[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Good evening everyone welcome to the Thursday, January 2nd, 2025, meeting of the Medford Zoning Appeals. Happy New Year. We're going to do a roll call for attendance. Mary Lee? Present. Jim Tirani? Present. Mike Caldara? Present. Jamie Thompson? Present. I don't think we had anybody else from the board join. Dennis do you want to start with the first case.
[Denis MacDougall]: First case is 85 Elm Street case number a dash 2024-25. Applicant and owner 835 Elm Street LLC to demolish and convert a legal nonconforming motor vehicle repair station to a 3 unit townhouse style residential building a single family to. Here's Andre sorry single family to zoning district requiring a variance for frontage lot with. and usable open space for the city method zoning ordinance chapter 94. When I let someone in, I lose my screen. Chapter 94 table, the table of dimensional requirements, a variance as to parking pursuant to chapter 94, 6.1.3, a variance as to one pursuant per chapter 94, 11.42, or alternatively, a special permit to change non-conforming use as set forth in chapter 94, 5.21.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening, Chairman Thompson and board members. Kathleen Desmond of Reading for the applicant. I'm here this evening with Petitioner Richard Baldessari, Manager of 8385 Elm Street, LLC, Project Engineer Jack Sullivan of Sullivan Engineering, LLC, Project Architect Zeke Brown of Lisa Architects, and Landscape Engineer Jay Olmsted of Olmsted Design. The proposal before you this evening is to convert an existing gas station repair shop to a three-unit attached single-family dwelling. Each of the units roughly containing 1,900 square feet of living area. Zeke will further provide you with the exact square footage. By way of background, the subject parcel is located within the SF2 district and is a generous size containing approximately 10,080 square feet of land. A 1,264 square foot building currently is on the site and houses the repair shop. The gas station repair shop is a pre-existing structure in use. The petitioner has continued to maintain its fuel storage license, and I provided the board with that, and uses the property on occasion to repair vehicles as overflow from its other Medford location on Hicks Avenue in Medford. As recently as a couple weeks ago, repairs for Salt Trek and Plow were made at the site, and a number of snowblowers were also repaired. As to the physical attributes of the site, the property, while generous in size, is not capable of being subdivided into two buildable lots, as neither lot would meet the ordinance requirement as to width, which is 50 feet. Any subdivision would create two nonconforming lots in violation of the merger doctrine. Parcel is also hampered by a 12-foot drainage easement that runs diagonally across the first one-third of the front area of the property, requiring any building to be set back a minimum of 34 feet from the street. In addition to the drainage easement, the property is also challenged by the topography to the rear of the yard, which is significantly lower in elevation to that of its neighbors. The project is proposed will install a retaining wall system that will help prevent further erosion from the neighbor's property onto the subject property. What we're asking for relief tonight is first a variances to lot frontage and width of approximately 8.77 feet, which does not impact the compliance with setback requirements. We are also seeking a variances to usable open space as there is considerable open space on the property, but it does meet the dimensional requirements of open space. We are also seeking a variance to parking As the parking spaces, although while set back beyond the setback requirement still remain in the front yard due to the fact that the structure has to be beyond the drainage easement. And also a use variance or alternatively a finding in accordance with section 5.21 of the ordinance, which would call for a substitution of a non-conforming use. I'm going to let them present and then I can go back to each one of these variances requested and provide you with a rationale for the requests based on the information provided. And with that, I'll turn it over to Jack Sullivan. And Dennis, I'll share my screen.
[Jack Sullivan]: Yeah, that worked fine. Thank you, Kathleen. For the record, my name's Jack Sullivan. I'm the project engineer, and I'm the owner of the Sullivan Engineering Group. I'm going to give a quick overview, a lot of this information Kathleen already gave in her introductory statement. But basically, we have an existing site. It's zoned in the SF2 zoning district. There's two existing curb cuts on Elm Street that provide access to this lot. There's an existing one-story concrete block building on the property now. It's approximately 15 feet, 6 inches high. And as Kathleen stated, there's a 12-foot wide drain easement that runs across the site, basically the front third of the site. And as she stated, the lot's relatively flat until you get to the rear of the site, where we have some steep topography on the back left-hand corner of the site, and there's an existing retaining wall with a maximum height of about seven feet at the back of the property that provides some slope challenges to this property. When we go to the proposed condition on the right hand side of the site plan in front of you, we're going to retain the two existing curb cuts. Yeah, if we can zoom in a bit. Yep, we're going to retain the two existing curb cuts, so no new curb cuts in Elm Street. And there'll be a circular drive that provides access to the site to service the three units. As you can see, we're situating the proposed building to the rear of the existing drain easement. We need to do that. We need to keep the building structure itself outside that easement area. And at the rear of the lot, we'll be constructing a new retaining wall system. So that plays into what Attorney Desmond was saying during the introduction of the meeting. By providing that retaining wall, there's existing erosion that's taking place along the rear of this site now. So this retaining wall, although a significant cost to the applicant, will provide a stable structure to the rear of this property. Each unit will have a one car garage and there'll be an associated one car parking space in front of each unit as well. And I think at this point, I'll turn it over to the architect to get into some of the architectural features of this property.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Before you do, Jack, we can just point out to the board, we put a couple of photos here that kind of show the topography and the fact that at the back of the lot, you know, we've got this this hill essentially that runs up the back of the lot. So they can get a sense as to what the topography challenge is.
[Jack Sullivan]: And to add to that, that wall on the back, it's not a structural wall. It's a loose stone wall that's in really poor condition. There's been some failure to that wall that the owner's been trying to deal with over the years, and there's been some erosion onto this property. So by adding a fully engineered structural wall at the back of the site will be a big improvement.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And with that, we can hand it over to Zeke to go through his plans.
[SPEAKER_02]: Hi, I'm Zeke Brown. Kathy, you want to let me do screen share? It might be easier. Sure. Do you want me to? Here, I'll just replace current share.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I'll stop sharing.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Once you touch the seat, you're in control.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, I'm in control. Let me scroll down here. So here are the photos Kathy was just pointing out. As she said, we've designed a three-unit townhouse structure to sit on the lot. Unit 1 and unit 3 are about 2,600 square feet, and the middle unit's a little bit smaller based on the balcony and the way the entrance sequence works. But I'll just walk you through the floor plans to give you an idea of how it works. As Jack mentioned, we have a circular drive that comes in from Elm Street like this. There's car parking underneath at the lowest level of the unit, and adjacent to that are the entry doors. You come in, there's a long entry hall and stairs go up. In the back here, we've got some storage rooms. They're essentially basement spaces and they're concrete foundation walls that are built to help buttress and terrace the backyard to make the retaining wall a little bit lower. As you come up, you basically come in the door, you go straight up the stairs, Into each unit has a big living, dining, kitchen area, pushed more to the rear of the property. In the front of the second floor is a bedroom on each unit. You continue up the stairs again. Get it here. Land in the back and each unit has two bedrooms and bathrooms en suite on the upper levels. Go to the exterior elevations. The building is designed to look like a two-family. It has two peaked roofs facing Elm Street. We tried to minimize the mass by pushing and pulling as much as we could so it didn't just feel like a giant thing. I'd like to point out one piece here, if I can. The existing garage, at 15.5 feet is more or less at that height. It's a little bit closer to the property line than what we're proposing, the side yard property line. The eave of the building here is about 12 feet above where the existing garage is. It's about a story taller than the existing garage, but the slope of the roof here would end up minimizing any shading problem with the neighboring property. I just wanted to point that out. The rear continues around the back. We've got stepped terraces happening in the back for rear yard. With that, I will leave it to Jay Olmstead. Hopefully, he is logged in.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Dennis, is Jay logged in? He had a previous meeting. He thought he would be here by 645.7. I can't tell from mine whether he has logged in at this point.
[Denis MacDougall]: If he's in, he's not in as himself. Does that make sense? Because there's a few iPads, iPhones.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. Looks like someone's, maybe this is him in the, looks like someone's entering.
[Denis MacDougall]: The waiting room. Oh, did somebody just put someone in because I didn't.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I don't see. I got the one with the 781 number. Don't ask if that's them.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, the person who just came in at phone number 781-874 started with that. If you are the landscape architect, please let us know.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If not, I can go through what we're looking for for relief and the rationale for it and then move back to Jay. But let me say, in terms of the landscape plan, and Jay can go through this in further detail. What is really going on here and the cost is probably going to be in excess of $100,000 to properly set this retaining walls in the rear of the property so that we can be prevented from moving forward the erosion. You can see from the pictures and my client has indicated that there's frequently You know, it slides from the, from the neighboring yards into the yards, because there isn't really anything of meaningful weight to hold that earth back. In addition, the building itself. Because it is a three-unit building, we'll also help support that. Jay can explain what he has for flowers and landscaping in this area. But essentially, it's a tiered landscaping so that the landscaping is between the foundation of the building and the retaining walls to try to keep all that land stable. Sorry, go on.
[SPEAKER_02]: No, go ahead. I would just point out that Jay made a big effort to provide adequate screening from the street in this buffer zone here. To give a bit of privacy as well as along the border of both the side yards, which I think is a good neighbor move.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So I don't think that he's had the ability to join us as of yet. So in terms of what we're looking for relief and the rationale behind that, first, the property clearly has attributes pertaining to drainage, topography, and lot width that create a hardship. My client estimates that the cost of demolishing the existing dwelling which is existing, non-conforming, will run approximately $40,000 just in the demolition of what's existing. In addition to that, previous to the filing of this complaint, and I think the board is aware, that he did in fact spend significant funds to clean up the site so that the site is clean. In addition to those costs, the installation of the retaining walls alone will be in excess of a hundred thousand dollars to to set those correctly so that you no longer have the issue both with the neighbors abutting the property and the subject property as to erosion. In addition you know there will also be a cost which is more more easily worn by three units than a single unit in this case. Because under the SF2 district, I think it's important to recognize that two families are not allowed either. Those also would require a use variance. But in that instance, you would be in a situation where they would have to bear the cost of maintenance of both the landscaping and the retaining wall, which is is more easily dealt with by a three-family property. In addition to the topography and the drainage and how that relates to parking, I think we've provided six spaces. The requirement is five, but I think realistically, when you're looking at the fact that you're gonna have a driveway in front of each of those units, that you're gonna have a parking space for each, and it's also more in keeping with an SF2 district requirement of two parking spaces. The variance is required because, again, although we're beyond, well beyond the 15-foot setback. required because of the drainage easement which runs along the property. The building has to be set back 34 to 40 feet from the front end of the property. And as indicated and as the pictures show, The back topography is difficult to deal with, and we've only got, when you push the building back that far, you've only got 15 feet, which is the rear yard setback. So the topography of the rear yard, in addition to the placement of the building due to the drainage, is why we're seeking the variance as to parking. With respect to use, again, I think, and if, could you go down to the end of the slides for me? Yep. One up from that with the listing, the, keep going. One more, there we, permitted uses, there we go. So, yes, in terms of the size of the lot and also the uses, I think that everyone has the. understanding or the first thing that comes to mind is that in the SF2 district you're limited to single-family houses. But that is not necessarily the case with respect to those uses and the uses that are as a right child care center which would create much more traffic and much more noise in the neighborhood. The church is also a And as of right use, there may still be dimensional requirements that they would have to comply with. But for the most part, with the size of this lot, those as of right uses would be a potential that really wouldn't be fitting with the neighborhood. In addition to that, you've got uses permitted by special permit, which include private recreational club or lodge, public entertainment or recreational facility, and adult-use marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, processing, and independent laboratory. With respect to the special permit analysis, whether those are more detrimental to the neighborhood. would clearly be the case just didn't in terms of you know number of visits of noise and traffic so when you're looking at the SF to district I think it's important to remember to that this isn't just a homogeneous district that there are also other potential uses that could go into that space given the size of the line that would be incompatible with the existing use or are you playing compatible. You know, this is a situation where you're not going from a use that was permitted to a non-conforming use. This is essentially, even if the board considers it to be a use variance, it's a non-conforming use to a non-conforming use, but a use that is residential in nature, it adds one unit over what would be allowed if you could subdivide the lot, but you can't subdivide the lot and create two buildable lots. And it also provides the applicant and those who live there with the ability to do the necessary retaining wall work and whatnot that is required to really clean this property up and keep, you know, birth from falling forward into the subject property. As to width and frontage, we're seeking those variances. Those variances will be required with respect to any project that came in here, and it's the reason why the subject lots can't be subdivided because they don't meet the width requirement of the district. And so with respect to the use variance, I think that The hardship is the fact that you can't subdivide the lots, you've got significant costs related to getting this project, any project, to a point where you take care of the physical attributes of the property. And in terms of substantial detriment, it's residential use, which is similar to the use that is, you know, is compatible with the neighborhood. There's a priority, certainly, for providing additional housing, and this would provide the neighborhood with three single-family units of reasonable size. And I think when Zeke spoke with respect to the square footage of each, just so that we're all aware, that would include the garage space as well as the basement space. So that figure of 2,600 feet includes storage and garage space in addition to the living space. The other benefit with the three-family is that you have the property sprinkled, which you wouldn't have if you were going to construct a single-family home on the site. So in essence, that's the rationale for the variances that we're seeking, and I'm not sure if If Jay is on the call as of yet, I don't think he is. I think he's searching for the link. So we'll certainly take questions and he'll be available to take questions from the board.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I just want to qualify Andre the rude during the call under just could you call present and all I do to the roster.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you present.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you and for the board while we wait for the other person to join there any questions you want to try to address now.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I have a question or two. I'd like to hear a little bit more about the drainage easement. Could you just explain where that goes and what it's for? And I see it looks like it clips the property next door a little bit. So I'm wondering just to understand why or why you can't build over it.
[Jack Sullivan]: I can take that one, Jack Sullivan. It's actually, it's officially a 12 foot wide drainage easement, but there's a sewer, the sewer service runs through that area. And this easement was created in 1935. So it's an old easement. There's a large sewer main that runs through that easement. And with the building code, you can build up to an easement line, but you can't build any permanent structure within an easement. So if you start looking at where this easement exists on the property, the only usable area to actually build a structure and meet a front setback and stay out of the easement itself would be to the rear of this 12-foot easement. So I hope that answers it. It's just an old easement. A large sewer main runs through there. and we have to stay out of it. We can put pavement surfaces above it, we can park over it, but you can't build any physical structures within it.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, that's very helpful. And does this sewer line serve the neighborhood? Are you going to tie into it? Yes. Okay.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Did you have any other questions?
[Andre Leroux]: Not at this time. I thought I did, but I'm forgetting it right now.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. Anybody else from the board have a question that they want to address before we go forward?
[Mary Lee]: Hi, so I was wondering the T1 exhibit photo. I'm wondering, do you have a photo without the tree? No, not that one. It's the, I think at the bottom is labeled T1. Yes, this one. So I'm wondering, would you happen to have a photo without the trees surrounding the house?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, this was a computer rendered photo, sort of a compilation of photos we took of the site and what we thought the landscape would end up looking like. No, I don't have one without the trees removed.
[Mary Lee]: The trees that's currently in the photo, would they be the same proportion as reflected in this photo?
[SPEAKER_02]: That is a little hard for me to answer.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe Jay has entered the building. Yeah. He can answer that question if he's on. I believe he's been admitted. I am.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, I'm here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thanks, Jay. I'm sorry. I just joined and I just wanted to, the question was, I came in the middle of it. So please ask the question again.
[Mary Lee]: So once this proposal is hypothetically, if it's approved and established, would the photos, the trees in the photos, actually, the actual trees planted actually is reflected in the photo as exhibits?
[SPEAKER_03]: The size at day one?
[Mary Lee]: Yes, it's the size proportion.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I would say that they are accurate. They're probably mostly the ones to the right that are a little bit shorter. Like this one? That one, yes. That would be accurate for what would be proposed there.
[Mary Lee]: And the trees surrounding the neighbor's house would be proposed?
[SPEAKER_03]: The difference is that that front tree would not be there because we would want to give clear sight lines along Elm Street for cars coming into and out of the driveway. The trees that would be further back along the property line would also be evergreen trees, arborvitae trees.
[SPEAKER_02]: Let me go to your plan, Jay, and you can talk about that a little. You want me to, well, why don't you do screen share Jay?
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, let me, um, you don't have that pulled up. Let me see. I'm going to have to pull that drawing up. I apologize. I can do it. So I have it pulled up now. Anyways.
[SPEAKER_02]: Here, you do the screen share, Jay, and then you can talk about.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay. So the rendering that we were looking at was basically in this location on LG, if you can see my cursor looking towards the building. And these trees were generally accurately represented. My point, there will be some shrubs here so that people coming in and out will be able to see down Elm Street and not be blocked. But this line of trees here would be evergreen trees that would be narrow and columnar arborvitaes, the actual species, if you're familiar with that tree.
[Mary Lee]: And 89 Elm Street is to the left.
[SPEAKER_03]: It is this property up here. Okay. I've rotated the view and I rotated the view slightly from the first survey image.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: You're welcome.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mary. I see Mike has a question.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. I would just like to better understand The financial hardship aspect of this, so it does sound like the work to the retaining wall is substantial. Can you tell us a little bit more about why, say, two attached townhomes would not be economical, but three is? Attorney Desmond, I think you're on mute.
[Kathleen Desmond]: With respect to the two attached townhomes versus the three, you know, there's a lot of demolition costs because you're working with an existing building that has to be demolished and brought back to a situation where you can bring that into developable property. The vestiges of that, that's at least $40,000 to $50,000, just the demolition costs with respect to that. include the grading or anything of that nature. In addition to that, you have the walls in the back and the landscaping plan, and Jay can speak to this, but in addition to the retaining wall piece of this, you've also got a tiered landscaping plan here that will also have a cost of maintenance in addition to you know, the retaining wall itself. So, you know, you've got two homeowners versus three homeowners that would be available, first of all, to take even after absent the initial cost, which is at least $100,000 just for the retaining wall piece of it, that there's going to be maintenance costs that are going to have to be shared. And, you know, in terms of spreading that cost out amongst the owners, you know, three makes more sense than two in terms of of maintaining that wall and maintaining the landscaping. You're in the vicinity of probably $250,000, because these are estimates, just to get the property to a point where you can actually construct the property and not have to worry about land slipping forward. you know, continued erosion on the property. You know, the other thing with respect to the three-family versus the two is that when you look at the dimensional requirements, and I know that some of the neighbors' comments have to do with the size and whatnot, But in actuality, in this instance, we are taking the lot line and it's not at the seven and a half, which is what you would have with a two family or say you were going to put two singles on the property. We're 14 feet away on both sides from that particular property and the overall block coverage on the property is only 28.7% of the lot, whereas if you have a two or a single family, your lot coverage ability is 40% of that lot. So in terms of this creating a bigger structure, it's not really the case. I mean, much of this is vertical in terms of living space, but even in terms of vertical, Your story height is only 33.6 feet, which is well within what would be permitted for a two and a half story, and your height is 33.6 feet. So in terms of the one versus the two, it helps the developer in the initial with dealing with the cost, because they've also already cleaned up this property from its use as a gas station. And they're going to put the time and the effort and the money into dealing with the back portion of the lot. But going forward, it also assists with maintenance. And in terms of dimensions of the property, You're not really creating anything larger than you would or could as of right. Well, not as of right, because a two-family isn't allowed as of right. So you would also need to use variance for a two-family. You're not creating any increased dimensions. In fact, you may actually be shrinking what a building could be in this instance with a two-family.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then my other question is, to maintain the existing use, what has to happen to the retaining wall to the back? It sounds like there's already some erosion. So is there any repairs needed just to maintain the existing use?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, if they were going to, you know, you would probably You don't have to. It's a 1,200 square foot building. You're well within the requirements. So it's difficult to say whether you would take on the retaining wall repairs in conjunction with the original building, because you don't really need to do that at this point. Whether you sought to do it, I suppose at some point it could get to a critical mass where you would need to do something. You know, in this instance, by changing it and actually taking on this work, you know, you're also benefiting the abutters to the south of the property that are on that top wall, because they don't have to worry about their earth sliding down into the property as well. And I think I probably didn't mention this before, but in terms of the use, there is available to the board, you know, the substitution of a nonconforming use rather than variance in this instance the board the the applicant has kept his fuel license open and he does use it as overflow for his existing business it's not open to the public in the sense that he's customers are coming in off of the street but it is still operating as a repair shop to an extent and he's kept his license in place. And in that instance, you could under 5.2.1 substitute a non-conforming use. And this certainly in that instance would be a non-conforming use that is more in line with the residential makeup of the neighborhood.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. Thank you. City Planner, Danielle Evans.
[Danielle Evans]: Good evening. Yes, Danielle Evans. Thank you. I just wanted to speak to the issue of the existing or the old, the pre-existing nonconforming use. The building commissioner and I had discussed this at length and we determined that it lapsed and they didn't have any of those pre-existing protections to be able to change from one use from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, you would have to reinstate the non-conforming, which I think you can do by special permit in the ordinance. But, you know, tinkering with some cars overflow, it's been closed. It's not the previous use, it has lapsed as far as the city is concerned.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't know that I, I necessarily agree with that interpretation, but, you know, I understand that's the city's position.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, any other questions from the board. So, I do have, I just want to go back into the height so. In an SF2, we see a two and a half story house. I know, Attorney Desmond, you mentioned the height. I believe the peak on this is 35 feet, 6 inches, based on the architectural diagrams, if you take a look at those.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, but height is measured under the ordinance by the difference between average between the street grade and the mean. So that 33.6 feet is what the ordinance requirement is. And I think if you looked at any house and you measured it from the peak, to that point you would you may very well be over that 35 feet but the way it's measured it is at the average grade of the street to the to the mean point of the um ridge so i i think that's that's the different in it i'm not disagreeing in terms of what the highest point of the roof is uh but in terms of what the ordinance Has he calculated as and probably in comparison to other properties, it would not be far off of what what the height limitation is even at the top. It's point 6 at the top.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Most point houses in that neighborhood there to 2 and a half stories. Was there any shadow analysis done with that roof design?
[Kathleen Desmond]: There wasn't a shadow analysis done on that. And I've seen the comments from the neighbor and the concerns. But with respect to, can we go back to the first page of the site plan? So that house sits to the east of this particular structure. And I was trying to get to the top. I don't think I can move it. I can move it.
[SPEAKER_02]: You want this one, right?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I could. So this is the northerly. So this is the east. So, so this, this structure here, which is the house adjacent to the property. She is east of the existing structure, so she would have the morning sun at this point. And it wouldn't be until the afternoon that there was any possible impact from our particular site. And again, as opposed to the setbacks for a single and a 7 1⁄2 feet, we have moved that off 14 feet. So in terms of shade, I don't anticipate that there would be an issue with that. Our landscape architect did take a look at it today when that comment came in about the sunlight and he did observe and I think we have two pictures at the end Zeke that show that there are a couple of trees Both in in her backyard this so this is the tree in our backyard, but also in her backyard that that will probably create more of the shade issue than our building was would. In addition, I think the building itself is set back. almost 10 feet off of the site of her building. So again, shade from that building, I would, at least in the morning hours to noon, I think, where she sits easterly of our property, it would seem that she would have the sun and that it may be an issue in the afternoon, late afternoon. But again, we're 14 feet off the property line. And as you can see, the structure is significantly off of where her structure ends.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Any other questions from the board? All right, we will move to public comment. If anybody on the call would like to speak, please raise your hand on Zoom, or if you can raise your hand on your screen, I'll try to grab you. But if you can use the React raise hand button, that way we'll see you. You can also email Dennis McDougal D-M-A-C-D-O-U-G-A-L-L at medford-ma.gov. We have anybody from the public that would like to speak. Dennis, do you have any other emails or new ones in addition to the 1st, 1 that you received? That's on the record.
[Denis MacDougall]: I hope the 1 that we received was submitted was sent to the board. For their review, maybe I don't know. Maybe we go off the screen share. We might be able to. Yeah, just in case. The time for any additional emails. So far, nothing is coming.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mary. Jim Trani. Jim?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Andrew LaRue. Aye. Mary Lee. Aye. Mike Caldera. Aye. And Jamie Thompson, aye. All right. What's everybody think?
[Mary Lee]: I've asked. I would actually like to see a picture of that structure without all the trees, just to compare. to what the house really is like, that structure is really like, because of the proximity, the closeness, proximity to that house, because with the picture of that trees, all the trees surrounding it, it's difficult to have that conception of that building.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: To the applicant, do you guys have any other content that would show another representation of the building? Without the surrounding landscaping.
[SPEAKER_02]: I do not, I'd have to rework the rendering in order to demonstrate what Mary's asking.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Is the question the proximity to the adjacent property?
[Mary Lee]: No, I think I'd like to just see the actual, the closer reflection of the actual building without the trees.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Zeke, you have, it's not a rendering, but there is a picture of the front facing, isn't there, of the structure without the trees?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, let me just, I'm sharing again. Sorry, it's jumping ahead here. This is the rendering that I did, the computer-generated rendering. You can see the full front facade and a portion of the side, and I'll move to the architectural drawings, which isn't a 3D rendering. But let me get to those. Here's the front. The red lines are the approximate location of the existing garage building there now. But this is the front of the building. It has a gable roof on two sides here. There's a balcony in the middle. Projecting Betty windows.
[Mary Lee]: Sorry, sorry for the interruption. I like to see the picture beat. It's it's really between. The left from my perspective, the left side of the house to the neighboring property. So, you know, so the so the trees actually blocked that I wasn't able to see it. So you go back to T1. Yeah, I'm going there. See, without these trees, then we would have a better view.
[SPEAKER_02]: Of the property. Yes. You want to see the neighbor's house.
[Mary Lee]: Yes, in relation to that, the distance.
[SPEAKER_02]: You can see it's hard to get those to be deadly accurate when you're doing this because you're taking a photograph and you're merging that with an architectural, rendering, so the perspective starts to get a little bit warped, but you can see where the house sits. That's part of the roof line. But the way the photo is, it's a little bit elongated. I'd have to model that separately and put that in here in order to make it very precise. But the white behind the trees is where her house is or where that house is.
[Mary Lee]: So if this picture is elongated, the distance between that neighboring house and this proposed structure, the space between that, would that be smaller?
[SPEAKER_02]: Well, the space, as Kathleen pointed out earlier, the front face of our structure is about 10 feet behind the rear face of the neighbor's structure. I'll put that up in the site plan just so you can. The red is the proposed building. If I draw a line straight across, this is the neighbor's building. 10, 12 feet, might be 15 feet. If you look at the easement is about 12, this looks like it could be about a 12-foot difference. The front face of our building is about 12 feet behind the rear face of the neighbor's property. Does that make sense?
[Mary Lee]: Where are the trees? In relation to these pictures and the T1 pictures that were shown, where were the trees in relation to this exhibit?
[SPEAKER_02]: My trees are here in this picture. Hold on, let me just move them around. They occupy this zone here. They're in this area, and the rendering is taken from here, and it looks that way. You're standing in this point right here. Does that make sense? That makes more sense, yes. Yeah.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think also if the issue is the trees, the height of the trees, or the composition of the trees, You know, the applicant isn't wedded to those. So if there's something different that the board would rather see rather than the trees in that instance, that's certainly doable, not something that there would be an objection to. In addition, I think it's important to point out with respect to the relation of the building that you've got the 14 feet side yard setback that we have on these units. And in addition to that, there's probably another, 10 or 15 feet on the side yard from her house. So you've got probably between the two properties, conservatively speaking, probably 20, 24 feet. Factoring in both side yard lot line, side yard setbacks.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Go ahead, Andrew.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so I think, you know, the residential use makes sense along this street. So in terms of the use variance, you know, I would be inclined to be supportive. You know, whether it's two or three units, you know, I don't think we're equipped to kind of get into the finances of it. I think that
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I just want to correct you real quick. We don't have the option for the special permit for the use change. The variances are dimensional open space and parking only.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. You know, I would say that the. The landscaping plan that what concerns me about that in terms of the butters is less the building itself and more of the Arborvitae, which could grow very tall, 40 to 60 feet tall. I don't think it's a good, makes good sense to put those all along the border by the butters. I think that could be, those could become really, huge. So I'd like to see something either just the fence, the six-foot fence, or something that's maybe a little less overwhelming than that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Jay, do you want to speak to that in terms of options?
[SPEAKER_03]: Am I allowed to respond? I just want to clarify that the arborvitaes that we selected there, their final height will be 15 to 18 feet. Naturally, they're not going to be the 60-foot tall arborvitaes. That's a different species. But we may also be open, if preferred, to do a fence if there's concern about that too.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, my, from my reading of the landscape plan is that there is, it says six foot fence and then there's also Arborvitae, is that right? Or are we talking one of these? That's right. Okay. And that's good to know it's the smaller species. I'm happy to hear that, but, um, still it might be worth talking to the abutter about whether, uh, there's a preference for other kinds of landscaping.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. We could put shrubs that don't get as tall. They don't get as tall as the, no higher than the fence and keep it lower so for that, certainly.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Jay. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. A couple of thoughts. In terms of Butter's comment, I don't really think the board should overreact to that because this is a conforming side yard setback and conforming height. So the idea that essentially you could build a single family home same position on a side yard, same height. And the idea that a light concern would be grounds to refuse something, I just don't find compelling. I think it's a slippery slope. So for me, clearly the lot's unusual for some of the reasons Attorney Desmond laid out with the easement and the topography. It gets down to the same concern I had when a similar project was brought before the board two years ago, which is the intent of the zoning ordinance, as I consider it, is that in a single-family district, the residential uses should predominantly be single-family homes. And so this is a lot that's almost a double lot. Yes, it would need a variance no matter what. Yes, it can't be subdivided. But the use that is most consistent with the district and the intent of the zoning ordinance, as I see it, it would be two units. So whether it's attached or detached, don't have as strong opinions about, but I think the three units, the burden is really on demonstrating that there is some exorbitant cost that hasn't already been incurred that isn't something you'd have to incur no matter what that would prevent the development of this parcel for the alternate use. And still not, I appreciate more financial details than last time around, but I'm still not, really hearing anything compelling to indicate that it's uneconomic to build two units there, but three units gets you over the top.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't know if you want me to speak to that or whether
[Mike Caldera]: Through the chair, I'd certainly love to hear more from Attorney Desmond. I tried to ask the question up front, but if there's additional details, I would certainly appreciate those.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, well I do think that, well first off with respect to the zone itself and the applicability of the SF-2 and what's permitted in a substantial derogation. While I understand that the SF-2 from a residential perspective is a single family and not a a district of multis or even twos. The other uses that are permitted in the district for what are larger parcels including child care centers, churches, non-profit clubs by special permit. There's a whole litany which I've put up and included in the preparation that includes other uses that aren't SF2 single-family home district so it's not a homogeneous grouping and and you know this is a parcel that would be given to one of those types of uses if you know if if it can't work economically and the developer has been you know before this board on on a couple of separate occasions, and the numbers just don't work, especially when you put into effect what you're going to have to do with a retaining wall system, which is a whole civil engineering piece of it. Jay can speak to that a little bit more than I can in terms of what's involved in it and Jack, but the cost at a minimum It is $100,000 to just do that piece of it. That doesn't include any of the additional work that would need to be done, landscaping, demolition of an existing garage structure that don't support a duplex. And going further in terms of maintaining that cost, you know, you're going to have repairs over the years to rectangles. You're going to have to deal with the landscaping. It's a bigger cost for a two-family, which again requires a use variance, as opposed to spreading it out between three units. And again, in terms of lot coverage and whatnot, just in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, 40% is what is permitted for singles and twos ordinarily. And we're back to 35%, which is the restriction on the ordinance. And this itself is only at 28.7 in terms of lot coverage. So in terms of the initial developer costs, if it worked, it would have happened. But it doesn't work given the work that you need to do to the back area of the lot to maintain the earth and from the abutting land slipping into it. And it doesn't work in terms of the demolition costs and the costs that they have already incurred with respect to the cleanup, which I know has come before the board previously. So in terms of costs just associated to those that aren't normal construction costs, the numbers just don't work with it too. And if you want more detail, I suppose we can go back and, you know, attempt to get every penny that is going to be part of that construction. But these are the expenses that are unusual and unique to the property that you wouldn't have to do. I mean, the other thing with the tiered landscaping, right now that fence or what is a retaining wall on the back is seven feet in height. So to bring that height Back down to within the ordinance requirements. Jay has set forth some tiered landscaping and Jay, maybe you can speak to that a little bit.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right, I think I believe the audience is to maintain retaining walls 5 feet or less. And we've been able to do that. The existing retaining walls would have to be removed and the soil stabilized while new retaining walls are constructed and secured with proper footings and all of that. So it is a significant cost, mostly on the back of the property, to maintain the adjacent properties as is in kind.
[Mike Caldera]: So Jamie, just a few thoughts to wrap my comments. Just in terms of what I consider as part of the cost already incurred, I do not consider, I do not think that should be part of our consideration. Maintenance costs of a property once developed, I don't think is something we should be considering. It's the actual cost to change the condition of the lot and structures and that's really relevant here in terms of the burden of financial hardship. And then also, you know, just want to throw out there that if the ordinance in terms of its height restrictions on a retaining wall, is adding a lot of cost to the project. Given the topography of this lot, I certainly would be open to consider a version of the project where there's some dimensional relief granted there.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Chair awaits motion. Could be. Oh, sorry go ahead Kathleen.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If it's a question of costs and if we could come back with additional costs or what it is, if the itemization would make a difference in this, I certainly would, you know, welcome the opportunity to do that. I think that, you know, increasing the size of a retaining wall in that instance is just, you know, in terms of landscaping and in terms of what it's going to look like and in terms of cost of the additional retaining wall piece bringing the height in. You know, I think that that's also a consideration which, you know, we didn't take into account because, you know, we're trying to keep down the variances.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. I'll bring that to the board then do. Are we open to considering a continuance to provide additional information? And if so, what specific information areas do we want to cover? Obviously, we have questions on the financial side of things. My concerns with regards to the height of the building, obviously, the setback of 14 feet, things like that. I just wanted to get that information covered in the meeting and discussed because it was raised. I do not have additional questions there. Any additional thoughts from the board? Attorney Desmond, I would put that to you. Do you want to step back, gather that information and come back? Or do you want us to proceed with the vote today? You're still on mute. You're still on mute.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I guess there's also the question of Mary Lee's question of a rendering and whether or not that's determinative to her in terms of making a decision on the matter. And if that were the case, I'd like the opportunity to provide that to her if that's something in her decision-making that is of consequence.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mary, can you speak to that? Would you want to see an updated rendering with better representation of the properties adjacent?
[Mary Lee]: Yes, I would. That would be very helpful. But I would also like to state that I am inclined and also in agreement with Mike's point at this time.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So I would like that opportunity if that is the case. Great.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to continue 85 Elm Street to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Andre Leroux? Aye. Jim Tarani? Aye. Mike Calderon?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mary Lee, I, Jamie Thompson. I. Okay, we are continued on 85 Elm Street. Thank you very much. Everybody for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just for the folks here. They're online. So, the meeting will be continuing until January 30th. You can use the exact same code to log on. And again, any other questions to come up and then questions in the interim, please email me at the McDougal at Metro dash. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. If you could bring us to the next case.
[Denis MacDougall]: 970 Fellsway, case number A-2024-26. Applicant and owner of the Davis Companies Incorporated to divide the property at 970 Fellsway into two separate parcels, which will involve the demolition of a section of a non-component structure, thus requiring a special permit per the city of Medford Zoning Orders Chapter 94-5.3.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you Dennis, do we have a representative from the applicant?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, hi Mr. Chair and members of the board. Hi, everyone. Happy New Year. Thank you guys for seeing us this evening. I have a brief presentation that I can share and run through quickly. I'm accompanied by Pat Gallagher from Gulsunen Stores, who will assist me in going through the presentation and just running through the technicality of the request. But I will kick it off and do at least just a brief update for everyone. Can everybody see my screen? We can. Great. Um, all right, so so, yes, thank you again. Happy New Year. Everyone. Thank you for hearing us this evening. We are here specifically to discuss the self storage parcel and go through a specific request just with the nature of that parcel as to kick things off. I'll just go through a quick project status update. since we last saw each other in the spring and having gone through the comprehensive permit process last year and just letting everybody know sort of where we sit at the moment. So, from a permitting perspective, after completing the comprehensive permit process and having that permit issued by the Medford ZBA in May of 2024, we proceeded with some additional permitting requirements for the project. In June, we had our endorsement approved by the community development board, which is related to the presentation this evening, just in the specific of splitting the existing lot and to do separate parcels 1, which would be governed by the comprehensive permit. Uh, or covered under the comprehensive permit, I should say, for the residential building and then the self storage parcel where the existing self storage building exists and will will remain post demolition and construction of the new residential building. In July, we commenced our application process we filed and then in November, we filed the special permit application that we are discussing this evening and over the course of the months. following our July submission through the fall, through November, through December, we have been working with MEPA and through our filing process there. We followed up with our single environmental impact report in early December, and we'll be continuing that permitting process as we embark into the new year and in through the next couple of months here, hopefully closing that process out. At some point in the March timeframe is the target, but continuing to work with me, but nonetheless to see that to the end. From a logistical perspective, we are also planning to. uh, commence the demolition of the, um, of a portion of this building, which is again related to why we are here this evening. The warehouse building, which is to be demolished for the residential building to be constructed. We have been performing our due diligence there with hazardous materials testing, design, utilities coordination, and are planning to engage with the city With the fire department in a coordinated effort to seek a demolition permit and coordinate the takedown of that building in the early part of this year. We will commence that coordination process and hopefully beginning that takedown sometime in the, in the, in the March timeframe and then additionally, with respect to the residential building. Specifically, we have, since completing the comprehensive permit, continued and advanced our design with our design team through the fall, taking a break for some pricing exercises, and then recommencing our design effort this winter. And we expect that to take us through much of the first half of 2025, but are excited to continue designing the residential building. To a much more detailed place. So, with that project status update, I will turn it over to Pat Gallagher to run us through the special permit filing summary and some of the details here that we are to discuss this evening.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Great, thank you. Patrick Gallagher from Wilson and stores. Good evening, Mr. chair and members of the board. Good to see you all and Happy New Year. So I want to, I think, just step back and to emphasize that. As you'll see, we're not here to change any of what was approved in the spring through the comprehensive permit. We haven't made any changes to the site plan, site layout. I would characterize this almost in the nature of a technical request for relief. that we are seeking in connection with the demolition of the existing structure, really for the purposes of confirming that the self-storage building that will remain on the easterly part of that lot will remain zoning compliant. Today, the existing structure, which as you'll recall, occupies most of the lot, is non-conforming. It's currently about a 230,000 square foot structure. It occupies almost 68 percent of the lot. Under the zoning ordinance, as a non-conforming structure, there's a mechanism, to make alterations through the issuance of a special permit, and that's under Section 5.3 of the ordinance. This is a little bit of an unusual case. Normally, a special permit for alteration of a non-conforming structure would seek to expand or to make the existing structure larger in some way. We're actually looking to make the structure smaller. But nonetheless, we think that this is a necessary piece of relief for us to get, again, just to tick and tie and make sure that the structure is staying zoning compliant. Pat, if you can go to the next slide. What you're seeing here is the A&R plan that we had before the Community Development Board in June, John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His): And in our plan being an approval not required plan, and this is simply to divide what was previously one large lot into two separate lots. John Vars, Applicant OLIV, PB – He, Him, His): This is the same as the plan that was previewed with this board prior to approval of the comprehensive permit plan comprehensive permit for. The multifamily project that will be going forward on a lot to. As shown on the and our lot 3 is the easterly lot where the self storage useful remain. The reason there is no 1 shown on the plan is because the existing a lot. was depicted as lot one on the existing as a record plan. There's not a lot one that anyone's missing or that they were hiding on there. This was endorsed as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. In June, we haven't recorded this A&R plan yet, but we'll do so before starting demolition. Pat, if you can go to the next slide. Again, this will look familiar to you all. This is depicting on the right-hand side, the 40B project that was approved, or on the left-hand side, I'm sorry, the 40B project on the right-hand easterly side, what will remain as a self-storage property. Again, the plan is to demolish the existing building up to the line that's shown here. And the reason why we are demolishing to that point, it was very deliberately thought through where we drew the lot line and where the demolition line would be. And the reason for that is we wanted to maintain the status quo in terms of that existing nonconformity. So under the zoning ordinance, there is a 50% maximum lot coverage. Today, the building is, as I mentioned earlier, almost 68%, 67.9%. And so what we're proposing to do is to demolish so much of the building that the resulting building footprint on the newly created lot 3 would also equal 67.9 percent. We're seeking to maintain exactly the existing non-conforming lot coverage ratio that is currently on the entire site. Um, so, and that's shown how to go to the next slide. Um, again, this will be a plan that will look familiar to the board, but this is just another illustration of what we are proposing to do. Um, and. under the zoning ordinance, this type of change is permitted through a special permit so long as the change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure. I think the key point here is that we are not making any changes to the self-storage building along the Fellsway frontage. To the extent it's currently within the front yard set back there. There's no changes along Fells Way. The only changes to the building will be the demolition. And so for that reason, we feel that the demolition and maintaining the existing status quo is not substantially more detrimental than what is there today. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions from the board. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Patrick. Any questions from the board? Seeing none, we will go to public comment. If anybody on Zoom would like to ask a question or comment, please raise your hand. You can also submit a comment to Dennis at dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. And that's D-M-A-C-D-O-U-G-A-L-L at medford-ma.gov. Not seeing any hands raised on Zoom. Dennis, do you have any emails currently or did anything come in that hadn't been submitted to the board yet?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, nothing has come in.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Chair awaits a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do we have a second? I second. Thank you. Mike Caldera? I. I. I. I. I. I. Any thoughts from the board on this.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I agree with attorney Gallagher's characterization here I think this is a. really a technical relief being sought. So it is required, but I think it clearly meets the no substantial detriment standard. So yeah, I'm comfortable granting the special permit in this case. So I'll put it this way.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mike. Mr. Chair, can we just stop sharing the screen so we can see everybody?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Sure. Yes, I can do that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'll just throw in my 2 cents. I think this is an easy 1 very. Straightforward doesn't change anything. We knew this was happening in regards to a program. We reviewed extensively.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board. OK. There awaits a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to find that the proposed alteration is not substantially more detrimental and to approve the special permit. Second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Michael and Andre. Jim Tarani? Aye. Mary Lee? Aye. Andre Leroux? Aye. Mike Caldera? Aye. Jamie Thompson, I thank you everybody for your time.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Thank you very much, take care.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you. Artie, just for Attorney Gallagher, if you could draft a, like do a draft of this decision and forward that to me, that would help expedite getting it through the process.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Happy to do so. Thanks everyone.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you everyone. And Dennis, could you move us to the next case? 7 Grant.
[Denis MacDougall]: 7 grant Avenue case number a dash 2024-27. Applicant and owner Michael lane her hand to build a single family drawing and newly created a lot requiring a variant test a lot with a lot area. It's not a lot for the city methods on the chapter 94 table be able to mention requirements.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant?
[Mike Cabral]: Yes, good morning, Mr. chair members of the board attorney Michael Cabral for the applicants Michael and Elaine Horahan. This is 7 grant of. It is a large single family lot of 9500 square feet by way of some brief background. We did go before. community development, I believe it was back in September, we proposed an A&R plan. That plan was endorsed, dividing this into two separate lots now with the existing house being on 5,000 square feet and thus leaving 4,500 square feet for the new lot. May I share my screen? Okay, so we have 7, we have Brandt Ave here at the top. This is the existing structure here. And this leaves the 5,000 square foot conforming lot here. The dotted line here would be the new separating line between the lots. Lot number 2 here is the newly created lot. This is now a vacant lot here. our clients proposing to put a single family structure on the lot. This is an SF2 zone, 5,000 square feet is required, but the single family is allowed as of right. The variance that are required here would be for lot width because again we're short 500 square feet and the lot width here uh, requires 50 feet. We only have, uh, it's 46 feet in change. So we need about six feet of lot width as well. So those are the deficiencies. Um, historic, these, these actually have been two lots and Briefly, this is my client's deed showing lots 11 and 14, and that actually carries over to the assessor's plan as well. So this is the assessor's plan, lots 11 and 14. The assessor actually even has the lots as originally constituted, 47.50 as one lot, 47.50 as the second. The uses would actually be keeping in conformity with the neighborhood as well, because as you can see just on this block alone, I don't believe there are any 5,000-square-foot lots here. And even across, I looked before the hearing here, there's only one 5,000-square-foot lot across the street here. The rest of these are all under 5,000. In fact, most are around 4,500. closer to 4,000 around here, which would be in conformity with the newly created lot that our clients are proposing at this time as well. Again, they would be dimensionally conforming for a front yard, conforming on both setbacks here, actually giving a buffer to this neighbor as well of a few more feet. There's 13 feet here. on the side yard, where only seven and a half would be required. Our client's going to continue to reside at the property as well. They've lived here for over 30 years, so they've had this lot in the state for quite a while, but they're looking to make the highest and best use of the lot. Obviously, it is an oddly shaped lot, sort of based on, again, the lots in the neighborhood as well. It's probably the largest lot in the neighborhood, clearly being two lots at one point in time. So this would restore the lots to what was close to what the original configuration is. And again, the reason we kept this one larger is that the 5,000 square feet would keep the existing lot here as conforming so that no additional relief would be needed for the existing house lot. You can see here there is an existing deck pool here. All this would be taken off to make sure that this existing structure meets the side yard setbacks on here. And I'm happy to answer any questions the board has as well or get into the nature of the variances, hardships, anything else the board would like to hear or know about the property.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Attorney Cabral. Any questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, this is Andre. I wonder if you could just speak a little bit about why you're setting. Why the proposed new dwelling would be set so far back.
[Mike Cabral]: Can't say exactly other than the lot line here does come into. This lot a bit here. So in order to meet the setback, with the closest portion being 7.6 feet here, I'm wondering if it would actually not meet the side yard setback if it was brought up towards the street a bit as well. Originally there was parking here in the front. I know that there was a concern of the planning board and building commissioners. So we've made the single drive aisle instead and had parking down this side. Yeah, thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Andre. Any other questions from the board? Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Attorney Cabral, could you talk a little bit about the hardship here?
[Mike Cabral]: Yes, certainly. So again, The lot certainly being oversized, we would characterize that as being the oddly shaped lot here. The hardship being that single families are allowed in the district relative to other lots here. It would be approximately the same size or even larger than a lot of the single family lots in the neighborhood. They would be deprived of use. of the lot for its highest and best use as a single family. If it was kept as is, it's really an underutilized lot. We know that the city's looking for additional housing units as well. Certainly would benefit our client financially into their retirement as well, having lived here for over 30 years and looking to remain in the city as well. Again, the lot being 4,500 square feet, certainly significant relative to the neighborhood and certainly in conformance with the neighborhood as well when looking at both properties on the same block and around the neighborhood also.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then next question. So prior to the A&R being endorsed from a zoning standpoint, was this considered one or two lots?
[Mike Cabral]: From a zoning perspective, it would have been considered one lot.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then last question. So when the Community Development Board endorses an A&R, are they Are they endorsing the buildability of the of each of the lots, or are they just endorsing something else?
[Mike Cabral]: No, just endorsing it as to that these two lots meet the minimum necessary for frontage to be considered a lot on a public way in Medford, but it does not give any opinion or determination as to the buildability or zoning compliance of the lot itself. That is a separate consideration that must be come before the zoning board for determination. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And Danielle, I see your hands raised. You're going to address that question.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, Daniel Evans, senior planner. Yeah, I just wanted to chime in that the Community Development Board is actually obligated to endorse it. If it meets minimum frontage, it fronts on a way and has reasonable and adequate access to the lots, then they must be endorsed. So, and even, you know, we have this, you know, the conceptual where the footprint would be and where the parking spaces would be, but I don't think that The potential development would be married to that. They could change it and should also add that it's very possible that this could be by right at the end of the fiscal year. We're rewriting the zoning and on the table is definitely reducing minimum lot sizes across the board to at least bring them closer in line with the existing built environment. It just seems silly to not be able to divide a lot and build on it if that is the development pattern throughout the neighborhood, which has shown not to be detrimental. That's not something for you to take into consideration, but just some background information of where the city is going as far as the lot sizes.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any additional questions from the board? Okay, we'll move to public comment. If anybody from the public would like to speak on this, please raise your hand on Zoom. You can email Dennis at dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. D-M-A-C-D-O-U-G-A-L-L at medford-ma.gov.
[Mike Cabral]: Mr. chair just add as well that client has proposed a relatively modest dwelling here on the lot getting to I think Mr. LaRue's question as well so this is partially to sort of decrease some of the density here as well leaving the large front yard, as well as a 20 foot rear yard as well. And again, our client being in this lot living here, giving the buffer more to this neighbor, the structure would be roughly, I believe around here. So giving the buffer to this neighbor as well. So not as to build up on any of the neighbors to the rear or to the side.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I did not see any hand raised Dennis did you receive anything in the mail or was there anything received prior to the meeting.
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing received prior to the meeting and nothing in my inbox.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Chair awaits a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you Mike do we have a second? Second. Thank you Mary. Jim Torani? Hi, Michael there. Hi, under the room. Hi, Mary Lee. Hi, Jamie Thompson. Hi. What's everybody think. Go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: I think that these variances are reasonable. They don't deal with any setbacks. It's really just the lot area and lot width. And given the fact that this has been historically two lots, I think gives me a lot of confidence. I would say in terms of the hardship, I agree with the attorney about there being a highest and best use that currently is not possible to achieve given the current zoning regulations and that I see no detriment to the neighborhood with this.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Andre. Go ahead, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So, I mean, philosophically, I mostly agree with Andre. In terms of the law and the precedent, my concerns are twofold. So, prior to the ANR, It's just an oversized lot that probably merged under the merger doctrine or something. And having an oversized lot in and of itself isn't a hardship. And then with the ANR, the subdivision, the now second lot, is non-conforming, is under the minimum dimensional requirements, and it's a self-created hardship. So there isn't a need to subdivide the lot. It's a choice, choice made with knowledge that the lot isn't buildable. And so the highest and best use under the current zoning ordinance of this new subdivided lot is nothing. That's my concern. I think the ordinance itself can't be the hardship. City is exploring changing the area. But under the current ordinance, which is what we have to make this decision under, the intent is that 5,000 is the minimum area. the applicant created a lot that is less than that. And yes, there was no alternate way to split it to have two conforming lots, but that's why they merged under the merger doctrine. So yeah, I don't think it meets the statutory requirements to grant a variance.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Any other comments from the board? Questions? Okay. So I I am in a similar space to both Andre and I could think it's from a neighborhood perspective. This is a in line with the use of the neighborhood, but I'm challenged by the existing zoning requirements. It is creating a hardship that the at will by the split. I agree the highest, where I was looking for highest and best use.
[Unidentified]: But this one is challenging me.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Andre, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I just add a little bit more. I mean, you know, From my vantage of working with different communities across the state, I know that the variances in Massachusetts, there's a wide range in how municipalities administer variances and interpret hardship. It's a very, very high standard and if we were to, there are some communities which almost don't allow any variances and there are other communities which allow all kinds of variances depending on how they interpret it. I think that this is, so we have, so my point here is that we have a little bit of subjectivity that we can, you know, use. And I think given some common sense that I think that this makes a lot of sense to, you know, that interpret this as a, a hardship because this lot is very different than all the other lots in the neighborhood. And I think that it is essentially preventing a home from being built where a home should be in this neighborhood. So just not to kind of get in our own way, I would be supportive of these variances.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Andrew. Now, the history of the lots, and trying to find a hardship in this situation is the difficult part. You know, the history of the property, obviously the initial intent of the property, and potentially the future intent of the property are growth and development. The merging of the lots, I'm like, you're better on this side of it than I am. Would you consider the merger of the lots the hardship? Because that was not an intended action by the owner.
[Mike Caldera]: So I don't know the full history of the lot, but merger doctrine, has to do with lots that were held in common ownership. Um, and so, uh, I don't remember off the top of my head the exact, um, amount of time or whatever that needed to elapse before this happened, but essentially since together or since separate, they weren't, uh, buildable after, you know, whichever zoning change was passed to set the dimensional requirements, they just merged. And so, um, I mean, there's certainly opinions from the court that indicate that merely waiting to build and then having suddenly becoming nonconforming is in of itself a hardship. I think that's what happened in Raya versus Board of Appeals of North Reading. That's 1976. But yeah, I mean, I totally understand Andre's perspective on this. There is some amount of subjectivity in these decisions. But yeah, I think the closest case law I'm aware of on that specific question is the Raya versus Board of Appeals North Reading.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And we did not have any, from what I know, we've had no letters of support or lack or against from the community. And we didn't have any public feedback here. OK. I think that's.
[Unidentified]: I'm happy to make a motion unless Jim and Mary want to jump in with their opinions first.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah. Well, I tried to Google it and try to get a visual perspective, but it was all blurred. I couldn't see anything. So I am inclined to really agree with what Mike was saying because you know, this, this originally this plot was non-conforming and then it was conformed. But once they're making a request due to this hardship, self-created hardship, and once, if it's approved, then it becomes non-conforming. It just doesn't make much sense. in terms of the, for the benefit of the community. And also when I try to really just take a look at what this picture is, I couldn't see it on Google.
[Mike Cabral]: Mr. Chair, would it help if I brought back up the overhead of the image to show where the existing structure is located relative to the lot line, because that may give some assistance as to why the existing structure is located on the lot, where it is, if that would help Mary sort of conceptually understand the lots and where the existing structure is relative to the lot lines.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I can pull it up on Google Maps, Mary. I mean, if you want, I can share my screen if you need to see that. I mean, it's definitely in line with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood.
[Mike Cabral]: And so, Mr. Chair, this is the existing structure here being set back So being closest to this lot line here, giving the bulk of the setback and open space in the lot to this side, clearly being this would have been the second lot, so to speak, that was proposed. at the time that these lots were created, again, being 4,750 square feet per lot on here. So you can see the existing structure set more towards this side of the lot, clearly anticipating at some point that this vacant lot would have been built upon, but it just certainly wasn't at the time. as the board said, came into common ownership at that point. In theory, we could have tried to restore these to the existing 4750 to 4750, but now you're creating a situation where we're asking now for an additional variance for the existing house lot. So trying to keep this existing lot in conformity with all current zoning dimensional requirements, and that's just leaving the you know, lot area around here and lot width, as the board knows, and we've been before the board before on this, but lot width tends to be a continuing issue for whether it's single families or two families. And then, again, that just leaving really a shortage of 500 square feet on the newly created lot here. So I hope that that helps sort of orient Uh, the board as to where the existing structure does sit relative to the overall lot size.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, yeah, let me just share my screen. I've got it on. Google maps here. All right.
[Mary Lee]: That'd be great. So that helps. Um. So, okay, I think that that that the blur is what I saw the 1 on the left. Okay.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So they're going to take the deck and then pull out and this will be the 4,500 square foot. Correct.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Jim, go ahead. Yeah, I agree with Andre. I think a house would do well on that lot and would complement the neighborhood and better use for the land that exists.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Jim. Go ahead, Mary.
[Mary Lee]: So what will be the ramifications? Maybe I missed that. What will be the ramifications of the non-conforming lot for a building of a new structure?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So the structure that's proposed on the lot is conforming with the setback requirements. To the city planner Evans point that, you know, in the future, if it does not develop them, you know, those setbacks and those development options may change. But as it's being presented to us today, the building would be. Compliant with zoning it's the area and the lot with that are our concerns.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So it's strictly the size of the lot in square footage and the front yard width and the width of the lot, the new lot. All right, any other questions from the board? Okay, Chair awaits a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to motion to approve the variances for lot width and size and area. Second.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Mary Lee. Hi. Under the rule. Hi. Hi. No. Jamie Thompson. Thank you everybody. Dennis, could you go over the next steps for them?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, I apologize. I thought I heard some sirens and I was getting kind of spooked and then the light in the side room went off and I'm the only one here. So, I'm not going to lie to you, I didn't really hear what happened. My throat started because I got a little scared.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Uh, we did approve, um, the variances for seven grand to have. Okay. What was the vote?
[Denis MacDougall]: Uh, 41. Okay. And the one was, uh, Mike. Okay. Thank you. Got it. Okay, that's the reality, I think. They just put in these new lights and the sensors are very, very active, but I shouldn't be able to set it off in my office. That's why I kind of went a little off. So, all right. So, Attorney Cabral, if you could write up a draft decision and get it to me, the sooner you get that, the sooner I can check it out and get everything done and we can get this in. And then, as you all know, then once the decision has been signed and filed in the clerk's office, That creates a 20 days appeals period and upon the completion of that 20 days appeals period, they can get their permit. Yeah, as long as there's no appeal, I should say.
[Mike Cabral]: Will do. Thank you all. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Happy New Year. Happy New Year, and thank you for your time. We have one other case, 612-614 Main Street.
[Denis MacDougall]: Exactly. 612213 Main Street, case number A-2024-28, applicant and owner Keith Fallon to convert a commercial unit and existing structure with two additional residential units to a residential unit, creating a three-unit residential structure in a general residence district. It was not allowed for the City of Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, table A, table of use and parking regulations.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant? Hi, I'm Keith Fallon. I'm the owner. Thank you, Keith. Go ahead.
[SPEAKER_13]: Good evening. Thank you for your time. I'm sorry you had to stay so late. So this is an existing two-family building with a commercial unit attached to it. And I'm looking for a special permit to change the commercial unit into a residential unit. It's in keeping with the characteristics of the neighborhood. There's very few, if any, commercial buildings in this area. I have letters of support from my two immediate neighbors and I'm asking for your consideration this evening to do this.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you Keith. Do you want us to share any of the content that you sent over so you can give us an overview of the property's current state and what you plan to do with the property? To start with the plot plan.
[Unidentified]: Are we there?
[SPEAKER_13]: So if I may say a couple of things, I'm not proposing to make any changes to the exterior of the building. I know it's already an existing non-conforming. I don't propose to change the footprint or add any additional square footage to the existing building. Just a change of usage.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Does the board have any questions for the applicant? Andre, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Mr. Fallon. Just looking at the street view of the property, it does look very commercial. Are you going to be changing the exterior at all? It is a little strange to just turn it into a residential unit.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes, so I'm also a licensed contractor and I bought this building 12 years ago and it was in really bad shape and I renovated it. There was a pizza parlor there originally and the two residential units were really in dire condition. So the facade you see, the current facade is something I added to the building when I renovated it. And assuming I get your permissions to make this change, I will make what the existing commercial unit hopefully becomes residential. I'll make it blend in better with the residential unit. So those windows will go. They are commercial-grade windows. It'll be residential-looking in appearance, absolutely.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Mr. Fallon, you mentioned letters of support from two of the immediate neighbors. So which neighbors were those?
[SPEAKER_13]: So as you look at the building, the property to the right, the Oliveras, they've owned that building. Their building a little bit larger than I've owned mine. And the people right behind, I think it's Henry Street, 7 Henry Street, and 6, I think it's 616 Main.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, okay. Got it. Thank you. Yeah, I got tripped up because the letter from the Oliveiras was, I think, from their alternate address. So, okay.
[SPEAKER_13]: Sorry, they live on Governor's Ave. Sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, okay. So, you just have the Governor's Ave one and then you have seven? Correct, yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_13]: A couple of things to point out about this building is with the construction of the two new green line stations. The one in Lowell Street is less than half a mile walk from this building, and the one in Ball Square is, I think, 0.58 miles walk.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry, just a little follow up on kind of my original question. I'm just so along the driveway, there's just like. A blank wall all the way to the back facing the butter. Are you intending to put windows and.
[SPEAKER_13]: Along there, yeah, absolutely.
[Andre Leroux]: And there's also kind of a, you know, that roof space, right? Oh, you know, over that. The commercial space right now, is that going to be used at all?
[SPEAKER_13]: No, I don't propose to do anything there. It's a flat roof. If I wanted to build up, I would have to go for a variance, I think, because I'd be adding square footage, so I don't propose to do that. I was thinking more like a deck or something like that. It would be nice, but I don't know. Feasible that is within current selling. I'm not sure.
[Andre Leroux]: So my understanding just to make sure I understand so that if this were to become a residential unit, this would be the 1st floor. 2nd floor is a separate unit and 3rd floor is a separate unit.
[Unidentified]: Correct?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_13]: That's what I'm sorry. I was just going to say, one of the other things, and I think to the previous conversations you've had is this does add to the housing stock in the city, increases housing supply, which is one of the goals, I think, of the city and generally speaking in the community.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Any other questions from the board? All right, we'll bump it to public comment, if anybody from the public would like to ask any questions or comment on this project. Uh, on this, uh, application. Please raise your hand on zoom or email Dennis at medford-ma.gov. Let's see any hands raised on zoom. Uh, Dennis, I know we did receive those 2 letters of support. Do we have anything additional that's come in since we started or.
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing further sunset.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis, share away to motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Second. Thank you, Jim. Mary Lee? Aye. Tondra LaRue? Aye. Jim Tarani? Aye. Mike Caldera?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Jamie Thompson? Aye. All right, thoughts from the board on this one?
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, go ahead. Yeah, so this is a portion of Main Street that does not have much in the way of commercial. And no substantial detriment standard is I'm much easier to meet the variance. So, um, I certainly don't, I think this meets the no substantial detriment standard. Um, I agree with some of Andre's earlier comments that it is a bit of an odd configuration, but, um, no, it, I don't think that odd configuration by itself, especially with the change in use, suddenly creates a substantial detriment that wasn't there previously. So overall, I support it.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, I agree with what Mike is saying. And we'll just add, you know, these kinds of first floor commercial spaces are really hard to make work. And that, you know, having a vacant commercial space is more detrimental to the neighborhood than having a residential space that's occupied.
[Unidentified]: Great point.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other thoughts? Yep, so I absolutely agree. These single-use commercial units have obviously been, we've seen these in residential buildings being converted pretty regularly. These neighborhood stores mid-neighborhood have been slowly moving out of the market and bigger chains and business districts have kind of replaced them pretty effectively. I think this is definitely an improvement for the building and for the neighborhood. Chair awaits a motion to approve 6-12 to 6-14 Main Street.
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to approve the special permit for the change in use to 6-12 to 6-14 Main Street.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you for the clarification, Mike. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Thank you. Mike Caldera? Aye. Andrew LaRue? Aye. Jim Guarani? Aye. Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: And Jamie Thompson? Aye. Thank you, Keith. Dennis, if you can go over the next steps for Keith. Sure.
[Denis MacDougall]: So Keith, it's a little different. So I'll be writing the decision. And then once I finish it, it'll go to our legal counsel for a review. And then once they're done with that, then I'll send it off to get signed. Once it's signed, I'll file it in the city clerk's office. At that point, I'll let you know when it's filed. But then at that point, there's a 20 days appeals period. Where someone decides to appeal it, so once that appeals period has been finished with no appeals. And you can get your building apart great.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you so much for your time guys. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Dennis.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Um. Moving on administrative updates. Do we have any minutes? I don't think we have any minutes.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, we have no minutes. I'm working on them, but I meant to do that while I was here, but I was the only one here for basically, well, I'm not the only one here, but we were pretty short staffed and. I was on the phone a lot. I'm handing the phones. I should say. No, I'll be giving you some stuff by the end of the next meeting. No other updates from my end about anything. We do have a couple of ones that are in the pipeline there to be approved for next month, so we have already a couple of those. This came up yesterday, so I'm just letting you all know just in case when it comes up, you'll be like, golly, I didn't know this because I sure didn't, that any structure with water more than 2 feet deep, including a hot tub, is actually considered a pool by the state of Massachusetts. So there's someone who has a hot tub that is, so it basically, which means they also have to follow the setbacks for pools, which is six feet. So that's sort of more just, it sort of came up and I was very surprised by that and talking to the building department and that sort of went over with it. So it's more of just, you know, I've been doing this 12 years, 11, 12 years, and I never heard of that before. So it's more of just the sort of little fact that, sitting it was this like a we bought one sitting in a backyard or on a deck or did somebody build one i don't want to go into too much details before but basically there's a it's it's it's a hot tub that is in a backyard that is fairly small and so therefore it's within the setback and nobody knew gotcha until much many many years after the fact so
[Unidentified]: Good to know.
[Denis MacDougall]: It's just an interesting little thing. I was sort of going through, because I had to go, at first I went through the city one. It just lists pools. It doesn't list hot tubs. And then I went to the state code, and it actually does the thing about the two feet. And it doesn't, so basically it's anything but a kiddie pool is water safety.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: Water, yeah.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do we have any new business? Any items for anyone else? All right, thank you guys. I know this probably went longer than expected, but thank you for your patience and the time on this 1.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm emotional very much.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Mike. Do we have a 2nd. Mary.
[Mary Lee]: Hi, Andre.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Hi, Jim. Hi, Mike. Hi, Jamie. Hi, thanks everybody. Happy New Year. Happy New Year.