Zoning Board of Appeals 06/25/26

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.5-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 met to review and vote on several zoning relief applications, including variances and special permits for residential additions, use changes, and commercial projects.

0:31 114 Mystic Avenue — Continued the hearing for a special permit to allow cannabis delivery services at an existing approved cannabis dispensary to July 30th while awaiting legal counsel.
2:34 31 Boynton Road — Approved the applicant's request to withdraw without prejudice their variance application for a 1.5-story addition.
4:42 39 Ramshead Road — Continued the application to the July 30th meeting due to a notification issue.
5:37 70 Lincoln Road — Approved a use variance to construct a second single-family dwelling on an oversized lot, with further review required by the Community Development Board.
50:38 25 Mystic Street — Approved a special permit to construct a two-story deck on an existing non-conforming two-family home.
1:02:11 21 Water Street — Approved a variance to construct a two-story garage within the front yard setback of a corner lot.
1:24:10 493 Main Street — Approved a special permit to convert an existing non-conforming single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling.
1:40:12 121 Boston Avenue — Approved a special permit to change the use of the property from a non-conforming real estate office to a non-conforming community cafe.
1:54:25 Approval of Meeting Minutes — Tabled the approval of the previous meeting's minutes to the next meeting due to a lack of voting members.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, welcome to the June 25th, uh, regular board meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. Um, uh, hereby call the regular meeting to order and we'll take a roll call vote of the members. Uh, Mary Lee. Present. Mark Crowley. Present. Yvette Velez.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: and Andre Larue, president. Thank you. Dennis, could you start us off on the first item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: 114 Mystic Avenue. uh, continued from May 28th. The applicants are seeking zoning relief for a special permit for, in this case, delivery services to an existing approved cannabis suspension at 114 Mystic Ave, requiring a special permit. Zoning relief is sought from section 94-7.6, adult use marijuana establishments, and article 9, marijuana establishments. And, um, just want to say that there, for the city, there is a discussion whether or not our city's ordinance And the state's ordinance on delivery services don't jive, basically. I'm trying to not, you know, but that's basically, and so we need to help. We need, we just need to, we're seeking help from legal counsel to clear that up. So in the interest of making sure that this is done properly, we're going to, you know, request to continue this for until our next meeting.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. And the proponents are okay with that. Okay, great, I see nods. Thank you, sorry about the confusion. This came up, I think last minute today, my understanding. So we wanna make sure we do it right.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is there a motion to continue this matter until July 13th? 30th. 30th, sorry, 30th. Motion. Thank you, Mary. Is there a second?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I am an aye as well. So we have continued this matter to our next meeting in July 30th. Thank you everybody. Dennis, could you take on the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. 31 Boynton Road. It's continued from May 28th. Applicants Jennifer Percy and Jordan Sherwood propose 1.5 story addition 31 Boynton Road, which is an allowed use in a single family and zoning district. This addition will require variance for height. So just to let folks know that this matter, the applicants actually submitted a request for withdrawal without prejudice. And the fact, and what basically happened in this case is that When they first applied for the zoning relief, the building height basically had one definition indicating building height from the curb, which we had a discussion with at the last hearing. And after they applied, the new zoning went into effect, which actually changed the building height, so now it's measured from the building. So if they had applied a few weeks later, they would not have needed zone relief whatsoever. So they are withdrawing and reapplying for their permit. And so they are just, they've submitted a request for withdrawal without prejudice. And I think the board still will have to vote on that, but that's.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. Is there a A motion to accept the withdrawal of 31 Boynton Road. Motion. Thank you, Mary. Is there a second? Anyone? Second to the motion?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Yvette. Roll call vote. Mary Lee. Aye. Mark, I know you recused yourself last time, but I think you can vote on this procedure matter. So I'll call on you. Mark Crowley.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Andre LaRue. I'm an aye as well. Thank you. So the motion is, the matter is withdrawn from the CBA. Thank you, everybody.

[Denis MacDougall]: We're just going to go slightly out of order for 39 Ramshead Road. That application, there was a notification issue. So we're going to continue that to our July 30th hearing as well. So could we get a motion? I guess, Andrew, you can ask, but we need just a motion to continue until July 30th.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Is there a motion on the floor to continue 39 Ramshead Road to July 30th, our next regular meeting? Motion to continue. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Mary. A roll call vote. Mary Lee. Aye. Mark Crowley. Aye. Yvette Velez.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Andre LaRue, I'm an aye as well. The 39 Rams Head Road is continued to July 30th. Thank you everybody. Dennis, the next item on the agenda.

[Denis MacDougall]: 70 Lincoln Road, applicant Samuel and Beverly D'Agostino to construct a second single-family dwelling at 70 Lincoln Road, which is in a single-family one zoning district. The second principal structure will require a use variance.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. Do we have a proponent for 70 Lincoln Road here? Yeah. Attorney Desmond.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening, Chairman LaRue and board members. Kathleen Desmond, 335 Main Street in Stoneham. I'm here this evening with Samuel and Beverly D'Agostino, the owners of the property at 70 Lincoln Road. The matter before you is a request for a use variance to construct a second single family dwelling on the premises. If permitted, an additional special permit will be required by the, um, CD board, uh, because there is a provision in the ordinance, which allows, uh, for two principal dwelling, two principal structures to be placed on one lot provided there is a special permit issued by the CD board. Um, by way of background, the subject property, uh, is a 13,277 square foot lot on which a two story four bedroom single family home currently sits. The subject parcel is an unusually large lot, approximately 723 square feet shy of the 14,000 square feet necessary to divide the lot into two buildable parcels as of right. Dimensional variances to create separate lots would create at least one non-conforming lot in violation of the doctrine of merger, which is why this alternative relief is requested. The applicants have resided at 70 Lincoln Road for approximately 37 years and have been very involved in the community. They would very much like to remain in the neighborhood, but also would like to downsize to a smaller single family home. The proposed second dwelling is a one story. And Dennis, if I could share my screen.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Can you folks, Oh, wait a minute. I have to hit the share button. Oh, hold on one minute, folks. I did what I swore I would not do. Let me just get this up. I had it all set to go, and then I clipped out of it instead of, so it should be there. Share my screen.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. So the structure that my clients are proposing to construct has a single story floor plan with two bedrooms and an office. guest bedroom, and a two-car garage. This is a view of what it will look like from the exterior of the property. Again, it's all one level. There's a small basement area, but due to the topography of the lot, this is built primarily on a slab. So that is essentially what the project itself looks like, or the proposed project. In terms of the lot, This is the existing lot, and as you can see, we have ensured that the lots meet the setback requirements that would be required of the districts. So there is 15 feet in between both structures. They meet the height requirements. The lot coverage requirement, 40 is the max for a single family, and the two structures together is only 31.8%.

of the lot. So it meets all the requirements of a single family district because there's only 723 square feet shy of the 14,000 square foot requirement. So anyone looking at this in terms of a street view would seem to wouldn't notice that, in fact, these are two separate structures on just one single lot. Many surrounding homes in the neighborhood, if we look here at the area plan, are less than the required 7,000 square feet. Originally, we had held off on filing this application and were waiting for the new zoning proposals to go into effect If the new zoning proposals, the first iteration had gone into effect, I believe the SF1 zone was intended to have a lot area of 5,000 square feet. And in that case, we would have been able to do this by right. But even if the lot area were to change to something greater than that, with the two structures on this lot, it would appear to someone looking street level that these lots were over 6,000 square feet and it would blend in with the neighborhood.

And so we aren't able to do what we want to do because of the doctrine of merger. The lot is nearly a double lot. It's shy by 723 square feet. There is this mechanism with the CD board that allows for two principal structures to be placed on one lot. uh, provided there's a special permit. Um, I did sit with the building inspector and, uh, the planning department on this matter. Um, and, and the building commissioner's concern was that, um, the, the code doesn't specifically indicate that, um, two uses are permitted on one lot. Um, and in this instance, the uses are identical. Um, so we're not putting multiple uses on, on the lot. And looking at, and I just want to point this out in terms of the use variance itself that we're requesting. If you look at the definition of building principle, am I sharing my screen or am I not? I'm not. Not anymore. Hold on. Yeah. That's why I like when the architect's here.

In looking at the definition of building principle, It's any building devoted to a principal use or for determining the dimensional requirements of this chapter in the case of an open principal use, which this isn't. But I would suggest that if the ordinance allows for a second principal structure on a lot, that that also comes with it a use. But the building commissioner didn't want to make that determination himself. In addition to this provision, there's also a provision in the subdivision law, which is not in the zoning ordinance, but gives some context certainly that indicates that no more than one building designed or available for use for dwelling purposes. shall be erected or placed or converted to use on such a lot in a subdivision or anywhere elsewhere in the city without the consent of the board, meaning the planning board. So it all sort of ties together in terms of the planning board having the right to do that. In terms of my variance request, it would be based on the fact that this lot is not undersized. It's extremely oversized. And the hardship to my clients would be if they want to downsize, they're left with Hobson's choice of either moving out of the city of Medford, which they don't want to do, or possibly they could demolish the existing structure, which would then allow them to build a single structure. And I gave the board the case Delpret in my materials, which it's one of the rare occasions where a court has determined that hardship, economic loss, demolition constitutes a hardship so for them to have to tear down their home to build to downsize where their lot is oversized and the ordinance allows for two principal structures on a lot by special permit is what the hardship would be in this instance. In terms of detriment to the community or a derogation of the intent of the bylaw. This is, again, an unusual situation where it isn't really derogation of the ordinance or the bylaw, because there is a provision in the ordinance which allows for two principal structures on one law. So, you know, it would be in the spirit, which is unusual, of the bylaw and not necessarily a derogation of the bylaw. In terms of public interest, again, housing is always an issue. The doctrine of merger gets in the way, not frequently, but sometimes when you have a property of this size where if you try to subdivide it, neither law would conform. It's sort of this, you know, I look at this whole provision in the ordinance as sort of an ability to create an exception to the doctrine of merger. because it does allow you to do this if permitted by the the community development board and as i indicated the building commissioner had requested that we seek use variance in addition to the planning board approval of a special permit i don't necessarily agree that that was necessary I think by virtue of the fact that a principal building has to have a use that that it's kind of implied that if you're going to allow two principal structures on a lot then they have to have a use I have seen in different codes where they specifically allow multiple uses but I think that's more in the situation where you're putting different uses on a specific piece of property In this instance, we have a single family, which is favored in the SF1 district. It's an allowed use. So, um, you know, there isn't necessarily the derogation or conflict with the bylaw, but his issue was it's a second use in an SF1. So, um, so again, our hardship would be that, you know, this is an oversized lot. Um, the, the hardship to my client would be that if they wanted to truly downsize and stay in the neighborhood, then they'd have to demolish an existing you know, four-bedroom home, which doesn't make any sense in light of the housing crisis that exists in Massachusetts.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Attorney Desmond, just a couple of questions. So, as you said, the proponents are not pursuing to subdivide the lots because neither one would be conforming. you would not want to try to get variances for those?

[Kathleen Desmond]: You can't, it's black. There's this doctrine of merger, um, which is when you hold title to, and these were at 1.2 lots, uh, and they way back, right. Um, they, they own both of them. So once you put those lots in common, common ownership, um, you're then, um, subject to, um, the, doctrine of merger, which means you can't divide those lots because as a consequence of that, you would be creating two non-conforming lots. So that's prohibited under the law. And so this is another vehicle, which is allowed by the ordinance to put two principal structures on an existing lot. And this was in the prior code as well. And under the prior code, you needed to, which is what we did here. They're separated so that it meets all the other setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. In other words, there's 15 feet between both buildings, seven and a half, seven and a half is required on your side yard. It meets the front and side setback. So we can't draw the line because it would violate the doctrine of merger.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I guess in terms of the practice for all practical purposes, though, how what does it mean to have two principal single family homes on one lot when it comes time to to sell or, you know, is that one of them becomes a rental property?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Um, and set up to, you could, you could set it up so that it would. And, and, and to be honest, what we're hoping, um, is that they can get through the construction phase and, and maybe those residential, um, zoning changes come into effect. And again, not even to the extent of 5,000, because my understanding originally was that, you know, the, the thought was to get the lots to look like they look on the ground. Um, and in this particular, area. Um, there's very few lots that are 7,500 square feet. Um, so that's their hope that before they get to the stage where they have to make a decision on that, that they would, um, be able to subdivide them and we'll set it up so that we meet the setback requirements. Um, but if, if that's not the case, then they can condo them, uh, and set up, you know, exclusive use areas, which would essentially give both lots exclusive use of that portion of the property that they would have, or they could rent it, either or, but that would be an alternative.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That's helpful. Obviously, the state law has changed around accessory dwelling units. Is that an option that was considered?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, the 900 square feet hamstrings you in that regard because it's small.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: For those who don't know that the accessory dwelling units are allowed by right, but the accessory unit can be only a maximum of 900 square feet. Right. All right. Thank you. That's all very helpful. Do the other board members have questions before we go into public hearing?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Got a question through the chair. What is the actual size of the new property? On the map, it looked like it actually from a, I guess, footprint-wise, much larger than the existing house, even though it is, I guess, arguably a single-story home.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Let me just pull it up. Here it is here. More plan and I let me see if I can get so you can see it. Oh, I didn't pull it up. Did I let me expand it before I do. Hold on. You know what? Let me just answer that question for you and pull it up.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I'm looking at the revised survey document and it just looks like from a footprint perspective, the new building is. much larger than the existing one.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Admittedly, it's only one story. The building area is 2,657 square feet.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. But two levels, so that would be what the difference is there. And importantly, um, the lot coverage, because you could build a 40,000 40, you could build a single family that covered 40% of the existing lot, which would be massive here because you've got such an oversized lot. Um, and this actually comes in at much lower than that. I believe the figure was 29% coverage. So it's much less than what's permitted by the ordinance. And I think, although I know it looks big on the plans themselves when you're looking at them, I think in terms of what it looks like, you know, in the context of the other houses that are on there, I don't know that you would notice it. Um, as much, does that answer your question?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: It does. And it was going to be, you know, the next question was that lot coverage component, which was to say, you know, how much is going to be, uh, I can get that for you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So the lot coverage it's on the, um, oh, wait a minute. I hold on one second. The lot coverage is roughly 29%, I believe.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: on that. What would the lot coverage be for that portion of the site that's going to have this new home? Because you're making the case that there's going to be two, essentially look like two lots, because they were two lots, and they would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. where Mark's getting at is what will that really look like, that much larger home on that smaller lot?

[Kathleen Desmond]: And I don't have that calculation, unfortunately. The only calculation when we did it was we did it based on what the total calculation was gonna be for both units. If that's important to the board, I could go back and have them get that for me. But actually you've got, Your building area is 2657, so that's your footprint, correct?

[Kathleen Desmond]: And your lot's 13277. So you divide that by two. Well, no, that would just be, well, you're asking just what that one is, correct? So it would be.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: That's exactly where I was going with that, is that if we're going to be treating that as if it were a second property, it would have a much greater coverage than if it were just simply taking the two houses together. You're basically taking advantage of the fact that the other house takes up less space, which then kind of goes counter to the argument of saying, oh, these are two properties.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, if that's, if that's an objection, then, then, you know, we could go back a bit, I suppose, to the drawing board on that and see if we can't determine, um, you know, revise the plan somewhat to affect that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Um, well, let's see if there are any other board members have any other questions.

[Yvette Velez]: So for clarity on Lincoln Road, you can park on both sides of the street right now. And so adding a curb cut there, you're now moving public parking to private parking, correct?

[Kathleen Desmond]: We did have a discussion with engineering about that when we originally brought this forward and got permission for the second curb cut. But yes, that would be the case. we would be making it private, but arguably you'd be doing two for two. So, you know, I don't know that it would make a difference in that regard. It would have off street parking for both properties and also there's a driveway. So in the event that there was company or something of that nature, you know, there's ample room to park. in the driveway, guests and whatnot, because you do have a two car garage. So those cars are embedded in the house, the portion of the house.

[Mary Lee]: Yeah, so my question is in line with what Mark had asked in terms of the proportion and the mathematical calculations. I think it would be helpful if we could have a more accurate calculation in terms of the two lots.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, the difficulty is that it isn't two lots at this point. And I understand, and I don't have any issue with providing that at this point. If that's what the board wants, we could get that calculation, certainly. And then I guess the question is, if we're getting that calculation, is it a question of, Well, I don't know what the board's preference is with regard to the design at that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. Well, and I think our purview is more narrow. We're looking at a use variance. Even if we provide a use variance, then they still have to go to the Community Development Board to get a special permit. And it's the special, the community development board would be the ones, I think, that would walk through a lot of the design issues through that process, because with a special permit, you can put conditions on the property and things like that. So I think, you know, let me just leave that there. Maybe we should go into public hearing, hear what folks have to say, then we can come back into deliberation.

Um, all right. At this point, I I'd like to open the public hearing portion of, uh, of this item on the agenda is, are there members of the public who would wish to speak? Uh, please like raise your hand, use that little raise hand function if you can, or if you have trouble with that, feel free to just speak up. Uh, yes, Steve Hayes. I think you have to unmute yourself, because we can't hear you. Hello? Yep, now we can hear you. And can you just state your name and address for the record?

[SPEAKER_00]: My name is Steve Hayes, and I'm at 29 Damon Road, which is behind the property in question. Great, thank you. I just want to ask, so the last lady indicated a single level home, but on the drawings it appeared to me that the home is sort of slightly single level at the front of the property, but raising to become slightly more of a greater in height at the back of the property. I think it's around 25 feet in height at the back of the property, so I'm not sure what the distinction is between single level and double level. So that to me felt, on the back of the property, which is more on my side, it would certainly appear to be a regular two-floor home. And then Another question I had is when you guys were talking about the size of the home, it would feel like if the house is 2,657 square feet and the lot is, you said, short by 700 square feet, that would indicate that the lot is around 6,300 square feet. If you divide one by the other, you get around 43 percent. Is that the number you're looking for?

Yeah, that's correct. That was it, just because on these diagrams on the back, it felt like it was slightly higher than at the front.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? We can get the answer to you, but what we can't do in the public hearing is kind of have a back and forth. So I want to make sure you have all your comments and questions in now. No, I think that's it for now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Attorney Desmond, do you want to clarify?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. In terms of the structure of the house, there's a topo on this too because the topography changes on that. Now, admittedly, there's the cathedral ceilings here, so it is a bit higher, but it's also because it's on a slab and the grade of the Home is different, which brings that higher. It's still well under the 35 feet that's required for height. I think the height on this proposed height building is 28.8, and the existing is 25. But a piece of that relates to the topo of the lot. And some of the reason why it's on a slab as opposed to a full basement is to meet what the grade of the land is at that point. Uh, but there are cathedral ceilings. Um, so there are higher ceilings within the, the, um, the living area of the home.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. So when you say slab, I assume you mean that there's not going to be any drilling, right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: So if you, the basement, um, I mean, there might be a little bit of, of picking that they have to do, but the basement area is here and this is all on slab. So there's no basement on it. Um, they're not digging to put in a foundation.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Kim Olivieri, and name and address for the record, please. And you need to unmute yourself. We still can't hear you.

[Kim Oliveri]: I was getting pop-ups. Hi, my name is Kim Olivieri. I live at 25 Damon Road. I am an abutter to the property in question. And I share Steve's concerns about the height and that it does appear to be a two-story structure between the height. And you say there'll be no basement, that it will be slabs. But it does appear to be a walkout basement or a walkout level. in the photos. I also had some concerns in a letter that we received from the Diagostinos.

It stated that they wanted to have a design consistent with the neighborhood. And the neighborhood is primarily center entry colonials. And this design is a little more jarring for the neighborhood, which borders historical neighborhood as well. So I'm hoping you could comment on that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. Do you have other questions or comments before they respond to all of them?

[Kim Oliveri]: Well, I have no. you know, no desire to make any hardships for the Augustinos. But, you know, it has, you know, it will affect me and my family having a structure there. You know, I am concerned about light pollution, which is kind of an issue in this neighborhood with a patio and a walkout basement or in my bordering my backyard as well. So I think those are my main concerns.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Yes, Jordan Sherwood. And sorry, we'll go through all the public comments and then we'll have the proponents respond to some of the questions. And Jordan Sherwood, name and address for the record, please.

[SPEAKER_14]: Jordan Sherwood, 31 Boynton Road. I live around the corner from this property, and I would like to speak in support. I think that's a very thoughtful design, and in keeping with the neighborhood, it will, I think, help address some of the housing issues in Medford. Additionally, parking is really not an issue here, so I think that's in this neighborhood, and I don't think that it would negatively affect the impact of the neighborhood. So I would just like to speak in support. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. Thank you. Any other members of the public? Dennis, have we received anything in writing on this project?

[Denis MacDougall]: We did. Let me just call it up. Hold on a second. Switch screens. We received a A letter from David and Kathleen McQueen. Basically, they just wanted to express their disappointment, the likely loss of the tree and the change it will bring, the large tree on the property and the change it will bring to the character of the neighborhood. They are also concerned about traffic disruption, dust and noise from the construction, but they also acknowledge that, you know, the applicants have been good neighbors and they don't wish to oppose them on this matter. They just had some concerns they wanted to express.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, Dennis. Obviously, we haven't actually heard from the D'Agostino's themselves. They're welcome to speak. They do not have to, but I want to give them an opportunity if they do want to make any comments.

[Beverly D'Agostino]: I don't want you to think it's two levels. It's one level. I'm just a light craver. So I wanted the windows. So we're not going to there's nothing above. It's only a ceiling. So I would hope that that wouldn't really bother our neighbors because the whole idea we love this neighborhood and we want to stay here. I have 10 grandchildren and in I have kids in Arlington and in Winchester, and I love the neighborhood. I love Medford. We've been here for years and years, so we want to stay. Yes, it's 2600 square feet, but a lot of that is garage. It's a two car garage. My husband has had knee issues, I've had heart issues. So although we might look okay, we're hoping to stay here through forever. So this is why we wanna build this house. I just want everybody to know, and I appreciate the neighbors who have expressed their concerns for sure.

That's really all I have to say. I just want you guys to know that that's the reason we wanna do it. What's up? Oh, and there's no walkout. It has a slab in the back. It's just a walk up patio, which we have in the house that we love now. So it's going to be the same exact thing. It's just, you know, the lot over so we could do the one level so we don't have stairs. That's pretty much it. Do you have questions for us?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: No, there's just a couple of the comments and questions that came up. There was a question about tree removal, about maybe shading. I don't know if you have fencing or what you have planned. I don't know if you want to address any of those. That's not really our purview here at the ZBA anyways, but if you want to respond to them now, I'll give you a couple of minutes.

[TSZw6HVZ9Dk_SPEAKER_01]: There is one tree in the middle, a sugar maple tree that is a beautiful tree. There's no question about it. It's in the middle of a lot. Quite honestly, and in all honesty, we're not really sure on the life expectancy going forward with this tree, because there's a lot of bark. Coming off of it coming off the tree and we do we have it trimmed every year not to say that I couldn't tell you whether the trees in the last a year or a hundred years in all honesty But you know and then I have thought about that because we actually loved a lot the way it is also but going forward this really would suit us much better to keep our roots in Medford.

So yeah, there will be some, we have to make some decisions also that may not be the best thing as far as cutting the tree down, but we could always put other plantings in and trees grow. And the house we're in now, I'm sure there are a lot more trees cut down to build this house many years ago. And that's kind of how it goes, unfortunately.

[Beverly D'Agostino]: But we do plan on doing some nice landscaping and our neighbors hopefully have seen that we really do take care of the house that we're in now. And I have lots of trees. So I do plan on doing the same thing in this house to accommodate for that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public? Yes. I know we're, this is a second comment, so I'll do it, but just keep it brief, please. Kim. And you're muted.

[Kim Oliveri]: Thank you. Just really quickly, could you just the board provide more clarity on what would happen with the house down the road? Should they be sold as two separate properties? I think Kathleen mentioned that they could be sold as condos or like, is that something that could be discussed now?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That's not really in the purview of the board here. If they do move on to the Community Development Board, I think there's more opportunity to talk about design and things like that. Okay.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. No, no. I think you raised the concern and I'm glad that they hear it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak? Attorney Desmond, could you stop sharing your screen?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, absolutely. One point that was raised just I wanted to address on the historical, you know, they are keeping the existing home and that's, you know, part of the whole thing. If they really wanted to stay there I suppose they could demolish it and construct a bigger house that was one level, but they are preserving the existing structure, which is in excellent, very good condition for use by another family.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, attorney. All right. Is there a motion by a board member to close the public hearing portion of this?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary Lee. And Andre Leroux, I'm an I as well. The public hearing portion of this matter is now closed. Board members, we enter into deliberation and I just want to kind of make clear for everyone. We only have four board members tonight. We do need a super majority to approve a use variance. So we would need all four board members to approve in order to move this forward. Uh, thoughts to board members have thoughts about this.

[Mary Lee]: So, Andre, can you clarify this is only a vote for the use variance? Is that correct? That's only.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so I think what the matter that we have to decide on is whether we think a single, a second principal home on the lot is a use that does not constitute a hardship. that they have a hardship that can only be resolved through a use variance, and that it's not going to go against the design and vision of the Medford zoning ordinance, and that it won't be detrimental to the neighborhood essentially. So even if we were to approve the use variance, then they would still need to go get a special permit from the community development board. And there would be a lot of conversation at that point, probably about design, the square footage, size on the lot, et cetera.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: So is it likely it could then come again back to the zoning board?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: No, I think that would be that would be it. And, you know, Attorney Desmond explained that she didn't think it this matter even needed to come to us. But the building commissioner believed that it did. So that's why they're here tonight. So, I mean, my personal opinion is if we're just looking at the use variance itself, a 2nd home on that site is not. Out of character with the rest of the neighborhood, I think the other lots are around 6300 square feet. So this would be creating really just recreating. a lot that was already there that they can't subdivide and go back to that. Attorney Desmond explained why with the merger doctrine. And so for me, it's not out of keeping with the neighborhood, that use and the fact that they can't subdivide and that they, you know, would have to tear down their existing house to be able to build a new one to stay in the area does seem to me constitutes a, you know, financial, uh, and otherwise hardship. Um, so I would be, I think I would be inclined to, uh, to support the use variance. Um, and then all these, you know, the concerns that we've heard tonight would really be on the, before the community development board.

[Mary Lee]: I would tend to agree with what you said, Andre, in terms of the use, approving for the use of variants.

[Yvette Velez]: I would just add that I think Attorney Desmond had compelling uh, documentation with other cases, and I think, uh, it was supportive of demonstrating, um, that that hardship would exist, uh, in regards to the cost. And it isn't a detriment to the neighborhood, and I think it's, uh, actually a very thoughtful design overall, um, which is also a bonus. You know, while that's not part of the, uh, decision-making process, I think, you know, moving forward, they might, I think it would help them. So I would agree with everything everyone has said too.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: No, I think I've had, you know, all my questions were more, in many ways, on the design and structure, I mean, not necessarily the use. I mean, my only thing is I thought about, you know, what is, you know, our criteria for voting. And, you know, we talked about the financial hardship. I mean, you know, obviously, I can understand that. I mean, it is, you know, to some degree, a personal choice. I mean, yes, you can move, but I do understand that, obviously, in this circumstance, that is the intent there is just not there. And then the public detriment element of it, I was glad, obviously I heard concern or questions from the neighbors, but not anything necessarily opposing it. And again, all issues or questions that would come out in ultimately the design element of it. So I think it passes the test from our perspective and the rest of it really needs to be sorted out later down the road or with another department, I guess.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mark. Yeah, I share, you know, I share some of those concerns as well, but they do seem like they could be solved in a design through the design process. Do we have a motion to approve or disapprove the use variance for 7D Lincoln?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So 4-0, the use variance is approved.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much. And we will take into consideration the comments that have been made by the neighbors and the board. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you. And attorney Desmond, if you could draft the decision.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you very much. And thank you to everybody who came and spoke on, on the issue. Uh, Dennis, could you read the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: I didn't realize. Was I on mute when I asked Kathy to write the decision? No.

[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, golly gee whiz. Okay. Why did I mute myself then after that? That's very strange. 25 Mystic Street. Appley and Eric Johnson to construct a two-story deck on an existing non-conforming two-family home at 25 Mystic Street, which is in a single-family two-zoning district. The proposed deck will extend the existing non-conforming of the side yard setback requiring a special permit.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. Thank you, Dennis. Do we have the proponents here to speak on this matter?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Um, do you mind kind of explaining and walking us through the situation?

[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I feel like after the last one, maybe I'm a little out of my element, but, um, My wife and I live at the property. We're requesting a variance for the front deck that needs to be replaced. We're trying to increase the size of it to allow for two exits. And we're also proposing to add a second level when we make that change. The additional width of the deck will allow the two exits for each unit of the two-family house to improve the safety of the egress. And the additional level will allow for much-needed outdoor space in the front of the house. Because of the size of the lot and the position of the home, we require this variance because it's set so close to the front property line.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Do you have any visuals that you could just share with what it would look like? Yes, I can. I think Dennis can let you share, give you sharing privileges.

[SPEAKER_16]: Let me share some of these. Oh, here we go. Can you see my screen? Indeed. Yes, but we see your Zoom screen.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: You might have to stop sharing and then choose the file you want to show.

[SPEAKER_16]: There it goes. So this is a picture of the property. This is a picture of the proposed property with the second floor deck. and widened. Yep. You said there is two egresses, though. Could you just point that out?

[SPEAKER_16]: So right now there's one. Let's see if I can get to the page. Right now in this figure, you can see there's one entryway that then goes to both units.

[SPEAKER_16]: And then in the proposed plan, each unit would have their own egress. That way the door doesn't block the second story unit.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I see. Okay. I was a little confused, but I thought for some reason it was two exits from the deck, which was, um, but this makes a lot more sense.

[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. And it makes use of this, this entryway space that's kind of wasted at this point.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, and are the dimensions on the first floor of the deck, how are they changing? It looks like it's a little bit wider, right?

[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, it's slightly wider. It's going from 9 feet 11 to 12 feet 1 1⁄4.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. All right, thank you. The board members, do you have any questions you want to ask to clarify?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, question to Yandere is the chair. What exactly is the variance we're trying to sort through? And obviously I'm making it wider. That makes sense to get it flush with the house. I don't see that. Is it the distance from the curb or?

[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, the deck as it is is nonconforming. It's already set too close to the road. So it would require a variance because I'm making a change.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I say, but we're not, but it's not actually it's, it's only extending an existing nonconformity. So we really just have to find that that extending that existing nonconformity is, you know, is not really detrimental to. Um, the public.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: But it's not getting any closer to the curb. It's just basically making it a little bit taller and then a little bit wider. But its distance from the curb or the sidewalk doesn't change.

[Denis MacDougall]: So actually, yeah, as Andre sort of said, in this case, then it would actually then just be a special permit because you're extending an existing nonconformity. If it was coming closer to the street, that would be a variance. But in this case, it's just special provenance, it seems to me.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think that's correct. All right, any other questions about this? All right, seeing none, I'll open the floor to members of the public. Actually, one thing I just want to do, let me just share. One second. Just want to share my screen so people can see the... Is this the property right now? No, I can't see it yet.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. So it is, you know, it's fairly close to the, to the street. That's where the existing nonconformity is, but it won't be changing that. This will just be getting a little bit wider and then get creating a, uh, a second floor. And you can see right here, there's a two story deck right next door as well. These other houses also seem to have that as well. So on the same side of the street anyways, So, okay, I just wanted to share that. Thank you.

All right, any members of the public wish to speak on this matter? Dennis, have we received any written comment? We have not. Okay. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing portion of this matter?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, Mark and Mary. Roll call vote. Mark? Aye. Yvette?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. The public hearing is closed and we move into deliberation. Members, what are your thoughts?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: From my perspective, I don't see any issues with this. I mean, it doesn't change the existing distance. And so it's going to be consistent with everything else. And so I think it's a practical use of it. And for an appearance-wise, it looks consistent with the rest of the street. So I wouldn't have any issue with this.

[Yvette Velez]: I would agree. And I would just add that I appreciate that the they're looking at improving the safety for both units by making sure the door doesn't block folks. Great point.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you. And the same book. Uh, so our, you know, our threshold here is we just need to find that extending the existing nonconformity, uh, is not, uh, detrimental to the public. Um, and, uh, we would issue a special permit, not a variance in this case. So I think we, we do need a super majority. So we do need all four members to vote in favor in order to approve. Uh, is there a motion to approve a special permit, uh, for 25 mystic?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. So thank you. Your deck is approved and special permit. And Dennis, can you tell Mr. Johnson what to expect?

[Denis MacDougall]: Sure, so Eric, so I'm going to write up the decision, and it'll take me probably about a week to do this one because it's relatively, we've had fairly similar cases, so I can use some of the same language to do so. And it still has to go before our legal counsel just to check with them, and then When that comes back, then it'll go out for signatures for the members. Once they've signed it, it gets filed in the clerk's office. At that point, that starts 20 days appeals period. So usually, our turnaround right now is probably about a month before we file in the clerk's office. So I'd say a month from now, it'll be filed in the clerk's office. That'll start 20 days. at the end of the 20 days, if there's no appeal, you come see me and I'll give you a copy of the decision and a copy of a letter of no appeal, which then gets certified in the clerk's office. And you can talk to the building department and they can work on getting you your permit. And I would even say before then, start just filing for your permits now, because it takes a while for it to sort of work its way through the system. So you can get everything sort of in the works with the building department. They just can't approve the final permit until all that time has passed. But that way, once that time has passed, they've already gone through and reviewed everything. So it'll sort of help expedite.

[SPEAKER_16]: OK. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate you guys bearing with me as I struggle through that.

[Denis MacDougall]: 21 Water Street. Applicant Cyril Bidak to build a garage at 21 Water Street within the front yard setback, which is not allowed for the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance Table of Dimensional Requirements.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. It's the proponent here, Mr. Bidak. All right, great. Can you just unmute yourself and walk us through the project, please?

[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, good afternoon. Thank you for the board of having me. I live at 21 Water Street. Since 2013, I bought the house. I have maintained the property look and feel. It has this old Italian style, things you don't see anymore in Medford these days. I also like to maintain the yard, you know, that gives a little bit of vegetation with the trees as such. So I'm asking for an exception of variance to be able to build the garage, not to consume the yard, but to be able to have the same look and feel and not have a parking lot in the driveway. I can share some images with you, the look and feel and where I wanna put it, if that's okay with the board.

[SPEAKER_12]: I'm going to share my first screen. Let me know when you can see my screen. This is what the property looks like. This is a certified plot plan. This is the proposed garage, it's only 780 square feet. The look and feel of the property over the last 13 years, I've been trying to maintain the look. So those are a couple of images that I want to share with you. And it's not easy to maintain an old building with old two by fours, by sixes and painting it as such. And going to the picture, so the look and feel of the garage will match the look and feel of the house, right, to maintain the same look as such. Today, unfortunately, it looks like a parking lot.

And I'd like to have the garage situated out here so there will be only one car for the city to look. I am not asking to build a new, I will tap from the water and sewer that's existing to the building. And I wanna maintain the vegetation that is still available in Medford. I have also, I'm going to stop sharing. I have also an approval, verbal approval, but I can provide a letter to the board from my neighbor that has a tiny highway. I allow him every winter to dump his snow in my yard, so building the property will not allow him to dump the snow. I have from Joe Terranova, my other neighbor, and approval, my neighbor across the street. I don't have letters to send to you, but I can provide. I've been talking to doing this stuff for the last 10 years. So I'm asking for the board to accept the variance and maintain the look and feel in the neighborhood. I love Medford. I like to keep things nicely the way it looks.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mr. Bidak, thank you. One question that I did have was what is the orientation of the garage? You have an existing curb cut. Are you asking for another curb cut that's going to go or is it's going to be sideways off of the existing curb cut?

[SPEAKER_12]: That is correct. I'm not asking for any additional curb cut as such. Yeah, the car, I can reshare my screen to show you share first screen.

[SPEAKER_12]: Um, so this is where, uh, the curb cut is. So technically the car will go in like this and we'll be parked right there. And it won't look like a parking lot having three cars. My son just bought a car, so he's adding another car now to the entire thing. And, you know, I was saying here, my neighbor that share this driveway, he has a very tiny driveway. Every year he asks me if he can dump the snow and allow him to do that. My neighbor on this side, this side, this side, this side, and Joe Tiranavo also are okay and approving building the garage as such.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: The other question that I had and let me just share my screen too so that I should think I just want to see here.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All the tabs. All right, so this is just Google Maps here. So this is your home, very pretty, historic. And then go around the corner here. So this is, oops, let's go back. So this is the existing little driveway right here. And you're proposing putting the garage here facing sideways so that this will cars will enter here and go in that way.

[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah. And you see my neighbor can dump the snow. You know, he has a tiny driveway. Yeah. You know, I mean, it's a favor, you know, it's, it's an, it's a neighborhood thing, you know, that, uh, that, that we work together. Um, and all the neighbors are in improvement. I've been talking about it for 10 years. Either I don't have the time or the money or other things to do it. So, yeah. Um,

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I guess my question is, this neighbor here is all right, but how close is the garage to this property here?

[SPEAKER_12]: So I want to push it a little bit further out because I don't want to kill any tree and vegetation. So I asked for three feet, three feet because that's what I read. Uh, but I like to make sure that none of the vegetation you see it's privacy is vegetation. It looks good. It's clean air. So I will put it about five feet away from him. Right. And about four feet from the sidewalk.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, and this side, the garage, the side of the garage is going to be facing the street. I'm just curious what that might look like. What do you mean? Um, just like what what is going to sense it's going to be so close to the sidewalk in the street. What will the side of the garage look like facing the Ashland street?

[SPEAKER_12]: So the side of the garage will have a couple windows that match the window of the property, right? Those old fashioned windows, right? And we'll have the same color and the same look as the property per se.

[Yvette Velez]: You said the same, oh, I'm sorry, the same look as the property. And then the image that you had shown looked to be two stories. So it is going to be two stories high?

[SPEAKER_12]: Yes. My hobby is woodworking. So I like to, I build closet and little furniture. So I like to have a floor where I can continue my hobby.

[Yvette Velez]: On that side, the windows will be doubled windows then, like facing the street side?

[SPEAKER_12]: The same, I mean, the Water Street is a big property, right? So I will make sure that, you know, the old fashioned window where, I mean, I won't put the weights and all that, like there is here, but I will make sure that it has, you know, the bottom is a split window. The top is one window. looking like that, right? And that's the look, you know, that I'm gonna have, I'm gonna have, you know, facing Ashen Street.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, a question to the Chair. So the unit is, just to make sure I'm understanding, the variance or relief is being, is the fact that it is too close to the curb. Is my understanding correctly there?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, my understanding is that the variance we have to provide is that it extends into the garage extends into the front yard setback because this is a corner lot. And so it really has two front yards.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: So is the issue that it's too close to the curb on Ashland Street?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Okay. So with that, my question is, is there any reason for it being so close that would say, Hey, listen, can we just put it back a few other feet in that way? There's no variants needed.

[SPEAKER_12]: Yeah. But if you put it in 15 feet, according to what I was told, basically you have, you have killed the entire yard.

[SPEAKER_12]: Right. Uh, so that's why, And trust me, I don't want to put it too close to the street, but I don't want to kill the entire yard, because if you're doing 15 feet, then there's no yard left. Then, you know, people call me every day, sell your house, we can build two houses and all that. I have no intention. I love Medford. I love the way the house looks, and I'm trying to duplicate the same look.

[Mary Lee]: Got it. Is there a picture of the proposed garage or how it's gonna look like with the two levels?

[SPEAKER_10]: I think I just showed a picture. Hold on, how do I share it again? Share. Share. Screen one. Share. So this is,

[SPEAKER_12]: So the house is, I did my research, the house is a Italianate look. So Italianate look is a subcomponent of an architecture that basically everything is square. You know, as you can see, it have the same square look and feel. Uh, the windows will be the same look as the property per se. Uh, I mean, this is, this is the plan, but eventually I'm going to customize it to have the same look as the main property.

[Mary Lee]: So, if if this picture is super imposed on the picture that Andrew show us, then the side, the 2 garage doors will be. Facing the house and then the street and then the street. Uh, the side of that house will be. On that piece of land where the three cars were parked, right? Because it is a new structure that will be built on the site where the three cars were. Yeah, and did I misunderstand?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: No, no, I think you're right. I was that was kind of where my question was originally to Mary is like, what is that side going to look like right on Ashland? And my understanding of Mr. correct me if I'm wrong. You said that there's going to be, there'll be 4 windows essentially. Right, there'll be two on the first floor and two on the second floor, matching the ones you showed us that are above the garage doors in that picture you showed us, right? Yes, yes.

[SPEAKER_12]: But I think the question was, would the garage door be facing the street or be facing the property? Is this, did I understood your question correctly?

[Mary Lee]: No, I'm trying to visualize what's going to look like if the picture that you presented will be built, that garage will be built on the site where the three cars are. It's just, I'm just trying to see an image, what it's gonna look like actually after it's built.

[SPEAKER_12]: Okay, so from a visual perspective, right, what I wanna build is the look, so this is the front of the property, right? So it will look like that. on Ashland Street. You see, I don't know if you can see my cursor. Yes. That's what it will look on Ashland Street. Does that make sense?

[Mary Lee]: And And the plan that you show us, the diagram, that's... Yeah, that one. That's just a plot plan, right?

[Mary Lee]: Okay, so you don't have a drawing, physical drawing for the garage, other than this?

[Denis MacDougall]: This sorry, if I can jump in, so I think in this instance, because he needs to get permission to build the garage. So, it's, it's sort of then eventually he'll turn in plans to the building firm with the actual construction will be, but. I think when we were talking about it, it doesn't make sense to have a full set of plans available if he can't even get permission to build it from our end. Does that make sense? Oh, okay.

[Denis MacDougall]: That's what this is. I know sometimes we actually get the full plans for the construction because we need to see it. In this case, literally, he's just getting permission to build in that location. What has actually being proposed isn't as critical as just the permission to build there.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right, right. So the building department. They will talk to him about the design and. I guess my my question is we if we vote to approve this, do we have to like we have to vote to approve specific a specific setback for the garage or is the building department going to work with him on that?

[Denis MacDougall]: I think in this case, basically the minimum requirement for a garage is three feet. So he's not asking for variance on that aspect. So it would have to be at least three feet. And he was talking actually probably a little bit more. But it couldn't go any closer than three feet. It's just it will be in the front yard setback, which is the 15 feet. So it's permission from that. So it's anywhere between three and four.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So I don't really have to worry about the setback. Correct.

[Denis MacDougall]: Because he would still have to obey, if he actually did want to move even closer to the street, then he would have to come back before us for another variance for a garage being too close to the property line, which isn't what he's seeking. He's just seeking the garage in the front yard.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. That's helpful. All right. Any other questions before we go into public hearing? All right, let me open up the public hearing portion of this matter. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this? Dennis, did we get any written testimony? We did not. Okay. All right, seeing no one, I'm going to look for a motion to close the public hearing portion of this meeting. Is there such a motion?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mark. A roll call vote. Mark? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mary? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. All right. A public hearing is closed and now we enter into deliberations. What do you, what do you think members?

[Mary Lee]: So we're just voting to approve the building of a garage, nothing else?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes, yes. Basically, we're voting to approve building a garage in what's considered the front yard. But this property, because it's on a corner, has two front yards. So it's basically allowing him to build it on the side of his house.

[Mary Lee]: And then he will be working with the other departments for the specifics, right?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes. And the setback will have to be at least three feet on the rear and, you know, from the sidewalk. Okay.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I'm generally fine with my, I guess my, and I suspect this is again, we'll also come out with the building is the fact that it's going to be a two story garage. Does that start to create any issues and just anybody knows offhand, but again, I guess that'll be resolved as it gets through the, the additional halls of City Hall.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Dennis, do you have, I'm not clear on like, what's the, I mean, what's allowed by right for a garage?

[Denis MacDougall]: I honestly do not know, but I think it's one of those ones where the building department, if he does propose something that isn't... Yeah, they'll catch it. They'll catch it, but... Yeah.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah. All right. Yeah. Other than that, no, I think it's a... I think to his point, is it a market improvement from the yard looking like a parking lot? I think the neighbors, even though I would love to have seen the letters, but nonetheless, it sounds like if I were a neighbor, I would support that in terms of the visuals.

[Yvette Velez]: Right of that any thoughts I would just add that it makes sense to put it where he's proposing that it goes, especially because you want to make sure you can still utilize the yard. And I appreciate that. They're going to keep the trees and they're mindful of the, the green that's happening in the back abutting their neighbors and then. speaking about while it's minimum three feet, they're talking about doing it five feet beyond, which I think is also very respectful. So it keeps within everything that everybody already said, as well as it's not detrimental to the neighborhood or the fact that it's a front yard on the side. Yeah, thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I, um, yeah, I agree with what everybody's been saying. I certainly appreciate, uh, all the effort that you make to maintain, you know, such a, an old and historic home. I know it's not easy, so thank you. Um, any other thoughts or is there a motion on the floor to approve or disapprove the, uh, uh, allowing a garage in the front yard setback?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. So thank you very much, Mr. Bajdak. Dennis, what's the next step?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. So, Cyril, I'm going to write up the decision. And as I sort of mentioned in the previous one, I'll write it up. It'll get reviewed by our legal counsel. And then once that's done and it's signed by the members, it gets filed in the clerk's office. I'll let you know when that happens. Once that's filed, 20 days after that, if there's no appeal, you come in, see me, and I'll help you with the get the letter of no appeal, and then you go to the building department. I would say, you know, since, you know, you're going to have to be filing plans for, I'd say, talk to the building department as soon as you can and start working with them to sort of get things rolling so that when the appeals period is over, you can go straight into construction.

[SPEAKER_11]: I appreciate it. Thank you, Board Member. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Denis MacDougall]: Got it here, so their initial notice was a little bit, not quite as clear, but it's basically, it's 493 Main Street, applicant Rosalindy Munn-Premier, to convert an existing non-performing single-family dwelling at 493, and the way I wrote it was adding a second single-family dwelling, which is basically converting it, making it a two-family dwelling, which is in a single-family, oh, sorry. Pardon me, sorry, I lost my, basically it's to convert a single family dwelling into two, in general residence district, convert its use to a two family dwelling, which is an allowed use within the district, but it's an existing non-conforming single family dwelling. Sorry, I got there in the end.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Dennis. Attorney Desmond, are you here representing the proponent?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I am. Arius Monprio is here for Rosalyn this evening. He's with me on the call. The matter before you this evening is a request to convert an existing six bedroom single family dwelling at 493 Main Street, Medford to a two family dwelling. The subject property is situated in the general residence district and allows for two families as a right. By way of background, the single family dwelling sits on a parcel of land containing 4,260 square feet.

The lot is nonconforming as it fails to meet certain dimensional requirements, including a lot area with front and side yard setbacks. The proposed conversion to the two family dwelling does not contemplate any exterior changes or additions to the existing dwelling. All renovations will be contained to the interior of the structure. Uh, the current home has a gross floor area of approximately 3,788 square feet, including the unfinished basement. and consists of approximately 14 rooms and six bedrooms. The proposed renovations will reduce the overall number of bedrooms from six bedrooms to five bedrooms, creating one two-bedroom unit of 1,140 square feet and one three-bedroom unit of approximately 1,559 square feet. The conversion will increase the nonconformities as to lot area and lot width, but they are existing. So, I believe in this instance, it's only a special permit or a finding because we're not creating any new nonconformities. I sent to the board a memo, a request for zoning relief along with my filing, and I quoted Belalta, which indicates that, in fact, if you're not creating any new nonconformities in a single family or a two family, then it's a finding versus a variance, and we're not creating any additional nonconformities in this instance. I can walk you through the plans, share my screen. Okay.

There it is. Okay. So this is the existing lot. And as you can see in this two and a half wood story, um, The difference, again, it doesn't meet the requirements for a single family. However, none of the surrounding units do. And I'll get to that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Attorney Desmond, can you just scroll up a little bit? Or are you showing us the chart?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, if I had to zoom everybody out of the way first to do that. But OK. All right, so let me just pull this over. Is that better?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. So the current lot is 4,260 square feet. Going from a single to a two-family, that increases the difference by 1,000 square feet. It meets lot frontage. It meets lot depth. It does not meet width. Again, it doesn't meet width currently. It's 10 feet less. than what's required, so the deficit then increases to 19. Otherwise, it's a half a foot off on the front yard. The side yard, if you look, there's 2.4 feet here, and it's on the other side yard, it's a negative 4.7, but that's kind of the positioning of the property. And the lot coverage, again, it only covers 29.3% of the lot.

we are using the 0.8, um, because this is located in, in, within a half mile of transit. Um, so when we ran this through, we ran it with two parking spaces, um, and, and we didn't receive any, any indication that, that, that was not, um, available to us at this point. Um, in terms of the architectural plans, you'll see, That currently, um, there's six existing bedrooms, but there's also a lot of duplicative living area. Um, just because of the fact that it's a 14 room house. So the proposal is to split that into.

so that you would have two bedrooms on the first floor unit, a living area, and a kitchen dining room area, and a bath, which in that unit, again, would be 1,140 square feet. The second unit as proposed is a little bit bigger. Again, you've got three bedrooms, one on the upstairs level, two bedrooms on the downstairs, and then your general living area. So it, it, it cuts down number on the number of bedrooms and it also, um, um, you know, accomplishes decreasing a lot of, um, extra space in this family home because it single family home, because it is very large, um, and looking at the neighborhood and, and I did a little graph for you. Um, this is predominantly a two family, um, area. So if you look, I, I did, and I only, um, focused on those lots that were less than the square footage of, of, um, the current lot, but you can see that, that, you know, this, the structure is essentially surrounded by, uh, two family dwellings. Um, so our position would be in this instance that, um, it would not be any more detrimental to the neighborhood because, um, it is, populated by two families. You'd be decreasing the overall number of bedrooms from six bedrooms to five bedrooms. You'd be decreasing overall duplicative living area and actually creating space in two units that could be used. And it would provide additional housing in the city, which is needed. It also would help with expenses, because certainly this is a very large house to maintain, and we're not changing at all the exterior of the structure, so we're just working within what currently exists.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. I am a little confused by the description of the matter. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding really what we're doing here. So the description says that it's a single family, one district, but that's not correct, correct?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, this is general residence, right? Okay, that was on me when I put it out there, but yeah, and I believe the note the notice was correct. That went out the agenda was so great.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, so. So, attorney doesn't mean you are comfortable with us making a finding.

[Kathleen Desmond]: yes because we're not we're not creating any additional any additional non-conformities under balata if you're increasing a non-conformity in a single or two uh then it's a finding special permit of less not more detrimental to the neighborhood we're not creating an additional um Nonconformity and this is because we're dealing with the main, the, the, the structure and not doing anything to it beyond what's existing. It's just basically a change in floor plan.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, so our, our finding would be that. It is an approved use in the general residential zoning district and that there are no extensions of the nonconformities.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, there are extensions, but they're not substantially detrimental. to the neighborhood. It would be under section five, I think five, three, one.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I understand that. Uh, I mean, I guess I just mean, right. The structure itself is not extending in any way, but you're extending the nonconformity only because going from a one family to a two family changes the dimensional requirements.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. And specifically lot area and width are the, um, two dimensional requirements that are changing the existing, the, um, side yard setback violation. and the front yard set back violation are the same for both single family and two families. So there's no change at all or no increase in nonconformity. It's only the lot area and the width that is increasing by virtue of the change from a single to a two.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Um, sounds good. Uh, questions from board members? All right.

[Mary Lee]: Andre, I'm not sure what, so the request is for the board to issue a finding. Is there a guideline that we have to follow on issuing a finding?

[Kathleen Desmond]: So it's actually a special permit, which used to be the finding under section 40, which still exists, but now everyone calls it a special permit. And that's under 5.31.

[Mary Lee]: Of the order, so it's a special permit, not a finding anyway. Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

[Mary Lee]: And then what is the special permit for? I just want to clarify that.

[Kathleen Desmond]: No, that's OK. So under 5.3, the Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a non-conforming structure. So that's what we're asking you to do. The use is allowed, but we need to change the structure so that it supports two units versus one unit. But the two-family use itself is allowed.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That's helpful. Thank you. And we're finding that we would be finding that it is not detrimental. Extending the nonconformity is not detrimental to the community, right?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. All right, let's open the public hearing portion of, of this matter. Is there, are there any members of the public who would wish to speak on it? Dennis, did we get any testimony in writing? We did not. Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing no one commenting, is there a, a motion to close the public hearing portion of this matter for 493 main street?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary? Aye. And myself, aye. So the public hearing on this matter is closed. We now move into deliberations. What are your thoughts?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I think it's a great idea. Obviously, the notion of looking at this gigantic single family house is very much out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. And since they're not changing the exterior appearance or anything along that side, I think it's a smart use of the property in terms of creating, I mean, yes, you can argue, yes, it's fewer bedrooms, but you're less likely to find a family that's going to move in with six, you know, six need for six bedrooms. So I think this is a smart news, smart conversion.

[Yvette Velez]: I would just add that it's not detrimental to the neighborhood and that it'll be an overall improvement.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Yvette. Mary, I see you nodding. Do you want to add anything?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes, so do I. Is there a motion to approve or disapprove the special permit for 493 Main Street and find that the conversion to a two-family is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you roll call vote mark. Hi. Mary. Hi, I'm an eye as well. So, the vote is 4 0 in favor of the special permit.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much. And I told my husband I'd be home at like midnight tonight, looking at the agenda. So I guess I can start working on those decisions.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, well, yes. If you watched our last month's meeting, you would think that, but we're moving right along.

[Denis MacDougall]: Well, definitely, I think in that case, I'm going to wait there and, you know, he's not watching this.

[Kathleen Desmond]: That's my goal. That's right. And the beer is dropped today, too, if you're a fan of the beer.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: That's a good point. I've got a 9.30 bocce game I get to be at, so let's do it. Thank you. I appreciate it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Thank you, Mr. Montpremier. Dennis, what is your next steps here? Yep.

[Denis MacDougall]: So I think, you know, Kathy kind of knows, attorney, excuse me, I should say attorney Desmond should be more formal, but attorney Desmond, if you could just draft like, you know, the facts and findings and decision portion of it and just get it to me as soon as you can and I'll turn it around and, you know. I'll let you know when it's filed with the clerk's office, which will start the 20 days. One thing which is a little different from the last time you're here, so I actually come up with, we can do the letter of no appeal from this office. So I print it out and then you still have to bring it down to the clerk's office to get stamped, but it's part of our automated setup. I can just basically say, print out the letter. So it saves so much time. So it's actually pretty easy. And the clerk's office likes it too because you just have to walk in there and get it stamped as opposed to having them to go light it up and everything like that, so.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Same to you. Thank you. Dennis, what is the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: 121 Boston Avenue. Applicant Muhammad Al-Mahmoud to change from one non-conforming use real estate office to another non-conforming use community cafe at 121 Boston Avenue requiring a special permit.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Is the applicant here? Mr. Al-Mahmoud, could you walk us through the project that you're proposing? Just have to unmute. You should be all set.

[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. Thank you so much. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Good evening. Yeah, good evening. Can you guys hear me?

[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. OK, great. All right. So basically, good evening, everybody. Good evening, the chair, Andre, and the members of the board. My name is Mohamed Al Mahmoud, and I live in Medford, Mass, 156 Jerome Street, which is two blocks away from 121 Boston Ave. And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about this, my application. So I'm here tonight to ask your approval to open Mizian. Mizian is a phrase is like in French and means the beautiful, the best thing, the good thing. It's a Jordanian Moroccan community cafe. at 121 Boston Ave in the corner of Arlington Street. So basically, museum will be like a warm welcoming. It's around 580 square foot cafe will serve specialty Turkish cafe, French smoothies, handcrafted pastries, baklava, a light Mediterranean food. No commercial cooking or equipment or ventilation required for the main floor. So the building served this neighborhood and as a food retailer space. This building specifically used to be actually a food retailer space for almost 50 years. First as a beloved convenience store, used to be a convenience store. then a real estate office, Miseans will continue that, will continue that legacy, and we are not introducing something new to that corner. We are just retraining it to use it to the community as they know it before.

So basically, I just want to speak directly to the concern of your board members and the neighbors. There is no traffic. There is no anything we're gonna add. Mizzian will be like minimal impact. Our customer will arrive primarily on foot. Bicycles, there's tough students, runs always next to the river, Mystic River. So it's also close to the bus stop in Arlington intersection, Boston Ave and Arlington. We expect nothing to be added as a traffic and use, no noise or operation. There is no any commercial cooking, as I mentioned, no equipment, no plans for late night service. It's just basically a cafe. Mizyan is a quiet community oriented gathering space, coffee, morning and connection in the afternoon. So the building itself, it's like a modification, times of modification. We need to open a window, serving window in Arlington Street to serve the people, especially in the morning, a lot of, you know, bus stop, facing the bus stop in the morning, Arlington Street, so they can easily pick up their coffee without coming to the store, because the store is in space. small, so we're trying to help the people walk in easily, grab and go, basically.

As I said, Medford does not have any Jordanian, Moroccan cafe, and there's a cultural gathering space, like Mizian. I want this to be like a place where the residents talk to university students, neighbors, for all different background, come together and share coffee, study, meet a friend and feel, you know, generally at home. So, Mizian support the city on vision for Boston Ave, activating a vacant storefront. It's been a vacant for months so far. You know, different culture, different diversity. So it's not a chain. It's not just a small Homemade stuff. We are as I mentioned my wife Moroccan. I'm from Jordan. We have different Cuisine and different things we love to share sometimes with the community with neighbors Yeah, so basically I respectfully asked for your approval for this special permit to change a few is at 121 Boston AB And thank you sincerely for your time and your consideration. I would be honored to have all of you as my guests with two conditions, actually, no allergies and come hungry. So I want to thank you. The City of Medford, thank you so much for welcoming. for the great, you know, relationship we built with the Department of Planning. Dennis, the hard-working man. I really admire you, how hard you work with different work. Yeah, so even my kids, you know, my kids love to come to the city hall, which is very rare because it's kind of boring to the child, but they love to come to the city and especially because we have a lot of candy there.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Ahmed. I just want to share the street view so people can see. So this is the property, correct?

[SPEAKER_15]: The last one, that one is a Pankaji Japanese restaurant. The last one, yeah.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes, over here on the corner. Okay, just to give people a sense. So it's already a mixed use. property, and it's really just replacing this commercial use with the cafe that Mr. Al-Mahmoud described. Mr. Al-Mahmoud, can you explain where the... I didn't realize there was going to be the window. Is that on this side?

[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, it used to be there. Can I please allow me... I did visualize it with some AI you can mix.

[SPEAKER_15]: Please. Thank you. The goal is to build it. Am I allowed to share?

[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis, you should be all set. I think you're, yep, you've got cohost permission.

[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I got it. Thank you. So can you see my screen now? Yeah, that's coming up. Yeah, the goal is to open this site as a service window to help the pedestrians who walk in to the river, by the way, very close, two blocks down the street to the river. And a lot of runners from Tufts in the morning, especially, you know, Tufts University schools. So that's the visionary. I know it's hard to make it as it is. But this is my goal. It's not the same size of that window. It's required a lot. So I might have just two special like a walk-through window. That's Arlington side. Yeah, nice, beautiful concept. Thanks.

[SPEAKER_15]: No, no, it's hard. Just only two windows. Yeah, if you look to that same building, you were showing that wall used to be previously windows there and they closed and I noticed that it the you know, the owner told me it used to be windows there. You could see Yeah, previously and even a door used to be there too.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I think we're you kind of we're asking the same question. And again, this might be the fault of AI, which is always lovely to fun to deal with. So yeah, it looks like the entrances on the corner, which that that's not what you're trying to do. Yeah, okay, that's I was trying to make sure. Because then he looks like it was, you know, you have to cut this guy's out of the building. But no, and then if I look at the lower right, it has the main entrance on Boston, the window in Arlington, but that's a corner. And so it's really not that but I get what you're doing. So no sweat. I just want to make sure that that is not what you're trying to do there. You're basically keeping the footprint of the place as it is and the door where it is, just putting a window on the side.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Perfect. All right. Seeing no other questions, let's open the public hearing portion of this matter. Any members of the public wish to speak? Dennis, did we receive any public comments via email?

[Denis MacDougall]: We did. We actually received a letter from Kayla Maros, who is in our Office of Planning. She is the Economic Development Planner, and I'll just read the letter. On behalf of the City of Medford's Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, I'm writing a letter in support of the zoning variance requested by Mizzian Community Cafe for 121 Boston Ave. As the Economic Development Planner for the city, I support allowing restaurant use to this neighborhood commercial center. The building at 121 to 129 is an existing legacy mixed-use commercial residential building that does not conform to the single-family zoning. The building is home to a ramen restaurant, acupuncture, a Sahara salon, and a preliminary real estate office. It is located in a primary residential area, but exists between two commercial districts, West Medford Square and Hillside. Given the variety of uses in this building, Mizzian should be strongly considered for variances that will bring an active and vibrant use to the space with minimal adverse impacts to the surrounding area. Further, there's significant retail and restaurant space demand in the city by residents and entrepreneurs alike. The goal of our office is to support small business development to help residents and visitors spend their dollars locally. Ms. Ann's proposal supports this goal, and such attention to the building will create a vibrant pocket of businesses that directly supports local needs and desires.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. The public hearing portion of this matter is closed. And now we go into deliberations. What are your what are your thoughts?

[Mary Lee]: I think it's a lovely idea. It actually will bring a greater good to the community and serve the community and the tough student population. So I will be in support of a special permit.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Yeah, and just to be clear, thank you, Mary. We will be voting on a special permit, not a variance to change one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. And the reason why they need this for an existing business like this or existing mixed use property is just because it's in a general residential district and that zoning hasn't been changed yet, so. Mark or Yvette, any additional thoughts?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I may be biased, but I'm hungry, so I'm totally in support of it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I haven't had dinner yet. I'm very excited about this as well.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve or disapprove the change of non-conforming use and award a special permit?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary? Aye. And I'm an I as well. Your special permit is approved for zero. Thank you, Mr. Al-Mahmoud. Thank you so much. Thank you for opening a lovely new place here in Medford. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

[Denis MacDougall]: So Ahmed, just as you sort of heard me say before, so I'm going to write up the decision. Luckily for you, we had a fairly similar case with one use going to another. So I can just take that and sort of you know just basically change the letter change some words so i think i can it'll still take a little while to turn around it still has to get reviewed by legal counsel but i would say you know you know i will let you know the minute it's filed and then 20 days after that you can get your permit but i would say start talking to the building department because i think you can you know because you know you can start start filing for your permits for all the other work you need to get done there so i'd say get that rolling as soon as you can

[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you so much, everybody. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Dennis.

[Denis MacDougall]: We do. And the only left item on the agenda is, uh, approval of meeting minutes from last month.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, have folks had a chance to see them? I have to admit that I haven't, I missed them. So I would. If you guys feel comfortable voting on them, we can do that. If not, I'm also happy to... Do we need this, Dennis?

[Denis MacDougall]: No, and I think in that case, since Yvette wasn't actually at the meeting... I don't even know if you'd be able to vote on them. So I think that would then be only two voting members and it's that we need three. We all we need is three for approval meeting minutes, but I don't think we'll have anything urgent about these meeting minutes.

[Denis MacDougall]: No, I mean, I mean, the important thing is that I'm actually getting them done and getting them into you as opposed to most of the other.

[Denis MacDougall]: But yeah, we've just pushed that off the next month. So and the only other thing is that we You know, we have the continued matter on Main Street. Ramsey will be heard. There's, I think, three or four other cases, two or three others. I think that's it, but we're pretty much at the deadline. And this will really only be of interest to Yvette, but one of the applicants for our next meeting, and I'll say it because he'll be on here, is Scott Karmann. So he'll be on the other side of the fence for us.

I saw, it all of a sudden popped up and I saw his name and I'm like, oh my goodness, that's, and I just started laughing. So, and I will say his application is probably one of the most densely braised and layered up ones I've ever seen. Looking forward to it. Yeah, so that'll be fun. So that's that's pretty much it. Yeah, I think we have Attorney Desmond actually had two other cases that could have been scheduled for tonight, but there were so many cases I basically said, are there any that can wait a month? And she was like, yeah, these can

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, congratulations to you guys team. Great job. We got through a lot quickly.

[Denis MacDougall]: Efficiently really very positively and I know Mark mentioned it, but I agree. I am hungry.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So let's let's go eat. All right. Everyone is there a motion to adjourn?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary? Aye. I'm an aye as well. We are adjourned. Thank you. See you. Good night, everybody.

[Yvette Velez]: All right, and then I'm going to talk about. Yeah, I have recording.

[Denis MacDougall]: I'm not just I think it's been 20 days. So, yeah, I think you're all good to go. So, uh.

[Mary Lee]: So he can go pick it up tomorrow? I'm just not sure of the date. He says the 30th.

[Mary Lee]: You emailed me. You said that at least it's the 30th. But I can't think. I'm far away. So I'm going to have to send him to do the paperwork.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Then I think in that case, I'll get it ready. And if he just comes in on the 30th, it'll be ready for him at our front desk.

[Denis MacDougall]: I'll have that ready for him then. He just walks in. Yeah, perfectly. He just walks in. We have a thing on our front desk where all of my decisions are. And so people just come in and grab them and they just give the address and they get handed to him. So it'll be ready to go for him on the 30th.