that just a moment. I don't see any hand raised. Dennis, do you have anything in the mail?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, an email came in. It wasn't for this, and it threw me for a bit. No, we've got no emails.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. I motion to close the public portion of the hearing and under deliberation. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Under the roof. Hi. Hi. Hi. Mary Lee.
[Mary Lee]: Hi.
[Unidentified]: And Jamie Thompson. Hi. Right for the board. That's on the driveway for 178 Fulton Street.
[Andre Leroux]: Andrew? So just a couple of thoughts. So one, I never love putting asphalt in front yards. That being said, I don't see public detriment to it. I understand the safety concern with pulling out onto a safer street around that corner and on a busy road. So the case could be made for hardship. I would probably like to, if we do grant the variance, I would like to condition it so that the fire hydrant and the utility pole are, this could only be done if the fire hydrant and utility pole are unaffected by the construction and the curb cut. that they maintain the area around the corner appropriately landscaped to allow for high site level viewing across the corner.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Any other comments from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: So for me, I understand the hardship and the need, not really thrilled with the plan as proposed, like this whole double curb cut, the kind of awkward angle driveway that doesn't really connect to the house. It's like, it just, it feels like there's probably a better way to achieve but I don't really have the know-how or expertise to suggest what that change would be. And I think it does, it would have the result of dragging things out for the applicant. So I don't really like the layout, but understand the hardship and I think I could get behind it. I agree, it's not like a big detriment to the public good.
[Unidentified]: I guess, was this going back to your comment about the parking in the front yard?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, that was more of a curiosity question. I do think the lot is such that parking will be in the front yard. I asked a question I almost was certain I knew the answer to. But no matter where it's located, it's going to be front yard parking. And currently, the parking is this really narrow thing on a busy street. I think having a driveway on the less busy street where you can actually park a modern vehicle makes sense. But yeah, as proposed, it's like this double driveway with really weird angles.
[Unidentified]: Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I would like to say that because it involves a curb cut, And because it involves potentially increasing impermeable surface area, this will have to be dealt with through the DPW as well. Stormwater regulations come into play. If you decide to prove it, I might put a condition on that sense that it is acceptable to the extent that the design gets tweaked by DPW to meet their own considerations. So it doesn't invite the applicant to have to come back for a minor adjustment. just a thought, but I expect that it goes to DPW and they may make their own changes to the exact layout for their own needs. Just address that if you could in any decision if you choose to.
[Unidentified]: I know. I think we've talked about that. We can't condition something on approval for another board because we're approving. You're conditioning.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, you're conditioning to allow it to exist. You can't, you know, that's what you're basically given the right to put a curb cut and a parking space in the front yard, because that's what they're looking for exemption from. The language says you shall not park in the front yard. So you can give them that. The final layout itself may be determined by others.
[Unidentified]: So you're saying your perspective is conditioning at that. so that any changes by the DPW don't need to come back to us.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Right, you're granting them the right to have parking in the front yard as an exception to the bylaw as written with the understanding that final design considerations may be subject to review by the DPW or something like that. I don't think that necessarily derogates from that expectation. You're not predicating your decision to give them this use based on a decision to be made by others. You're giving them the use, you're just leaving some design changes. Like a conservation commission meeting, you might approve a site plan or something, but you know that they're going to have some sort of other little adjustments to be made that are really critical to you.
[Unidentified]: Got it. That makes sense. Thank you.
[Yvette Velez]: I have a question. Anybody else?
[Unidentified]: Go ahead.
[Yvette Velez]: I have a clarifying. So it's one parking spot they currently have, and they're getting two, essentially, right? Because they're getting this curb cut in the round court. But we're taking one away from the public. But they're saying, oh, that's because they're still going to have two cars. So it's just them going to be parking on the street. Because they don't use their, they can't use their garage. There's no longer a garage. Is that what it was?
[Unidentified]: So their driveway currently exits onto Fulton Street, and they're challenged getting in and out of that due to the busyness of Fulton Street and the concern for safety. This would add a pathway for them to come out onto St. Francis Street. Right. And could potentially provide additional parking for them. That's correct.
[Yvette Velez]: But you're taking one away from the public, and the argument was, but they still park on the street as well, right? Was that what I had heard?
[Henry Rappa]: If I may interject, they would not need to park on the street if the board were granting the variance because they would have enough parking off street. And that would be part of the benefit to the public at large is that there wouldn't be vehicles from this house on the street. That would be the ultimate benefit of granting the relief.
[Yvette Velez]: And have you put mirrors, though, and things of that nature that would help with? I guess I'm also struggling with similar to what Mike is talking about, putting a big slab of asphalt across the way and then the way it comes out into the street. But I also understand and hear that clearly the Department of Public Works will be part of this conversation, so they would help mitigate what that would look like. Then again, I'm struggling too with the whole you're taking a parking spot away from the public on that side of the street because people could still park there right after that hydrant.
[Henry Rappa]: Well, that is true, but it could be my clients parking on that street, and they're not going to be doing that now. So I think there really isn't a loss, because what would be happening is my clients would not be using on-street parking.
[Yvette Velez]: And there was no asking of signage, and there was no inputting of a mirror. Nothing else has been done to help. increase safety previous to this or things have been done and it hasn't worked out?
[Henry Rappa]: Well, I just think the only way to get out in that street is to back out the street from that existing driveway and it's on a downhill curve. There really isn't anything. that would make the view easier or better for the person exiting the driveway or the person coming down the hill. And for that reason, I've seen a letter from a neighbor supporting saying that the previous owner never even used the driveway. So what we're doing here is increasing the ability of the homeowner to use off-street parking and protect the safety of them and others. And the yard around the driveway is going to be landscaped. So that would mitigate the... The front yard is still going to have landscaping, absent, of course, the driveway area, but it would be landscaped overall in the front yard. So it's not like it's all going to be paved and all of a sudden you're going to have this big paved area out there. It would just be the driveway area.
[Yvette Velez]: I just want to know currently if they've reversed into the spot. Is that not possible at all to be reversing into the spot?
[Henry Rappa]: I would say no. I visited the street. I visited the property, I believe, on two occasions at different times. To back into that driveway would require someone on the downward slope backing in as cars come down the street. It would be very risky. And I would think it, I certainly wouldn't do it. I don't think many people would, and particularly a family with a young child, the risk of getting hit from someone coming down the hill would frighten me. And for that reason, I went out two times to look at it just because I wanted to, at different times of the day, because I wanted to get a good feel for it. And I just don't think without the relief, the ability to park in that yard, in that driveway is non-existent. Not if one wanted to remain safe and avoid the hospital.
[Unidentified]: Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: Good evening. Thank you. So I wanted to just share a few things, particularly from the planning perspective. And also just a logistical thing. If board members are not aware, you are able to do site visits on all of these. There are some municipalities that highly recommend boards do site visits to understand them. But I am very familiar with this area and Fulton Street. It is completely unreasonable to ask somebody to back in and out of that driveway. That's a very dangerous location. It is, in this case, as the applicant is describing, the hill, the curve, and everything. That is a correct description of it. That all said, I do wonder why this couldn't be just a driveway that one could back in and out of on the other side, because it would be reasonable to do that on St Francis Street. It's a much smaller street. If why a huge swath is needed and a cut through on their yard that I'm that I'm not understanding. And I would want to see kind of more detailed plans. I feel like it's a it's a sketch. But it seems to me that one could just have the driveway be on St. Francis Street and remove the driveway that's currently in the front yard on Fulton Street, since their address is in fact on Fulton Street. I would ask about that. Or why it couldn't be in the backyard, other than people like a backyard. But I just wanted to share that it's, from a planning perspective, it's not a safe place for somebody to be driving it, backing in and out on that street as well. So.
[Unidentified]: Commissioner. Thank you, Alicia. Thank you, Derek.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, I do want to share that yes, site visits are common in some communities. The only caveat is if you all show up at once and create a forum, you cannot deliberate on the subject. That has been explained to me in numerous occasions. And there is some case law out there that has as picked up on safety as a reasonable hardship for a variance. So that is within your purview to consider that as something outside of the other components you're used to for a variance. That's all I got.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Commissioner.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. What Director Hunt was saying was something that I had been thinking about as well, although looking again around the corner on the street views, there is a built-in garage on Fulton, and so that's why the current driveway is there. I wanted to ask the attorney if that garage is still in use. Is that a functioning garage?
[Henry Rappa]: It's a functioning garage, but it hasn't been used to put a car in recently because they're really not utilizing the driveway because of the risk that we've been talking about with getting backing into and onto an unseated vehicle.
[Andre Leroux]: So if this were approved, those variants were approved, then it would become a, they'd be able to use the garage.
[Henry Rappa]: They would, in theory, be able to use the garage, yes.
[Mike Caldera]: I mean, that's a little hard to assess from the lens though with the weird angles. So I mean, maybe you could back it up.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Can I offer a suggestion? I would suggest the applicant consider continually meet with the engineering department of the DPW. They could talk about impervious air at curb cuts, and you can meet with the traffic engineer to talk about safety. And they may have some recommendations on how to improve the design or alter the design so that it meets the expert's concerns. And they could come back next month with something fleshed out.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that I probably will not be voting on this proposal. So my comment is just that a comment. But yeah, I think this sets a bad precedent, to be blunt about it. We don't set precedents. Yeah. Well, to the extent that everyone on Fulton Street has a hard time backing out and pulling in, there is that part of the precedent that I speak of. And they're lucky in a way that they've got this side street to access. But I would echo what the planning director just said about both sides. And I would echo what ZVA members said about what has been done to mitigate a dangerous situation right now. And if you look at the Google photos, there is a large hedge that runs along the whole front of the house. So I understand they're not using driveway, so maybe the hedge is there because the driveway is in disuse. But why the double drive around two entry driveway is necessary, it seems to be a bad precedent. Let's put it that way. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Chris. Mr. Attorney Rappaport?
[Henry Rappa]: Yeah, one quick thing. My understanding is it's not going to be pavement. It's going to be P stone. So it's not going to be asphalt on the driveway. That's one of the things I just wanted to clarify. And I think timing it from my client is relatively important because he's going to be a father tomorrow night. They need to make arrangements to have something move forward on this. I did see the hedge. What I did notice when I was there is backing out on the street, as Ms. Hunt was saying, hedge, no hedge, it's so dangerous to come out of that driveway. I know we just heard about, while Fulton Street's busy in general, they're on a downhill section. where a curve bends downhill. You're looking, you're having to look a little bit uphill. One of the pictures I submitted from the driveway shows a car. It came on so fast, it was stunning. I was taking my picture, there was nothing in the frame. So I think, well, while I hear the board's concerns that it's not a perfect use, it's one that achieves the goals of promoting their safety, that of the people in the neighborhood, and as a minimum impact, it's creating one curb cut over on St. Francis Street, and it doesn't foreclose them from using that garage in the future. I would hate to see them close off the curb cut on Fulton, take away that portion of the driveway. Then they could never use that garage again. They may need to use that garage again. They may sell the home. Maybe someone would want to use the garage They may decide to use the garage when they have a newborn and don't want to be traipsing through the rain. So I think the plan was designed in this manner to try to meet all of the needs. And I guess as you would know more than anyone, there's a lot of solutions are imperfect, but I would submit to the board, this is at least a good solution to deal with a fairly serious problem. I know as we talked about the landscaping and the DPW involvement, I think there's going to be less concerned about stormwater and it's stone because the water is still going to be going down. It's not like he's bringing in asphalt paving that's going to fill up this and create stormwater elsewhere. I certainly hear the board's concerns and I'm amenable to hearing your concerns and doing what we can, but I'm deeply concerned about getting a solution for them to this time-sensitive problem for them. And I would say they're in a position different than many people on Fulton Street because of the location of where their lot is.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Attorney General.
[Andre Leroux]: Hunter? Sorry, does Chris have his hand up? Or do you mean to lower it? Okay. I guess I had a point of information. Did we open public hearing on this? Because they feel like we're deliberating. So if we haven't, I'd like to motion that we open public. We did. We did. Okay. Yeah, we did. Okay. Thank you. Getting confused with all of the different ones. It's getting late too. Yeah. So just to comment, I guess, about what the attorney said in terms of timing, I would just say, you know, I'm inclined to support this, but I also want to make sure it's done in a way that is well designed for the public and Nobody's fault here that they're having a baby tomorrow. I assume they had prior notice of that. We should not be rushed if we think that we have to wait one month to get good design. I'm amenable to taking the building commissioner's suggestion of continuing it so that until the traffic engineer can review it, I'd like to see that it's a little bit more than a sketch. Then I think it would not be a problem. I agree that we don't want to close off the Fulton Street access because that's where the garage is. I think that would be mandating a hardship on them because that's the way the property was built. Anyway, those are my two cents. Thank you, Andrew.
[Mike Caldera]: Point of order. If we go the continuation route, we likely do have to do that with the applicant's consent to at least waive the statutory timelines. Otherwise, the board would just have to make a call one way or the other. whether our next regular meeting will be within the statutory timeline for a decision. So it would really at least be in part up to the applicant in this case.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mike. Yep, understood. I guess, so Attorney Rapp, you made your statement earlier. Are you opposed to a continuance, or are you not going to request one, I guess?
[Henry Rappa]: Well, I'm waiting to get an answer back from Mr. Reid, who's on the call. I don't have a problem with a continuance. I want to get his assent. I know they're extremely concerned about the safety. I am just hearing back from him that he'll agree to a continuance. I suppose I don't mean we'll get, we'll see if we can get the traffic engineer to give what exactly is it the low from what it sounds to me is like the board isn't adverse to the requested relief. They're just looking for a different way. Am I correct in hearing that?
[Unidentified]: What I'm hearing and any board member can correct me. is that we would like to see a more complete design after review and have you engage with the DPW to make sure that all of their concerns with the design are covered. OK.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just to add to that. So really, it's not a specific change that I'm looking for to the design, it's additional information on that this design has been reviewed and if needed, iterated upon with those city departments.
[Unidentified]: Curb cuts require approval from a couple of city officials as well.
[Andre Leroux]: I feel like they're going to have to be reviewing this one way or the other. It might as well, let's do it up front so we see what it is that they want. I'd like to know whether they have any recommendations about the landscaping just for sight lines. I'm glad, Attorney Rapa, you mentioned that it's going to be P-stone, but I'd like to just understand the materials, make sure that the P-stone is not going to get washed down the hill. Yeah, things like that. I mean, I see that, you know, the walkway to the front steps, you're gonna, I think this driveway is going to go over that walkway. But so I just want to know how it all works. I want to see it.
[Yvette Velez]: I just want to add that, you know, how to utilize the garage in a more succinct way. If you're not using it now, how will it be able to use the garage and in different formats, right? So if you had kept it in the way that it currently exists and it needs to be expanded in a certain way to make it safer, you know, what does that look like versus like extending it all the way out to the other side of the street so that you could have two parking spots utilizing your garage versus taking one away from public use. on the other side of the street.
[Henry Rappa]: Right. I think the essential thing is they're going if the board granted the relief, there would be two parking spaces on the property and they would be they would not be using public parking. So it would be it would be no negative reduction of spaces in that sense from the public. The garage itself. It seems to me that they would be able to get down through this proposed driveway and get into that garage area the way this is put together. I am happy to have Mr. Reid and I will work with him on getting DPW to review the design. I suppose DPW will opine on what type of stone they want. Certainly Mr. Reed's going to use stone. They may have different variations of how they want it to be so that it doesn't wash down or stays in place. Is there anything other than just a DPW that you'd want on when we reach out to get this plan amended? I think the traffic engineer.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Andrew. Mike, did you have another question?
[Mike Caldera]: In the Medford structure, the city engineer sits under the DPW, so I believe it's the city engineer and the director of traffic are the the two key individuals here. And in my prior role as chair of this body, the city engineer has told me on at least two different occasions that, in general, when these curb cuts come before us, that it's advisable to direct the applicant to talk with the engineering department before taking action on the request. So yeah, I think city engineer Owen Wartella and Director of Transportation, Todd Blake, would be the two folks to talk to.
[Henry Rappa]: Okay. In addition to DPW?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, engineering sits within DPW, so I'm not aware of any one within DPW other than the city engineer that would need to weigh in, but I could be wrong.
[Henry Rappa]: Okay, certainly. We'll make that happen.
[Andre Leroux]: You know, the other just the other thing to consider here is that I, you know, if we were to approve this, you know, I would hope that it that the additional. you know, exit the driveway in the front yard wouldn't be used for like permanent parking, right? Because we generally don't want cars to be in the front yards and that this addition of a pathway of an exit would enable the garage to be used. So you could have someone in the garage and someone in the driveway behind it on Fulton Street, but then to pull out, you're pulling out towards the side street, St. Francis. Just be in mind that that could be a potential condition for us to consider.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll make a motion to continue this matter to our next regular meeting. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Mary Lee?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Rebecca Les?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mike Calderon? Aye. Andrew Liver? Aye. Jamie Thompson? Aye. We have continuance and we will see you again.
[Henry Rappa]: Thank you members of the board.
[Unidentified]: And Dennis, can you take us to our MySpace?
[Denis MacDougall]: 52 Garfield Avenue, case number A-2024-10. Applicant and owner of 52 Garfield Realty LLC is petitioning for a variant special permit in Chapter 94 City Method Zoning to add a fourth-towing unit in the pre-existing nonconforming furnished garage at 52 Garfield Avenue, requiring a special permit for the City Method Zoning against Chapter 94 Sections 5.2.1.1. Additionally, variances will be required for side and rear yard setbacks to the garage as well as the minimum distance between structures for the city methods on the orients chapter 94 table be dimension table dimensional requirements as well as the parking variance for the city methods on the ordinance chapter 94 section 6.1 point 3.
[Dash]: Good evening, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on the new office. Attorney Adam Dash representing 52 Garfield Realty LLC, who's the applicant and owner. Monish Lalani is here, who's the manager of the LLC. Jose Guzman, the project architect. And you can see Ian McKinnon here is the project traffic engineer from Howard Stein Hudson. So let me share my screen. Do I have the ability to do that? I do not. If Mr. McDougall could grant that. Fantastic. All right. There we go. So. You are blocking my ability to scroll down. There we go. So this is a regarding 52 Garfield Avenue, which, as you can see on the left here, is an existing nonconforming three family, basically triple-decker building type with a detached garage, which has finished with a bathroom in it. and it's got an existing driveway in the single family two zoning district. You'll note here on the right is a gas station. This is a very different house in the SF2 zone and is a very different house and unique on this street. The proposal is to create a fourth dwelling unit in that existing detached garage here to the right and the rear. No other changes are happening to this property. And in this way, a dwelling unit can be added without changing the built environment. And the reason why we're here tonight is that creating the dwelling unit in the garage requires zoning relief because the current zoning ordinance does not have the flexibility to address the city's housing shortage in creative ways such as this. So, creating the fourth dwelling unit in the existing garage requires the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant, one, a special permit to alter and extend the preexisting nonconforming three-unit use to four units, two, variances for the right side and the rear setback for the existing garage, because it will now become a principal structure by having a dwelling unit in it. And that's because the garage is close to the rear and right side property lines, as garages often are. Third would be a variance for the separation between the two existing structures, also due to having a dwelling unit in the garage making the garage a principal structure and that the garage is close to the main three-family, which again garages often are. And the variances for fourth, the variances for the number of parking spaces and for the parking layout due to adding a fourth unit in the garage. Six are being provided, eight are required, and the spaces just jut out into the front of the house. Again, this is all in the existing driveway. Mr. McKinnon will address this later. Just as a footnote, we also would have to go after this to the Community Development Board for a special permit for having two principal structures in the lot because, again, putting a dwelling unit in the garage makes that a second principal structure. So despite the relief that's sought here that I just stated, the existing buildings on the lot are not physically changing. The relief is more in the technical nature due to the status of the garage changing and the existing structures on the lot. So again, this is what you've got now is this fully sprinklered three-family house with the garage to the right. And you can see the way the garage is currently, there's no garage door to pull into it. This is the, both the garage here, this is from the rear, both the three-family house and the garage both have two egresses. On the left side of the three-family house, you can see the electricity exists to power the garage unit. On the right side, this is on the driveway three family house. This is a camera that would be installed to that will police the parking situation. And this is actually a close up of the garage in the back right corner of the property in the primary egress as it appears today. This is the left side of the garage. You can see a concrete block construction. and that is the secondary egress on the other side of the garage. So these photos illustrate the existing conditions, but they're also the proposed conditions. The existing three-family structure, as I said, fully sprinklered. The garage would also be fully sprinklered. Therefore, the separation between the structures is not a safety issue. In fact, the garage at one time would have had cars in it that would have had flammable materials in them. Both structures... have the appropriate utilities to do what they need to do for this project. And the right side of Butter is a gas station, and the rear of Butter is a structure that is some distance from the rear lot and is fenced, as you can see here with the fences. As the garage is not changing in dimensions, the side and the rear setback variances would not impact the neighbors at all. Again, this is the garage has no impact on the commercial butter, which is the gas station on this side. This is a look at the lot. Again, Garfield Street in the bottom, the gas stations on the right. You can see the three-family house in the middle. Back here in the right back corner is the garage where we'd be putting the fourth unit, and you can see the six-car layout in the existing driveway. As you can see in the site plan, the shape of the combined structures and the layout on the lot, which will not change, sort of in this little L shape. Is such that the built environment precludes complying with the cell side and the rear setbacks building separation or parking requirements. 1 would need to demolish the existing structures to comply, which would greatly alter the neighborhood. Adding a fourth unit in a manner which does not alter the neighborhood construct at all, much less detrimentally impacts it, and which addresses Medford's need for more housing, is a way which meets the requirements of the special permit being sought tonight for the fourth unit, but the variances would be needed to make that happen. I'll turn this over now to Jose Guzman if you want to explain the site plan and the floor plan.
[SPEAKER_20]: Good evening. My name is Jose Guzman. I'm the architect of record on this project. I originally worked on the 3 family home. We did the renovations. And then subsequent to that, we were asked to help in assisting with the. 4th unit, the structure. is sound. It's a baring masonry walls, slap on grade with wood joists, rafters rather. And it has a rear yard, front yard, obviously with the driveway will be used for parking. I think that there is a rear, on the rear, we have a fence that abuts the rear yard of the neighbor to the back. There's plenty of distance between the two structures. There is no really risk of any fire between the two structures because one is masonry and the other one is wood, so there's no risk of fire from one to the other. And I'm open for any questions you may have.
[Dash]: Uh, thank you. If you want to talk, um, Jose about, there's the, just as the existing and proposed floor plan, it's fairly straightforward, but okay.
[SPEAKER_20]: So right now, if you look on the left, there's an existing bathroom, uh, there's a toilet and sink. Uh, there's a, at the beam, you'll see a beam where it says beam above as a steel beam that supports the rafters. And, uh, on the right, you'll see the proposed layout, a small kitchen with an Island and a standup shower. sink and toilet and a small bed on the right side.
[Dash]: Thank you, Jose. Yes, there's a hand up or do you want us to continue?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Jamie, if I may. Go ahead. Yeah. So this is for Attorney Dash. I just want to ask it early enough in the process so that I'm understanding and I'm understanding the analysis we're supposed to be applying here. So in the zoning ordinance, the section 5 for nonconforming uses and structures, 5.4 in particular, it states that a variance is required if a change is made in such a manner to create a new nonconformity. And so what I'm trying to understand is why there isn't a use variance required in this case to convert the garage when prior to the conversion, the rear yard is conforming and then post conversion, we now have a principal structure in the rear yard.
[Dash]: Right. Under the current zoning, to alter and extend the preexisting nonconforming use from three to four units is a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, not a variance. That is- Correct.
[Mike Caldera]: But it also says in section 5.4 that if doing so creates a new nonconformity, then a variance is required.
[Dash]: Right. And these are the variances that we are seeking. Again, they're all existing conditions.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, the derriere isn't because you're taking an accessory structure and you're making it a second principle structure.
[Dash]: Correct. Correct. At a legal basis, that is correct. And so that is one of the variances we are seeking. However, it is not a physical change to the existing layers of law. Yeah. Right. OK, thank you. No, not a problem. It is a little bit of a tricky one, so I welcome the questions. Not a problem. So moving on here, I would note that the garage, as you saw, the garage has been altered. It's not really usable as a garage. It would be a hardship to make it usable as a garage. The city's housing production plan noted a need for studio and one-bedroom units like this, and the city amended the zoning ordinance to allow for ADUs by a special permit in an existing detached structure on the same lot, such as the garage in this case. The variances for dimensional relief are not, if they're not granted for such units, then Medford will be hard-pressed to meet its housing goals and will force property owners to demolish existing structures in order to comply. And this runs against the purpose of the zoning ordinance in allowing detached structures to become dwelling units by special permit while preserving neighborhoods. Preserving the existing structures and their embedded energy and reusing the materials is the sustainable way to create these dwelling units. Mr. McKinnon will address, now from Howard Stein Hudson, if you could come on and address the parking variances that we're seeking.
[SPEAKER_25]: Sure. Thank you, Adam, and good evening, Chair and board members. Ian McKinnon, the project's traffic engineer from Howard Stein Hudson in Boston. I know it's getting late, so I'll be very brief here. So the project submitted a traffic assessment and the reason for that, which I'll quickly highlight some of those aspects, is given the request for the parking variance in relation to travel. So in front of you is a locus map that's centered on Garfield Avenue with the various alternative means of travel for a site on Garfield Avenue. In particular, There's a variety of public transportation and alternative means that I'll get to in a minute here. But specifically, the data shows that almost 80% in this census tract from the last census use automobiles to travel, 15% commute via transit, and another 5% either walk or bike. The data also suggests that as of recently as 2022, Medford car ownership rates are just under one and a half vehicles per household, which suggests that many families and households choose to only own a single car. And as a standard for traffic impacts, typically trips per day or peak hour are evaluated to to evaluate whether or not the impact is significant or not. And this project, with its extra dwelling unit, is only proposed to add two extra trips a day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. And this is a very unnoticeable amount of traffic. It's just as likely that if a neighbor were to take an extra trip to the grocery store because they forgot something, that it would be the same impact. So all told, there's not supposed to be any perceivable impact. Next slide, Adam. So before you is a little bit of a rotated site plan. So north is face up and Garfield's on the right. So I apologize, we've turned this a little bit on you. So a couple of things to point out here as they relate to the variance request on parking. The total number of spaces is proposed at six, which is currently what exists today. There is an existing garage, but it's not been used for storage of parking by this owner. We'll also note that there's a path of travel of egress behind each vehicle, which connects to the front door. That's labeled here at nine feet. It might be nine and a half, given the scale of this drawing. There's also a six foot six clear path of travel. And these are all, as I mentioned, clear of the driveway. There is still a fully compliant pedestrian path of travel up and down the sidewalk. And this setback that nine feet from the back of sidewalk allows for adequate sight lines and maneuverability to the public way. The building itself falls two spaces short of the two spaces per unit zoning requirement, but we contend that the variance here is warranted given the project's location to the various alternative transportation modes that I'll talk about in a moment, the lower actual car ownership that's seen across Medford, which suggests many families and households choose to only own one car. And then the site parameters, this parking facility, given that they are existing, are compliant or adequate for public safety exiting and entering the site. Next slide, please.
[Dash]: If I could just stay on this one real quick. This actually shows the abutting house on the rear. And so you can see here's the garage we're talking about. And you can see how close the setbacks that we have seeking variances for on the right side up against this gas station and the rear. But you can see that the garage is nowhere near the house on the property to the rear. And it's an existing condition anyway. Sorry, Ian.
[SPEAKER_25]: No, no, no worries. So as part of the special permit application, we submitted a transportation assessment. I'm not sure if you all had a chance to review it, but I just gave a pretty quick summary here. I'm just going to breeze through the next couple of slides here. So the site access, as we discussed, will also continue to be served by the existing driveway. There are no changes proposed to the curb cut. It will stay as is. And the existing paved driveway will stay as is. This is also similar to the graphic you saw on the first slide. I will note that there is an existing blue bike station and a zip car rental, which are other alternatives, all within a 10-minute walk. So allows for those who want to choose to commute by that method or they need a car for an errand, for example. Next slide. And this will be my last slide, too. I wanted to note that there's two bus routes here, both within a half-mile walk and one particularly directly adjacent on the site on Salem Street, with connections to Malden Center and also Sullivan Square, which provide access to downtown Boston for those that work there or others. These bus routes are very frequent, 20-minute service, which is pretty good, which allows people the reliability to trust and use public transportation to commute. So with that, I'll pass it back to Adam.
[Dash]: Thanks, Ian. You've just seen there's six letters of support from the neighborhood, including from the two direct debaters on both the left and the right side, the right side being the gas station ownership, and those have been provided to you. People recognize that this proposal does not detrimentally impact the neighborhood, and they like to see that the built environment remains unchanged. The garage is tucked into the back right corner of the lot, which makes it hard to see from the street, and the parking relief is small and will have no neighborhood impact. as Mr. McKinnon stated. The relief sought does not derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, as I've said. In fact, the relief promotes that intent and purpose. I would note Mass General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 10 states that variances can be owing to structures and circumstances relating to structures on the lot. and so it says Bobrowski has stated in his book on handbook on Massachusetts evidence that the courts have in some cases found that the lot and the structures in the lot can be the basis for variance. I would note that the properties and the structures are unique. I want to show you if you can see this is the Google Street View. So you can see the triple decker. You can see to the right the garage. You can see the existing driveway.
[Unidentified]: I can't see what you're showing.
[Dash]: You can't see what I'm showing. Hold on. Let me stop and start again. Sometimes when I switch, that happens. I think you need to see the neighborhood context. How's that? Fantastic. So this is the triple-decker that we're talking about at 52 Garfield existing. There's in the back the garage. You barely can see it from the street existing. Here's the existing driveway. To the right is the gas station. And if you look up the street here, There are no triple-decker anythings. These houses, almost honestly in the street, kind of all look the same as you go up and go up Garfield further and further. The only triple-decker on the street is us. So this is a... A unique property, a unique situation. It is unique having a 3 family in the, in the zone. It's unique that we have, but this gas station, it's a unique building shape. It's a unique building size. It is unique having this garage that's got the finished bathroom in it. And it is very different from anything else. on the street. I've seen other municipalities grant variances based on the existing, you know, shape and layout of the structures on a lot, and that is the case here for the reasons I stated, the L-shape of the buildings and the triple-decker. I mean, the only way to harmonize the purpose and intent of the zoning and the city's housing policy with the proposal in front of you is tonight to grant the special permit and the variances sought. I mean, the purpose in section 94-1.1 of the Medford Zoning Ordinance is to promote health, safety, morals, convenience, and general welfare of its inhabitants. And that's what this proposal is doing by providing needing housing without changing the neighborhood. And the applicant asks that you approve the relief so it can then go to the Community Development Board for the special permit it needs there. I mean, tonight is not the end, but we would like to be the beginning. So, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Attorney Gash. Any questions from the board for the applicant?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: So my question is actually for the commissioner. I just want to double check what I was saying earlier. So I see that the applicant is requesting the rear, the variance for the rear yard setback, but why, Doesn't this also require a use variance since the change in use creates a new nonconformity?
[Scott Vandewalle]: We went through some conversations on this, I think, back in time. And we did issue some letters and emails. I think he took the perspective that it was an extension of an existing use. And as best as I can recall, we accepted that argument at the time because there were so many other variances that needed to be done. You could look at it probably that your way as well. But I think we looked at it as an acceptable way of dealing with it. OK, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: And so then I also have a question for the applicant. Under the special permit criteria, you don't need to speak to hardship of not granting the special permit, but could you just speak to what would be the hardship if this garage wasn't an additional unit?
[Dash]: Well, as I said, it's already got the bathroom in it, which was there when my client bought the place, right? And it doesn't have garage doors. It really isn't really being used for much of anything right now because it really isn't usable for much of anything right now without some level of zoning relief. And that is sort of what we've been kicking around for a while. I know my client was working on this for a while before even I got involved. We had an earlier application that then was withdrawn. I mean, this seemed to be the best way forward to help sort of have a greater good. and not change anything, rather than tearing the whole thing down and building something compliant. Because the idea was to sort of reuse the building there, but the problem is the building's right on the lot lines, and there's really not a way we found that we could do much of anything without having to come before you for some variance of some sort. That's the hardship we're kind of it's the problem is that I think that the purpose of all of what we're what of what Medford's trying to do is great and a lot of the communities around here are doing the same thing but the zoning ordinance sort of hasn't caught up in my opinion and so I think maybe we're a little ahead of the game on this but I think it's important that and I've seen other boards as I said and I used to sit on the zoning board in Belmont as myself so I certainly respect you know your commitment in the how late you're spending on this tonight but You know, sometimes, you know, a little flexibility is necessary for the greater good, and I think that's what we're looking at here, because there's really no way to realistically utilize it productively without having some level of relief, and this just seemed to be the highest and best use for everybody.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks. One last question. Any luck getting in touch with the resident of 50 Garfield? That seems to be the half of the building on the left-hand side that's directly abutting this property.
[Dash]: Well, we did have the, let me pull up, we did have the letter of support from 48 Northfield on the left, right?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, exactly. So it's two units and it looks like 50 is the one that kind of shares a side yard.
[Dash]: I would ask Mr. Lelaney, actually the owner, because he's the one who actually went around and spoke to his neighbors there.
[SPEAKER_10]: Good evening everyone, and thank you guys for helping us with this. So I did talk to Steve, who is the neighbor, and he actually owns the entire property. His father had passed away about two years ago, and he was able to inherit the property. His daughters live in the neighboring unit next door. So at this point, it's their home, it's their entire family. Yeah, that's pretty much the story for that neighbor. Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: All right, any other questions from the board for the applicant? All right, Board of Regents, a motion for public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to open public comment Second.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Mary Lee. Hi. Hi.
[Yvette Velez]: Hi.
[Unidentified]: Hi. I'm Jamie Thompson. Hi. We are open for public comment. Please if anybody on the call would raise your hand or you can email. Dennis McDougall at dmcdougall.net at medford-ma.gov. Later we get the one that I saved.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close the public portion of the hearing in open deliberation.
[Unidentified]: I second. Thank you. Andrew LaRue.
[SPEAKER_04]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Michael Ware. Carmen Velas.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mary Lee.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: And Jamie Thompson. Aye. All right, what does everybody think?
[Yvette Velez]: I'm actually, um, I think it's a nice addition. I think it fits that specific corner and I don't think it would be, um, yeah, that's all I have to say right now.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll just say, well, I, um, think there's some amount of ambiguity. I'm. comfortable accepting the interpretation that only a use variance is not required here. I think if there wasn't the separate need for the variance for the new dimensional violation, then I would not be comfortable. But here it's a little ambiguous in the Medford ordinance. And so I think maybe the special permit coupled with that variance is still consistent, 5.4. Okay, thank you, Bob.
[Andre Leroux]: Andrew? I'll let the building commissioner go first.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Commissioner? I do want to comment, just following up on Mike's comment. We did Attorney Dash and Daniel Evans from PDS and I did go back and forth quite a bit. Part of the argument was, can you extend a use to a non-joint structure? which is what led it more towards a special permit than a variance. So there was quite a bit of back and forth on that very conversation. And that's ultimately, it's where we landed. It doesn't make us right. It's just where we landed as a consensus.
[Andre Leroux]: So that's all. So just a couple of comments. You know, I'm generally a supporter of flexibility and more housing. But there's a couple of things about this that are hard for me to justify, and they are That there are garages up and down the street in this neighborhood. And if we allow a property owner to put in a garage unit, then there's essentially we're setting the precedent for all of them. And I don't believe that the city has. Has really made it a policy to do that. And I know that there might be some zoning changes in the future and. Concerning, you know, 80 use and and accessory structures. So. I mean, honestly, I prefer that policy to be in place. Because otherwise, I just don't see, you know, I don't see a hardship for all of the variances. And I feel like, you know, the bathroom that's in the garage was just kind of put in there, assuming that there's going to be a unit eventually for, you know, without any justification. I'm also a little concerned about the fact that the, you know, the entire front yard has been hardscaped. Is there parking in the front yard? So why has it been hardscaped?
[Dash]: I don't know that that's hardscape. I'm looking at the packet. If I could share a screen again, let me grab the picture so we can at least see all what we're talking about here. I don't think that's hardscape. That's a yard in front, right?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, yeah, but the more recent photo is hardscape. So you've actually changed that recently.
[Dash]: You were doing work on the property before. I can't speak to the landscaping bit of it. I can speak to the fact that that bathroom is old. That bathroom isn't something that was done in anticipation of this. The bathroom was there when Mr. LeLaney got the property. I would also note this is a unique non-conforming three-family on the street. I don't believe these others are three-families.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, right, but it's already incrementally more non-conforming. I just don't understand the justification for then going up to four units when everything else is two-family in the neighborhood.
[Dash]: I mean, I'm initially going to speak to the landscaping bit.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, sure. So, so there's a curve that we put there that divides the hardscape area that you're calling it with the paved area. And so, so that is a permeable substrate, and so it doesn't affect any of the water runoff or anything like that from the property, but it also creates a clear passage for the tenants are currently living there to come and go from the property. Um, and as a landlord, I am actually seeing on the ground, um, a lot of applications and a lot of people looking for studios. Um, you know, I've seen people put boarding houses up and kind of rent rooms out. Um, and I don't think that's the approach in Medford generally wants to take. Um, I can't speak for the committee and for everybody else on the board, but, um, I generally don't think that that's, that's a safe alternative for housing. Um, and I think that this does alleviate the burden of a lot of financial flexibility for people who are coming out of state. Um, I have tenants who have come in from Kentucky, go to school out there. Um, They're looking for, you know, cheap locations, places that are like $1,000 a month, very easy to get into, very easy to get out of. They don't have the commitment or the people or the resources to come into Medford and kind of work close by or go to school nearby.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I'm not questioning the need for housing units of these kinds. It's really like the kind of the legal and policy pieces of it that I'm questioning. I don't know if Danielle has anything to add on.
[Unidentified]: Did you have a separate question?
[Danielle Evans]: No, I just wanted to provide some context. So yeah, this has been going on a while. My understanding is It's been serving as a rec room, maybe an illegal unit, but illegally at some point, I'm saying before you bought it. And you also said that you lived there. So I didn't realize that this was an investor owner situation. Because originally they wanted to do, they were asking if they could do an ADU. And ADUs can only be accessory to single family dwellings. You can't have an ADU for a three family. So then the conversation changed to, OK, well, can we make this a fourth unit? Well, it would be a fourth unit, but now it would be a principal structure and subject to the increased setbacks for a principal structure, not an accessory structure. And if you want to have two principal structures, you need a special permit from the CD board, which is the SPGA board. to have more than one principal structure in the single-family zones. So there was many different permutations of how to do this. And I'm not taking a position of whether I support it or not. It was, OK, they wanted to apply for it. How do we make this to be a legal unit? Is it a rec room or a man cave or whatever you wanted to call it? The building commissioner and I, and Adam Dash, came up with this seemed to be a path that could go to your board. But finding the path doesn't mean that I support the application. I'm just going to be neutral on this.
[Dash]: I would note this case has gone on for so long that Mr. Leilani did used to live there and no longer does. That's how long this has been going on for. And there have been some, he has informally, you know, used it, used the garage, you know, when he was living there, but not as a separate unit or anything like that. I can't speak to in the way way back what was done there. I mean, clearly that garage, that bathroom is not new and the bathroom was not put in by Mr. Leilani. So whatever some prior owner did back in the day, I don't know. It would be, if I could prove that there was a fourth unit there once, it probably would have helped our case. I don't know what was there before, other than the fact that the bathroom is there. I don't know, Manisha, if you have anything to add to that.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, so basically in the last year, I got a promotion. I got a job. We no longer have remote work as an opportunity. I work in New Hampshire. I live in New Hampshire now. So that was a big life change that occurred for me. So to make that adaptation, it was obviously very stressful and hard. And in the background, we've had this thing going on with this dialogue. So that's the explanation in terms of my residency. In terms of the condition of the property and what occurred before my ownership. I did talk to Steve who was a neighbor. He's not 100% sure if anyone's lived there. He said when he was younger, growing up, he would go there all the time and hang out with his friends. And I'm not sure if they would sleep there or not or use it as a unit. But it sounded like a recreation room. It could have been more. I really can't say definitively from that conversation.
[Dash]: But it hasn't been used for car parking, you know, either. You can see there's no way to even get a car into there. There's not even a garage door on it anymore. So we've kind of been struggling, as you can see, with what to do with this. And this seemed to be the best path that we felt forward that also met the city's goals in the housing production plan. And sort of in the fact that the city has these ADUs, it seemed like a way to go forward, because it's sort of a bit of a puzzle. Because we're trying to keep the existing built environment.
[Unidentified]: Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so just bring this back to deliberations. So the way I'm seeing it, I think in terms of detriment, probably not a lot. It's next to a gas station. The neighbors seem fine with it. But the hardship in this case, so on the one hand the inability to use this as a garage, that's a self-created hardship by the prior owner that unfortunately the law basically Mr. Mulaney inherits that self-created hardship. So just because the prior owner did it doesn't make it no longer self-created. It's an inherited self-created hardship. And then I think this next bit is a little bit, I'm not aware of direct case law examples, but I would claim that changing a use to trigger a variance and then saying that the location of the structure that is then the hardship. That strikes me too as a self-created hardship. And I know there's cases more with subdivision where unusual lots were created by subdivision and then claimed as a hardship in the courts of rule that constitutes self-created hardship. So here, know, I don't really think there's a strong hardship case to be made here for the variances because the prior owner did something weird to a garage of their own choice and then, um, in trying to change the use here, that's triggering the need for these variances. If we didn't change the use, these variances wouldn't be required. And then when I go to intent of the ordinance, the ordinance intends for ADUs to be a thing on single-family residences. It intends for garages to generally be garages. So I don't... I'm not sure I'm at a place of comfort with this one.
[Dash]: I would note, just looking, I've got my Bobrowski out here, that it does talk about the self-created hardship, and it does quote 2K1 Lamb v. Owing Board of Appeals of Taunton from 2010, the appeals court ruling, the existence of self-created hardship does not disqualify petitioner from applying for a variance. trial court ruled that this knowledge was self-created hardship which disqualified the person the appeals court reversed saying to hold otherwise would foreclose purchasers of non-conforming properties from obtaining variances regardless of other circumstances if they knew of the non-conformity at the time of the purchase and the appeals court did indicate such knowledge could be a factor in the decision making i mean you can make whatever decision you want on it i think you can take it into account and not attribute it to mr lalani but you know um you also could
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, through the chair, I'm familiar with that one. And my interpretation is essentially that in this case, the original ruling was essentially trying to penalize the property owner for the self-created hardship. So it was like, well, you can't get the relief because the hardship was self-created. I'm not claiming that in this case, it's more that A self-created hardship is not a compelling reason in and of itself for a variant. So if there's other hardships, that are not self-created just because there happens to be a self-created hardship. I think I'm interpreting that precedent as really reinforcing that in those circumstances, a board maybe rightly should grant variances. But in a case where the hardship itself in its entirety is perhaps self-created, I'm not sure that precedent really applies.
[Dash]: It's an interesting discussion for sure. I mean, I would go back to Chapter 48, Section 10 about how variances can be owing to circumstances relating to the structures on the lot. Way back in the day, someone built structures in this fashion, but I don't know that that self-creates a hardship. I mean, the garage was built on the lot line. The garage is on the lot line. I can't do anything about the garage being on the lot line or the fact that the garage is that close to the house or the other variances that we're seeking. And the fact that it's just very difficult because nothing is changing. And I think the neighbors like that nothing is changing. We can make a nice compliant project if we tore everything down, but I think the neighbors would probably get upset and that doesn't help Medford or anybody. Nor is it great for the environment to be wasting a perfectly good structure like that. So, we're just trying to sort of, I mean, the hardship is this situation that we're in with the structures as they're laid out on that lot. And the fact that we have a very large, you know, triple decker with a garage back in the corner like that, that's the other part of it. And we've, as Danielle said correctly, and as the commissioner said correctly, we've been, this has been kicked around for even longer than I've been involved in the case, which has been some time now. And it's been very difficult to figure out what to do with this property. And this seemed to be a way that the neighbors liked and we could work with and everybody could work with that meets the purpose of the zoning and meets the housing production plan and sort of hits a lot of goals. And I guess I would just ask that, in light of all of that, to have some flexibility or creativity with this one. It is a unique oddball on the street, being up against the gas station and all of that and being shoved back in the corner. And nobody else has our situation on that street, as I showed you the picture. So I don't think what precedent there would be. There's no one else. They have garages, but they don't have what we've got. So it is kind of a weird, unique situation, which is kind of what variances are for.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm sorry, just what do you mean what we've got? Like there's garages up and down the street, but yours is different in what way?
[Dash]: The garage is up against the gas station. It's shoved in the back, and we've got a triple-decker on the lot. Our layout on the lot of everything is not the same as everybody else's. So we are sort of an oddball. As I showed you, we're a unique structure in that neighborhood. And being in this SF2 zone, I don't even know why it's in the SF2 zone, but it is. So, I mean, there's really no way... If it were a single family house, then we could do an ADU, right? I mean, but it's not because we're not like everybody else on the street. So we're sort of stuck in this situation.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. But I guess my big problem is I live within walking distance of this property, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. I walk these streets a lot, and I know that they're all basically two families. Many of them have garages. If we grant this, how can we not grant it for every other property on the street? That would seem to be making a policy that the city doesn't have so I, my question for, you know, Director hunter or Danielle would be, I don't you know this is the first time I've seen this project so I know you've talked about, you have a big history here but I maybe I need to understand a little bit more of that history like what What are the other things that have been done? Why is this the only path forward here? And also, from the city's perspective, is this a policy we want to encourage?
[Danielle Evans]: So it is a path that they can apply for. Basically, I can't tell people not to apply for things. They really wanted to apply for it. I said, keep it a rec room. And they really wanted to. You can't tell someone they can't apply for something. So take your chances with the board. This was an avenue. So I didn't say that they could meet the tests to have it granted. But it was something that they could apply for. to have a fourth unit. It was just, there was a way. There seemed to be different ways you could come at it. I try not to have people apply for long shots if I think it's a long shot, but this was a piston hitting my inbox for the last, I think it was maybe last summer we started talking about this. I think it was the summer. So we just, again, I was just really surprised it ever made it on the agenda. I thought it went away at one point, but sorry, it's really late and I'm getting loopy. But I didn't say it was a path to get approved, but it was, this is the bazillion things you need relief from if you wish to apply here you go. basically what the story is for this.
[Dash]: So a lot of relief for not changing anything really on the ground.
[SPEAKER_10]: I wouldn't say this is necessarily a precedence for all the other garages, since the abutters for the principal structure, which would be the garage that would turn into a studio, would be a commercial lot and then the other three family. So there's not a lot of situations on the street that have that scenario where they get sandwiched between a commercial lot and another residency. And the other residency happens to be the three family. So anyone who were to pass down the driveway up and down, it wouldn't affect any of the abutters for that principal structure, if that makes any sense in legal terms.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Thank you. Chris, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I know, well, it is late, and I just offered this one thing that I know neighboring communities have looked into, what is essentially an accessory work unit, if you will, although it's not usually referred to it as that. But there is a lot of need for smaller workspaces, and it may have a less, and I don't even know, we don't have that in the zoning code So I'm not sure how that would work, but there are certainly instances where people are looking for small workspaces, which may not have the burden of a housing unit, for instance.
[Unidentified]: Any other discussion from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I would love to hear what Mary and yourself, Jamie, think about this.
[Unidentified]: For me, I see the value in adding additional units in the city. We do need housing. I did look at this from an ADU perspective, but I am challenged because the goal of ADUs is single-family lots, where you're not in a multifamily environment. I do feel that the variances don't exist until you issue the special permit. So we are creating the hardship by issuing a special permit. For me, I do see the value in adding units where this is a three-family, but it is a single SF2 zone. Again, the question of this property sitting in this zone to begin with, it was developed at some point. It is a challenge for me to move forward with this based on all the maneuvering to make it happen.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm in a motion to approve the requested release.
[Dash]: I mean if it would help I mean I I'm sorry I didn't mean to if I could just before you vote and I don't know Monish if you wanted if it would help if you want us to go back and you know see what we can come up with to make you more comfortable with it we'd be willing to do that at a future meeting certainly however the board wants to take it of course.
[Mary Lee]: I'm sorry, I was having trouble with the zoom, but I do want to say something because. I feel like the request is asking us to recognize a garage as a housing dwelling. And I tend to agree with Andre and Mike. I don't think I'm at the point of recognizing that structure there as illegal. dwelling. And I feel like that's what you're all asking us to do. I mean, there must be other alternatives for the use of that structure. I mean, have you ever thought of other alternatives rather than just asking us through this application to recognize that as a fourth unit dwelling?
[Dash]: Yes, through the chair, I mean, we have talked about things. I don't think that there's anything that's by right. I think we're going to be back in front of somebody to get some relief for something as we've kicked around a number of things because, you know, if you attach it to the main house, then you are having your principal structure too close to the lot line and you're back at the variance. I mean, we don't, we end up with the same sort of go around, circle your problem with this. I guess unless you just put a lawnmower in it and called it a day, which seems like a bit of a waste, but for a space that's not, that's sort of, you know, usable for other things. But, I mean, we could go back and talk about it some more if that's the board's, you know, desire, because I know it is getting late tonight. But however you want to handle it.
[Mike Caldera]: What did you say Mike? I didn't hear that. Motion to approve the requested release.
[Dash]: And we were asking to see if we could continue it.
[SPEAKER_10]: I guess I'm interested to know what the board is looking for to satisfy the needs of the community and what their expectations are to increase their studio housing in the community. And what I'm seeing in Medford is a lot of people are buying one-bedroom houses. They're doing a lot of additions. They'll make them into two or three-bedroom houses after they've owned them for a few years. And then they end up selling these houses that are three-bedroom houses. And now there's no more one-bedroom houses in the community for people to buy. Converting a garage into a studio kind of locks that into that framework. And you kind of put it into a position where it's not possible to expand a studio and a garage. It's always going to be a studio as a garage. and it's always gonna be the community as a studio. There won't be a developer who comes in and makes it into a three bedroom or tears it down and makes a townhouse. It's never gonna become that. So in light of that, I think that that's an interesting piece of information just because of the structure itself.
[Scott Vandewalle]: So just wanted to add that.
[Mary Lee]: I second Mike's motion.
[Yvette Velez]: I'm sorry, did Mike just continue it? My Zoom skipped out.
[Mike Caldera]: It's a motion. Mike made a motion.
[Yvette Velez]: You both talked over each other. I didn't catch that.
[Unidentified]: Mike made a motion to approve and Mary seconded.
[Yvette Velez]: So I'm going to say yes.
[Danielle Evans]: The variances or the special permit, which one are you approving?
[Unidentified]: All of them. I believe we have to go through the special permits one by one because the variances don't exist until we approve the special permit.
[Andre Leroux]: May I ask a point of information to the chair, maybe to one of the lawyers? Yes. So if this were to be approved as two principal structures on one lot, does that mean they could be, then the lot could be subdivided and then sold separately?
[Dash]: I would think the lot is not large enough to do that. And I'll also note that no matter what, if you voted to approve all this, we would still have to go to the Community Development Board for a special permit to have two principal structures on one lot. approving this here tonight would not end the approval process.
[Mike Caldera]: Point of order, Jamie, if you want to rule my motion out of order and start with the one that went fine.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we have to continue the vote.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, yeah, so we'll rule that motion out of order. All right, motion, and so you want to do the special permit first, is that what I said?
[Unidentified]: The first item would be the special permit for a three to four unit.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, motion to approve this special permit.
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Unidentified]: All right, roll call. Yvette Velez?
[Mary Lee]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Michael Darin?
[Mary Lee]: No.
[Unidentified]: Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: No.
[Unidentified]: Andrea Leo? No. Jamie Thompson? No. We do not need to proceed with the other votes because they don't exist without that special grant. All right. Attorney Dash, would you... We don't need a draft, I apologize.
[Denis MacDougall]: Nope. I'll get it. Thank you, Jones.
[Dash]: All right, well, thank you for the consideration.
[SPEAKER_10]: Can I just ask the board a question? I am genuinely curious how the public city plans, because as an individual who owns multiple properties in the city, I'm curious how would they solve that problem of having student use?
[Unidentified]: You can talk with city officials outside of this public meeting. OK.
[Alicia Hunt]: May I, Jamie? I would invite you, you can reach out to our office. I don't know if you have Danielle's contact, she can pass along mine, that we can, the planning office, we can, because we actually do want to talk to property owners in the city about future zoning changes. So you're welcome to reach out to our office.
[SPEAKER_10]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I would just hate to see the city have boarding houses everywhere with bedrooms rented out individually. I've seen six bedroom houses rented out that way, It's a fire hazard, it's a safety issue, it's a liability for a homeowner.
[Unidentified]: I think illegal.
[SPEAKER_10]: And it's illegal too, right? But it is being done and it's vulnerable, kind of what you said, so.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Scott Vandewalle]: That's my fear.
[Unidentified]: And I believe that is all our cases, Dennis, administrative items?
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing for in terms of admin stuff for tonight, I think. The only really other thing is the meeting minutes I sent you, but I don't know if you had enough time to review them or not, but that's pretty much the last thing I can think of.
[Unidentified]: Just for the board, did everybody have a chance to review the minutes that Dennis sent out?
[Mike Caldera]: I had a chance to review them, and I also watched a recording of the meeting, but I wasn't physically present. So ideally, someone who is physically present must also review them.
[Unidentified]: Has everybody had a chance to review the 328 minutes? Jim's not present. Do we have to wait for him to be present?
[Andre Leroux]: And then we can continue because I. And I wasn't there. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, and Jim's not here, so we only have 4 people. Well, I continue those to the next meeting.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just right. Oh, I actually just do 1 other last thing is that I sent out some decisions for signatures. So if you can get on that tonight or tomorrow morning, that would be helpful. So I can file them tomorrow in the clerk's office. If you haven't done it already, please do so.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Thomas.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mayor. We will do roll that the rest.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Andrew.
[SPEAKER_19]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mayor Lee.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Michael there.
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: And Jamie Thompson, aye. Thank you everybody for your patience and have a good night.