Zoning Board of Appeals 05/28/26

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

The Medford Zoning Board of Appeals heard requests involving a residential zoning violation appeal, special permits for an adult-use cannabis dispensary, an addition for a play cafe and residential units, and a residential height variance. The board upheld the building commissioner's violation, approved special permits for medical cannabis and manufacturing while continuing the delivery request, approved permits and a variance for the play cafe addition, and continued the residential height variance.

0:27 91 Waterville Road: Administrative Appeal of Notice of Violation — Upheld the Building Commissioner's notice of violation against Patricia and Paolo Wilder for operating a commercial business out of a residential property in a single-family zoning district.
11:59 114 Mystic Avenue: Cannabis Dispensary Special Permits — Approved special permits for medical cannabis sales and product manufacturing for Victory Gardens, but continued the application for courier delivery services to June 25 to seek input from the police chief.
1:37:47 387-389 Main Street: Play Cafe Addition and Mixed-Use Renovation — Approved an off-street parking variance and special permits for a side yard setback, expansion of a non-conforming structure, and the operation of an indoor play cafe with residential units above.
2:21:55 31 Boynton Road: Height Variance for Residential Addition — Continued to June 25 an application by Jennifer Percy and Jordan Sherwood for a height variance for a 1.5-story addition to allow the applicants time to consult with abutting neighbors about building scale.
3:19:28 Approval of Minutes — Approved the minutes from the April meeting with a minor clerical correction.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the May 28th meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We want to welcome our newest member, Mark Crowley. So thanks, Mark, for joining. He will be voting on the two middle ones, not the first or the last, which I'll get into later. But Dennis, could you kick us off?

[Denis MacDougall]: 91 Waterville Road, continued from April 30th, 2026. No, that's... Yeah, April 30th, sorry, never mind. I just had a... Applicants Patricia Wilder and Paolo Wilder for administrative appeal of the notice of violation regarding the operation of the business at 91 Waterville Road, which is not allowed to use in a single-family, two-zoning district per the City of Medford zoning ordinance.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. So just to remind everybody where we were from last month, this was kind of a unique case. We generally don't see enforcement cases, but in this case, the building department issued a violation to The folks here tonight on about running a business out of their, their home, and there was a lot of kind of discussion about this. They are appealing to us to overturn the decision. So, really, we gave them a continuance. I know some of the board members were wanted some more information from. from the Medford building department about kind of what the findings were and what the, um, you know, what the remedy is. And, uh, and so we have here tonight, our, uh, our building commissioner, uh, Scott Vanderwall, and we'll be able to kind of get into that a little bit more. So the decision that we need to come to is whether or not to overturn, uh, the, the city building department in, in their, uh, determination, uh, And let's, first of all, do we have, let me see if we have the folks here. So the Wilders, are you on?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes, yes. So just to kind of touch base since it's been a month, anything has changed materially since last month at all?

[Jessica Schiller]: Since we last met, we did go with the board's recommendation to have uh, Paul Smith amount and do an inspection of our property. Um, and my understanding is that he's on the call tonight. Um, and in addition, I've been in touch with Kayla. Um, and, um, you know, we, we, again, we understand that the continuous doesn't mean permission to do whatever we want at our property. So, um, we've, we've been adhering to what the court has recommended since we last met.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Scott, would you be able to speak a little bit about I know Paul is not on the on the call tonight for various reasons, but I think you're up to speed with. from talking to him.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, we've been talking about this issue for a number of months, been going through a number of fines and other things. We finally felt we had to elevate to the next level, which was to cite them with a notice of violation, which would get them to where we are tonight to keep proceeding on this. Paul has met many times. He has been out there many times. We have Issued a number of fines for doing these, had a number of conversations with them. We certainly have another trove of pictures, videos, et cetera, where there's clearly materials coming and going every day and things that we felt fall way outside. employees getting up and going to work in the morning. And I think the conversations he'd had with the owner, it was made clear they're using as an auxiliary site for conducting business. We felt we had to get to the point to issue this notice. And it's fairly descriptive in itself. It's violation by conducting business operations in a residential neighborhood, and they do not meet the standards for a home-based business, which is very clear, no vehicles, no employees, no noise, no nothing. So here we are trying to find another step in this process to get control of this situation, which is, I'm sure you've spoken to the neighbor, has made it clear it's very offensive to him to deal with.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Scott. So board members last month, we kind of opened up to public testimony and everything. I don't think since things really haven't changed since then, we don't need to do that tonight. But since we do have the building commissioner here, I want to make sure you have the opportunity to ask any questions that you might have outstanding. And we can deliberate on a decision whether or not to overturn. So Chris, Jim, Mary, yeah, Chris.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the building commissioner, just. You know, I recall us maybe a year, year and a half ago approving a home-based business that was not a, you know, commercial-oriented. I mean, it was commerce, but it was not construction-oriented, perhaps is a better way of putting it. So, you know, in your estimation, this violates the zoning code based on You know, not only is it a residential zone, which is, you know, there's no commercial allowed, but if it were an occupant of the property who.

simply goes to work, moves ladders on and off trucks, etc. This perhaps may not have risen to the level to your level, or at least to the fines level. You know, because we know plenty of trades people who live in their house, they, they park their, you know, their commercial truck in their driveway. And they load ladders on and off or what have you whatever equipment they have. But there isn't a gathering point, a meeting point, a mustering point for the employees to then disperse to a job site, come back, leave their cars all day, etc. Is that your interpretation or your, you know, the way you would characterize it.

[Scott Vandewalle]: There are two levels of home occupation in our zoning code. There's a allowed by right, which is basically somebody on a computer operating out of the house. Your presence is virtually unrecognized from the street. There is a special permit process which says I may have a visitor, I may have some minor activity, I may put out a very small sign, but that's all it is. Both of those, whether by right or by special permit, very clear, you shall not make noise, you shall not generate trash, you're not allowed to have multitudes of customers. And there is language in there that talks about the commercial trucks and weights and stuff. So we felt strongly that this operation with multiple people coming and going, they don't all live there. Some of them park out on the street. There's materials in bulk being moved in and out of the garage. went far beyond any reasonable definition of a home occupation and left us with no choice but to pursue it the way we're pursuing it. Okay, thank you.

[Unidentified]: So it was my understanding that there were multiple trucks that would meet there at a certain time in the morning. It wasn't just one vehicle, of one person residing in that home. Is that the case?

[Scott Vandewalle]: I saw a fresh video last night from the neighbor of two trucks clearly fully marked with the name of them parked in the streets unloading bulk materials and loading them into trucks. So it's clear it's being used as a staging area at the very least for materials and gatherings.

[Mary Lee]: Yeah. So is, is this operation on a daily basis or what is the frequency? Do we know the frequency?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Well, does the board feel that we have enough information to go on here to make a determination about whether or not to overturn the building department's notice?

[Jessica Schiller]: Wait a second. Hold on. I want to see, what is the video you're referring to? This is not on a daily basis. I spoke with Paul Smith. I find it very interesting that he's not on this call. because he is definitely not saying the same things as what the building commissioner is saying. So I do feel like I'm at the point that I think I need to get a lawyer and escalate this.

[Scott Vandewalle]: I spoke to him last night. I observed the video he received and it was very clear in his opinion that this business can continue to exist.

[Jessica Schiller]: You've observed video of us every single day. I want to be clear. You've observed video of us. You're alleging every single day we're doing that. That's incorrect, number one. And number two, there's not multiple vehicles. There's two tenants that live in that property that work for us. So there's two vehicles. So what you're saying is factually incorrect.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: You're saying- I'm sorry, but this is a public hearing with a deliberation by the ZBA to decide whether or not to overturn the decision.

[Jessica Schiller]: I will be hiring a lawyer. You guys feel free to make your decision, but we will be following up.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That's the appropriate course of action. Uh, is there a, basically with this, we're not really making a motion here.

[Scott Vandewalle]: We're just, um, I think you're making a motion to accept or overturn my decision at which point they can go on to sue that in superior court.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: You won't come back to you generally. Right. Thank you, Scott. Is there a, do we have a motion on the floor? So move.

[Unidentified]: Which is the motion, Jim? I make the motion to accept the building commissioners. Violation?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. Chris, let me open the, I'm going to open to a roll call vote.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris. I accept the motion. the building commissioners statement. Jim?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Dennis, can you go on to the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: 114 Mystic Avenue, applicants New England Organic DBA Victory Gardens seeking zoning relief for a special permit from medical cannabis sales, product manufacturing and delivery services for an existing approved cannabis dispensary at 114 Mystic Avenue requiring a special permit. Zoning relief is sought from section 94-7.6 adult use marijuana establishments and article nine marijuana establishments.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, we do. You have Tito Jackson and my partner, Jason Zuby.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Mr. Jackson, would you like to make a presentation of some kind or some introductory comments?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to this August board for hearing us. We currently occupy 114 Mystic Ave., and we are finishing our build-out there on our adult-use cannabis dispensary. And we, in the course of doing that build-out, were wanting to concurrently apply for a couple of other uses and one we wanted patients medical marijuana patients who actually hold a state medical marijuana license to be able to shop there which will require us to get zoning relief from the board in order to carry and actually get the designation for medical marijuana in addition to our current adult use slash recreational marijuana license. Effectively, in terms of what that would mean inside the facility, it would mean that one of our five point of sale stations would actually be medical. in terms of what it would actually effectively look like, and we would carry medical products. The second license that we are applying for actually also doesn't change the space at all. It would be a manufacturing license, and I just want to be very clear, it is not our intent to grow on site. This would be, in this case, actually a honey product that we are in the process of making. Jason has skills that I don't have, but it would be a infused honey product, which would take base honey and infuse it with cannabis, again, only to be sold to individuals who are 21 years of age plus. So in terms of the manufacturing, it also would not change the actual physical space that we currently have and what would happen in the current facility. And then the third license is a courier delivery license. And this license would mean that akin to, this would be a 21 plus Uber Eats, but it would be akin to an Uber Eats where a couple of times a day a vehicle or two would actually pick up a product that would be ordered prior. The vehicle has a GPS requirement, multiple cameras, the individuals who pick it up actually have body cameras on them and those vehicles would be loaded on site and then they would go out for delivery. And that's the courier delivery license. So we are proposing to add these three licenses to the site. And we are more than willing to take any questions about any aspect of our proposal.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Board members, do you have any questions? Yeah, Jim.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, through the chair. Uh, has any study been done as far as the traffic with this added services? Will this increase traffic flow?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Thank you so much for your question. We actually don't actually anticipate a large increase of traffic flow. When we look at the number of medical patients, sadly what happens when recreational or adult use of cannabis actually is made legal, the number of medical patients actually goes down. And so, but we do want to make sure that there that we offer those medical services. And in terms of the actual delivery, those that would amount to only two to three exits from the site a day. So we are actually not anticipating any increase in traffic and or number of vehicles. Jim, I would actually love to have another answer for you but we don't have that answer with the current state of the industry at this point. I know that and I just do want to call out in the very beginning we saw lines and lines of people down the street and you know all kinds of traffic that was that occurred and That is not the case now, and I actually operate in the city of Boston, and we don't have those types of lines at this point. So these are offerings that would definitely increase the opportunity, but at this point we don't anticipate a huge amount of extra traffic.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Mr. Jackson, I just want to, I think, clarify for the board members just so they understand. So Victory Gardens hasn't actually opened yet. Is that correct? No, sir. Right. So this is really a special permit to add these services to, for when they open. Um, so they don't exactly, they don't really like have a baseline of traffic or anything like that. Right. Right. Yeah. But also just to remind the board members, we, we did have a medical marijuana, um, application for a special permit, uh, not too long ago. And so this would be, is going to be very similar. That was for the place down the street, uh, theory wellness.

[Unidentified]: I think too, if I may, I think with the competition and more places now that have opened, you see less traffic as a result of that.

[Mary Lee]: Can you distinguish your existing license versus the other two licenses other than the delivery license?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, so the existing license allows for us to sell to individuals who are 21 years of age or older. Based on the adult use licensure, the 2 additional licenses are. medical use. So the medical marijuana program actually predates the adult use program. It allows for patients who are defined by the state of Massachusetts who actually have a license from a physician to actually purchase products at our space. And there are some different product offerings for them. And so that would be, but for all intents and purposes, what it would look like would be a transaction at a dispensary, but that there is a distinction in the law based on the medical use side. In addition, manufacturing, if we are going to add, in this case, cannabis to honey, there is a requirement to have a license to quote-unquote manufacture on site. And as I noted, we are at this time and don't have any plans in the future to actually cultivate, which would be the actual growing of cannabis. That is not in our plans and we don't anticipate those being in our plans at this site.

But the manufacturing component is the ability to turn, in this case, honey into infused honey at the site.

[Mary Lee]: And what do you anticipate in terms of increasing your services with the second license versus the third license? For instance, what would be the amount of percent of services for the existing license and how much services will be increased with your second license and also how much will increase for the third license in terms of overall services?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yeah, so I want to be very transparent with you, Mary, about our ability to guesstimate here. What I would say to you is that, one, the manufacturing license, would actually not increase traffic at all, because that would be a product that we make, and that's a B2B, so the manufacturing license is actually not manufacturing where we can actually sell to a consumer, so we would actually be selling that through the dispensary, so it would be on site, so that would actually not increase the number of folks there. And in addition, the number of additional people that we would serve relative to the medical cannabis side of things, I think would actually not be a huge number due to the fact that that program has actually seen a decrease in the number of patients who are participating in it, although we definitely do want to be able to serve patients. So I would say there would be a marginal increase, but we absolutely do want to give patients the opportunity to get their medicine at New England Organics.

[Mary Lee]: I'm just curious, why Wouldn't that make some business sense if you open first with that existing license, and then, and see how, in terms of business operations, and then see how business is, and then apply for the second license?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yeah. So Mary, one of the, we are actually doing this based on the business intelligence that we know that's actually happening in the cannabis space. many of the there's a great deal of competition in the space and as we know our next-door neighbor actually has the same the license that we're actually going for so we would want to be at least on the same playing field in addition we are actually a social equity company so we're a bit smaller and so we are actually able to do A couple of things that some of the larger companies don't, and so we want to actually use that as an ability to be successful in business. And one of those opportunities that only social equity companies are able to do is the delivery license. No other companies are able to actually participate in that program. and the manufacturing license, and you had kind of asked around the business side, when we are able to manufacture products on site, that lowers our cost and increases the profit and gives us an opportunity to be able to compete with larger, more well-financed companies. So our objective is to make sure that we are as soon as we open our doors, have the ability to actually compete in a marketplace that definitely favors larger, more well-financed companies. So the objective in having at least the same licensure in terms of the medical, as well as the licensures that we're allowed to have as the only social equity company in Medford allows us to be competitive in the marketplace. So that that is actually why we are doing this in real time.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yes, thank you. A question for Mr. Jackson through the chair. You are asking for this variance for the manufacturing component, or manufacturing license, I should say. Manufacturing clearly represents a very different activity than retail sales, and so obviously understanding, could you talk a little bit more about what that manufacturing will entail? I mean, I think of manufacturing and, you know, what sort of things are there in terms of chemical safety, environmental waste management, air quality control, etc. All these different things that are clearly much beyond the scope of a traditional retail license. I want to make sure I understand what you have in mind for that and that we're probably carrying them.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Thank you. Absolutely. And Mark, thank you so much. And we actually have a manufacturing license in Boston. So we absolutely, one, we care about our employees, right? So the first thing that we make sure of is that they have the PPE that all of our employees need in terms of being able to handle the products. In this case, very specifically, we are in development of a an infused honey product and what that would entail is the base of honey and we would be infusing it with a substance that we called distillate. and that actually would come to us already pre-processed. It is not our intent to process this on-site. We would actually purchase the raw material from one of our suppliers. It would be delivered by a state certified transport company, and we would actually make it on site. So it's a little bit more simple than some of the other, and I'm sure Mark, you know, you've probably well versed in some of the other manufacturing. One of the things that happens in our space is there's others who do butane and all kinds of other stuff.

Mark, I love you guys, and I love the VFW. We're not trying to have any butane or anything flammable that's in the middle of Bedford, which is a major city. Our objective is to actually have a simplistic manufacturing operation, which would be doing a product that might my partner has come up with, and that we would sell through our store. So we are not, it is not our intent, and we'd obviously have to come back to you if we were doing another type of manufacturing. This, for all intents and purposes, would be the mixing of honey and a distillate, and that would also need to be tested by the state, and so we would also send that out for testing.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Okay. And so, yeah, so just to clarify there, it literally is just more like mixing out, I hate to say like making a cake or something like that, but you're kind of mixing just things together. You're not actually like, it's not a chemical process or anything along those lines.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: No, no, no, sir. That is not the case. And I'm not, and Jason is much better at making cakes than I am. And so that process is on his side, but yeah, that is our intent.

[SPEAKER_24]: If I may add, the space that we're allocating for the manufacturing was already kind of factored into our original retail plans. We're just restructuring that. So we're taking some of our vault space and segregating that. So it'll be completely out of sight from the public. It'll be closed off. It'll be ventilated. It'll be out of sight. We're not adding any more square footage to the existing footprint. We're just utilizing the space that we have behind the scenes a little bit better. And just like just like Tito said, it would be mainly as a mixing facility where, you know, in our spare time, you know, some of our workers would be able to work on a product. And then what we would do is test that out. Once it was finished, we send a test batch out to make sure it comes back clean. And then it would give us the ability to sell it not only out of our place, but out of other dispensaries if they were interested in carrying our product.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: So the quality is then tested, but is there any necessary in terms of state or even city inspections required, you know, kind of on a routine basis, much like a restaurant would have, you know, health screening, you know, to make sure that what you're creating there is done in a safe environment?

[SPEAKER_24]: One of the reasons why we're asking to do it concurrently with opening our retail, because when the state comes in or the Cannabis Control Commission comes in and does their inspection, we'll be able to show them both at the same time. So we could hopefully get the approval for the license, build it up, inspect, and then as we're opening, they'll be able to come and do all those inspections simultaneously. So when we are ready to open, we'll be in a really good position with all of our options.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, so we're required on an annual basis to, there's a couple of steps to actually getting the license, and then there was an annual license re-up that we are, that's done every single year.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. A follow up question just about the manufacturing side of things. So you're going to be manufacturing the infused honey. Is that, and you said that's the only product right now. Is it possible that you would be creating, developing other products? And if that's the case, since I'm not familiar with this, would you have to, you said you might have to come back for another permit. This might be kind of a question for the building commissioner too.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: So the permits I was talking about, so that's our intent at this point. We could possibly come up with other products. Those products are required to be approved. We would have to send an SOP to the Cannabis Control Commission. all of the processes are required there. And I'm sorry if I got a little far off. Some people in the manufacturing space choose to do other types of manufacturing that would require additional build out and the like. And if that were the case, we would have to come back to the board. We are not planning and have no plans to do a manufacturing of that type at the space.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, so just a follow up question for the building commissioner. So, Scott, if let's say they develop another infused product, is that covered by this special permit? Do we have to specify it at all?

[Scott Vandewalle]: Now the special permit is listed by types of operations, sales, manufacturing, this and that. It's also important to realize that I've met with Tito and others over a lengthy period of time, and we did predicate coming to you on getting the mayor's approval by any possible reconfigurations of the agreements that the mayor has, and making sure we have the consent and advice of the cannabis not the state commission, but the Cannabis Committee or whatever the Medford is, who would probably be more likely to filter out any of those types of details before it gets to you. So he's been through those other steps at this point in time. And this would give him he wants to make it out of chilies and marijuana. We don't expect him to come back for it. I see Chris has his hand raised.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and perhaps, you know, my question is actually not really directed at the applicant so much as, you know, I feel slightly out of my depth here with the specifics of the application, whereas I'm fine with the we're talking about the land use of something.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris, just to be clear, let me just jump in, this might help you a bit. I'm doing Q&A right now, but what we're going to do then is we'll go through all of the city's requirements with them to make sure that they've hit all of those requirements, and then we'll be able to take a vote.

[Chris D'Aveta]: But to the larger point that I was hoping, isn't there an advisory commission that was formed in the city some number of years ago after the law was passed? And wouldn't this then sort of go through them and at least get an advisory opinion from them to us? So this is the, yeah, let me.

[Scott Vandewalle]: It's a cannabis committee, I believe they called it. And I don't know if they're still wholly functioned, but that was sorted out with Alicia in the planning department, because they fall under her direct supervision.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I've never seen some documentation like that affecting the drive.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, maybe I'm confusing another part of it. But may I perhaps missed it?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Yeah, there's a will will go over that. I mean, the commission basically set out the rules for up to three kind of retail marijuana licenses. Victory Gardens has one of them. So we're not really evaluating that. They already have their kind of base license permit. They've gone through the whole process. Mr. Jackson, you have a. You have a signed kind of host agreement, right, with the city already. That's all taken care of. So really, this is just kind of these add-on, small add-on functions through the special permit. Yeah, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: So just the advisory committee, technically, it's still valid, but the committee was appointed to issue licenses. So they would be the ones that would issue licenses, which Mr. Jackson and Mr. Suzuki have already. So they basically, they were there to basically when the city was looking to, you know, I just remember in our office, I think we got 12 to 15 applications of what, you know, for the licenses and that the committee that their job was to go through each of the individual ones and then choose the ones to put forth to the mayor to, for the mayor's office to negotiate an agreement. So that's sort of their role in this. And then it was deemed at that point then that, this any sort of special permits related to it, which is would then come to the ZBA. So that's why they basically, they got the license to go forth. And then when we had the meeting, you know, three years ago, two or three years ago, when they first came before us, that was for the special, all the, all they were really seeking was the special permit for commercial use.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Let me just share my screen for a second. So I can bring up kind of some of the relevant language. So here in Article 9 of the business section is the Cannabis Advisory Committee. So they were charged with recommending applicants to negotiate host community agreement up to three. So Victory Gardens is one of those. It's the marijuana retailer up here, number allowed three. That was determined by the Cannabis Advisory Committee. And then these other ones of which we're talking about a marijuana product manufacturer, transporter, and medical marijuana is Um, you know, basically subject to a special permit by us on a rolling basis. So.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: And I think Chris, the document, I think I maybe I saw it's the, um, it is that what you just said under the, uh, the host community agreement is just posted in the drive, which talks about the agreement between. the applicant and the city and outline some requirements in terms of permitting and security and a variety of other obligations that they have.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah. Part of what I was hoping sort of to get and it just is maybe a process that doesn't exist, but I thought perhaps the applicant would go to the advisory committee who would hear the application or the desire for a certain permit than advise the ZBA. But if it's existing now and we're just essentially, like you say, adding on or tweaking some aspects of it, I guess that's different. But still, it seems like a topic for which I'm not really

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, it's very similar to what we did not too long ago with theory wellness when you know, they are one of the other have one of the other three marijuana licenses in the city and You know that they added on special they asked for a special permit to do medical marijuana and We considered that And I think as Mr. Jackson pointed out, you know, medical marijuana is really it's a kind of a smaller supplement to, you know, to the recreational use kind of retail piece of it.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I guess, Chris, I think I kind of see where you're kind of going, which is to say is that what exactly is the domain of the zoning board here in the sense you've got a cannabis committee that says, hey, these guys are safe and or whatever, you know, we're giving them authority to actually have a license to do this business. But are we kind of saying, hey, it's OK to do that business in this particular neighborhood? It's not so much whether or not they're allowed to be A retail distributed, it's just being in this particular area because that's no, this is, I mean, this is the, it's.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: It's already done it's in construction. It's all we're doing is really talking about a specific, you know, these 3 kind of add on. Activity, so, um. We're definitely not, we're not talking about location. We're not talking about anything else. Yeah, Dennis, what do you want to say?

[Denis MacDougall]: And then I do is just. Sort of more point of fact, yeah, it's, it's the. When they created the ordinance, they basically just already established where. The zoning districts that this would be an allowed use and so this is allowed use here. So it's something to do with that, but then it sort of goes and this is more just. The last time the Cannabis Advisory Committee met was 2022, and that was when they granted the third and final license. So that was their sole purpose, was to go through the applicants and then determine licenses, and then once licenses were granted, then it fell upon the Zoning Board to actually grant the special permits for any of the individual uses, any of the individual allowed uses which they seek.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, Scott, I just want to offer that the answers. Some of those additional questions are probably better contained in section 94 dash 7.6 of the zoning, which speaks to your role, special permits and how it's treated by zoning.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So that's what I tried to indicate when I was responding 1st to Chris saying that we're going to go through that list shortly. I just wanted to give folks the opportunity to kind of ask ask questions here 1st. Keep going, Mary.

[Mary Lee]: So my question is to Scott. Are these licenses permits transferable? For instance, hypothetically, if this business is, after they receive the license, they want to sell it to someone else. So does that mean that these approval permits transferable to the new owner? It's just a general question.

[Scott Vandewalle]: I think that answer goes probably back to the CBA agreement that they have with the city as to whether or not they could transfer more so than the zoning speaks to that. And I don't have a copy of that document. Perhaps Tito can speak to it.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: It is generally the case in all the municipalities that I have dealt with that there's not an automatic ability that if in that case that Mary brought up that we would have to come back to the zoning board. for that to occur. So, it's not automatic. Once you give it, if there was a transaction to occur, that we would just go and do that transaction. That's not how that works. Typically, with all of the municipalities that I've dealt with, there is a requirement to come back to the zoning board and the municipality for approval.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, let's go to the appropriate section. Maybe that'll help clarify some things for everyone. I'm just going to share my screen in a moment once I pull it up. All right, so first I just want to clarify for everyone the criteria for special permits in general. We are the Special Permit Granting Authority, the ZBA, here tonight for this purpose. And in addition to the specific factors for adult marijuana establishments that we'll get into in a moment, we'll be considering the following six, right? Social, economic, or community needs which are served by the proposal, traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading, adequacy of utilities and other public services, compatibility with the size, scale, and design of other structures in the neighborhood, impacts on the natural environment, and the proposal's compatibility with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. Now, I want to be really clear that we are talking about special permits for these three add-on uses, not for the establishment as a whole.

And then let me move up here. So section 94-7.6, adult use marijuana establishments. So there's a number of requirements, um, most of which, uh, we can go through very, very quickly because the, uh, the host agreement kind of covers already this, the original license covers, uh, many of these basic things. Um, but let me talk about some of the specifics that. Uh, we, we need to get to, and it says right here, like Mary, a special permit issued for a marijuana establishment is not transferable nor assignable. to a different location, to a different type of marijuana establishment. A lot of basic language about complying with applicable state and local laws, maintaining their permits, paying their taxes, management of it.

I guess one question I would have for Mr. Jackson is, are all of these new requested activities during regular business hours that have already been approved?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, we are not asking to extend the hours. And frankly, for the delivery, we would like to get them back by dark. Great.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: We've already dealt with no on-site social consumption of marijuana with these three new uses. You're not changing your location, which have already been approved. All operations are going to be conducted within the building, except for the delivery license. You're not doing any cultivating here, so that's not... The area in which the manufacturing is going to happen, that is enclosed and secure in a manner that prevents access by persons not permitted by the marijuana establishment. Is that correct?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, and just to be clear, actually not even... Not all of our staff will actually have access to it. That's on a need to access level. It's an additional access on our side, but yes.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. It's good to know. We talked about hours. Um. This was kind of basic baked into what you, uh, you know, your existing license kind of subject to, uh, unannounced inspections of the premises if necessary by the city. Uh, there will be no onsite self-service displays.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: That is, that is not good for business, Mr. Chair. It's not good for safety. It's definitely not good.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I can imagine. Um, No drive-through service. No outside storage. I've talked about consumption. And that's just, you know, if you cease your license, what to do with it. So a couple, a few things that we do need to cover in particular is the security plan. Have you submitted a security plan to the chief of police?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: We have, it is the same security plan for all of the above. And we have submitted and gotten a check off around the comprehensive security plan, which checked off with the police department as well as the Cannabis Control Commission in their architectural review.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Have you submitted an operation and management plan to the building commissioner and the Board of Health?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, we have previously done that. And for all intents and purposes, there are almost no changes to the operations of the facility, or very little, I should say.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: uh, those changes are, are you submitting a revised version or is that, or are you saying that what has been, uh, submitted is satisfactory meets the criteria here?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: I believe what is submitted is satisfactory. If there's a need, we could definitely enhance that. But for, as noted prior, the areas are currently in use, and from a security and operational perspective, we're pretty much doing the same.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. And I know this is a little bit different than kind of adding to an existing operation since you haven't opened yet. So it's sort of integrating it into what you're doing. The emergency response plan has been filed with the police and fire. Yes. And, and then also a disposal and odor control plan as I've been submitted to the health department.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Yes, and we also have those plans for the Cannabis Control Commission.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you. All right. And you feel confident in your providing adequate security measures for your drivers as well as for the manufacturers and other employees?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Absolutely. Safety is paramount beyond anything else and taking care of our staff employees as well as customers. So absolutely. All right.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. These are just kind of more detailed questions about what the security plans and management plans require, uh, but since you've already submitted those, then you should be, and they've been accepted by the departments. Um, that should be all set. Uh, there are a couple additional requirements specific to marijuana product manufacturers down here, 94 dash seven dot six dot 13. Uh, all marijuana product manufacturers shall use high efficiency lights and manufacturing equipment to limit energy and water usage demand. Mm.

All marijuana product manufacturers shall comply with all regulations that may be promulgated by the Cannabis Control Commission.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. All right. Now that we've gone through those, the requirements as spelled out in the Medford's zoning rules, any additional questions or comments from members of the board? Yeah, Mark.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, just a question again to Mr. Jackson, the Food Chair. I know, thank you for discussing the security plans. One of the things I am kind of curious, I mean, it's a relatively, you know, industrial-ish type zone area, which, you know, generally will not have too much, you know, people traveling in the sense, though once a year, that corner right by the VFW, that's where they sell Christmas trees. Yeah, I know it seems kind of a little out of place, but that does become a much more family-friendly environment, kids coming in, looking at the Christmas trees.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: just want to be mindful of that or at least put you know kind of what certain additional security procedures might be necessary around those times of the year absolutely um they will not be buying our trees uh uh those are uh our trees are are rated r and they're uh 21 plus so i i would say to you um the uh The things that we do on a daily basis don't change. We practice vigilance on a daily basis. There are two checks of IDs to even get in to the facility. In addition, when you do make a purchase, you actually are required to show your ID.

In terms of the Cannabis Control Commission, the worst thing that you could do by their rules, and I'm sure the same rules of this board as well as the City of Medford would be to to sell to somebody under the age of 21. So we are vigilant 100% of the time. And we actually use an electronic reader for each person that actually comes to the facility. The read is only kept for 24 hours for privacy issues.

but we actually check each and every person who comes in the facility. Those activities, we would absolutely ensure having extra security to ensure that no individuals who are under the age of 21 would come near our facility. So we are, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the city. In addition, I do want to note we did hold A week ago, we did hold a community meeting to get input from the neighborhood and did have neighbors come and get to see the inside of the facility, which Jason has done an amazing job as the visionary. He actually has used many aspects of of surplus military equipment inside of our facility. And we also encourage each and every one of you if you'd like to do a walkthrough. But no young people ever that we want and want or will have in the facility. So we're right there with you.

[SPEAKER_24]: If I could add to Mark, just a real short response. We have an arrangement with the people that sell the Christmas trees. Since we took the space over, since we aren't open, we've allowed them to put the trees up just so we weren't a couple of scrooges. We do plan, they did move it a little further this year. It's up for discussion on how it's going to look next year. So it may or may not be there, but we have an understanding with the Christmas tree company that we wouldn't interfere with one another.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Okay, that's what I want to understand. Have you ever had conversations with them? We have. Okay.

[SPEAKER_24]: In fact, the Christmas tree owner is in a cannabis space as well, in Malden. Got it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: There's, uh, and just for, I think most of the board members were not present and they were not serving when we, uh, originally handled the variances for, for your site, the construction on your site. So maybe you could just explain to folks who aren't familiar or haven't been there, how the entrance works in relationship to like the VFW site in general. Sure. Tina, if I may. Oh, go ahead.

[SPEAKER_24]: So we've taken over one of the two function halls, the main one with the front entrance. So as you enter into the facility, it's sectioned off. So there'll be a greeting area in the front where people will come in and check their IDs. And once everything clears, they'll be buzzed in. And that's where they'll be into our retail space. And our retail space is where we have our displays and our front counter and our menus and our display boards. In the back is where we kind of store our product. During the day that product is wheeled out and it's kind of in between zone and then at night when we close it's wheeled back into the vault. And inside that giant vault is where we are sectioning off a section to have that manufacturing space. We'll be completely secure, separate, get all that product whether it's being sold or it's Its components will be stored under security and under strict clearance. So not anyone can just walk back in and do that. There'll be proper security in order to get into that part of the building. So that's pretty much how it works.

[Mary Lee]: Yeah, so I just want to make sure I understood the proposal. So, the facility is not open yet.

[SPEAKER_24]: Right or is it still operating facilities still under construction?

[Mary Lee]: Still can. Okay. Do you have any visuals or or pictures or graphs that. To help us understand what you've just described.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: So we do we do have the the original component because as noted there there's really no no no difference there I don't know if that's available we didn't actually we hope we hosted the meeting on site so we actually did not put visuals and in the in the presentation, but it does not deviate from the original proposal in terms of the setup.

[Mary Lee]: I'm sorry, I don't remember the original proposal, Ethan, so I don't recall seeing. Yeah, so the

[Chair Andre Leroux]: You know, the Cannabis Commission, the Medford's Cannabis Commission already reviewed all the security and the layout and the setup and approved it. And the mayor signed the host agreement. And so we don't need to revisit that. It's really that we are, you know, we're just focused on these additional uses. Yeah, Scott.

[Scott Vandewalle]: I don't know if it helps, but it is the existing VFW building and all of their constructions interior. I don't think what you see now is going to be any different than what you see then.

[Mary Lee]: So with the new additional services, there's been no change to the interior design or construction for that initial permit. There's no deviation whatsoever.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: No, because all of the requirements around security are literally the same in terms of cameras and the like. The doors in which we would be doing the delivery are already the doors that we do delivery for our product anyway. So that's literally the same space. And then the manufacturing would be done in the area that is currently the vault. So these are literally the same. And again, part of the reason why we're actually doing this, because we are in construction and that actually allows us to ensure that we can actually do these things at the same time. If we were to go back and do them, there's additional costs that we would incur through the regulatory side of things relative to legal and all of those things. So, this actually allows us to kind of do these things at the same time.

[Mary Lee]: Do you anticipate additional traffic or additional customers with the addition of these three types of services? On the

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Let's take manufacturing, no, because that is an internal process, and those products are not sold direct to consumer. And in terms of the The delivery, as I noted, we're talking about a max of two trips, because there's a requirement that the orders come in prior. And then, in terms of the... Excuse me, two trips per order? Two trips per vehicle, so there'll be two vehicles and so we're talking about four trips a day. In total, four trips a day? In total, yes, in total. Because for us to be efficient, the routing would be, you'd want to load your vehicle so that that vehicle is loaded up enough to have a route that's actually profitable. One of the things that we also deal with is the massive amounts of traffic in the greater Boston area. So the objective is to not have to come back multiple times a day. So we're talking about four car trips in total a day there. And then as we noted, yes we do want to be able to offer the medical option, but we also are cognizant of the fact that the medical program is not huge anymore in the state of Massachusetts. So we do see some upside, but there are not as many medical patients as they used to be before the adult use program started. So we do hope for some, but to be very transparent, there will not be, we don't anticipate a huge spike based on that offer.

[Mary Lee]: You have an estimate of the increase for the medical use versus your current permit?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: I have some hopes, Mary, but I would say to you in terms of the confluence of one of our competitors actually having medical right up the street, as well as the program shrinking, we would look to see maybe a maximum of a 3 to 5% bump.

[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, I'm sorry. I would make a point that I think the delivery license or the courier license would allow us to have less traffic because it would require people to come to the store less and we would be able to bring it to them because sometimes traffic gets pretty hairy around Mystic Ave around dinnertime. And just a note, I think that it was more of a concern when we had our host community agreement about parking and traffic. With regards to the beer hall, it seemed to be more of a problem than any of the traffic that was happening for the cannabis spaces. That's what the neighbors' feedback was. So I don't think the traffic will be impacted because we'll be able to mitigate that with our delivery option, where people wouldn't even have to come to our store. We could just bring it to them. I think what Trito's trying to say is that we want to make sure that instead of having an order going there, coming back, we just pile the orders up so when a person leaves, You know, they're going out and they're hitting a route where they'll be able to have that window delivery time, much like an Amazon or, you know, and that's how we would deliver things.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: One question that I have about the delivery is how. How do you ensure that minors do not order online and delivery?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Absolutely. There is a process through the Cannabis Control Commission that individuals are required to upload a copy of their identification. In addition, They are actually required to show their identification on site and each member of our staff is required to wear a body camera as this occurs for review by the Cannabis Control Commission in terms of those those interactions. So there is a rolling record of this information and And we have the same concern that you do, Mr. Chair, around that. And so we use the prescribed Cannabis Control Commission required process.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Dennis, I think do we need to go into a public hearing for this?

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, yes, yeah, we'll still open up for public comment and then bring it back to the board after that point. And then, you know, then the board can go into deliberation.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks. All right. I'll open up the. The public comment period now at this at this time, if there's any members of the public would like to make a comment on this matter, please raise your hand and we can call on you. And in the meantime, Dennis, is there, has there been any written feedback on this matter?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Not seeing anyone wishing to make a comment. Uh, is there a motion to close public comment period? Thanks, Jim. Is there a second?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an eye, so public hearing is now closed and we enter deliberations board members. Do you have anything further? You wish to talk about Mark? You're muted.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Oh, okay. If there's no further deliberation required, then I'd entertain. I have a question. I have a question.

[Mary Lee]: So, on the on the previous, the case that we, we acted on my recollection was that they already opened for a while and then they came back the 2nd time to request for the add ons. I mean, I may be wrong, but that's what I vaguely remember.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes, they had been they had been open before they asked for the medical marijuana special permit.

[Unidentified]: Are we trying to approve or is this to approve the special permit?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so what's under consideration here is a request for essentially three special permits. A special permit for medical marijuana use, for delivery use, and for product manufacturing use. And since I think they're all very kind of similar issues and requirements, then I'm willing to entertain kind of a bundle special permit vote for one for all three.

[Mary Lee]: Do I make a motion to accept? Wait, sorry, are we in deliberation yet?

[Mary Lee]: Okay, so based on the criteria that you pulled out and listed, you know, the social economic impact, the traffic, the adaptability of the utilities, I mean, I feel like we're voting on something That's yet to happen for the case that we voted on before they've been in existence for at least a year, and we had a realistic. a picture about the traffic, about the social impact, about all the six criteria that you listed. For this application, I just feel like it still remains ambiguous because it's still under construction. We don't know what the traffic is going to be like. We don't know what the security is going to be like. We don't know what the compatibility is going to be like.

It's going to be a little bit difficult for me to make a decision based on the criteria that was provided under the rules without knowing what this business is going to be like, especially, you know, this is for a marijuana that could seriously impact the health and safety of the community and young kids.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mary. I appreciate those comments. Personally, I'm not concerned about that in so far as that we already have had marijuana establishments operating here in the city and without any issue. And the local Cannabis Commission has approved this and vetted the main part of it, 95% of it. Uh, the mayor has signed off on on it, so I feel like there has been a lot of vetting and it's been kind of a multi year. Process to kind of do construction and get the permits. I think Mr. Jackson mentioned that the, you know, the, the. the compact that was signed, you know, the agreement, host agreement was signed like several years ago. And so really, I feel like if we just focus on the narrow special permit scope of these three pieces, I, I not,

[Mary Lee]: I don't feel like a lot of what would be what would be our criteria criteria is be when we vote. What do we base our vote on? I mean, so you're saying all those 6 factors, they were already predetermined by the special committee.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, they were, those six factors for general special permit are really just for, we do need to look at them for a special permit, but just for these three, not for like the whole establishment.

[Mary Lee]: Right, right, exactly, exactly. That's what I'm trying to say. I'm saying just for the three special permit, when we look at the three, the six criteria, it would be hard, Difficult for me, I think, to arrive at a decision when each 1 of the permits, it's determined by the 6 criteria since we have nothing to base on. I understand that there are other facilities that. Similar cannabis operations, but the fact. There's an increase of this type of business. It could either way. A fact. the socioeconomic compatibility, the traffic, all the six criteria. That's what I'm trying to say. Because without knowing what those impacts gonna be, since this facility hasn't even opened yet, I will feel like voting on this, I'll be making a presumption, a hypothetical presumption based on these criteria.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I guess I would comment on the sense that I mean, you're right in the sense. We don't know necessarily what is going to be the impact directly from these 3 specific new features. So to speak of it, but we do have a other retail dispensary literally. 2 tenths of a mile down the street. So we generally know already the impact of a retail dispensary on the community from a traffic, social, economic sort of impact. I guess the only question here really is the incremental impact that would come from the addition of manufacturing, medical, and delivery, and whether or not this board actually thinks that the addition of those three things would in some way disproportionately impact the six criteria any more so than what we've already demonstrated for retail, dismantling, like I said, literally two-tenths of a mile down the street.

And I guess from my perspective, I haven't heard anything necessarily that would suggest to me that there's going to be a exponential increase of, you know, the aforementioned six criteria based off of, you know, what's going to be happening there. I could be open to you know, challenge to that, but I haven't heard anything otherwise.

[Chris D'Aveta]: I'll chime in for a second. You know, again, I will pretty much reiterate what I said earlier about, it would be nice to have the police chief at least have weighed in on something like this, where I think delivery is a very important and potentially, um, police-oriented matter. And so I'm surprised that there is no such protocol for these things. I've been in communities where the police chief has to comment on a Burger King. So I'm really surprised that that's not the case here. And I'm sort of uncomfortable on the delivery aspect of it. The other two aspects I'm fine with.

But I'd feel more comfortable if the police chief weighed in on the delivery part.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mr. Jackson or Mr. Zuby, have there been any back and forth with the police department on this matter?

[SPEAKER_24]: No, sir. Nothing new. When we met with Alicia and, you know, because originally the chief of police was on the original Cannabis Commission for Medford. You know, that was the first place that we started. We didn't know if the board was still in existence or not. So it wasn't like we tried to circumvent the police. We were just told that this was the route, the best route to go. Was that inevitably you would have to go in front of the ZBA to get the approval.

And we just kind of follow the direct the path that we were told. I know for that, there was at 1 point, a delivery license, because you're only granted to social equity applicants. They just never followed through with it. And I think that the people that we spoke to were in favor because, you know, that other courier would have a third location in Medford where we were just kind of keeping everything in-house. It wasn't really going to affect the blueprint of Medford. You know, everything was—we're not— trying to get a manufacturing license for a parcel outside of where we're already at. We're not trying to sell medical outside of where we're at. We're not trying to do the delivery outside of where we're at. Everything is still at 114 Mystic, which I think is why we took the route that we did, because everything was still kind of contained in that original space. And we've had the traffic studies and the security plan. You know, there's really not much Difference, you know, I understand what your point about the delivery would definitely be something outside of what happens there.

I only know that there was a company in the past that. was going to do it, and then it decided not to, which was why it was suggested to us that we could apply for it. And, you know, we're going for these licenses now because when we do eventually open up, we want to be able to get all of our approvals, you know, at the same time, and we want to just give ourselves the best shot as when we do open to just have all those options for our customers and just keep us competitive. Which is why we decided to do all 3 of those now and why we didn't do them originally, because the landscape cannabis has changed over the last couple of years, you know, on the commission end and some of the laws that are constantly evolving. And as we were into the process, we decided that this would be a really good smart move for us seeing that the current climate of things. So, you know, when I decided that we were going to try to do this and try to get it, so we, you know, getting in front of the cannabis commission for on the state levels really tough. So to try to get them to come in and inspect and then have to come back and have to redo things. We would just rather kind of button it up on the 1 package. So when we do get that inspection, everything is good to go and it's not a series of people coming back that'll delay us even further. So we kind of put a pause on finishing our place just so we can make any modifications that we need. But the overall footprint of everything that we're trying to do isn't going to change anything. It'll make us a stronger company.

But we don't anticipate it, you know, bringing in a bigger crowd. So we'll leave it at that.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: And I guess the only thing I would say is that in terms of the, as Jason noted, the delivery would mean that potentially less people would need to come. And in terms of the delivery component, in terms of the amount of product that would be leaving in the vehicle, that is exponentially less than the amount of product that would actually normally be delivered to our dispensary. So in terms of the amount, again, the amount of product that would actually be leaving the facility, it would pale in comparison in terms of the amount that we would receive on a weekly basis that we would already be getting. So I did want to just note that fact. And I did get some data. At its peak, the medical program was 100,000 people, and now it has gone down to about 75,000.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Chris brings up an interesting question about the police chief and commenting on the impacts of delivery. Chris, was your concern more specifically around the impacts of delivery from this particular location or more broadly? Because I think you bring up an excellent point because it sounds like the legislation that's allowed in the city is that, in general, delivery is an allowable thing. And so what we're trying to make the determination is whether or not delivery is an allowable thing from this particular location. And Andre, correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm just interpreting this correctly, but it is that the rules of the city allow for delivery. It's just we're trying to determine whether or not delivery by an establishment located at this particular place.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. And my understanding is that there are already medical. I mean there's already marijuana dispensaries outside the city that can deliver inside the city. Is that correct. Yeah, so it's not like that delivery is not already happening here. I think this is a question of whether, you know, our local business can be as... We've already approved them, like, it's happening. And the question is whether this can be as competitive as possible, given the fact that it's a very, very competitive environment. A lot of businesses have closed up shop recently. Yeah, Chris.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah. To answer, well, to respond to you, Chair, and to Mark. Yeah, essentially, the question in my mind is, and I can ask a question of Mr. Jackson in saying this, too. You know, everyone gets delivery today. I'm just amazed at how many people get a cup of coffee delivered. So therefore, you know, I'm expecting that this will be a booming aspect of your business. And I'm, and I'm not trying to take that away. And the point being that other businesses outside of the city can deliver to residents within the city of Medford, you know, perhaps, uh, uh, you know, um, yeah, um, makes my criticism of this or my concern about this, uh, less, but, um, I imagine you said something just before this about the percentage that you think delivery will be a smaller percentage than walk-in retail, or do you think at some point that business may cross and become the larger business?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: No, the data doesn't play out for that in the current case. Delivery is actually a small part of the cannabis ecosystem at this point. And so we don't anticipate at any point that that would eclipse, partly because at this point, as noted by the chair, It's a really competitive space. There's over 400 dispensaries in the state. And so, you know, as small folks, we are not theory. We are much, much smaller. They are a multi-state operator, so they actually operate in multiple states. And so our objective is to actually be able to be competitive. One of the other components around the delivery And now the medical license is for the next couple of years, the medical license is actually only able to be issued to individuals who are part of the social equity program. So it's a smaller companies who are only able to provide participate in that issuance. So we would be on the front end of those newer licenses. And the only reason why I bring that up is because the older medical licenses required you to grow. And so the new legislation that just came out recently requires you guys, does not require individuals to actually grow. They call it de-verticalization. It's a inside ballgame piece. So again, that is one of the other reasons why we are actually attempting to do it at this space. And as noted by the chair, Because you are a yes town, there are people who actually are already delivering in in in the town. And I guess the last point I'll make that Jason made earlier is. We're trying to keep it at one location. We didn't want to go and get another location to deliver from. We wanted to do it just at one location and make the most use out of the 114 Mystic site rather than spreading it out in the Medford area.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So just to take the, again, the three special permits, uh, you know, my, my take on things, so you guys can think differently about it, but, uh, we approved, uh, medical marijuana license, like just a few doors down, uh, not long ago, it would be very difficult for us to come to a different conclusion here, uh, on the manufacturing. I feel that, uh, really doesn't change anything substantially. It's one product, and using the existing facilities as designed can only help strengthen the business. And then the delivery piece maybe is a little bit more of a new thing for us, but given the fact that there are non-Medford businesses delivering in Medford, I would prefer to see you know, that business support local jobs. And so I think there's a benefit. I think there's a benefit to this business, you know, helping to support the VFW. And, and I think that there is a, you know, I feel comfortable with the security.

answers that, uh, that I received, uh, and they've met all of the, kind of the, you know, the paperwork requirements that we went through. So I would be, I would feel comfortable voting on all three of these. If, if you are not comfortable with all of them or want to separate them into separate votes, we could do that. But, uh, otherwise, you know, we could have a motion for all three of them.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I mean, your point is well taken in the sense that, you know, can we vote for it? Because it sounds like it's the delivery one that's creating a little more of a heartburn than the other two. that, you know, much like, you know, can we defer for another, for the next meeting just so, you know, to Chris's point, can we hear from someone that has some commentary? I mean, just because, again, just because everybody else is doing delivery doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. And are we going to add fuel to the fire by now actually having a local option? So, you know, I posit that it may be a possibility to say, hey, listen, can we defer another meeting so that we can actually hear from what's the word of the street, so to speak, certainly from the police perspective, as to what, you know, delivery, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, I think probably in this instance, it might be best to split them out because I was sort of thinking about just in terms of the decisions themselves. The more I sort of think about this, it might actually probably be three separate decisions being written up. So, a decision for medicinal, a decision for manufacturing and a decision for delivery. So, I think then splitting out the votes, I think would probably... But I think I think we can do it that way. I think that's probably for the best just to have them. And then, I mean, if it would be up to them, we could ask them, but I think, given that there was sort of question. you know one of the options is to continue if the delivery since i was the one that had the more the questions and i could write to the police chief and see if i can get a response and see if he can just come back with us you know with a response on that aspect and then you know if he comes back yes or no or not yes or no but if he comes back with anything we could discuss that you know we continue it to the next meeting and again just like the previous matter take it right Right at the very beginning and, you know, we should be, since it wouldn't really affect too many, we would have to open up for public comment. We can just go straight to, you know, here's what the police chief says and, you know, how do people feel about it? And can we take a vote?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, so members of the board, what's your. I just want to take your temperature are. We'll do these votes separately. Is everybody ready to vote on the medical marijuana piece? Is there any questions or discomfort there? None here.

[Mary Lee]: Um, I think I would be, um, tending to abstain from all three permits just because again, I just feel like I can't, I can't, um, predict, or I feel like I'll be voting on something hypothetical without this entity being in business like that previous case. Um, so I would feel more comfortable. With that having more information and based on the 6 criteria that we have to base these special permits on.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris and yeah. Okay. Just so the applicant is aware and. They probably are already. I'm sure they're pretty good at this, but. If we were to take the vote and it does not pass. That's more problematic for them versus the continuance, which would only delay a month or two. You know, so if they were to request the continuance or that split out piece of the delivery, then everything, you know, might go their way.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Chris, are you prepared to vote on the other two? Yes.

[Unidentified]: Jim, are you prepared to vote on the... On the other two, yes, the medicinal and the manufacturing.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And would you prefer to see a continuance on the delivery or are you prepared to vote?

[Unidentified]: I would go with the delivery, the continuance on it. Okay, and Mark?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Same. I'm good to vote on the manufacturing and medicinal and would like to see the continuance on the delivery.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion on the floor to approve the special permit for the medical marijuana license for Victory Gardens?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye, so four ayes and one abstention. The motion passes. Special permit for the medical marijuana license is approved. Is there a motion now to approve the special permit for the product manufacturing for Victorians? Second. Thank you. Roll call vote. Jim? Aye. Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mary? Abstain. And I'm an aye as well. So again, four to, uh, four ayes, the motion passes with one abstention. Um, and then, uh, well, I just want to make sure that the proponent, are you okay with continuing this matter?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: That's what I was going to request, uh, Mr. Chair, uh, could we continue, uh, the, uh, the delivery, uh, courier delivery, uh, matter.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. And, uh, would you be able to maybe just reach out to the police? Thank you in the meantime.

[Denis MacDougall]: All right, just for clarification that meeting then will be continued until. June 25th is our next scheduled. Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, so. Thanks, Dennis.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Remind me, do we need to take a roll call vote on that to continue?

[Denis MacDougall]: No, once they ask for a request, we can just move forward and then, you know, we can just go forward on that matter. So it's just a request from the applicant, so we can just continue that. As long as we publicly announce, you know, like this during the course of the hearing, that the time and the date. So it'll be, you know, at the, you know, June 25th, over Zoom with the same Zoom link as this current hearing meeting starting at 6.30, and this would be the first item on the agenda for that hearing.

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would note, if anyone does want to take a tour of the facility, we are more than willing to have any member of the board or public walk through the facility.

[Denis MacDougall]: So, and I'll sort of say that. So if anyone, any of the members do have a request to do so in the intervening month, just please contact me and then I'll get in touch with Mr. Jackson and we'll arrange a time and place.

[Scott Vandewalle]: I do want to caution the board to not go in groups bigger than two. Right. Okay. We were, we don't catch.

[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Because otherwise that would be a quorum. So if 2 people can go together, and as long as you don't deliberate while you're there at any, you can ask questions about specifics, like, what's going to be at this corner? What's going to be at that corner? But, you know.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so, you know, Mary or other board members, if you're interested, contact Dennis and Dennis can coordinate. With the proponent.

[Denis MacDougall]: And then just finally for Mr. Jackson, Mr. Zube, so I will work on getting the, I'll start on the other special permits right now, so we can sort of get the ball rolling on those. And so basically I'll write them up. Fortunately, we have a template going from the previous one for the new special permit, so I can just use that. And then they'll get reviewed by our legal counsel. And then once everything is, you know, everything's been checked off on that end, then they'll get sent out for signatures. And then upon getting the signatures filed in the clerk's office, and there's a 20 days appeals period from that point, and then you can get your, your permit. So, you know, I, given the way our scheduling has been going, I would say maybe about a month and a half. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you gentlemen.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. 387 Main Street. Applicant Dargwyn Fortuna for a proposed addition to 387-389 Main Street, which is in a commercial and zoning district. This addition will require a variance for side yard setback and off-street parking, as well as a special permit for the expansion of an existing non-conforming structure. The applicant is also seeking a special permit to operate a cafe and indoor recreation space.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right, thank you. Mr. Fortuna, are you able to kind of introduce your project? Do you have a presentation that you'd like to give?

[SPEAKER_19]: I do share. Let me share real quick. Can you see my screen? Yes, thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes, excellent. So, yeah, my name is Darwin Fortuna. I'm a licensed architect based out of Salem mass business address 50 growth street in Salem mass. I am representing Abigail and Fernan who did own this property here and we're going to go piece by piece, but. They've had this property and their goals is to revive it, to give it new light. And I guess the lens to look at it is a good adaptive reuse without increasing density.

So to orient yourself a little bit, so this is a main street and that main street corridor. It is that almost weird like shaped property that you see highlighted in black. This is the context around them, so the property has a front brick facade storefront space. That's a commercial space. And at the rear and up, there are two residential units that exist within the building right now. And to the corner, we have a Manser building right out of the corner that has mixed use with residential above.

The plot plan here showing exactly the property as it currently is, it is really a bizarre, bizarre shape kind of a lot to the degree that we can't really use the rear end of the lot. Most of it is basically trapped. And what we're trying to do here, just showing it on the plot plan is essentially a square off the corner of the building at the rear. Right? This is the inside of the building so that we can kind of get an idea. So, from the basement, we have mechanical spaces. I have bathroom. The 1st floor right now functions as the front square off. The front as a commercial space, and the rear is the 1st residential unit in the building.

And the second floor has the second unit. We don't showcase the layout of it because some demolition has happened on the property, but that's the second unit with an attic space being utilized. And it has three bedrooms on that one. Uh, these are some of the elevations of the property and the shape of it. So the front scale is very small and pedestrian friendly and the rear goes up to and I have stories and then the rear most part is a single story, which we are trying to essentially square off as well by going up. This is an existing nonconforming lot. Um.

And again, the lens I'm looking at this is through adaptive reuse. We're squaring off that corner and then extending the 2nd floor. We're proposing to essentially. Provide a sprinkle system this is going to have to be a sprinkle given the degree of work that's going to be happening. So it's going to be safer. and the first floor will be operating as a cafe, which is a twist on a cafe. It's actually a playground area and cafe where parents can come in, get a drink, watch their children play, and And be there, and we're providing accessibility to the to the property because right now it doesn't have. So we're going to be meeting those accessibility requirements and maybe requirements for bathrooms.

And just to illustrate, we just recently finished 1 of those projects in switch. This is kind of the look and feel of most of those spaces. It's a different version of the Chalky Cheese, I would say. It's a more refined, almost boutique and local version versus a big brand thing. We looked at the site as it relates to walkability. And speaking with the clients who are here and are going to speak at some point, their goal is really to tailor towards the local community within one to two miles. And these are all of the options for accessibility to the site that there exists within one and a half miles. We have green light stations. We have the bus. The number one bus is actually right in front of the property. So there is a lot of walkability there. And we see that ground floor as a calm community focus operationally responsible and modest play cafe.

And it's a small scale neighborhood amenity. Look at it as a neighborhood amenity designed for local communities and families. Some more kind of illustrations of our design. than the way that it operates. The upper floors then will be taking on the entire footprint of the building and making these units, not increasing the amount of units, but making these units a bit more dignified rather than scattered and mixed between commercial and residential. So the upper floor will have three bedrooms with an office space and two bathrooms. We will be, as I mentioned, sprinkling the building. Therefore, we are able to do one single stair, good size single stair. And the uppermost floor, although it appears like a full floor because of the strategy that we're applying, is identical, but it's under a mansard roof. And this will be kind of the front look and the look that we have at the rear.

Again, on the side, it's squaring off the building instead of having that weird shape. Um, and so to the left is the photo of the Google street right now, and to the right will be the approach to the pedestrians that we will have right now. We've had multiple iterations of this project. We wanted to increase density. We wanted to go more units. We wanted to be very much more aggressive with this property, but in having continuing conversations with the commissioner here, Scott, and also with the, the, the, the development, um. Department, the planning department, it felt like this was this was the right mix, no increasing density while activating the ground and giving units that actually are dignifying and still maintaining that fabric, that urban fabric. Just so you know, we have 25 signatures of support from residents. This is the most I've ever had as an architect, and I've been practicing for 16 years.

We also have support from the Office of Planning and Development and Sustainability. And actually, Danielle Evans said, I wish I had this when my children were little, when it comes to that space. So these are kind of the letters of support. And to that, I will open it to Fernan and Abigail, so they can speak a little bit more about their project from their point of view. They're operating this. They want to be on an operator. And that's it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortuna. Do you want to stop sharing so we can see the proponents a little better?

[SPEAKER_23]: Can you guys hear us? We're having a computer issues. So just want to make sure.

[SPEAKER_23]: Okay, great. We were pause on our end, but. So yes, we, my name is Abigail, and this is my husband, Sven and Louis Saint, and yes, we are looking to open a play cafe in the Medford area. We are parents ourselves, and the reason that we came up with this idea was originally I wanted a daycare because I wanted to be with my son, and I wanted to create something that I want for my child and other children as well. But it then ultimately turned into a play cafe. We both are work-from-home parents, and I always wish there was something that I could go for two hours, schedule a specific time and appointment to be able to work, and then also be able to see my child play. We are planning to hire someone to be like a play specialist, so they'll be playing with the kids, so it's nothing about dropping off the child The parents will always be there and active. And then also we'll be having the cafe in the front. I love coffee just like most parents do. So we're hoping to actually have a full cafe bar with partnering with a local baker. So we will not be cooking anything on site, merely just heating stuff up if possible. But really looking to fill in a space that is in high demand right now. That's aesthetically, it's beautiful. Parents want to bring their kids there. They want to be able to take a meeting or two and be able to work and know that their kids are having fun and in a safe place. So that is the ultimate goal for this display cafe. And we did and have been a part of the Medford community. We walk to the Tufts Park all the time. So that is one thing to know. We are frequently talking to a bunch of parents. I have a bunch of friends now, a bunch of mom friends. And also with the local businesses on Main Street, we've talked to them. They have been like, when will this open? We can't wait to send our kids there. We can't wait to join you guys. So we have a lot of parents and a lot of interest on when and the demand for this to open. A lot of parents to know, because I know parking is a factor in everything. When we do go to the Tufts Park, every and all parents are walking to that park, which is only a couple blocks from this space. So that is something to note. But that's the general overview. And if whoever has questions next, I'm happy to answer. And I'm sure Darwin will be able to answer as well.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And so, yeah, we'll be taking questions just so everybody understands. We'll be taking questions from the board. Then we'll open for public comment. And then we'll enter deliberations by the board and make a decision. Yes, Jim. I have a couple of questions.

[Unidentified]: So is it open to the public? or just people that are renting the units?

[SPEAKER_23]: It is open to the public. It is not just for people renting the units. This is a public space.

[Unidentified]: So you had mentioned that if you're working from home, you could go there with your children and work from there. How would you eliminate, if you're working on your computer, the noise? Are there any?

[SPEAKER_23]: I think when you're a working parent, because again, I work from home and my son especially is always around. He goes to school some days, but you kind of just adapt and a lot of parents want to either just take meetings and this is across the country. These are booming and they're opening up more and more and demand for more and more, whether it just be you need to get a couple emails done and just be able to focus. It's really hard sometimes when your son or your daughter is playing in the background. and they want your attention, where their attention is drawn to the playscapes, the different STEM wall activities, playing with the play advisor. But yes, parents, noise-canceling headphones are our best friend.

[Unidentified]: Another question I have, if I may, how many people, parents and children, can this place accommodate, this space?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, we did an occupant load calculation as per the international building code. I think I have it on the more refined. Ah, yes. Okay. So, the, because we were also trying to calculate the amount of toilets that we needed and it's all based on the occupant load. So we have. Uh, the business area 9, the coffee bar 1, uh, storage 1, and the seating area, uh, non fix 6. Um, and then. So, that's that based on the 1 for 200 on the toilets and 1 for 50 on the male and female. So, yeah, so it will be, uh, the total we have is 23. sorry.

[Unidentified]: Would you have to monitor that and time people and give them a time frame?

[SPEAKER_23]: Yes. So with these play cafes, everything is pre-booked, um, and you do have a limit. Um, so basically people will block two hour timeframes. Um, there's one that is open. It's called the village play space in Medford right now. I frequented there. I frequented a bunch of them and you always have a two hour time block, uh, that you attend. Usually there's an hour closed at lunch, so we can do cleanup from the morning session. and then you move into the afternoon, early evening session. So yes, there are time blocks and there'll be a limit on how many kids can be in that space and people in the building as well.

[SPEAKER_19]: And to that end, Jim, if I may, our current client that we just finished, literally just opened in March, they have a membership system. So it's kind of like a club, honestly, like a pretty fun thing. I haven't been able to do a post-occupancy evaluation just yet. It hasn't been long enough to know exactly how it's operating. It was a CBS store that then became this. We'll see how that one's going, but she's very successful so far from what I get.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I'll talk slow, give you more time. Quick question for the applicant to the chair. What are the expected hours of this location? It sounds like I wish I had this when I might get younger, but curious what your operating hours would be.

[SPEAKER_23]: Yes, I'm hoping to operate from 9 to 6 p.m. as the final the final shift of the day. So we would be closed by six and then the employees would do cleanup from six to seven. But yes, nine to six is the standard operating hours for play spaces.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Got it. And it's the coffee bar, just making sure I'm clarifying on that one.

[SPEAKER_23]: Yes, so the coffee bar will be included. We're hoping it'd be more targeted towards the parents coming in and not really the general public without kids. So this will be a safe place for children and parents.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: So it's not going to be like a walk-in, like a Starbucks. Anybody could just walk by and say, hey, let's go grab a cup of coffee sort of thing.

[SPEAKER_23]: No. I mean, if you're one of the frequented parents and you want to walk by and grab one, you could. But this is definitely for parents and kids safety reasons. I don't want just anybody walking in to the cafe. Yeah.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Thank you. Yeah, Chris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to the building commissioner, is he still in the meeting? If he is, okay.

[Chris D'Aveta]: No, thank you. Um, Scott, do you consider this an extension of an existing nonconformity relative to that side yard setback on the, on the, uh, I think it encroaches enough.

[Scott Vandewalle]: I think it encroaches enough because it's not necessarily parallel. I think we looked at as a likely to be a variance variance.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah, thanks. So just to put it out there, that's my big problem with this development or this proposal. Otherwise, I think it's great. You know, it's a good reuse of that space. I understand the necessity for creating the units in the back. However, that is just... That setback is just a bridge too far for me. You've got it 0.7 feet, which is like, I don't know, what's that, eight, nine inches from the property line.

And I understand why you're doing it. It's extension of that line goes straight back, makes architectural sense. But sometimes you just have to work with what you're given. I could not approve of that sort of just a few inches from the property line sort of proposal that's going on here. Sorry.

[SPEAKER_19]: Um, if I may, so you just have a few inches is, is, is almost 2 feet and is actually going further away from what it is. So, right now is 1.2 feet and he goes 1.9 feet. So, because of the lines not being parallel to the building. it actually is getting away and away by a couple inches more and more, rather than increasing. So I would have cited the Beralta rule, but this is not a single or two family. This is actually a mix, but just aligning. We're not increasing. We're actually just aligning to it.

[Chris D'Aveta]: You got 0.7 feet on your side yard setback, your existing, and then your proposed 0.7 feet.

[SPEAKER_19]: So, the line, if I can share the survey, it's 1.2 and 1.9. So, 1.2 is the current corner at the where we're aligning and the 1.9 is as it goes back.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mr. Fortuna, do you want to share your screen just to point that out?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, that'd be very helpful. Let me kind of visualize what this is kind of.

[SPEAKER_19]: So, so what we're doing is the current corner right here is 1.2 feet off of the property line is a existing condition. And by aligning here, our addition goes back, but it's not parallel to the property line, so it goes up to 1.9, rather than getting closer, it's getting away from it because it's not aligning. Now, interesting though, it will appear less because the fence on the other side is about two feet off of the property line. So it will look like not a meaningful change, you know, the way that that is.

It's not getting closer to any particular property or building because of the way this lots are. Um, it's not getting. Yeah. Yeah. It's like, no, it wouldn't have an impact on, you know, the owners of 390 379 or 164 harbor when it comes to anything meaningful view or shadows or wind or light and ventilation, which is kind of intent of the zoning code look and feel and life safety. Um.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and just to be clear, so that dotted line, what is that right there? Which one? Can you focus in a little bit more again? Is that the fence?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, that's the fence I mentioned. I don't know if I can sketch. But yeah, this is the fence. It's actually about two feet off of that side.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And the buildings, kind of the rear of those buildings, what does that look like there in that space? So this is this one at the front.

[SPEAKER_19]: It doesn't go back. Let me see. This one ends right here. Go ahead, Abby.

[SPEAKER_23]: The one in the back is a long driveway. And then there's like a grass area behind the house that we share that lot with. And then everything to the right, excuse me, the left that you're looking at is also it's all paved everything.

[SPEAKER_19]: Now, in any case, you know, Chris through the share. This, this, this, if we were to not do the addition the way that we are proposing it, and we were to push it back, you actually feel more of a misfit to the site, then, then closing it and squaring it off. And he was still required a variance. So, it was, we would still have to be here. He wouldn't help us in any way. Yeah, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, just to jump in. So, like, I'm just looking at the plans. That 0.7 is... You can sort of see it down at the very bottom, just under where it says demo landing. So, it's 0.7 feet away from there, and that's the existing... Nope, a little bit further... Yeah, further down.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: By the... Yeah. Towards the alleyway. Towards Main Street.

[Denis MacDougall]: It's the very bottom where it says demo landing. Yeah, right around there. Yeah. So, that's where the 0.7 is. So, it's 0.7 feet away from the property line at that location, and that's already... That's the existing portion of the house. So then when it goes up and it changes, but so when you're doing, when you're writing down the side yard setback, you have to include that at its closest point.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah. I mean, in a way he should have laid up the larger distance, right? Because it doesn't, it doesn't increase as you say. And your proposal is for the, yeah. And your, your 0.7 feet is under your proposed section, so I think that's just an error, but it's still very close. My point is still the same as it was, I think.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yes, Scott. It has been quite some time since I last looked at this, and it does appear to be correct that if it is moving away from the line, it's not technically a variant, it's now a special permit for an extension of a pre-existing non-conforming building. So your threshold of approval does drop down. So you would make that consideration in how you motion this one out.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, so Scott, just just to be clear, what you're saying is that so in in the agenda, it says will require a variance for side yard setback and off street parking and a special permit for the expansion of an existing nonconforming structure. You're saying that side yard setback can can also be a special permit.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, because it's not increasing the non-conformity. It's decreasing, although it's not bringing into full compliance with setbacks. So it's just an extension of a pre-existing non-conformity, which is typically just a special permit requirement, i.e. a lower threshold to cross. So yeah, there seems to be a small error somewhere in there.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Other board members have questions? All right, I have a question. So one thing that was kind of glossed over a little bit was just the offsite parking. Can you explain the variance requested for that?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, so we currently, uh, the configuration is to 2 residential units and 1 commercial unit. We are not changing that amount of units. Um, but by the sheer fact that we are, um, increasing the space on the ground floor, um, it will require parking. It doesn't have parking. So, um. It doesn't have any any parking so. What we're doing is proposing some bike racks and some accommodations to, uh, the, the, the, the users of the space and, um, making it more, more accessible, giving the distances to public transit. But it's, um, it's a 1 to 1 comparison, but it requires parking because of the increases of the square footage of the ground floor. All right. Thank you.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, Scott. The parking was an initial concern that we discussed quite a bit, and then it went off to Danielle for more review. There is physically space in the back for a car. You just literally physically can get there, but you literally can't because you have to cross on to somebody else's property partially. There's no full driveway to it. So essentially there is no parking provided. So the concern at the time was by having two residential units and having this play space, was it going to create a parking concern? And that was the big wrestle that everybody went through. And I think it's determined based on the type of use, it might not be the issue. It would be for something more like a true coffee shop where you need to have parking out front. So that was a major point of I'm not going to say contention, but discussion between myself, him, and even further on down the line with Danielle.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. What's the existing use on there right now, the commercial use?

[SPEAKER_23]: The existing use was Palo Alto Oil Company. It was just like an office, like a very small office and a bathroom. and that's it. It's really not a functioning office type of space.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Also for the proponent, do you have any photos that you might be able to share on your screen of the alleyway to address, I think, Chris's concern about how close that is to the property line?

[SPEAKER_23]: I don't know. Let me double check if we can see it in one of the images.

[SPEAKER_23]: Oh, Google Maps. We have it, Darwin. I don't know if you can pull it up because our computer thing is not working. But you can see it on Google Maps how close it is. I don't know if you're able to pull that up, Darwin.

[SPEAKER_19]: You mean from above or can you see my, my, yeah. Cause I, I have the street right now. Can you see it guys?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: No, we couldn't see it. Yeah. But that's, I went there too, but you can't see down the alleyway and I'm looking, I want to get the alleyway view kind of down so that you can see the other buildings as well. And what that looks like. Yeah, that might be helpful.

[SPEAKER_23]: And right now to note too in that alleyway is the original entrance to the apartment units which we are switching in our proposed renderings as well.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: But the distance we're talking about is not a distance to another physical building. It's a distance to the property line.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, exactly. Which again, in perception, it will appear bigger because the fence is about 2 feet off of that side. So it will feel like 4 feet.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right, so if this was redesigned in a way such that it keeps that side yard the way it is, and that extends further back into that very Unusually shaped section, then that would be intruding more on the neighboring properties.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, exactly and it would be a much more weird shape building, like, a lot more skinny and almost non functional. Um, but, yeah, thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, can can you stop sharing your screen for for now? Thank you. Let's go into the public comment period. Yes, can you, Steph, can you please say your name and address for the record?

[SPEAKER_01]: Hi, my name is Steph Butzowski-Maupin. I live at 164 Harvard, actually.

[SPEAKER_01]: I'd like to speak in favor of the proposals that the that have been presented here tonight. I do not own 164 Harvard, but I am a renter there, along with my husband. I use that space back there where the fence is. I have a garden back there. And I think even with the property built up to the full three floors, I think that my garden would have plenty of sunlight. Not that that is my major concern as somebody living in a city. I think we need more housing. And I definitely want to push back against the idea that everything has to have parking minimums. So again, I want to issue my support for this as a neighbor and as a resident of the city. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you very much. Are there other members of the public who would wish to speak? Dennis, have we received any written comments?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Thank you. All right, anybody else? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public comment period? Motion. Thank you, Mary. Second? Jim, thank you. Roll call vote. Mark? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? You're muted. Sorry. Thank you, Mary. Hi, and I'm an eye as well. The public comment period is closed and we enter into deliberation board members. What do you, what do you think? And at this point, it looks like we're, we're deliberating on a variance for the off. Off street parking and for 2 special permits 1 for the.

Um, one for the side yard setback and the other for, uh, operating a cafe and indoor recreation space. Oh, and sorry, there's actually, we've got, sorry, three special permits. And then the third one is for expanding an existing nonconforming structure.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: So. I guess I'll start by saying I think this is a great suggestion. I know that area and it's a pretty rundown building, so this would bring some nice new life to the area and anything certainly that provides a space for young families to kind of bring their kids to that area. Sometimes playgrounds can be challenging in that area, so I think that's a great use for the space. I was glad to hear the speaker before about living in the neighborhood, and I see the building where the address she's talking about, and that's right exactly where this place is. It was comforting to hear her feedback with respect to the setting and the sun, et cetera. Then lastly, from a parking perspective, it's an urban area from my perspective, so I think certainly a variance in the parking would certainly be fine from my perspective. I'm very much in support of this.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mark. Yeah, Jim. I echo Mark's thoughts as well. Thank you. Chris or Mary?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Right. Thank you. Yeah, Chris. I guess I'm the dissenter still. I still think this is simply too close to the side yard setback, so I can't support it. In essence, it is like a variance, even though it's a special permit. It's acting as if a variance, in a way, because of the side yard setback situation. I feel I've been consistent on this point in other votes and other applications that have come before us, where in some sense, you have to work with what you're given. And from the architect's perspective, I completely understand why he's doing what he's doing. And it makes sense. And I support the business. I'd support even the parking situation. Um, but that one corner is, uh, just, uh, you know, bridge too far for me to go because I think you remember these, these things that we approve are there forever. They're not just there for that particular applicant. They are, they become, um, you know, part of the building. And, um, so no matter who lives in that adjoining house or a budding house, they're going to have a large property right up against their property line in perpetuity, essentially. So for that reason, I cannot support the project.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Chris. My opinion on this matter is that I'm very supportive. I think it's a great idea. I really love the business concept. I understand that this is a very difficult shaped kind of challenging the parcel the way that it's shaped and that this is this both improves the housing units that are on site as well as bringing, you know, a new interesting kind of useful business to the area and I think supports the family friendly kind of nature of it. So I think it's a pretty big upgrade. For the special permits, just to remind everybody, our threshold for a special permit is to determine that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the city or neighborhood. And then there's the six sort of General considerations that we already talked about earlier in the meeting today, which is 1 social economic or community needs, which are served by the proposal to traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading 3 adequacy of utilities and other public services for. compatibility with the size, scale, and design of other structures in the neighborhood, five, impacts on the natural environment, and six, the proposal's compatibility with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. I think in all of those, this is really a judgment call when you're talking about a special permit, but I think on all of those, I agree that the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. regarding Chris's concern about the scaling, the massing close to the property line.

I think given the way the adjacent properties are oriented, I don't think this is really a big concern of mine. There's a lot of distance in the back to the closest property and then it ends before the other properties begin next to it. I think that I feel comfortable With that and, you know, just saying living in Medford, I mean, I live in an area where. All the properties are 2 and a half stories tall. It's not and that's just a purely residential area. So I don't think that this is kind of an extraordinary massing of the building. But, um. We can, we can differ, uh.

Any further deliberation that the folks want to talk about any of this? We have the one variance on the use. We have the three special permits for the side yard setback, off-street parking, and expanding an existing non-conforming structure. So the variance for the off-street parking. We have to do motions, I think, on all each of these separately. So if there's no further deliberation about any of them, or if anybody wants to, you know, propose something different, we can take some motions. Yep, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, I just think, because these are all sort of tied together in one thing, I think we could just do a motion for one, brought them all together. Yes.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think so. Including, but don't we have to do the variance separately, because it's a different threshold?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, sorry, but the three special permits we can just do all together. Sorry, I didn't quite explain it as well. In my brain, I was thinking that, yeah. So we can do a vote for the variance and then a vote for the three special permits, which would be for the... Actually, it's sort of the same thing, but the side yard, the expansion that uses non-conforming, and the cafe and recreation space.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Does anyone have a problem with doing it that way? All right, since we do have one variance and the threshold is different, I do want to just kind of go over that for everybody again so that we understand. There must be unique land conditions, so the shape of the parcel, soil conditions, or topography must justify the variance. There must be a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, the property owner by by not doing this. And then in terms of the no detriment to the public, no substantial harm to the to the public or alter the neighborhood's character or go against the purpose of the zoning ordinance.

So let's take the variance first for off street parking. Is there a motion to approve a variance for the off street parking for this property? Jim, that was so moved. So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mary. We'll have a roll call vote now. Jim? Aye. Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mary?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. So 5-0, the variance for off street parking is approved. Next, we will look at a special permit for whether or not to approve a special permits for the side yard setback. the expanding the existing non-conforming structure and for operating a cafe and indoor recreation space for 387 Main Street. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you, Jim. Is there a second?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an I as well, so four to one, the special permits are approved. Right. Thank you, everybody. Dennis, do you want to just talk about next steps?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, absolutely. So as I sort of, if you were listening on the previous one, so what happens is I will write up the decision and it's, it is a legal document, so it'll have to get checked over by our legal counsel. And upon completion of that, it goes out for signatures. Once it's signed by the members, then it gets filed in the clerk's office and that'll start a 20 days appeals period. So, and then at the end of that 20 days appeals period, barring no appeals, You would come in and you can get what's called a letter of no appeal and from the clerk's office. And they will present that to you and you take that letter of no appeal and the decision, file it at the courthouse, the registry. and then you can come back and then you can get your permit. So it's, I would expect the process to take a month and a half, give or take, you know, given the timeframe for me to write it up. Legal counsel usually takes a few weeks to review. And as long as there's no hiccups with that, you know, but you know, I say a month and a half to two months, you know, through the entire timeframe of that. So, but if you have any other questions during the timeframe, we'll be out.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, Scott. I do want to clarify that that does not prevent them from starting permit review and code review processes. It simply means I cannot issue a permit until I receive a copy of the recorded decision. So if they want to begin some portion of the process, we can get now. Don't wait till the end of it to start submitting documents.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, absolutely. That's, that's a great point. So yeah, just start filing and getting the things in. Cause there are a bunch of other intern, other departments that will look at these permits from the get go. And so if, you know, if you get those, they're okays right off the bat, you know, that would expedite matters as when we get, when you get to the filing for the actual permit. Great.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, thank you so much. Appreciate you investing in the city and good luck with your venture.

[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you. I really wanted to formally thank all of you guys for your hard work and dedication. You could have been doing anything else, and you'd rather be here and contribute to your communities. And Scott, great job. One of the best commissioners I've ever met. Regardless of how this was going to go, I said that to Abby and Fernand. So I'm very, very happy with all of you guys, and happy to keep working with you. Bye-bye.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Fortino. There's nothing I'd rather be doing at 9 p.m.

[Denis MacDougall]: 31 Boynton Road. Applying Jennifer Percy and Jordan Sherwood for proposed 1.5-story addition to 31 Boynton Road, which is an allowed use in a single-family zoning district. This addition will require a variance for height.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. We have the proponent here to speak on the project.

[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I'm Bill Dickinson, Dickinson Architects. I'm looking to talk. There we go. Never mind. Turn on my video.

[SPEAKER_08]: My name is Bill Dickinson. I'm with Dickinson Architects and Concord Mass. I'm representing Jen Percy and Jordan Sherwood, the owners of 31 Boynton Road. We're proposing to add a story and a half addition to their ranch and are seeking relief from the 35 foot building height limitation. Now, Jen would like to explain a little bit about the why of the project before I get on the presentation. So, Jen, you would like to take over?

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, sure. Hi. My name is Jen Percy. I'm one of the homeowners at 31 Boynton. Thank you so much for your time and consideration this evening. We're requesting this variance for height. in order to make our current home function for our growing family while remaining in the community that we love. A few reasons for our renovation. Our home currently has very, very limited storage and lacks the functional space that our family needs on a day-to-day basis. When we moved into our home, we had one daughter. Now we have two. Our toddler's currently sleeping in the basement on another level from the rest of the family. We'd certainly love to have her up with us on the same level.

We don't have any local family and so we regularly host grandparents for often days, sometimes weeks at a time. And so having a guest room is pretty essential for us. My husband, Jordan, regularly works from home, so having some kind of separate space for him to work, certainly away from children, would be ideal and increasingly important. And certainly we have no plans to move. We both have stable jobs. We really hope to remain in this home for the long run. And most importantly, we love Medford and especially and particularly our neighborhood. The community that we have found here is really rare and we think really special. Our children have developed close friendships with our neighbors and so have we. And the support that we've experienced here as parents, as people has been truly unmatched. We've had offers of help for anything from childcare to dinners and when one of us is sick and pet sitting and beyond. And we feel really, really fortunate to have found such wonderful neighbors and friends. And so this renovation is really just about creating a home where we can continue building our lives with our growing family, hopefully for many years to come.

[SPEAKER_08]: Great. Thanks, Jen. So I am going to share my screen. All right. Can you all see that? Yes. The plot plan.

[SPEAKER_08]: Great. All right. So this is the proposed plot plan of the of the of Jen and Jordan's house. Now, if this was a flat site, we wouldn't even be here at the hearing and the house would be 28 feet high. But this is a sloping site. It slopes along the street and it slopes from the street to the back. Now in Medford, building grade is not established by the soil against the foundation of the building, but it's established along the curb line of the street. And the street slopes from this low point here, and it's where the property line meets the street. So there's a low point here, and it slopes up to here. And so the established grade is the average of those two. So it's right here.

But in addition, this lot slopes from the street to the backyard. And all that sloping means that the basement slab of the existing building is actually four feet higher than the established grade as measured by the surveyor. And that makes it very tough to make a two and a half story structure. So let me show some photos. So this is Boynton Street and this is Jen and Jordan's house here looking down. This is a view looking up the street and you can note the steeply sloping road from right to left and then the lot slopes from the front to the back.

And with this direct on view, the mean height of, again, established by the surveyor, is probably about right to the right of the garbage cans. And again, that is about four feet below the basement slab. The upper photo is on the same side as 31 Boynton Street, and this is the lot to the left. So there is no building to the left of their house. The lower photo is the building downslope to the right. It is a two-story colonial with an attic space. And I want you to note that there is an open basement garage, first floor, second floor, and then attic space.

Across the street downslope is a single-story ranch. The next up is a two-story house with an attic above, but also note that the basement is exposed and there's a basement garage. The next house up, and this is really directly across from Jen Jordan's house, but this house, again, it's got an exposed basement, garage, first floor, second floor, and a large attic space, which could absolutely be another half story. And this house is really about the same height as what we're proposing in Jed and Jordan's house. So it's a exposed foundation, first floor, second floor, and half story. And then this is the house above, the next one up, and again, exposed foundation, first floor, second floor, and roof area. So across the street, there are houses that are going to be similar. There are of similar height to what we're proposing.

And so this is the 3D of the house we're proposing. From looking down, we've got the basement that's exposed. This used to be the garage, but now it's been infilled for a room First floor, added second floor, added half story, and then you can see the roof deck above, which will get quite significant views of downtown. So I think that'll be nice. But also, these two bumps are in the existing house. This is the existing floor plan of the first floor. Enter up the stairs here into the living room, dining, kitchen, and then we've got two bedrooms, both sharing a bath.

Down in the lower left, this is the existing basement. Got a rec room, office, and kind of bedroom storage. And that's the extent of the house. But I'd like to draw your attention to the existing west elevation, the upper left hand of the page. This line right here is the established grade by the surveyor that aligns with the curb. It is four feet below the garage slab. And the existing house, as measured by the methodology of Medford Height, is 20, let's see, It's 23.9 feet. It's actually only 11 feet short of the 35 foot maximum. So to add a story and a half, which is allowed by the bylaws in 11 feet, is difficult.

This is the first floor of the proposed. We're not changing the footprint. The entrance, we have an entrance stair coming up to a foyer, mudroom, stair going up to the second level. We have an enlarged family room, dining, kitchen, and then a first floor guest room office. The lower left, we have the second floor, so we have two kids' bedrooms with a shared bath. To the right, a primary suite, and then lower left, stairs going up into this half-story space. and then the roof deck. Now I wanted to have you note that these dotted lines are the seven foot ceiling height line. So this T space is the only habitable area up there.

If we were to lower the roof slope, the habitable area would actually become illegal and we wouldn't be able to have a usable room up there. These show the rear side of elevation on the left side and the street size elevation on the right. Now the upper left shows this line down here, the established grade that's at the curb going up to the 39 feet height which is proposed. But On the lower left, I took the grade line, for argument's sake, at the existing grade of the back of the house. And also if the house was on a flat lot.

And that goes to, that ends up being 28 feet. So from the backyard grade up to the measurement of the roof is a 28 foot high house. Now looking at the street side elevation, once again, here's the established grade, four feet below the basement, that's 39 feet. But if I took the height from the exposed foundation and also the height of the basement slab, we are at 33.6 inches. So we're a foot and a half below the maximum 35.

So, you know, in conclusion, you know, I think the sloping lot at 31 Boynton creates a hardship that prevents Jen Jordan from adding a functional story and half addition. And that's why we're seeking relief from the 35 foot height restriction.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you very much for that clear presentation. Board members, are there questions for the proponents? Okay, seeing none, let's open the public comment period. Are there members of the public who would like to speak for or against this project? Yes, Francesca. And please state your name and address for the record. Oh, you're muted.

[SPEAKER_18]: There we go. Sorry about that. No problem. Francesca Lyon. I live at actually 129 High Street, which is the large Gothic revival historic house on the corner of Boynton and High. I've lived in this neighborhood almost 40 years with my husband, who passed away, with my two sons. I've loved the neighborhood and seen many people come and go. Jen introduced herself to us last weekend. And I think what I'd like to say is that I'm very enthusiastic for the renovation. I was delighted to hear that they love the neighborhood, love their situation. I think what I'm concerned about is the height of the house on that. on the peak of basically what's almost the peak of the hill.

From the downhill side, although we're a high street address, we basically live on Boynton Road. That's our daily life. My kitchen window, I can see right up to their house, not so much in the summer weather. Flowering Tree screens them. But a lot of the year, we see their house. And so I told Jen on Sunday that I'm very enthusiastic about the renovation, but I'm conflicted because The house looks like it's going to be very large on the site, and I totally understand the hardship of that site.

I'd like for this to work for them. I don't want to be the person saying, you know, I don't want them to do it. I do want them to do it, because it looks like a lovely house. A lot of thought's gone into it. It looks like it would be a very nice space for their family. I love the deck, and I think That's a nice feature in that it's not going to produce too much height on the south side of the house.

I would say by just a detour, my neighbor across the road doesn't live there in the house that Bill described, the two-story with the attic space that's below. Jen and Jordan, she said she is neutral about this, she discussed it with her family and she kind of defers to me and to my neighbor Peter Brady who lives one store up at 24 Boynton Road. I understand that everyone is busy. We didn't get very much notice that this was happening. I only found out a couple of weeks ago and Dennis very kindly sent me the package of drawings.

I spent a lot of time looking at it. I really, really looked at this a lot. I'm an interior designer by trade. But I feel as though we need a little bit more visual documentation. For example, maybe a dotted overlay of what the existing house would look like on top of the proposed house. And maybe contextual visuals for a streetscape elevation, where you see the house above, Jen and Jordan, their house, and maybe Mariana's house at 25 Poynton. I'm anxious not to slow down the process. I realize they want to get on with this and make a beautiful home for their family. I just feel like more visuals are needed to study the roofline comparisons because It is on a very awkward spot in the street. It's a very high point. The house appears as though it's going to loom over the others. I know Bill has described how the house opposite is a similar situation. But it just feels like when you look at the downhill view of their house next to 25 Boynton Road, it's going to appear very tall. And it's going to impact me a little less, because I'm two steps down. But Peter Brady's house is next to mine. And he's, in some ways, impacted more than anybody, because he's sort of seeing it uphill and not face on like Lisa and Mark, who are sort of almost opposite.

Bill very kindly explained the sunlight loss. I'm still struggling with trying to understand whether that is a factor. I think lots of people live in the shadow of houses. It's something that I'm concerned about because I have east light coming from their west elevation. So, you know, I, I do understand the hardship of the site. The main issue is that the existing site conditions do present real issues for adding a one and a half story building. So I'm wondering if there's anything that can be done. to mediate that. And Bill's basically saying no, because if they want to do the playroom, which I would love for them to be able to do, it would be an uninhabitable space. So it's not that I don't want this to happen. I just feel like more visuals are needed.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you very much. Other members? Yes. Could you please state your name and address for the record?

[Patricia Doherty]: Sure, Patricia Dougherty, 190 High. I'm an attorney representing Peter and Stephanie Brady, who are out of town. And in full disclosure, I'm Peter's sister. I'd like to tell you a little bit about the neighborhood before I have anything to say about it. Oh, first, I want to add, like Francesca, They were happy to meet Jordan the other day and to go over the plans. And having raised their family there, they hope that they can enlarge the house. They have concerns. One of the things about the neighborhood is that my Grandfather bought 24 Boynton Road in 1938 or 39. And the family's been there all this time. So of course I grew up there. I know that neighborhood really well. And my grandfather's house is not a ranch actually. It is quite a very large house and it was built 1930 and it was built to not impact Francesca's house, which is on the National Register. And a lot of the homes around it were built in scale to not impact that home. It was built for the granddaughter of President Adams, I think Quincy Adams. And so if you were to go to the back of the Brady household, you would see that it's actually a very large two-story home. And the house, that we're talking about 31 Boynton is adjacent to what was the Mazzucato home, and he owned a construction company. He actually built the social center down the street.

And it's my understanding that his company built 31 Boynton Road, and it was on purpose a ranch, so as not to impact the neighborhood. I know that the house directly across the street, which does loom over the house one up from the Brady house. It's nice and neat and all of that, but it does have that height issue. And I know some neighbors are hoping not to have that happen again. So even when they built the 1960 library, which has been taken down and they put up this current library, It was built with a first story and a recessed second story. So not to impact this particular neighborhood because of course there's rock and ledge and there are areas that are very steep. So I think people did make, I want you to know that people did make an effort when they were developing the street to maintain some dignity and keep a very residential feel about it. So Peter and Stephanie's concerns are, and I was wondering if maybe the architect could explain this list a little bit about what loss of sunlight there would be. Because if you stand on Boynton Road and you look up, the houses that are going to be most affected are going to be the houses below them. Anyone across the street or above will not be affected at all. And so, in fact, the house directly beside them really won't be affected. But it will be Francesca and then 24 Boynton, Peter and Stephanie, and maybe a little bit the house up, but really will be the two houses in the bottom because they look directly at them the most. So I was wondering if we could address the loss of sunlight. And then the other thing is, it's my understanding that the peak Is that, I had a hard time, Francesca sent me the plans today and I had a hard time figuring it out. Is the peak a cathedral ceiling?

[SPEAKER_08]: Through the chair. Yeah, yeah, I mean, I'll address that. Yes, anything can be done. It is just that if you lower the peak of foot, actually the way the bylaw is, we just, the height of the building, But the methodology is just lowered six inches. So it's kind of interesting that way. But if we lower the peak too much, we make the habitable area much narrower. And actually, for a habitable room, it needs to be seven feet wide. I think it's seven foot high. And we are almost at that limit. So if we lower it much, we're going to make that an unusable space.

[Patricia Doherty]: Now, why would that be? So the height as you plan it now is what?

[Patricia Doherty]: No, no, no. I mean, if I were standing in that room, what is the name of that room?

[SPEAKER_08]: Oh, it's the family room. Or sorry, it's the rec room. playroom playroom what is the what so what is the height of what are the what are the what's the height on the first floor and then the proposed second floor and then what would be the height on the third floor inside okay inside so actually what i'll do let me go to i'm going to share the screen and i'll go to that uh document and then um then i can i actually have a um sunshark that I can share with you also.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I'll just note that generally this back and forth is not allowed, but I would like us to get to kind of address the concerns as quickly as possible.

[Patricia Doherty]: Mr. Chair, you might not have heard me, but I just did say through the chair, if I may ask that question. before that I just give you the question and he can answer it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I was just explaining that I'm letting it happen. I appreciate that, thank you.

[SPEAKER_08]: Okay. So the basement height is eight foot three floor to floor, or sorry, first floor to basement is eight foot three and so the basement height is about seven foot four in the basement. The first floor is floor to floor and that's an existing ceiling and so the ceiling height in the first floor is seven foot four um we are jordan is uh on the tall side and so we want to make the ceiling a little bit higher on the second floor because we're able to so that would be an eight foot ceiling and then it's nine foot six floor to floor um and then the inside height is about 12 feet but then it's at about maybe four feet over, then it's at the seven foot. So it's about eight foot wide at seven foot tall up in this area.

[Patricia Doherty]: So no different than a normal second floor on a cape, but actually a little bit taller.

[Patricia Doherty]: Yeah. So would it be a difficulty to lower it by two feet at the peak, so it's not so looming?

[SPEAKER_08]: Well, it basically makes this room uninhabitable because it doesn't have the allowed head height at the proper width. We would need to, let's say, lower the second floor then in addition to that.

[Patricia Doherty]: um you know down to seven foot four something um you know without doing that okay i'm sorry i'm gonna have to cut this off so okay thank you appreciate it andre could i ask you the questions then directly yes you should uh any questions and further comments you're welcome to continue well i guess i i'm wondering i know that peter and stephanie have a great concern about the actual height of it being a cathedral ceiling And I guess for them and for me, and I lived in a cape around the corner on 27 Lincoln Road. And I mean, I don't see that it would be much different than what a second floor of a normal cape is. It doesn't have dormers. So if there's a difference, I'd appreciate hearing that. The other major concern they have is they were hoping that if there is going to be relief, that it would be the decision would allow the height to only be in the drawing submitted so that no one is allowed to build out on the balcony because they feel that that would be quite daunting and would really hurt the neighborhood and hurt them.

[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. I will say that the Medford zoning bylaws allow for two and a half stories. So that attic area is a half story. And that's 50% of the footprint. So it's already at, you can't build out much more by the bylaw without a special permit.

[Patricia Doherty]: But it's even that much more that would be even possible if someone wanted to all of a sudden close. And I don't want to go, I'm sorry. I should be addressing myself to the chairman. So that, and then I do have a question of the chair. I've heard special permit mentioned, but it said in the notice that it was a variance. Is this a request for a special permit or is it a request for a variance?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, Andre, sorry, just jump in. Yes, it is a request for a variance for height. That was what it was applied, and that's what the notices that were sent out all indicated.

[Patricia Doherty]: Okay, because another attorney who was a former member of your board at one time read the application and informed me that there was a mention of a special permit in it, and I didn't have those documents. So I'm just wondering.

[Denis MacDougall]: I'm not sure about that, but just going by the application and the notices that which I'm the one who actually creates the notices that go out, then it was always considered a variance due to the height.

[Patricia Doherty]: So all right. Well, I guess so my two questions then that I asked the chair is if we could have an explanation on the Sunlight, if you had done a sun solar, whatever it's called, when you do that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I can show that chart. Okay, architect Dickinson will hold off, please.

[Patricia Doherty]: And then the other part is, and this is for the board, if you do consider granting their relief, if you would consider putting in it that the, open part can never be filled in, can never be built out. Because I know that the applicants have very good intentions, but the variance runs with the property. And if they decide to not build this and sell, someone else may very well come in and build out.

[SPEAKER_20]: Hi, I'm Brian Spence, 30 Hillside Ave. I wanted to share my perspective as an abutter. 31 Boynton is directly behind us. We're on Hillside, which has a similar type of grading as described for 31 Boynton. met jen years ago jen and her husband years ago she stopped by recently about this meeting to share of the plans for for the work that they're looking to have done and my wife and i and our kids are totally supportive of it I think about us, we've been here 25 years. I think about us 10 years ago when we made an addition. And if we didn't have the opportunity to do that in a way that would support our family in the right way to stay in this wonderful neighborhood and to stay in Medford, we wouldn't be here. But we were able to do it.

We know that we caused an uproar with our construction for our addition. Uh, we know that there'll be some of that, but we're more than happy to have that because we went through it and we support what the general husband and their family are trying to do, uh, to make things work in Medford in a neighborhood that they love. So I'll stop there. Cause I know it's late. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you so much. Uh, Aaron, no blood, uh, name and address for the record, please.

[SPEAKER_12]: Actually, this is his wife, Grace. I also reside here at 35 Powder House Road. I met Jen about Jen and Jordan and her family very soon after moving in about four years ago. They've been exceptionally thoughtful throughout the entire planning process and have made such a clear effort to ensure the design remains consistent. with the character, integrity of our surrounding neighbors. I know she's called me over to kind of consider her design options, and that's always been a flag that she has raised. I know there have been concerns raised regarding the impacts of sunlight, and I also am a gardener myself, so I completely understand the importance.

but it is not situated on the peak of the hill. I know that that was said earlier. Um, it actually goes a lot higher and the proposed increase in height appears to have like, it's been considered, um, I think, uh, thoughtfully, um, and they're wonderful neighbors. They genuinely care about maintaining all of their kind of, uh, relationships and, preserving the overall feel of the neighborhood. So I just wanted to put my input out there. I know that my husband and surrounding neighbors also agree. So I am all for this renovation. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right, thank you, Grace. Yes, Stu, name and address for the record, please.

[SPEAKER_21]: actually also the wife here, Jess Wilhoft at 64 Boynton Road. We'll be brief, also know it's late, but we did just want to know, you know, support that, support the project in the sense that we understand that the lots and the topography on this hill are challenging and that Jen and Jordan have been thoughtful and comprehensive and how they have approached both the layout and the design that it's not only consistent with the current aesthetic, but also the aesthetic of the surrounding neighborhoods. I think as. as Bill had pointed out in some of the adjacent properties as well. Again, we're a little bit further up the hill and not as impacted, but we do look down at their property and it doesn't appear to us as being a large eyesore, if you will. We walk up and down the hill every day. Just wanted to, again, reiterate that Jen and Jordan are really thoughtful members of our community and we think that they've given a lot of thought to their surroundings. this design for their family and, you know, really, really encourage that consideration in support of the project.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Are there other members of the public present who would wish to speak on this matter? Okay, seeing none. Dennis, are there any written comments?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, we received a letter with signatures on it from, and I'll just as again, just to try to. For brevity sake, but there was a letter and basically, you know, we were such encouraged zoning board feels to approve this variance request and it's signed by Patricia Damian 45 point. Savannah Crowley, 59 Boynton. Rachel Batari and Stephanie Melikean, 34 Boynton. Jess Wilhoft, 64 Boynton. Tony Koukanis, 40 Boynton. Kathleen Tseng, 35 Hillside. Maurice Habdon, 35 Hillside. Marie Izzo, 29 Pilgrim. Brendan Sullivan, 51 Boynton. Honey Schnapp and Steve Schnapp, 36 Hillside. Kristen Pence, 30 Hillside. And we actually received two additional signatures right before the meeting started. Mark Torgerson and Lisa Oh, no, I'm so sorry for you for doing this. I will actually look up on here. Mark Torres and Lisa Bukowachio from 30 Point.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, Dennis. Any other emails or? No. OK, great. Thank you. Is this line, is this essential?

[SPEAKER_18]: Just a quick comment that, as I said earlier when I addressed you, we were kind of late to the game in terms of the design process. I'm all for them doing this, but I just feel like we We weren't privy to all the people who live up the hill who are friends with them, who went through the design process with them. Jen very kindly came and knocked on our door on Saturday evening, and we agreed to meet on Sunday. And the same with Peter. So we're the downhill neighbors. We are impacted more.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Any other comments? All right, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public comment period. Is there a motion?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mark? I, I guess. Yeah. And I as well. So the public comment period is closed. Sorry.

[Denis MacDougall]: I don't know if Mark can actually vote on that one. So I'm sorry.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. No, thank you. Thank you for reminding me. So, so much time has passed. I forgot the voting members are going to be, uh, Jim Tarani, myself, Andre LaRue, uh, Mary Lee and Chris DeVita. So we have four, four members voting. Right, thank you. So public comment period is closed. Deliberations, members, what do you think? Yeah, Jim.

[Unidentified]: I'll pass the question through the chair. Absolutely. Is there a shadow report?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is the architect here? Architect Dickinson, do you have something you wanted to show?

[SPEAKER_08]: All right, can I show it, Chair? Yes, absolutely. All right. All right, so this is a sun diagram of the house. I think it's 24 Boynton, which was the house up from Francesca. These lines, this orange line and kind of umber line, this is the height or this is where the sun rises during the summer solstice. So it's as high as the sun gets. In the winter, the sun actually rises right here. So in the summer, And I have the sun set here for 820.

So if you're in this house, and it's the summer solstice, the sun gets, if there's any light that is blocked, it wouldn't be blocked anymore by 820 in the morning for the rest of the day. So north is directly up. So to be honest, the only sun that would be blocked would be early in the morning. And honestly, this is the hill. So the sun's going to block the hill from these houses. By the time they get beyond the house, it's going to be above the hill. So I think there's very little impact except for maybe, you know, an hour in the morning during the summer. In the winter, when the sun rises, and this is the winter arc right here, the sun will never be blocked by this house. And during the equinox, which the sun rises right here, again, this house will never be blocked by this house during the equinox twice a year. So it's just in the summer months, is there any possibility in the first hour or two of the morning? But I think the hill itself blocks the sun at that point. So for the houses below, it's really unaffected.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Can you just point out, just to be really clear again, which is the house that's being constructed and which property is that?

[SPEAKER_08]: This is the house that's being constructed. Right. And this is the house, 24 Bolton. This was Francesca Lyons' house right here. Okay. And this is the house being constructed. I'm sorry, I did not point that out first. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Do you have any, any thoughts about the project itself and our deliberations?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, if I may, Mr. Chair, it's interesting in a way because of the plans that I did review before the meeting. And then it's, I guess, and I'm using the term in its most benign way, but it's a little bit deceptive in looking at the plan and then looking at the street view, which I'm doing in Google as I speak to you now. And I do understand the concerns of the neighbors a little bit better by looking at the actual street view and seeing how tall that gable end, gable top would be.

You know, I I sort of changed my opinion a little bit in it from seems like a You know good, it's still a good project but but the the impact if you will is a little different than I Thought at the outset so I do wonder if there's a a way to work with the architect if stretching the building versus going up is an option or some other way to work around this. And we're We're seeking a variance, so that's a majority vote, which is normally four-fifths, but that will be a four out of four vote tonight, being the four voting members, I guess.

So that's what they'll need to secure their approval. And perhaps, as in the prior case, a continuance to work with the neighbors would help to, you know, alleviate some of their concerns. And I realize that's, you know, it's another month for the applicant. But as I say, given the four out of four, 100% vote that they need right now, It's possibly questionable in my mind whether I'd support it, given what I now see. Thank you, Chris.

[Mary Lee]: Well, I do hear the concerns. And, um, and I, I'm supportive of the plan. However, I think what Chris has just mentioned also makes a lot of sense. Um, and I, I will be, I would be, uh, leaning towards the suggestion of continuing this.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. So, I guess that leaves it to me, my opinion, what I think I, I would be prepared to approve this project. I think there's a lot of support in the neighborhood, overwhelming support. We have heard a couple of concerns about the height, but. I would just remind everyone that the variances, they're only asking for a four foot variance. So, you know, we could drag this out and change, you know, the design could be changed. It's not going to change the impact of the project very much at all.

I also was looking on Google Street View to look at it from different angles. I'll share my screen here just so I can give you my thoughts. So this is the property right here. There's a lot of space around the property. It would, you know, it is a significant increase. We're talking, let's see, a story and a half. So probably be up here somewhere, but there's still, you know, there's still a tree right here. There's some number of trees like blocking, you know, shading from the following property. And if you look actually down here, this property is much closer to this one and also is about, you know, a story taller. And so I actually think that it's not kind of unreasonable to talk about. I think that, you know, these properties over here are not going to be significantly affected by this property right here going up to about here. So I'm struggling to kind of find, and it's not at the top of the hill either, you know, it keeps going. So, so, you know, from this angle, we're talking about, you know, it's a significant difference for sure. But.

I would it's also my thought is it's not a very large house the footprint is not very big so it's not that wide so you know it's not also it's not like a sprawling massive house so again that's that's my Those are my opinions about the matter. I do think that in terms of the variance meeting the threshold, which is size, shape, topography, soil conditions, I think it meets the thresholds for a variance. But personally, I don't think there's a detriment to the neighborhood as kind of indicated by all the support.

So that's my thoughts, but, you know, we do need to have, uh, four out of four approval for the variance. So I think, you know, Jim, Chris, Mary, um, if you, uh, don't feel like you can, uh, you know, vote for it, maybe we should consider asking the proponent for a continuance. What do you think?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, yeah, that would be my preference for continuance and just for the architect to work with the abutting property owners who have some concerns, which admittedly aren't all of the property owners, but some of those direct abutters to the property. And I'm not really asking for a total redesign, which means I'm in money.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is there a threshold at which you might be, you could accept it? I mean, we're only talking about four feet, so one foot, two feet.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Well, yeah. If it were slightly smaller, you know, I'm curious about the reasons for the design, the way it is with the size of the property. Maybe there were architectural considerations, geological, topographical considerations because of the, maybe there's ledge, extending out the back of the house instead of going up as tall. But those are, again, as we have often said, we are only voting on what is put front of us, we're not redesigning the application. I don't want to get into that because, like I said, it's time and money.

[Unidentified]: I'll try to understand, Chris, are you saying, if I may, through the chair, are you saying that you want more support from the neighbors?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, essentially that is, Jim. What I'm saying is if the architect can work with the two abutters that are saying that they object in some way to the height, which it seems to be the height, and then come back with some possible redesign for that gable top,

[Unidentified]: OK, thank you. Well, Andrea, I guess if we don't have one that agrees that we need four, I don't want to ruin it for the project. So I would have to go along with Chris on that. If I'm not mistaken, did you say we need four out of four?

[Unidentified]: So I would have to go along with that and say that we would have to get.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Same reason. I don't want to put an end to the project. They can't come back for two years.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: For the proponent, would you entertain a continuance to be able to talk a little bit more to the neighbors and come back next month?

[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, but can I ask a question? Because we're talking about, I guess, four feet, right? That's the question. So I guess I'm just trying to understand what design change or how that would work in terms of four feet in terms of the board's consideration.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, I'm asking myself that same question, but we, I, you know, there, there is a desire to get more consensus from, from the neighbors. Um, I'm not sure if a continuance will successfully, uh, you know, resolve this issue, but it will give you time to have those conversations.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I guess that's what we'll do then. I mean, I guess my understanding is that without that four feet, we lose kind of the entire upper level. So any redesign would sort of just mean that we have an uninhabitable, unfinished attic space instead of a playroom up there. That's my understanding according to Bill. But, yeah.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Thank you. Um, and this is what's the date again, uh, Dennis for next month.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Um, for 31 Boynton road. Is there a second second? Thanks, Chris. All right. Roll call vote. Jim. Hi, Chris. Hi, Mary. I. And I'm an I as well. All right, thank you. We will see you next month, and best of luck.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Dennis next item on the agenda and miscellaneous next item on the agenda is just the approval of the meeting minutes from last month's meeting which I know I sent out a little late so I apologize for that so but if you yeah yeah would the board members like to review more time to review those for for next month

[Mary Lee]: I'm ready to vote because it's only a page and a half. I took it already.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. All right. Is there a motion to approve the April minutes?

[Denis MacDougall]: Um, that's really it. So, just, um, we have the continuing matters for next month. We have quite a few items on the agenda, but none of the look super. Comprehensive, nothing like tonight, so I think hopefully, but we'll get through it. But so just also make sure you have a nice meal before next month's meeting as well. All right. Thank you. Good rule of thumb for the next few months. But.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Dennis, I just wanted to point out, I think somewhere in the minutes it said voted nine to zero. instead of five to zero.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, I'll fix that. So yeah, I'll just put the scrimmage there and fix that. All right, thanks for catching that.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, exactly. Actually, it's Boston too, vote off and vote early, vote for James Beth McCurley. My dad always said that.

[Scott Vandewalle]: Scott, you won't be around, right? Not entirely my decision. Oh, okay. Well, thank you.

[Denis MacDougall]: It all depends on if we have a, we have a new building commissioner at that point. Yeah. There's a lot of things in flux.

[Chris D'Aveta]: So yeah, practically took all your time today. Well, I want to thank you in advance then for being a great, uh, help and assistance for all of us here.

Patricia Doherty total time: 8.03 minutes total words: 1153