[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the May 30th session of the Medford Zoning of Appeals. My name is Jamie Thompson. I'm serving as chair for the board. We're going to take a quick little call attendance. Mike Caldera? Present. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andre Leroux? Present. James Tirani is absent. Mary Lee? Present. Kristi Evetta? and Jamie Thompson present. Okay, Dennis, you don't need to read anything. So we're going to go out of order. We do have one continuance request for 360 Salem Street in Medford. Dennis, could you read that item?
[Denis MacDougall]: 360 Salem Street. Case number a dash 2024-15 African and owner have it up to LLC is positioned to convert to the commercial condominium at 360 Salem Street is a medical offices, which is an apartment to zoning district, thereby requiring a special permit under the city methods on the organs chapter 94 table a table of use and parking regulations.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. And for procedure, so we do have a lot of people on the call. I know this is one of the items that a majority of people are here for. I do want to let you know that this item is being continued. They do need to go before the Community Development Board prior to coming to the Zoning Board, so it's being continued. The Community Development Board, I believe, Alicia, can you confirm that is scheduled for June 26th? Thank you. The Community Development Board for this case will be June 26th and they'll now be coming back to the Zoning Board June 27th at 6.30 our regular monthly meetings. So do I have a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to continue 360 Salem Street to the June 27th regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: 2nd, thank you, Mary and we'll do a roll call. Mike event. Hi, Andre. Hi, Mary. Hi, I'm Jamie. Hi. So, 360 Salem street again is continued for the zoning board to June 27th. it will be appearing in front of this community development board June 26th. I know we've got a lot of people to join for that. I do appreciate you coming today and I apologize that you don't need to join those additional meetings.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, just to jump in. So the zoom the zoom account that you logged on tonight. For our meeting, it will be the exact same zoom account. So there'll be no need to zoom account and the. Community Development Board information will be on the city's website. So if you just go to the city's calendar, it'll be on there with the Zoom information on that. And if you have any questions, you can email me. I'm just going to throw my email up in the chat. And I can get you the information.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Second item on the agenda, we're taking out of order to a mystic Avenue.
[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis, can you read that case to a mystic Avenue case number 40 dash 2024-01 April 20. April 25th, sorry. The resumption of consideration of the petition of Combined Properties Incorporated for comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, the multi-family, eight-story apartment development located in approximately 3.2 acres of land at 278-282 Mystic Avenue. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 378-unit, consisting of a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, with 96 of them being designated as affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. So, if we're looking for an update on this project from the city to discuss scheduling the next meeting for this case. Do we have somebody either from the applicant or from the city that can speak to this item?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, second. Thank you, Dennis. Just try to see if the applicant was on. I don't see him or the representative on the call. And I can give you an update at the end of the last meeting. We actually, you voted to go forward with peer reviewers and we requested. That the applicant to provide us with the payment for that, and we have not received payment from that for that.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, so. With Alicia, thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I was so focused on other things. I apologize. I didn't realize that this would be on this evening. We did get. legal advice on this, on the facts. So I have talked to the applicant and it wasn't clear what he wanted to do. So we had a very confusing conversation, just to put it clearly like that. And he was looking for support from the city before moving forward, before paying for peer review. And I tried to explain that we needed the peer review in order to render opinions on the project. So I asked for a legal opinion. And the legal opinion was that the board made by majority vote require that the applicant pay a reasonable review fee in accordance with 760 CMR 5605.B. for the employment of outside consultants chosen by the board, and that he recommends that the board vote to accept one of the peer review proposals and require that the applicant pay the review fee by a certain date. And I'm just sort of, because we don't have rules saying that they must do that, you would need to vote to do that. The board's rules may provide that if the applicant fails to pay the review fee within the stated period, the board may deny the comprehensive permit. By not receiving the money, what has happened for us in the past when we haven't received payments in a timely manner, but the applicant indicated that they were willing to pay the peer review fees, then we've said to them, well, if this means that the meetings are going to drag on longer than they would have been, then we expect that you will agree to extend this hearing on the back end. And they usually, in the past, they've said, if that becomes necessary, we would. So I've also let the applicant know that. And he verbally said to me, well, if it goes on an extra month or two, you know, on the back end, that's not really going to be an issue for us. That is not in writing agreeing to extend the hearing. So I can drop the exact language into the chat to one of the members or to the chair or to each of you so that you have it if you were to prefer to do this. But basically, it's voting to accept the peer review proposal. and require that the applicant pay by a date certain that you would name tonight.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike, you've got your hand up. Do you have a question for Alicia?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So Alicia, if you could drop that in the chat for me, I am planning to make a motion. But I also just raise my hand to say it's disappointing to hear that the applicant has not only delayed paying the city to retain peer review consultants, but it also sounds like there hasn't been any progress in providing the additional requested documentation that the peer reviewers and the city staff will be required to review for this project. And so when we were discussing this at the last hearing, I was in favor of a longer continuation so that the applicant would have time to provide that information because they have not been responsive thus far in my assessment. And so keeping that in mind, I would like to make a motion that the board require the applicant to pay reasonable review fee in accordance with 760 CMR 56.05B so that the city can retain the employment of outside consultants. Furthermore, I motion that the board accept the peer review proposals that the city has received. This was from Davis Square Architects and Tetra Tech, is that right, Felicia?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion that we accept each of those proposals and require the applicant to pay the review fee within five business days of today. The review fee should be paid by June 6th. And furthermore, I'd like to motion that the board find that the applicant has not been responsive in paying the review fee or in providing additional information for the board's consideration on this project.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: That's a lot on the table at once. Alicia, go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: And so I just want to add that one thing that he expressed was that he had expected a written list of documents that the board wanted to see. And I tried to explain that usually that's produced by the peer review consultant, that what they pay the fee, the peer review consultants then look at the list of what been provided, what they need, and they provide us with a written list of documents and information that they need, and we send it to them. If the board felt that they could generate a list of what exactly they want or want us to go back to what was requested for a previous applicant and just send them that, that's conceivable. But I just, I felt that in transparency, I should share that that was part of their consternation their confusion around this.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, if I may, through you, I would be comfortable with suggesting that Director Hunt direct them to the video recording of the first hearing in which I made about a five-minute statement on exactly this and told them exactly what I expected. So I am sure there will be additional requests by the peer review consultants once the fee is actually paid and they can be retained. But this is not a situation where there's ambiguity. We've been clear, and the response thus far has not been timely. So I made my motion.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do we have a second? Second. Any questions from the board on the motions?
[Mike Caldera]: So just to reiterate, the motion is essentially that we accept the proposals for Davis Square Architects and Tetra Tech require the applicant pay the review fee within five business days, which is June 6th, and find that the applicant's responses thus far have not been timely.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. I'll do a roll call on that. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andre LaRue? Aye. Mary Lee? Aye. Christy Evano? Mike Caldera?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, Chris is actually having problems unmuting, so we just have to go for visual cue for those votes.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Mike Caldera? Aye. And Jamie Thompson? Aye. I just want to provide a quick update. For those that have joined, we did continue 360 Salem Street, the medical use request to the June 27th session of the zoning board, they do have to meet with in front of the community development board before coming to our board. That community development board meeting will be on June 26th. So if you are here for 360 Salem Street, we will we've continued that and we're not going to be reviewing it today.
[Mike Caldera]: So Jamie, for this case, I'm going to motion we continue it to the Um, July 25th regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Uh, you want to go to July, not June?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, we don't even have consultants in hand. I see no reason to... Like, we need consultants. They need documents. The city, the applicant needs to talk to the city. We've already made requests. It's not a good intent. Yeah, exactly. That's the intention.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. Uh, do we have a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: Second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Uh, real calm, uh, under the roof. Hi, Mary Lee. I might tell Dara. All right. I bet the lives. Hi, I'm Jamie Thompson. I. All right, uh, to 80 mystic ab is continued to the July 25th. Regular meeting of the record zoning board of appeals. Um, we will move to 970 fells way and I will give the chair to Mike held our for this case.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Jamie. Um, Dennis, can you please read this 1?
[Denis MacDougall]: 970 Fellsway case number 40B-2023-01. Resumption of consideration of petition of DIV Fellsway LLC of the Davis Companies for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B for multi-family, six-story apartment development located in approximately 3.4 acres of land at 970 Fellsway. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 289 units pursuant to 278 units of multi-family housing in 11 townhomes, with 73 of them being designated as affordable housing to vote moderate proposals.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thank you. All right, folks, so first of all, if you haven't been watching this particular hearing, it started back in November. At that time, I was the ZBA chair. So for continuity's sake, I'm continuing on as acting chair for this matter. We've met quite a number of times over that period to discuss all aspects of the project. Oh, about nine days ago, we met and were actually on the cusp of having a final decision and vote. And there were just a few items that the applicant and the city agreed it would be productive to just take another week back and forth. And so at this point, we've already reviewed a draft of the decision, including All of the site plans and architectural plans and engineering and the peer review letters and draft language for the decision, proposed conditions, proposed waivers, all of this has already been discussed. So today we're not, as a board, going to be you know, revisiting any of that. We're entirely here just to talk about some of the updates that have happened in the past week and potentially to vote on this matter. So the board has received an update of the, you know, Um, this is a draft, um, decision, um, that was reviewed in the prior public meeting and has also received some additional details from the applicant pertaining, um, to some work items that, um, potential offsets against the linkage obligation. So yeah, we've received these updates offline. They're in the public record. We're going to briefly talk about them in the meeting here and then the board may make a decision on this case. So I see we have Pat Noon here for the applicant. I see we have Attorney Tam. We have Attorney Haverty, who's been the city's 40B consultant. So I'm going to quickly check in with Pat Noon just to make sure we've got everything covered, and then we'll be talking with Attorney Haverty and Attorney Tam as needed. Please go ahead, Pat. Oh, we'll have to unmute Pat.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think large meeting settings are in effect.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, you're all set.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the board, thank you. Thank you again for having us this evening. I have nothing to add to the agenda that you just laid out, so we can move forward as you suggested.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, wonderful. So I guess maybe it's helpful for us to just start with the subject of linkage, so I'll just state my understanding from having reviewed the documents the board received. So as part of this project, let me pull up the exact number so that I don't misstate anything. The applicant is estimating on the order of one point, sorry, not on the order, one point There's $1,263,700 worth of total costs in voluntary additions to the project that benefit the public, such as road facilities, park facilities, and so on. These include things like changes, improvements to roads that are off-site, replacement of an MBTA bus shelter, installation of a blue bike station, a publicly accessible playground and fitness area on the site, The ordinary, if this was under 40A, the linkage payment obligation is closer to on the order of 800,000. So the improvements, the voluntary improvements by the applicant's estimates are well in excess of the 800,000. linkage payment obligation. And typically under 40A, these types of improvements are considered by the city as potential credits against the linkage obligation. And so as I understand it, there is a proposal that I know has been discussed with the city. I don't know if there's differing views on it, but The applicant is proposing to make a linkage payment in the amount of $26,693.28 in addition to the payments for the various project costs I just outlined. These would be attributed to police and fire. So under linkage ordinarily, The portion of the payment goes towards water facilities, sewer facilities, road facilities, park facilities, police facilities, and fire facilities. This project does not do anything specifically to improve police facilities or fire facilities. And so as I understand it, the thought process here is, well, the applicant would offer to make this payment, you know, so that that still goes towards the intended use, but then the improvements elsewhere, you know, more than compensate for the amount that would ordinarily be due under linkage. So that's my understanding. I just want to double check. I guess I'll go back to Pat to see if I misunderstood anything there. You may need to unmute Pat again.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is that something you could do, Dennis? Oh, there we go. Great.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that is correct. After having some productive meetings with members of staff and DPW, the summary that you provided is accurate and we are prepared to make a linkage fee payment in that amount directed towards the police and fire facilities.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. I will open it up to questions or comments from the board on this matter.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, this is Andre. I just have a question to see if Alicia could speak to this, just so that we have confirmation from the city that we're all set with this.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, sure, yeah. Director Hunt, could you just speak to this? Does the city have a position on the proposal?
[Alicia Hunt]: Certainly. Given that this is a comprehensive permit and it's being handled differently than we would handle linkages and linkage credits through the regular process of the Community Development Board, it seems reasonable to me a lot of the buckets The dollars don't line up exactly directly, but they are generally DPW-type things. And so this offer to put some of the money that would normally go into the police and fire, because each of these is a trust. And so the money that would go into the police and fire trust would still do that, but not plenish the DPW trust. But they are doing a bunch of work that would be DPW-type work. is a reasonable compromise in this specific situation.
[Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you, Director Hunt. Yeah, thanks. That's clarifying.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions or comments from the board on this matter?
[Mike Caldera]: So if a member of the board would like, someone could make a motion to amend the draft decision to include a partial waiver of the linkage payment obligation in the amount of having to do math on the fly.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think it's listed here somewhere.
[SPEAKER_14]: $26,693.28. That's the amount that would still be due.
[Mike Caldera]: So the waiver would be in the amount of the $800,000 minus that. So the waiver would be $816,564.24. That's inclusive of the... So that's already considering the $26,000 or is that the...
[SPEAKER_14]: That's the amount of the waiver. So that's the total was $843,257.52 subtracting the $26,693.28 you left with the waiver being $816,564.24. And that's all from the proposed modified condition that the applicant proposed.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: A motion to amend the draft decision for a partial waiver of the linkage payment in the amount of $816,564.24. Do I have a second? Second. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: And so because of the Mullen rule, we're going to focus the votes on the four members who've been at either all or all but one of the
[Adam Hurtubise]: the hearings.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue? Aye. Jamie Thompson? Aye. Mike Caldera? Aye. All right. So I think linkage is now settled. So if we need to discuss it, at or Attorney Tam can raise their hand. But otherwise, I'll go next to Attorney Haverty. The board has received the updated draft decision. I've had a chance to review it. I think we've all had a chance to review it. Could you maybe just give a high-level summary of the current state and if there are any open items or kind of notable changes between the draft we reviewed last week and now.
[SPEAKER_14]: Sure. So what I did was I submitted a tracked change version and then a separate tracked change version with most changes accepted, but with really the highlights left in. So that's what I would propose to go over is that version. And the first outstanding issue that I need resolved is on page 10 in condition 8.8.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, can we bring that one up? The changes mostly accepted version. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_14]: So there's a couple of outstanding issues with regard to this condition. And then there's also some additional language. So the first question that needs to be addressed is the applicant has proposed reducing the amount of time for responses to the submittal of final plans to 30 days, rather than the 45 days that was in the original draft condition. And they have also proposed capping peer review fees to a total amount of $25,000. And I know the building commissioner has expressed some concerns with both of these. And the building commissioner also expressed some concerns with regards to just sort of the timing in general. So, I did add language at the end of this. Just to clarify that a response indicating that additional time is required for review of plans shall be sufficient to prevent constructive approval of final plans. No condition within this decision shall be interpreted to encroach upon or otherwise constrain the authority of the building commissioner acting under the state building code. The conditions contained herein pertain solely to the administration of this comprehensive permit and that was to address concerns. that were raised by the building commissioner that he thought that some of these conditions may have been infringing upon his exclusive jurisdiction under the state building code, which you cannot do under chapter 40 B. So I just wanted to make sure that I was clarifying that, but ultimately what I need from the board is to get a sense as to whether they think the 30 day time period is sufficient or whether they want the 45 days and what their thoughts are on the cap of the peer review fees.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, could you navigate down to that one? I think it's the first thing you'll see in red in this copy. So I guess my point of uncertainty and concern with 30 days is that there are some administrative steps we have to do to schedule meetings and as a zoning board, and so we typically meet every 30 days today. So if it's 30-day period and it comes just in an unfortunate timing, presumably not intentional, just like a bad timing situation, It may very well be the case that the board must hear this at a hearing that for whatever reason is not conducive for this review. So I think 45 days should give the board a little bit more options just for eating scheduling and so on. In terms of the cap on the, Peer review fees, I presume that would be for peer review of changes, not the peer review fees incurred during this hearing. But I see Mr. Tam has his hand raised. Please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as a point of clarification, would not necessarily disagree with the Building Commissioner's concern, but I point to other 40B decisions which this board has granted, including most recently at 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, 30 days was provided there. Again, I think with the language that Attorney Haverty has included, there is ample protection. It just requires a response. The response can basically say, we need more time. So there is this policy preference that's contemplated in 40B for a deliberate, timely process. And we just want to be considered like any other applicant. So I think where that precedent has been established by the board, we're OK with the additional language, which provides, I think, the building commissioner adequate flexibility. But I think we would appreciate to be treated like other applicants and simply expect a response. And the language here says reasonably, right? We'll use reasonable efforts to review and provide a written response. That's all.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Thank you. I want to check in with the building commissioner. Scott, do you? What are your current thoughts now that this language has been added? Do you think the 30 days are less concerning? And also, what are your thoughts on the cap for the period use?
[Scott Vandewalle]: First thing I should point out is this is the building permit approval process. It will not come back to the board in any way. This is what is defined by 780 CMR, Mass General Chapter 143, and it states in the building code, I shall have 30 days to respond, not necessarily to approve, but to respond. So that is consistent with what the state building code calls for. It's not uncommon for these things to take longer than 30 days. It's not uncommon for applicants to not submit everything they need within the required time. So it also takes long. Plus, if I go out for peer review, of the documents from a construction and code perspective, which is what the money is set aside for that could take me longer than 30 days. So they would get a response saying we need more time. Here's why. There is no element of constructive approval through the building code that cannot happen. It does not happen. So I anticipate getting a set of documents and beginning to review with a peer reviewer. for probably firing code to some of those and responding in 30 days that perhaps we need more time, which is a pretty common process we do with everybody. It doesn't treat them differently, but this does align it with the language of the state building code more accurately.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and do you think the, so I understand the thought process and having a cap on the fees just so that it's a little bit more tangible for the applicant is, what are your thoughts on the 25,000 cap? Is that appropriate? Is that too low, too high?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I do not have a good handle on what the actual costs may be. We'll certainly triage it in the sense we'll focus on fire code and egress type of issues first before we get into more aesthetic and less, you know, less safety oriented issues. But I don't have a budget in mind at this time. I have not reached out to anybody yet to determine what a budget might be to do this.
[Mike Caldera]: And so hypothetically, if the board were to impose a cap and then you were to determine that review by an outside consultant was required and the consultant fees were in excess of that cap, am I correct in my understanding that the city would basically have to choose between not having a consultant or paying the difference?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Here's the complication within the building code in chapter one, it makes it very clear that I have the authority under the state building code to hire whomever I need to do whatever review I need at the expense of the applicant. So theoretically, this is a zoning condition, which I'm not gonna say it's not gonna hold me back if I need to do what I need to do, but under the state building code, I will follow the building code as written. And if I need to spend more than $25,000 as justified under the code, I will do so.
[SPEAKER_14]: Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify, this condition does not address the review by the building commissioner of the building permit application. That is wholly contained within the state building code and is outside any jurisdiction of this board. You cannot impose conditions that limit his review in any way, shape or form as part of that process. This is only addressing the review of final plans for consistency with this decision. So keeping this condition as currently drafted would not prevent the building commissioner from exceeding $25,000 in total peer review costs if he determines that the review under the state building code required some higher level of peer review.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. OK, thank you. So for the board, my thought just to While following Robert's rules, engage in a somewhat fluid way here. I'm going to ask members of the board if we're reviewing a condition and you would like to propose a modification or share an opinion, you know, for our consideration, please raise your hand and do so as we go. If I don't hear anyone speaking up and city staff or Attorney Haverty indicates that, you know, the change is fine, we're just going to move on. And then at the end, you know, we can make a motion to reflect all of the changes in totality rather than doing them one by one. So I don't intend to vote one by one. So yeah, if you're a member of the board and you would like to propose any modifications here or share any comments, please go ahead. Otherwise, we'll move on to the next item. All right, let's move on.
[SPEAKER_14]: So, Mr. Chair, before we move on from this, are we going to go with the 30 days or the 45 days?
[Mike Caldera]: So I'd like to reserve the right for any member of the board to later make a motion and come back to things. But currently, we're moving on with the condition as written, the 30 days, the added language, the 25K cap.
[SPEAKER_14]: Great. Thank you. All right, so the next condition that I have flagged, let's see. C1, there's a provision that states, it was suggested by the applicant, any separate fee due at building permit issuance. shall be reduced by any amounts paid by the applicant for technical reviews and inspections by outside experts hired by the building commissioner or the board here under. I presume that the building commissioner is going to have some thoughts on this proposal.
[Mike Caldera]: Commissioner, do you have thoughts on this proposal?
[Scott Vandewalle]: under the building code is written, I would not accept that unless you determined you're willing to accept that. I mean, technically, fees are set by the community. We have a set fee for that. They have to pay for any outside consultants or inspectors in accordance with the code as required. They have to pay for that. I'm not gonna weigh in on whether somebody's willing to waive the fees. I think that has to be considered by a little bit higher authority than me.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Yeah, so I'd love to hear members of the board's thoughts on this. It sounds like this condition would offset some of the review costs incurred through reduction in the permit cost. Would any member of the board like to weigh in on that one?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So I just want to clarify. So this is additional fees during the continuing stages going to building and things like that?
[SPEAKER_14]: Correct. It would not be a reduction on the peer review fees paid to date. Only the peer review fees for reviewing final plans.
[Scott Vandewalle]: and any inspections, outside inspections required under the code as well, I think the statement was.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So we're preempting the cost of what would be required fees for the Continued the continued development and construction in the building.
[SPEAKER_14]: So, so I think the building commissioners point here as well taken. The previous sentence, the use of outside experts for such technical reviews and inspections. must be reserved for instances where no city personnel or department has the necessary expertise to perform the same. And in these cases, fees for outside expert reviews will be charged to the applicant only if compliance with municipal ordinance or regulations. I don't know what inspections would be done as part of the review of the final plans. So I would suggest removing the end inspections.
[Scott Vandewalle]: And there will be inspections done by an outside consultant potentially not anticipated during the course of construction at this time as well. But that would be under your review under the building code, correct? Yes, just as long as it's clear that somewhere in there that all gets picked up. But as for waiving the fees, since they're not even included within the zoning ordinance, that's a tough one. I don't feel I have the authority to waive fees or even suggest waiving fees.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Personally, I don't agree with this one.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I haven't really heard a case for why this is appropriate or necessary. These fees are pretty standard. So I don't really understand why A lot of the 4DB process, the guidance we're getting is don't treat. We can't impose conditions that would be different. you know, from what we would impose on, from, from what's expected of anything else. So I think that kind of applies here, unless there's something I'm misunderstanding where, you know, this project is especially sensitive to these fees or already uneconomical. I don't really see a reason to grant such a allowance.
[SPEAKER_14]: I think Attorney Tam would like to speak to this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, sorry, I missed it. Yeah, Attorney Tam, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the sake, I know you have a busy agenda. I think we will... We're in support of removing the last sentence.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and the last sentence is the sentence that... That essentially...
[SPEAKER_13]: Correct. Again, a municipal fee cannot be used to create revenue. It is to compensate the municipality for the cost incurred. And so that was the intent here, was essentially to say if there was a cost associated with an inspection that had come out of the fee. But I think in the interest of time, we can remove this last sentence that says that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful.
[SPEAKER_13]: I would remind the board that we're not seeking, aside from the credit for the linkage, which we appreciate having resolved with the board, we're not seeking any relief from building permit fees.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Thank you. Yeah, I think let's let's just remove that last sentence. I think it's we would have needed a discussion earlier about the likely costs the city is going to incur. My understanding is these fees are set at the appropriate level to not be revenue generating. So we'll strike that sentence unless a member of the board would like to motion otherwise. All right, what's next, Attorney Haverty?
[SPEAKER_14]: So moving on, I've got a marginal notation under subsection C, but that was addressed by our discussion above. 30 days remain the time. Great. And moving on to subsection E. I just added language at the end of subsection E, if the building commissioner informs the applicant of any deficiencies in the final plan as submitted, the 30 day period shall not run until compliant plans are submitted. So again, that helps address the concerns with regards to a potential constructive approval. All it requires is notification, you know, that the plans were incomplete and the 30 day period will not run. Okay, looks good. What's next? In C2 subsection E, at the building commissioner's suggestion, I added language as adopted by the state building code. As he pointed out, the NFPA 13 and NFPA 72 requirements are incorporated within the building code. So I just added that language.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Looks pretty straightforward.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sounds good.
[SPEAKER_14]: Next is on D3 on page 19. And just to have changed the identification of who would be reviewing certain materials submitted by the applicants. So subsection E would be the city engineer rather than the building commissioner. Subsection H, the appropriate division of the Department of Public Works. I obtained confirmation from the superintendent of the water and sewer division and same for Jay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, that's pretty straightforward. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_14]: And that was all based upon comments from town staff. Sorry, city staff. And I'm sorry, I'm going a little slowly, but I'm trying to make these changes as we go, so I can get you a final decision. quickly as possible.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[SPEAKER_14]: My next marginal notation is at the end of page 26. And this was a question that was asked by city staff. Is the applicant proposing to provide funding towards operation of the blue bikes? So this is on condition F8G, which was proposed by the board's traffic peer review consultants. It talks about blue bike stations, and the question is whether or not the applicant will be funding any of the operations.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and just to add to that, so my uncertainty with a literal reading of this is that, so in the list of improvements, that we considered in terms of the partial waiver for linkage. It states that the blue bike station is one of those costs. And I at least have the understanding that the installation of this station is included in that cost. This current wording I think in one of the emails from city staff, there was some uncertainty about whether it's just making space available or if it's actually, if deemed feasible by the city, the installation of this station. So there was that question and then there's a separate question also from city staff about some of the ongoing cost to operate the station. Is there someone for the applicant who could speak to that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, Pat, you?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So two-part question to answer the first part. Yes, it is our intention, if deemed feasible and desirable by the city, space would be made available, and we are proposing to pay for and install the Blue Bike Station. As a part of the project, and that that is represented in the cost summary that was previously reviewed as a project benefit. Part 2 of the question in conversations with DPW over the course of the last week, the. operating costs of the station were discussed, and a period of two years was proposed for us to pay for the operating of the Blue Bike Station at that time.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. Thank you. So then in that case, Attorney Haverty, I think we'll have to slightly modify this language. I'm not sure the best way to word it, but it would be something like If deemed feasible and desirable by the city, space shall be made within or in close proximity of the project site for such blue bike station. And a blue bike station shall be installed at the applicant's expense. And the applicant shall pay the operational cost of that station for the first two years, something along those lines.
[SPEAKER_14]: I got it.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. And I think it was a similar question. I think I don't know what subsection it was, but for the condition on the bus shelter, it was a little vague about whether it would just be the removal or the installation of the new one. So on the project costs, that includes the installation of the new bus shelter.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yes. So that is addressed. That's already wonderful. Yes. So let's go to. So F9. F9. The preface to the four subconditions states the applicant shall design, construct, and implement the following improvements. So that was one of the concerns that doesn't address the shelter, but it does address concern raised by Todd Blake to make it clear that the applicant is committing to constructing and implementing these changes. So I just wanted to point that out. Okay, great. being for F11 addresses the bus shelter. So it states now the applicant shall coordinate with the MBTA to subject to MBTA approval and all applicable legal requirements, remove the existing bus shelter at the intersection of Fellsway and Myrtle Street, and to install a new shelter equipped with appropriate amenities just south of the proposed Fellsway driveway. So I think that's clear that it is the installation of a new bus shelter, not a rehabilitation of the existing one. Okay. Wonderful. On F10, we were informed that the Central Avenue and Spring Street traffic signal Um, has already gone through a process with the city, and it's not something that needs to be done as part of this development. So the proposal was to instead add language, including providing recommendations and cost estimates for providing a speed hump on Kenmare and Pinkert streets and or Lawrence and Myrtle streets.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And so I understand this one is a proposal that was not previously been discussed. Correct. In this hearing. So I do want to check in with Pat on that one. So, um, as I understand it, the prior, um, the prior improvement overlaps with something the city is already in the process of making. And so this was, um, Director Blake's proposed alternative. Yeah, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just want to be clear that this was not Director Blake's proposed alternative. It's the applicant's proposed alternative.
[Mike Caldera]: I misunderstood that. I read the email all wrong. This is the applicant's proposed alternative. Okay, cool. So if we're aligned, then I think that's pretty clear.
[Alicia Hunt]: I feel that I should say it, but you do what you want. The director, Blake, has indicated that it is much more beneficial to the city if the applicants can spend the same amount of money on construction than on studies. It's a huge difference for the city because construction for the city is so much more expensive and cumbersome when done with public funds. But it's not something to delay the whole project over.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So as currently worded, this would be the study alone. So it would culminate in recommendations and cost estimates, and there would be a cost in conducting the study. but it's not actually doing the improvement. OK. Thoughts from the public on that?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Am I reading F9? It's F9, correctly. Shall design, construct, and implement the following improvements, correct?
[Mike Caldera]: F10.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Oh, I apologize.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so F9, these are all improvements that It needs to be in coordinated with DCR, but these will actually be implemented. The F10 is just a study. I agree it's not something to delay over. I had reservations introducing something net new this late in the process. So I think while I agree that Constructing it would be better. At least we'll have an understanding of the cost and the recommendations, which is better than what we had. So I think this is a reasonable compromise.
[SPEAKER_14]: All right, what's next? 12, language changed to note design and construct rather than implement the curb extensions. on Myrtle Street, Amaranth Avenue, and Lawrence Street, and then additional language designed to be approved by the City of Medford Engineering Office prior to construction. The applicant shall revise such design as necessary until approval is reached. Such approval should not be unnecessarily withheld. Okay. I'm sorry, unreasonably withheld. All right. So that's all I have in the conditions?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, Attorney Tam.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to interrupt Attorney Haverty's flow. We had a minor suggestion that we shared with Attorney Haverty just prior to this meeting, and that is to E12. E12, OK. And I can read it to you. I think it's common sense, but I'll explain the rationale. And again, it doesn't change the substance of the condition. So this condition requires that any, it's the last sentence, any unsuitable material, if any, discovered in excavation of the infiltration system, this is for stormwater, be removed and disposed of in accordance with state and local regulations. We have no concern with that other than by unsuitable material. These might be not necessarily contaminated materials, but just materials that are unsuitable in the location of a stormwater management infiltration basin. So we suggested this language and that these soils could be managed and handled on site in accordance with applicable law and regulation. So we just suggest adding language that says that These materials, if discovered in excavation for the infiltration system, shall be handled, managed, and, if necessary, removed and disposed of.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. No concerns with that proposed change. No concerns? OK. So would a member of the board like to speak on this one? If not, we can make that change.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I'm good with that as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, great. Thank you, Attorney Tam. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_14]: All right, so going to the waivers, the first change I have is on number 24.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We have Jamie.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, go ahead. I apologize. I just want to go back to AA on my notes. Did we? AA. AA, the $25,000. So presently, we've
[Mike Caldera]: proposed no changes to that language. So it is, in fact, capped at $25,000, but any member of the board could propose a change.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, so I guess my question is this. What is in a... I guess my question is, in a standard process, is there an expectation that this would normally exceed that amount? Again, I'm just in that state of where... Yeah, so as I understand... ...unknown expense for the city.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so as I understood it, this is the cap on the fees to review the final plans themselves. So if a consultant were required to review the final plans, that amount would be capped at $25,000. So other reviews under the building code are not subject to this. And the impression I got from the building commissioner is that we don't really John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His): A great understanding of exactly what the the top end of the cost would be here, but yeah for me, I think, maybe, since this is review of the final plan that's not going to be a big ticket item, I see. John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His.: : Yeah, so they can make sure John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His.:
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: : My notes between this one, and the other item I got confused on what we're looking at from fees and things like that, I just want to make sure I had this one correct okay i'm good. Commissioner, go ahead.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, so correct me if I'm wrong, that I'm presuming from this conversation that this particular review has more to do with rehiring your current peer reviewers to review it for conformance to the plan, which may be more Director Hunt's area of expertise than a building code review, which this is not about.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so it doesn't specifically require that you retain the same consultants, but I think it's in that vein. Yeah, so. It's correct. Hunt, is that something you want to speak to? Is the magnitude here something concerning to you, capped at 25,000?
[Alicia Hunt]: I would just say we've never hired peer reviewers for this before. because it's never come up like in this type of situation. Typical city projects, the city engineer reviews and then reviews the plans, et cetera. because we haven't had a project of this magnitude that underwent peer review actually then go to construction. We haven't actually done it. In my mind, if we were going to hire a peer reviewer to ensure that things were being done to the plan, we would go back to the same peer reviewer because then you wouldn't have to pay for all the startups. But how much that would cost, I honestly have no way to say because we have no experience with it.
[Mike Caldera]: I mean, if we were to do some back-of-the-envelope math from the bids over the course of this hearing for the support received, is that, I mean, were we a right order of magnitude?
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, Dennis, can you, the original, the amount that we've had for peer review costs for this project is on the order of $50,000. Is that correct? I mean, there are two different ones. the site civil stuff and the other was the architectural. I don't think we're really concerned about the architectural. I think this is all about the site civil type stuff.
[Unidentified]: Sorry.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think he's looking. Dennis requests the money, receives the money, deposits the money, and signs up.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see Andre has his hand raised. Andre, please go ahead. Oh, Andre needs help unmuting.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thanks. Sorry, I switched my phone to my laptop so that I wasn't able to unmute myself. Yeah, I just wanted to say that this language seems fine to me. I don't think it's a point we should belabor. I think it's an appropriate amount and probably not something that will even be necessary. All right, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Scott, your hand's still up. Is that?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I do have one more comment. I guess this would probably be used to address, as you mentioned before, more of the site engineering element in some fashion, because the building code covers the structure. It does not cover that which overlaps with the engineering department. So this may almost be whether or not they want to hire an outside consultant to review the work or some capacity like that. You're right, architectural and building code is just the building, it's not the other elements.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I tend to agree with Andre on this, so unless a member has some concerns they'd like to continue discussing, I think we can move on to the waivers. For sure. Thank you, I appreciate it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it's the waiver, right? Yeah.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yes. So the first waiver that I've got flagged here is number 24. And this is proposed by the applicant and it addresses the linkage fees. So maybe Peter can explain what exactly they're looking for here.
[Mike Caldera]: So is this one, wasn't this one with Ron? Did I misunderstand?
[SPEAKER_14]: Number 25 was withdrawn.
[Mike Caldera]: 25 was what? Oh, OK, I misunderstood. So here we've already granted a partial waiver, so I think that was the what Jamie motion.
[SPEAKER_14]: So we'll just make that modification so well, right? So no concerns with any of the changes proposed by the applicant here.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so the I think the language will have to change so it.
[SPEAKER_14]: Well, the actual language on the waiver of the linkage fee is in 26. Oh, it's in 26?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Attorney Tam, did you have something to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Attorney Tam, is there something you wanted to say?
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you're right in that 24 and 26 can essentially be, I think they can be merged. And I think the board has already taken action on the partial waiver here. OK, I haven't I haven't looked at them together, but I. I think they address the same issue, which is linkage, and. I think the board has already acted on this in granting a partial waiver.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. Yeah, I share that understanding. Also, the board's intention is to partially waive the fee. And we would be waiving any procedural requirements that would require them to go before the development forwarder.
[SPEAKER_14]: Right. So is this waiver request then just withdrawn? And I can put the but you know, but see waiver request 26.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's my understanding. So we'll add the language for the partial waiver and that will be that will subsume these other ones.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So we can remove them.
[SPEAKER_14]: And then 25, I just put waiver request withdrawn just so that we are able to keep track of the fact that it was a waiver previously requested and it was not acted upon by the board at the request of the applicant. Then number 26 sets forth all of the Discussion regarding the linkage payments, which I think the board has already addressed.
[Mike Caldera]: And that's all I have. All right, wonderful. So then there's a few housekeeping items. I just want to make sure. We have a shared understanding about before we go on to next step. So. So we have a draft decision that we just went through and amended that will form the basis of the final decision. So if the board Well, once the board votes tonight, if it's in accordance with this decision, will we need to do anything else in a separate public hearing? Or do we need to provide any special authorizations to the chair or anything like that? Or can we just make a motion with respect to this draft order and take a vote and that's it?
[SPEAKER_14]: Yes, you can just take a motion to vote on the decision as discussed and as changed over the course of the discussion tonight. Is it typically your process for just the chair to sign a decision or do all the board members sign?
[Mike Caldera]: So customarily, we will make a decision, we'll vote, we'll discuss any conditions if appropriate, then there will be a draft decision which is circulated for signatures and everyone signs it. The 40B we heard last year, I think mostly for reasons of timeline, we actually had a meeting within 40 days of the closure to review the decision and then in that case authorize the chair. So but normally we would have everyone sign and I'd be inclined to do this here unless there's some you know procedural reason to just delegate that to a to the chair.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay so so what your option to do tonight is to just close the public hearing And then I can send you all of the changes that were discussed, send you a clean version that you can schedule a deliberation session at which you can vote to accept the decision as drafted and then sign when you're available to sign. You have 40 days from the close of the public hearing to deliberate. So it's up to you whether or not you want to simply close the hearing and vote tonight, or whether or not you want to close the hearing and take a look at the final draft and then vote on that at a deliberation session. Once you take your vote on the decision, you then have 14 days to submit the written decision to the city clerk.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, got it. So that answered my procedural question. Other procedural questions from the board? OK, then in that case, I just want to check in with the applicant. Is there anything we should still discuss before a member of the board makes a motion here?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Attorney Tam? Attorney Tam, please go ahead. We need to unmute you, huh? Yeah, sorry.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you. Nothing on behalf of the applicant. I think we're, I think, in consensus that the decision is very thorough. that the process has been very productive and we've appreciated the time that the board has spent by members of the public as well as all the staff that have been involved in multiple reviews. So it's really up to the board at this stage.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. In that case, chair awaits a motion on this matter.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Motion to approve the decision on 970 Fellsway as written subject to conditions and granting the waivers as written.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Seconded.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so we're going to take a roll call and again it will be the four members that have either been at all the sessions of this hearing or missed one but reviewed it and signed a mullet affidavit. So Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue? Aye. Jamie Thompson? Aye. Mike Caldera? Aye. All right, so the project is approved. Um, thank you, folks, uh, for your partnership throughout the process. Uh, thank you, Attorney Haverty, uh, for the thorough decision and for your support throughout. Thanks to city staff. Thanks to our peer reviewers. Um, thanks, thanks to all involved. So, um, so, yeah, uh, we will work with Attorney Haverty to get the final decision recorded. It sounds like we'll do that in the next 15 days. So Attorney Haverty, I'll be in touch with you and Dennis about that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And, um, yeah, I will, um, see the chair back to Jamie.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Uh, following the remainder of cases in order, we will move on to 28 Winford Way. Dennis, could you read that case?
[Denis MacDougall]: 28 Winford Way, case number 8-2024-07, meeting from April 25th. Applicant and owner Anthony Monaco is pushing for a variance in Chapter 94, City of Medford zoning to install a fence over six feet tall at 28 Winford Way, which is not allowed by City of Medford zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 4.2.5. Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Let's see.
[SPEAKER_18]: Hey, good evening, everyone. Can you hear me OK?
[SPEAKER_05]: We can.
[SPEAKER_18]: Great. So we came by. I actually measured the fence entirely. And I can show you guys a map here that we have. Let me just share my screen with you.
[Denis MacDougall]: One second.
[SPEAKER_18]: All right, so this is 28 Winkford Way. And I've color coded just to make it easier to represent the green areas on the property. We are looking at between 40 to 72 inches. I measured inches just because it's a little easier. And then we're looking at 73 to 109 in the yellow areas and 1, 10 to 1, 20 in the red zone here. The neighboring property. Has a fence of 6 feet with posters that are around 8 feet. Let me just get those images for you. So, what the owner is prepared to do is we'd like to propose to the board is reducing the fence around the property up to 24. Inches, which will give us a clearance will give us a height of around. Um, see, 89 to 90 inches, which will match. The, uh, the neighbors posts, if that's something that to be allowed by the board. And I also wanted to clarify the homeowner to corner ship off the property when the fence was already erected. I know there was a little bit of a confusion as to the homeowner wanting to increase the fence. That was not the case. We know we added it on. Prior to the owner taking ownership, so I just wanted to remove any confusion. The homeowner doesn't want to have any troubles with the surrounding neighbors. But due to the typography of the lot, and I can show you another angle here as well. This fence here on this side, this is exactly six feet, right? So if we remove the top three, we'll bring it down to about seven and a half, seven and a quarter. on the left side of the property. And this is something that we wanted to address. We didn't have photos from inside the property. As you can see, the typography is very unique. So a six feet all around wouldn't really go well aesthetically. And number two, the security reasons and privacy to the property, the owner is requesting to have it higher than six feet. Now, we understand that it is significantly tall, especially if we're looking at surrounding neighbors. Um, but if it's okay with our neighbors, okay with the board. We can take a reduction on the fence and we can match it with the post of our surrounding neighbor. If that's okay with the board. It will be a reduction of up to 2 feet.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Like, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I appreciate clarification on. two things here. So first of all, I want to make sure at some point in this presentation, the board is crystal clear on exactly what is and isn't being proposed to reduce in height here. So we need to be really crisp on the relief being sought so that we can connect that to the topography and so on. And then secondly, there were a number of neighbors who expressed concerns about the existing fence at the prior prior session of this hearing where this was continued. And I'd like some details on whether this proposal has been discussed with the neighbors and whether they have indicated support or lack thereof for this proposal.
[SPEAKER_18]: I called in a couple of days ago, and I asked, I forgot exactly who I spoke to it would be ideal to have this discussion prior to today's hearing, or just propose it to the board. Not sure if any other neighbors are on the call that way. Everyone can can hear this proposal altogether. So here we are, right? And I also asked if the height maximum for fences is, I understand it's six feet. Now, what are the maximum for posts, right? Our neighbors have posts that are above that, around 88 inches. So that's why we're proposing to bring it down to match those post heights. That way, we can sort of compromise on both sides and to the approval of the board. It will still be taller than 6 feet in most areas, but at least it won't be cumbersome to our neighbors where it's a lot taller than what they have currently on their yards.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, but I'm still unclear on where this is actually. reduced in the proposal. So as I understand it, anything on this figure that is green is already in compliance. The orange and red is not. The proposal is also not in compliance, but is certainly less extreme than the red and less extreme than maybe some of the orange, but is this, that the fence would uniformly be, if in excess of that amount, I forget the number of inches you said, would be cut down, or is this, it's just a little hard for me to make sense of what exactly is the new proposal, what is the- So 88 inches, let's say here on this yellow line here, it's seven feet and three inches.
[SPEAKER_18]: That would be the proposed for this side and I think I can show you in pictures. I just don't have a way to. Show you what it look what it would have looked like instead. But. So here, right, if we propose to go down to, you know, 7 feet and 3 inches, we'll be matching the height of these posts to our neighbor. I think she was the one that expressed most concern and most, you know, discomfort with the height of the fence. Now, if I were to move along, so to our left side here, one second. So here, it would be a reduction of 2 feet. Because as you can see, we're kind of on a degrading hill. Now, this here would be a deduction of around 17 inches. So, it won't be exactly the same all around because the topography of the property is not leveled. So we're looking at making an adjustment between 17 inches to 24 all around. Make sure that we have, number one, a cohesive fence. It's not 100% level as it is, but we would like to make it a little bit more appealing, right? So as we reduce, let's say down to two feet in certain areas, we need to make sure that all around we just don't chop off everything else. But it will be higher than six feet still in most, you know, big portion of the lot. But like I said, a reduction of up to two feet in the areas that you see marked in yellow and red would be quite significant. And like I said, especially for the neighbor here on our right side, depending on how you're looking on the left side, it would be matching her posts. So it would be a reduction of about 18 inches on her side.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. Last thing I'll say, just as a procedural matter, The only options we really have here, if we're going to consider this proposal as I see it, is that we would have to choose the The up to number and the relief is in terms of the up to number. So, you know, if with the variance, someone can build a fence that's lower than the up to number or we would need plans that actually make it clear the heights at all points. So right now this plan doesn't Describe the actual relief required.
[SPEAKER_18]: I mean, I have measurements of every single, I have measurements of every single post. I didn't think it would be necessary to put it here, but to your point, I can add it in and submit it. Correct.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Right now, what we're seeing is current heights and what's meeting and violating. We're not seeing a proposed resolution.
[SPEAKER_18]: Do you want a proposed on every single post line for around the property? Because I can do that.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: No, I think we need to. I think I would say if you're completed with your presentation, let's open to the board. Mike, anybody else have any other questions about what's been presented at the moment? Okay. If everybody, I do want to open it up to the public to comment on what's been presented. I do feel from the board perspective, we do want to see a resolution, but I think comments if the neighbors are on would be helpful to understand if there's something that would be considered. I do see Lisa, do you want to unmute yourself and go ahead?
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Yes, hi, thank you. So a couple of things. At the last meeting, my neighbor is D'Amico's. He's an engineer, correct me if I'm wrong. He measured the fence, and he measured the highest point of the fence as being nine feet. So I'm still unclear. why you as the contractor, this should have been an independent person from the city measuring, because you're the contractor obviously in favor of the applicant, and I think we need an unbiased, effective, accurate measurement of the fence. And like I said, my neighbor on the other side measured it, and he showed the measurements, it was nine feet.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Now, I see, I have- I'm sorry, could you just give your name and address for the record?
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Yes, Lisa D. Fabritas, 32 Winford Way. I'm the one with the post that he's referring to. Now, on my side, my fence is six foot. I have the post there a little bit higher, because I put my fence in, but I can cut that plastic down. It's not a big deal. I can bring the post down, it's plastic, and cut it down to the six foot. And the contractor, I just feel like he keeps bringing back safety, security, privacy. I love to hear what that's all about. I really would. I mean, we live in a great street, in a great neighborhood, and I don't understand, keep focusing on that point. And as far as them making a proposal to you, what about bringing a proposal to the neighbors? I mean, as you just noted, every one of us, no one's happy with this. I mean, the proposal should be, I mean, no one's not willing to work and communicate with the neighbor. They've never reached out to us. We've tried to reach out to them. And it's like, I'm happy to, I think we're all like to be friendly and kind of resolve this and kind of find a compromise. But I don't think it's right for the contractor or the owner to make the decision on how much they want it to bring it down. Now, I have photos that I sent to the board a few days ago. I'm happy to pull it up. You'll see on the fence, there is the three-foot extension that they added. I don't know if you had, did you all receive the images that I sent to the board? You'll see on the image, there's a clear extension where they added the extra three feet after the six-foot fence was put up. So the three feet additional was put up afterwards. We assumed it was at the request of the owner, but it could have been the contractor. It doesn't matter. It's a very clean line to cut that three feet down to make it to the six. You can see it. It's in the pictures. It's not like you've got a wood cut thing. It's a very clean slate. Now, you want to say, OK, can it be six feet and six and a half feet? Yeah, I'm willing to, you know, that's not going to bother me, per se. But I think we have to, you know, this has to be a mutual agreement and it has to be agreeable. I mean, the fence is just ridiculous right now. It's nine foot. Okay, the whole back is one nine feet tall and it should be consistent. The highest piece should come down to one specific, one determined height. Now what that height will be, technically the county, the city says it's six feet. So that's already what the ordinance is. Now the question is, do we, you know, we willing to agree that, okay, we can be a little bit higher? Well, we have to discuss it. Like, let's discuss it. You go by my post, my post, because I have a little one post. That's not a fence. It's a couple of posts that might stick up every, every, like, every eight feet wide. I can cut it down. I happen to cut it down to six feet. So, so you're going to cut the fence down to six feet to match my fence? So, I mean, again, I just feel like this is a conversation that should not be between just the board in the contractor and the applicant. This is a conversation and a discussion that needs to be made with everybody who's affected in this fence, this excessively high fence is impacting, right? It definitely has to come down. The question is, okay, does it have to come down to 6 or could it come down to maybe 6 and a half? Like, the contract, for example, said. I forget how many inches he was suggesting to bring it down to the top of my post. That's nothing. That's nothing. I'm sorry. For that point, I might as well stay where it is for the minimal amount that they're suggesting to cut it down on my side. Because, and again, I think this is... I think the building department has been out Paul Smith many times to the property. This has been going on for a year. Have the independent person come out and measure the fence. Let's have the natives go over there and all agree and talk about it. We're happy to do that. No one's ever done this. No one's ever reached out to us. I reached out to them last year, didn't get a response. Happy to meet and happy to discuss and find a common ground here. But honestly, the nine foot fence is not acceptable at all. And bringing it down 10 inches is not acceptable at all either, as far as I'm concerned. And I still don't understand the comments about privacy and security. OK, because that's I don't know where that's even coming from, why that's even a conversation, a point of conversation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mr. different rates. Thank you. Anyone else from the public please raise your hand. Wave your hand on the screen, or you can email Dennis directly. His email is in the chat. Wayne amigo.
[SPEAKER_21]: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the of the board. Wayne Amico, Len Amico, 24 Alden Lane. I guess I want to state what we did last time, as we don't necessarily on our side, between 24 Alden and 28 Winford, we don't necessarily object to the height. But before we make any other statements, I would like to see a plan, as you guys have mentioned, as to what is being proposed along all three sides, before we make any other statements of whether we're okay with it or not.
[SPEAKER_00]: We definitely don't want any additional height added to where the smaller, like I said, the contractor was nice enough to cut it down so my father didn't get killed backing up. But I don't want all of a sudden this to become a huge fence all around and not be able to see backing out of the driveway. So like Wayne said, I guess, I mean, I understand on the other side, it does look terrible. with the three feet over. I mean, I can understand why Lisa is upset about that. Again, we don't have a fence on our side, so it's not like it's up against something that we already have. But yeah, we'd like to know before we all decide, or however this gets decided, to see the proposal all the way around to see what it's gonna look like. And like if our neighbor out next to us, what's that? I don't forget their number, but the house next to us, if that's the tallest part of the fence, I wanna know like what theirs will be. So if theirs get shorter, ours gets shorter. So I guess like my husband said, we need to see a proposal for all the cuts and to be told that these other fences not gonna all of a sudden grow. That's already there.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Could you just give your name and address for the record? Wayne and let me go 24 Alden Lane. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Rodriguez.
[SPEAKER_18]: I just wanted to clarify the owner is proposing a reduction, not an increase to Lisa's point. Right? I don't think it's fair for us to talk about someone's will to seek a little bit of more privacy and security. Right? I think it's a. It's beyond discussion at this point. However, just to answer her questions, her post as as measured 7.3 inches tall. That's where the proposal is on that side of the fence to answer the family, the reduction on that side where you measure to be a much taller everywhere else. It's looking at a 2 feet reduction and then trimmed everywhere else. So it looks a little bit more cohesive, but to answer the question of the board and to also all the surrounding neighbors. Um, we can provide post by post a, you know, actual number of where it will be reduced to if that will be more, you know, if that would be easier to facilitate someone coming up with a question. I mean, with a decision, we can easily do that. Um, like, you know, we try to resolve this amicably. I don't live in that neighborhood, but I'm also a Metro residents. So I want to make sure that, you know. If this gets taken care of in the best way possible.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I see a Jay Schnabel. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_20]: Oh, hi. This is Fred and Jenny Schnabel, 22 Alden Lane. And we would Yes, we'd like to maintain the best possible relations with all of our neighbors here, so we are open to a reduction. I don't know if the what was the 83 inches is the number that we should land on, but we're definitely open to talking about it and. would add that we want to make sure that whatever the fence height does become, that it remains consistent around all the sides. So Lisa's side and our side would be contiguous and the same level, essentially, rather than have ours higher, for instance, than everybody else's, if that makes sense.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you for your feedback. Do we have anybody else from the public? And Dennis, do you have any emails?
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Can I just please add, this is Lisa DeFabrius, one last comment regarding the comment regarding my post. My fence is six foot, okay? There are a couple of my posts that are higher, like you mentioned. I mean, that's not a fence to post, it's one little, I'm happy, again, I will bring that down, cut it, very easy. I don't want the fence because the fence, it's, It's still way too high and it's just aesthetically an eyesore and I can't have, I'm not gonna, personally, my husband and I, we don't accept bringing it down to the post height because that's still a lot higher than the fence. I'll bring the post down to equal the six foot high fence. That's not a problem, but we have to find common ground on what that height will potentially be. Otherwise, I will simply say I want the, I request that the fence be to six feet, period, unless we find a common agreement, which I hope we can do.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Ms. DePriest.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other public comment? And Dennis, just one last check for any emails.
[Denis MacDougall]: No emails.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Chair awaits a motion. I motion to close public comment and enter deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And second. Second. Thank you. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andre? Aye. Mary?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike? Aye. And Jamie, aye. All right, so for the board at the moment, we have a proposal for a reduction, but without a plan. Feedback from the neighbors. What does everybody think?
[Mary Lee]: Oh, go ahead, Mary. Oh, sorry, thanks. So I think typically we do require a plan first before the proposal, right? Because I really would like to see what that plan is visually in light of the fact that the sentiments of the community.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mary. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I have concerns with the fence height even as proposed. We did hear this at a prior, there was a prior session of this hearing, we continued precisely so the proponent could provide these additional details on the fence. Clearly the lot has topography issues, so I think there's some fence proposal that might be in excess of six feet in some areas that would be warranted, but here yet again we're faced with a proposal that is asking for height on a relatively flat portion of the lot in excess of six feet because of posts and under the ordinance post can be a little bit more than six feet. So this is like very typical. This is a typical fence on a typical side, and we're getting a request to, for reasons unrelated to the topography on that side of the lot, to have a fence, you know, in excess of the ordinance. And then we're getting pretty vague details. I know they could be clarified, but all I'm seeing is a big fence, not enough detail. This is now the second hearing on this. The neighbors don't like it, not consistent with the intent of the bylaw. So I am not in favor of this proposal.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Andre?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so You know, I, I agree would be helpful if we had the exact measurements and I think the applicant said that he could provide those. Which is good. I actually don't think we're that far apart. I mean, what I've heard from the direct abutters, I think two of the abutters seem to be leaning in the direction that a modest reduction of the fence would be viable. I think one of the abutters has bigger concerns, but also an interest in you know, coming to agreement and perhaps allowing a little bit more than the six feet. So I just think that, I think we're probably not that far apart, but we do need to have kind of exact measurements so that we can make an approval. And so I guess, you know, I would suggest maybe just continuing this until we get that, you know, one more time until we get those numbers. And in the meantime, you know, see if the applicant can kind of get that agreement from the abutters, you know, from the neighbors.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I'll come back to the applicant after we're finished with the board. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, there was a whole month to talk to the neighbors and it sounds like no discussions happened. So if members of the board want to consider continuing, I haven't formed an opinion whether I am or am not in favor of that right now. But for me to be in favor of it, I would fully expect that the applicant come back with the height of the fence at either six feet on Lisa DePriest's side or agreement from that household on a different height. There's not a topography issue there. So I don't really want to see a proposal in excess of six feet without the neighbor on board. And I have reservations. There's been plenty of time. Before this even came before the zoning board, there's been back and forth with the building department. There's been repeated violations. These are not things that we consider in our analysis, but I really, I do not want to see another fence proposal that is in excess of six foot. for non-topographical reasons. It's just not what we asked for, not what we expected when we continued this the first time.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. I just want to check before I come back in. Yvette, did you want to add anything?
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you. I'm in agreement with Andre of I'd like to see more of the neighbor and architecture and the owners coming together with an agreement. But I also just want to clarify that these are two different design aesthetics. I think that's where some of this conversation needs to happen. While I recognize post can be over the six feet, the other design aesthetic doesn't have that in that regard. I think that, again, is why it should be Held over to the next meeting so that they can have that discussion as a group. And maybe come to some closure.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Think of it under.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, the only other thing that I'd mentioned is that it would be great if we had. And maybe we have sorry, I couldn't find it right now in the folder of information, but. To see the topographical information again, because I'm not. You know, I'd be willing to consider a variance for something that's a little higher than than 6 feet, but I'd like to understand that. It's because, as Mike said, there's some topography. It's not necessarily just topography, in my opinion, right at the fence line, but if the house in the rear sits significantly above, for example, then I can understand why there's a desire to have extra. you know, screening there. But we can't really make these final determinations without all of those measurements.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Andrew. I'm in a similar spot. I'm a very visual person, so I need to be able to see, to understand. I mean, the measurements are there. I can comprehend it, but I did want, I mean, obviously, there was an expectation of some engagement in the past month and for a plan to come to us. It seems like there was, I don't want to say there was limited effort, but there should have been a proposal to present to us at this point and some sort of consideration of the involvement of the neighbors. I guess I will open to Mr. Rodriguez. I guess the question to you from the board at the moment is, are you open to a continuance in order to act on the requests of the board and the neighbors that were expected?
[SPEAKER_18]: Yes, and thank you everyone for your time. I just wanted to clarify the action plan here is to sit down, have the owners or myself sit down with the neighbors, discuss what is essentially agreeable Come down to a set of numbers, so we can then create a plan to present to the board prior to the meeting. Correct? Um, because as to understood up to this point, I have, like I said, I have measurements of every single post all throughout. However, I do not have a proposal of the reduction of set posts all around. Um, and that's to your guys's point in pursuant to having the meeting with the homeowners all around all of our neighbors. And then figuring out what that reduction could be, and then presented to the board. I just wanted to make sure that that's the correct assumption on my end.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And that proposal would need to include reasoning and for any variance from the six feet with regards to the hardship requirement in order to exceed that six feet. Understood. As to point some agreeability from the neighbor on that abutting side to the change.
[SPEAKER_18]: Understood.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, any other comments from the board? Chair awaits a motion to continue 280 Mystic Ave to the June, sorry. 28 Winford. Sorry, 28 Winford. I'll look down at the sheet. Thank you. Motion to, uh, Board of Chair awaits a motion to continue 28 Winford Way to the June 27th regularly scheduled meeting of the Medford. So moved. Thank you, Mary. Uh, roll call. Uh, Mike Caldera? Yes. Andrew LaRue? Aye. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mary Lee? Hi, Jamie Thompson I. Thank you everybody for your time today. We look forward to something to make a decision on at the next meeting. The next case by order, Dennis, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: 178 Fulton street case number 8 dash 2024-9 continue for April 25th. Applicant and owner James Reed is petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 City Method zoning to install a new curb cut and driveway in the front yard of the property at 178 Folsom Street, which is not allowed for the City Method zoning owners, Chapter 94, Section 6.1.4.3.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicants?
[Henry Rappa]: Yes. Good evening, members of the board. Henry Rapid, Jr. on behalf of Mr. Reed. Good evening, Mr. Edna. Since the last hearing, Mr. Reed and I have met with Owen Wartella, and he has indeed sent an email that I forwarded to Dennis earlier today with three other attachments. And the city, in his opinion, takes no exception to the proposed curb cut. He did give Mr. Reed a copy of the typical driveway apron curb cut and said any permit would be conditioned upon following that. Mr. Reed has no issue with that at all. We have narrowed on the amended plan the curb cut from 18 feet to 16 feet and moved it over a little bit. Owen Wartella, It's also in an area where there is no parking a lot at the end of Fulton Street. So it actually is a very diminished impact on street parking from having this curb cut. And Mr. Reid also submitted a couple of sketches of what the landscaping would look like from this plan. So it was our attempt to comply with all the requests from the board in our April 25th meeting. But from what we can see, the city department had no issue with the proposed relief.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mr. Raba. Any questions from the board? Okay, well, we'll open to public comment. Anyone from the public wishing to speak, please raise your hand on Zoom, wave, we do have to unmute at the moment, or send an email to dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. So none in the room, Dennis, do you have any additional emails or comment?
[Denis MacDougall]: I do not, but just also in the package that attorney represent there was a letter of support from the butter. I don't know if you want me to just note that for the record. Michael Ruiz, 45 St. Francis Street in support. Thank you. Do we need? We don't need to read the letter. I'm not doing I think just saying in the support is the address given the proximity to the properties.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I'm not sure where it's emotion.
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Hi. Hi, Mary Lee. Hi. And Jamie Thompson. I comments from the board.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps through you to the representative. We did hear at the last meeting, or last month anyway, the first hearing of this, that there was an issue with using the existing drive or the existing parking that is in front of that garage of sorts that goes underneath the house. I'm curious to know how that remains and if that will still be used, because we heard it was not being used and wasn't able to be used. But on the plan that was submitted, I see it remains, and I'm curious to know how that interfaces with the proposed drive that goes up and around to the other street?
[Henry Rappa]: Oh, sure. Well, as you can see, the only way to get out of that existing driveway is to back out on the Fulton Street, which is, as we talked about during the last meeting, unsafe and unwise. You could technically back out of that garage onto this proposed driveway. So you would be still able to use the garage. You just wouldn't be backing out on the Fulton Street.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Well, that's my question. Essentially, it looks like you will be backing out into Fulton Street to then use the driveway to go up towards the perpendicular street. I'm sorry, I forgot the name.
[Henry Rappa]: I didn't see it that way when I was, I've been at the property two times. I didn't see it that way. I think it could be angled to get a car out without backing into Fulton Street. You're certainly not backing into traffic. And that would be the benefit of, one of the many benefits of the proposed driveway is you're not backing any car from this property out into Fulton Street. And you're still being able to have the benefit of the garage. It would be difficult for one to abandon the garage going forward. It would have valuation on the property. It would be just certainly a hard thing to give up in perpetuity the use of the garage.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chris. Any other questions or comments from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, just a question about the materials that are going to be used for the surface of the driveway, and I apologize if you already addressed that.
[Henry Rappa]: Certainly. We talked to Owen Wartella, and he had told us pavers would be a choice. Originally, Mr. Reed wanted to use P-stone. We were told that would be a, while the code still requires a variance for P-stone. He said it's in the works to change that. Mr. Reed is looking forward to get this done expeditiously. He's willing to put pavers in and do it that way. It's not going to be asphalt paved. We would just be pavers. And as I said, we met with Mr. Wartella and discussed what would be amenable to engineering in the DPW.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you.
[Henry Rappa]: Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other questions from the board? Chair awaits a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I just wanted to chime in to say that I do appreciate having the details and the discussion from the city engineer. I know that was one of our big open questions last time. And so that helped to resolve some of my uncertainties on this proposal.
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Chair, I'd like to motion to approve the variance for the new curb cut in driveway at 178 Fulton Street.
[Mike Caldera]: Second.
[Andre Leroux]: Damian, I think you're muted.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: That would do it, thank you. Roll call vote. Mary Lee?
[Danielle Evans]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike Kildarek? Aye. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andre LeRoux? Aye. And Jamie Thompson? Aye. Thank you, Mr. Rapa. You are approved.
[Henry Rappa]: Thank you very much, members of the board.
[Denis MacDougall]: And for Attorney Rapa, if you could provide us with just a draft decision and that would help expedite matters, that would be very helpful.
[Henry Rappa]: Certainly, I'll have that to you early next week. Great. Thank you very much, everyone.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Thank you for the reminder there, Dennis. I got that note. Let's move to the next case.
[Denis MacDougall]: 65 Sydney Street, case number 8-2024-11. Applicant owner Matthew Salamone is petitioning for variance in Chapter 94, City of Medford zoning to construct a shed over 20 square feet at 65 Sydney Street, which is too close to the existing house and sidewalk line, which is not allowed per the City of Medford zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, section 4.3.2.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for 65 Sydney?
[Denis MacDougall]: I do not see him on the call. Representative if you are on the call can you please just like raise your hand like that will motion just to. Let us know that you're here and then we can meet you. But we'll change your name.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, I'm going to motion to continue this to our next regular meeting. We have a second?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Seconded. Thank you, Andre. Roll call. Mike Caldera? Aye. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andrea LeBreux? Aye. Mary Lee? Aye. I'm Jamie Thompson. 65 Sydney Street is continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 25th. June 27th. Dennis, can you take us to the next case?
[Denis MacDougall]: You're on mute, Dennis. Sorry about that. 400 Mystic Avenue, case number 8-2024-13. Applicant and owner Herb Chambers, 400 Mystic LLC, is petitioning for a variance to demolish an existing three-story structure and replace it with a new three-story structure 50.5 feet high at 400 Mystic Avenue, which is not allowed in a commercial two-zoning district, excuse me, under the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative from 400 Mystic Avenue?
[JjIkY7Z2rzw_SPEAKER_03]: Good evening, Chairperson Thompson. My name is Frank Marinelli. I'm a land use attorney for the Herb Chambers Companies. My office is at 439 Washington Street, Braintree. I've had the privilege of representing Herb Chambers in his various developments for over 25 years. Tonight, we propose significant investment and improvement at 400 Mystic Avenue, specifically the transformation of this commercial C2 property into Herb Chambers Toyota. With me this evening is the director of construction for the Herb Chambers company, John Welch. Also here is our civil engineering team, Gabe Crocker and Dave Newhall of Crocker Design Group. Gabe and Dave presented the, they prepared the engineered plans that you have that were filed with the application. And also here is the project architect Lee Hemingway of Regent and Associates Architects. They prepared the floor plans and the elevations that are part of our filing with the zoning board. I'll give an overview of the project and then if it's okay with the board, our team is happy to answer any questions that you or the public may have. Over the past 40... Thank you. Over the past 40 years, Herb Chambers has built a major regional business which entails approximately 60 motor vehicle dealerships employing over 1,500 people. Mr. Chambers' company has been named by the Boston Globe as one of the best places to work. All of the Chambers facilities are maintained under the direction of corporate manager John Welch, who's on the Zoom with us. As the board knows, the 4.86 acre property in the building at 400 Mystic Avenue was owned by Century Bank and then Eastern Bank and used for banking and office purposes. In 2021, Herb Chambers 400 Mystic LLC acquired the commercial property for $20.5 million. The current building is comprised, as you know, of an old three-story section at the northerly end. and a five-story section that received a height variance from the Zoning Board in 2001, decision number 2001-11, which I attached to the application, Mr. Chairman. The old three-story section is approximately 34.4 feet high. It will be demolished. The five-story tower section is approximately 73.6 feet high, and as I said previously, approved by the Zoning Board in 2001. Our proposal is to renovate the first four floors of the five-story tower section for sales, showroom, display of vehicles, along with sales and finance offices and customer amenities as shown on the filed floor plans and elevations. The footprint of the existing five-story tower stays as existing. We respectfully submit the reasonable Zoning Board relief that we're looking for is first to allow Chambers to build its new three-story service and parking section. The existing three-story section, as I stated, would be demolished. We've already processed and received a demolition permit for that old three-story section. The current dimensional ordinance Table B, Section 5E allows just two stories and 30 feet in the C2 zone, as the board knows. And it's infeasible for the proposed dealership use, and it's actually quite low for a commercial zone. The new 3 story section that we would construct is about approximately 550.5 feet is shown on the engineers zoning legend. And that would require the variants from table B, section 5 height restriction of 2 stories and 30 feet in the C2 zone. The existing three-story section, of course, already exceeds Table B, two stories and 30 feet. The new three-story section is comprised of the following. First, approximately 40 customer service bays will be on the first floor, which require a high ceiling. And then we have interior parking on the second and third floors for over 200 cars. Interior parking for approximately 106 cars on each of the second and third floors on the new three-story section that we're proposing. The total new three-story section is approximately 125,775 square feet, or just over 40,000 square feet per floor. The Zoning Board relief is requested to construct the five-story car elevator, which is our second request, and that would connect to the new three-story service section and would be between the new three-story service section and the existing five-story tower. So there'd be approximately a five-story car elevator, and that would transport the vehicles to all levels of the vehicle showrooms in the five-story tower section. The resulting new elevations, architectural interests, and quality finishes are shown on the Region Associates architectural plans. Conversion and improvement to the building is an approximate $30 million investment in Medford, in addition to the over $20 million acquisition. The project will also provide about 50 to 75 new jobs. So the summary of the zoning relief for this board jurisdiction is grant of variance to allow the new three-story, 50.5-foot high service section, where only two stories and 30 feet is allowed in the C2 under Table B, Section 5E. And secondly, to grant variance to allow the five-story car elevator adjacent to the existing five-story tower To enable the transport of cars to 5 floors of display in the existing 5 story structure approved by the board in 2001. Just briefly a discussion of the variance standards, which I know are always important to the board in section 3 of the application materials. And we tried to address each of the 7 sections comprehensively. Section 3, we describe the circumstances relating to shape, topography, soil conditions that cause substantial hardship and warrant the reasonable relief requested from the height limitation. First, the shape of the lot is irregular. The lot has an obtuse shape at the northerly portion and an elongated shape at the southerly portion. The shape of the lot and the existing structures upon it are restrictive hardships that require the new 3 story section for the dealership use with 1st floor service and 2 levels of interior parking. Additional vehicles cannot be accommodated outside due to lot shape existing building and site constraints. Secondly, there is a state access restriction to the property that requires us to locate the access to the new service building where it is proposed away from the I-93 off-ramp. This property is uniquely surrounded on every side by roadway, road network, including the I-93. Thirdly, creating a basement level to go subterranean is infeasible due to soil conditions of generally loose fill, silt, gravel, groundwater level as determined by our engineers. Given the soil conditions, the shape of the lot, the juxtaposition of the existing five-story building upon it, the feasible direction but construction of needed dealership service to accompany the sales showroom and parking is above ground as proposed in the new three-story section that's shown on our plans. Fourthly, the existing three-story building itself is also a hardship in somewhat rundown condition, cannot be retrofitted for the dealership use that will be encompassed in the brand new three-story section that we're proposing. The three-story section to be demolished has deteriorated wooden piles, rendering any retrofitting infeasible for dealership use. So the site hardships requiring reasonable height variance consistent with the height granted in 2001 are unique and owing to the shape of the lot, the juxtaposition of the structures upon it, hardship owing to the structure itself and soil conditions and topography, the soil conditions being what we described. Limiting the proposed substantial investment that we are proposing to two stories and 30 feet Without relief would be an insurmountable hardship and the project would not move forward. And that is really what you request in Section 4 of the application, which we filed with the board. That substantial hardship would result from not granting the requested relief from the restrictive two-story, 30-foot limitation, because without relief, the project would not be possible. It's an integrated project. The dealership use in the five-story existing building does not occur without the proposed three-story brand-new service building and parking building, which is integral to dealership use. So the project is comprehensive. It's not piecemeal. And the proposed new three-story section is actually 20 feet less in height, over 20 feet less in height than the already approved five-story section approved by the board in 2001. We respectfully submit there's no harm or detriment, only improvement that is brought with this project. And that brings us to the final evaluation and the grant of reasonable relief that we're requesting from the two-story, 30-foot limitation of Table B, Section 5E. And that is the fact that the grant of the height variance to allow three-story service building and a five-story car elevator connection to the existing five-story sales and display section will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. First, the modest height relief for this commercial property. It already has a five-story tower, and the height relief we're requesting, Mr. Chair and members of the Board, is the only dimension that requires reasonable relief for the opportunity to move forward with this project for MEDFED and the tax base and the economic benefits that accompany it. The proposal complies with all other dimensional requirements. You know, there's no substantial detriment. We believe that it's vast improvement, the infusion investment of millions of dollars in commercial improvement and commercial tax base for Medfed. And what we calculate to be over 50 new jobs and again, no substantial detriment. I made the point that three stories already exist at the site. Five stories also exist at the site. The metrics that we're working under already exist at the site per the 2001 variance decision. The height of the car elevator connecting to the existing five stories is, again, consistent with the existing five-story height. In furtherance of no substantial detriment, Herb Chambers and Toyota, we respectfully submit our premier brands. Toyota is a leader in electric vehicles. The project is consistent with the purpose of the C2 district. The city of Medford can grow to commercial tax base with the significant improvements. The project, I think this is important, makes single purpose use of a large vacant office building at a time when the office building class of assets, as we all know, is experiencing significant difficulty nationwide and in the greater Boston market. This project provides a new use, a comprehensive single user, significant established strong brands with both Herb Chambers and Toyota for a large vacant office property that might otherwise face a protracted occupancy challenge. Further, Herb Chambers Toyota is expected to use less water sewer than the prior office building use of the property. Also, Herb Chambers, Toyota, is expected to generate less peak hour vehicle trips as compared to the prior office building use of the property. And we do have the traffic report of Campbell Engineering Associates that says exactly that, 686 fewer trips than an Azebrite bank and office uses. And that's, again, on the point of no substantial detriment We think that it presents architectural interests with use of quality materials environmentally. The project will enhance stormwater treatment and management. Mr. Crocker and his firm have a stormwater management report that so concludes. And the project plans also show robust landscaping. We've got hundreds of new plantings and aesthetics, and I think we have a landscape plan that we can put up there. These are all benefits and improvement, not substantial detriment, consistent with the Herb Chambers brand and the level of quality that we try to deliver in all of our dealerships. So the project, we also believe, is consistent, certainly not substantially more detrimental in terms of nearby commercial uses in the C2 area, which is a mix of industrial, warehouse, automotive, and retail, as the board knows. There's Jason Trucks, truck sales, tractor-trailer storage, C's gas station, AeroCycle, Millennium Maintenance, power sweeping, foreign domestic auto repair, gas, inman motor sales, Colonial Volkswagen, AutoZone, Public Storage, Dunkin' Donuts, Northeast Electrical Distributors, Garmin Construction Products, Deaf Spring Company, Fresnias Kidney Care, Abilinos, I-93 Interchange, Car Wash, Bank of America, just to name some of the neighboring nearby uses. So in conclusion, we respectfully submit that the project provides an opportunity for improvement with no substantial detriment. the 50 more new jobs, millions of dollars of investment in the C2 zone, significant increase in properties, tax-based economic development. And I also wanted to add, Mr. Chair, that on June 5th next week, the applicant, we're also before the CDB for the USpecial Permanent Site Plan Review per Table A, principal uses of the zoning ordinance. So we respectfully request in conclusion that the board consider and grant the height variance relief from Table B, Section 5E. First, to allow the new three-story building section that we're proposing for the file plans, and secondly, to allow the new five-story car elevator to be connected to the existing five-story section. So with that, we're happy to answer any questions that the board or the public may have, and appreciate your attention and consideration.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you very much. Questions from the board? I see Mike has his hand up. Go ahead, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so in the project narrative, it points out how there's a few possible options in terms of relief here. There's a new variance or there's amending the existing variance. And so I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear on In the latter case, the actual relief required by the amendment here, it's a height variance, and it would just be amending it to reflect that the prior variance pertained to a particular site plan, and now the site plan is different. So there's a different proposal, a different use, and so on. So the amendment would just be to reflect that the height variance in terms of magnitude is the same, but the actual proposed structure is different.
[JjIkY7Z2rzw_SPEAKER_03]: That's correct. The, as the board knows, when you grant a variance, the. The dimension is then deemed conforming. It doesn't become some kind of non-conforming dimension. The five stories is an approved dimension per the 2001 decision. And that decision, as you point out, could be modified to say that the variances in terms of height and relief from Table B, Section 5E, is granted per the plans that show the new three-story section at 50.5 feet and the car elevator not exceeding the previously approved height of the five stories per the 2001 decision.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. Okay, thank you. And then this next one, this has come up a few times and it's still a point of uncertainty for me. We're the board here is being asked to grant some relief for a project that has still needs to visit the community development board, who then might change the project. And so it's a little unclear to me. like, would this need to revisit us? Because here, the ask is to either grant a new variance or to amend the existing variance to reflect a specific site plan, which will then go before the CDB that might change it. So.
[JjIkY7Z2rzw_SPEAKER_03]: I think if there was a material change, then we would probably have to come back to the board and, you know, the public hearing could be kept open. But I think that everything we've done really has been comprehensively planned, and this is the way it works. So if there were, you know, non-major changes, we would certainly be happy to file an updated plan, but it would not materially change the project.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. Thank you. Senior planner Evans.
[Danielle Evans]: Good evening. Thanks. Daniel Evans, senior planner. Yes, so the community development board is a site plan review authority and the special permit granting authority for vehicle use. As far as granting the height variance, so that's needed so that the city board can approve a site plan, because they can't approve a site plan that is in conflict with the zoning. So I would recommend that you not approve a set of, like a specific plan set. that takes into account the site plan because it's going to change, but I don't think the building footprint or the height of the proposed building will change. Some of the landscaping will indeed change. just to conform with some of our landscaping requirements. But perhaps in your decision, you add in some guardrails of what would trigger needing to come back, whether it's the change in the height. But I don't foresee the footprint or the height changing, but it would be maybe the parking and the landscaping.
[JjIkY7Z2rzw_SPEAKER_03]: And we appreciate those comments and agree with them. If the board was so inclined, I think that the framework that Danielle just described might be to approve a three-story addition with a height of 50.5 feet and a car elevator that does not exceed the previously approved five-story height. That's pretty much the relief that we're looking for from table B, 5E. Would you agree with that, Danielle?
[Danielle Evans]: I think that's a reasonable approach. I see the building commissioner has his hand raised through the chair.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Building commissioner, go ahead.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, I think what they're asking for is a very narrow set of conditions. I think as long as the board's decision focuses on those narrow, you're not really commenting on the site plan per se. You're simply giving the relief for the height and everything else belongs to the community development board. So just don't predicate it on a set of plans, predicate it on the height numbers. You should be fine, I think.
[JjIkY7Z2rzw_SPEAKER_03]: And we would agree with that.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Commissioner. Any questions for the applicant from the board? All right, we'll open it up for public comment. If a member of the public would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand on Zoom or wave if you're on screen. or send in an email to Dennis at dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov that is in the chat. I don't see any hands raised. Dennis, do you have any emails?
[Denis MacDougall]: I do not.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Chair awaits a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.
[Mary Lee]: I will second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Roll call vote under the group. Aye. Mary Lee. Aye. Mike Caldara. Aye. Yvette Villes.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And Jamie Thompson. open for discussion.
[Mary Lee]: Go ahead, Mary. Would the raising of the height change the use or increase the use, aggregate the use from its existing plan? Or is that issue being addressed by the Community Development Committee?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Use would be addressed by the city people.
[Mary Lee]: OK, thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Our concern is strictly the height, the need for a variance for the height of the building. Strictly because the original site, the original variance did include the site plan, so it was a little bit more restrictive than what we're considering right now. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so this board had a different membership in 2001, but it found that building with a different use of the same height met the variance standard and the associated expectation to associate that with a hardship related to the shape topography or soil conditions of the lot. And when we consider that jointly with now there's a structure here that would present additional hardships if the board were to change its position on the matter, I think it's pretty straightforward that it would be a hardship if the board were not to amend the prior variance. The standards the same, but I procedurally I'm in favor of amending the prior variance rather than granting a fresh one here. So, so yeah, it seems like a nice project and an upgrade and a big investment in the city of Medford. And the Community Development Board is gonna review the plan in great detail and may propose some modifications. So in terms of the question at issue here, increasing the size of one of the buildings to well below the max height of the variance in a commercial district and making a big investment in the property for this use, I think is perfectly reasonable. I'm not seeing any detriment to the public good and in us being willing to amend the variance here.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Anyone else from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I concur with what Mike said. Thanks, Andre.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Now, I would agree as well, and I'm along the same lines of amending the existing variance. I think that is the right direction to take this one. Just on the language for the existing variance, I believe.
[Mike Caldera]: So I think I can tackle it. I am pulling some language from the project narrative. So I'm going to motion to amend the 2001 height variance to reflect that The max height remains the same. It's that 73.6 feet, provided that the resulting project involves a renovation of the existing five-story southerly building section. demolishing the older three-story section and constructing a new three-story section with height no more than 50.5 feet, and constructing a car elevator connecting the two sections Yeah, so just to reiterate, the amendment will require that the max height is unchanged and that it involves a renovation of the existing five-story building, demolishing the older three-story building, reconstructing a new building no higher than 50.5, and connecting the two structures via a car elevator. So that's my proposed. That works for me. And I also propose we remove any language from the existing variants that would otherwise prohibit constructing the project as proposed in this narrative.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: We have a second. Second. Thank you, Mary. Under the roof? Aye. Mary Lee? Aye. Mike Caldera? Aye. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And Jamie Thompson? Aye. Thank you very much. Thank you attorney marinelli if you could draft that for us. Yes, thank you I will do that. Thank you, but if you're telling. Dennis could you move us on to the next case.
[Denis MacDougall]: 110 Norwich circle case number a dash 2024-14. Applicant and owner, Chanel and Frankie Stephanopoulos, are petitioning for a variance to add an addition to an existing structure at 110 Norwich Circle, which removed one existing parking space, giving the property one parking space, thereby requiring a variance, and it's sitting at the zoning ordinance, chapter 94, section 6.1.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant? Not sure if it's Mr. Landry or not. Mr. Landry.
[SPEAKER_10]: Hey, good evening. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to share my screen. I'm Nick Landry from DRT. I'm here tonight with the applicants, Chanel and Frankie Stav for 110 Norwich Circle. If I can share my screen. I know it's late, so I'll try to be very quick here. No worries, take your time. So we're proposing an addition to the house. Frankie and Chanel have lived here for quite a while, and they have a growing family. And in order to provide room for that family, we're proposing to extend the house kind of into the current parking area. And what that'll do is it's going to reduce the number of parking spots from two to one. So we're here tonight to ask for relief for that. So, today, this is a site plan showing the existing houses Norwich circle in the front here. There's about a 29 foot setback and the house starts here and there's a lot lot deck in the rear yard. The driveways actually right here. It's not shown on the existing plan, but it is in the proposed. So the currently there's about an 11 foot wide driveway with a curb cut that we plan to keep. We won't be changing that. We are going to be adding this addition here, which is still going to give us over 22 feet from that addition to the sidewalk to park one car. Currently the way the yard is used by the family, they have a basketball hoop set up in the front of the yard and a grill and kind of an outdoor dining area set up in the rear portion of this. So currently they usually end up with one car on the street and then one car in the same spot that we're proposing to park it in our proposed option with this addition. And that outdoor space will now be on a porch in the front of the house here, both of which within the setbacks. just an overhead view of 110 Norwich. So this is Norwich Circle here coming around. And you can see the driveway today. There's a basketball hoop that's set up right there. There's normally a car parked in front of this and then usually one on the street. So view today, so you can see the house here with the basketball hoop and the car that's typically parked here. The addition will still accommodate that same amount of parking for one car in the driveway. And I think that's about all we have here. If there's any questions, I could look back through.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mr. Landry. Any questions from the board for Mr. Landry?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, this is Andre. I have a question. I'm just looking at the porch and the new front of the house is extending forward. So no variance required for that.
[SPEAKER_10]: No, no, that, so the porch is within the setbacks. So no variance for the porch. It's still, I think it's roughly 20, 22 and a half feet off the front.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other questions from the board?
[Mary Lee]: So it seems like currently there's two cars for the household. Do you anticipate an increase of cars for any time in the future?
[SPEAKER_10]: I don't know. I don't think so. The kids are very young. And I think the homeowner is raising his hand right now, if someone could allow him to speak.
[SPEAKER_23]: Hello, uh, this is Frank Stavropoulos. Uh, no, we don't anticipate an increase in cars at this time.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mr. Stavropoulos.
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Chair, just 1 more question. For the applicant, I'm wondering if the applicant could just characterize the, I know we got some butters support letters, but I'm wondering if the applicant could characterize the engagement with the surrounding of butters and what those conversations are like and where the support's coming from.
[SPEAKER_23]: Uh, yeah. Am I still alive? Sorry. Uh, spoke to most of the butters people across the street that could potentially be affected by street parking, uh, as well as surrounding neighbors. Uh, and as far as parking is concerned, there seems not to be much concern there. Is that adequate? Or were you looking for something more? No, that's fine.
[Mike Caldera]: I do just want to double check specifically about my understanding is one of the letters of support the board received was from the butter directly to the right of this addition. So the essentially the house closest to the to the addition as stated there in favor of
[Adam Hurtubise]: further that they support the proposal, is that correct?
[SPEAKER_23]: That is correct. I think that's what we're looking at. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah. We have one from both the left and right side, correct, Frankie?
[SPEAKER_23]: Yes.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I thought I saw Mary. Oh, no.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, I had a quick question, and it's really possibly not relevant. Thank you. But it looks like there's another means of egress on the driveway side, and it's not shown on the rendering here, but does it materially affect anything? of the way people would leave the house and use that side setback.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, I think with the way, so you may notice here, the front entry here has shifted a little bit. We kind of reworked the entry. This would be the main entrance. This side door that is going away, there's additional egress on the rear of the property. So it wouldn't be a building code, any building code issues there, and there wouldn't be any, there aren't any new openings or doors proposed on this facade that would be spilling over into the side yard.
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Chair, motion to open a public hearing portion. I think you're muted, Jamie.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Yeah, so we're moving forward with a public comment. Sorry, we don't need a motion anymore, thank you. So public comment, anyone from the public that wishes to speak, raise your hand on Zoom. or send an email in to Dennis at dmackdougal at medford-ma.gov. Give that a moment. Dennis, do you have any emails or did you receive anything else
[Denis MacDougall]: No, aside from the letters of support that I submitted to all earlier. No emails tonight.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Perfect. Thank you. Chair awaits a motion to close public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to close public comment.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mary. Senator LaRue? Aye. Mary Lee? Aye. Michael there. I. And Jamie Thompson. Thoughts on this project. Yeah, so I think it's a.
[Mike Caldera]: addition. It's requiring fairly minimal relief here. The neighbors are supportive. The hardship that requires a variance here is the position of the existing structure and parking spaces relative to the lot. It really limits the options to extend within the setbacks and retain two parking spaces. So here the only real option to add to the property while otherwise respecting those setbacks was to expand into the existing parking area, which is currently not used. It's a private street, doesn't appear to be heavily utilized for street parking. right now, the current resident parks on the street now anyway. So I think in terms of detriment to the public good, there really isn't a material detriment here. So yeah, those are my thoughts.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Agreed. Thank you, Andre. Um. Agree with the same with the letters of support from the neighbors. Obviously losing parking is always a concern, but for the neighborhood having that much support and obviously considering that existing use, I think this is a good project.
[Mike Caldera]: Um. for parking for 110 Norwich.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mary. Thank you. Mike, roll call. Yvette Deleuze?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andre LaRue? Aye. Mary Lee? Aye. Mike Caldera? Aye. Jamie Thompson? Aye. Nick, Dennis, could you guys work together? I guess we don't have an attorney on this one. So can we work together to draft the move?
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure. Yeah. We'd be happy to try to draft something. And we can probably get the help of an attorney if we need to. OK.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Dennis will connect with you on moving that forward.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I might actually have some sort of similar cases that might sort of be a good sort of guide to start with. So something that you sort of use with like a boilerplate to sort of go from that. I'll go back to our files for something recent that we've done.
[SPEAKER_10]: Okay, great. That would be amazing. I'll shoot an email off to you tomorrow morning. Director Hunt, go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, before they leave, I didn't hear you actually also approve the variance for front yard parking that was in the denial letter. I didn't want to throw a monkey wrench into this, but it was in the denial letter and I didn't want them to have to come back.
[Mike Caldera]: If I may, Through you, Jamie, is that actually needed relief here? Whether it was one parking space that's now zero or?
[Alicia Hunt]: You're saying this parking space was already in the front yard?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Correct. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. I just figured it was better to not let the applicant go away.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, the change is a reduction of parking, but I see what you mean in the language and the denial.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, that was actually pretty similar to the one we had a few months ago on Lincoln street where. The applicant closed off her garage and that basically forced her parking space, which to be that was in the front yard setback. I think we did something similar to that. That was some.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I guess the language in the denial continues. As such, you must seek to a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow a single non-conforming parking space to meet the requirements. Do we have any attorneys on? Danielle?
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it wasn't front yard initially, but once you add the addition, it becomes in front of the front yard. If it was a garage addition, then it wouldn't be, but because it's living space, it's kind of like a particularity. an issue with it. The applicant explored flaring it out to try to get two spaces there, but then they introduced other variances who were trading one for another. And this was the layout that didn't have didn't increase impervious surface, so it felt like it didn't create the detriment that putting more pavement to put in a parking space in another location just to be, you know, by the book. It just seemed like it would not be the best scenario.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Understood. Commissioner?
[Scott Vandewalle]: The intent was to recognize that they essentially had a conforming spot and a nonconforming spot, and that by granting the variance, they would be left behind with a nonconforming spot and just recognize that it didn't require relief. It was more to recognize that you were still going to have one, but just happens to be nonconforming because the front yard.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, would that mean that the recommend that the vote should be to allow one nonconforming spot, not just to allow one spot?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I suppose that's probably a more accurate description of it to clarify what it is. So you don't accidentally create conformity to it in some way and create an unintended consequence.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. Because I'm not arguing against the approval. I'm completely in favor of that. I just want it to be correct.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, so can we amend?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes. Well, I was I was a bit ambiguous in the wording of my motion. So I just said the parking variance. And so as I now understand it, it's what Scott said. So I mean, if we need to amend it and revote, I think the decision could just reflect that.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, why don't why don't we do so just to avoid any legal issues?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, then I will motion to amend the prior approval to clarify that we are approving a parking variance to allow for a reduction down to one non-conforming parking space in the front yard.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: 2nd, thank you. Mary under. Hi, Mike. Hi, Mary. Hi, and Jamie. Hi. You can still go forward. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your patience with this this evening.
[SPEAKER_10]: Thank you all and thank you all for confirming that we've got the right variance. Thank you very much. Have a great night.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Administrative updates. Do we have anything on the city side?
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, I just wanted to make sure you're all aware that the first round of zoning changes has been legally referred from the city council to the CD board, which will be hearing them in their public hearing next week. Danielle is sending packets to the CD board tomorrow. I need to grab, I'd like to just grab them and send them all to you. You're welcome to provide any comments to the CD board for consideration. It's mostly some cosmetic changes and then adding in some definitions and then changing how zoning meets municipally owned property. I think that's a very, very brief summary, but I feel that it If anybody looks at the changes proposed, sending us comments before the CD board would really be the easiest and best way to impact them. Please don't wait until they're in front of the city council for the final vote. That can raise logistical nightmare questions as to whether it then has to be sent out.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Are those packets available at the office?
[Alicia Hunt]: It's all electronic. Oh, okay. But what it is, is in the city council agenda from this past Tuesday night, if you haven't explored their new agendas, they do attach papers for all the agenda items. Oh, so it's the same ones that we just voted on? Yes, I would download them from the City Council Agenda and hit forward on them. If you wanted to just go to the Council Agenda, those are in fact the documents that are going to the CD board.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. I thought it was an additional set going to the CD board.
[Alicia Hunt]: No. It's what was on the Council Agenda on Tuesday.
[Mike Caldera]: I've got too many documents and links in my life. I want to remove any and all ambiguity. Could someone send a link? I'll send it over to you. Okay, thank you. I'm happy to review and provide comments in a timely fashion. I just want to make sure I'm doing it on the right.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I actually just sent them to a couple of people earlier today. Commissioner, do you still have your hand up?
[Scott Vandewalle]: No, sorry. I have to put the little button down.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other updates from the city side? And do we have any minutes? I don't think we've got any minutes.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, but in talking with Teresa earlier today, she said she found some, because right now the Zoom provides like a full transcript of everything. And she found some software that she can use to make at least a rough draft of the minutes from that. And then I'm going to work with her tomorrow on that. And that should expedite matters greatly. She said it's made a massive difference for her with the expedited preservation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, there was always 3rd party tools, but Windsor matted it built in it. There's a big help. Yeah, right. Anybody have any new items?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I will motion to adjourn.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Seconded and roll call. Hi, Andre.
[Yvette Velez]: Hi, Mary.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I, Chris, I, Mike, I, and Jamie I, ten minutes later than we thought. Yeah.
[Yvette Velez]: Hey, really quick. I'm not gonna be in the next meeting. I'm on vacation. The end of the month is everybody. Okay. But he's going.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: All right, so it won't be so that won't affect the 280 mystic because that's continued to July. Yeah, no. Have a great vacation. Yeah, thanks much.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Have a good 1 night.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Everybody.