Zoning Board of Appeals 02/26/26

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.8-flash from the transcript below, which is the record. It may be incomplete or wrong; it does not report votes. Every item links to the moment it began.

The Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances for a hot tub and fence at 77 Sheppard Road and granted a special permit for Theory Wellness to add medical cannabis sales at 162 Mystic Avenue. The board also closed a hearing following the withdrawal of a special permit request for 106 Alexander Avenue and continued a hearing for 7 Terrell Road.

0:55 7 Terrell Road — Continued the public hearing on a special permit application for a side porch awning to March 26, 2026, at the applicant's request.
2:08 106 Alexander Avenue — Closed the hearing following the applicant's withdrawal of a special permit request for parking, noting that previously granted variances remain intact after revisions brought the parking plan into compliance.
6:15 77 Sheppard Road — Approved variances allowing an accessory structure (hot tub) in the front yard and a six-foot fence within the front yard setback, rejecting objections from an abutting neighbor regarding statutory hardship criteria.
54:43 162 Mystic Avenue — Approved a special permit allowing Theory Wellness to add medical marijuana sales to its existing recreational cannabis dispensary.
1:14:05 Administrative Updates and Board Membership — Discussed upcoming meeting minutes, board member appointment processes, and member Mike Caldera's upcoming departure from the board in March.

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

[Mike Caldera]: I don't see Mary Lee on, so I think she's currently absent. We'll announce her if she arrives a little bit late. Mike Caldera present. So we have five members of the board present. We're at full strength. We're going to take a few items out of order. I think we have a requested continuance and then a request to withdraw. So why don't we do the continuance first, Dennis?

[Denis MacDougall]: 7 Terrell Road. Applicant Reece Brown, as contractor, seeks zoning relief by this application for a special permit to a side porch awning. And zoning relief is sought from following section 94-5, non-conforming uses and structures of the Medford zoning ordinance. And we received a letter requesting a continuance. Until the next hearing.

[Mike Caldera]: From the applicant. All right. Before the board votes on that, do we have anyone from the proponent who wants to say anything? All right, seeing none, Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to our next regular meeting.

[Mike Caldera]: OK, March 26th at 6 PM. OK, moved by Andre, seconded by Jim, I think I saw. We'll take a roll call. Beth?

[Denis MacDougall]: 106 Alexander Avenue, continued from January 29th. Applicant and owner, 106 Alexander, LLC, requesting a variance to demolish an existing single family home in 106 Alexander and replace it with a two-family with insufficient lot area and lot width. And this is also, there was a special permit included in that as well from, that's what this matter is being brought up.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and so I see we have Attorney Cabral here. The board did also receive a letter just for the public watching so that for this matter, we've had several meetings where we discussed it. We have not yet closed the hearing. In a prior meeting, the board did vote on both the variances being well on the variances being sought and identified that there might be need for a variance for parking or a special permit for parking, which in in a prior meeting was denied. And so then the applicant, um, did want to take some time to talk with the city and determine if there was a workable solution. And so that's where we are today. The hearing hasn't been closed yet. And yeah, Attorney Cabral, please go ahead.

[Mike Cabral]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So we think we found a workable solution. We've added additional parking on site. We believe that plan is now compliant. We've met with and discussed with the building commissioner on that. So we do feel comfortable at this point. submitting that withdrawal for the special permit only that should close out or be able to close out the hearing on the matter. And again, the request for issuance of the decision for the two variances that were previously granted. And apologies on behalf of the applicant that it took so much time. We had quite a few revisions on the plan and we think we finally got there to a workable solution. So thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. Thank you for the update. Okay, so my understanding in this case is that we do not need to take any vote other than to close the hearing. And so, yeah, the request for the special permit is withdrawn. With the new proposal, it's no longer necessary. And so, yeah, we've already deliberated. We've already voted on the variance. The applicant needs no further relief. So the chair awaits a motion to close this hearing. So moved. All right, do I have a second?

[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right. So the hearing is now closed. So in terms of the decision, Did we want a draft from Attorney Cabral, Dennis, or what's the rule?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. Yeah. Attorney Cabral, if you could just come up and send it on to me, and that will move things along a lot quicker. No problem.

[Mike Caldera]: All right, so before we transition to our next item on the agenda, I am going to appoint member LaRue as acting chair. So I will continue to be on the call. I will be a voting member. Member LaRue will take over the chair at this point.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mike. Good evening, everyone. Dennis, could we have the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: 77 Sheppard Road. Applicant Krishna and Joseph Paradiso seek zoning relief by this application of variance to adding a hut tub. MCC section 94-4.3.24 and fence MCC section 94-4.2.32 at 77 Sheppard Road. Zoning relief sought from the following section 94-4 table of dimensional regulations at the Medford zoning ordinance.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. So we have two, there are two variances that are being sought, just to be clear. One is for the fence height, and then another is for an accessory structure in the front yard, since it's a corner lot. And so we have, I think the applicant is here. Would you be able to introduce to us? I know we've seen you before. Thanks for coming back and trying again.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: He's an old friend who's a real estate lawyer as well. So he's giving us a little bit of advice. And if there's anything legal that comes up, he can join in.

[SPEAKER_10]: Yep, and then we prepare a presentation. Is that okay? If we share that or absolutely.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Oh, yeah. Chris, do you want to just why don't you do you want to just say.

[Chris D'Aveta]: I'm just recusing myself from this one case because I am familiar with Mr. Paradiso, so I thought it might be a conflict if I participated.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thanks, Chris. We still have a quorum to move forward with the remaining four members.

[SPEAKER_10]: Awesome. Thank you. All right. Let's share here what we have for you guys. Can you guys see our screen?

[SPEAKER_10]: Awesome. So that's our beautiful property here, 77 Shepherd. So let me move forward as far as what we are asking, right, which Dan has already highlighted here. So it's basically, we are proposing a hot tub. Right now, we are proposing for the side of the house, front yard. We have more pictures throughout this presentation, but you have a little picture on the top corner there so you guys can see the proposal. But it was previously agreed and the reason we are asking that the hot tub to be removed in response to a complaint from one of our neighbors behind the house. So with that, we are seeking the four foot site setback because moving beyond the four feet will require a large construction project, including the removal of a walkway, which can damage the existing greenery that we have. And in fact, one of our goals with this ask, right, is for us to have more and create more of a greenery space, right? So relocating the hot tub further from the side lot line will require a bigger construction, as I mentioned. And in addition to the unusual shape that we have in our backyard, it makes impractical, right, to relocate the tub anywhere else other than the proposal location. We had people coming in, we had, you know, contractors checking our property as well. And this is the only place that we see that will be possible.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: It fits perfectly into that pocket. If we moved it anywhere else, it would be destructive of the hardscaping we've done, of the greenery that we have there.

[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, and I have more photos, though. I know this is very tiny. We have a whole project that we did on this. So in addition, we did something further also. We spoke with our neighbors here in front and side of our house, the ones that will be most impacted. We presented the project to each one of them to ensure that they were also included in the process, right, and understood our plan. We received the support from our front and side neighbors. And I do have their letters of support. In fact, I believe one of our neighbors even, right, Dennis, who stopped by to give his letter to you. And again, the proposal is just to complement the neighborhood, right? For us, it's very important to keep this beautiful neighborhood and the aesthetic of the neighborhood. So that was key for us as we were planning and deciding where to put the hot tub. Number two is a six feet tall fence. We are also proposing for privacy and safety. And you have the photo right there. But again, I have more photos for you all. And we understand, right, that as far as like the building code here, it requires fencing on all sides of the pool, if we put kind of, quote unquote, a pool, and compliance, right, as well. So the proposed fence includes a nine-feet lateral section along the front with a six-feet gate, as well as 18-feet side fencing. And again, more pictures to follow. Again, we did consult also with the neighbors as far as the fencing as well. Anything, Joe, that you want to add?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: It's a small hot tub. You see pictures. The top will lock as well into the hot tub. So they cover locks and we'll have fencing as well.

[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah. And I would just show you guys, let me jump into the photos here. This is basically on the left side. That's today, what we have today. And as you guys can see also, On the below photo, as mentioned, our lot, the Behek lot, is a very weird shaped lot. And where you see the arrow there, the red arrow, is where the hot tub is currently. And again, we want to move.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: It's been disconnected and decommissioned since the spring. There's no water in it, but we want to move it to the front. You can see the space we prepared. in case we can do this, where it would go with fencing all around and greenery also around the fence. So if you see to the right or the top right picture, that's what it will look like. We plan to plant hedges that will grow up, greenery that will grow up, and it will have the fence as well.

[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, we just want to promote greenery. So as Joe mentioned, the right side here, the proposal, that's how it's going to look like statically. And we do, again, have contractors line up, right? So we're leveraging kiosk landscaping, electrical, those are the individuals, and then obviously the field stone for the stones and all that. And this is how it's going to look at night. But let me go back here. Oops. And this is the details. I don't know if you guys want me to go through the details. Let us know if you want us to go through the details. But Bill, I know you're online. Anything that you have to add here as far as the details?

[SPEAKER_10]: So, again, everything that we already mentioned. Right. So balance the residents here need for privacy, the fancy landscape or create a private space for the homeowners. This proposal will have no impact on traffic flow, safety, parking or loading. The project involves the installation of a small hot tub, and we will drill into the hot tub as well as the specs, because this is a very compact hot tub, hence the reason we bought this specific type, because of the low noise and how compact that is.

And operational needs minimal, with a standard capacity of a single-family home. This project will have no impact. Utility is a public service. The hot tub will tie into the existing residential electrical supply. as in previous installations, and it's filled manually with a hose only around three times a year when the water is changed.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I think this is very comprehensive. I don't think it's necessary to go into all this detail. Thank you. Attorney White, I don't know if you'd be able to just speak to the legal argument that's being made in terms of the two variances. That would be helpful.

[SPEAKER_08]: Mr. Chair, can you hear me? Yep. Oh, okay, great. So yes, through the chair and all members of the ZBA, basically, the need is to comply with Chapter 48, Section 10 of the Mass General Laws, and you've provided them the public hearing and notices being given. So basically what it has to do as a petition with respect to the particular land in this case, for relief for the variance from the zoning code because of the peculiar circumstances that they've already demonstrated relating to basically the shape of the lot. There's a rather strange shaped lot and the ordinary place I think where a hot tub like this would be located would be where it is currently, but that's raised the problem. It's my understanding with the backyard neighbor. So they've been compelled to relocate it And the only spot is they've testified who is the current spot where, you know, they propose to locate. So that's the debate created by the law. Then the question is that otherwise prevents them from, without the variance, they wouldn't otherwise have the ability to have, you know, a hot tub. So we're not talking about a swimming pool or anything. So it's a very small structure and it's a very small change to a lot. and it's currently the current use of the law. So one of the things that a body like yourself is supposed to look at under general clause is what is the impact of the proposed gain and how does that, for instance, impact the neighborhood? So the impact on the neighborhood is a positive one because of the additional greenery.

It's again from the, house that had been previously impacted, it's being moved away from it, and I don't see any particular impact that the movement is going to have on that piece of property. The impact is essentially going to be on the people who live on the front part, on the street itself, and the immediate neighbors where it's going to be located, and all of them have given their approval to this and support it. So the other thing that you're doing is basically because of the fencing and the way it's going to surround the pool itself, I'm sorry, the hot tub, is again, rather minor. The photograph itself is this perfect evidence to show the minor impact. And in fact, aesthetically, I think a lot of people think it looks better. So when you look at the type of variance that is being requested, which is a very minor one, it's not like you want to a variance to go up an additional foot or something, additional story in the house. So it's a very, very minor, minor variance with no effect on all of the abutters. And in fact, what one could say is an improvement to the neighborhood. It appears to me clearly that the provisions of Mass General Law 48, Section 10, you know, have been met. And, you know, I believe it would be clearly within the authority in this case of the ZBA based on the clear evidence that's been presented in all the letters of support. So I would ask that your Honorable Board approve the variance. If anyone has any questions, of course, feel free to ask.

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Quickly, we have the letters of support here from the neighbors.

[SPEAKER_10]: We have it all here. So 66 Shepard, 72 Shepard as well. I mean, again, we just ran the project by everyone. And we even mentioned anything else that you guys want us to add, or we made everyone part of this as well. 78 Shepard, 90 Shepard. We even went further, right? 17, Sultan Stalin Shepherd, and our site neighbor, 89 Shepherd. So again, here are all the letters. Obviously, I can send this presentation to you all after so you guys can see the comments and what they mentioned. But again, and this is the tub, right?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, it's a small tub. It's discontinued now, it was so small. That's how we could fit it into that small space we had. It's extremely quiet. When it stays normally with a cover on, once in a while, you may hear a little drip of water, but barely hear. Some of you may have hot tubs, you know. The Jets, you cannot hear them at all, really, with a cover on. You won't hear them there. When the cover's off and I'm using it, just sometimes per month, you'll hear the sound of water. But an air conditioner is already louder than this. And the neighbor complained about this echo chamber effect between the garage and the driveway. That's not going to be present out here. It's in the open. The sound will dissipate. You just won't hear this tub.

[SPEAKER_10]: Yep, and then obviously we have a medical here. I don't know, Joe, because you use what, like twice a month or?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Three times a month, four times a month, on that order. But, you know, I have knee problems. So I've got cartilage problem on my knees and my doctor's been treating it. Look, some of you have hot tubs. You know, you feel achy, you get into this thing. It helps and it helps that knee a lot. And my doctor's totally positive about it. So thank you very much.

[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, so that's our presentation. Anyone else have questions or let me stop sharing here.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that's, thank you. It was very, very comprehensive. One question, just to Attorney White, the variance, are you for the, the fence one's very straightforward, but the other variance, is that for a setback or is it for an accessory structure in the front yard?

[SPEAKER_08]: I believe it's for the structure in the front yard. And again, to deal with the impact to the neighborhood, what we're dealing with is not a swimming pool, but a small jacuzzi that's going to be essentially green, but because of the way the codes are written, this small jacuzzi is going to be the same as a swimming pool. And you can imagine that the reason why a swimming pool is on in places you would not want it in the front of a, Most people in the neighborhood would want to see, you know, a swimming pool in a person's front yard with people frequenting the swimming pool, it's attractive. So most communities swimming pool, people bathe. So here we have the hot tub, which is unlike a swimming pool, which to screen a swimming pool would be a tremendous change to a neighborhood, fencing a whole swimming pool out, whereas in there, it's just a small swimming pool And again, it's going to be fenced, but with the fenced things aesthetically pleasing. I don't even know if most people, I don't know if they would even think of it technically really as a structure, but even if it were like an accessory structure, it might be a tool shed, similar like a tool shed or something that somebody would be putting in. And it's not at all akin to, I don't think what anybody would consider would be like a major aesthetic detriment to the front, to the fronts of all of the buildings on Shepherd's.

[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, and hence the reason, Andrea, that we were trying to also put the brick up front so we can blend with the house as well, and it can be very aesthetic, very nice and pleasing to look, and with also the greenery around.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, both of you. The next step is just to open it up to questions from the other board members. Do we have questions? Yeah, Mike?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my understanding is that part of the proposed fence is in the front yard setback at six foot. I just wanna double check. So that segment of fence is fairly removed from Laird Road, is that right? So it's not gonna be obstructing sight lines for anyone who's trying to either turn onto Laird or turn onto Shepherd, is that right?

[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Correct. That's correct. It has no effect. I think the building guys have been here to look at it too, and they concur.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Other questions? All right. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing. Are there any neighbors present or community members who would like to speak?

[Henry Rappa]: Yes, Mr. Chair. This is Henry Rapa. I'm advising Mr. and Mrs. Mann, their neighbors of their butters of the Paradiso. They object to this. And Mr. Mann will ask to speak in a few moments as well. But I want to just cover a couple of quick things that we heard so far tonight. They talk about it. I know Attorney White had said that he thinks it meets the requirements of 40A section 10. I would say that it doesn't because there's really a couple of major issues that the applicant has. One, they complain, they contend that the lot has an unusual shape. Looking at the plan of land from the registry of deeds, it looks like all the lots are pretty much rectangular. If anything, the lot's just not big enough for them to be able to host the hot tub in another area of their yard. And case law is pretty clear that the size of your lot isn't grounds for variance. It's really a lot size type issue for them. And with respect to the medical hardship of Mr. Paradis's knee. I'm certainly not being unsympathetic, but one of the things is Kate's law is pretty clear that that's personal hardship. It's not relating to the lot or the structure or the soil condition, shape or topography. So I would say they haven't met the requirements necessary to be granted a variance. And I know Mr. And Mrs. Mann will speak in a moment about some of their feelings regarding noise and some of the background of the hot tub over the past. Apparently there's been a hot tub on the premises for years prior. And then last spring there was zoning variance that was withdrawn and Now they seek to move it to the front yard. And I also know Mr. and Mrs. Mann are concerned with the size of the fence in the location in the front yard. So I understand that other neighbors have given their support of it, but I still don't think that overrides the fact that the necessary elements of 40A not being met. I mean, it doesn't seem like anything relates to the shape, topography, or soil conditions of the lot. It just seems like, unfortunately, the lot's not big enough to host the hot tub in another area. And I think from a zoning perspective, things are not allowed in the front yard because it's kind of a rabbit's hole to go down. To allow things in the front yard, even putting fencing up, it's just not a great road to go down. And again, I'm not being unsympathetic to Mr. Paradis's desire to use the hot tub for healing purposes, but the overall intent of the zoning ordinance doesn't include an exception for that. And I know Mr. Mann would like to speak, and he has a little presentation and some background on it regarding this process.

[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, thanks, Henry. I appreciate that. I'm going to share my screen if I may here. Please let me know. I'm going to send this request, and I think sharing needs to be turned on. So let me know if that's the case so I can bring this up.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Does Dennis be able to do that? Also, generally, this is a public comment period, so hopefully the presentation is not too long.

[SPEAKER_01]: This is pretty quick, I promise. Can you folks see my screen? No. All right, let me see if I can share again. Here we go. Let me know if you can see this.

[SPEAKER_01]: OK. All right. So I just want to take a little time here. I know Henry covered a couple of things. I've got a short presentation, but I just wanted to at least give a little bit of background. I think it's very important. I know Henry covered the statutory requirements, but I want to go through a couple of things here. So I put together this quick timeline. So this hot tub was initially installed in the 2022-23 time period. And just to put this in perspective, Here is a photograph of my property at the top on the left-hand side of this photo. The bottom is their property, and right in the middle is this little corridor. And at the bottom of the circle is the hot tub. And you can see on the right a little bit better, but there's a white fence separating it. You can see how close this is. It's only eight feet from my house. And if I show you this photo, you can see that right on the other side to the right on this fence is the hot tub, at least the current location right now. So it's very close, and there's really not a lot of room. So now going back to the timeline for a minute, my wife and I noticed really quick when they installed this hot tub that it was quite noisy. Now I know they say it's not noisy, but I can tell you it is from experience. So I liken it to a cross between the sound of a wind tunnel and an outboard motor for a boat. So when the hot tub runs, it is quite loud. It's only eight feet from my couch in the living room. They go in it, now you have voices, you have a lot of noise, and then you've got music. So they tend to play a lot of loud music when they're in this hot tub. So it really has an impact. I couldn't even concentrate, like to read books in our living room. It makes it very, very difficult. So excuse me. So we didn't really know what to do. So eventually, you know, after having a couple of text message exchange, they were very polite about it and apologetic when we asked them about it, but they never really did anything substantive about the noise. We even had a face to face meeting, very cordial, but nothing, nothing really ever got done.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Excuse me, Mr. Mann, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I will, because I, this, could you direct your comments to the current proposal and not the past proposal? Because obviously we did not allow them to put the hot tub in the backyard, and now the current proposal is for the opposite side of the house.

[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, absolutely. I was trying to move to that, but I'll go a little quicker to get to that point. So after all that had happened, the city came in in December of 2024, and they effectively shut down the hot tub because it was determined it was put in place without a permit, and it was in violation of setback in that current location. So then after that, they applied for a variance. And when they applied for the variance in the current location, it really told me one thing. It said that they did not really care about the noise and the interruption to our property, because if they did, they would have done something differently. All right, so that's when I brought Henry in. We drafted a letter. We went to the meeting in March of 2024, and they basically took a look at the letter and said, we need time to review this. So they asked for a continuance. And then in the April meeting of 2024, they withdrew.

But in my opinion, they only withdrew because they knew that they weren't going to get a variance in that current location because of the condition. So now, as we kind of fast forward a little bit to the current state, they started this construction project, as they mentioned. And again, the city has stepped in and stopped things because it was unpermitted. And now here we are asking for another variance. So now let me get to the current stuff. So neither here nor there, the location of this hot tub has changed. Yes, I agree with that. But the law has not. So as Henry mentioned, we have four criteria here that have to be met. Shape, soil conditions, and topography is certainly a big one. And you have to have something unique and different about your lot versus the lots in the neighborhood. So I'll stick with that for a minute. Here is a diagram, as Henry mentioned, of the plot plan. Their lot is circled. It looks identical to every other lot in this neighborhood. And also, as Henry mentioned, size, which is well established in case law, is absolutely not something in the statute that's a consideration. So if your lot's too small, like they're citing, it does not matter. It's not something that's considered, and case law has continually shot this down. The next item is topography. So as you can see, this is a topographical map, and you can easily see the shading here. Very uniform. They're in the middle of this red circle. There's no obvious hills or grades or ridges or anything. It's very uniform and very similar to the rest of this neighborhood. Now, as I move down very quickly here, you can see this is their lot. Very, very uniform and very similar to everything else in the neighborhood. There is nothing different about this. All right. And then when we talk about soil conditions, The USDA has an arm that produces soil information that I was able to get these reports from. And if you look at the big item in the middle, the big shaded area here that's outlined in this faint orange-green line, you can see that on the left-hand side, 66.8% is called Merrimack urban. That's the soil type in this area, which is the larger part of the neighborhood.

[SPEAKER_01]: And then when you go to the next piece here, This orange line is a more refined version. They're in the middle. And you look here, it's 100% Merrimack urban. So soil conditions are the same. Then when you drill down to their property, again, it's Merrimack urban. So based on what I'm presenting here, there's nothing unique about the shape. There's nothing unique about the topography. There's nothing unique about the soil conditions as compared to other lots in the neighborhood. And as I had alluded to earlier, all these conditions are conjunctive. It's all or nothing. They all have to be met. So there's probably really no point in going any further. I know that, you know, you guys really pressed for time. So I want to try to wrap this up. But I do want to mention one quick thing about the second element, which is hardship. So as we all know, hardship, this has to be something that's born out of the land. It can't be personal to the land owner. It has to inert to any owner of this land, not the current owner. Case law has repeatedly disallowed medical. Now again, as Henry said, we're not unsympathetic to Mr. Paradiso's condition. That's not the case here. I'm strictly sticking to the statute. So this has been repeatedly shot down, and he has cited his knee conditioning. So I find it strange that one year ago, almost one year ago, he came before this very board in March of 2025, And he asked for a continuance because he specifically wanted to review our objection letter that we sent at the time. And in this letter, we cited all four points of law, including hardship. And we had over half a dozen cases that showed that hardship is just not something that justifies variance when you cite a medical condition. Now, here we are one year later, and he's back in front of this very board. citing the exact same medical condition when he knew very well that medical was not something that qualifies because he looked and reviewed our letter that we had sent in. So to me, to be quite honest, I think this is wasting everybody's time, the taxpayer money, the board time, because quite honestly, everybody knows that that is just not something that is a qualification under the law. So with that, I'll skip through to the end and I'll quickly conclude here. And one of the things that I want to at least show here is This is a case that went to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and what I wanted to talk about here is the judge had this comment, and he basically said to the effect that, the power to vary the application of a zoning ordinance must be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances and under exceptional circumstances. So to me, personally, when I look at this, This is something that I would not consider to be exceptional. This is a hot tub, right? This is not something that someone's adding an addition onto their house. So that's how I kind of look at this. So to me, he should have done his homework in the beginning. He should have understood the law. Ignorance, as we all know, is not an excuse. And a hot tub definitely doesn't rise up to this type of a situation. So with that, we're asking the board, based on the evidence that was presented here, to promptly deny this request because ultimately he doesn't meet any of the statutory requirements. And I couldn't imagine that this would hold up at all. So appreciate the time. Sorry that I took a little longer than I had hoped for, but trying to get my point across.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Mann. Um, would you be able to stop sharing your screen? Yes. Great. Thank you. Um, are there other attorney wide? I see your hand up. I'm going to see if there's other members of the public that are, are here to speak on the topic. Okay. Seeing none, I, you know, this is not designed to be a back and forth, but I will allow the proponent to respond to some of the questions and issues that have been raised.

[SPEAKER_08]: Just a few things to point out. The case that was referenced this evening by the complainant is a 70 year old case. I believe there are much more recent cases that deal with hardship issues. And the hardship here, the inability, it's not a hardship by saying you have a bad knee or whatever. The hardship is the inability to utilize the lot as most people would be able to by putting in a hot tub. And it really doesn't involve the size of the lot. It involves the complainant's property itself. When I looked at a map of the neighborhood and especially the photograph that the complainant has, it looks to me like his physical structure is within what would be the ordinary setback. However, if somebody were building a house today in Medford, I don't believe they could build it where that structure is. So his house itself is located close to the backyard where the jacuzzi is that has to be moved. One might say it has to be moved because of him. I mean, if their house was someplace else, but putting that aside, that is the situation with regard to the law. I've got, I mean, I personally got one of these in the city of Somerville because of my fence. And there was a house that was four feet from the back of my lot. That person couldn't have built that house today when I sought the variance, but because that house was located so close, I wanted a higher force to block out the land. And the ZBA in Somerville looked at them and says, yeah, it's not your shape vis-a-vis, but it's the location of your lot where the neighbor's lot is located. And because the house on that lot is too close, you need the variance. So that's what's in effect forcing my clients to relocate the pool and the summaries that were given were not an accurate, and of course Elaine does it, I'm not faulting you, but was not an accurate discussion of the provisions of section 10, which I've given you. And the other thing is that under zone law, if this were to go to court, he's not showing any particular harm suffering by this proposal, it was all theoretical. He's saying, well, maybe there's gonna be noise, or maybe the sound of the jets, if it's gonna be in, what, such and such a time. Well, you can always condition the variance. They're usually noise ordinances, and that requires a decibel reading or something. So if you were to go to the house where they're sitting in with a decibel reader, and they're using the jacuzzi at a reasonable hour, it probably wouldn't constitute a violation of the noise ordinance So, and the other argument was it's going down a slippery path. That's not an argument which can raise on a zoning challenge. You don't worry about that you're dealing with a particular request of the particular individuals today, which is what's been before you. And they really have met all of the standards. And the one person who wouldn't suffer from this is the one who's opposing all of the other neighbors who have to look at the fence presumably. and where the enclosure is going to be of the jacuzzi, they're all in favor, but he has some sort of a distant view. Whatever his complaints are are theoretical, and they can be addressed by the variance being conditioned by your Honorable Board. So that's what I would throw out for your consideration. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Attorney White. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this topic?

[Henry Rappa]: If I could just quickly address one thing. There were two things that Attorney White just discussed.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: One- Just very briefly, because again, this is- I don't think we don't want to back and forth.

[Henry Rappa]: But they still haven't proven hardship. A personal hardship is not sufficient for the statute. And the other item is, I think he brought up something that went down the standing path. Certainly Mr. Mann and Mrs. Mann are abutters. They have standing to appear before this board and object. to the actual, the hot tub. And they have standing to be able to assert that the requirements have not been met. I understand the board doesn't want to go to a back and forth, and I completely agree and concur that your time is valid tonight. But just in response, I still, however old case law is, it's irrelevant. The case law is the case law. And they really go back to the same thing. It's the size of their lot. doesn't support putting any more structures, it doesn't allow them the opportunity to place that hot tub anyplace else. That under zoning, under the case law, is not a sufficient ground, but I won't...

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you, Attorney Rapp. I think both sides have laid out their cases pretty thoroughly. I appreciate that. I know you both put in a lot of work to it. Are there any other members of the public that would wish to speak who have not yet spoken? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing and move into deliberations?

[Mike Caldera]: I motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Andre, hi. And Mary, I saw that you joined, but you joined in the middle, so we won't be voting for this one. Thanks. So 4-0, we are now in deliberations. Members, do you have any thoughts? Yes, Mike.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so there were a number of legal claims made, and a lot of them were consistent with my understanding of the law. Some were not. I don't intend to speak to all of them. I think that would be somewhat long form, but I do just want to clarify for the public. So, excuse me. So what the board needs to determine to grant a variance is that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography, of such land or structures, and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. So that's prong one. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner, prong two.

And desirable relief, may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance or bylaw. Prong three. So the conjunctive elements are those three prongs, not soil conditions, shape and topography. And also it's, we're considering the shape uh, soil conditions and topography of the land or structures, which the courts have held also includes and structures. So in this case, as I see it, what's unusual about this lot is that, uh, the position of the primary structure on the lot is in the rear yard setback. And It renders the ability to have effectively any accessory structure that would typically be contained in the rear yard illegal. So the potential hardship for us to consider as a board is not the personal hardship. It's that if we were to literally enforce the zoning ordinance, you could not put accessory structures in the rear yard due to the position of the house.

And you could not put those same accessory structures which most residents are able to place in the front yard just because it's not allowed in the front yard. And then we need to determine as a board whether or not desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. So I just wanted to clarify that because there were a number of statements made about the law. And so that's my understanding of the law and I'm quite confident in it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. And Mike, do you want to what's your opinion as to the case itself?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So so I do think the position of the structure on the lot is what makes it unusual. And so literally enforcing the zoning ordinance would make it impossible to have a hot tub anywhere, which most residents are allowed to have by right. And it's not like this is a very small lot, like there's nothing in the ordinance to indicate to me that, you know, they said, oh, small lots can't have hot tubs, but large hot lots can. It's the position of the house. It's the combination of the structure's position and the lot.

the shape is in fact unusual. And clearly, the residents, it would be a hardship to ask them to move their house. And so I also do think there's a substantial hardship in not letting them have these accessory structures at all, when you consider that they actually do have a location, which all of the directly adjacent neighbors on the other side of the road, the ones who would be most affected, the neighbor directly across from the proposed fence, have said they're OK with. It looks beautiful. I think they did a lot of work to try to make sure that it fits in with the surroundings. Medford does have a noise ordinance. Anyone with a hot tub could in principle have a very loud hot tub. And any resident that was upset about it, the noise ordinance is enforced by the police department. So you can look it up, you could. You know, you could consider whether that's in effect. But in general, I think in this case, the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, because most residents can build a hot tub by right. This seems like a perfectly normal hot tub.

All of the directly adjacent neighbors are okay with the proposal. Yes, it requires a slightly higher fence than is typically allowed in the front yard, but it's not presenting a safety issue as far as I can tell. It's not obstructing sight lines, you know, for turning vehicles. So yeah, I think the criteria are in fact met all three prongs.

[Yvette Velez]: Thank you, Mike, for being so thorough. And I would just add that I actually as well thought the presentation by both the own homeowner and the lawyer was very, you know, we had no, we had very little questions, because it was actually superly, it was very much thoughtfully put together to make sure that all those questions were answered, that we need to make sure that we are looking at, and Mike, you are uh, everything you described is exactly what I was thinking.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you. And for myself, um, you know, I come down to the same thing. Um, you know, this is a corner lot. There's a basically a non-functional backyard. It's very close to Mr. Mann's property, which is why I think we were disinclined to, you know, allow the hot tub in the backyard before. I think, um, the changes have been thoughtful and frankly are the only possible option for the proponents at this point. I think if we took the, you know, the legal principle that Attorney Rappa is talking about to his logical kind of conclusion, then we would say, I mean, basically Miss Simonetti and Mr. Paradiso would not be able to put a shed on their property anywhere. There has to be an opportunity to put an accessory structure somewhere. This is the most appropriate place for that. I think they have invested significant money in ensuring that it fits in well with the Surrounding properties, I think they've done a, you know, what they could do to approach the abutters and the other neighbors.

And I think that, you know, this seems to be, I think, the best possible solution. Obviously, we're interpreting the legal case here, you know, as every zoning board has to around variances, but I would agree that it meets the three criteria that we need to meet. Would one of the members like to offer a motion?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I would like to motion to approve the requested variances. And I just want to make sure.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I think we need to have two, actually, we'll need two motions, one for the fence and one for the accessory structure.

[Mike Caldera]: Sure, so I motion to approve the variance for an accessory structure in the front yard.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. The variance is approved for the accessory structure. Is there another motion for the fence?

[Mike Caldera]: Yes, I motion to approve the variance for a six-foot fence within the front yard setback.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thanks, Mike. Is there a second? I second. Jim seconds. Roll call. Yvette?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mike. Aye. Jim. Aye. And Andre, myself. Aye. Thank you. Really appreciate the work that everybody put into this. Mr. Paradiso, Ms. Simonetti, that variances that you seek have been approved. Dennis, can you tell them the next steps? Take your time.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry. Um, there we go. My voice is starting to go. Um, this is the longest, uh, just more of just, uh, it's inside baseball stuff. You don't need to know, but this is the longest I've been talking among people for a while. So my voice is starting to lose it. But, um, uh, basically what happens is I'll write up the decision and then It gets reviewed by legal counsel that the city has. And then at that point, it gets signed by the members, and it gets filed in the clerk's office. And that starts a 20 days appeals period. And if 20 days pass without an appeal, then you can come and get a letter of that, and go and get your permit. And the building department will sort of talk you through the process once that time has passed.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you very much for that. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. Dennis, could you read the next item on the agenda? Sorry to make you talk more.

[Denis MacDougall]: No, that's all right. I suddenly had a realization that I was like, I've just not been talking for a while and this is like, I've been at work for like three days now and it's an interesting thing. All right, so 162 Mystic Ave, applicant Brandon Pollack. as licensee seeks only relief by this application for a special permit to medical marijuana sales to existing dispensary of 162 Mystic Ave.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Do we have the applicant here able to speak on this matter?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes. Thanks, Brandon. Would you like to kind of present what you're seeking here?

[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah. Yeah, and thank you to the whole board as well to the city staff who assisted with our application. Appreciate the attention. So my name is Brandon Pollack. I'm the CEO of Theory Wellness. We are an employee-owned cannabis company with our corporate headquarters based out of Stoneham. We have been operating a recreational dispensary at 162 Mystic Avenue under an existing special permit for a couple years now. We are looking to add medical marijuana sales to the dispensary. which will require a additional state license. In consultation with the mayor's office, it was sort of recommended and we agreed to apply for a second special permit through this board for the medical marijuana use because it's technically an additional use for the business. I have submitted to staff and to this board site plan, floor plan, and a fairly long supplemental application that goes through the variety of requirements for a special permit. I would though maybe start more simply in saying that This doesn't require any construction, doesn't require any changes to the site. The way medical marijuana works in Massachusetts is we would have a separate cash register, if you will, and have separate products that are reserved for medical marijuana patients. Essentially, what medical marijuana allows in the Commonwealth is for a patient to obtain a recommendation from their healthcare provider to use medical products. And the difference with medical products is they can come in stronger dosages than recreational products. Our company has been in the medical marijuana field in Massachusetts since 2017 and the most common reason that patients are in the program is to displace their use of opiates and therefore some of them need a stronger product than what we sell recreationally. Um, you know, we feel this is a pretty straightforward request here. We've been in good standing with our existing special permit, and we'd look forward to serving the medical patient community here. So, I'll pause there happy to get into any more details or answer any questions, but that's a little bit of an overview of the application.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Um, so my understanding is for the, uh, the additional special permit, uh, you know, there's a set of conditions for, uh, marijuana establishments. And I'm wondering if we could just kind of go through those to see, um, if any of them are substantially different than what you've already had approved in the first special permit.

[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Are those the, um, criteria, such as these operational requirements, like security plan, emergency response plan, things like that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. So there's the, uh, those are the standard ones, um, uh, which would be operation and management plan, emergency response plan and disposal and odor control plan. So let me ask you those first, if there's any, any significant changes to, to those. No material changes. And then there's some additional findings. There's 12 of them. So if we could just run through those fairly quickly. Number one, demonstrate that the establishment will meet all the permitting requirements of all applicable agencies. And I should just say, this is under our section 94-7.6.

regulating adult-use marijuana establishments. In this particular, these additional findings, these 12 of them are laid out in 94-7.6.11. And so meeting all the permitting requirements of all applicable agencies within the Commonwealth and state laws and regulations, that one seems like a pretty basic one.

[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, yeah, we can't operate till we obtain a, uh, an additional state license through the cameras control commission, which we would, um, go through that process after if we're successful at the local level here.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, number 2 that you've satisfied all the conditions and requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this chapter and any applicable city ordinances.

[Brandon Pollock]: We believe we have through our application packet and through our operational plans.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Adequate security measures to ensure that there are not direct threats to the health or safety of employees, staff or members of the public, and that storage and location of cultivation is adequately secured.

[Brandon Pollock]: Yep. So no changes to our security plan, which has been sufficient to protect the public from our operations over the last couple of years.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. that the marijuana establishment does not derogate from the purposes and intents of this section in this chapter?

[Brandon Pollock]: Yes, we believe operating an additional medical use, if anything, helps provide an additional benefit to the community.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Number five, that the application information submitted is adequate for the Special Permit Granting Authority, which is us, the ZBA, to consider approving the special permit request.

[Brandon Pollock]: We believe the application has addressed all the criteria within the ordinance.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Six, that the proposed establishment designed to minimize any adverse impacts on human beings, the environment, and abutting properties.

[Brandon Pollock]: Yep, so medical marijuana use will require no changes in site plan. The site's been operating for two years with no complaints. Thanks.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Number 7, that the security plan provides sufficient assurance that adequate security controls have been implemented to ensure the protection of the public health and safety during hours of operation and that any marijuana or marijuana related products are adequately secured on site or via delivery.

[Brandon Pollock]: No changes to the security plan. And during the last couple of years of operations, we've had no incidents. Great, thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Number eight, the operation and management plan includes all required components and can be implemented to meet the requirements of this section. I know you've already responded to that, but if you don't mind responding again.

[Brandon Pollock]: No, of course. Yeah, no changes to the management and operations plan.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Number nine, the emergency response plan. Again, any significant changes there?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Number 10, disposal and odor control plan. Any changes there? No changes. Number 11, that the ZBA may require a marijuana establishment to post a bond or other resources held in an escrow account in an amount sufficient to adequately support the dismantling and winding down of the marijuana establishment.

[Brandon Pollock]: We don't feel that would be necessary. Of course, the board can do that, but because we're already operating, we don't feel there's any financial risk.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And number 12, no special permit shall be issued by the ZBA until an applicant has submitted proof of an executed host community agreement with the City of Medford.

[Brandon Pollock]: Yep, so as part of application bracket, we've, we've included an amendment to our existing host community agreement signed by the mayor that permits the medical use of marijuana sales.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. I saw that. Thank you very much at this point. Let me open it up to questions from members of the board.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Seeing no questions. Yep, Chris. Just one, which may not be relevant exactly to the zoning board, but who oversees the actual physical establishment of the separate counter and so forth, which state agency must come in? Because it's not our zoning enforcement officer, is it?

[Brandon Pollock]: No, no. And and I guess fortunately for the city, all that's deferred to the state agency which regulates us, which is the Cannabis Control Commission. So we have moving forward, we'll have one inspection for the recreational and one point of contact there. And then we have a separate individual that oversees the medical medical sale area. Thanks for the question. Yeah, Mary.

[Mary Lee]: Can you talk a little bit about the security plan or the existing security plan that you have?

[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, so what's been in place before we even built the facility, we did have our security plan approved by the chief of police and the police department has walked through the dispensary as well, prior to operations. And essentially the security plan hinges on Surveillance systems, we have extensive cameras, probably around 50 cameras on site with a battery backup and 60 day server. We also have provided access to the police department to get into those cameras should they need to. And then from a intrusion perspective, every door of the building has door contact alarms on it. And then there's motion sensor alarms in the vault area where product is stored, as well as a few other strategic areas of the dispensary, so that if anyone broke in at night, the alarm could go off. And being on Mystic Avenue, we're probably within 90 seconds of the police department there.

That's from the physical infrastructure, and then from a operating perspective, it's a 21 plus facility, so no one's allowed into the dispensary area until they verify their identification with one of our team members at the front.

[Yvette Velez]: Thank you. Can you confirm that your hours of operation are not changing and that you're going to be staying the same regardless of the products that you'll be selling?

[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, yeah, thanks. Good question. I can confirm that hours of operation are not changing with this additional endorsement we're seeking.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? All right. And remind me, Mike, do we need to open to public comment? Yes. Yeah. Uh, so let's move into, uh, the public hearing portion of the meeting. Uh, is there any member of the public here who would like to speak on this topic or Dennis, have we received any communication about this topic?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I don't see anybody else on the zoom. Is there a motion to close the public hearing and move into deliberations?

[Mike Caldera]: I motion to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberations.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. And Chris? Aye. Or maybe is it Mary that has to vote on this, just for this motion?

[Mike Caldera]: You get to decide, Andre. There's six of us here, and only five will vote. So just pick whichever five. Right.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I was just curious for the motion of closing the hearing, whether we needed to state that even in advance of that.

[Mike Caldera]: Um, I think not. We've often just decided ahead of time. Um, but yeah, for promotions like closing, it could be all of us. Okay.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, all right. And Mary. Hi. All right. Thank you. Um, So let's move into deliberation. And just getting to Mike's point, for purposes of voting, let's have Yvette, Jim, Chris, Mary, and myself vote. Thank you. Thanks for your flexibility, Mike. All right, any thoughts about this? Chris, I see you unmuted, do you wanna?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Oh, no, I stayed unmuted, I guess. No, I think it's interesting, I didn't know about this particular instance or section of the cannabis legislation where it's separated for medical and operating under one roof, but I don't see any essential difference in the operation of the business by allowing a separate counter to exist within the structure.

[Mary Lee]: Well, I think that it's they've been in business since like 2017 or 2018. It's a well established in the community and it seems like there's a not not much negative impact, and it's just an existing plan to develop further to enhance the services. I think it's a good idea for the community.

[Yvette Velez]: I would agree with what folks are saying and just add that it's it's good to see, you know, the local businesses grow and, you know, in this case, not only is it growing, but it's also not changing significantly right in regards to like location or building and. you know, adding any additional, I don't know, traffic or smells, right? Or our timeframe that it'll be opened. It's all staying for the most part within reasonable expectations.

[Unidentified]: I agree with that as well. It's part of their business. It's another way to grow the business. And they do have everything in place. They haven't had any complaints. So I'm in favor of it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks. As am I. The fact that the amended host agreement has already been negotiated with the city, signed by the mayor. The city has done a lot of due diligence already on this. I don't see any significant changes in what they're doing that's going to affect their operations other than internal stuff. This is something I think seems pretty straightforward. Is there a motion on the special permit issue?

[Chris D'Aveta]: I move for approval on the special permit to allow medical marijuana, I don't know what's the- License, I think. License, yeah, is the term, within the existing facility. Thanks, Chris.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is there a 2nd, I'll 2nd, Jim 2nd roll call vote that. Hi, Jim. Hi, Chris. Hi, and Mary. Hi, and myself is an eye as well. So, unanimous support for the license and. Uh, Dennis, I don't know what the next steps are on on this 1 that we have to do.

[Denis MacDougall]: I believe I can. I believe we already have a previous special permit being granted. So I can probably just go through that and basically. have to check with legal but I think I can probably just swap out commercial for medical use in there and you know that would and then I'll just but I'll check with legal just to make sure I think it's it's basically the same document so I think that should be fine but I will double check on that and then once that is it'll get filed like before.

[Brandon Pollock]: All right well thank you all and hope you have a good evening. Thanks Brandon appreciate your time.

[Unidentified]: Would it be okay to ask a question for the chair? Uh, sure. I know we voted, but Brandon quick question. Uh, do you see this adding more traffic to the area? Just out of curiosity.

[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, no, it's a good question. We don't view the impact of traffic as material. I think at this point, there's maybe 40,000 medical patients in the entire Commonwealth, and there's 100 dispensaries. So I'd expect maybe 5 or 10 additional guests per day.

[Unidentified]: Thank you for that. I was just curious. It's an afterthought. Thank you. Yeah, no, it's a good question.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Appreciate you answering that, Brandon. All right. Well, yeah, well, thank you very much. Dennis will be able to follow up on the special permit. So feel free to go ahead and contact him sometime next week.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you all. All right. Thank you. Have a good night. Dennis, any other items on the agenda or administrative issues?

[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing comes to mind. I'm trying to think. So, I mean, because I literally only just started back on Tuesday, so I'm still getting wildly caught up. I have 683 unread emails. So, I'm sort of going slow. And so, like, no meeting minutes for the previous. There was a meeting in January, correct?

[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Again, I was... Yeah, we met. Well, so there were technically two meetings in January, and it depends... Sorry, yeah. So, there was the... The December meeting that was held in early January, I think we might have just continued everything. We only had the one thing and they asked to continue. It was kind of the same for the actual meeting.

[Denis MacDougall]: So I'll just, I'll, I'll go through the meeting minutes and get you them. I'll have them ready for the next one. There'll be a few different ones and including I'll get tonight's too. Fortunately, the, the new zoom updates have made doing meeting minutes a lot easier.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Great. Thanks, Mike. I appreciate that, Dennis. Well, it's good to have you back, Dennis. Really happy to see you happy. And is there a motion to adjourn?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Oh, I did have one question I was going to ask. Excuse me. Mike, are you leaving the board entirely?

[Mike Caldera]: Um, yeah, so my appointment ends in March. And just for unrelated personal reasons, I just chose. I don't even know if what the mayor's intention was. But before that point, I just made it clear that I wasn't seeking reappointment. So yeah,

[Chris D'Aveta]: So I guess one of my questions is that both Mary and I are associate members. Would we become full members after, you know, you're down to, you'll be down to three members and two associates at that point. Does that, How does that typically work? Dennis, you've probably been around long enough to know how that typically works.

[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, I can probably jump in. Yeah. So usually we just sort of put forth to the mayor. So I mean, yeah, in this case, you know, we've got, we would have five existing members and then just, you know, look for the appointment of an associate. I, I mean, I basically, you know, myself through Alicia will, you know, put forth to the mayor, you know, and then, you know, we'll see what the mayor sort of decides, but, you know, it's, it's been, My experience that recommendations for our office are quite good.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is there a call or do we have applicants for other potential members?

[Denis MacDougall]: We do. Actually, we're on this call, so I can just say if somebody is watching this on public access. So if you're interested in joining any boarding commission for the city, if you go to the city's website under boards and commissions, there's a link to apply. So if you, and we have a huge, sorry, I'm going to go into salesperson mode here for a few minutes before I actually answer your question, bully. So, but just, you know, if you're interested in any of them, just go on there and just put an application in and, you know, we look at them all the time and that's basically, and you know, we'll, you know, If, you know, you think you're a great fit for the board, we'll come and ask you. And so, yeah, so to go back and answer your question, yeah, when Mike mentioned a little bit ago. So I've been, I'm always sort of looking just to always have, you know, you don't want to be left completely in the lurch if someone like moves or, you know, just decides I quit or whatever happens. These things happen, you know, life changes on some people. And so you have to sort of make allowances to, know, just to have someone, you know, I mean, because I also staff the Conservation Commission and so that's sort of a similar sort of thing where I always am looking just in case we get, you know, a member leave or, you know, it's always good to sort of have that, so. I've sort of been going through it, but then once I was out, I haven't gone back to it. So that's sort of my, I'm only going to be in here for like an hour or so tomorrow. So that's sort of my plan is to sort of see if anyone's applied in the last two months and then, you know, get a couple of names together, talk with Alicia and then submit it to the mayor's office.

[Mike Caldera]: And just, um, if, if I may, the, um, so I think from like a pure procedural standpoint, anyone who's currently sitting on the board who's willing to continue on could continue on as a holdover until the mayor makes an appointment. I think converting Chris and Mary to full members like the official act that that requires is a appointment letter from the mayor. It doesn't like happen automatically.

[Denis MacDougall]: But, but yeah, and also, and I was. Actually, I don't wear this because it hadn't cropped up before, but I was just told this for the is that now boards and commission members now actually have to go before the city council for their approval as well. So there's an addition step that I don't think. I have to check on this because literally the first I heard of it was today. So I need to sort of find out if that actually applies to existing members. I don't believe it does. So I think it's just new members. So existing members can just get reappointed. But I think, I genuinely don't know, but literally this sort of was mentioned to me today.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So by next month, Dennis, you'll have more information about you and Alicia's strategy for proposing, making a recommendation to the mayor about full membership of the board. And in the meantime, Chris, Mary, we would rely on you to participate fully in future meetings, if that's all right.

[Mike Caldera]: And just for group awareness, I will be here for the March. And if we're dire straits and someone asks me to hold over, it's possible I would for a small amount of time.