AI-generated transcript of Medford Zoning Board Of Appeals 02-27-25

[Mike Caldera]: Regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Jim Tirani?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Present.

[Mike Caldera]: Yvette Velez?

[Mary Lee]: Present.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue?

[Mary Lee]: Present.

[Mike Caldera]: Mary Lee?

[Mary Lee]: Present.

[Mike Caldera]: Chris Diabetta? I don't see him on yet. And then Mike Caldera present. So we have five members present. I will be appointing Mary as a voting member. Oh, OK. I think Chris just joined. So maybe it will be a case-by-case basis. I'll just wait a moment. All right, we're just in the process of taking roll call. I'm going to call on Chris D'Avetta.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Present.

[Mike Caldera]: OK, great. So we've got six. Folks, so before we get started on the standard business, once per year, the zoning board elects a chair for the next year. And so we're going to be doing that at the start of this meeting. The way that's going to work, any member of the board is welcome to nominate a member as chair. And then that will require a second. There can be multiple nominations. Anyone nominated will indicate whether they accept the nomination or not, and then we'll vote on our next chair. So with that being said, Dennis, is there any lead-in you need to do, or can we just go straight to the voting procedure?

[Denis MacDougall]: No, we can still do that. Hold on.

[Mike Caldera]: Some folks are not muted. Yeah, I just muted you. I can't hear. Yeah, okay, I think we should be good now. So yeah, acting chair awaits a motion for who to nominate as our chair for the next year.

[Mary Lee]: Motion to nominate? Mary, can I nominate?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, who are you nominating, Mary?

[Mary Lee]: I'm nominating Mike.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, do I have a second? Second. OK, second from Chris. Any other motions to nominate a member? OK, I do not see any. I am willing to accept the nomination, so why don't we go ahead and vote. So Jim Tirani? Aye. Yvette Velez?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue. Aye. Mary Lee.

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Christy Aveda. Aye. Mike Caldera, I'm going to abstain. So I am now the chair, not the acting chair. So I will rename myself on Zoom. All right. Thank you for your patience, folks. So we are going to take one item out of order. I think the board got a request to withdraw. Is that right, Dennis?

[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct. We received a request from the applicant for 106 Alexander Avenue to withdraw.

[Mike Caldera]: OK. So let's read 106 Alexander Avenue.

[Denis MacDougall]: 106 Alexander Avenue, applicant and owner, to demolish an existing single-family home at 106 Alexander Avenue, replacing a two-family home in a general residence zoning district, which is an allowed use with insufficient lot area and lot width, per the City Measures Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative for the applicant? I know we have a request to withdraw in writing.

[Denis MacDougall]: I don't believe they're on the call. We just received a formal letter You know, into the office.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, or sorry that the board hasn't heard any testimony on the matter. So, customarily, if an applicant request to withdraw, we, we grant it. Happy to discuss as a board. Otherwise chair awaits a motion. Should we even need to vote on it? Dennis? Or is it just. We didn't open the case, I think we can just dispose of it.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I think we can just not open it. But just because if there are folks here who are here who received a notice on this, just to let you all know that if the applicant decides to go forward again, they'll have to go through the exact same process and you will get notified again. So this isn't like kicking the can down the road and waiting. If they wish to come before the zoning board again, it'll be the exact same process and you'll receive a notice in the mail stating that this is what they are seeking to do. But currently, that matter is not going to be heard.

[Mike Caldera]: OK, yeah, so we've never opened it. We don't need to vote for it to be withdrawn. So the matter is withdrawn. OK. So next item on the agenda, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: 85 Elm Street, continued from January 30, 2025. To demolish and convert a legal nonconforming motor vehicle repair station to a three-unit townhouse style residential building in a single-family two-zoning district, requiring a variance of frontage, lot width, and usable open space per the City Metro Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B. As a variance as to parking pursuant to Chapter 94, 6.1.3, a variance as to use pursuant to Chapter 94, 11.4.2, or alternatively, a special permit to change a nonconforming use as set forth in Chapter 94, 5.21.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. So this matter was continued from a prior meeting. My recollection is that the voting members and the members who were present when we heard that case were myself, Chip.

[Unidentified]: I don't hear anything.

[Mike Caldera]: to that vocal, but as Andre LaRue and Mary Lee, oh, do you mind? I think my connection cut out. Can folks hear me now? I think my connection cut out. OK, great. Sorry about that. So yeah. So just to be clear, myself, Jim, Yvette, Andre, Mary were present before, so they will be the voting members. I believe we got all the way to deliberation, and then there was a request to continue. And so I think just because the applicant does intend to present additional information, we'll plan to reopen public comment. on the new information, just in case there is any. So yeah, with that being said, I see we have Attorney Desmond for the applicant.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Just as a matter of procedure, where we had before five members and the prior chair was available to vote, and we now have four under the Mullen rule, is the other regular member permitted at this point to hear? hear testimony, especially where we're reopening the matter. I don't know if that has read in, but there were five members when we originally were before the board to vote.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh yeah. So attorney Desmond, I may be misremembering, but um, I double checked. So this was the January meeting and I know at the start we were, Jamie was not present and it was the five I mentioned.

[Kathleen Desmond]: That was a motion for continuance. That wasn't when the actual hearing was held. The hearing was in December, and then we continued it in January for purposes of obtaining the expert opinion, because if you recall, I had filed the motion to continue one of the partners, yes.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, okay, thanks for the reminder. So your proposal is that under the Mullen rule, I appoint one of Yvette or Chris, is that right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, Yvette's a regular member, so I believe she's ready to be able to vote. There wouldn't be another alternative.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sounds good. So, Yvette, we heard this matter in December. Under the Mullen rule, you would have had to review the kind of the prior testimony or the notes from that session to vote. Have you had a chance to review that?

[Yvette Velez]: I have looked at the documents.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Okay, great. So then yes, so that will be voting. So we have five. Thanks for the catch. Attorney Desmond. All right. Um, so yeah, so as I understand it, you have some new information that you'd like to share with the board.

[Kathleen Desmond]: That's correct. Um, as you as you know, this is a situation where we're proposing three unit townhouse The parcel's in an SF2 district. It's a 10,000 square foot parcel of land. If you may recall, it's hampered by a 12-foot drainage easement that diagonally runs across the front of the property, requiring that any building be 4 feet from the street, and then the topographical issues to the back that require retaining walls and whatnot in order to proceed on this. We were hoping to have Michael Tushet with us, but there was some miscommunication as to his understanding of when the meeting was. And he's actually on a plane. If he wasn't on a plane right now, he would be here. But he did submit a written statement to the board as to what the site plan costs would be for the project. And if need be, Dennis, can I share my screen? If the board had questions and wanted him present, he could be present at the following meeting. But given that we had continued this once, I wanted to at least present the information that he's presented to us with respect to the costs associated with the project. In addition, I believe Mary had a question concerning the trees and actually the distance between Here's the abiding house and the proposed project. She had asked that we remove the trees, I think, so that she could actually gauge the distance between the two structures. And we have done that. Let me show you that rendering. So here's the rendering, which shows the distance without the trees. You know, the intent is certainly to keep a greenscape here so that there is a buffer. between the adjacent homeowner and the condominium. But as you can see, it's, I believe it's, let me go back to my, because I did not look at this earlier today, that piece of it. I believe it's roughly 20 feet between the existing structure and the other house. I can get to the scroll down for some reason I don't just so I can get the exact and put a bunch of things in here so that I could talk about them. Okay, so here we are. So the distance between the house as proposed is 14 feet within our property and then there's another at least 10 feet between the lot line and the adjacent property. So the distance is 24 feet. As we had discussed, if this lot were able to be subdivided, which it isn't because of the width issue, you would have a much closer structure to this because you'd need to observe the seven and a half feet on both sides of the property as opposed to the three unit townhouse, situation. So you would actually be closer to that house just by necessity. Um, and thereby, you know, exacerbating, um, the, um, the concerns that the neighbor had next to the property. Um, so, so that I, I hope addresses, um, the questions that Mary had with respect to the distance between the properties, um, with respect to the cost component, um, Mister to shed I brought broke down what the cost would be for each of the the cost associated with construction of site construction not not construction of the dwellings and and he indicates. That you know the sewer water sewer and drainage is going to cost approximately $207,000 to complete The landscape paving and excavation would be approximately $180,000. The retaining walls he anticipates to be in the vicinity of, I'm sorry, yeah, $80,000. So the total site work that he sees this project requiring, based on the topography and also the drainage, because you're going to have to bring water much farther than you would if you could move the structures closer, is $474,000. And that's just the site work. Divided by two, that's going to create a situation where you, before you even begin construction of the dwellings, you're going to have a $237,000 site cost per dwelling unit. If that's spread out over three, it's a $79,000 difference, which brings it down to $158,000 per unit for site work. He also opines about the other costs, which he doesn't include in his breakdown, which would include permits and police details He doesn't include the soft costs for condo fees, condominium association documents, fees associated with building plans that have to be put together. And he also doesn't include in his, because he was not going to be responsible for it, the demolition costs. So my client can speak to the demolition costs, but he believes those to be in the vicinity of $50,000. I think the soft costs, if you take the permits and the connectivity fees and the police details, the permit itself, I think my client anticipates to be around $30,000 plus a connectivity fee. You've got final plans for the buildings themselves, engineering plans, mechanical plans. So all of that rolled in in terms of the soft costs, I think it's fair to say would be in the vicinity of $80,000, somewhere in that. vicinity in addition to the demolition costs. And then, you know, you would have broker's fees and off the top of any sales price of that as well. And if you took, he also put in, also gave us a sense as to in terms of construction, that the cost and it would include include site work that that typically that you know the average type cost is 320 per square foot for a single family the townhouses because you can share some of the foundation the exterior walls and and and there's some lessening of cost there he put that at 250 I know see brown seems to think that that would maybe a higher cost that would be required to to to accommodate the site costs and also the construction costs but you know I think in terms of looking at it from a chat perspective and and and focusing really on you know what the site work does in in terms of being split between three units versus two units if you were to say and if you were to be able to build a 2,500 square foot unit which is what this is a 250 square foot you construction cost would be 625 and as you can see here you know 61% on a two unit dwelling is is attributable to site work versus construction allowance which would be 388 which which may very well raise the the you know the the square foot the dollar per square foot cost whereas with the three units you've got your site work down to $158,000 and then you've got a construction allowance of 467 If you add in the soft costs and the broker's commissions, you're looking at costs, conservatively speaking, at 690 per unit for a two-unit and 676.67 for a three-unit dwelling. And that doesn't take into account, from the petitioner's perspective, the fact that he acquired the property so he's not getting anything of value for his initial acquisition of the property. In addition to that, and I know we had some discussion about it, in order to turn this to a residential project, there was a need to engage in environmental work and remove gas tanks which were underground. And although that was done beforehand, and I know what the board's, or at least some members of the board's position is in that regard, You know, that is actually a cost that someone would have to expend in order to bring this to a residential unit, whether it was a single family, a three family or a two family. So in terms of the cost and in terms of what is gonna come back and what he's gonna make on that, a two unit puts you in a situation where it's 690 per unit, roughly, if you can do it, with the site work at 237 and a construction allowance of 388. And then, you know, what is that going to yield? I went and I looked at the realtor.com, and this is a current listing for three Regis Road, but it's a single family. But when you go to the map, it will show you, in essence, what the values are going to realtor.com within that Elm Street area. Now, some of these haven't been tested certainly because they're not on the market, they're occupied and they're not for sale, but there isn't anything in here which would put you in a situation where you're gonna, on a single family, which most of these are, get anywhere close to a million, a million two, something where, so the margins, my point is the margins are tight in this particular area. The property itself is not as desirable as some would be. I did look at, just by way of example, and these are single families, they're not condos, but this particular one, 3 Regis Road, is 3,220 square feet which is more than you know that any of these condos in terms of square footage and the lot is is far greater in size and our price is at 998. So in terms of where you know none of us know where the market's going to go but In terms of, you know, the perception may be that these will go for a million two and, you know, two units will satisfy and that will be sufficient for the developer to make a profit. The margin is much slimmer than that. And if you look, there's one also, which is on Fulton street, again, in the same type of area, a single family house. And that has been dropped in price to $880,000. And, you know, again, it's a smaller lot, but the square footage of the house is the same or close to the same as to what you would propose with the condominium units themselves. So if your margin is $700,000, If that's what that cost is going to be for a two-unit dwelling. And again, the two-unit is tighter on construction costs because you can't spread out the site improvements over three units. It's only over two units. you're talking about roughly $180,000 per unit that could be realized. And if market conditions and construction costs continue to rise, that all changes and your construction costs increase and then the 250 per square foot doesn't work. With the three units, at least you have another unit to bear some of those costs and come into a situation where you can make some money to recoup. But I think at this point, with a two-unit building, it would be difficult for the owner to break even. But a three-unit at least gives him something beyond what his original investment in this property was. So those are the numbers that were presented to us. And the site costs are directly related to the fact that, you know, you've got to spend a sufficient, a significant amount of money on landscaping in this instance, because of the grade of the back rear property. And also, you know, you're going to have to include a cost for retaining walls. And I know that Zeke Brown, and Jack Sullivan both think that the retaining wall costs that they have estimated is on the lighter side. And that, you know, it doesn't, two units doesn't give you any room to breathe in terms of costs. So that's why we're proposing the three unit development. And I hope that answers some of the questions that the board had with respect to hardship and the two unit versus the three unit.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Questions from the board for Attorney Desmond on what you just shared?

[Mary Lee]: So thank you, Attorney Desmond for the supplemental photo because it depicts accurately what it will be like without the trees and obviously with the trees will look much better. But it's just that this new supplement gives a good comparison in terms of the proximity to the neighbor. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Other questions or comments from the board?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Jim, go ahead. Are you comments for positive? I mean, are we able to say what we think at this time?

[Mike Caldera]: So, Jim, my recommendation is we should talk about it in deliberation. We technically are in deliberation, but I do intend to reopen for public comment on the new information first. Very good. Okay, great. Yeah, Attorney Desmond, I'll just say, appreciate the level of detail that went into this. I think it did resolve some of my uncertainties about the various options.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. So we're gonna go ahead and reopen for public comment. Please, if you remember the public, we did have a hearing on the matter in general, would like to focus to be on the presentation today. So yeah, if you remember the public, you'd like to speak on the matter, you can raise your hand on Zoom, you can turn on your camera and physically raise your hand, or you can email Dennis dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. I do not see any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter so far. Dennis, have you received any letters from members of the public?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, we actually received a letter from Zach Baer's City Council. And he actually asked to have it be read into the record during the meeting tonight. So I can do that now if you would. Sure.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Please go ahead. Yeah.

[Denis MacDougall]: OK. So from City Council President Isaac B. Zach Bears. Thank you for your consideration of my comments regarding the application for variance to dimension in use and or special permanent accordance with section 5.2.1 of Medford zoning ordinance. I am strongly supportive of the petitioner's application and as a member of the council through the 2020 through 2022 recodification process, I believe this application meets the authorial intent of section 94-5.2 and 94-5.2.1.2 of the city's zoning ordinance. The primary reason I support this application is that it will benefit both the neighborhood and Medford as a whole. The construction of new housing units in this currently underutilized lot that has operated in the past due to detrimental, non-conforming commercial use will significantly reduce the negative impacts on the surrounding community. I agree with the petitioner's claims that the conversion to residential use will not be substantially more detrimental. In fact, I believe it will be less detrimental than the existing use. I'm also largely sympathetic to the petitioner's arguments that strict adherence to the zoning ordinance as written, building one single-family home would make the project financially infeasible based on the needs for reconstruction, retaining walls, and other challenging topographical conditions. Given the City's priorities and the size of the parcels in question, constructing one single-family home would not be the best possible use for this property. The petitioner has had extensive discussions with City employees and officials over several years about proposed changes to this property. I believe petitioner has worked in good faith to all the relevant necessary processes to reach a proposed application and site plan that aligns with the city's comprehensive plan, housing production plan, climate plan, and provides significant benefits over the property's existing condition and past uses. I encourage the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant relief to the petitioner and allow this project as described in the application to move forward.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. I see we have Planner Danielle Evans. Please go ahead.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Danielle, please feel free to speak this time.

[Danielle Evans]: Hi, I'm unmuted now. Sorry, I am in car, but I wanted to call. I'm calling as actually in a butter. So Daniel Evans, 79 Quavier Road, my house overlooks the property. I want to speak in favor of this. It's a blighted property. It's a complete eyesore. And I think housing there would be great. Originally when they, so putting my planner hat on, Originally, they were looking at a much denser proposal. I think at one point, maybe six units, and then it went down to four. And working with them, we strongly advised that three would be a good number and would be the most that we thought that this site could handle, recognizing that it does need parking because there's no parking on Elm Street and it's a state road. and that this would blend in with the neighborhood built character. It's not overbearing of the adjacent properties. I think the lot is unique in that it is a larger parcel among smaller parcels. It does have the the difficulties with the easement and also due to the traffic also on the road, it would be actually a benefit to set it back a bit. So I just wanted to share that as a butter who did receive notice. So we're talking with that hat on. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? Dennis, you're on mute.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. Yep. Mike, I received an email from Anna Butter, who is on their phone and just wanted me to send it via this. So I will say, and this is... Shoot. I just need her address. The solving I think I know your address is I just want to confirm just make sure you get the right number for the record. In one second. Okay, okay, so this is a question from Carolyn Sullivan 89 Elm Street. basically say where will the front of the building be compared to the back of their house. So they're the house that in the image that we sort of showed earlier. And I think if Attorney Desmond, if you can call it that one that was like the overlay looking down on the top.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So here's the proposed building, which sits behind the drainage. And I believe this is 89 here. So the building is behind the existing building, so it's not going to have any impact on the light that would be received from this particular home. I think there were some questions. Ms. Sullivan may have been on the last call, too. And on her property, there are a number of trees in the back that impact the ability. I think she had a question about whether this would impact her light and her ability to have light in her backyard. And when we were looking at it, she sits to the east of our property. she's going to get sun most of the day. And it's not going to be till late afternoon that it hits here. But there were trees in the back of her property, if I can get to the correct slide, if that's your question. Hold on. Let me just get through the plans. So here's a picture of the back. The garage is actually beyond the easement. So that's a fair representation of probably the distance between her house, how far this is set back, and her house. So this construction is not going to impact any light or any shadows on her home itself. But there are these larger trees in the back. that do seem as if they would impact the light to the backyard more so than the structure would. Because again, she sits to the east of us. And I think that was her question previously. But I think this is a fair representation of the distance, the setback of the proposed structure. It's not gonna be adjacent to her, for dwelling.

[Unidentified]: So I hope that answers your question.

[Denis MacDougall]: We did get a follow-up about how close to the property will they be digging. And then there were a couple other questions just regarding construction. And if any damage was done during construction, that would be up to the applicant. That's not part of the zoning board's purview, those types of questions. So in terms of like construction, any work like that is done through the building department, and then they're the ones who issue the permits. But if any things like that, that doesn't really apply to a zoning board meeting.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, great. Thank you, Dennis. Other questions or comments from members of the public? Yeah, Jack Sullivan, address for the record, please.

[Jack Sullivan]: Yep, I'm actually the project engineer, but I just wanted to follow up to what Kathleen Desmond said from the back corner of house number 89 to the front left corner of our proposed building is 26 feet. In the front of our building is set back. If you go off out the backyard of number 89, you go back 12 feet and then go over the 24 feet. That would be the front of our new building. So there is a good distance between them, but I want to give the board those dimensions.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you.

[Jack Sullivan]: Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Other questions or comments from members of the public? Being none, the chair awaits a motion to re-enter deliberation, or to close the public portion of the hearing and re-enter deliberation.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion. Go ahead, Mary.

[Mary Lee]: Motion. Thanks.

[Mike Caldera]: And seconded.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.

[Mike Caldera]: We're going to take a roll call.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim? I. I. That.

[Yvette Velez]: Yes.

[Mike Caldera]: Uh, Mike, I, all right, we are now deliberating. What do you think folks? Uh, Jim, go ahead.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you. Uh, really compliments the area very well. I'm not too far from that area. And you know, when you look at what's there right now and you look what's proposed, I mean, it just, it, it really adds to that area. And I think having the three units makes better financial sense as well. So I'm in full agreement of that. And I actually think it's going to really, if it goes through, will really make the area look very nice. So I just wanted to give you that comment.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Jim. Other thoughts from members of the board? Andre?

[Andre Leroux]: Right. Thank you. Yeah. As I mentioned when we were having the deliberations last time, I do think that I strongly support this. I think that, you know, the use is a positive use change. I think that the variances being requested are reasonable. You know, having the drainage easement go diagonally right through the front is just something that's very unusual about this parcel. And I think that the The property owner and the architects have dealt with that sensitively. I think three units is appropriate for this site. It's nice to see that given the fact that it is a busy road, you can pull in off of the road, so it's not going to have any detrimental, I think, safety impacts either on the roadways. All right. Thank you. Other thoughts from members of the board?

[Yvette Velez]: I'm just going to chime in and add that I recollect when this first came in front of the board and how things have changed and the added supplemental information was super helpful. And I really appreciate the work that the developer has, the owner has put forward to make sure that we have all of that information. That I agree with is a lot of the things are out of the control in particular that during pipe and showing that to us and things of that nature. So, I appreciate it.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Other thoughts from members of the board. Okay, I can go next. So like I said, I think the information we received was very helpful just in terms of understanding the rationale behind proposing three units. You know, from my perspective, that's an important part of establishing hardship in this case. And so now I think we have much better info about what was driving the decision to propose three versus some of the other alternatives. So I appreciate that. Like I said in the prior hearing, clearly the lot is unusual on a number of dimensions. So the topography, the soil conditions, the easement, all that fun stuff, the existing structure. And then to the a butters concern. When I think about the board's decision about whether to grant variance relief here, you've got to associate any detriment that that neighbor is claiming with the actual variances being requested. And so in this case, this building isn't requesting relief for side yard setback on that side or height. And so I don't I'm not sure there's a good angle to claim that that detriments the reason not to move forward with this. So yeah, other thoughts from the board? OK, not seeing any. I do want to double check one detail with Attorney Desmond before anyone makes a motion. So Attorney Desmond, as I understand it, The applicants position is that the use in this case has not lapsed and that it would be a change of use being requested. My recollection is the city went on the record and stated that from their perspective, the use has lapsed. So it would just be a straight use variance. Do you have a strong preference as to how we proceed in this case? I'm inclined to just

[Kathleen Desmond]: vote based on the city's determination, unless you think there's a... I mean, I would preserve the right that I think that's a valid argument, that it hasn't been abandoned and that the non-conforming use provisions could apply, but certainly that decision is within the prerogative of the board.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, all right, thanks. So yeah, I'm going to recommend to the board that because the city has gone on the record and determine that the use lapsed, that any motion be on a use variance, as well as the dimensional variances for, let me just double check, frontage, lot width, usable open space, and parking. But a member of the board could motion for either. So yeah, looking for a motion in this matter.

[Andre Leroux]: Andre well, Mr. chair, do we have to do 2 separate. Variances for the 1 for the use variance and 1 for the other variances.

[Mike Caldera]: So we could either do them all together or we could do them separate.

[Andre Leroux]: Okay, uh. Which case I would like to, uh, it's a motion to approve for 85 Elm Street. The variance is requested for frontage lot with and usable open space as well as for, uh. parking and use variance.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. We're going to take a vote. Yvette?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Mary?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So the variances are approved. And so, yeah, Attorney Desmond, if you, Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong here, but if you could draft a decision and send that to Dennis, that would be the next step. Yeah. Okay. Exactly. Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Good night, folks. All right. What do we have next, Dennis?

[Denis MacDougall]: I was on the beginning of the meeting myself. 31 Lincoln Street, case number 8-2025-03. Applicant and owner of Rosha Properties LLC to add a second curb cut at 31 Lincoln Street, which was denied by the city engineer for the city of Medford zoning order chapter 94-6.1.4, off-street parking requirements, general 11.A.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Do we have a representative for the applicant in this matter?

[William O'Keefe]: Attorney Bill O'Keefe, and I believe Yeah, the applicants also on to as well. Um, Nelson. Yeah, we're just looking for relief. This was a project that was done for a renovation of a two-family house. It's on the corner of Lincoln Street and Fairfield. And there's two parking spots that are on the Lincoln Street side. And since the property has been done over, the Fairfield Street entrances, which are on the other side, accommodate the unit. And we're looking to have a driveway incorporated in order to make ease of access and provide them with a little bit level of comfort about not being able to park on the off street. So in order to maximize the units value.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, and you did supply some plans to the board. Yeah, maybe we could. see where the proposed addition.

[Denis MacDougall]: I can, I can bring it up if you want. Yeah, that'd be great. It's basically, it's the plot plan, I think it's the big one.

[William O'Keefe]: Yes. I mean, consistent with the neighborhood, I had the opportunity to speak with the abutters there. Now, this location is close to Arlington Street and the Mystic River. So, it's a two-way street that has parking on both sides. The 53 Fairfield Street, that's a carnal lot, and they have a driveway on the Fairfield side, as well as the Lincoln Street side. So their driveway would be directly across from the proposed driveway that we're making. And then 27 Lincoln and 30 Lincoln Street, spoke with both those owners, and they'd be, More than happy to see the off-street parking. There's still ample opportunities for parking in that area, but seasonally we have the boaters and those that walk the bike path and use the Duggar Park area for fishing and other things. They maximize the parking over there as well as during the winter months. Where you have the snow restrictions, so that impedes some of the opportunities to park. So those are some of the challenges that come with the area. It's a very narrow street. So as you're taking the left to go on to Fairfield or the right to go on to Fairfield, I mean, fire apparatus have struggled in the past. The previous owner and a part of the Bruce Nays, who a longtime friend and client, he always parked his vehicle in these parking spaces. But he was one of those old school gentlemen that refused to pay the city in order to cut the curve. He just drove over it and parked his vehicle there in order to basically keep it off the street. And he did that for decades, for decades. He passed a few years ago and that's how the property became available, so on and so forth.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Just an aside, I forgot at the outset to mention who would be voting in this matter. And so I will not be voting. So we'll have the other five members present voting. That would be Jim, Andre, Mary, Yvette, and Chris. So just one clarifying question, Attorney Chief. So the prior owner, when they were parking in that location, was that driven by personal preference that they were choosing to park there? Or was there some other reason why they chose to park there versus parking on the street?

[William O'Keefe]: It was both. It was the size of the vehicle, his truck, and then personal preference.

[Adam Hurtubise]: OK.

[William O'Keefe]: All right. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Other questions from members of the board?

[Mary Lee]: I'm trying to get a street view on my computer, but all I see is just the house. I can't see the street view. Can we pull that up on the screen?

[Mike Caldera]: That's something you could do, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, I have it on my screen. I'll stop share right now and just let someone else do that. I'll look.

[Andre Leroux]: I can share it. I have it up on mine. OK. Yeah. Go ahead, Andre. So this is the Fairfield side right here. That's where the box truck is sitting in there. That would be where the parking would be. The curb cut would be right here. Yes. So it's a very narrow street, you can tell from looking at it. So if there's on-street parking, it's not It's a two-way street, so if you got someone on each side, I mean, it's not really much room.

[William O'Keefe]: So this was rehab where you have that awning there, that's a door there too, in order to enter Fairfield. And then there's a door on the side of the house where the yellow truck is that was added in order to split the house so that it could be a two-family, because it was just being used as storage. So it was very tastefully done, maintain the integrity of the area. And again, too, just that one curb cut there will still provide any additional unneeded parking for those that maybe have a hardship in terms of the snow emergency or the seasonal folks with access and use to the waterways for the Mystic River. Yeah. Each of the proponents, they were building the house there. That's where their driveway came out. They were very nice in terms of, I mean, having that as an idea in terms of the woman that lives there getting in and out of her car and stuff like that because of the two-way street. It'd be much safer for her if she was parked on the driveway. And then the same thing with Mrs. Evans, whose house is behind it on the left of Lincoln Street.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. I mean, you can see how even people pull up on the curb just to park since it's so narrow.

[William O'Keefe]: Yeah, it's one of those narrows and same thing with the fire apparatus and the snow. I mean, I know, I mean, years ago, the fire apparatus actually approached the fire department, actually approached them to keep his car on the in the driveway. So, I mean, he was an old veteran. Now that house that you're seeing there, that was recently rebuilt, that was burned down. But both those parcels were part of the legacy for the Phillips and the Bruce Nays families that go back generations. So the Lincoln Street side, they go in there, they park their two vehicles there. And as the project developed, they put central air for both units, and the central air AC units are behind on the left side, which impedes the depth of that driveway.

[Mike Caldera]: So Mary, now that we have this street view up, do you have additional questions, or did you just want to see it?

[Mary Lee]: Oh, that's very helpful. Thank you. So the affected area is right where the yellow truck is, right? Yes. That's right. OK. So there will be an additional opening surrounding the house.

[William O'Keefe]: Into that driveway space, yes.

[Mary Lee]: Okay, thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: So, Attorney O'Keefe, I just want to make sure that I understand the set of steps that this went through. So I see the board has a letter from the city engineer with the initial denial, which states that the DPW commissioner is currently not permitting additional curb cuts due to the lack of on-street parking needs within the community. And then stating that appeals should be made directly to the DPW commissioner. And so the city engineer gave some examples as to the reasons why an additional curb cut might be considered on a case-by-case basis, special access, accessibility needs, for example. What happened from there? In terms of what? Well, so the city engineer denied it, stating a general policy stated appeal directly to the DPW commissioner. And then we're hearing it today. So have you- To the Board of Appeals. Right, right. But have you discussed this with the DPW commissioner first or- I didn't have the opportunity, no.

[William O'Keefe]: I was just told to go to the Board of Appeals. I see. Yeah. And most of the engineering department. Got it. Okay.

[Denis MacDougall]: Um, and Mike, just to sort of jump in. So I speaking to the city engineer, he basically said the same thing to me that, you know, he basically said, go before the board of appeals on this matter.

[Mike Caldera]: Even though the email says go before the commissioner.

[Denis MacDougall]: I think maybe because he knew that the DPW commissioner had decided that no secondary curb cuts would be allowed. So that's why I think he just sort of said, go straight to us. OK. OK. Got it. Thanks. We just might not have that in writing, but that was the impression I got from him.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Other questions from the board?

[Mary Lee]: So I just want to understand this. So this is supposed to go through the DPW first, or I didn't quite get that.

[Mike Caldera]: Why procedurally the curb cut goes to the city engineer if the curb cut. is denied by the city engineer, someone can go straight to the zoning board. So from a procedural standpoint, there's no procedural defect here. I think just city engineer was stating that because this was a policy by the DPW commissioner that if the applicant chose to go to the DPW, Commissioner that some additional curb cuts might be granted on a case-by-case basis with special circumstances.

[Mary Lee]: So this board is on equal footing with respect to the other option with DPW?

[Mike Caldera]: This board is essentially the legal decision maker in this case. So we can grant relief outside of the ordinance if a certain set of standards are met.

[Mary Lee]: Okay, so going before the DPW is not a necessity in this instance for this case?

[Unidentified]: Correct, yeah.

[Mary Lee]: Okay, thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions from members of the board?

[Mike Caldera]: I do not see any. I will now go ahead and open it up to public comments. So if you're a member of the public and you would like to speak on this matter, you may do so now. Please either raise your hand on Zoom, physically raise your hand, get your camera turned on, or email dennisdmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. All right, I'm not seeing any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter. Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Beth?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Chris? Aye. Mary?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jim. Aye. All right. The board is now deliberating. And just as a reminder, the five members who just voted are the voting members on this matter. What do you think, folks?

[William O'Keefe]: Appreciate it.

[Mike Caldera]: So just to be clear, we haven't, Attorney O'Keefe, we haven't voted on the actual ruling. No, no. Yeah, got it. Yeah, go ahead, Andre.

[Andre Leroux]: Uh, so, you know, taking a look at the surroundings and the street, I think it actually makes a lot of sense to put a curb cut here. I think there's benefit to the community to getting a car or 2 off of the streets since it is a narrow and congested street. So a little. I guess, surprised by the decision by the city agency. I think that this is a case where there's more parking will be accommodated in a safer way by having the off street, uh, parking approved. So I would support this.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Uh, go ahead, Jim. I echo Andre's thoughts. 100% on that. Those are my thoughts. Exactly.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, other thoughts from the board?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Jerry, I also agree. I think it makes sense and probably, you know, especially if it's divided into two units that each has some availability of off-street parking.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: One thing I will say that I didn't say up front. So the relief being sought here in this case is a special permit. So the standard for that is no substantial detriment to the public good. So the board would need to find no substantial detriment to the public good in allowing this additional curb cut to grant that relief.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts from the board? If not, the chair awaits a motion.

[Andre Leroux]: Andre? Motion to approve the special permit for a curb cut at this address. Second. Second. Just comment that I, you know, to your point, thanks for the clarification, Mike, about the, you know, the, the standard for this. And I, I would say that not only is there not a detriment to this, but there is a benefit to the neighborhood.

[Mike Caldera]: Right. Thank you. So a motion by Andre, seconded by Jim, we're going to take a roll call. Mary.

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Chris. Aye. Beth.

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. All right, the special permit is approved.

[William O'Keefe]: Appreciate everybody's time.

[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you. And just Attorney O'Keefe, if you could just put together just a very rough draft decision for, it'd just help expedite matters quite a bit, just to kind of get it, you know, the ball rolling and you can get this, you know, Cause otherwise I'll be writing it. So it's just to sort of get, at least get the matter started. Just doesn't have to be much to sort of just release the initial decision. So we can work from that.

[William O'Keefe]: Absolutely. Not a problem, Dennis. Thank you for your time too as well. Appreciate it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Good night. What's up next, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: 121 Riverside Avenue case number 8 dash 2025-show for applicant and on the record housing authority, you know, an 8 foot high fence around the transformer and emergency generator enclosure at 121 Riverside Avenue, which is not allowed for the city. Chapter 94, 6.3.4 screening and buffers between residential and non residential uses.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. I'm going to appoint the same members this time, so I will not be voting. The other five will. Do we have a representative for the applicant?

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Hello, this is Ben Wilson. I'm the architect with BH plus A Architects in Boston, and I'm representing TLO. Good evening, everybody. Evening, and we have gave just from the Medford housing authority with us as well. I believe he was on here a few minutes ago.

[Ciccariello]: Yes, and I think Brunette to our project manager is on also.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: So I'm going to start off by saying that I'm having some technical difficulties, and I wasn't able to access the documents that were submitted through my VPN. I'm kind of in a travel mode right now, and I've not been able to get those onto the screen. So I would ask Dennis McDougall if he could provide the graphic support for the conversation.

[Denis MacDougall]: Absolutely. So I've got a couple of, I'm just going to call up a few onto my screen, and then we can sort of go from there.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: I'll go ahead and just start talking here. Our request has to do with the enclosure for the utilities, the generator, emergency generator, and transformer. at the front corner of the site at 121 Riverside Ave. And that's a salt and stall building, apartments, senior housing complex, and elderly and disabled housing for the housing authority. And we had Through the design process, we had carried an eight-foot-high enclosure and realized quite late in the game here that that extended above the allowable six-foot fence height. Just to give some setting here, you can see the upper left corner of the site. There's sort of a pinkish area that has two red boxes and a green box. The green is the generator, which sits up on a platform and has fuel storage underneath. And the two red boxes are the generator and switchgear. The Riverside Ave runs vertical on the page. up kind of diagonally there. And Interstate 93 runs across the top of the page. So this is an overpass. 93 is an overpass over Riverside Ave. So the embankment that goes from the site elevation where the parking is and the generator enclosure going up the hill to the interstate edge is, I think it's somewhere around a 24 or 25 foot high embankment on the backside there. So this is sort of the corner of the site tucked up against that embankment, a lot of vegetation. And what we're proposing for the sake of screening the emergency generator that is projected up pretty high, We are proposing an eight foot high fence with privacy slatting and just to enhance the enclosure and conceal as much as possible of the equipment. And these pages here, just simply show the comparison between a six foot high fence on the top and an eight foot high fence on the bottom. It's just a slight improvement. And obviously, I guess I have to admit that our modeling of the interstate and the embankment really doesn't accurately represent the picture. What we're showing here is really a comparison between a 6-foot fence and an 8-foot fence. This view is from the parking lot, looking back towards essentially the resident side of the enclosure and the residential parking area. And it's a subtle difference between the two, the six foot on the top and the eight foot high fence on the bottom. We just felt that it does provide a little better visual coverage of the equipment and improves the aesthetic quality of the setting there. And this is a view from the sidewalk, essentially the street view. Again, you can see a little more of the, if you scroll there just a bit, the top view is the six foot fence, a little more of the, you see the tips of the transformer and the switch box, you see a pretty big chunk of the generator with the eight foot high fence, it really just kind of screens the electrical equipment and leaves the generator just the top of it. So I think the hardship is really an aesthetic improvement for the public, the surrounding community, and the residents of the property as well. Do you have anything else to add to that, Gabe?

[Ciccariello]: Yeah. Well, we also plan on Riverside Ave, putting some shrubbery too, just getting some green in front of that fence also that eventually over time will hopefully grow higher than eight feet and just be a little more aesthetically pleasing, soften up the fence. Right.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that, because we are also adding trees to the front, to the riverside outside as well. I think we have two or three new trees planting along between the sidewalk and the enclosure.

[Mike Caldera]: Right. Thank you. And so one thing I'll just say, so section 6.3.11 The ordinance lets us grant this relief by special permit. So we can waive any requirements surrounding the screening and buffers by special permit if there's no substantial detriment to the public good. So I just wanted to clarify that for the board. Questions or comments from the board?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I have a question, Mike. Yeah, go ahead, Jim. If I understand it correctly, are you planning on planting trees all along the side of the fence? Was that the plan?

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: I'm not sure I heard your question exactly. The question is, what is the planned landscape?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, we you had mentioned planting trees along the side of the fence that you're putting up. Are you planning on planting trees all along the side of that a foot fence.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I'm Dennis. If you go back to that this the site plan that might help. We have we have two trees to, you know, full scale full not sure what species. They are two trees planned Sign to the to the space between the sidewalk and the which and the enclosure, which is about 12 or 15 feet and We will be adding shrubbery and low-level plantings along the length of the fence facing the street, as well as we've adjusted the fence position so that we can have climbing hydrangea or something of that nature along the sidewalk that turns back into the site. So there's a portion of this

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: So it's a portion of the fence that would be covered by the trees. But the trees won't cover the entire fence?

[Ciccariello]: Correct. It would be the portion most visible to the public on Riverside Ave and when you exit the site onto Riverside Ave. Okay.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: The only reason why I asked, was if you were going to put trees along the side of the fence, an eight-foot fence, and you did it with a six-foot fence, if you planned to have the trees go over the fence, what would be the purpose of putting an eight-foot fence versus a six-foot fence? But I understand it better now. You're putting two trees on the corners, and then you're putting the low planting below that. And one other question I have, is the purpose of the fence to cover the top of the building, the generator? Because that's all I sort of see. When I look at the eight foot fence, I see part of that generator sticking up versus a little more with the six foot fence. So is the purpose of it to hide that?

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Right. The intent isn't necessarily to hide entirely the generator. because it would become a very tall fence to do that. So what we're trying to do is minimize the extent that the generator projects and also hide the tips of the transformer and associated gear. So we felt that the eight-foot fence screened the transformer completely, which was a win. And we felt that the increased coverage of the generator was helpful.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Great, thank you, thank you for that understanding.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, the fence is also there as a security element as well to keep, and safety element to keep people out of that.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you for that clarity.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Okay.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, Andre, go ahead.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, this is a question, I guess mostly for Gabe, and it's not even really about the fence, but Why in the world did you put this right next to the sidewalk on Riverside Ave?

[Ciccariello]: Ben, do you want to speak to the size of the generator and why it needed to be placed where it was placed?

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, there were a number of factors. One is keeping the generator further away from residents. And the embankment of 93 seemed like a pretty good way of mitigating the noise factor of the generator as well as any any fume and exhaust. Previously, currently, it exists right adjacent to the building, which is problematic in a number of levels, and it needed to be relocated. Now, the other part of this is that the site itself, a good portion of that site falls within a It's within the 100-foot and the 200-foot zone from the river, as well as some very low and previously known flooding areas. So we tried to get the generator to as high a ground as we could and not have a situation that was putting the emergency generator at risk of flooding.

[Ciccariello]: In proximity to the electrical room too.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, and it's proximity to the electrical room is on that side of the building, that corner.

[Andre Leroux]: Just from my perspective as a resident who lives on Riverside Ave, down by the Andrews School, and who walks to Medford Square a lot, this is really a terrible addition to the streetscape. I don't understand why you couldn't have put it more further away from the sidewalk, down by the embankment, but you could even have raised it up higher, but just put it further down by the middle of the parking lot.

[Ciccariello]: I can speak to that a little bit. We went through, The Mass Highway owns or we have a lease, which was in limbo for a long time. A lot of the areas that we have for resident parking was owned by MassDEP, which was, they were letting us use it for parking, so it became an issue with building anything that was on mail land further down into the parking lot. There were a lot of factors regarding that, and I agree, it is a big structure, but we're hoping with With the fence and with greenery trees shrubbery will try to make it as an attractive area as possible.

[Andre Leroux]: What about lighting? I mean, we have homeless people sleeping under the overpass. This is right next to it. You're creating an 8 foot. You know, and shrubbery, you're just kind of creating more darkness all around that area, which is already feels like insecure for people to walk down in the evening. So I think you should be looking at maybe some lighting as well. That's something to take into consideration, definitely.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Now, there are a couple of lights on kind of opposing corners of that enclosure. And it's a good point, I think. Could be potential for increasing the lighting down along that side on the Riverside Ave side.

[Mike Caldera]: I think that would really help. All right, thank you. Other questions or comments from the board, Chris?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm curious, just a technical question on this. We are approving a special permit for an eight-foot versus a six-foot fence because there was mentioned at the beginning of the testimony about screening and whether or not that was allowed?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's right. So the petition is seeking relief from section 6.3.4, screening and buffers between residential and non-residential uses, which is a somewhat long section. But as part of that, there's some verbiage about six feet height on, yeah, okay, a fence other than a chain link fence not to exceed six feet in height complemented by suitable plantings and located at the border of the lot for the non-residential use may be substituted for a landscape buffer strip with some approval. So essentially it limits it at six feet in height And so, yeah, the relief being sought here is for it to be eight feet in height instead, or rather, because they would like it to be eight feet in height instead, the relief being sought here is to waive that portion of this section of the ordinance. And the standard for that is no substantial detriment to the public good. And so, you know, special permits can be granted with conditions, but the conditions need to be grounded in kind of mitigating the detriment of the relief being sought. Other questions or comments from the board? All right, seeing none, we're going to open up for public comment. If you're a member of the public and you would like to speak on this matter, you may do so now. Please raise your hand on Zoom, turn on your camera and raise your hand, type something in the chat, or email Dennis, emcdougall at medford-ma.gov. All right, I'm not seeing any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter. Dennis, did we get any letters on this matter?

[Adam Hurtubise]: You're on mute.

[Denis MacDougall]: I got something, but it was through an email, and I'm just, and I, it was through like an email to a text, very complicated, I'm trying to figure it out, but it doesn't have a name, so. I see. I'm just talking about any visibility issues with the trees. That was basically the crux of it. They said they're in favor of it, but they were just curious if the trees would be an issue for visibility for cars pulling in and out.

[Mike Caldera]: Sure. Could someone speak to that? So is the location of one of the additional trees being planted, will that be obscuring visibility for cars exiting the lot?

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: I can speak to that. There is an existing tree there now that has been removed that would be in the corner of where the enclosure is. And the new trees are further away from the corner. There shouldn't be any issues with visibility. And this is a one-way exit for the site. So it should end in a two-lane exit. And so it's a pretty clear passageway. All right.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I just want to double one check one thing for me. You mentioned existing, or you mentioned there is lighting in the area. Are you saying there will be lighting installed as part of this, or is it existing lighting somewhere close to that portion of the lot?

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: There is lighting being installed. If we go back to that site plan, I think the lights are indicated there. They occur. Um, there's, there's 1 light that is located at the corner of the actually, I think I saw them in the, in the renderings there. We have that included in is a light at the corner where the vehicle would. you know, at the corner of Riverside Avenue, the driveway, that corner. And then there's another light at the far corner of the enclosure next to the parking lot. So there's some lighting over the generator area for security purpose.

[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. Thank you.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: I think there could possibly be an opportunity to add a street light along the sidewalk area. So let's see, this is a view from the entrance of the building. That's from the parking lot. So this sheet, this page here has the view. You can see the one right at the corner. So that lights the intersection area. I think there could be a possibility of adding another one down along the Riverside Ave. I'd have to double check on where they are with the electrical utilities at this point.

[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: I do not see any other members of the public that would like to speak on this matter. So chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.

[Mary Lee]: Motion.

[Adam Hurtubise]: A second? Seconded. All right. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Neri?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Lizette?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Chris, I know you were just rejoining. We're just motioning to enter deliberation.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. We are now deliberating. You think, folks?

[Andre Leroux]: Well, as I mentioned, I'm really not happy with the structure itself and its placement in that area. I understand the reasoning that was explained why it is there. I think that I would strongly encourage folks to take a look at that, thinking about what it's like at nighttime to walk out there and imagine it and really include some appropriate lighting. Now, all of that has nothing to do with the six or eight-foot fence. On that matter, if it's going to be there, I'd rather have an eight-foot fence because really it would be better to help muffle the sound a little bit and to screen it from pedestrians.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you, Andre.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Other thoughts from members of the board? Chris. Thanks. I'm sorry about the computer glitch. Yeah, actually, that was a point that I may have missed in my absence just for a few minutes. The sound of this, will there be any sound that transmits except when Or only if the generator is operational. So is it something that sound perhaps one of the board members can move me in to what I missed if there was that question.

[Mike Caldera]: I don't think we asked specifically about that. It will. make some sounds while it's operational. I don't know if anyone would like to clarify that.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I would. I will say that it is a it does have a sound attenuating enclosure. The generator itself has a sound attenuating enclosure and And it is adjacent to, it's close to the highway embankment, which will, I think, help mitigate much of the sound.

[Chris D'Aveta]: OK. And the other part, which I believe, Mr. Chair, you were explaining while my computer shut off, was that the special permit for the height of the fence is what we are granting and not related to the screening of the, it's not a variance, it's a special permit.

[Mike Caldera]: Correct, yeah, so it's a special permit to waive a particular portion of the zoning ordinance pertaining to screening and buffers between residential and non-residential uses. So we're not being asked to grant any relief for the location itself. It's just there is a plan and relief is needed to modify the size of the fence, a special permit to waive the six-foot requirement. And the standard is, you know, would would not granting this relief, so waiving this requirement, be a substantial detriment to the public good. If allowing an eight-foot fence is not a substantial detriment to the public good, then the standard would be to award the special permit. If it would be a detriment to the public good, then It would either be to deny the special permit or propose some condition that with the condition would be no substantial detriment to the public good. So yeah, it's just, if you change the fence height, substantial detriment to the public good, yes or no. So that's the basic, that's the level that we're- That's what we're being asked to decide. Yeah, and so any rationale one way or the other, I would recommend. Grounding in the impact of changing the height of the fence.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, anyone else wants to go ahead? I'm going to mull it over for a second.

[Yvette Velez]: So I'm in agreement that we have to deal with this. I agree it's an eyesore that we have to deal with it. And so an eight-foot fence is appropriate in this space. That being said, could we also, in addition to requesting that additional lighting be considered and things of that nature, the fence itself, to my right, it's like this chain link, slightly transparent fence is what I'm looking at. And could we also have them, could we write in to consider putting something that's not as transparent and maybe a little bit more aesthetically pleasing? Because it is such, you know, right in front of a main street for the community and right by a big community building. And why can't people in that community have something nice in that area, right? Why do we have to have the bare bones basic of this chain link fence blocking this ugly generator that had to be put there, right? And so that's the only, I guess, question or statement that I'd like to make.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So, I mean, certainly we could ask for changes to the materials if we felt it would mitigate detriment to the public good. very specific about that can be problematic. So, I mean, maybe as a starting point, we could clarify with the applicant and what are the materials planned and, you know, is there an opportunity to make it more aesthetically pleasing? I believe it states that the fence will be coded chain link with privacy slots.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, that is correct. We have gone through a whole range of color and pattern evaluation with the privacy slats, mixing colors, using single colors and looking at different colors that would work. We've come to sort of a dark gray with a black chain link. because it tends to be a better backdrop foil for the plantings that would be in front of it. And it just tends to screen the grayness of the equipment better than some of the other options we felt. And this was, you know, we looked at grains, we looked at a couple different, we looked at trying to sort of mimic some of the pattern that happens on the building facade with vertical elements. And we really, we came back to being simpler was better. And, you know, treating it almost like a shadow as opposed to some glorified object.

[Yvette Velez]: Thank you for that additional information. Sure.

[Mike Caldera]: Other thoughts from the board, Andre?

[Andre Leroux]: Well, just maybe a clarifying question again, because the landscaping around it, I feel like there are two different things were said. There's going to be a couple of trees I heard, and then I also heard shrubbery. So could you just clarify what the landscaping is going to be right in front of it between the sidewalk and the generator?

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, so between the sidewalk and the generator is and I apologize for not having the exact number of somewhere between 13 and 15 feet I think and the the intent is to keep the trees more as part of a almost like a median spacing so they'd be halfway between the sidewalk and the uh and the generator fence and shrubbery would be used against the base of the fence low and and we've we are in the process of revising the landscape plan to accommodate this we would have Climbing hydrangea along the pedestrian sidewalk that goes back into the site right adjacent to the fence are climbing on the fence and as it turns parallel with the Riverside have the. hydrangea would become more of a base planting of the fence, not necessarily trying to conceal it, but it would be buffering the fence. I think we should be able to give you a much clearer picture of the landscaping in the near future, but probably within the month.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. A few other thoughts from the board.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris. If I may, just for clarification, providing or requiring, rather, conditions on this, we would have to specify with some Let's be specific, I guess, if we were to condition this, which I don't believe we're prepared to do tonight. But the landscaping and the screening of the screen, if you will, is important, I think, to echo what everyone else has been saying. look pretty lousy for a while until the plantings grow in. But is there a possibility of even making a more pleasing facade to the screen? I don't know. But again, we can't specify something without telling, you know, the applicant exactly what we're talking about.

[Mike Caldera]: So the one thing we definitely can't do is condition on some approval by some other body down the road. So it would have to be kind of like a fully formulated approval with conditions. And yeah, the conditions Um, don't have to completely specify what needs to happen, but they have to be specific enough that they, um, that they have bite like a condition that doesn't require anything isn't really a condition at all. Um, so, so yeah, it would be either try to, it would be like approve or no. approve with conditions where we specify something well formulated enough today that would kind of mitigate any detriment to the public good that was an area of concern. Or we could make a request to the applicant and ask them to, you know, if they're willing to continue and show us an update to the plans, but that's getting into the territory that's not necessarily our purview. So we have to keep it grounded in the relief being sought here. We're not approvers on the landscaping plan, but the landscaping, since it is related to the screening and buffers, we're being asked to increase the height, maybe Maybe the impact to the public good is different, depending on some of the choices made. So that would be a scenario where we could ask for some requests and see if the applicant was willing to continue. But yeah, we're a little limited in what we can do.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah. And I understand you're spending all these years designing and building that. the property so you don't want something to take away from it either. So I understand from the architect's perspective and from the housing authority's perspective, that same feeling, I'm sure. But it does seem like, you know, perhaps a little more thought in the landscaping realm would have been beneficial in this case. That's it. Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts from the board. Andre, were you going to say something? Yeah.

[Andre Leroux]: Well, I'm just, I mean, I don't think there's anything more that we can do. You know, it's really like they can already, they can build a six foot fence around this thing. Just a question of whether it's an eight foot fence, eight foot fence just makes more sense. It screens it. I mean, it's, it's there. So I, I'm ready to, uh, I'd like to make a motion to approve the special permit for the eight foot fence.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. We're going to take a roll call, uh, Mary, I this.

[Mike Caldera]: And I Andre I the special permit is approved.

[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, thank you so thanks and I will be working on the decision and I'll get it to you soon. Basically what happens I write it and set it up for legal counsel to review. When they come back, give off signatures. At that point, once it's signed, it's filed in the clerk's office. And at that point, there's a 20 days appeals period after that. So we're still, you know, but you've got the approval to that. But special permits are, given the decisions, are usually a little more straightforward. We've had a few number of decisions involving fences recently that I can use to work off of. So I should be able to get through it in the next few weeks.

[Ciccariello]: Okay, thank you so much. Thanks.

[Andre Leroux]: And sorry, I just want to say, like, despite what, you know, about this particular issue, the project itself, the renovation of the building is fantastic.

[Ciccariello]: So, yeah, I want to say really hope everyone comes by. It's, it's fully our intention. The landscaping is going to be amazing. We're under budget constraints, our offices are out of there, we're there every day, our residents are there every day. It's fully our intention even to make that corner as right now, as unattractive as it may be. Over time, maybe our original planting, we're going to try to make it as pretty as possible, but over time with funding, I want that corner, the whole site to be beautiful. That's going to be our intention. We don't want any of the site for people to walk by and say, I hate that. So, our intention is for everyone to walk by this development and be stunned by it because it is going to be I want everyone to come when it's over. Um, it's, it's really kind of a shine going to be a shining example of what affordable housing can be. Thank you. I hope you all come visit it. Thank you. Everyone. Great.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Thank you. Right. Dennis, what's next?

[Denis MacDougall]: 46 Tinkert street. 20 25-0, 5, after an owner, Michael deterring to add a 3rd floor, 46 acres deep street, which is an existing non-conforming structure in general residents. So, which is not allowed for the city matrix on the board. It's checking 94 table, be tabled dimensional requirements. This will also extend the existing non-conforming side yard setback, requiring a social permit for the city matrix, owning ordinance chapter 94, 5.3.1. 1.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Dennis. We're just going to stick with what's working. The other five members will be voting. I will not be voting. All right, do we have a representative for the applicant?

[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, my name is Michael Dedding, but the owner is actually Doug, and he's going to be speaking. I'm the contractor. All right, wonderful. Thanks, Doug. Go ahead. Sorry.

[SPEAKER_03]: Can everybody hear me fine? Yes. Let me just start the screen. Set the request.

[William O'Keefe]: You're all set.

[SPEAKER_03]: Does it share the full screen or does it? It's interesting.

[Denis MacDougall]: There we go. It should be fine. You have co-host status now, so you should be OK.

[SPEAKER_03]: Is that good? Yes. Now, is it too small? Because I have a large screen, sometimes it shows up a little.

[Mike Caldera]: Um, I'm sure it's different for everybody. It looks okay from my perspective. Great.

[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so currently, what we're looking to do is build the third floor addition on 4648 Pickard Street. It is a two family, I think what you call a nonconforming residence. I'll give a brief summary. We're seeing a special permit to build an additional floor onto the existing two-family house. The additional will require egress with a newly erected rear porch and staircase. My wife and I both live on the second floor, so this third floor will have stairs coming up from the second floor. And we're looking to add a master bedroom, additional living and office space to accommodate a growing family. We purchased the house in October 2015 and we plan to have a child and her mother will assist with the childcare. Likewise, it'll address some of the lack of space while we work from home. We look forward to having the required space and continue living in Medford. So just quickly, here's what it currently looks like. And the repose shows the third story added right here. There's no changes to the current building in terms of, you know, it's gonna use the existing floor space. There will be on the rear egress stairs coming down from the third to the second. To the 1st, and then down to the ground level in the back. And that's that's you can see it here on the on the on the plot plan. I've taken from Medford engineering and survey. We're going to build. The 3rd story porch right here above the 2nd story and the landing and the staircase are going to come down here on the left. So the third story is going to be built on top of the existing two-story. Just some quick things. We did meet with all the neighbors. We actually went out right around dinner time when everybody was getting home from work. It was a little cold out at night. And over the span of four days, we obtained 28 signatures of support. Everyone that we met with was supporting and, you know, it's good to, you know, go out and meet with some of the fellow owners I've never met in the neighborhood. We intend to maintain the existing looking character of the neighborhood. And, of course, as I mentioned earlier, the footprint of the building will not change. And we're not asking to infringe further on the existing what I believe are called non-conforming setbacks, if I'm using the correct word. It will also be within the height restrictions. This right here shows a bit of the floor plan layout in the rear deck. That's pretty much all I have. Anybody has any questions or comments?

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, I'll open it up to questions from the board. Andre.

[Andre Leroux]: Yes, is the roof going to be a flat roof or is it going to be dormer?

[SPEAKER_03]: So, in order to maintain the within the height restrictions, it will be. I shouldn't say a flat roof, but I don't know the exact degree of the angle, but it's... Let me just bring up the diagram. I think this kind of shows it. Got it. It gives you a better idea.

[Andre Leroux]: Not like a half story or anything. It's just for runoff.

[SPEAKER_03]: Right.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, okay. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, it does need a membrane roof. So shingles you can't use because the, I guess the incline is an issue.

[SPEAKER_08]: Right. It'll be a hip roof style.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Andre Leroux]: So it will be, I mean, the same, it looks like it'll be about the same height as the adjacent buildings, like at their peak.

[SPEAKER_03]: So this details it. If you look, this is actually Jim's house, which Mike also built. I don't know if that's at 35 feet, but I don't think it'll be... I think it'll be pretty close to that one. I don't know that we've actually done what the height of the other buildings are, but this is... I don't know if you could comment, John or Mike.

[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: It will be, I'm sorry, John Mavuso, I helped Mike with the paperwork on this job. It will fit in with the neighborhood. There are a couple of houses that are still only two-story. Most of them are two and a half with pitched roofs. The height will be pretty consistent with most of the neighbors. Again, the height of the roof itself will not exceed the 35 feet. We're asking for is only the third story. It is a slight pitched hip roof to accommodate runoff. Absolutely. Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions from the board.

[Mary Lee]: So currently, this is a two family.

[SPEAKER_03]: That's correct. We live on the second floor.

[Mary Lee]: Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: So one thing I would just like to understand is, so by right, you could still expand up as a two and a half, which would impose some limits on the floor area up there. Could you walk us through why two and a half doesn't really work? In this case, right?

[SPEAKER_03]: So I still spoke quickly with the building department about that. We went through the different options on how we can do. I think they were called cables. So basically. I got a quick rundown. I wasn't able to get a visual representation from my architect. But I think the square footage.

[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: Go ahead. Could you pull up the floor plan again, Doug? I mean, that might help. It's not a large building. So the additional third story, again, will be a bedroom, bathroom, a small sitting area. The third, a half story up there, we would still, a half story is not gonna give us very much room at all, is the problem here. bedroom, bathroom, living area. That's just about it. I can't read the dimensions on my screen, but can you see what the length is on that?

[Mike Caldera]: I pulled up the property card and the upper story floor area is 1360 square foot. So I think it would be half of that if it was a two and a half would be the cap. So 680 square foot would be the max that would still be considered two and a half.

[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, but so then we would have, you know, eight foot walls on one half of the building and then it would drop back down. It would be kind of peculiar looking, honestly. You know, and again, several of the houses in the area do fit in with this. I don't know if you're familiar with that house on Fulton Spring where they did a small addition on the front, but the back of the house is the same. It just doesn't. It's just not giving you the space that you really need for a family. Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions from the board?

[SPEAKER_08]: Can I say one thing? I'm sorry to interrupt. Yeah, please go ahead. So this exact thing that Doug is requesting, we actually did directly across the street for similar reasons that, you know, they plan on having a few kids and his mother-in-law would be moving in. So at 41 Pinkert, you guys granted it back a few years because it was a very similar issue. you know, they want to stay in Medford. They don't want to try to uproot everything and move. They like being in Medford. So that's one of the main reasons they're looking to lift this up too. So I just wanted to add that.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_12]: Thank you. Other questions from the board? I'm sorry to interrupt. My name is Jim. I'm actually the neighbor to Doug.

[Mike Caldera]: Oh, OK, Jim. So I am going to open it up for public comment in the near future, but I apologize. No worries. Other questions from the board?

[Yvette Velez]: Can I just I'm looking at the plans and I'm. So, I'm understanding this to be going from a 2 units to 2 units again. And it's just an increase in the bedrooms on the 2nd floor and living space. Is that what I'm seeing?

[Mike Caldera]: I think it's, so the way the units, they're like stacked on top of each other. And so this would essentially be making the top unit, it would be giving it an additional floor. And so we're currently looking at that additional floor. So all of the stuff currently on the screen is new space. And then the second floor would need a staircase added. I'm not sure if there are any other proposed reconfigurations, but the relief being sought here is this new floor.

[Yvette Velez]: Okay. Great. Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions from the board?

[Chris D'Aveta]: This is a special permit too?

[Mike Caldera]: I think this requires a variance. Let me double check.

[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: Both, sir. Variance and a special permit.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, it's a variance for the height, but a special permit because they're extending the existing nonconformity of the side yard setback.

[Mike Caldera]: Correct you part yeah, so so Chris ordinarily for one and two family homes In some cases you can just make the changes by right or even if you can't Extending Or altering a non-conforming use So long as you don't create a new nonconformity is something we can grant by special permit. But in this case, you need the variance for the third floor because that's a new nonconformity. So yeah, it's both. It's special permit just for the general modification and then variance for the height.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I guess that's my little bit of confusion there too because I know we've done a few of these in the past year that I've been on the board, and they're not really doing anything in terms of setback, right? They're not demolishing or raising part of the... walls, right? They're just building up on the existing footprint of the house, so.

[Mike Caldera]: Correct. So yeah, if they were changing the footprint of the house, it's likely that additional variances would be required in place of that special permit. But by keeping the footprint the same in every dimension except for the number of floors, They're not worsening it. They're just modifying the structure. The variance is for the third floor? Specifically for the third floor, because currently this is a two-story house.

[Chris D'Aveta]: So it's special permanent variance then? Correct. OK, thank you.

[Mary Lee]: So what is the distinction between what the applicant is requesting and between that and for a three family? I mean, does this addition would lead us to a three family or is it just basically the same or is there any distinctions?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I mean a three family would there be a number of requirements and I don't remember all of them off the top of my head, but notably there would need to be a third entry way and it would require a use variance. So in this case, it's adding space in the form of an additional floor to an existing unit.

[cCMLP2REW0g_SPEAKER_05]: That's correct, and if you look at the floor plan, there's no separation between the second floor and the proposed third. You go right up the stairs, there's no door to be closed, there's no kitchen. We are proposing a small counter and bar sink up there just for convenience, but it will stay a two-family. This is just for the owners expanding family. It's giving them more room and staying in that effort.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, other questions from the board?

[Mike Caldera]: All right, not seeing any, so I'm going to open it up to public comment. I know Jim Pedro wanted to speak. So Jim, please go ahead, name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_12]: Hi, my name is Jim Boudreaux. I live at 41 Pinker Street in Medford. I'm the neighbor directly across, diagonally across from Doug, and I actually applied for a variance to do pretty much the exact same thing that Doug was doing. I did that about five years ago, and it was approved, and basically for the same reasons, an expanding family. I wanted to stay in Medford. I think I've seen the proposed architectural designed for the house, and it's aesthetically pleasing, and I think it conforms with the general appearance of the homes in the neighborhood. And I just wanted to call in and voice my support for approval for this special permit.

[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you, Jim. Thank you. Other members of the public, if you'd want to speak on this matter, please raise your hand on Zoom, type something in the chat, raise your hand on camera or email Dennis.

[SPEAKER_08]: My name is Mike Tedding. I spoke earlier. Oh, okay. I thought you were actually involved in the project. I'm sorry. I, I am, but I don't know if Doug gave you guys the letter with all the signatures on it.

[Mike Caldera]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. You have that.

[Mike Caldera]: We have that. So yeah, I'll just say out loud. So, uh, the, the board did receive a letter that's in the, publicly available file for this case with the neighbors signatures. So for support. Okay, thank you. Other members of the public would like to speak on this matter. Right. I'm not seeing any. And I'm not seeing an indication from Dennis that there's any additional emails. So chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.

[Mary Lee]: Motion.

[Mike Caldera]: Second. Seconded. All right. We're going to take a roll call. Chris?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mary? Aye.

[Mary Lee]: Yvette?

[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Jim?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: All right. We are now deliberating. What do you think, folks?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, go ahead. I think it's a fine use of a two-family, a typical two-family that's converting up Everyone, many friends of mine have gone through similar circumstances where they're looking at expanding their existing house. It's a little bit of, you're not gonna match the typical aesthetic of West Medford or Medford in general, I think, by doing this, but there's not a lot of options available. So I can understand why this is desired, and I would support this.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Thank you. Other thoughts from the board? Andre?

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, if we have to demonstrate a hardship for the variants, I mean, I would say that there's no other opportunity to expand on the site other than by going up. And I don't think it is detrimental to the surrounding area, especially with the support of many of the neighbors that's been expressed. And they're not requesting going up higher than what's allowed. height wise. So I would say, you know, this is a benefit in that even though it's not adding an additional unit of housing to Medford, it is creating kind of a, I assume it's a three bedroom unit, which, you know, we don't have a ton of in terms of apartments and in the city.

[Mike Caldera]: Right. Thanks, Andre. Yeah. And to that specific point, so The position and shape of the existing structure can, in some cases, be associated with the hardship criterion for a variance. So, you know, in this case, The only option is to build up from the existing structure and given the current height and the limit on height, you know, to keep something under the height at two and a half stories, you'd have a much smaller third floor that would be as they mentioned, kind of a weird layout where you'd have like half of the house just kind of right up to 35 and then you just sort of drop down. So yeah, that would be like one potential avenue to associate a variance request with the shape and position of the existing structure. Other thoughts from the board?

[Yvette Velez]: I want to apologize. I lost internet for the five seconds you were talking. So can you just read what you said?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I mean, I'm really boring to listen to that. But I'll do my best to summarize. So basically, so for the variance, we have to create some association between the relief being sought and a hardship and some other stuff. And I'm just clarifying that. the position and shape of the current structure, if they are, like, essentially unusual in a way that creates a hardship, if you literally apply the zoning ordinance, that's how you could establish meeting the criteria for variance. So I was just saying, in this case, Positions fixed so you can only go up and then with the existing height and shape, if you were to go two and a half stories, it's going to be a really awkward layout and it's going to be limited additional space.

[Yvette Velez]: Thank you. And thank everybody for your patience. And while they didn't go into it, I appreciate when folks want to stay in the neighborhood. And I recognize in this housing market, that's not always possible. And so I think this sometimes is the only way that you can really afford to. And so again, while that wasn't presented as part of the hardship, I could only imagine it doesn't take a lot that that could be also part of that conversation.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you. Other thoughts from the board?

[Mike Caldera]: All right, so just to reiterate, so the relief being sought here is a variance for the third floor, and then a special permit for the alterations to the existing non-conforming structure. Chair awaits a motion.

[Mary Lee]: Motion.

[Mike Caldera]: To what?

[Mary Lee]: To approve.

[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Mary?

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Chris? Aye. Andre? Aye. All right, so the variance and the special permit are approved.

[Denis MacDougall]: All righty, just to sort of repeat what I sort of said just for the previous applicant. So I'll be writing up the decision. It'll take me a little bit of time to do it. When I finish that, it goes out for legal review. And then once it comes back, then I send it out for signatures. Once it's all signed, I will file it at the clerk's office. And at that point, there's a 20 days appeals period that starts at that point. And once those 20 days go by and there's no appeal, then you can file for your building permit. And you have to go and register with the Middlesex self-registered deeds. And then once that's done, you go into the building department and you can get your building permit.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Awesome.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can I ask one question to that last comment? Sure. What is that roughly? I know you've got a lot in front of you, so I'm just trying to set expectations with the homeowner so that we're all on the same page.

[Denis MacDougall]: I would say, just if I'm sort of doing the math, it takes me about two weeks to do this, which actually I just found the decision that was written for the 41 Pinkert. So I think I can probably use that to work off from. So I can get it probably done within a week or two. After that, it's usually about a week turnaround for the legal counsel, and then a few days to sign. So maybe, say, three plus weeks for that, and then another three weeks for that. So maybe a month and a half, give or take.

[SPEAKER_08]: OK. So worst case, two months, hopefully. I'm just trying to set expectations. Yeah.

[Denis MacDougall]: Worst case, two, but I'd say end of April. Excellent. That's the worst case.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, sir.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. And just to be clear, like that's Dennis's estimate. So there's like legal timelines and so on, but he will be making best efforts to stick to the estimate.

[Denis MacDougall]: understood just trying to get some sort of rough timeline that's all yeah I mean honestly having that other decision will help because it's I mean I have to adapt it for the new zoning but that actually makes it actually easier because at that point it was all purely variances so now it's both variances and I just have to include that part yep okay thank you so much

[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, I think that was the last case. If so, it was okay. Any administrative updates?

[Denis MacDougall]: Just what I sort of mentioned earlier is that we're on the lookout for a 7th member. So. I talked to Alicia about that, and we're going to ask the mayor's office sort of put out a call. So, but also. Anyone who is looking at this, watching this tonight is interested, you know, please contact me and I'll tell you how to go about it. D McDougall, I put at medford-ma.gov. So, that is it. Unfortunately, I kind of mentioned earlier that I was kind of, I had some family things going on this month. So, I wasn't able to really even get to any minutes whatsoever, but everything is good now. So, I should have stuff shortly because we figured out the, to use AI for good in terms of writing meeting minutes and things like that. So we've, one of my coworkers has sort of found some software that will help out with that. So I think I should be able to get a bunch of them done in a relatively short timeframe. So by the next meeting, I'll have a bunch of you guys to approve. Hopefully.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it sounds good, Dennis. I do want to make sure we get them by our next meeting, but, um, but yeah, you got some cycles and be doable. Great. Okay. Um, so I think that brings us to the end of our agenda. Yeah. So Chris, if it's related to the meeting, you can ask it now or we could adjourn and then let me go. Go ahead. Yeah. Oh yeah. I'll wait till we turn. Okay. Uh, chair waits motion to adjourn. Motion for the second. All right. We're going to take a roll call. Chris Andre. Hi, Jim. Mary.

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Lizette.

[Mary Lee]: Aye.

[Mike Caldera]: Mike. Aye. All right, we are now adjourned. Good night, everyone.

William O'Keefe total time: 6.03 minutes total words: 472