Zoning Board of Appeals 03/26/26

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.6-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 Medford Zoning Board of Appeals elected Andre Leroux as chair, reviewed an administrative zoning appeal, and acted on several special permit and variance applications. The board approved a lot width variance for a two-family dwelling and a change of non-conforming use for an engineering business while upholding a zoning violation citation regarding domestic chickens.

0:21 Election of Board Chair — Elected Andre Leroux to serve as board chair following a nomination by Mary Lee.
3:05 85 Elm Street Extension Request — Approved a six-month extension for variances granted to demolish a motor vehicle repair shop and construct a three-unit dwelling.
5:12 Special Permit – 7 Tyrell Road — Approved a special permit allowing the construction of a side porch awning encroaching into the side yard setback.
11:49 Zoning Appeal – 33 Watson Street — Upheld a zoning violation citation for keeping chickens in a residential district after a motion to overturn the building commissioner's determination failed to secure a supermajority.
41:47 Lot Width Variance – 145 Jerome Street — Approved a lot width variance to construct a two-family dwelling, conditioned on completing a lot line adjustment for a 6,000-square-foot lot and demolishing a structure on an adjacent parcel.
1:46:28 Special Permit – 42 Dexter Street — Approved a special permit to change the non-conforming use of a commercial garage to an engineering prototyping and services business.
2:18:41 Approval of Minutes — Approved the board's meeting minutes for January and February.

[Mike Caldera]: We're going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Jim Tirani.

[Mike Caldera]: Mike Caldera, present. All right, we have all members present. So today, because it's our March meeting, There's one thing we need to do before we move into the cases, which is annually in March, in our March meeting, the board elects its next chair. And so any member of the board can freely nominate another member of the board to be our next chair. And the procedure I intend for us to follow is first I'll ask if there are any nominations, someone will make a motion, indicate who they want to nominate. That motion will need a second. Or actually, no, I take that back. I'll just ask the board who wants to nominate someone. They can indicate whoever they'd like to nominate. Then I'll check in with the nominees if they accept the nomination. And then for the remaining set, any member of the board can then make a motion that the board elect so-and-so as its next chair. That will need a second, and then we'll vote on it. So that's the procedure. Would anyone like to make a nomination?

[Mary Lee]: I'd like to nominate Andre, but I also want to thank you, Mike, for your leadership, and I know I've been new. I learned a lot from you, so thank you so much.

[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Mary. It's been my pleasure. All right, would any other member of the board like to make any nominations?

[Mike Caldera]: All right, Andre, so you've been nominated. Are you willing to step in as our next chair? Yes, sir. Thanks for the nomination. OK, so we have a motion to nominate Andre by Mary, seconded by Chris. We'll take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. Yvette?

[Mike Caldera]: I'm going to call you, Andre. You can choose whether to vote or abstain. Andre? Abstained. Mike? Aye. All right. We've elected our new chair. Thank you, Andre, and congratulations. And with that, I will turn it over to you. All right, thanks, Mike.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Really appreciate all of the help and guidance. You've been a fantastic chair. All right, Dennis, could you read the first item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, first thing we have is actually a request for an extension for 85 Elm Street, case number A-2024-25, applicant and owner, 85 Elm Street LLC are requesting a six month extension of time. On variances granted by the board of appeals for the demolition of existing motor vehicle repair shop construction of a 3 unit single family attached dwelling.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Do we have a representative from the applicant here?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, Kathleen Desmond for 85 Elm street LLC, the request all of the plans and. are in a building and we're waiting on a building permit, the only hold up is the stormwater report that has to be done with the weather and the inclement winter that we had that didn't get done before the winter season and that's still outstanding. I guess they're going out to actually do some work on Monday, do the testing and then that report should be submitted in short order. I believe everything else in terms of the billing permit is in order at this point. So we're just requesting time to finish that up.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Kathleen. What's the extent of the extension you're requesting?

[Kathleen Desmond]: We're asking for the full six months, which would bring us to November 22nd, 2026. We don't think we need that amount of time, but better to have it than not. We're telling the engineers next month. So they won't know.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Sounds good. All right, thank you. Do we have a motion on the matter?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to approve the six-month extension. I second. Seconded.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Mike Caldara. Aye. An aye as well. Extension is granted.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Kathleen. You too. All right, Dennis, the next item on the agenda.

[Denis MacDougall]: It's 7 Tyrell Road. It was continued from last month. Applicant Reese Brown, as contractor, seeks zoning relief by this application for a special permit to a side porch awning at 7 Tyrell Road. Bill Holicky, Coburn – PB&I, He, Him, Hissssssssssssssssss

[Chair Andre Leroux]: We still have, I think, five members voting, so not a problem. Is the applicant here to explain the application?

[SPEAKER_16]: Hi, my name is Dave Central. I'm from Traverse Architects, representing the homeowners at 7 Terrell. We're requesting zoning relief to allow for the construction of an awning above the side entries there, which serves as a primary entry for the homeowners and their aging parents. The existing side yard setback at that location is about eight feet, five inches, and the minimum side yard requirement for that location is seven and a half feet. With the proposed awning of four feet, five inches projecting into the side yard, it encroaches on that setback by three and a half feet.

Therefore, it requires zoning relief. The proposed awning provides essential protection from inclement weather, including snow and ice, improving safety and accessibility for its residents, The structure is modest in scale and does not increase the building's livable square footage. Additionally, the awning will not impede views, cast shadows on neighboring properties, or impact privacy or parking conditions. Given these factors, the proposed work is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming condition, so we respectfully request the Zoning Board grant the request.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Do the board members have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, I'll open the public comment period. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Dennis, have we received any comments on it?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So I'm not seeing any here. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

[Mary Lee]: So, it's just a special permit for the awning right? For the installation on.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes, so our standard here is no substantial detriment to the public in order to approve the special permit.

[Chris D'Aveta]: I have a question for the applicant. Is there any, this is a projection that will sit from the structure, from the house essentially, correct? Or the porch that's there now?

[SPEAKER_16]: That's correct. It's about a four and a half foot roof that cantilevers off the wall. So it doesn't actually touch the ground. It's just hung from above.

[Chris D'Aveta]: And there's an existing station or something. Just to follow up to that, there's no vegetation or a tree or something at the other side of the property?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I'm an aye as well. Thank you, David. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Dennis, what's the procedure?

[Denis MacDougall]: So we've kind of, basically the decision will be prepared and what it is, you know, it'll get sent off. So when it gets filed in the clerk's office, that'll start a 20 days appeals period. At the conclusion of that 20 days appeals period, you will get from, be able to receive a letter of no appeal. And then you take that to the registry along with the decision filing at the registry, and then you can get the building permit.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you very much. Dennis, next item on the agenda.

[Denis MacDougall]: 33 Watson Street. Applicant Laurie J. Phillips Stanley and Thomas Stanley is owner for administrative appeal of the zoning violation notice regarding the keeping of three chickens at 33 Watson Street, which is not allowed use in a single-family, two-zoning district per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table AC-5, Table of Use, Parking Regulations, Keeping and Raising of Livestock, including Animal and Stable Overtime.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Is there a representative of the applicant here?

[SPEAKER_15]: That would be us. My name is Tom Stanley. This is my wife, Laurie. We are the applicants for, you know, we just want to keep our chickens is all we're here for.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Do you want to give a little bit more background to the board about What's happened?

[SPEAKER_15]: Well, we after after we had COVID, you know, there were issues, of course, with all kinds of things with the the supply lines, you know, interruption with supply lines and so forth. And we were wondering if, you know, maybe we can have chickens. And we were only one of the chickens for our you know, for our personal. Enjoyment, I guess is the way we were putting it. We looked online and I would have to blame myself I guess that I guess I didn't interpret i'm not sure if I saw the word livestock and I um, you know, I would think that You know, I I didn't think that because we were literally keeping them as pets It was not a commercial enterprise. We had no intention of selling eggs Um that you know, and we looked into it. I think laurie We don't remember who she talked to she thinks she called somebody at city hall and asked if it was okay And they said this it was okay if we they were actual pets Now we did this in 2022 so, um, actually march of 2022 So we have actually had these chickens for four years almost four years before somebody complained about them Now, we thought we did our due diligence. We looked at what we could find as far as what the regulations were concerned, because there was going to be an outlay. We were going to have to spend money on the, there's a coop, which is the building where they sleep. There is the run, which is like a gated, a small gated area. And, you know, and we found we figured that no I mean we didn't see anything that's specifically to us to our interpretation that specifically prohibited chickens. So, and, you know, we did so we had we, we have had them since they were baby chicks. And I know that there were things that, you know, when we went to places like Tractor Supply up in Ipswich to buy feed, and we bought baby feed when they were chicks and so forth, they also sell chickens. They sell baby chicks. And they said, please make sure that your, you know, your city allows them. And we said, yeah, we pretty much looked into this. We didn't get them through.

We got them through a friend of Larry's who also happens to raise chickens. So we have had them, like I said, for four years. When we got the complaint about it, you know, we were, you know, kind of shocked. We don't know. I mean, I don't know if somebody just has something against chickens specifically or something against us or what the story was. But when they made a complaint that they were noisy, I don't know where that came from, because the chickens that we had, there are three hens, there are no roosters. When I was much younger, like when I was in high school, we had three chickens in my house where I grew up in Lynn, and we had a rooster, and that was a noisy bird. And that was something that, you know, we, you know, my father actually ended up dealing with that. And we ended up getting rid of the chickens then. But, you know, we consider them as pets. They all have names.

And the other thing is that sometimes when we have an overabundance of eggs, which doesn't happen over the winter, because chickens tend not to lay too many eggs over the winter, we were literally giving them away to our neighbors. So sometimes, you know, even some extra egg cartons that we'd be able to just give them away to people. You know, there's a half dozen here, a half dozen there, because at times we had like three dozen eggs. And, you know, I'm a big guy, but I'm not going to be eating three dozen eggs. But, you know, and like I said, one of the things we also want to make clear is that this, besides it not being a commercial enterprise, we have no desire at all to add to the flock. All we're asking, all we are humbly requesting is if we can just keep our three chickens until they pass on. That's all we're looking for. We're not going to like replace them, you know, when they go. Like I said, they're four years old now. I think that chickens tend to be like, you know, maybe like four, six years old. Three to five. Three to five years. So, you know, we don't know when their time is going to come. But, like I said, that's all we are humbly requesting is that, you know, we can keep our pet chickens until, you know, until they pass on. Okay. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_01]: We keep the coop very clean. We tend to do it twice a day. We rake around, there's no, you really can't see it from the street at all. It's right behind our garage. So it's not, we're very lucky. We have a very big lot. We have two and a half size lot up here. We live in an old home, 1912 bungalow. And so we were very lucky when we got the house that there's a lot of land on both sides. That's why we were surprised by the noise complaints because our house is in the middle of our property. And houses aren't right next to our property. I mean, next to our house. So that's why we're kind of surprised by that. And two of the gentlemen, two gentlemen from the department, I'm not sure which department, came up and looked at it. They were probably about 15, 20 minutes, and they didn't have their chickens make a peep. They were actually being kind of shy. They went in their little house, because they didn't know them. The chickens not the guys.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I don't want to interrupt, but we are not really in a position to evaluate the care of the chickens. Yeah, of course. We have a legal issue that we have to talk about. I'm wondering, is there someone from the city who can represent that side of things? I don't know if that's the building commissioner or someone from the health department.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, Scott. The best I can say at this point is we did receive a request for enforcement from the health department and we did react and issued the citation.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I don't see anybody from the health department here. Is that correct? Okay.

[Denis MacDougall]: Hi, Andre. So Mary O'Connor from the health department was planning on being on the call, but she is not on it. So, because she had come by and talked to me earlier today to tell me that she was planning, you know, wanted to come on and give the health department's Be back on this, so I'm trying to. Get a hold of her.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I sent her an email, but and Dennis, is there a public hearing on this? Is it really just our deliberation?

[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, I think we do. I think, yeah, it's still considered a, yeah, so we'd have to do that.

[Yvette Velez]: Can we put this off until next? Can we put this off, Andre, to the next meeting if they don't come on, the health department? Because I'd like to hear from them before we would even discuss another.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I don't know what the timing is of our when we have to make a decision. Do you know that Dennis or Scott?

[Scott Vandewalle]: You have the same time frames as an appeal or special permit, which is 100 days.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yes, thanks. I essentially had the same sentiment about continuing the hearing until perhaps we hear from Board of Health or there's the animal control too, correct? Is that what is their policy? It would be good to get something in writing from either of those two departments. is obviously we can't change the zoning code here. And this is a, this is a, for what, a special permit, correct?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: No, this would be a use variance. So this is, it's not an allowable use, having these- Yeah, it's not, I asked the building inspector, it's not allowed in any district, correct?

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, Scott. It's technically an appeal, which is different. It's an appeal, the decision of the zoning enforcement agent. It's technically different than a variance. It's technically different than a special permit. You're voting to overturn my determination as to whether or not a chicken is livestock or not. essentially what it comes down to. Is the chicken a livestock or is it pet? You overturn or you support my decision. Not really a variance unless you were to determine that chicken is livestock, but you want to give them an exception in this particular case. It's kind of where it hinges.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Although, Scott, my understanding is that it's not an allowable use anywhere except in an industrial zone.

[Scott Vandewalle]: What the regulation says, and I think Dennis read it earlier, kennels and livestock are not allowed to be held and kept in any zone except for an industrial zone. My interpretation and definition was that a chicken is livestock, therefore it's not allowed. You could overturn my definition of livestock and say chickens are allowed or chickens are not livestock, they're pets and appeal it. You may not have to grant a variance per se, you can simply accept or deny my definition of what livestock is or whether or not that includes chickens.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. But if we were to kind of assert that, would that be a precedent for all other properties or?

[Scott Vandewalle]: While it's common for the board to state we don't set precedent, you'd certainly would be setting some sort of argument for anybody else who wanted chickens and there lies part of the challenge.

[Unidentified]: Well, when you look, when you look up the definition, it says chickens are generally classified as poultry, which is separate from livestock. But in some context, they can be considered livestock, especially if they're raised for meat or eggs, if that's their main purpose.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So I think we were, Dennis had looked into this as well, and there's all different variations.

[Unidentified]: But I mean, I'm just wondering, does the city of Medford consider that livestock, is that the definition that the city of Medford gives it?

[Scott Vandewalle]: The city of Medford doesn't have a definition. One of the things we're working on in the new zoning is to enlarge the definitions by allowing references to Webster's or something like that. So we can do that. Technically, we don't have a clear definition of it in writing. It's more my interpretation from my sources. So it's not concrete per se.

[Unidentified]: Well, if I may, if we don't have a clear definition, then how would the public have a definition? How would they know?

[Scott Vandewalle]: There is no good way to know unless somebody makes a request for a definition or an interpretation.

[Unidentified]: I mean, until there is a clear definition, I just feel that It's a reasonable mistake.

[Mary Lee]: Yeah. I tend to agree with Jim because the complaint was about noise and it wasn't about disease or livestock. And I think I may be wrong, but correct me. I mean, my understanding is that someone complained for the chickens' noise, which they kept as pets. I mean, pets like dogs. I would assume when dogs bark, that noise is, the volume is probably higher than the peck of a hen, so not roosters. So if we're here just to determine whether these chickens are pets or for industrial use, and if the city doesn't have a code or definition about the three chickens, I think that we can deliberate and make a decision here today.

Because I think that was the fundamental question is whether the chicken is a pet or not, right? That's why we're here to deliberate. Or that's why we're here for the appeal.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, again, It's to determine whether the city's officer did the appeal in an appropriate way, really. Yeah, Mike, I see your hand raised.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so what we're being asked to do here has a bit of nuance to it. And so I just want to share my understanding and interpretation. So first of all, This is not something, so we need to make the determination based on the current zoning ordinance, which doesn't define specifically livestock, which is the challenge. My understanding, because I too in the pandemic had the thought to myself, ooh, it would be nice to have chickens, is that actually the old ordinance did expressly prohibit them. But that's not actually, that doesn't actually matter here. Um, the, so here.

We have an ordinance about the allowed uses. And the building commissioner has an interpretation of that ordinance. And, um, as a board, we need, or we're being asked to weigh in on, uh, whether, uh, we. Um, essentially would, um. grant the appeal to the building commissioner's determination, which would effectively require us to find that when city council more recently drafted the latest zoning ordinance, their intention was that chickens would not be included in this livestock category and that effectively As I understand it, under that interpretation, chickens would be allowed by right in all districts, I think.

To Scott's point, we're not a precedent setting body. So we could technically make a determination in this case. And then later, if somebody else came with the same case, make a different determination. I'm not saying that is a good way to operate. I'm just saying, technically, it doesn't set a precedent. But it does, to Scott's point, kind of open the door for other cases. So really, clearing up the definition is something I think the city council should try to do so that this doesn't become a recurring thing. Um, and so, yeah, for me personally, I understand some members of the board might want information from the health department. I don't think that's actually relevant to the determination we're being asked to make here. It's what was the definition intended to mean? Chickens or no chickens? So for me, I'd be prepared to have that discussion today. Um, that's all I got.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Okay. Thanks, Mike. Yeah, Scott. I do want to be careful. I don't want it to be characterized as strictly a noise complaint. I don't have the health department's report and referral in front of us as to what it is. They don't typically do noise. That's technically under the police department. So if you feel you need to know more, I would hesitate and allow Mary and the opportunity to speak further if you want to get into the basis for the original complaint. But yes, mine was strictly about zoning interpretation.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Sorry. Thanks. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the building commissioner, when these sorts of complaints come to City Hall, are they typically directed to the Board of Health or to the zoning enforcement officer, yourself?

[Scott Vandewalle]: I don't recall that we've had a chicken complaint in my time here. So this will be a first that anybody here recalls. The health department, for reasons they would have to explain, referred it to us for additional enforcement. noting that there are chickens there, they don't believe they're allowed. So my research and determination said, you are correct. I view them as livestock, therefore they should not be allowed. And that's what the violation letter was based around.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay. I would still to you, Mr. Chair, and to the board, I guess I would still be interested in hearing from either board of health or animal control or whatever, I guess there's, I don't know if that's a separate department, but, um, same department, same. Okay. Um, to what the, you know, the sort of specific nature of this particular instance or in the, the issues surrounding it, um, just to get more detail, I guess I'm still, Not sure. I understand the vote tonight would be to overrule the building commissioner's ruling and not, you know, we're not changing the zoning as we've stated, but I'd feel more comfortable having more information before a vote was taken. So my suggestion is a continuance if that's possible for the applicant.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, this is more just to sort of help because Scott mentioned about the 100 days. So, going back to when this was filed, it was filed on February 24th and the 100 days. The time frame that we have would end to June 4th, 2026. So, the, you know, we have, there is enough time. In between 2, you know, if we wanted to, if this was to be continued, it wouldn't really hurt us that shortly.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Well, since we do need to have a public hearing, and we've sort of jumped from questions into deliberation a bit, I'd like to open the public hearing, the public comment period. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? Dennis, have we received any

[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, so my name is Katie Carterelli. My address is 32 Watson Street here in Medford. I live directly across the street from them. We never hear the chickens at all. So that's a surprise to me to hear that there is a noise complaint. That's ridiculous. Like they're fantastic. Like they said, they're just kept in the back. Who's that?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Just state your, again, full name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_05]: And I live two houses down and we don't hear them. We hear the dog on the other side all the time, but we don't hear the chickens.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Dennis, have we received any additional written comments? We have not. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public comment period?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary? Aye. Mike? Aye. Chris? Aye. All right, that's unanimous. The public comment period is closed and we enter formal deliberation as a board. I know we've already had some comments. Any additional comments by the board members? We've had kind of a suggestion by Chris to extend this so we can hear from the health department. What is the will of the other board members?

[Mary Lee]: Well, I think if there's a really a big concern by the health department, they would have been issued multiple, multiple violations or citations. I think it's clear that these three chickens' hens are pets and to some extent doesn't bother the neighbors, minimal noise. And I think, you know, I have a dog, so for anyone who has pets, having the stress of thinking about this over 100 days, three, four months, it could be devastating, emotionally devastating. And I think based on the reasons that Mike has given, that this is not a precedent. And in particularly, there's no zoning, specific zoning law regarding how you categorize this chicken. I think it would be injustice to deny this permit.

And it would be in the interest of the public as well just to approve it for this only one instance for them to keep these hands as pets.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And just to clarify, the vote that we would take would be whether to overturn the building commissioner's evaluation or not.

[Mary Lee]: But I think the clarification is that there's no clear definition for livestock, right? And the city council hasn't even made that determination. And in my mind, Livestock is like you have hundreds of these chickens. That's livestock. When you have one, two, three, you know, even five, they're pets. I mean, what if you have, some people have rats as pets. I mean, I hate rats, but is that like, why animal, livestock? We're talking about little chickens.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Scott. I do wanna clarify, it's a vote either uphold or overturn my decision to classify them as livestock. If you uphold my decision, they need to be gone. If you overturn my determination, then they can keep them.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right, but in this particular instance, right? It's really, yeah. Yes, Mike and then Jim.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I just wanted to, clarify that every ordinance has some kind of room for interpretation. So the building commissioner, as the zoning enforcement officer, basically interprets the gray area. And we as the appeal board also interpret the gray area. So the mere absence of a definition for a particular thing from city council doesn't absolve the building commissioner or us from having to make a determination in the cases where there is that gray area. So more of like a procedural clarification, but just wanted to point that out.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Further deliberation or would somebody like to make a motion?

[Mary Lee]: I motion and no offense, Scott. I motion to overturn the commissioner's decision characterizing the chicken as livestock.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, there being a second, we'll move to a roll call vote. And just to clarify for purposes of the voting, Chris is going to be the voting, and I will not vote as part of this. So we have the... Jim. Aye. Yvette.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So see three to two. Dennis, is that, uh, do we need to have four of the quorum?

[Denis MacDougall]: I actually will be honest with you. I'm not sure what, if we need the four or the five for this.

[Mike Caldera]: My understanding is, um, findings are three, but to overturn the building commissioners four.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That being the case, the motion fails and the building commissioners determination is upheld. Unfortunately, Mr. and Ms. Stanley, that stands the assessment of the building commissioner.

[Denis MacDougall]: Zero Jerome Street. Applicant Teresa Bolden, as owner, seeks to construct a two-family dwelling at 0 Jerome Street between 141 and 149 Jerome Street, which is an allowed use and general residence zone with insufficient lot width per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Conventional Requirements.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, is there a representative of the applicant here?

[Mike Cabral]: Yes, good evening, Mr. Chair, Attorney Michael Cabral for the applicant. Good evening, members of the board. Again, I represent Tree Top Properties. The underlying owner is Teresa Bolden. This is 0 Jerome Street. It is also formerly known as 145 Jerome Street. It's currently a vacant lot. Our client seeks to construct a two-family dwelling on the lot in the GR zone where two families are allowed as of right. Mr. Chair, may I share my screen to show some plans? Yes, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: Give me one second, Mike, and you are all set. Great, thank you.

[Mike Cabral]: And Mr. Chair, can you see this? Yes, okay great. This is Jerome Street here. This is currently a vacant lot. Also, so it has 6000 square feet, this will be a reconstructed lot, which I will get into in a minute. This is the proposed two family dwelling. So in terms of dimensional requirements here, the only dimensional deficiency would be lot width here. So there's 50 feet of frontage, which satisfies the frontage. The lot does require, because it's a two-family, 60 feet of lot width, but that is not satisfied here. The front setback is satisfied as to 15 feet. There's 18 feet here. Side yard setbacks are required at seven and a half. This is just over. On this side here where the driveway will be, there's over 14 feet, and to the rear exceeds 20 feet at 23 feet here.

Again, required lot area for a two-family in the GR zone is 6,000 square feet. Our client has constructed a 6,000 square foot lot. Also, three parking spaces where three are required. These are two garage spaces that you'd be looking at here, one exterior space. Our client's also going to Endeavor to find some space for an additional parking space here and ultimately wind up fencing in screening the yard as well. Uh, I had mentioned is formally known as 1 45 Jerome street. There actually believe is a curb cut here and there was a structure on the lot at some point in time, but it's been, I think, quite a while since the structure. has been there. There's an existing concrete pad at the property back here, but we're unable to determine whether that was a house at some point in time or a garage or what. I'm not sure what it was, but the assessor does have it as formerly 145 Jerome Street. So what our client is again looking to do is develop this into a two-family Our client does own, say our client, an affiliate of our client owns a parcel to the rear. And I think that this is a good... look at the current, so this is Zero Jerome Street, also known as 145, with the current lot configuration of 4,250 square feet. So again, our client owns, an affiliate of our client owns this property here. So with their intent, because this has over 9,000 square feet on this lot, what they intend to do is take this rear portion, this is 166 Jerome Street here, again, excuse me, 166 Arlington Street here, This is Arlington Street, the frontage. They will take an area from 166 Jerome and assign it to 0 Jerome, also known as 145 Jerome, bringing this 4,250 square feet up to the 6,000 square feet so that they satisfy the minimum lot area. This will be done by a separate, assuming, the board approves and grants the relief here our client will have the ANR plan approved by the community development board and then we'll also go ahead just for reference purposes not for the application here but this this dwelling here will be demolished it is old it's run down there's no demo delay from historical that application has already been processed and i don't know if it i can't recall if it was Uh, not historically significant, but it was not certainly deemed preferably preserved. I don't know if it made it to that threshold decision or not, but this dwelling here will be demolished so that there are no setback issues to the rear of this property. I've discussed briefly with the building commissioner who I know is here this evening as well. And we've stipulated that certainly variance would have no effect. and would certainly not be used unless, of course, the ANR plan was recorded and the structure here was demolished as well to avoid any setback issues. But taking again this piece of land here,

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And now- Attorney Cabral, if you don't mind holding on for just one second, it looks like you've got a couple of questions. Yeah, I'm happy to answer.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Thank you. I do want to confirm I did speak with the assessor and we're going to be identifying this property and would appreciate if you would do in any decision you make as 145. Zero is sort of a catch-all number that often gets used when people aren't clear on what the address by the assessor, but we're referring to it as 145 Jerome from here on out.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Yes, Mike. Attorney Cabral, you may have indirectly answered my question. So am I correctly understanding that it's the demolition of that structure on the other lot that's gonna later enable you to do this A&R to construct things? Because it looks like if you add the space and leave the structure on the other lot, it would create issues where that lot would then be rendered like having too small of a rear yard.

[Mike Cabral]: Yeah. I don't know that the A&R is required and I may have misunderstood that, but yes, certainly next step is the A&R to create this actually as a 6,000 square foot lot, but only if assuming approval is given. Then after A&R, demolition would occur here before our client could apply for any building permit here. they would absolutely need to show the building commissioner that the A&R lot has been approved and recorded at the Registry of Deeds, and also that this structure here at 166 Arlington would have been demolished because, yes, you're correct. That would then pose a rear yard setback issue on this portion here, where if this structure remained, it certainly couldn't remain. I don't think it would encroach here, but it certainly would not have a rear yard setback that would satisfy zoning requirements at that point. So this is sort of the first step, next one being A&R plan to separate or to recreate a lot here of 6,000 square feet, demolition of 166 Arlington, and then apply for a building permits for what would be known as 145 Jerome into echo the building commissioner sentiment. There are several lots I think categorized on Jerome Street as zero Jerome. And so our client is happy to go back to the prior designation of 145 Jerome Street as well. Okay, thank you.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Great, thank you. Yes, Building Commissioner. Attorney Cabral and I did house a number of conversations about the concern about creating a nonconformity by moving that line before the house in front was removed. And he did suggest that we make it condition of any approval should you get to there that the sequencing be done so that we don't do that, which involves demolishing the house in front so we don't invertly grant a permit for a house on the other side. Where the lines have been moved and we've created some nonconformity. So there have been conversations about that. And I think he was open to conditions to sort of outline it carefully as you said, Mike.

[Mike Cabral]: Yes, absolutely, and I'm happy to stipulate that to the board as well, that the variance would be conditioned upon and could not be used unless and until the A&R lot is created, making this 6,000 square feet, and unless and until 166, the structure at 166 Arlington Street is also demolished. So I'm more than happy to stipulate that to this board as a condition of the variance, not only being granted the decision, but also for use, actual use of the variance as well. And I did supply, I didn't supply it to the board, but had the conversation with the building commissioner as well, as to there is case law and certainly statute does allow a variance, the use of it to be conditioned upon these type of items. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Member Caldera. Yeah, I guess that makes sense to me. My one kind of concern, and I'm not even sure, like, legally how this would work, is that, so I take it from Attorney Cabral's description that these lots are held in common ownership. They, I'm assuming, haven't merged yet. And so effectively, we would be, we're being asked to impose a condition on something that happens on a different lot that right now is within the applicant's control to do something about, but in principle like that, that would be attached to the land. So there'd be hypothetically a variance attached to lot 36 as depicted in this map that has a condition associated with lot three as depicted in this map. And I'm not entirely, it seems a bit wonky to me, and I'm not entirely sure how we'd write that into a decision, but I understand the ask.

[Mike Cabral]: Mr. Chair, to clarify, these lots are not in common ownership, just to be clear, and they will not be in common ownership either. But I do understand the point that you've made here. I will say that I think that there's case law that a condition on a variance is legal if it is also conditioned upon another event occurring as well, which I think would involve, again, an affiliated lot here, but certainly not one in common ownership.

without saying it's the same client, it would certainly be in control of the same individuals who essentially manage both entities that would own both lot three and a separate entity that would own lot 36 here. Okay. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Actually, I have a question, Attorney Cabral. In your estimation, the Arlington, when this is all done, the Arlington Street parcel, would it still be buildable as of right?

[Mike Cabral]: Yes, we believe it would be. We have not submitted plans to build on it yet, but the intention is to actually put a structure in this area over here so as to not run into what would then be the new rear lot line in this direction. Again, we have not submitted anything to the building commissioner, we've sat down and talked about some general schematics, but nothing's been set in stone. And we've shown that structure here meeting rear yard, side yard, and we certainly have the frontage and lot width satisfied on 166 Arlington Street as well.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, thank you. Chris. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to the applicant, You're saying that you don't have site control of this whole property for which you propose to redevelop?

[Chris D'Aveta]: You do. So you have an agreement with the owner, although it's not in common ownership. you've got the paperwork that supports site control?

[Mike Cabral]: Yes, site control express ability to seek permits for 145 Jerome Street.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay. So the second, I guess this may be a building commissioner question, but it's an odd shaped lot, correct? The Arlington Street lot? It's got a triangle that sort of extends, which makes it has quite a bit of frontage there, extends the frontage apparently. It's possibly not very buildable because of the narrowness of that structure there, of that shaped size there. I'm anticipating what you may come back with following if this is successful, which is, you know, what's the plausible buildable area of the lot left on Arlington Street?

Because if you take that structure away, You still have all this frontage there that would then allow the building, I imagine, to sort of stretch the other direction along Harlington Street.

[Mike Cabral]: Just to be clear, we're not seeking any relief for 166 Arlington, but the intention, I think, would be in the future to seek no relief at all with regard to 166 Arlington, that a structure would be put, if you could see my cursor, somewhere in this area here. Because it is an odd-shaped lot, that will actually leave a significant portion of 166 Arlington open for lack of a better word here, because you're right, it is an oddly shaped lot. You would start running into setback issues as you go towards this narrower space on 166 Arlington. But for purposes of this evening, our client is only seeking the single variance of lot width on what would be on this survey lot 36, and looking like this here. So again, no other dimensions actually changing except for an increase in the rear of the lot to bring this lot to a conforming lot area of 6,000 square feet. It does actually increase The width of this lot to 5934, but for zoning purposes, we use the shorter, more narrow area of 50 feet, therefore seeking a variance of 10 feet for the shortage on lot with. On the lot 36 here as well. So, because it's some land here is added and widened in the back, the largest width will be 59.34, just short of the 60 feet of lot width. But again, taking the narrowest area, that would be 50 feet across the lot.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, so I'm going to defer to the building commissioner to to sort of parse those numbers for us, because it looks, even in the back where that extends down your 59.34 feet, it does look like that is, what is the number that's going laterally up there, 16 feet, or is it?

[Mike Cabral]: just yes. Yes. From this abutting lot here, it would be 16 feet back here, but for setback purposes, the nearest point to the rear lot line is 23 plus feet where only 15 feet is required to the rear lot line here. It exceeds the dimensional requirement for the rear yard setback.

[Mike Cabral]: Okay, so it's actually exceeds front yard setback. It exceeds rear yard setback. It just satisfies side yard setback on this side exceeds side yard on this side satisfies lot area here. The structure itself will be below the maximum height of 35 feet at. 31 feet, the structure will be 2.5 stories as allowed and also meet the lot coverage requirement and supply the 3 required parking spaces. Again, leaving just the singular variance request of lot width And our client actually coincidentally had a 69 Jerome street before the board a couple of years ago with the same request for a 2 family on a lot that complied with all other. Dimensional requirements, except for lot with as well. And I know you said at the last hearing to no precedent is set by the board, but. We do know it has been 1 that the board has been. generously willing to grant in the past as well. So our only request tonight is for the single variance of Longworth.

[Chris D'Aveta]: I just, if one thing did occur to me, if I can just ask the question, although it's not relevant perhaps to your proposal tonight, but was there ever a consideration to keep the house, the existing house you proposed to demolish and extend it into the, adjacent lot that you own?

[Mike Cabral]: My understanding is that, um, this house is in significant disrepair. Um, there was a hoarding situation going on. It's very old and run down. And so this dwelling would need to be taken down in any event. Okay.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Um, so am I correctly understanding that in the absence of this, um, like of creating this, this new lot shape that, um, that you nothing, basically you couldn't build anything because it looks like it's, uh, even shorter than the. Lots lot to the to the left. So, so essentially, you'd have to to build something there. You have to anyway. Give some area and then And then this kind of weird shape is driven by the trying to get to 6,000. So it's not like you could build a one family on the existing lot. You need to kind of reshape a lot, no matter what.

[Mike Cabral]: Is that right? Oh, sorry. Yes. That's exactly right. This is an unbuildable lot right now. At 4,250 square feet, you can't build a single family on this lot either. So without assistance from someone surrounding this, and again, they're all separate owners, even 166 being a separate owner, this remains an unbuildable vacant lot of land, which it is right now, a vacant lot of land, because this does not satisfy even a lot size for a single family as well. And again, that is our request for variance because of the odd nature of this lot. And we could take into consideration this one as well, but this one giving the additional square footage here to actually make this a compliant 6,000 square foot lot due to the size shape of this lot. We think a variance can legally be granted here, seeking only the singular variance for the lot width. It also is an allowed use. Our client's proposing a two family house, two families require, it is a GR zone, requires 6,000 square feet, and that's why we wanted to get the lot up to at least the minimum of 6,000 square feet here. Again, the affiliated owner, so we'd have enough screening here, and there'd be screening along the sides of the property as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Any further questions by the board before we go into public comment? PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. Okay, Steve, do I have that right? That was very impressive. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_00]: And just name and name and address for the record. I'm Steve. We live at 149 Jerome street. So, we're right next door to where attorney Cabal's talking about the property. Yeah, so thanks for inviting us to be at the meeting. Yeah, it's just. I mean, so it's the 1st time I've seen any of this and I, I'm not a builder, so I'm just trying to get a sense of it. So we're. I mean, if we're coming down Jerome Street, we're on, I think we were on the lot that was, and looking at the diagram right to the right. And I'm just trying to get a read on, look, I mean, I totally understand. I'm happy to have neighbors and I never expected to have a vacant lot the whole time that I've been living here, but it just does seem like it's a little wonky lot. And I'm just concerned, like, how is it gonna look? I mean, is it gonna be like, right? I mean, we have a really big tree in our yard. I'm just concerned about, is that tree still gonna be able to survive there? Because it seems like the lot's not wide enough.

Yeah. I'm just, I mean, are we going to be like directly looking into people's windows, like right next door to us? Cause it seems like a lot just isn't big enough. Um, I mean, those are just some of the practical questions I have. I don't know if Heather wanted to say anything else.

[zdRFAfm1Rlg_SPEAKER_14]: I mean, I guess I'm just, I'm just wondering, like, it's not really big enough for a one family. And now we're talking about putting a two family in there. It just seems, uh, It seems like it's being squeezed in in a strange way just to make it work for the lot. But at the same time, there's really not the width right next to our house. So yeah, we're just kind of wondering how that's possible, like how we can, I don't know how we're going to have space to kind of make this work.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Are there other members of the public who would like to speak? I don't see any. I was going to ask Dennis, Mike, before I go to you, Dennis, are there any written comments that have been submitted?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just kind of related to that comment, I did have another clarifying question for Attorney Cabral. So am I correctly understanding, so it sounds like there's some ability to control the two lots, which allows constructing a larger lot than the present one. Am I correctly understanding that if you constructed a 5,000 square foot area lot, that you could have a house that effectively has the exact same footprint as what you're proposing here as a one family in this district? Because I think in the GR district, it's one family and two family. And I know the dimensions differ, the area, the width. I just want to understand, are you actually closer to the side than a bi-rite one family would be?

[Mike Cabral]: We actually, whether it's a single family or a two family, our client setbacks would exceed in all circumstances here with the exception of the lot width. Whether it was a single or a two, we are satisfying all the dimensional requirements to the abutters of the minimum of seven and a half feet. to the side and exceeding the threshold so it's not right on top of the street. It's set back I think a number was 18 and to the rear 23 feet so in terms of constructing on the lot it's not actually being crammed in it does satisfy all the dimensional requirements as well.

[Mike Caldera]: Okay got it so just to re kind of rephrase what I think I heard so lot width is one of the dimensional requirements. And for a two family, this is not wide enough to be allowed by right. But the ordinance also has side yard setback requirements. And so what's being proposed here satisfies those. So essentially, it's no closer than kind of any other by right house would be. So I just wanted to to clarify that for the neighbors, because they have concerns. There will be a house there, and there's not one presently. But it seems that what's being proposed isn't encroaching on your side yard more than any other house would, if that makes sense.

[Mike Cabral]: Mr. Chair, if I may? Yes. Just speak to the concerns about our client certainly does not want to remove and will not remove any existing trees that are on your property. Our client's going to stay wholly with on this lot and I'm sure would be glad to talk to you about screening or additional trees or a fence or the type of fence that you might like to see as well. Our client has always been open to those kind of conversations and very willing to work with neighbors as well. So I'm more than happy to pass that along and could certainly have him drop you a note and reach out to you if you'd like that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. We're still officially in the public comment period. So let me just say one more time. Are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? Is there a motion to close the public comment period and move into deliberations? I motion to close the public comment period and enter deliberation. Thank you. Is there a second?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, the public comment period is closed and we've entered deliberations. What do the board members think? Yes, Chris?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, I'd like to um, ask either Dennis or, uh, uh, building commissioner Vanderbilt about what the legal issues are surrounding a property that, um, is under two different ownerships. And the application is predicated on, um, approval of a variance for, um, under two different owners and what we need to, you know, if the backside, if Dennis has probably seen this in all those years on the ZBA administration, you know, what do we need to consider from our standpoint?

[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, Scott, do you want to take that one? This conversation did come up with attorney Cabral. He did send me a case I believe dated 2019 in which a very similar condition occurred and the judge upheld it with a lengthy rebuttal or left the explanation. And I'm presuming we can refer to that case again in any decision we make if we have to, but yes, it was a decision predicated on the variance could not be used or enacted until another condition was met and it was upheld.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Thanks. And I do have a different question. I might as well ask it now. What about impervious area relative to the adjoining properties or, you know, since this is to a rather narrow lot and they want a driveway on one side, which I imagine will be impervious, What are the requirements from our building code and from our zoning code that require?

[Scott Vandewalle]: Our codes don't speak to it specifically, but under the DPW and engineering department, anything in excess of 200 square feet of new impervious area requires a stormwater plan. So that will count the house footprint, The driveways are required not to be made out of pervious product. They're required in zoning to be made out of stone or gravel or some other thing. So they will have a pervious driveway and they will have a stormwater management plan in place to control their stormwater going to the neighbors in any fashion.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, so that essentially what I am asking is the side that abuts the neighbors would be a pervious surface. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[Mary Lee]: My concern is in the event of litigation for future property owners, what will be the impact of the decision of this board in the event that there's a litigation on the dispute of this property? Because I would hate for our decisions to make an impact on this legally, because no one can guarantee whether this property may be litigated or not, not for these owners or for future owners.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Although, I mean, once the A&R subdivision is approved, then there shouldn't be any legal issue with the lot itself. I'm not sure if I'm capturing what your concern is, Mary. But Scott's also raised his hand, so let me let him jump in.

[Scott Vandewalle]: I don't think it would be an A&R. An A&R is meant for the creation of new lots and verifying minimal frontage. We're past that point. I think this is just a deed swap, parcel A, parcel B. You move the property line around a little bit, they create two new parcels. Should not have to go for an A&R. So it's common practice to move lot lines to create lots.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Attorney Cabral, did you want to say something? I saw you unmuted.

[Mike Cabral]: Just in terms of litigation itself, and again, I think I had a question as well trying to clarify in terms of 166 Arlington and 145 Jerome, and if that's the case, you know, our client does have. site control there, and our client is willing to certainly stipulate to the board and abide by the board's decision here to make the variances dependent upon those conditions of the lot being 6,000 square feet, of course, and then the demolition of the structure at 166 Arlington. And because our client and its affiliate will have control over both parcels, I suppose I can never say never, right? I'm a lawyer, but the odds of litigation here are very minimal.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Do other board members have thoughts about the case? Yes, Mike.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So my position for a while has been that in a GR district, if there's a lot that could accommodate a one family that doesn't meet the dimensional requirements for a two family, that the intent of the, zoning ordinances that it should cap out at a one family. So, you know, so in this case, it's kind of strange in that if there isn't this deed swap, nothing can be built there. In general, I think, you know, building on vacant lots, you know, if we can kind of make them the right size is a good thing for Medford.

Here it's, It's configured in a way that could almost support a two family, but it's not wide enough. So I would be more comfortable with there being a one family on that. I think you could construct a less weird lot and get to essentially a bi-rate one family. I know other members of the board haven't agreed with me in past cases on that, but that's kind of my current thinking. I also, I do want to point out that if there were a case related to the other lot in the future that was claiming the size of the lot or the shape of the lot was unusual and therefore presented a hardship, insofar as it was made more unusual by this decision, I would consider that to be a self-created hardship.

I think it's kind of hard for the city to completely audit that. So I don't think we should base our decision on that aspect. But I do just want to say that the lot's already unusual. The other lot, this makes it more unusual. And so I would hope that whatever building is planned for that lot would not then require an additional variance that could have been avoided by making this lot smaller and taking less area away from the other lot.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yes, to pick up on what Mike is saying, and to reiterate the point I made earlier, just from a planning perspective, it seems to make more sense to me to keep the existing house renovated down to the studs. And we know that many of these renovations are basically demolitions that keep a few feet of the wall left and extend the existing house back into the lot that is in question here. thereby creating the couple of units that they desire. I do differ with Mike in the sense that I'm not opposed to the one versus two or even three units being created there. But it seems to me that that would be the more amenable uh, solution. I know we're not voting on that, and it's not a, uh, something where I'm trying to play developer here, but I'm just, um, thinking what is the least, um, you know, um, dramatic change that could happen there. And that seems to be, you know, keeping the existing structure, extending it, um, and to create those two last because we're talking about raising that structure entirely. So there's not going to be another unit there. We have one existing unit now, and all you would be trying to create is another unit, essentially. So that's my suggestion. I'm kind of a hard time supporting this as it stands right now. Thank you.

[Mike Cabral]: Yes, just so the affiliate of our client who owns 166 will not be seeking any variances. They own that lot already. If they had intended to, I think they would have done that. They've put their. sort of proposed box on that and understand that they can build as of right on 166 Arlington. As to Mr. DeVita's point as to extending it back, that's exactly what happened at 69 Jerome Street, where we actually also required a variance for lot width, because if that house I'm saying this is in a possibility because it's just never going to happen, but if hypothetically, if these two entities join these lots and extended back, that would actually still require a variance for lot width. Because 145 Jerome does not have the 60 feet of lot width to support the two family, even taking the house at 166 and extending it back, there would still be a dimensional non-conformity there that would require a lot with variants, which again was exactly the case at 69 Jerome Street. But here, 145 Jerome Street is proposing to add some additional units For the city of Medford in a zone where a 2 family is allowed, and, you know, our feeling is these lot with variances have been. Allowed in the past it, especially being in this case here, where it's the only variance requested in there's being. In a lot otherwise, and I can't speak for my client, but certainly.

Some amount of land will be needed for somebody in the future to build on 145 Jerome Street. And if the variance is not granted, my client has to make a economic determination as to whether obviously their contract with the underlying owner makes sense. At that point in time, and I certainly can't speak to that, but I certainly know that the city is looking for additional housing units, and this would allow that additional housing on what would be a conforming lot other than the lot with here. Thank you.

[Mike Caldera]: Uh, Mike. Yeah, I mean, the 1 thing I do certainly feel comfortable saying is is that, uh. I believe it would be a hardship to, to disallow anything being built on a lot of this configuration. So I think, uh, like that, that's essentially what's there's a specific proposal that's before us and it's a specific use, but, um, like essentially the analysis is if this lot shape existed today, uh, you know, would it be a hardship to literally enforce the zoning ordinance? And so I'm comfortable getting to that saying no to any building on that lot. That would be a hardship. I just, like I said, you know, I have a particular interpretation of the ordinance when it comes to the use.

[Yvette Velez]: I'll share. I'll chime in right now. Um, I actually appreciate that the what is being proposed is complimentary to the neighborhood. I do see that for these additional housing, I'm appreciating that they have enough plenty of parking for what would happen. And then if they were able to get that other piece of land, obviously, everything would be in conforming regards to like, Their neighbors and so to me, that's not a detriment again to the neighborhood. I do feel like they have it. You know, 1. You know, a chicken or, you know, which 1 comes 1st, right? And then, but I do think it's written and.

They have the documentation to move forward with this, so I'm not at all opposed to moving forward because I think it makes sense, again, in the area, in the space, the dimensions of the lots and the fact that all folks are willing to work. also even conceded to offering to the neighbors of like oh you can even ask about the fencing which of course I know that cannot be part of that and nobody would be obligated to some extent write that down by any means but I feel for the most part you know that everyone seems willing to work with folks. So I think something good will come of this. And so, so overall, I would be in favor of a project like this, because there are going to be certain spots throughout the city, they're going to be a little harder to navigate and so we need to make, you know, as part of our work here on the board. I think it is our job to some extent to approve things of this nature.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Yvette. Jim or Mary? Yeah, Mary, you're unmuted.

[Mary Lee]: Yeah. I think I'm in agreement with Yifan. I think it's a great project, but I do have concerns about the property rights of future potential owners that could bring this into dispute. And I do also have concerns about our decision on whether that may impede the rights, the property owners of future. I mean, that may be too speculative, but regardless, legally, it would make an impact. Our decision will make an impact on that. So based on that reasoning, I would be hesitant to have this move forward.

[Unidentified]: At this time, I'm not convinced. I sort of like the idea of a single family. So I'm not quite convinced on the proposal. I'm not actually in favor of it. At this time.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you, Jim. My personal perspective on this is that, you know, I think, as Mike said, it's an unbuildable lot right now. That does represent a hardship and a basis for providing a variance, which we have done in the past. And, you know, I think the question that I'm hearing from all of you is, or some of you is one family versus two family. Attorney Cabral, if this variance weren't given and the property owners in question kind of did their swap, would a single family be able to be constructed on that site as of right now?

[Mike Cabral]: Not as of right and not if a property swap did not occur. I can't say that our client who has 145 Jerome under an agreement would even proceed at that point in time. which would revert the lot back to the unbuildable lot as to just over 4,000 square feet. But even if I said hypothetically, sure, yes, or someone will, the land swap would still need to occur. I would imagine at that point, That, well, someone needs to come back before this board anyways for another variance.

I guess that depends on the size of the lot. How much land is someone willing to give up to make that a buildable lot or not at all? Would they just try to come in and seek a variance for a single family on a small lot, which then actually increases the density because The setbacks may not work on the small lot. So now you're building a structure on an undersized lot and you might be seeking more variances than just a lot of area at that point in time as well. So I can only speculate. as well. I'd like to answer the question or get at more about potential legal effects on future owners and the board member Lee's question on that, but I would suggest that that happens every time a variance is granted, that that now runs with the land and all future owners are aware of that and those decisions are recorded at the registry of deeds. So anytime this board acts, there are implications on future owners, but if there are specific concerns, I'm sort of happy to answer those to see if I could satisfy what those litigation concerns might be. But even if we go back to 166 Arlington, 166 Arlington still has plenty of square footage to support a two-family house in a GR district as well.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, thanks for that, Mike. Could you, if you wouldn't mind, could you share that screen one more time just to show the layout and the amount of lean you're taking? Yes.

[Mike Cabral]: Okay, great. So this is the current configuration here, this being 145 at just over 4,000 square feet. Lot three here, 166 is just over 9,000. And then if I go to the proposed site plan for, this is now 145 Jerome, Jerome Street here, the additional land is being added to the rear of this property to bring it to the 6,000 square feet. So to get to the other points being made is, let's say the structure is somewhere around here. If that structure was kept, and I'm not, it's, This is a hypothetical, because I can assure you it's not going to happen. And brought to the rear, this again, we get into a lot with issue, because this is only 50 feet across, whereas if another structure was attached to be made a two-family front to back, the same variances is required here. Not only that, but you now have a 1,300 square foot lot, Personally, I'm not sure it's a great use of that lot area for only two units when the GR district allows the two family by right.

[Mike Cabral]: And I would say for to get this lot at 145 Jerome being 4200 square feet, either. this lot, this lot, or there's only three that would actually be able to grant lot area here to make this a conforming lot. Otherwise someone's always coming in and asking for at least one variance and possibly more, depending on the setbacks that they would be proposing on the lot. Thank you, Mike. Thank you.

[Mary Lee]: So Attorney Cabral, the SWAT hasn't occurred yet, right? That's correct. Okay. And what was the case that the building commissioner cited, or do you have the citation for that case?

[Mike Cabral]: I do. One moment. This is Green v. Zoning Board of Appeals of South Borough. It is a 2019 case, as the building commissioner stated, 96 Massachusetts Appeals Court, 126. Jonathan Green v. Zoning Board of Appeals of South Borough. And that decision will deal with the conditioning of a variance on something else occurring. It also, our statute, 40A, allows variances to be conditioned as well. So not only is there statutory authority for it, but this case law supports, it goes even further, I would say, to clarify the statutory language that some other event must occur for this variance to be effective.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And nothing can be built on the site. There can be no building permit until these issues are resolved.

[Mike Cabral]: Yeah, yes. Our client would not only stipulate to that for 145 Jerome, but also stipulate, because our related entity is under full ownership at 166 Arlington, that that structure on 166 must be demolished 1st. And again, our client has already gone through the historical commission for that structure. And it was not deemed or was not put into demolition delay.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I think just to summarize here to try to move this along, we're in a situation where there's a lot with variance being requested that would be conditioned on having a 6,000 square foot lot created and on the demolition of the property on Arlington Street. The alternative to that is that no building occur if we deny the variance. Yeah, Chris.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Well, it's relative, correct? I mean, that no building would occur because the proposal could be for a one family, one unit. house on that property would be smaller than the proposed structure that we're looking at today.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That would require more variances. Because my understanding is that this particular land swap is dependent on the construction of 2 homes. I assume there's a financial transaction involved. But that's, we can't really evaluate that, but we can say that there's. It may not happen at all. Uh, if in the future, someone may come back with a proposal for a single family home, it would be on a smaller lot requiring more, uh, variances.

[Chris D'Aveta]: No, I understand that part. It's just that, um, the, um, It may be a little more nuanced, I suppose. But if that were to not occur, and I know that we're not considering that tonight, but we have looked favorably upon smaller constructions over the years, at least the couple of years that I've been on here. So yeah, there's no, that's just conjecture at this point.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so really we should try to limit our, you know, we should try to limit our deliberation to the ask that's at hand, which is to grant the lot with variance or not, essentially. And is it consistent with what we've done in the past? Is it consistent with the city's zoning ordinance, housing plan, et cetera? Does it meet the requirements of a variance, which are hardship, unique circumstances related to the soil shape or topography of the lot?

whether the strict enforcement of the bylaw would cause substantial hardship to the petitioner, and whether relief can be granted without detriment to the public good. So those are the, you know, that's the criteria that the board needs to consider.

[Mary Lee]: And Andre, so the financial transaction that you alluded to earlier is contingent upon the decision of the score on the grand event.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That was my speculation, but my understanding from what Attorney Cabral is saying is that there will not be, there's not a backup proposal to do a single family home. Would that be a correct characterization, Attorney Cabral?

[Mary Lee]: So, so just just to clarify, so the decision of this for. It's sounds like it's quite important and substantial. To the financial. For a 2nd, there were there the primary financial. Well, we really that's just that's just my concern. I mean. You know, I just want to clarify that if. If our. If the decision of this board is going to impact on the applicants financial decision, that's I have, I have an issue with the, I mean, the way that the attorney Cabral stated, you know, how.

That's not, I mean, I don't feel like that's the decision of this board or the responsibility of this board.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, 1 of the 3 criteria that we that the variance has to meet is proving hardship. financial or otherwise. And so I think what Attorney Cabral is saying is that the owner of the lot at 145 Jerome would suffer a financial hardship by not being able to develop the lot.

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Mike. Yeah, I mean, that was basically what I was raising my hand to say. So like, from my view, the present lot without the trade, uh, is unbuildable. And, uh, you know, it's unusual in it being so small. The new lot, while the shape of it is, you know, at least partly in control of the applicant, uh, you know, it's still, um, like there's no, there's no way that the applicant can make some of the dimensional issues with the lot go away. So I think the lot, it's fair to say the lot is unusual and the hardship is the inability to build on it. And so, yeah, I would recommend as a board, we steer clear of speculating about alternate scenarios. Here it's the applicants claiming the shape of the lot is a hardship for this proposal to build a two-family, and I think for the most part, that's sufficient for us to weigh in.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mike. Jim, did you want to move ahead with your motion?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, the adjacent property on Arlington Street. and also the creation of a 6,000 square foot lot.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Mike. Roll call. And for the purposes of voting, again, the associate members will be voting. So it'll be Mary and Chris. Jim? Aye. Yvette?

[Mike Cabral]: Thank you all. Mr. Chair and Dennis, would you like me to submit a proposed decision to the board for consideration?

[Denis MacDougall]: I think at least with the conditions, because we are actually, with the Commissioner and I, we've been working on a sort of a, through the CitizenServe, a way to do that. But I think just if you could write down the conditions in referencing the 2019 case. Yeah, exactly. I think that would be extremely helpful for us in that instance. Yes, we'll do it. I think just that part of it in particular. Actually, Scott.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, he sort of laid this out in our exchange of emails. And I think he could carry that forward, present it to us, the case, the sequencing as discussed, but in better detail.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you very much. Uh, Dennis, uh, I think we have, uh, the next and final item on the agenda.

[Denis MacDougall]: 42 Dexter Street. Applicant Dan Holzer, as owner, seeks to convert the property at 42 Dexter from an existing garage into an engineering services business, which is not allowed use in the general residence zone per the City Measures Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table A, Table of Use and Parking Regulations, requiring a special permit from the Board of Appeals.

[SPEAKER_19]: Cool. So yeah, my name is Dan Holzer. I'm a Medford resident and business owner. And I'm here with Derek Stevens, who currently owns the property that we're going to talk about right now. I do have a couple of slides prepared that I can put up on the screen, if that's OK. That would be great. Thank you. You're all set, Dan. Great. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_19]: Is this coming through okay? Yes. Okay, great. So just a quick overview of what I'm going to talk about. I'll speak a little bit about the use change for my business to operate out of 42 Dexter Street, mainly because we're growing and outgrowing our current space in Medford and seeking to stay in Medford. Also, I'll give an intro to Ground-Up Innovation, so the business, what we do. I'll talk about some of the business operations info and how the community might be impacted. I'll also mention some of the past uses so folks can understand what the building's been used for in the past. And then lastly, talk about what I plan to do in this space.

Let's see. Okay. So I put a map here to show you. It's actually pretty close by where we are currently. So the business currently is at 86 Morton Ave in Medford. We're in a space that's a little bit under 3,000 square feet. It's a single story, single block building. It's zoned GR General Residence. So I did need to get a similar approval in the past for the business to operate out of our current space, which is shown on the map. There's a little orange box. It's on the left side of the map photo. 42 Dexter Street is the other orange square towards the right. It's around 6,800 square feet. It's a single-story center block building zoned GR. And so that's why we're here today to talk about the use.

So a little bit about the business ground of innovations. We're an engineering services company. We help startups to design and prototype their technology or their products. Our clients are tech startups in the Boston area. And I founded the company in 2020, made it here in Medford. Now we have five full-time employees, and we also plan to welcome an intern this summer from Tufts University, a mechanical engineering student. Our company's mission is to bring meaningful products to life so we don't necessarily develop our own products, but we help our clients to develop their products and kind of fast track them towards, you know, to hit the market sooner. Our projects typically start on a, you know, sitting at the desk at our laptops, we might be doing CAD drafting or engineering design. And they end with us delivering typically a physical prototype to our client.

Our clients can be found in startup incubators like Green Town Labs or MIT's Engine or Mass Robotics, which are facilities that house and where a lot of small startups operate. I do have a couple examples of work that we've done in the past. One that I can mention is the image on the bottom right. That's a robot river that we designed and prototyped for picking up batteries to go through an inspection process. There's a local startup working on a novel battery inspection technology that can actually extend the life of batteries. And so, you know, maybe like an electric vehicle battery's life could be extended using that company's technology. And, you know, that's an example of something we're helping them to achieve.

As far as business operations goes, there's a couple items I'll step through here. Hours of operation are pretty much normal business hours. I put here 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. I know the parking is a consideration. We've got five employees, three are T-accessible, and sometimes you take the T in. 42 Dexter Street also has three or four parking spots available on the property. As far as trash goes, we don't generate a ton of trash. We currently use residential, you know, the green bins that folks have that we have at our house in Manford.

As far as deliveries and trucks coming by, we do get regular deliveries from UPS and Amazon. Box truck deliveries are much less frequent. And then we rarely do get a freight delivery where a large truck might come by and drop some material off for us. As far as visitors coming by, we sometimes do host our clients, maybe one, two, three times a week that might happen. It might be the CTO or CEO of one of these startups, or it might be an engineer coming by to pick up a prototype we created.

And as far as daily activities goes, things that are kind of happening within the business, it's engineering design, 3D printing, light manufacturing, assembly, And for that reason, our space would be split between office space and our prototyping area. And then lastly, generating noise. Yeah, we do use some power tools, light manufacturing equipment. All this work happens indoors and is not audible from outdoors. We've been operating out of our current space for a number of years now, and we've been having success without any complaints from the neighbors.

So I'll go through some acceptable uses of the past, or I guess start with what it currently is. It's currently being used for vehicle storage by a towing company. In the past, this space has been used for auto repair by a commercial glass shop, and it's been used as a plumbing and heating kind of base of operations or something like that. So now moving to our our plans for the space. So this is a rendering of what we might like it to look like. We might like to put some windows in to get some more natural light into the space and clean it up so it's a nice place for us to work and a nice place to host our clients occasionally.

As far as layout goes on the inside, I'm not sure if everybody can read this, but I can step through it quickly. You know there's two overhead doors. It's actually two separate spaces. The smaller space on the right side of the layout is currently leased to someone that has mostly kind of storage in there. So that would probably continue because we don't need the full space at this time. And the larger space I have a planned layout here right inside the garage door would be our receiving area with some storage and shipping supplies towards the right would be the office where we'd have our bathroom, desks, meeting room and kitchen area. Towards the back, there'd be a light fabrication area, also a separate area where we would do our 3D printing and maybe some part inspections where we have some inspection tools.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Then in the middle of the space- Excuse me, Dan. Would it be possible to go into presentation mode just to make it a little bit bigger?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, for sure. I'm sharing the wrong thing. Hang on. I can try and change it real quick. Is that coming through better now? Oh, no, it's the same.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, sorry about that. Well, I can probably just try and zoom in instead.

[Yvette Velez]: Can you point out, since you have the planned layout, where the trash would actually go? Because I know in the pictures you previously showed, I saw barrels in the front, but then in the tentative, what it would look like if you took it over, you'd have plantings.

[SPEAKER_19]: Maybe Derek could say that. Do you know where the trash barrels typically go?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah. So I haven't thought about exactly where they would go, but maybe that makes sense, just to put them out on Thursdays, yeah.

[Yvette Velez]: So then in your workspace, where would you put them? They don't look like they would fit.

[SPEAKER_19]: Probably right inside, just inside the overhead door, towards the left where it says storage and shipping.

[Yvette Velez]: And then I guess you'll go into this, I assume later, but my question would be regarding the trash. I know you said it right now, it's pretty small and you're using residential bins, but when you go into what you actually fabricated, I assume that waste would be like electronic waste and wires and maybe even like chemical waste, like solvents and things of that nature. And then-

[SPEAKER_19]: We don't generate chemical waste. We work on hardware, so it's a lot of mechanical engineering, some electrical engineering, so maybe there will be some wires, yeah, and some small pieces of metal if we're cutting metal. The waste, I don't see it growing really. Yeah, we do have a partnership with a metal recycling company, so the metal waste does go to recycling. Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, I think that this space would allow us to grow a little bit, but not enough that we would have a dumpster. I don't think there's even, yeah, there's no real plans for anything like that.

This was my last slide. The final slide is just my content info and time for questions.

[SPEAKER_19]: Sure. So it includes 3D printing prototypes, which is done in plastic. We use a material called PLA that's actually a cornstarch-based plastic. We would also be maybe cutting and shaping metal. I can go back to the slide where there's some photos. So I mentioned that one project on the bottom right. So there were some small aluminum parts, metal parts that we cut. To the left of that is a 3D printed prototype that we made. So those are plastic parts, kind of tabletop parts.

Above that is an electrical panel. That's actually a control panel for a carbon capture system that we made that was delivered to Somerville. So that's a system that actually works to clean the air. And this is the control panel for that. So to build something like that, We purchased all the components, all the off-the-shelf components. We wired them together. And then there's a small controller that would require a little bit of software in order to actually perform the actions that it needs to and do some data collection.

[SPEAKER_19]: The dimensions of that, it would fit on a tabletop, maybe two and a half feet. wide by 18 inches tall by six inches deep something like that.

[Mary Lee]: And what kind of waste would something like that generate or and how much waste would it generate?

[SPEAKER_19]: The type of waste that this would generate would be from maybe cutting and terminating small wires, the cardboard that, you know, when you purchase these components, we recycle the cardboard that, you know, boxes they came in. A project like that, yeah, we really wouldn't generate more than that.

[Mary Lee]: And then would you say that that's the largest light manufacturing dimension? Or could it be larger?

[SPEAKER_19]: Not necessarily. Sometimes we do some larger projects. We've done some work for electric vehicle charging stations that might be a little bit larger than that. But it's hard to say dimensionally how big that would be. Can I ask if there's a specific concern I can help address?

[Mary Lee]: I'm just trying to get an idea about the waste these projects would generate.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Dan, maybe you could explain what prototyping is, what kind of manufacturing that is. Are you manufacturing a lot of things or is this one or two versions? Yeah, exactly.

[SPEAKER_19]: So a lot of these startups, they have their idea, they're working on their technology and their designs, they might hire us to help in that design. And then they might, you know, continue to work with us to manufacture that first prototype. So This example with the robotic gripper, that company didn't have a team of engineers. And so we acted as their engineering design team. We created 3D designs using CAD software that we've got, and then created the manufacturing prints. The photo on the top right is an example of a manufacturing print. And then from there, we built this gripper. And so we would buy the piece of aluminum that would then be cut up into, in this case, four pieces.

We would cut it down to size, drill some holes in it so that we could thread those holes and then assemble that into the system that's there. And then we bolted that to the black piece that is above, which is part of the robotic arm that my customer purchased so that that kind of click on. And so the machines that we're using, you know, we would use a saw to cut the metal, and then it might go into another machine to smooth everything out.

We could create the threads using a tool called a tap, which is a kind of hand tool to create the threads in the aluminum, and then, yeah, nuts and bolts to assemble it all together.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So does Mary, does that help you address like the waste question? I don't think this is this isn't like assembly line manufacturing or anything.

[Mary Lee]: Yeah, I got it. It sounds like just a prototype for a sample. You're trying to just produce a sample for manufacturing.

[SPEAKER_19]: A lot of times it's like that so that they can do some testing. and make sure that it works the way it needs to work. And then our customers would typically work with what's called a contract manufacturer to do high volume production of their product or whatever they're working on. And so part of our goal is to help them to make enough progress so that we can then introduce them to those contract manufacturers that have teams of assemblers and production staff and, you know, Once they have lots of success, they move on to those folks.

[Mary Lee]: And the waste generated, it's typically just recyclable, right? Nothing toxic or that requires industrial disposal.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, that's correct. We do recycle any metal scraps and any plastic, any cardboard. So there's no chemical waste or hazardous material waste. We're not chemical engineers and we're not dealing with those types of processes. We're mechanical and electrical engineers primarily. And we do work with a lot of climate tech companies that are trying to improve environmental impact of technologies. And so because of that, and because we believe in that, we believe in kind of environmental sustainability. And when we do source our materials and when we do dispose of materials, we're really mindful of the impact of that full cycle kind of carbon footprint And so it's something that's always on our minds. And yeah, I appreciate the questions there.

[Yvette Velez]: Thank you. Can I chime in again regarding? So I'm trying to find these slides. I don't think that we got these updated slides in the filing papers. So you're saying that there's only going to be the increase of employees. You're only going to have about three to five cars. Is that what I understood you to say earlier? And where exactly would you? Because I know the neighborhood is a little tight with parking and whatnot. And so it's just because right now, obviously, it's used as towing. So people aren't like parking in the way. And I, I saw that again, you're showing that you're improving the building by flower pots, possibly and things of that nature, but then that would take away. I think your parking spots. So I'm trying to just get a better gauge of like, where are you parking your employees? And then your lease next door, do they have employees? And like, are they going to be parking additional cars? Because I don't see realistically, you could put flowerpots there, right? Like it's not going to fit, especially because you have a fire hydrant to the left bottom.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, yeah. My plan would be to put something pretty, pretty skinny, to be honest. In our current space, we have a nice skinny planter where we can put some flowers out front. And so I do like that idea. But ultimately, our plan would be to have cars out front, where I think sometimes there's currently cars out front.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And just to just to be clear too, and maybe this will help answer your question of it, but. There it is currently being used as a garage, so there are inside. I mean, inside right? So, like, the garage doors open and I believe what they're saying is that there's room to park 3 cars. Inside the garage doors, and that doesn't include the outdoor space in front of the garage doors.

[SPEAKER_19]: No, we wouldn't be planning for employees to park inside the building.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Oh, I see. So that is the outside. I'm trying to understand where these cars are. Is that inside space or outdoor space?

[SPEAKER_19]: But before the street, there's the driveway, if you will. So the street is below this area.

[Yvette Velez]: And is your leasing space folks going to have employees too? No. Are they also parking?

[SPEAKER_08]: They actually own the properties across the street, the houses, the three houses. And this is some of that plow equipment that's just like dead storage. That one goes into the building. So there would be no employees.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Any other clarifying questions before we move on to the public comment? All right. Seeing none. Dan, do you mind not sharing your screen? Thank you. Let's open the public comment period. Are there members of the community that would wish to speak on this topic? All right, I don't see anybody. Dennis, are you back? I know you have to step away for a moment.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, I'm here. And then we did receive a letter from Rita. So it's actually from Kayla Meros, our economic development planner for the city, and as follows, just read into record. Dear commissioners, on behalf of the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, I'm writing in support of Groundup Innovation's application for use variance at 42 Dexter Street. This project seeks to retain an important business within Medford and activate a longtime underutilized parcel. As the economic development planner for the city, I attest that this project would deliver several important economic benefits for Medford and improve upon past uses. Ground Up Innovations is a Medford-based engineering and manufacturing firm located at 86 Morton Street since 2020. The firm works closely with startups and small companies, providing services such as engineering, design, prototyping, product commercialization, low-volume manufacturing, and fabrication. For over a year, this firm has been searching for a new location within Medford to accommodate its growing business. GroundUp Innovations plays an important role in the local economy. It drives job creation, attracts investment, and supports regional growth. The firm helps startups bring products to market more quickly and efficiently. As a result, this work strengthens the regional innovation economy. It also contributes to the creation and retention of high-skill, high-wage jobs in engineering and manufacturing, both directly and indirectly. By supporting startups, creating high-skilled jobs, and contributing to innovation, the company provides broader economic value to the community. Further, ground-up innovation seeks to activate an otherwise underused property which should enhance neighborhood vitality while being less detrimental compared to other industrial and commercial uses. In regard to land use, the proposed industrial use scenario represents a modern and economically relevant evolution of the building's historic function. While situated in general residential, the former operations were auto-oriented businesses for both storage and repair. Auto-oriented uses generally produce noise and pollution while artisanal fabrication and engineering are less detrimental in its outputs. This can be evidenced by ground-up innovation six-year tenancy within an existing residential neighborhood with minimal disruption to the health and safety of its neighbors.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you very much, Dennis. So the ask before us is for a special permit. There is an existing non-conforming use that has been on the site for quite a while now. And so the special permit would enable the change in the non-conforming use to continue, albeit in a different form. So, and the threshold that we need to evaluate this for is whether there would be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood around it. There's no more public comments, so is there a motion to close the public comment period and move into deliberations?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to close the public comment and enter deliberations.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.

[Yvette Velez]: the neighborhood companies grow and I do think it is a good building for this. My only concern is the parking for the neighborhood and the neighbors versus employees. I don't feel, I'm not quite sure if I got like a clarity on that in regards to if that was enough or adequate parking. But other than that, I mean, clearly the city's supportive and, you know, if we feel good as a board overall, then, you know, I would probably be, I would still be in favor of this.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, actually, I do. And to follow up on what Yvette is saying, I don't know if I missed it or not, but if those garage doors are not active, can the employees park in front of them on the street?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, that is, um. It is an option to park and block the garage door, and it wouldn't even need to be on the street. Those could just be additional spots on the property.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, and the. The question I really wanted to ask was, um, to the building commissioner, I guess, through you, Mr. chair is. We this is a use that's not allowed, but it has been. in continuous enough use that we're just seeking a special permit for a continuation of a non-conforming use and not a use variance, is that correct?

[Scott Vandewalle]: Uh, actually what we're doing is chapter 94 dash 5.2 0.1, which says changing from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use because neither one is in a residential neighborhood, which is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. When a special permit is granted out of this section, no use variance shall be required with regard to use. So you're changing from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use as substantially, not more detrimental.

[Chris D'Aveta]: And the building has been in use, so it's not that vacant. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm good. I'll do a great project. Great.

[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Mike. Yeah, just chiming in to say I don't think this change in use would be substantially more detrimental. It seems like a really great business.

[Unidentified]: I also agree that it's not a substantial change, and I tend to be in favor of it. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. You're welcome.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Also note that there is a, so I was looking at the Google street view. And so there is one residential home on one side, but on the other side, there is a commercial building as well, which doesn't appear to have any parking. I think there's multiple storefronts there. I'm just on the parking issue. All right, is there further deliberation or do we have a motion on the floor?

[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to approve the special permit for the change in use. Thanks, Mike. Is there a second?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. A unanimous vote. We have approved the special permit for a change in non-conforming use.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you guys. Great company, really proud that you're here in Medford. Thank you.

[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you, me too. And Dan, I know you were on the call earlier, but once the decision is written and filed in the clerk's office, same thing as before, that'll start a 20 days appeals period. And then once that 20 days appeals period is done, you get what's called a letter of no appeal, as long as there's no appeal. And then you have to file the decision at the registry of deeds, and then come back to city hall with that letter of no appeal and the notification that you filed it at the registry, and then you can get your permit. Okay, understood. Thanks, Dennis.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you guys. Dennis, any additional administrative updates or other last-minute items?

[Denis MacDougall]: The only other thing is the January and February meeting minutes that I submitted, sent to you all. I think we can get those approved.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Have folks had the chance to read those and feel comfortable voting at this time?

[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Mike. Yeah, I reviewed those minutes and find them to be in order.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Any other comments, or do we have a motion to approve?

[Denis MacDougall]: And I'm not quite sure why my camera keeps on zooming in and out. I did something to the camera, and it's been driving me crazy since I came back. And I don't really know what I did. Because I'm not touching a single thing and it just, every once in a while, it zooms in and zooms out and it's wildly distracting. So I apologize for that, but it's been happening.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Um, all right. So I think, uh, any, anything else, Dennis?

[Denis MacDougall]: No, just also, but while I have the floor, I think I've said it before, but again, thanks to Mike for everything he's done for the last four years. I know he was sort of thrust into the chair wildly quickly and not the best of ideal circumstances. So, you know, thanks so much for taking over at the time and for everything you've done.

[Mike Caldera]: Absolutely. It's been a pleasure working with you all. I really appreciate it. So thanks folks.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Always been incredibly prepared. Really appreciate it. Harmon Zuckerman, PB — He, Him, His): All right, well, so Mike, this is your last meeting.

[Mike Caldera]: Is that correct, yeah, it's so Dennis, we can chat offline, but it's it's my preference and intention to just formally file my resignation effective end of the term on the 31st but You can let me know if you'd want me to continue on for a short period.

[Denis MacDougall]: Okay. That may happen just because there, I don't know how many people were watching the council meeting a few weeks ago with there is with the appointment of new members. There's because now all it used to be just the mayor would just make an appointment and now they have to get council approval. So there's been some discussion for every board and commission, not just us. So it's that just sort of started. And at the first meeting, there was a bit of a, I'll be trying to be genteel. It was nothing got passed. Nobody was appointed. And so everything got delayed and everything got held up. So I think they're trying to work on what's the best way to proceed with that.

[Denis MacDougall]: Not to be mistaken for a brouhaha. Yes. So that's. It's it's. Until that gets settled. It's possible, but I'll let you all know offline. So I'll let you know.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. Just give us a second before people can jump off and then I've got to get off the, uh, the public access. Cause just, uh,