[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So, we're going to open the meeting regular, then we're going to go into executive session. Do we need a. I'll do the roll call. You should be on any 2nd. Do you need to read the.
[Denis MacDougall]: Agenda yeah, let me do that. That would actually be helpful to go to. Too many agendas. Pursuant to general law chapter 30A, section 21A3 to discuss tragedy relating to pending litigation known as Rifa et al. versus Caldera ZBA et al., Massachusetts Land Court, case number 23 MISC 000657JSVR, The chair clears that discussing the matter in an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating session of the board. A vote regarding whether to go in an executive session is expected and votes may occur during the executive session.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And we'll do a roll call for members. Mike Caldera.
[Robin Stein]: Before we get to the roll call, Mike just needs to go on the record and say that it is his declaration that discussing this in open session would have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the board.
[Mike Caldera]: We haven't even taken a roll call. So we're not.
[Robin Stein]: I'm sorry. I got kicked off and kicked back in and I thought you were voting on the actual, my apologies.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: No worries.
[Robin Stein]: My computer kicked me off and kicked me back in. Sorry about that.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do you want me to defer the chair to you for this as well?
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, I see no need.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. Um, so roll call, uh, Mike Caldera. Present. Jim Turani? Present. Chris D'Avetta?
[Denis MacDougall]: That is him here. He is on, but he may still be. Present. Thank you, Chris.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And Jamie Thompson, present. Do we need a motion for executive session or do we just go into executive session?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so now that you're the chair, you would be the 1 and makes the declaration. I believe correct. Robin.
[Robin Stein]: So, 1st, Jamie, as the chair will make a declaration that the board is going to go into executive session. pursuant to General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, to discuss the case of REFA versus the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is Land Court Number 23, MISC 00657, because Jamie, as the chair, has declared that discussing the matter in open session will have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the board. And if you'd like, Jamie, you can say, I agree. Yes, that is my declaration. That is the purpose of the executive session.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I agree. Yes, that is the purpose of the executive session for tonight.
[Robin Stein]: Okay and then you can entertain a motion and somebody can just say so moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to enter executive session.
[Robin Stein]: And then you just need a roll call vote.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Does it need a second though?
[Robin Stein]: Yep, you need a second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I'll second. Thank you Jim. Mike Caldera?
[Robin Stein]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Jim Tarani?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Chris D'Avetta?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And Jamie Thompson. All right.
[Robin Stein]: So, oh, and before we go in, just to announce that the board is not coming back, you're having a separate meeting after this, correct?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, so the board will not come back to the open session after the executive session, you're going to convene a wholly separate meeting and continue on tonight, but in a different meeting. So technically not coming back to this.
[Denis MacDougall]: Technically, it's the same zoom meeting, we're just gonna reopen the new meeting at 6.30.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, so it's a different agenda. Same zoom for anybody that's watching. Yes. Gotcha. So the board will be back on the zoom at 6.30. So it's technically a different meeting. All right, that works for anybody watching.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Are we taking any of these out of order? Are we just going to order? I think they're all fine. I think 86 will be quick.
[Unidentified]: Recording in progress. There you go.
[Denis MacDougall]: Good evening, everyone, apologies for the delay. We had an executive session that we needed to finish up for some other event or related matters, but we're starting now, so we can get started. I think since this is a new meeting, we should probably do a roll call again.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yep, correct. Good evening, everyone. This is the August 29th session of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. Roll call. Mike Caldera? Present. Jim trying president Christie about a president and Jamie Thompson. Dennis if we could start with the first case.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure 86 upstreet case number a dash 2024 to 17 continued from July 2520 24. Applicant and owner, Amy and Andrew Weber, to install an addition to 86 Suffolk Street within the front yard setback on Suffolk Street and the rear yard setback, which is not allowed per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And do we have a representative for the applicant?
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, Amy and Andrew Weber here.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Hello. Thank you, Amy and Andrew. If you guys want to go ahead.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: Sure, absolutely. Thanks for having us back again. We, I don't think I can share.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, I'll hold on a second.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: Happy to have someone else, Dennis, I believe we emailed the updated file or happy to share it. Oh, Co-House, perfect.
[Denis MacDougall]: You can share right now.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: All right, so here is the updated correct plot plan. And so as we talked about last month, we're looking to put an addition onto the existing dwelling. It's a one floor addition that we're looking to do with a very small proposed open porch just on the corner. And so where we're looking and asking for the, The variance is along the proposed addition, our rear setback here. We're extending a existing nonconformity. We're not making it any worse. And it's basically 9.3 feet, so the difference of 0.7 feet there. Where the confusion was last time, apologies again for submitting the wrong forms. Initially, we had a slightly bigger jet out here, but we've reduced the size of the project. So the setback here initially looked like it was going to be under the 15 feet limit. But as you can see here now, it's actually 20.3 is the closest that we'll get to Suffolk Street on the front setback. So hopefully that should satisfy the requirements and mean that we're only asking for the rear setback here. Any questions about that?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Well, thank you very much for the explanation. Board, anybody have any questions for the applicant? Okay, I don't have any questions there. Do we have, Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, we may have discussed this in the last meeting, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding the case correctly. So the hardship here is that the lot is unusual in shape, and given the position of your existing house, it limits the the different places where you even could do an extension. So you need the relief for that reason. The natural way to extend is, I guess, down the way the plan is oriented. And so that's why you need that, right?
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, exactly. So we have a very unique shaped lot in that we have two front yard setbacks on either side, Suffolk Street here and then Wyman up at the top here of how the page is oriented. And so this also over here is really the only green open space that we have where our kids play outside. We have a swing set there. We have family time out there. So that limits where we can really put the addition on. And so the natural place is to come along here and again, extend the existing nonconformity, but not make it any worse.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, thank you. Thank you Mike. Building pressure.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, Dennis can you clarify the agenda isn't there, this is a special permit or a variance if it's a special permits in the hardship standard would not apply. Just want to clarify that.
[Denis MacDougall]: On mute. I believe it was just a special permit. Sorry, I'm just trying to.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, so it's substantially not more detrimental though currently exists more so than a specific hardship requirement. Just an extension existing nonconforming.
[Mike Caldera]: And that's because the side yards already existing nonconforming? Yes. Okay.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, well, technically that's the back, the back, the rear setback there, because that's the front that we use and the front door is here on Suffolk.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, that's a classic example of an extension of a pre-existing non-conforming. They're already non-conforming and they're not making it any more non-conforming. They're just extending the line down further.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. Okay. So it's intensifying because it's going from 15.3 to 9.3 or 9.3 inches. Okay. I think it's 9.3 the whole way. I think that 15.3 is to where area is being raised.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_15]: That's correct. That 15.3 is misleading.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions from the board or from the city? Do we have any public comment? For public comment, just raise your hand on Zoom. You can email Dennis at dmcdougall at Medford. Got to get your email address memorized, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: It is in the chat, but it's D McDougal with two L's at medford-ma.gov.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Can't we just short your email to DMACC?
[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, we could, as long as Dennis McDonald gets DMICC. I think that would be, that would make our lives probably either easier or more confusing. I'm not sure which.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I don't see any hands raised on Zoom. I don't see any, The one in the video, Dennis, do you have any email or did we receive any other public comment prior to the meeting?
[Denis MacDougall]: No emails and no prior public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I'll second. Thank you, Mike. Jim? Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. Chris. And Jamie I. So, we are in deliberation any discussion from the board on the site. And again, understanding what the correction that the commissioner pointed out, this would be a special permit, not a variance. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it seems like a really nice project. It's extending an existing non-conformity. It's not making it any bigger, it's not encroaching on the neighboring property anymore. So it seems like a pretty modest change. And while it's not necessary to demonstrate it for the sake of a special permit here, it clearly is an unusual shaped lot. And so I'm not really seeing good alternatives to extending in this direction. So yeah, from my perspective, I'm not seeing a detriment to the public good. If we were to allow this, it seems like a nice project.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Any other discussion from the board? My feelings are the same as well. All right.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Jim. Chair awaits a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I will motion to approve the special permit for 86 Suffolk Street.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I'll second that. Thank you, gentlemen. Roll call. Chris D'Avena.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Jim Torani?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike Caldara? And Jamie Thompson? Aye. Thank you everybody, appreciate you did the additional work you did on this. You have a special permit. Great, thank you very much.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very much.
[Denis MacDougall]: Very quickly. Yes, sorry, I talked over you just the I'll get you the decision shortly. I was hoping to have it pre written in case this has happened, but I just couldn't get it done. And so I'll try and get it to you sometime. It's pretty straightforward one. So probably next week, hopefully fingers crossed, you know, I and then once you get the permanent hand, then there's a 20 days appeals period. And then once that is done, you know, well, sort of walk through the process, but involves going to the city clerk's office and registry and then you can get your Permit, sorry.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Minor corrections, not once they get the permit in hand, it's once they get the decision, then it goes to the 21 day. I can't issue a permit until after the decision has gone through its 21 day appeal period and has been recorded at the registry. And then you bring a copy of that to us. So you're 30 days out from me being able to issue a permit. It's not that you can't submit the paperwork. I simply can't issue it for about 30 days.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_15]: Okay. Yeah, that was pretty much my question. It sounds like we wait for this appeals period and then take the special permit to the clerk and the registry of deeds or those.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Clerk will give you, clerk will give you a notice that 21 day appeal period has expired and you can take your copy as well as that to the registry, the Middlesex, South Middlesex, they will stamp it and then that's the proof we have that it's been approved by law. you bring us a copy of that. Perfect. Thank you.
[MCM00001001_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: You're welcome. Thank you, commissioner.
[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis, can we move on to the next case? Yep. 13 Marion Street, case number 8-2024-19. Applicant and owner, Anna Ramos, wishes to convert an existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling at 13 Marion Street, which is an allowed use with insufficient lot width per the City of Medford zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[Mike Cabral]: And do we have a representative from the applicant? Yes. Thank you, Dennis. Members of the Board, my name is Attorney Michael Cabral, representing Anna Ramos, owner of 13 Marion Street, Medford. Thank you. Attorney Cabrera, go ahead. Thank you. Ms. Ramos currently resides at the house. It's a single family house. She is looking to convert the single family into a two family house. This is a GR district where two families are allowed as of right. Ms. Ramos meets all the zoning criteria to convert this for setbacks in lot area with one exception, that being lot width, as the board knows, in the GR district for two families, 60 feet. of lot width is required. Ms. Ramos is short by five feet. She has 55 feet of lot width here, which is the reason we're before the board this evening for that single issue of lot width. Otherwise, she has over 7,000 square feet of lot area where only 6,000 are required. She's keeping the structure at two and a half stories. And even with the addition to the house, the law coverage will be under the 35% max coverage at 24.9%. So we've made a request to the board for alternative relief. One, being a special permit with the finding that it's not more substantially detrimental because it is actually a pre-existing non-conforming structure and that the front corner of the house does encroach into the side yard setback. However, the addition that's being proposed, none of that addition would encroach into the setback. It would actually meet all the legal setbacks on that side of the property. And then in the alternative, if the board believes we need a variance, we've made an argument for a variance as well. I'm happy to share my screen if the board wishes to look at the site plan. Jamie. Mike has a question.
[Mike Caldera]: I had a question. Attorney Cabral, you partly answered it, I think. I'm not sure if I've seen the argument for the variance, I'll double check my notes. But yeah, my question was precisely about that. So when I was reading submission prior to our hearing, as I understood it, you were requesting the special permit. My reading of the Medford zoning ordinance is that here because the existing non-conforming structure is a different use that's not triggering the need for lot width constraint. And by switching the use, it's actually a new non-conformity for lot width. So for that reason, I believe the board needs to apply the variance standard So I just wanted to clarify with you up front. It sounds like you're making both arguments. So maybe, Jamie, you can weigh in on that. But I just wanted to make sure before we got too deep, we had clarity on what the standard we're applying is.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike.
[Danielle Evans]: Senior Planner Evans has... Good evening, Daniel Evans, Senior Planner. Yeah, we had a lot of discussions when this first came in, Scott and I. You're exactly right, Member Caldera. It's because it's currently conforming for lot width, because lot width for a single family is only 50 feet. But once you change the use to a two-family, which is a use that's by right, but however, the lot width required for two-family is 60 feet. So it's creating a new nonconformity. So our stance, at least my stance, is that Unfortunately, it requires a variance. I studied it every which way. I was like, I don't want to have to send you to the board, but I believe it's a variance. But I will say that I would recommend approval of it. One of the things that we're looking at with the zoning overhaul is kind of changing some of these things. For us, I don't think it makes any sense to have a different lot with standard for a single and a two. And so this is on my list as something that needs to be cleaned up because it just becomes, you know, busy work. It's a by right use. But for this one standard that for some reason, when the ordinance was written, They thought it should have another 10 feet of width and I'm not really sure what the reason is for that, but that's what it is. So, you know, we're in favor of, you know, adding additional unit here. And granting the variance.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Daniel. So, we are in agreement. We are reviewing this as a variance. That was also on my list. Thank you for bringing that up, Mike. Attorney Cabral, if you wanted to review the plans, just so we can, again, we are just focusing on the five feet requirement for variance.
[Mike Cabral]: Can everyone see that? We can. Okay, so I'm starting down at Marion Street here. We meet the adequate frontage here. We have 55 feet. This is the existing structure here. This is the existing drive aisle. The existing drive goes all the way back to an existing, this is a two-car garage here. This would be the proposed addition to the house, which includes a two-car garage in this area here. So really the only living space is roughly around this area here with a small portion over the garage. It is a non-conforming structure as well as you see here in the corner. The side yard setback I believe that's 4.3 feet, where seven and a half is required. As we go back the closest the new structure gets to this side yard here is eight feet. This is the church over here on this side they've actually given a letter of support for the project. Also note here that the closest the new structure to the side yard over here is 27 and a half feet, just more than 27 and a half feet on this side. But again, a lot with being short by five feet. If I zoom out here to confirm, I might be missing it on here. But the lot area is 7,100 and change square feet. I'm sorry, here it is right here. 7,134 square feet. I answer and again so parking spaces existing car garage here parking spaces here, and there'd be a new two car garage here as well for two existing off street parking spaces total for off street parking spaces here, which, again I know being a two family neighborhood. always concerns about on-street parking. This will take care of those concerns, hopefully, with certainly adequate off-street parking here for both units in the structure. The new structure relatively modest total living area about just over 1,400 square feet. It might be 1,800 if you wanted to include the non-living area in the new garage, but the client's proposal was continue on with the house sort of to the rear of the property, not extend it over to the neighbors on this side. Again, the church being supportive of that, we've kept it in line there. Also, to not make it or keep the density reduced, not extending the house out sort of to the right-hand side to create any kind of massing wall from Marion Street so that it is not noticeable, quite frankly, from the street with the extension. to the rear. I'm happy to answer any questions on the site plan and also happy to go over the elevation plans if the board would like as well.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Attorney Cabral. Does the board have any questions or do they want to see any additional information with regards to the width of the lot? Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Attorney Cabral, I think you may have covered this in a letter you sent us earlier today. Am I correctly understanding that there's an adequate turn radius into the new garage area?
[Mike Cabral]: Yes, absolutely. So we're looking at this being the garage area here. We're looking at a turn radius, 27.6 feet. All the way to what would be the chain link fence that currently separates these 2 properties here. So, certainly plenty of room to adequately enter the garage. Turn and enter the drive aisle to exit the property again. That's for the. excuse me, newly created garage, and then obviously this is the existing garage where you could certainly just pull in and out. You could also make a turn here. This is a, for lack of a better word, a patio area here, but certainly enough room to maneuver the vehicles through here for turning into, enter, exit the drive aisle in this direction. Okay, thank you. Would the board like to see the elevations for this? Yeah, while you're sharing, let's go ahead.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I do see Christine has her hand raised. I'll come to you when we get to public comment.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, yes.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: We're not in public comment yet.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Jamie. Chris, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify because I'm afraid to change screens myself my computer problems but this is a four bedroom unit edition yes that's correct correct thank you so this is the layout of the overhead
[Mike Cabral]: This again is the existing structure here. This is the new structure being added here. So again, the two-bed garage here, this would be the first floor of the new addition, modest living room, kitchen. This would be the second floor of the new addition with the bedrooms on this level. And so this area here would obviously be over the new proposed garage to give the house some additional living area. Otherwise they'd be confined to this relatively small footprint here. And then I think I skipped it up here, but then this would be the half story. So this about 170 square feet of living area on the half story third floor. And that would make it conforming to be a half story as well, according to the building code, a bit outside sort of the zoning purview. But just to clarify that, that would be the half story with a living area of about 270 square feet. And in terms of the elevations, this is the existing front This is probably the best view of if we're looking at the house from the drive aisle, so to speak, pulling in, this would be that new two-car garage that you'd see dorm room above, and this would be the new two-and-a-half-story structure here. Again, living space above the garage and the half-story above here without additional bedroom or office above. This would be the backside of that structure. Can I answer any questions on this?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any questions from the board?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. It's possibly for the building commissioner, which is the size of these bedrooms is extremely small. And I know, I think from Another project, I believe, you only need 70 square feet for a bedroom or something similar. I think, obviously, correct me or not on that. That is correct. But that 70 square feet can't be, I guess, is there an amount of common space or moving around space that is required?
[Scott Vandewalle]: No dimension shall be less than I believe 7 foot. And 70 square foot, so it's not big. Those at 1st glance appeared within the building code.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, that's basically my question. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Chris. Any other questions from the board? Okay, I'll open that up for public comment. Christine, go ahead, if you can give your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, yes, thank you. My name is Christine Ianni. I live at 9 Marion Street, which is the abutting property. I worry that this proposed oversight expansion would further contribute to the detriment of the community as we've seen these types of expansions in the area have negatively impacted parking, trash, rats, noise, and the overall feel of the street. The proposed plan is inconsistent, flawed, and does not meet code requirements for the proposed structure, making it oversized for the lot. For example, I believe the attorney just referenced 1,800 square feet, which is over 100% of the existing area. It's also unclear if the tenants to occupy the three-story proposed addition plan to improperly leverage my personal driveway. to enter and exit their own given the extremely narrow and unique parking situation. It's already very challenging to get in and out of the driveway as is with the crowded on-street parking. And even with limited visitors now, folks will leverage the street to park. While the zone allows for a two-family, it is not to code for a two-family, and there's already a two-car garage on the lot. Unfortunately, this is not accurately reflected in the plan by size. The proposed garage addition is facing our home, which would cause a disruption of direct headlights into neighboring homes, including ours. In addition to the existing two-car garage would be a more appropriate and less disruptive solution than building a separate second two-car garage on the same lot. The proposal, combined with the fact that the lot is five feet narrower than required by code, is material, especially given the unique nature of the narrow lot, which would not allow necessary room for what is proposed. I hope you had a chance to read my detailed letter submitted to the board for review, and I'm happy to answer any questions. I thank you for listening and considering these concerns.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Christine. Any other public comment, if you have questions, and you want to speak and raise your hand on zoom or email Dennis at D max to roll two L's at Medford dash ma.gov that is in the chat. At a moment, I don't see anything in zoom Dennis. Do you have anything in chat?
[Denis MacDougall]: Uh, an email no, no, no additional emails other than. Uh, let's see how these email that whether that was sent to you all.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you motion.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, just a point of order. So I know we have the letter from Attorney Cabral which speaks to some of this. Are we going to be talking about that at all? Because if so, I'd prefer to do it before we enter deliberations.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Sure. And I know we've got the letter of support from the church as well that was mentioned but not read.
[Mike Cabral]: And we're happy to respond to Anything if the board wishes as well and I'm also happy to go over the. Uh, legal requirements for both special permit or variants of the board wishes as well.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do you want to review the letter and the responses in there? Mike, do you want me to read it in?
[Mike Caldera]: I mean, it's in the record, so I just want, if Attorney Kerr-Braw wants to share anything beyond what was contained in the letter or just reiterate pertaining to those specific points, I think now would be the time to do it. I was just trying to preempt a scenario later.
[Mike Cabral]: Yeah, I mean, I think our letter, we tried to go point by point sort of in a, Organized format to respond to that. We certainly understand concerns about on street parking, which is exactly the reason for another garage. on site. As I'm sure you can all understand, you know, tandem parking sounds nice, but it never really works out in practice, so to speak. So to actually have separate parking areas for each unit just seemed to make more sense for our client as well. So again, keeping all the on street excuse me, all the parking on site rather than on street is the goal here. and creating the additional garage in this area here allows for that. Also allows for, you know, not having to manage sort of vehicles and blocking each other in. That was the goal here. In terms of density, I mean, we actually think it's, quite frankly, a lot less dense than most other two-family houses on these type of lots. Again, this being sort of an oversized lot of 7100 square feet, and we, the max law coverage is 35%. According to the code, ours is only 24.9%. So, in terms of density, we've tried to reduce that with a smaller structure here. And in addition to that, again, keeping the addition to the rear of this structure and not extending it out to Ms. Ayane's property over here to the right so that the massing of the structure actually seems much smaller because it simply extends back to the rear yard and continues to meet all the setbacks as well. I'm not sure I can speak to trash rats that certainly there have been no complaints with regard to my client to date that I know of. Certainly our client, who wants to continue to live in the front structure here, doesn't want rats and trash on her property, right? She sort of prides herself on that, keeping the place kept up nice, not only for herself, but for her neighbors as well. She certainly wants to be respectful, and she has a good relationship with the neighbors and would like to keep it that way. We've heard of concerns of increased rats. you know, in the city, and that's certainly something that my client will obviously work to minimize as well. Not only during construction and a commissioner, there are requirements for, you know, when work is being done, you know, remediation or, you know, extermination that may be required. Our clients more than happy to comply with any of that at any time. I think that sort of hit on the major points, but certainly we've gone over here, the drive aisle as well. And if there are any other specific items that I missed or the board wants me to touch on, I'm happy to do that. And then no other, and then again, with the existing, you know, the structure again becomes closest, still meets setback, but closest to the church and the church did give a letter of support for the project.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I'm sorry, Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Jamie, through you, I'm wondering if Attorney Cabral could speak to the neighbor's concern about headlights hitting the house. I'm looking at the area plan, and it's not clear to me if the garage, the new garage is even in a location that would where a car would be perpendicular to the house. It looks like maybe it's shining into the backyard.
[Mike Cabral]: I'm not sure that it would go maybe to the rear of the structure. I'll say in any event, I discussed with my client there is an existing chain link here. Our client's intention was to actually put up a new solid fence here as well, which would certainly give the neighbor more privacy and should alleviate those concerns of headlights. Thank you.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, go ahead. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm also perhaps another question for the building commissioner and the number of bedrooms, which is four, and the provided parking, which is two. Is that currently Meet the requirement, or are they seeking a variance for parking as well?
[Scott Vandewalle]: The current requirements for a dwelling unit to have a minimum of 2 spaces. Typically, it's not predicated necessarily the number of bedrooms.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And planner Evans.
[Danielle Evans]: Go ahead. So for two families and above, it's one and a half spaces per unit. So the requirement for a two family would be three spaces.
[Mike Cabral]: I would add certainly as well, there is enough room in this area here to add additional parking if the city wanted that.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And we do, we have not closed public comment and there have been additional discussions. Christine, I'll go to you.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, I was just wondering if it'd be possible to speak a bit more about the plan for the proposed fence. The chain link fence that currently divides the driveway is actually on my property. And my property actually expands a few inches past that. And I was just hoping to hear a bit more about the plan for the fence.
[Mike Cabral]: And my client certainly happy to discuss that with you again. Their plan was to put up a new fence along here. It would be on their property. I know you also raised a concern. My client has no intention of using this area here, which is your property. Their property line stops here. There's a fence along the property line. If you wanted to discuss with my client whether you wanted to keep your fence or you wanted to get rid of the chain link and discuss total replacement of your chain link with a solid fence, I'm sure my client would be glad to have that discussion so that you don't have to have sort of two fences abutting one another as well, whether it be for, you know, aesthetics or whatever, maybe.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Planner Evans, go ahead.
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you. I would recommend that the board place a condition on the decision that there be a solid fence if the board so desires. I wouldn't leave it to after the fact discussions. If the abutter is wanting a solid fence, which I think would make sense if she's concerned about privacy or headlight glare, whether or not that would actually happen.
[Mike Cabral]: And on behalf of my client, we're more than happy to commit to that.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Thank you. Building Commissioner, go ahead. And I just do want to clarify, the maximum you can have is a six foot fence. We've had those conversations before. Those don't come up too often, do they?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Commissioner. Go ahead, Christine.
[SPEAKER_00]: I just had one other question regarding the driveway and the garage to make sure I'm understanding correctly. For the board's context, the existing driveway is extremely narrow on either side. Unfortunately, it barely fits one car as it drives down, which makes it very challenging to get in and out. I just wanted to understand, I had heard Attorney Cabral, you had mentioned that there's necessary turning radius. I was wondering if you could just quickly explain or show what you mean.
[Mike Cabral]: Sure. So this roughly is the proposed new two-car garage, and there would be 27.6 feet to exit the garage and turn into the driveway to exit the property and also likewise entering as well. It's probably I don't know, maybe the commissioners, but certainly seems like more more space to turn a vehicle than probably most parking lot drive aisles as well. So, I think it's certainly more than adequate. Turning space, turning radius for vehicles to enter and exit the new proposed garage and certainly existing garage. not a problem at this time as well. Also there, you know, cars come in, there is additional parking in this area right now that my client parks in as well, navigates in and out, forward, reverse, and leaving the driveway onto the street.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Any questions from the board? We are still open for public comment, if there's any additional public comment.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, I have a comment.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Go ahead, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_08]: My name is Edmond Ianni, and I am speaking on behalf and as agent for Christine Ianni. The point on the off-street parking spaces that needs to be clarified is that these proposed plans indicate enough space for up to, depending on how you count them, 10 or 12 off-street parking spaces in violation of the codes max for this lot of eight. If you take into account the proposed plans allowance physically of a new two-car garage, and parking spaces in front of each of those bays, as well as the existing garage, which is a two-car garage, and the parking spaces in front of those bays, you get to a point where, at least per the code, those unenclosed and enclosed parking spaces must be taken into account and counted to quote the code, whether or not those spaces are used for parking. Hence the issue of one, the violation of the code limitation And two, the excessive undue detriment in the form of, especially if all those spaces are occupied by vehicles, unnecessary, excessive headlight glare beaming into Christine's property. the existing, supplementing excessively, excessive exhaust fumes, which would be directed particularly when the cars are backing out, and the additional noise. So it seems that You know, the better solution here would be to scale down the proposal rather than build a separate new two-car garage, to simply put an addition onto the existing two-car garage, and that would solve all five of those problems. Hence, the five feet of width is so critical as Christine pointed out. It's already insufficient because it's non-conforming, but to propose this additional vehicular, if you will, operation on the property will exacerbate the problem. it could use five feet more. And may I respectfully submit that this is not unlike the situation for 57 Morton Avenue a few years ago, where the applicant had to combine an additional lot to create the necessary space to convert to a two-story dwelling.
[Mike Cabral]: Thank you, Endan. Mr. Chair, may I respond? Yes. No, we're only showing four spaces. We're not showing 10, 12. I'm sorry.
[SPEAKER_08]: I think I, for some reason, I can't hear. Can you put it?
[Mike Cabral]: We're only proposing for off-street parking spaces here. We're not proposing parking, as they're not shown here, up and down the entire drive aisle. Just as the neighbor doesn't have parking and stacking cars up and down her driveway here, we're not talking about what's theoretically possible. We're not asking for any relief. relative to parking we satisfy all off street parking requirements and certainly if there's ever a parking violation at this property or any property you know our client or you know future owners will certainly have to bring that into compliance but the purpose here was to give adequate off street parking to also satisfy concerns, not only of the neighbor, but other neighbors as well as congested on street parking as well. So it's, you know what? Hard to have it both ways, but we're trying to provide more than adequate off street parking so that additional cars are not parked on Marion Street and leave those for visitors and other residents who do not have the adequate on site or off street parking needed for their own vehicles. That was the intention here.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Attorney Cabrera. Any questions from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, can we check in with the building commissioner on that? My understanding is that the number of parking spaces isn't what's shown on a plan. It's just defined by the ordinance. And so I'm almost certain that this is nowhere near 10, but maybe it's four, maybe it's six. It's unclear to me. So I'd like clarity on how many from the perspective of the city and its ordinance, how many parking spaces are there with this configuration?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I'll defer to Danielle first. There we go.
[Danielle Evans]: Okay. I'm sorry that I keep chiming in. So those wouldn't count as parking spaces. It's not how many cars, you can cram on a lot. You have to have reasonable access to them. That could be interpreted as tandem and changing keys around, but you can't stack a bunch of cars and have that count as a legal parking space. So that's not a correct interpretation of that 100% of parking. prohibition, and I believe that doesn't actually apply to It definitely doesn't apply to singles, I'm not sure about twos.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I'm looking in the ordinance to find- Yeah, in section 94-6.1.4, maybe what he's referring to, it says residential districts, number of spaces shall not exceed 200%. Okay. And yes, spaces are defined not just as 20 by 10, they're also defined as space to access them and maneuver and all that sort of stuff. She's right, it's not just pack them in like sardines and that counts as a space. You also have to bear in mind they're going to have to create a lot of impervious space here that may not be driveway in order to meet stormwater regulations. So I think the answer to how many parking spaces is not as clear as it's going to be 10 because I can draw 10 boxes on top of each other. Yeah.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, and that will be addressed as if this moves forward as it goes through the building process, the permitting process with the building department. And if there are any variances or anything that needs to come to us based on those, those will come back.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yes, if we get a parking plan and a layout through engineering that triggers a need to come back, we will send them right back to the board.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you, Daniel, Senator Evans. Thank you, Mike, for your question. Any other questions from the board? I understand, yeah. Okay. At this point, I'll wait a moment to close the public hearing and enter deliberation.
[Mike Cabral]: Mr. Chair, before you do so, did you want me to lay out our standard for either the special primer or the variant for the record? Yes, please. So, again, on the on the variance on the variance. So, you know, we'll still maintain our position on the special permit, but I certainly won't won't argue that here tonight. But for a variance, certainly a unique lot in mentioned by the neighbor as well. The lot depth requirement is only 60 feet. This lot actually has 130 feet. of depth, so it's an unusually long lot, especially relative to the width here. Again, it being a GR district, two families are allowed as a right, so the use is actually allowed here. And the shortage, not significant, only five feet. Again, we've tried to mitigate that by putting the structure behind here. So again, unique lot being long relative to its width, the hardship being to our client, they would be unable to actually use Their property for an allowed use being a two family, which would certainly again limit their use here and certainly have a financial impact on them as well. It's certainly not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood either. This is a district there about I counted about. Half on Marion Street are two to three family houses already. So it certainly fits in with the use in the neighborhood as well. And also this would add an additional dwelling unit, which we know that the city desires as well. Again, a relatively modest one as well. So not a sort of amassing structure. And we would respectfully request that the board grant the variance based on that. Thank you for your time.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Attorney Cabral. So we have that, again, this is focused on the five feet with the property, and we are discussing a variance, again, owing to the circumstances relating to soil condition, shape, topography of such land or structures, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant. and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance or bylaw.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, I'm going to motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberations.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Jim. Mike? Hi, Jim. No, I'm good. Hi, thank you. Chris. Hi, Jamie. Hi. All right, we are in deliberation who would like to go 1st. Okay, so we've got a with variance request here for a by right to family development. We've had statements from the planner Evans with regards to the process that they went through with the planning department. We do have a letter of support from one butter letter against from another butter. You know, with the shape of the lot, obviously, it is a challenge. They do have the area. They do have the depth makes up for some of that is by right. And as discussed by the planner, the intent of our changes going to our zoning will be to improve the opportunity for people to do this. We also have state regulations as we've seen, you know, push for ADUs and other improvements along our ADU development within the city for adding units onto existing property. I am in support of this.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, if I could ask, we're considering a variance currently? We are, correct. All right. And there could be a special permit?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: It was submitted as a special permit, but it is a variance as discussed by the commission earlier.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay. All right. So it will not be considered as a special permit? It becomes correct.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: It is creating a new non-conformity.
[Chris D'Aveta]: And what are our options for conditioning on a variance? What conditions placed upon the
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: the project, the difference? From the project perspective, we're limited. We can go, because the plans have not been reviewed by the building department at this point formally, they come to us for the variance prior to going through the building department review. Right. If there is anything else that we want to require as discussed with regards to the fence, we can make those conditions. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so, Jamie, from an analysis standpoint, I'm not planning to really consider the direction the city is heading with its zoning on this. I think we need to focus on the zoning now. But in terms of the zoning now, What I'm seeing is a lot that is fairly large for the street. If we look on the area plan, it's on the larger side. It has the area and the dimensions to support the allowed use of a two family other than the width. And so The question from my perspective is, is there circumstances relating to the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the lot and structures that would create a hardship in this case, literally applying the zoning to this extension? And here, I think the the biggest, so everything is dimensionally within what's allowed other than the lot width, which is one of the unusual aspects of the lot. It's relatively long and short. And so I do think it would be a hardship to prevent the owner from being able to use this lot as a two-family. And I think they've done a suitable job trying to mitigate the impact. So it's not adding a lot of massing from the street. They've indicated a willingness and an interest in putting in a fence. I don't think we need a condition on the fence, but I'd love to hear the board's thoughts on that. Yeah, it seems like this is a pretty small impact with adequate parking. And the lot certainly meets the standard of being unusual. It's not a condition generally affecting the district.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. I always appreciate your analysis. Chris or Jim, do you have any comments that you want to share?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Your mic is off, Jim.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Sorry about that. Looking at a picture, I'm seeing a chain-link fence that's on the left-hand side of the house, but then a wooden fence that's in back of that. Question to Attorney Cabral. Is that the fence we're talking about, the chain-link fence?
[Mike Cabral]: No, Mr. Tarani. The chain-link fence we're talking about- Is it that? The neighbor that spoke tonight, this is her property here, and this is her driveway. And there is a chain link fence running down the boundary line that separates the two. So this is that chain link fence that we've been discussing this evening. The wooden fence separates our client's lot from the church property on this side, which has supported the project. OK.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: All right.
[Mike Cabral]: Well, thank you for that. You're welcome.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I do have, Mr. Chair, if I may. Thank you, Chris, go ahead. What's the current bylaw say about permeability versus impermeability of the site and what the percentages are?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Building Commissioner, could you respond to that?
[Scott Vandewalle]: The current stormwater regulations state that if you create more than 200 feet of new impermeable surface, which the structure does, you have to go through a complete stormwater plan. So they will have to hire an engineer, create a plan, and decide how to contain the water within the site. There are also some requirements about driveways being a permeable surface, but that'll be looked at in the big picture.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yes, that actually, to the driveway point, that's what I was getting to. There's no currently, or part of the stormwater plan that they submit will have to show the surfacing that they're going to use? Correct.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Planner Evans?
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you. Yes, in our zoning, it's surprisingly does not address permeability. We have landscaping requirements, but in the definition of landscaping does not indicate whether it has to be pervious or impervious, which is also something we want to change.
[Mike Cabral]: Thank you very much. And our clients are really familiar with that working with an architect and will submit all of that to the commissioner assuming we get there and glad to satisfy all those concerns.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other discussion from the board.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Just a general comment if I may, Mr. Chair. I think overall it would be hard to deny this given the underlying zoning and the compliance with setbacks, et cetera. Although I do very much hear the abutters concerns and I'd like to see what additional measures can be taken to alleviate the concerns of the butter at 9 Marion Street, including an opaque fence or something that would, landscaping, I mean, in some ways may be preferable to a fence because you may get something quite not aesthetically pleasing. So, you know, I don't know what our options are there, but that's my, those are my general comments. I think the plot size is, you know, oversized in the general scheme of things. So I understand the setbacks and everything. I am concerned about the permeability of the, site and then, you know, any runoff that occurs, but I guess, you know, trust our building commissioner and engineering department to work that out.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: General comments. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, with regards to the fence, You know, I know I am concerned about putting a condition there. I think it's important. I do like the idea of a opaque fence there, but I think that the applicant has indicated their interest and willingness to work with the neighbor with regards to that. I'd be concerned about putting a condition that sets a requirement when there may be an opportunity for them to develop a different solution that they do prefer. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I tend to agree with you, Jamie. I guess the way I'm thinking about it is the board should be very careful about imposing conditions and really restrict ourselves to the cases where the condition is truly necessary to meet the no substantial detriment standard or other aspects of the the standard. Here I think I acknowledge there is a case to be made for a condition mostly due to the somewhat unusual configuration where the garage is oriented towards the neighboring property. It really doesn't look to me from the plans like it actually is pointing into the property. So I'm not seeing a scenario where it's headlights in the house from the plans I'm looking at, which is why I would be comfortable not requiring that. It does give more flexibility for the owner and the neighbor to find something they both like. If we impose a condition, they kind of have to do it or else they can't build. So I would prefer to move forward without the condition, but I'm I'm open to a scenario where we move forward with the condition if that's viewed as essential to proceed under the no substantial detriment standard by a member.
[Mike Cabral]: And I certainly know the difficulties of imposing conditions on And that's why I'm more than happy to stipulate that our client is willing to work with the neighbor. They were already planning on a fence. You know, do you want to talk landscaping instead? My client would be more than happy to have that discussion and would certainly like to keep their neighbors. They're going to be neighbors. Want to keep open lines of communication and certainly willing to put up that fence. My client had already discussed that with me, you know, prior to this hearing.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I'm happy to go on record with that as well. Thank you, Attorney Cabrera. Mr. Chair, in that case, if, you know, I do think some amount of screening there is necessary because whether or not the headlights shine into the house or into your backyard while you're using it, it's still something that's a you know, disadvantageous to the neighbor. So I will take the attorney at his word and the applicant at their word and they'll work something out with the neighbor. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm gonna motion to approve the Variance for 13 Marion Street.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Do we have a second?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Jim. Uh, Christy of it. Hi, Jim Torani. Hi, Mike Caldera. Hi, Jamie Thompson. Hi. Thank you attorney cabral. Could you believe Dennis would we like to have attorney cabral put together the decision for us the language there. Yes, I'm happy to do that.
[Mike Cabral]: Dennis, I can email that over to you. Thank you much. Thank you everyone. We appreciate it.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you everyone. And we have next 35 Lincoln Street if I'm correct.
[Denis MacDougall]: 35 Lincoln Street, case number A-2024-20. Applicant and owner, Ian Lavery, wishes to infill an existing driveway at 3537 Lincoln Street, which will remove two existing below-grade parking spaces. This is not allowed per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 6.1.4, and Table A, Table of Use and Parking Regulations.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yep, hi, I'm Ian Lavery. Good evening to the board. Thank you for having us. Also on the call is our neighbor, Brad and Caitlin Dobby. It is a two-unit condo. We submitted three permit applications. The one that was denied was specific to our property, but all the projects are kind of part and parcel. And if it pleases you, I'd like to share my screen and walk you guys through the project.
[Unidentified]: Sorry, please do. All right.
[SPEAKER_13]: All right, can everyone see my screen?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: We can.
[SPEAKER_13]: All right, great. So the reason for this project is to protect our property from this sort of flooding that we're seeing on the screen here. Our section of Lincoln Street, which is near the corner of Fairfield, is the lowest point on the street. And during severe, quick, and rapid thundershowers, you can see that the entire street floods due to the stormwater system backing up. Now, on 3 or 4 occasions, we've had the water crest the driveway in the sidewalk and flow down our driveway into our garage. Up to about 2 feet of water in each of our garages and see, we have a. Water barrier we put up earlier this June. I think we got it just in the nick of time to protect our garage. But on other cases, we were not so lucky last year. This was the remnants of some flooding that occurred on our property. This is as the water was draining. And then this is Brad and Caitlin's property during that same storm. This is the flooding that occurred in 2021. This was the most significant flooding in terms of damage to the property. It caused about $10,000 worth of damage to our properties combined. And you can see the water came in so hard and fast it actually broke through the garage doors. And I think I have an additional picture here of the damage that was left over after the floods recited. So, to that point, we contracted with an architect to design a plan to close off the garage to create a flat driveway and prevent any water from coming to the house. Here is a view of it. There are some additional views in the plans, but you can see from a sloped driveway in this picture, We're proposing a flat driveway with a finished basement behind this wall here that we'll pour. So basically pouring a concrete wall about halfway up the garage doors, putting in some windows, demoing our existing driveway, and then pouring a flat driveway in its place. You can see the site plan here. The footprint of the driveway is not changing. We're just changing the elevation of it. And then we are putting inside egress stairs here on each side of the property in order to have some additional egress into and out of the basement. And then each unit also has an additional interior stairway into the basement area. I'll note that I was in the garage when the first flood happened. And it was only afterward that the fire department told me there was a severe electrocution risk from being in there while the water was interacting with the building HVAC system in the garage. So this is a fairly significant health and safety risk. In addition to just damage to the property, and then sort of come back to the reason we're here, and that's seeking a variance in regards to parking. The requirements stipulate that we have 3 parking spaces for 2 units in this neighborhood. And this project eliminates the 2 interior garage spots. For each unit and leaves us with 2 total, so we are 1 short of the required parking spaces for this property. And 1 additional note is that during heavy rains, we pull the cars out of the driveway anyway. Because we don't want to actually damage our cars during any flooding. And I do have a note here from City Councilor Emily Lazzaro in support of this. This is a kind of last minute letter, so I don't believe you guys have this in your file. has seen the damage that occurs and understands the undue stress. But I also want to point out the last two lines here. I've never struggled to find street parking. I have no reason to believe that there would be any problem caused by the removal of off-street parking due to this variance. We are not a very densely populated area of the neighborhood of West Medford, and there's always ample street parking on our street and on the cornering street on Fairfield. Any questions on this project?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my understanding is that this will be subject to the city's stormwater ordinance. And so I'm just curious, have you gotten any comments from the city engineer on this?
[SPEAKER_13]: We have not. We have spoken with Owen Wartella on a few different occasions. He's come out to the property. But I have not received any comments in regards to this particular project. Okay, thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I guess that would, my question is, has the city, obviously the stormwater, the overflow that's coming in, has there been any engagement with the city to try to mitigate what's happening on the street in general?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yep, so the city engaged with a contractor client filter and conducted a citywide stormwater assessment to identify probable neighborhoods and what the potential solutions would be. The potential solution proposed for this neighborhood was, you know, a million plus dollars of drainage work. And the last we heard from from Mr. tell us that the city decided not to pursue that that project, you know, a 1Million dollars for one property being. Probably outsize expenditure.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Any questions from the public, please raise your hand on zoom, or you can email Dennis at the McDougal to at Medford dash and a.gov that is in the chat as well. We'll wait on that. I'll just open any other questions from the board or from the city. I see a hand raised. Brad Dobie. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_12]: Hi, my name is Brad Dobie. I live at 37 Lincoln Street. I just wanted to reiterate and introduce myself as the other owner of this property. I think one thing that this flooding impacts us, it's probably worth noting, is that between the two families, we need to always have one person around the property to roll out our flood barrier in hopes that it would stop any flooding. Often these bursts of rain are poorly predicted by forecasts, so sometimes we don't even know we'll have a thunderstorm until maybe an hour or 30 minutes ahead of time. And if neither of us are home, then we can't do anything to defend our property. And I would say that this has caused me sleepless nights and undue stress. And even our kids who are eight and four worry about this, you know, kind of, you know, the property flooding. So this is kind of our, right now, our best hopes of kind of resolving the issue. So I kind of want to note that we are trying to be proactive about the situation just to kind of, you know, restore our lack of worry about this being our home, rather than waiting around for something to change on the street that would cause the water to not crest over the driveway and into our garages.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Brad. I see a hand raised, Elaine H. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_01]: Elaine Ho Gruchowski, 40 Lincoln Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Go ahead. I am the neighbor of 35 to 37 Lincoln Street across the street. I can confirmed that there's frequent flooding on our street. Even before their building was built, we have frequent flooding. And I just wanna say I support my neighbor proactively engage in a project to mitigate the damages to their house. And we saw the damages that was done to them, the stress. That they are experiencing and I just want to say, I support the projects.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised. Dennis, do you have anything in email?
[Denis MacDougall]: No e-mails are on this either now or previous to the meeting.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Chair awaits a motion to close public hearing and enter deliberation.
[Mike Caldera]: So moved.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do we have a second?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. And Jamie, aye. All right, Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm supportive of this variance. Clearly, there's an unusual topography with below-grade parking at one of the lowest points on the street. It's causing some major property damage. Uh, this seems like a necessary solution to address that. And, um, yeah, weighing the hardship of this kind of regular need to guard the property against flooding with, um, against the potential detriment caused by being one, parking space short of complying uh, or conforming to the zoning ordinance, I think it's clear that, um, being one space short is not gonna provide, or is not gonna cause a substantial detriment to the neighborhood, and we're not gonna derogate from the intent of the ordinance. This needs to be done to protect the property. And also, as I understand it, this is gonna have to ultimately go through the city engineer for sign-off, on the stormwater ordinance. So in that sense, even though there hasn't been a specific upfront discussion, it sounds like that will just get addressed later in the process. So I'm supportive of this proposal.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Anyone else from the board? I also support this, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry the homeowners have to go through this. It seems like a big flaw in the original design of the structure. It probably shouldn't have ever been allowed, but that's a good solution, if not, unfortunately, kind of an expensive one. So good luck, and I do support it.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Chris. I am also in agreement this, and it's very unfortunate that this is what you've had to deal with. I know I worry about storms, but that's just more gutters and runoff. I can imagine having all that water coming into the basement. And appreciate Mike's analysis from a variance perspective. I would agree that this does not derogate at all from the intent of the By law with regards to parking and Chris's aspect of, you know, the original development. I'm not catching this ahead of time.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not seeing any other. comment, so I'm going to motion to approve the parking variance for 35 to 37 Lincoln Street.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I'll second that. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Jim. Christy Aveda? Aye. Mike Caldera? James Torani? Aye. And Jamie Thompson? Aye. Thank you, everybody. We'll get the words, so that is approved. We will get that written up building commissioner. Go ahead.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I do want to mention that. while you do have to wait for the appeals period, et cetera, et cetera, I would not hesitate to begin conversations and iron them out with the city engineer that doesn't have to wait to have a plan in place. You can go when the time comes sooner, better, rather than later.
[SPEAKER_13]: Do you think we should proactively reach out to Owen and his team to discuss this? Okay. Yep.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you commission and then, and I think you were on the call earlier, but I'll just reiterate. So, I'm going to write the decision. After I finished the decision, I'll file it in the city clerk's office from then there's a. Appeals period 21 days and then from there. Once that period is done. I can help you walk through at that point as well. You go to the city clerk's office, basically they have a letter ready to go. It's a boilerplate that they just fill in the dates and times, basically saying there have been no appeals during this time period. Take that letter in hand with a copy of the decision, go to the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds and file the decision there, and then come back, and then go to the building department and say, And I filed it with the clerk's office. Here's the letter with no appeal. I would like to get my premise.
[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, great.
[Denis MacDougall]: Although I think Scott sort of said, you could actually do some of the initial stuff beforehand. Correct? And then just when those. Everything's have everything sort of ready to go and then once you get everything. It'll start as well.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Is that correct? You can always file a building permit. We just can't issue it technically. But and then again, working with Owen and engineering, I would not hesitate. That's not affected by this. The sooner the better. Does it, you know, it started when they can tell them not start to get cold out there. So at some point, the ground will freeze. Christmas is coming. Patriots are starting.
[SPEAKER_13]: I hope we get snow this winter, especially in the mountains.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah. I don't like when my snow budget goes up.
[SPEAKER_13]: Fair enough.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, everybody, for your time. Appreciate your patience with the meetings. We apologize for starting late. Thank you. All right. Thank you all. All right, Dennis, we'll move on to administrative items. I don't think we have any minutes to review, correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: I literally just realized that someone had actually done them and I forgot to send them to you, so I'm sending to you now so we can approve them next month along with this month.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I think that was it. Any new items?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I mean, we definitely have some that will be. More than likely, it looks likely that we still have a meeting next month. There are a couple that are sort of in the approval process. I know that. 1 that on Elm Street is still being discussed. There's a 1 there, so and there's another 1 that I've been working with the homeowner, try to get their stuff together so they can file. So, if they can get it in shortly, we can have the meeting because I believe it's. It would be the 26th, so if they can get it in, then it has to get okayed by Danielle and Scott, but hopefully we can, that might be one more.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. I guess for those that are on here, any conflicts with September 26th? Chris, Jim, or Mike?
[Chris D'Aveta]: I think I'll be here 26th.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I'm good, Jamie.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, I'm, I will likely be here. Um, it's not worth moving on my account. Um, so officially is a maybe, but probably yes.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah. And I'm sure with the three others, we'll have at least one other person. Thanks Mike. Um, all right.
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, anybody else have anything new? I'm going to motion to adjourn. I'll second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. And Jamie? Aye. Thank you everybody for your time today. Good night.