Zoning Board of Appeals 07/30/26

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 reviewed and voted on multiple zoning relief requests, including special permits and variances for residential additions, driveways, and cannabis delivery services. The board approved several permits and variances while continuing two companion accessory dwelling unit requests to a future meeting.

6:16 Special Permit for Cannabis Delivery at 114 Mystic Avenue — Approved a special permit allowing delivery services for the existing cannabis dispensary.
13:43 Driveway Variance at 39 Ramstead Road — Approved a variance to relocate and widen the driveway on the condition that the old driveway and street apron are removed and replaced with green space.
43:46 Attic Expansion and ADU Variance at 1-3 Vassar Street — Continued the hearing to August 27, 2026, to allow city legal counsel to review how new state zoning regulations apply to the proposed third-story accessory dwelling unit.
1:34:47 Attic Expansion and ADU Variance at 12 Wellesley Street — Continued this companion accessory dwelling unit request to the August 27, 2026 meeting.
1:36:19 Rear Addition Special Permit at 39 Roberts Road — Approved a special permit to construct a two-story rear addition that extends an existing non-conformity.
1:50:09 Setback Variances for ADU Addition at 621 Fulton Street — Approved a variance reducing the rear yard setback from 15 to 10 feet to construct an attached accessory dwelling unit addition.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the July 30th meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm the chair, Andre LaRue, and we'll take a roll call vote. of what we'll do of the attendance. James Tarani. Present. Yvette Velez.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mark Crowley. Crowley. Present. And Chris DeVetta. Present. And Andre LaRue, present. Mary Lee is... not present at this time. So these will be the five voting members of the board for tonight. All right. Dennis, could you start us off on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: First order is 114 Mystic Avenue. It was continued from June 25, 2026. Applicants, New England Organic, DBA Victory Garden seeking zoning relief for a special permit for delivery services to an existing approved cannabis dispensary at 114 Mystic Avenue requiring a special permit. Zoning relief sought from section 94-7.6, adult use marijuana establishments, and article nine, marijuana establishments.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. So tonight we are hopefully going to vote on the special permit for for New England organic zoning relief for cannabis sales, product manufacturing and delivery services. Now, We met a couple of months ago. There were questions by a couple of board members about the delivery service component. There was a request to have the police chief attend last month. The police chief did not believe it was appropriate for him to attend, but our community development director, Alicia, did attend and was able to answer questions to the board members who had questions. And I think hopefully at this point we are ready. Is there, Mr. Jackson, is there anything that you'd like to say at this point or your team?

[MCM00000638_SPEAKER_17]: Um, thank you for the opportunity Mr. chair. Um, I just want to thank the board for their consideration of of the prior licensure. Um, and, um, if if anyone has any questions. about this particular license, I'm more than happy to answer this question. As noted before, we are under CCC guidelines around security cameras, GPS, and the like. And this particular license actually does not actually transact on site. It is the equivalent of a courier off site. And so what you would see are two max three loadings a day. And that's all that you would be seeing on the site. Thank you so much.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yvette Velez did not attend the initial meeting, but did watch the recording and participated in last month's meeting. Chris Stavetta, you participated in the meeting 2 months ago, but I believe we're you were not here at last month's meeting. Is that correct? So, um, I don't know. Did you have a chance to look at the, um, you know, to watch, watch the meeting at all?

[Chris D'Aveta]: I did not, Mr. Chair. So, um, I don't know how that affects the, um, voting for tonight. Um, my concern, I, you know, I don't know if you want to get into the reasons, but, um, you know, I was one of the people who asked the police chief to comment on it. And if he didn't have, if the police chief did not have any concerns, I suppose that allays my fears of, you know, what we were voting on vis-a-vis courier service.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, I think then for the purpose of this meeting, since you didn't have a chance to see the meeting last time, we should probably just keep it to the four other voting members of the board. And so let me just ask those members of the board, do you feel comfortable moving forward with a vote at this time?

[Denis MacDougall]: didn't have an issue, then I would don't see an issue. Actually, if I can just sort of jump in this was Alicia was on a call yesterday with not related to this matter per se, but she was on with other towns, and it was cannabis related issue and she was talking to one of her counterparts in Boston, and in Boston, they left They basically said that delivery are handled completely by the state. The city doesn't have any oversight on them. It's the state that determines how these things are done. Even in Boston, it didn't go through the police. It was purely the state. Anyone who wants to deliver, they have to go through the state and the state has to make the determination that what they're doing is proper.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And we did have some conversation at the last month's meeting about how delivery, cannabis delivery is already happening in Medford with businesses that do not reside in the city are still allowed to deliver into the city. And so really this special permit for delivery would just enable a Medford based business to be able to provide that same delivery services. And actually, Dennis, can you remind me, did we did we take a vote on any of these or do we hold off?

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, no, we voted on we approved for medical cannabis sales and product manufacturing. So that decision has been already filed in the clerk's office. Right.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So we just we just have the third one about the delivery services. All right. Do we have a a motion to approve or disapprove of delivery services for the cannabis dispensary at 114 Mystic Avenue?

[Unidentified]: I'll make a motion to approve the delivery service on Mystic Avenue. Thanks, Jim.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mark. Aye. And I'm an aye vote as well. So 4-0, the delivery services special permit is approved.

[Denis MacDougall]: And do you know, Jason, again, sort of as before, I'll get on the decision and I'll just go through legal counsel for review. And then, you know, once it's in, so.

[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you so much for your time and every in the board as well. Thank you everyone.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Thank you very much for investing in the city. Thank you, Dennis, the board. You're welcome. Dennis, could you read the next item on the agenda, please?

[Denis MacDougall]: 39 Ramstead Road, continuing from June 25th, 2026, applicant Derek Chan to add a driveway at 39 Ramstead Road, which is in a single family, one zoning district. The proposed driveway is not allowed per the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance 94-6.1.5 Off-Street Parking Requirements. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Yes, Mr. Chan, could you explain a little bit what you're requesting here?

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, actually, you know what, my driveway right now is on the right hand side of my house. It's only like two feet, two inches wide. And then, you know what, my neighbor's driveway is only one foot away from mine. So I'm requesting relocating my right side of the driveway to the left side of the driveway, which is 10 feet and five inches. Can I show you the A map, a picture?

[SPEAKER_19]: All right, this is my house on 39 Grandshape Road. So this is my current driveway right here. And my neighbor's driveway, which is on the right hand side, 45, is one foot away from mine. So my proposal is relocating this, my right-hand side driveway to the left side. And 33 Ranch House Road driveways is on the left-hand side too. So we are not against each other right here. The driveway is not close against each other. And I also have the apartment here. Give me one minute.

see this is the driver right here is 8.28 feet 2 inches and moving to here is 10 foot 5 inches. So I'm proposing that you know what we locate my driveway on right hand side to the left hand side and this size right here which is 33 my neighbor that's my new driveway will be if get approved and I do have a a supporting note, you know, from the property owner of 33. She's a very nice lady. Her name is Louis. She gave me a note and say, you know, give me a permission, you know, to, and you can hear, see, that's her handwriting.

That's where, you know, they are looking for a variant. The reason why is the, I think the law is required to have 12 feet. within the driveway, but I only have 10.5 feet. Yeah.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. So just maybe a question, Bill, for you as the building commissioner, because I want to be clear about this. So the variance, would it be for the width of the driveway or is it for putting a driveway in the front yard?

[Bill Forte]: current so it is definitely the width of the driveway. There's nothing that prevents someone from parking out back on treated surfaces which it appears as though there's a big chunk of asphalt. What I do see there is that the driveway the proposed driveway, I'm not sure if it's indicated to go around the back of the House that would be one question that I would ask the applicant. No okay so it would be. So do you have the minimum 18 feet from the front to have a parking space. Okay, yeah, I didn't see that indicated on the plan. But that measurement should be on there. In addition to that, because we don't really have a green space requirement on residential property. And driveways, I don't believe, count against lot coverage because they're not considered like a structure. It might be recommended that as part of this project that the other side of the driveway be returned to green space, you know, to, you know, basically to mitigate the runoff and, you know, create, you know, that way they're not really expanding too much impervious surface on the lot. Right.

[SPEAKER_19]: I am, excuse me, I am not relocating that. So the existing driveway will be along.

[Bill Forte]: It should be written into the conditions. That's what I was thinking too. Okay.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Mr. Chen, the other question that I had is, do you need a curb cut?

[Bill Forte]: Okay. Um, just if I may interject. Although you don't have a curb, you still need permission from the DPW, because they own that part of the street. So wherever you inlet into your property has to be cleared by that but it's it's a it's a very, it's a very minor thing. But as part of when you go to file for building permit on this because you'll need the building permit to activate to memorialize the permit, then you will need them to sign off. I don't expect that there's anything. It should be fairly benign, but it is required.

[Yvette Velez]: I'm not familiar quite with this particular street, but you can't park in front of the street? Right? So there's no, you won't be removing any public parking is my question, by adding the additional driveway space?

[SPEAKER_19]: I'm not adding an additional driveway, but all the existing driveway will be, you know, will be gone, will become my lawn. So I'm just, so I'm not adding additional driveway in there. So still one driveway, but instead on the right-hand side, it will be on the left-hand side. So the existing driveway will be a long, will be a green horizon. Yeah.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. So just to kind of summarize my understanding of the situation, right now, the existing driveway is only eight feet, two inches wide. It's very close to his neighbor's driveway. So doors opening can kind of, are very close to each other, the cars. And so Mr. Chan would like to kind of get rid of the existing driveway and create a new, his only driveway, a new driveway on the other side of the house where it doesn't butt up against the neighbor's driveway.

[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you. Plus also my whole street is white. All the driveway, pretty much only me and the other one is on the right-hand side. They're all on the left side. If you look at the other house, their driveway is on the left side. So that's why I'm moving to the left side. Plus it's 10 feet and 10.5 feet, a little wider than the existing one.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I have a question, and maybe this is more for you, Bill, is that I know you, yeah, I guess there's no curb to be cut, but they still look, obviously, there's the green strip of, you know, the graph. Is there some sort of requirement there? Because I'm assuming that's going to have to be paved over. I'm assuming he's not just going to drive over the grass.

[Bill Forte]: Right, yeah. So any driveway or parking area has to be substantially paved with the proper material. So gravel wouldn't do. You would have to have asphalt in the area that you're parking. Okay, yeah, and it is also subject and it just reminded me that there's a requirement that anything over 200 square feet of impervious surface that's added. may require on-site drainage, specifically so that you don't shed water onto your neighbor's property. So the engineering department will be looking at that as well as you not taking up any more curb space, if you will, you know, or opening space that you have before. So even if your opening space was 10 feet before and you're only going with 10 feet now you're not really you're not really taking anything away from the street, but all those things will be reviewed by by the DPW department, and essentially all the applicants here for tonight is the dimensional relief of having, you know, having the driveway be. you know, 10 feet wide. I don't think that there's a setback requirement for driveways in Medford. I'm pretty sure that you can be up to the property line, but it has to be properly drained and pitched correctly to not shed water, so.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Oh, yeah, thank you. Also, for the building commissioner, through you, Mr. Chair, yeah, to pick up on some of what was just said by the two other members, That driveway apron would have to be or should be removed, I guess, to indicate that there is a parking space on the street so that someone doesn't figure that they can't park in front of a driveway that no longer exists, right? And the second thing was more of a comment, which is, I think, In terms of impervious space, I believe Medford has an zoning ordinance that you can do those two ladder sort of strips.

And I don't think we can require that, but that's just an option for the homeowner to reduce impervious area. Thank you, Chris.

[Bill Forte]: I don't know that there was a question there, but is there something I can clarify for you first?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Oh, just will he be required to remove the driveway apron of the other side?

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, it would be you can condition that that that the driveway that now exists will be removed and substantially replaced with with green space in a lawn or any other kind of stabilization, but that should be conditioned in there so that you don't have to driveway openings and you know, somebody buys the house as a landscape or it says, Oh, this is a great place to have a landscape company.

[Yvette Velez]: So for clarification, with the owner, is that with the map that was shown, is the garage still in use? Or it is going to be out of commission? Or is that not a garage and that's a shed?

[SPEAKER_19]: It is a garage, but I never use it. I think nobody's using it. I use it as storage. It won't be used. Yeah.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Um, Is let's, uh, let's go to the public hearing portion, uh, of this. Item, um, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? And you can raise your hand virtually, or you can. Start speaking, let me know that you're you're interested in talking.

[SPEAKER_04]: Hello, my name is Anthony Levesque here, 27 Rams Head Road. I do have a concern about this, the existing driveway. the homeowner did put in two window wells which crimped down the sides of his driveway and he put his air conditioning units on that side. So this seems like this was a total beginning because you wouldn't put the window wells or your air conditioning units on that side if you didn't have plans on doing this.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, and your concern is, could you clarify what your concern is?

[SPEAKER_04]: I'm concerned that eventually, you know, that drive, the garage is there, someone's gonna use it, if the owner sells it, they're gonna end up paving the back of the yard to get to the garage. The design of the house was to have a driveway on that side to access the garage. So, you know, this might not be a problem today, but it might be a problem when the owner sells. And now all of a sudden we have a driveway that goes around the back of the house into the garage because there's window wells and air conditioning units. They're not gonna move them.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Are there other comments by members of the public who'd like to speak? Oh, and Anthony, I'm sorry. I should have said, could you just, uh, well, I think you said your name, you said your name and address, right? Dennis, did you get that? Okay. Sorry. We're all set. Any other comments? Uh, Dennis, have we received any written feedback about this matter? You're muted. Yep. Sorry about that. We did not. Okay. Thank you. All right, seeing no other comments at this time, let us close the public. Is there a motion to close the public hearing portion of this matter?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mark. Aye. Chris. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So the public hearing is closed and let's move into deliberation. Members, what are your thoughts?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, if I could ask just a question. Yes. On the agenda, this says it's a continuance and this would be from the last meeting, which I missed.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, we didn't actually have a debate about it. There was no, there was no discussion of it. It was just continued.

[Yvette Velez]: I can start, I would say that I. I don't see any issue with moving the driveway to the larger portion of the. property, especially when the neighbor, if I'm understanding correctly, the Director Butter did give a note of support, but I would be inclined to put a a requirement from us, a stipulation that the driveway that currently exists is removed and landscaping of some sort be put in its place so that it's a clear indication that people can still park, because I would rather have it one-to-one. I don't want the public to miss out on general parking. So those are my thoughts for that particular property.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Thank you. Bill 40. I saw you with your hand. Did you want to comment?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: We have a feedback. So I don't know if somebody could if you guys could mute if you're not speaking.

[Bill Forte]: Let's see, is that better? Yeah, that's better. Okay. Whoever muted was probably on two devices. So a couple of concerns I have just for the board to consider is there's a proposed farmers porch there. I didn't see a request for relief. for that farmer's porch on this application. I just would make you aware that if this is a future project that it not be part of this approval, because I don't think that they sought a dimensional relief for the front porch. That'd be the first thing. Secondly, I didn't see a definitive driveway area or a square foot paved area that otherwise would lend itself to allowing them to pave the entire front of the house. I didn't see any clarity on the plan itself showing the measurement of the parking stalls and if there are going to be two of them. I'm not sure if the applicant is seeking relief for the number of parking spaces or the dimensional size of the spaces. And it's not clear if that driveway is going to circulate out into the backyard. those should be indicated on the plan. Whatever the commission, the board decides to do, I would just caution that the site plan either be amended before a decision is written or there is something, you know, something characteristic because what it looks like is if you say yes and put the hammer down, now you're saying yes to the entire plan, which might include a farmer's porch that may need relief. So, I didn't, you know, I'm just stepping into this case the first night, but these are the deficiencies I see on the plan, and I just want to make the board aware of it. Okay, thank you, Bill.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mr. Chan, do you want to clarify your response to that at all?

[SPEAKER_19]: You mean the farmer's porch? The driveway would be exactly only, you know, a single car driveway. It won't be a double. So, the farmer's porch, I already get approval. from the building department already.

[Bill Forte]: So you were able to get do you have a building permit now that's been approved? Yes, you do. Okay. All right.

[Bill Forte]: I wasn't sure about that. Okay. I think more definitively, you know, the number of parking spaces is what he's seeking a reduction for from two to one.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Mr. Chen, can you just clarify one more time? How far back is the asphalted area going to go?

[SPEAKER_19]: It will be just, you know what, way along the sun porch on the left hand side. Let me show you the Give me one minute. So I will be going up to here.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, so that will be a single lane driveway, only single, not a double. It will be exactly the same as the existing one. It doesn't go all the way, go back like this, no.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right, so it'll just be basically to the end of the house.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying that. I haven't got time.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. He makes a great point to kind of take a step back and look at all the other houses in the neighborhood, or at least on that stretch, it is kind of consistently on that side. I think there's like maybe one other house with that same sort of double, double driveway. So, you know, I would definitely understand why he's kind of approaching this from that respect, and it wouldn't be out of character, certainly with anything else in the neighborhood. So I don't foresee any issues on this.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I don't see, I don't see any issues with it either. And I, as long as we have the condition of the other driveway being eliminated and something put back in its place. So there would be parking in that in front of that driveway or what was a driveway.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so I think there would be, you know, I would recommend conditioning, you know, any vote to include requiring that the old driveway be converted into grass landscaping, essentially, and that the new driveway, we would be permitting until, you know, to the edge, to the back of the house, essentially.

[Yvette Velez]: So I have a question about that condition, because I do see that the asphalt currently extends all the way to the garage, right? So that's like way past the house. And so one could say like, oh, the driveway part will be landscaped, but then the asphalt part is not going to be a... I think I'm hearing myself double again, so somebody must have their... Hang on. Is going to be like a patio?

[SPEAKER_19]: As a matter of fact, I already removed all the asphalt already. There's no more asphalt. If you go physical, we go there. Oh, okay.

[SPEAKER_19]: It's gone already. If you physically go there to 39 Wednesday road today, you can see no asphalt at all. People don't even think that there's existing driveway in there at all.

[Yvette Velez]: So I really don't see anything. I mean, this feels pretty... a pretty reasonable request.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And since it's a variance, we do have to look at some of the requirements of a variance. This is a little bit complicated because it's a moving target. I'm sure we're going to get into this more later tonight. But there is very new state changes to variance standards. And so I don't think we've had the opportunity to really fully process those. But they are a little easier than the existing ones, which are kind of a hardship, shape, soil, topography. And I think if we at least make our decision based on the old ones, we'll be safe.

So, I would say that in terms of those, uh, you know, the, the variance requirements, there's, uh. You know, the, the other, um. The other properties in the neighborhood are all or mostly on the other side of the house. Mr. Chan would be making it more consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. And also, it would be, I think, relieving some of the public hardship by having by having the driveway too close to another driveway where there could be conflicts between the cars. So I see this as sort of a benefit. And of course, there's nowhere else you can put the driveway other than on the other side of the house. So I would say, you know, that I am comfortable kind of granting a variance for this.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I agree. That's a good point, looking at those check marks. So yeah, I'm with you there.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Would someone like to offer a motion to approve the variance? for allowing a driveway on the other side of the house that is 10 and a half feet wide and with the conditions that the old driveway would be landscaped in grass and that the new driveway would go no further than the rear of the house.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I just wanted to try to clarify the conditions before we took the vote. That's exactly what I was wondering. So we've got a condition that the back of the driveway ends at the, essentially the back of the house, but the back or the rear most portion of the sun room, which is where the applicant noted it to us. The other condition would be the removal, which he has said he has done. of the driveway, impervious surface, and along with that, maybe second or third, is removal of the apron in front on the street so that folks don't think it is still a driveway or someone comes along, as noted, subsequent owner and thinks that they can put another driveway there.

And those, I don't know if those are two or three, but those are the two or three that I think need to be stated pretty clearly.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, Jim, would you be willing to kind of amend the motion to include the third condition around the apron, the old apron?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So 5-0, the variance for the driveway is approved.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, it's the part of the driveway that is next to the street.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So, even though you don't have, you don't have a curb, there is just that strip of grass right there to replace that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. Thank you. And Dennis, could you just explain the next steps and kind of clarify also just with the role of the engineering department in this.

[Denis MacDougall]: Sure, so Derek, you have to go to the engineering department with this as well to get the new driveway. But if you want to come in and I can walk you down there if you haven't talked to anyone there, and we can get you settled on that. And I think you already have them, I believe.

[Denis MacDougall]: OK, good. I thought so when you were in here one of the other times. So what happens is I'll write up the decision now. And it'll take me a few weeks to probably get through that. And then it gets checked by our legal counsel. and then once they okay it, then I send it out to the members to sign. Once they've signed it, I will file that in the city clerk's office. And at that point, it'll start a 20 days appeals period. And at the end of that 20 days appeals period, as long as there's been no appeals against it, you can come in and I'll talk you through the process about getting, you know, helping you to get your permit. So just keep on coming to me like during, so basically it'll probably be like three or four weeks before you know, when it gets filed and then three weeks after that, and I'll be able to help you out.

[Denis MacDougall]: 1-3 Vassar Street, case number NZN 7 and 8, applicant Christian Austin to construct two shed dormers and expand the existing attic space to create a full third story for purposes of a protected ADU at 1 to 3 Vassar Street, which is in a general residence zoning district, requiring a variance and or finding pursuant to Massachusetts General Law 48-3.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. I think Attorney Desmond, you're here representing the applicant, is that correct?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I am, correct. Yes, correct. Good evening, Chairman LaRue and board members, Kathleen Desmond, 335 Main Street, Stoneham on behalf of the applicant. There's two companion matters tonight. So much of what I say pertaining to 1-3 Bassar will also apply to 1214 Wesley Street. They're comparable in size and whatnot. Just to kind of shorten the presentations on both of them. The matter before you this evening is a request to install two shed dormers to create a full third story for purposes of a protected-use accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Mass General Laws Chapter 48, Section 3, Paragraph 11. Property is situated within the general residence district that allows for single and two-family dwellings as of right. Presently, the property is utilized as a two-family dwelling. By way of background, the two-family dwelling sits on a 3,952 square parcel of land. The lot and structure are nonconforming. And if I can share my screen, Dennis, and put the presentation. You are all set. OK.

Get up to the. So the lot and the structure are nonconforming as to front yard setback, lot area, lot width, and this side yard setback on the northerly side. The structure and the parcel itself about Wesley Street on one on the southerly side, and then on the northerly side where the setback violation exists, it abuts a vacant land owned by the city of Medford. So there are no neighbors on either side of the structure. The proposed inclusion of an ADU within the existing attic space doesn't increase the non-conformity of lot area with the front setback. It will only increase vertically the encroachment within the side yard setback. So we're not going any further into the side yard setback, but by virtue of creating the dormer, we're somewhat increasing or exacerbating the vertical plane in the side yard setback. which was not cured at all by the new statutory provisions. So that still requires some relief.

In addition to the conversion of these existing attic space to a full third floor, we'll also create what would be a new nonconformity and would require relief from a variance or a finding under 40A section three and the regulations there under. Presently, and this is where I'm going to get caught, I know. Let me just see. I have to reduce these plan sizes down. Give me half a second. Presently, this is the layout of the existing space. As you can see, the gross floor area is approximately 2,620 square feet, excluding the unfinished basement. The first floor unit has a gross GFA of 1,060 square feet and contains two bedrooms, The second floor has a GFA of 1,136 square feet. Again, it's a two-bedroom unit. The attic space, which is the subject of the variance, contains 424 square feet and consists basically of a 12-foot strip that runs from the front of the structure to the back of the structure. It's not conducive to creating a layout for a housing unit that would include a kitchen and a bathroom, in living area, it also wouldn't make space for the duct area, ducts which need to be included for the fire suppression sprinklers. And also the intent of my client is to make the structure more green. So he is putting heat pumps and changing the whole heating system over to an electric system. which will require soffit work and deck work as well. What we're proposing is to increase the general square footage of the third level, the attic space, to 899 square feet, which would meet the requirements under the ADA. The ADU requirement is 900 square feet. In terms of what it does,

from a half story to a full story and what's allowed as of right and what's not allowed as of right would be increasing the GFA over what's permitted by approximately 331 square feet because it's roughly 500 and change that would be permitted as of right. When I filed the application for relief, I had a discussion with the then building commissioner as to the standard that would apply. I did supply the board with a memoranda and also copies of the statute and the regulations. This falls under 48 section three, which is the Dover amendment. So it's my opinion that in this instance, you would look to, especially with a promulgated, such extensive regulations, that it would be under the Dover Amendment and reasonable regulation that this would come under versus the variant standard.

It was a wide gap when I first filed this application between what would be allowed under Dover and having to prove topography, soil, and shape. And Christmas came early this year. And so the variant standard has been changed and I think those changes kind of dovetail with actually this particular case because there is you do have to weigh practicality and I'll get into that of doing what the project intends to do or what the petitioner is looking to do against the municipal interests such as welfare of the neighborhood, safety, and I believe The third one, I'll pull it up.

But it also takes into consideration the public good and specifically the production of housing. And in this instance, we're dealing with a statute which seeks to enable housing and allows as a right, a protected ADU. So I don't know that there's that much daylight between the standards, certainly. Um, under the Dover amendment, you can reasonably regulate, uh, and under the, um, the variance standard now appears to be, um, a weighing of interests versus having to prove the, um, shape topography or soil conditions, um, and then substantial hardship related to the land on top of that. Um, so I don't, I don't know that there's that much difference in the statute, but as I laid out in my memo, The real issue here is you are allowed to have a protected use ADU. The municipality is allowed to regulate based on a legitimate municipal interest, but specifically excludes density within that regulation because ADUs aren't included in any density calculations. So in this particular instance, looking at the lot that we have, there isn't any real way that you could place an accessory dwelling in the exterior of the property because you would lose your parking here and you'd lose your backyard. So there isn't the room to place a separate standing ADU and you would be creating more setback violations, more encroachments, et cetera. With respect to the basement, which is the only other place where you could put a protected ADU, The situation there is that my client had conferred with the building department and the height, the ceiling height of the basement would not allow for a protected ADU to be situated in the basement without substantial work. You'd essentially have to dig down in the foundation support the building, so you'd have to lower your foundation. That would be your only way to raise your ceiling.

And then you'd have to dig, support it while you're digging, pour a new foundation. And this house is over 100 years old. So to not be concerned about structural concerns, having to lift the house, having to support the foundation while you poured a new basement floor would be too difficult. So the only really feasible place to place and ADU is in the, um, the attic area. And with respect to that area, as I've mentioned, both on the, uh, both sides, side yards are not, um, there's no homes or neighbors associated with that. So the dorm dormer isn't going to have any negative impact with respect to, to neighbors on the site. Um, we're looking for the 899

uh, square feet, but a lot of that is again, uh, because it's a third full unit is going to be a requirement that by suppression sprinklers be placed in the unit. And actually my client is of the mindset that he's going to sprinkler the entire building, uh, which would certainly be a safety benefit, uh, to, to those surrounding in the surrounding neighborhood. Um, and he's also making this a greener building. So, For him to be able to do that and put the soffit work in the 899 square feet makes it a reasonable space because otherwise you've got sloped roofs at this point and trying to put soffit wear and ductwork in there will only actually decrease what you have for general living area. So it's on that basis that we're seeking relief for the of either a variance or a finding under 48 section 3, that this be permitted to move forward.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'll take questions. Can you show the architectural elevations? Because that's the height that's really one of the issues here.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, so we're not changing the height of the structure. But that's the front. And that's the current front. And that's what I have in terms of detail at this point on the actual exterior.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. I'm just going to say up front that there's a lot going on in these cases, and I'm not certain I would feel comfortable making a decision kind of on the fly today without legal Guidance. I understand that. So I just want to I just want to put that out there right away. And I want to, you know, I want to take public comments. I want to get questions and talk about it and all. But, you know, we've got, like, 3 different possible things going on. We've got changing state laws on a couple different areas.

So, I think there's kind of a lot to pull apart here. I think you're. You've mentioned the Dover amendment, you've mentioned kind of the ADU possible finding and the variance. And we have the, you know, on the ADU piece, we have new state rules for ADUs. which supersede our existing municipal ones. And on the variances we have like as of last week, practically we have new variance standards. So state from the state that we're in the state budget.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. And I just want to say all that for the benefit of the members and the public that's listening here too. So, so let's, Let's start with questions from members of the board. And I'd also like to kind of get some feedback from the building commissioner. And I think we have maybe Danielle Evans from the planning department as well might have some thoughts. So Bill, do you wanna weigh in on this at this time, or do you wanna wait to hear what the questions are?

[Bill Forte]: Sure, just some general comments. And Attorney Desmond, it's great to see you.

[Bill Forte]: It's only been about three years, yep. I am I have some general concerns first, you know, a protected use at you is usually accessory to a single family dwelling here the purpose and intent. of an accessory use dwelling is to be subordinate to a principal dwelling. I don't know that your zoning ordinance on ADUs was revised because I was out of the picture for a couple of years, but I don't exactly know if it's allowed on two families. So calling it an accessory use dwelling may not be the correct term. It might be an additional unit. Now, obviously, the state has really pushed for the housing thing and they want zoning boards to approve. within legal standing, you certainly can approve an accessory dwelling unit in a two-family home. There's nothing that prevents you from that, and it probably wouldn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance, nor would it be, you know, it would certainly be in line with the state's agenda to increase housing. But just be advised that, you know, that the accessory use dwelling has always been for single-family use. I just don't know if there were any changes that allow for that. But if you approve this as an accessory use dwelling and someday those units become condominiums, then where is the subordinate and where is the principal building? You know what I mean? This is the problem that I've had in other jurisdictions is that you can't really discern between what is an accessory use to a single family, versus housing production and the advent of adding more living units to the state. So that would be my first concern. Secondly, The general residence district would be the appropriate district to do this in because you have some nonconforming three families that probably already look like this that were probably created, you know, was three families back in the day. It wouldn't be out of character for the for the neighborhood. I'm sure. But in addition to that, I would question. The number of parking spaces if this is outside of the half mile transit station, that would be something for you to consider that there would be one extra parking space for this dwelling unit and, you know, that would be something that I would look into. But it's definitely not a huge. I don't think it's far out of whack for the zoning board to consider this as an accessory dwelling unit. But again, I would just caution you that the accessory dwelling unit is exclusive to single family homes. It doesn't say it. But that's the intent, you know, so I would, I'm gonna shut up right there because I don't want to ruin Attorney Desmond's case, but... No, if I could address that, Commissioner Forty.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So if you look at the Executive of Housing and Living Communities regulations that were promulgated under 48, Section 3, they have expanded the definition of the principal dwelling, and that has been expanded to include a dwelling with at least one dwelling unit. So I would argue that under the definitions that have been promulgated by the state, and I've also attended some MCLE courses on this as well, where everybody kind of said, I don't know, except for what the regulations say. And specifically with regard to the condos and ownership, that's a huge open question that nobody really has any answer to.

[Bill Forte]: And there's nothing to prevent it from being sold as a separate unit down the road. So that's where the accessory thing gets. kind of blurred it off. And again, I certainly am not here to oppose the case. I just want the zoning board to be, you know, to be aware that, you know, that, that these things when they, when they become, and certainly the zoning board is, is granted broad authority to approve a project like this. Is that, that's why I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, you know, but, but, you know, just be advised that, you know, on a two family, you know, if it's separate ownership or down the road or something, there, there are ramifications, to approving this type of accessory dwelling unit in a two-family. Because once you set a precedence, not every case is going to be the same. But that's turning a two-family to a three-family, almost with expectation.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Commissioner Forde, I sort of had the same take on it as you did. And right before this meeting, I was looking at the state website and the ADU FAQs and stuff. Let me just share my screen here. Dennis, can you just let me share my screen? Thanks, so I was kind of shocked to kind of learn this actually, because I thought it really was just for single family zones. But it does say explicitly here, can you prohibit a protected use ADU from being permitted in a property that has more than one unit, like a two family? And no, you cannot limit ADUs and that to lots with only single family homes on them. I haven't had a chance to go into this legal decision, but it's one of the things that I want to kind of go through and process a little bit more.

Chris, can I have Danielle go first before we get to you in case she helps answer some of our questions? Thanks, Danielle, can you just introduce yourself for the public?

[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Hi, good evening. Danielle Evans, senior planner. Yeah, so the state legislature, they wrote a very messy law. It said that ADUs are allowed in any district where single families are allowed by right or by special permit. It didn't say only single family dwellings could have an ADU. So there were a lot of information sessions with HLC, like immediately after with us all kind of like, okay, can a gas station have an ADU if it's in the zone that allows single families? And they're like, well, no. I'm like, well, it doesn't say that it can't. So HLC promulgated these regulations and regardless of my opinions of what is overreach and what is not, they were authorized to write these regulations that Kind of, you know, deciphered and translated some of the weird language that.

You know, the legislator wrote and yeah, so my understanding is that. You could have a 400 unit building and then say, you want to build an 80 you. It's weird, but. That's my understanding that you can do that. You can regulate the height to be no higher than the principal dwelling. And you can regulate the setbacks that it be no more strict than the accessory structure setback, which is only three feet in Medford. So now we're thinking, should we increase these? Because we wrote this for like sheds. And do we really want to be on top of each other more than we already are?

So, I do think that they're entitled to apply for this protected. We're also, we're also still trying to wrap our heads around the new variance standards. Yeah, it's a lot coming at us at once and there's probably going to be more coming soon with the economic development bond bill. Who knows what's going to come out of that? Yeah, so the standards have been relaxed a little bit. There have been some discussions about whether you can impose conditions on it. My reading is that you still can. It's just narrower what you can have conditions on. Yeah, so I think they can apply for this. But yeah, the definition of height is about, it's more than 50%.

The dormers exceed that gross floor area, so that's what bumps it up to a third story.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Danielle. My interpretation is that the use of the ADU unit and the third floor would be allowed by right, However, you know, as a protected ADU, however, because, you know, they need the dormers, then they need variances and that's still up to the discretion of this board, really. Right.

[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: So the use is, the use is allowed, but they can't, you know, violate our reasonable regulations of height. and, you know, bulk and our setbacks. And in this case, it exceeds the maximum height or maximum stories rather, because it creates, you know, the additional living area on the third floor, which makes it, converts it from a half story to a full story. Right. And you see that all the time anyways, with, you know, people just wanting to expand into their attics and finish it, it becomes technically a third story. In this case, You know, it's a unit and Commissioner Forte can correct me if I'm wrong. Building code doesn't care that it's an ADU. It just it's a unit. And so 3 families, it would technically be regulated just as any other 3 family for fire suppression and egress. So, I think this. COB, Erika Vandenbrande.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, you're correct on everything, Danielle, including the over the 50% floor area and the fact that it would turn it into a three story. So that the only thing for really for the, you know, for the board to consider is is the dimensional variance on the third floor. I don't think that there's anything else unless they're asking for relief from the parking requirements, which is one space.

[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Yeah, and so this is near the Greenline station. This is right by Tufts, right? So I think this is, yeah. And I think bus stops count too, and so there's lots of buses.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Attorney Denman, let me just get to Chris, because I know you've been waiting to ask this question, so maybe you can answer everything.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few concerns, and I just want to echo what you said at the beginning, which is, I don't feel comfortable until there is some of the city's attorney can possibly comment on some of this, because I'm not sure if it's a finding. Certainly it's a variance on the third floor. We cannot restrict the fact that there would be an ADU on the property. However, I think there's a big, mistake here, which I'd like to find out from the building commissioner how he interprets this, which is the maximum unit size is 900 square feet for an ADU currently. And that's based on half of the living area or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. And you have two units in this building.

And it would be calculated on one of those units, not both. That's my interpretation. You don't get to count the whole building because it's already a two-unit building. So you would be limited to the larger of the two units at half of that square footage for the ADU. Of course, you could apply for a variance to that, but that's not what I'm reading here. So that's one issue. The other is what I mentioned just a minute ago, which is the combination of is it a finding, it's a variance for the third floor, but is a finding even necessary because this is a protected use under

section three. So we cannot deny the use, but we can limit the size. And my personal feeling is that the calculations are incorrect. And you don't get to lump all the units together to come up with a square footage. You only get the smaller of those two numbers. So if that were one unit, you would get the 900 square feet, but it's already two units. So that's essentially my comments right now. I have more, but I'll hold off for now. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Chris. Attorney Desmond, I think you're next, and then we'll go to Bill.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. I'd just like to address a couple of comments, and also part of the confusion for legal, because I think Mr. DeVita is correct in the sense that I don't

[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't have as much a concern as I did under the prior topography soil conditions shape with the variant standard as it stands now. But if that standard were still in effect, I believe this is under 40A section three, which is the Dover amendment. Um, and as I had indicated to the building commissioner in, um, my exchange with him, you can certainly regulate under Dover reasonable regulations as to bulk stories, all of that. Um, and the, and the, the regulations that I provided the board with indicate specifically what can be regulated. Um, so I think this is a Dover analysis and it's not a variance and a, and a, um, a special permit, and I say that because as I quoted in my materials, it specifically in the regulations indicates that you cannot require a variance or a special permit. So I think you're under kind of the educational religious type of analysis with respect to regulation. You can reasonably regulate, and they indicate in the

in the regs that you can reasonably regulate, but you can't regulate to the extent that you make the development of the ADU impossible. So there's a whole balancing test within those regulations. And I think that's what applies, not the special permit and the variance requirements. Secondly, with respect to question of floor space, if you look at the regulations that I provided, they define principal dwelling And principal dwelling is the whole building, not just a unit. Um, it's a dwelling unit versus the principal dwelling. And you're allowed, um, what is 50% of whatever that is up to 50% of the principal dwelling, um, or 900 square feet. So if your principal dwelling calculation was higher than that, for instance, if you took the whole building that we have now, it's 2,600 square feet and you divided that by two, I'd be permitted a greater, floor area, but they cap that at the 900. So I think if you look at the definition of principal dwelling and how that applies to gross floor area, that it's the 900, or if your whole building is less than 900, or if when you calculate it all together and the 50% is, I don't know, less than, no, you're always stuck at 900 or less, and less meaning if you have a tiny house, I guess, would be that instance where you might come out with that. But it's 50% of the principal dwelling as I read it in the regulations.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Attorney Desmond, I'm confused by your conversation around the Dover Amendment. My understanding is that's for educational religious uses, so I'm not really clear how you're using it here.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Because it's now a new part of Section 3. Section three includes solar, it includes religious, it includes child care facilities, it includes a lot more than just what you typically see on the education and the religion, child care centers, it applies to as well. And now they've introduced this paragraph with ADUs and that's under 48 section three of the Dover Amendment. And if you look at the regulations that they're promulgated, It's a Dover amendment analysis and those regulations and the statute itself even say prohibits the imposition of a special permit or variance or other zoning relief. So I think it's, you know, as I said to the prior building commissioner, it's not that you can't regulate, you can, but you've got to do it under a Dover analysis. So reasonable regulations versus can, you know, the use, are you able to still carry on the use in conjunction with the regulations.

But so I guess my point was, I would just like to get you to get some direction from your legal counsel as to which that is, because my understanding is that it's going to be a Dover analysis.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, even if that were the case, I mean, my interpretation of reasonable regulation would be, you know, the city has a zoning plan and an intention and I You know, is something. If something. subverts that. I mean, you know, it's not a three family, like we don't allow three families and yet your interpretation would essentially allow three families and large swaths of the city where they're, you know, not currently envisioned right now. You know, the city's gone through a lot of careful zoning planning and may expand where that is, but it's trying to be, you know, somewhat careful about that.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I think the only way that you could prohibit it, quite honestly, is if you zoned out single families in those districts, because I think that's what the state statute allows for. And then it allows for the analysis, just like you'd have to do with, you know, with Tufts and with child care centers, because it applies to child care centers too, when you're determining whether they can be in a certain place or not and what kind of restrictions you can place on those. This is now under that penumbra as far as I can say.

[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Thank you. I just want to say that the planning department's stance is not that you have to approve them. I mean, if it doesn't fit, then it doesn't fit. They already have two units there. The Dover Amendment doesn't say that you must approve it. It's a lower hurdle to jump over. And the question is, are our regulations reasonable?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I feel like that's, I know there are other matters on tonight and we're kind of, so I think if it's going back to a legal situation, I think that's probably where this, you know, you want to get your opinion is to what it is. But I don't, I think, and the regulations make it very clear that you can't prohibit it because it's protected under 48 section three. But I'm not going to tell you that, you know, you certainly, get your own opinion as to where it is.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Of course, I think, but I want to make sure that we are just getting all the questions out tonight because this is very new for the board members and for the general public.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I think it's a really important conversation because it's going to affect a lot of our work going forward, I'm sure. So I still want to take any further questions from the board about this. I think attorney Desmond, your applicants would be okay with a continuance.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Christian, we did discuss it and we knew that it was a lot, especially with the changes to the variance standard that came in last week on top of everything.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So okay, are you looking for Christian to say something now to approve or do you? Christian, okay.

[MCM00000637_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, it's Christian Austin 12 Wesley Street. I am perfectly fine with continuing this matter. I want everyone to have all of the information they need to make a decision. Great, thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That being said, I would still like to at least have the, make sure there's no more questions from the members for right now so we can get all the information over the next few weeks that we need. And also open the public hearing just so that if any members of the public have additional questions too, we can be sure to try to make sure we have the answers by the next time we meet. So as ZBA members, do you have any other questions you want to put on the table right now?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Chris. Yeah, I'll be brief, Mr. Chair. But I'm in complete agreement with seeking the legal counsel interpretation of how this should be. you know, gone through. I will say that the intent of the ADU law, as I've read it over the past year and a half-ish, is that, you know, there are a lot of large buildings, large single family homes in the suburbs, And the intent, I think, was to more be able to divide that situation into an ADU within the confines of the existing building.

But of course, we don't exactly live in that world. We are living in a more dense city. And so we still have, folks still have the right to add them. However, I don't, I don't think it's just to add them an increase to three stories to necessarily make it a triple-decker in essence. It's within the confines of the zoning regulations and dimensional requirements that you can add in ADU. You know, if that were the case and they could do that, they would take some portion of the second floor and convert that into the ADU along with the attic space, but they really want a third unit. So, and that's their right to come for that. I just don't think that's, I think it's a little bit of a stretch on the protected use part or the intent of the law. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I don't want to be repetitive. I think these are all questions that we agree we need to address. As I did show on my screen earlier, the state's Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities has interpreted the legislation in such a way that it would allow an ADU in a property such as this. that didn't require the other relief. So any other questions from board members? All right, let me open the public hearing part of this matter. Are there any members of the public who'd like to speak on this matter?

Dennis, have we gotten any? Yes, Camille. State your name and address for the record, please. You're muted right now. Yep, go ahead. uh, Camille, we can't hear you. So I don't know if there's an issue with your audio. Let's try to come back to you in a moment. Uh, there's, uh, someone with who says iPad.

[Patricia Chery]: Sorry, I'm sorry, my camera's not working. My name's Patricia Cherry. I live at 20 Wellesley Street. And I think Camille is having a problem because she's my neighbor. We live on Wellesley Street. So the house that we're talking about, one of them is two doors down from me. And the other one is across the street from that. So this is all pretty much in the same area. Wellesley Street is a very short street. We actually only have five houses on Wellesley Street, and all of those houses are on the left-hand side. All the other houses on the street are abutters. So there's an abutter on Main Street, an abutter on Vassar, another abutter on Vassar, and an abutter on Dartmouth. Right now, we have the corner of Dartmouth and Wellesley on the other end under construction. They're building new units there.

Our problem here in this area is that we are in that green zone, so parking is an issue. It is a huge issue here, especially where we live. These houses are being rented out by rooms to college students, and they're all great. Let me tell you, my music is louder than theirs. They're great kids. They're studying, but it is an excess of people. It's an excess of parking. We also have a lot of absentee landlords, so tenants leaving and new ones are coming in. We're getting dumped mattresses, dumped tables, left out shoes, left out pots and pans.

It's just, it's becoming, it's becoming no longer a community. We now live in a place where we knew, and I know that things are changing and, you know, we have to roll with the times here, but there aren't any real families in this neighborhood anymore. It's all, you know, young people that are coming in for a year or two leaving. They're not putting any real roots down here. And right now, to be honest with you, I think we have 122 units for rent in South Medved and 31 homes for sale. So I keep hearing about, you know, how we have to make more housing, and everybody wants to make more housing. None of these houses are affordable. I think our biggest concern is that the parking is an issue. Absentee landlordism is an issue.

We have issues that when these people do this construction, they park everywhere, they leave their trucks. Some of these people are so rude that our general contract is for these people that are doing work around here. They don't give any care to the neighbors. And it's just, you know, I'm sure this gentleman, I think I know who he is now that I see his name and I'm sure he's a nice guy. But at some point, the community that bought homes here to raise families and to live in. And yes, you know, I have a lot of two families. I think I'm the only single family, but it has to stop at some point. I mean, I don't know too much about the variances and the law, this, that, and the other thing, but yes, let's be realistic. He wants to have three units. He wants to, you know, have three units to rent out to make money. Understandable. But there are other people in this community that have to be thought about.

And I think that's pretty much it. So like I said, parking is a huge issue. And just all around, we're just getting inundated here between the racks and the trash. And it's just becoming, it's uninhabitable at some points. So those are our things. That's my thing.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Camille, are you there now? We still can't hear you. Yeah, if you're able to send some written comments to Dennis, that would be great. He dropped his email into the chat, if you see that.

[Denis MacDougall]: And just send it to me before the next meeting, and I'll send it to the board. Any comments sent to me will go to the board for them to review before the meeting.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: We won't be taking a final vote on this tonight. All right, thank you. Any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? All right, is there a motion to close the public portion of tonight's hearing? So moved. Thanks, Jim. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Chris. Roll call vote. Jim?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. The public hearing portion of of this matter is closed and any further deliberation amongst board members? I actually do have a question attorney does. I know you have your hand up. I don't know if you still are looking to say something, but I did want to 1 thing we didn't explicitly address was requirements of the state wide ordinances. You have to have a dedicated separate entrance and also the parking issue. Could you just address those two matters?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. Before I address that, I just wanted to make the public aware and the board aware that my client isn't a developer who is developing an absentee landlord. He's actually lived at 123 Vassar for 13 years and he's now bought 12, 14, within the last six months, and he's moving over to Wellesley Street, so it's not a situation where he's gonna, he's not an absentee landlord. He's been, with Vassar Street, he's been managing those properties for 13 years, and he continues to stay in the neighborhood, so it's not a situation where this is a development, he's gonna rent them out, and he's not gonna be present. With respect to the ADU, I believe this is gonna be sprinklered the entire,

Building is going to be sprinkler. My clients decided to do that. Um, so the spring sprinkler and, and, um, you know, the commissioner correct me if I'm wrong, requires one, um, egress from that third floor with the, if it's fully sprinklered and that, that is what the plan calls for. Um, in addition, with respect to parking, there's two parking spaces. We're in the green zone, so it's a 0.8 per unit. and the ADU does not require parking per, because we're within that half mile. So the parking is compliant.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, one means of egress is required with a sprinkler bill, I guess.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Understood. Sorry, the resident with the iPad, the public hearing portion is closed, so we can't call on you right now. We're going to be revisiting this next month, however, so feel free to write in any further comments that you might have to the planning department. All right, do we have a motion to continue this matter? And also, sorry, that's 123 Vassar Street and 12 Wellesley Street. I think we can do both of those since it's the same applicant.

[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, I think that the other hearing has to be open first and then continued. Okay. Okay. Just, just the procedural matter.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So let's, uh, just a motion then on continuing one to three Vassar street. Thanks, Jim. Thanks, Chris. A roll call vote, Jim. Hi, Mark. Hi, Chris. Hi. And I'm an eye as well.

[Denis MacDougall]: And just for the record, that will be continued until August 27th. And for those of you who have logged on to the Zoom call tonight, it will be the same Zoom information to log on as it was for last time. This will be posted on the city's website under the calendar as well.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And Dennis, can you read the next item on the agenda so we can just kind of open and continue it as well?

[Denis MacDougall]: 12 Wellesley Street. Applicant Krishnasuk construct two shed dormers and expand the existing attic space to create a full third story at 12 Wellesley Street for purposes of protected ADU, which is in general residence of ingestion requiring a variance indoor finding pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 48-3.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Great. Thank you. Is there a motion to continue this matter? So moved. And Bill, did you say we have to open the public hearing part?

[Bill Forte]: No, Mr. Chair, it does have to be requested by the applicant to continue it. Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: We would request a continuance of the 1214 Wesley Street Manor to August 27th.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. Thank you, Attorney. Is there a motion to continue this matter? PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. Chris? Aye. Aye as well. This matter at Wesley Street matters also continue to August 27th. Thank you, Attorney Desmond and Christian Austin. Appreciate your time and bringing a whole bunch of new issues before us. Thank you. Have a good evening. All right, see you next month. Dennis, could you read the next item on the agenda?

[Denis MacDougall]: 39 Roberts Road, applicant Scott Carmen and Ellen Whittle, to construct a two-story addition to the rear of a home which will feature a new kitchen on the first floor and a separate bath for the primary bedroom and a laundry space on the second floor at 39 Roberts Road, which is in the single-family one zoning district. This will extend an existing non-conformity, thereby requiring a special permit.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you, Dennis. Mr. Carmen, good to see you again. How are you?

[SPEAKER_12]: Good evening, nice to see you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I have my architect, Andrew Enright, here with me, and he is gonna take the laboring ore on the more interesting part of the presentation, and I'll come back around to me at the end.

[SPEAKER_21]: HAB-Michael Lecceseeeeeeeeeeeeeee neither of them are getting worse. So it will hopefully be a fairly straightforward process. So I offer that I would share my screen and we can take a look at the drawings.

[SPEAKER_21]: Okay, can everyone see that? See the chart? Yes. Yes. Wonderful. Great. So, as I mentioned, I'll scroll down to the site plan, the existing site plan in a second, but there are two existing nonconformities. That is the lot area. Required 7,000, existing 5,500. No changes proposed there, clearly. And the setback on the east, 7.5 feet required, approximately 5.1 feet existing, and we're not proposing that that gets worse either. It's just the addition stretches it back towards the rear of the yard, which we can look at in a second.

As with the proposed addition, the lot coverage does change slightly, but below the requirement. So actually going to the first page here, this is the existing site plan. So here's the existing house. I'll go over to a 3D image in a second. But essentially what's proposed here in the red crosshatch is the two-story proposed addition off the back, kitchen on the ground floor and laundry and bathroom for the master bath. on the second floor. So as I zoom in a bit here, this is the area where we're within the allowable east setback, and that is just getting stretched approximately four feet towards the rear of the house, but not encroaching the neighbors or further into the setback at that side.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Well, I do have, I do have a question just on the lot coverage. It looked like it went from the existing is 21% and it says proposed is 20. Oh, 25%. Right. So it's going up a little bit. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[SPEAKER_21]: Just a, just a bit. So sort of, yeah, we're adding about, you know, 200 square feet or so to that. Um, good question. Okay. Anybody else? Um, On that we can just take a look at the, you know, this is the existing. That's not the existing. This is the existing 3D view there. And so what they're, what we're proposing is basically adding on this, this portion to the rear of the house only. We could show the front elevation later on, but essentially there's no change to the front elevation, to the street view. As you can see down here, this is their current footprint here, which will remain, but no change to what one would see from the street.

Currently, there is a vinyl six-foot fence that rings much of the property as well as some substantial trees here as far as blocking to neighbors. And just going through here, it's saying here we have the existing east elevation and existing north elevation here dashed in approximately what the proposed addition would be. And then showing here again the proposed final version, red hatch is essentially what would be, you know, the new area to the east and then the new area, the north elevation facing the backyard.

[SPEAKER_12]: If not, Scott, do you want to say a few words? Unless any members of the board have any questions yet, I'll proceed.

[SPEAKER_12]: So, just a few words about myself. I'm a lifelong resident of Medford. Been in this house for 16 years, which is hard to believe 3 relatively young kids and house, obviously, becoming quite cramped and. want to stay in this house, which is really what brings us here tonight. The thrust of the proposal is to give mom and dad our own bathroom, instead of sharing a bathroom with the 10-year-old and an eight-year-old, and to give us a nice sized kitchen on the first floor. I think it's fairly minimal we're asking for here. This is not a massive proposal. We were seeking all kinds of zoning relief. It's about the littlest you can ask for. As the board knows, you need to find that it's not substantially more detrimental because we just have the one existing nonconformity. I think the board can find that there's nothing substantially more detrimental here. We're talking about four feet back. We're extending the side yard nonconformity. The addition is exclusive to the rear of the property, so nobody is going to see it.

As Andy mentioned, that side of the yard is screened by our six foot vinyl fence, arborvitae trees. There's not going to be any windows on that side of the addition. And as you see the plan there, my neighbor's residence is actually slanted away from it at that point where the addition is going to be. So we're nowhere near our neighbor. So I thank the board for their time and we welcome any questions you have.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you, Scott. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. Seeing none, Chris?

[Chris D'Aveta]: No, not really. I was going to commend the architect for putting in the setback line all the way in the perimeter of the drawing. Thank you for that.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, let's open the public hearing and see if there's any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter at this time. Yes, sir. Just introduce your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_01]: My name is Peter McLaughlin. I'm here with my wife, Diane McLaughlin. We live at 29 Roberts Road. We are two houses away from Scott and his family. One of the things that I don't think Scott mentioned was where the addition is going in the backyard. It's Oak Grove Cemetery, so there won't be a lot of complaints from Oak Grove Cemetery residents. Scott's a great neighbor. He has three great kids. He's been here as long as we've been here. I'm a lifelong Method resident.

You know, this is something that I've been in the house and with three young kids, it's a small house. And, um, I don't think they're asking for a lot. So I just want to, you know, give my, um, as a neighbor, give my approval and, and, uh, hopefully you will too. That's, that's all we got.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): Any other neighbors or members of the public who would like to speak on this matter. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : Dennis have we received any written comments on this matter.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: : Thank you. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : All right, seeing no more comments. Is there a motion to close the public hearing portion of this meeting.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: She is frozen. OK. Chris? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So we've public hearing is closed. All right, let's members enter deliberation. Any comments, thoughts? This is a special permit matter. And so we would be, you know, considering The social economic or community needs traffic flow and safety adequacy of utilities and other public services compatibility with the neighborhood impacts on the natural environment. And compatibility with the city's comprehensive plan. What are your thoughts?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: I don't see any issues with that. I mean, I think the neighbors are absolutely correct. It overlooks, you know, the cemetery behind them. So you won't see much issues and you really can't see it from the street all too much either. So I think it's a nice, actually it was a pretty cool usage of the space. So, you know, would continue to be remaining in character with the neighborhood and I would have no issues with this.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment that this is one of the changes that came out in the recent statutory changes with the state. And so now special permits are no longer required for existing non-conforming structures to be expanded, provided that they fall within the required setback. So this project is about two feet away from it actually being issued by right. So just wanted to throw that out there.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Oh, I don't know. You unmuted. So I thought maybe you wanted to speak.

[Unidentified]: No, no, no. I'm all in favor of it. I think they did a great job to presenting it and the design of it. Great, thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Yeah, I agree. I mean. This seems very straightforward and is just extending very slightly some existing non-conformities. So is there a motion to approve the special permit to extend the existing non-conformities for this property? So moved. Seconded. Thanks, Chris. All right, a roll call vote. Jim? Aye. Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. Yvette?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Yvette. And I'm an aye as well. So 5-0, the special permit is approved. Thank you, Scott.

[SPEAKER_12]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you members of the board. Have a great evening.

[Denis MacDougall]: 621 Fulton Street, applicant Marissa Fitzgerald to construct a proposed attached accessory dwelling unit addition at 621 Fulton Street, which is in a single-family, two-zoning district. The proposed addition is seeking variance for the rear yard setback, and is also requesting a variance of the 15-foot driveway setbacks.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Is the applicant here to speak on this matter? I am here, but I have a contractor here as well. Thanks, Marissa. Did you want to go over to Matt? Yes, please. All right, Matt, over to you.

[SPEAKER_18]: My name is Matt Palmer from MMP Construction. I'm the general contractor for the project. We also have Dan Kaczmarek. He's the architect for the project. He's also here. We're seeking relief from the rear setback where 15 feet is needed. And, uh, we seek relief to make it to 10 and also from the relief of the driveway where 15 feet, you can't park within 15 feet of the lot line, I guess. Um, so we're seeking relief as to that as well. Um, and Dan has the plans to share with everyone so we can go over those.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That'd be great. Dan, could you walk us through those? Sure.

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Um, so the first, uh, The first drawing that we have in our progress set is a site plan. The site plan is oriented with Gaston on the left, Fulton on the south. The proposed addition in the upper right-hand corner violates the rear setback of this lot. We have a slightly incorrect setback line shown here. Our setback line is drawn at 10 or 5 or 7 1⁄2, and we know that it is 15. Our building is proposed to be placed 10 feet from that rear setback. So we are falling within about a five foot violation of the rear setback. It's a corner lot, but we understand that this is still a rear setback.

The proposed addition is two stories falling within the maximum allowable ADU square footage. And the, the driveway relocation is occurring from here to here. I don't have as nice of drawings as Andrew did because they are in progress. However, we have existing floor plans of the single family home. I should say that the project is intended for the purposes of the daughter of the owner, Marissa Fitzgerald, to live at this address as well. This is the existing plans.

And the proposed foundation and ground floor plans. that look like that and a half by 21 and a half proposed footprint off the side of the house.

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Square footage of the ADU is about 480 square, sorry, 880 square feet. We have about 470, sorry, 434 square feet per floor. Okay, my network is okay here. I think the actual interior measurement, Andre, is about 434 square feet per floor. Thank you.

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Yep. 2nd floor has bedroom, closet, bathroom, and then a separate entry where you're off of a rebuilt deck footprint that happens at the front of the house. Thank you. The elevations for the project. We have two elevations. We have a front, a front towards Gaston Street, and then a side elevation which faces the adjacent neighbors have. You know, the attempt here in this configuration is obviously to be as sort of low profile as we can with the roofs, low pitch roofs, you know, modest ceiling heights, nothing that's going to be, you know, overly scaled against the existing house.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that would be helpful. I was just looking up the Google Street View.

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: So the project proposes the addition occurring from this edge of the existing house left by that 21-foot dimension.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: OK, and that shed is being removed, right? Set on the site plan? Correct. And this driveway is going to be removed and reoriented? Correct. Go ahead, Matt.

[SPEAKER_18]: The driveway is going to be removed and reoriented. I've already spoken with engineering and all the other departments. Everything is, has been approved with conditions and we know we need stormwater mitigation, which I've already talked to Owen and engineering about.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. And I mean, see, there's also a pool here and everything that's, uh, you guys already have your permits for that?

[SPEAKER_18]: Uh, the pool, the pool. Well, that's what the driveway came in. So the, yeah, cause the driveway is there, the pools. So, so yeah, we do have the permit for the pool provided the driveway is moved to that location.

[SPEAKER_18]: I had, I had to apply for a three separate permits cause we are finishing the basement is going to become a, uh, common like living area and like wine cellar. Um, The pool permit, obviously, and then the ADU permit. So there's three separate permits on this one project.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. And just Dan, just going back to the dimensions again. So you have, I think you said something was incorrect here. What was that?

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, so the way that the site engineer has drawn this, where he has drawn this setback is here. We actually know that that rear setback occurs more so here. So that's where we end up with that five foot setback violation, which as I said is towards the rear of this lot, this side.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And do we have to approve this? I see it's narrow on the side too, 6.6. Yeah, so our side setback

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: falls, you know, outside of, or within the setbacks, outside of the setbacks on the rear so that we're not proposing a violation to that side of the lot. Got it.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, so it's just the rear setback? Correct. Okay, thank you. And then I guess the variance of the 15 foot driveway setback. So that's, just look at that now. So where is that variance required exactly?

[SPEAKER_18]: I was told by one of the departments that there's a 15 foot driveway setback, but I know in the previous meeting, I mean, for one of the previous applicants, somebody had said that there is no requirement for a driveway setback. So I was told maybe I was given misinformation by one of the departments, but yeah.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Um, great. Thank you. Uh, members of the board, uh, any, any questions at this point?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Just looking at the question is, I know that we're talking about the setback there towards the back. The property line, I was trying to orient myself to kind of the Google Maps, the neighbor's house on that. Where is the house he represented on that? Okay. Okay. That's what I was trying to figure out how close that I saw that strip of land in between. So, okay.

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: That, that view that I was sort of showing you guys was, was facing this corner of the house, looking at that big deck structure that sits off the front corner.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yep. Right. There's also kind of a topographical difference. So you sit above that property. Have you talked to the neighbors about this at all?

[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I've spoken to my direct neighbors, and I believe a couple of them are on this call as well. There's one that directly abuts us, and we've had different conversation of what the thought process was of some of the work that's going to be done. As far as the neighbor on the other side on Fulton Street, they're renters. The owners aren't typically around. I mean, I haven't had full on conversation with them. But again, that's kind of a buts where the front of my house is right now. So there wouldn't be any interaction or interruption with them. It's more of one of the houses right that sits right on that property line. Like, you know, again, I think that they're on this call. So if there was any thing, I'd be happy to answer to it. But nothing of a negative feedback that I've received from any of the neighbors who I've had conversation with.

[SPEAKER_15]: And again, this is it from my understanding to What the setbacks are and what is being looked at from here is due to this being a corner lot. So what would normally be seven and a half feet, if I'm not mistaken, is we're asking for 10 feet. But due to me being on a corner lot is why that variance is being requested. You know, I take my, I love the neighborhood I'm in as part of the reason I'm staying and want to do this work. I take my neighbors into consideration with any of this. So if there were anything negative that any of them felt, I would be open to that and have that conversation before even wanting to put this forth to be quite truthful with you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, Dan, you can stop sharing your screen for right now. Thank you. Members, any other questions?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Chris. Mr. Chair, I just, I was looking at the drawings and maybe I'm not finding it correctly, but there are two and a half stories to this structure, right? I guess that's a question. And I see the basement plan and the first four floor plan, but not the second floor.

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: But they're late. Sorry, Chris. Go ahead. Go ahead. There are only two floors. There's the lower level, which is essentially contiguous with the existing basement of the house. And then there is a second floor of the ADU, which is contiguous with the first floor of the existing house. So it's just a two story structure.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, okay, because then my follow up question was to the building commissioner if he considers it two and a half or whatever. All right. All right. So if that's fine with him that I'm fine with that. Thank you.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right, and Bill, just a question for for you is just in terms of the setbacks. Did you speak to that the you know the because it's a corner a lot and also I just the question that I have the setbacks different because this is an 80 you versus a regular edition.

[Bill Forte]: No, and attach a to you would have to meet the standards for the setbacks for the district. And always on corner lots, the way it's usually decided is that the rear setback is opposite the front principal entrance of the building. So if it were addressed on the other street on the side, that would be, that would now be the front of the house and the rear would be that side setback here. They do have it oriented correctly and they are showing, they are showing it correctly. So the relief is needed. But I just had one question about, and just for the board to consider, I see an elimination of parking there. And I know that you need two for a single family and then an additional for the ADU if it's not within half a mile of transit. And I just wasn't sure.

[SPEAKER_18]: So there will be two spots, and it is within a half a mile of MBTA buses.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. All right. Any other questions? All right, let's open the public hearing portion of this matter. Are there any members of the public or neighbors who would like to speak? Dennis, did we get any written comments? We did not. Okay. Joe, can you just introduce your name and address for the record?

[Jack Buckley]: Yep, I'm Joe Sullivan 241 Gaston Street, and I'm the butter that's to the rear of this setback So I just I have a couple of questions. I didn't you know the plans Somewhat New I guess to me so I I I know you said you were looking at Google Maps here. So you can see that 241 and the corner of Fulton Street, they're pretty close together. So a couple of concerns I have, five feet isn't much, and I certainly don't want to stymie Melissa from this project, but I'm a little bit concerned about privacy. And I don't know if there's any provisions for fencing to go along so that the house doesn't, the ADU doesn't sit basically right in my backyard.

And I'm also concerned when the construction begins to take place, the properties are very, very close together, right? And there's not a lot of room. And I believe there's also a setback for the pool that may have to be addressed in another permit. And I'm majorly concerned with the closeness and the equipment they're gonna need to get in there. Anybody who's up the heights knows that there's a lot of ledge. So whether they're gonna have to dig or drill or do whatever they have to do to get you know, you get through that ledge up here, there's not a lot of room, right? So my concern is with, you know, the privacy of the ADU abutting my property and, you know, the noise and the heavy equipment coming in to do two excavations in the same similar area with not a lot of room for debris. I'm concerned about cleanup, concerned about, you know, debris falling over, you know, onto my property. I have a back entrance that's probably

uh, maybe 10, probably be 10, 15 feet away from there where they're going to be doing the work. Uh, that's my primary entrance to the house. I do have a front entrance, but like most people, we use the rear to come back, to come in a little. So I'm concerned with the space that's being allocated for this ADU and, um, the, you know, how, how the work's going to be conducted. And if I can share my screen, I can show you, if you get that Google overview, you'll be able to see the proximity and how close these houses really are. Sure. You're welcome to show it, Joe.

[Jack Buckley]: All right. So you can see the space that's being referred to. This is the car, the car is the deck is a driveway that's going to be replaced by a pool. And this, this is a somewhat of a little retaining wall about a foot and a half high that goes along the perimeter of the properties. And we can't see because it's white but that right right in this area. where I'm moving my mouse, that's the entrance that we use to go into the house. So you can see how close the proximity and the work that's gonna need to be done. Again, and the parking on the street with the trucks and the vehicles and everything else they're gonna need to get in here and do all this digging and building, a little bit of concern for me as a director of Butter.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: That's understandable. All right, thank you, Joe. You can stop sharing your screen.

[SPEAKER_15]: Can I just clarify one thing for Joe? He said five feet. I'm not looking for five feet. The seven and a half is what's typically allowed. We're asking for 10. So just if that alleviates any of your concern on privacy, we're looking for it to be 10 foot of a variance, not five. Your feelings are your feelings. I just want to make sure that we were clear.

[Jack Buckley]: No, no, no, if it was truly seven and a half, we probably wouldn't be, the discussion probably wouldn't be taking place. I don't know that it's not seven and a half, but I don't know that it's not 15 either. So that's something that the city is gonna have to clarify.

[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I was just gonna, I think I can help clarify that for the group. It's proposed to be 10 feet away from the lot line. And I believe that that lot line I don't know exactly where that lot line falls relative to that small wall show that you were talking about, but wherever the lot line is, it's 10 feet back. Proposed to be 10 feet back from that lot line.

[Jack Buckley]: Right, right. And if the setback's seven and a half, then that's not a big deal. But if the setback's 15, that's the five foot variance you're looking for, right? Yeah, you know, what a two story building sitting right on the prop right next to the property like that, that is a little bit of a concern. And I didn't see anything in there about any type of fencing or anything other than what I see around the pool in this plan that you just guys just showed. So I'm not sure what might be going on there.

[SPEAKER_18]: I can also clarify that there will be fencing around the property. And as far as the, I understand your concern with the second floor, the deck is also elevated at the floor level at the ADU floor level will be. So it's, we're pretty much, it's the same height. But there will be fencing around the property. And as far as trucking will be happening daily with the pool excavation. And as for the addition itself, There'll be minimal trucking with that as it's only a frost wall on grade level foundation. So everything will be reused to backfill that.

So it'll be a two-stage process. Everything's not gonna get dug up at once. So we'll contain everything to Marissa's lot. It'll be the ADU foundation, then the pool, which they'll truck everything offsite as they dig.

[Jack Buckley]: Yeah. Okay, I'm sure your intention is good. I'm sure the intentions are good, but there's no way that you're going to keep the dust and debris and everything down in that probably 10 or 15 foot area that you're going to be digging and chunking away at rocks and ledge and stuff.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Joe, these are good points. Obviously, I understand your concern. This isn't really a back and forth to address those issues, so I definitely suggest uh, talking offline with, uh, with your neighbor there to try to work through some of that. Um, uh, commissioner 40, I don't know, do you have any comments on, on what you've heard here? You know, that can. in terms of managing those issues?

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so I mean, any construction is subject to sediment control and the like. So if they run out of room, obviously they're going to have to take some fill off site. That would be one practical thing that a builder might have to deal with. So he's not going to pile fill up. So it's spilling off into the other yards, firstly. Secondly, Um, you know, during construction, um, they're required to keep the dust down so that, uh, dust, uh, and, you know, um, and any other kind of nuisance are, you know, um, you know, mitigated. But, um, other than that, it's a tight site. There's no question about it, but I think it could be addressed, um, outside of this, outside of this hearing.

[Jack Buckley]: Any chance of clarification on the setback, what that really is supposed to be? Is it seven and a half? Is it 15?

[Bill Forte]: No, I believe, I believe that it's 15 feet in the rear and they're asking for a five foot variance. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. That's on the application. Yep. Okay. So, so the, the, the finished product obviously will be, you know, at 10 feet, uh, we get what's called an as-built, uh, which will confirm where the, um, both the pool and the addition are going to be set. And they really can't do any framing until the foundation as-built has been submitted to us. So that's a requirement before they start framing. So the overhangs are allowed to project into the setback if there are flying rakes or trim like that. But other than that, what you see on the plan is what you're going to get. I can't speak to the impact. Obviously, that's going to count on weather conditions and how quickly they can get in and out and so forth. They do have to protect the hull. So that's another concern that the general contractor has. really nothing to do with the asking of the variance for the placement of the structure. The rest of that can be managed by the building department. So I'm confident that you won't have any issues. And if you do, just be confident that we will take care of anything that's outside of normal construction procedures. Again, it's never comfortable for anyone during construction, but it looks to me like the builder has a plan. And this isn't a major, this isn't really a major build. This is kind of in and out. And I don't see that you're going to have some of the problems that you're projecting right now. But that's just speaking from my experience as well. a builder and a building inspector. I don't foresee that this is gonna be problematic for you. Okay, very good.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Joe. Any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing portion of the meeting?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. So the public hearing is closed and we move into a deliberation. Members, what are your thoughts? PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. Harmon Zuckerman, PB — He, Him, His, Hims): It's a reasonable. I think the confusion around the setback was that there's right now the Harmon Zuckerman, PB — He, Him, His, Hims): You know, the front of the house is on one street. And so if that continued to be the side of the house, then it would be a smaller setback than what's required. But since it's reorienting the front of the house to the other street, then Now it becomes a rear setback. So that's what the confusion was.

Sorry, could you mute whoever is unmuted? Thanks. So I think that was the confusion there, but given what I've heard, I think we're adding a unit of housing, it's for a family member, it's two floors, but because of the, The change in height, the first floor is the basement level of the existing structure and the second floor is the first floor level, which is currently the deck already extending into that area. I think that it's not as severe an ask as what might otherwise be. I'm glad that there's going to be some screening for the neighbor. I understand the neighbor's concerns certainly, and I encourage you guys to have more conversations about that so that there's you know, the construction is managed and the screening is managed, but that's not really the issue that we as a board have to have to tackle here. It's really just about the rear yard variance, the setback.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I was going to say, I echo that. As I was taking another look at the Google Street View, you definitely get a sense, you know, the deck already as it is, starts to give you a sense of the dimension of the addition there. So yes, it's going to be more solid. But I think from what I'm seeing, it is not as disrupting as a structure as it might seem. So I would be OK with this.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. And given that there's also going to be a pool, even though it's not part of this item, obviously, pools need to be screened. And I'm sure they want their privacy as well. Yeah. Any other comments by Chris, Jim, Yvette?

[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I think this is a decently sized project. It's not out of scale. Until the neighbor spoke up, I didn't really take into consideration how close it is to his property, which, you know, given the height difference is probably more dramatic than just the lateral feet difference if you look at it horizontally. So I do understand that and I will echo what others have said. Hopefully the contractors and the owner will work with the neighbor to

make sure there's no real disruption and perhaps some, I would suggest landscaping that would help ameliorate some of these concerns, some shrubbery or bushes, but that's up to the neighbors to work out among themselves. That's it. Thank you. Thanks, Chris.

[Yvette Velez]: I'm going to say ditto to what everyone said, and I have no additional comments to make.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Yvette. Is there a motion to approve the Sorry, the variance for the rear yard setback from 15 to 10 feet.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: and I'm an aye as well. So by a five zero vote, the variance for the rear setback relief is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so Bill, my understanding is that they don't need a variance for the driveway.

[Bill Forte]: Well, I mean, provided that during the plan review, we determined that the third spot is not required. Sorry, could you say that again, Bill? Yeah, so when we go to do the plan review, provided that, you know, that the third space is not required, then yes, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: What is the setback? Because my understanding that it for it's three feet from a lot line. It's not less than 3 feet, right?

[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: No, yeah, so the setbacks for driveways and parking areas for. A residential on less than a multifamily is 3 feet.

[SPEAKER_18]: I just know that it got kicked back because that's why they didn't approve the pool permit right away because they said there was a 15 foot driveway setback. or no parking within 15 feet of the lot line. It didn't make sense to me at the time, and obviously.

[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: 15 feet from the side lot line or from the street? Because you need to keep the cars not right at the end.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: So there's a buffer between the driveway and the street, correct?

[Bill Forte]: No, I think I'm looking at it now. It looks to me, it's really tough to determine where the street line is. It says existing sidewalk. And although the lot line comes in and it looks like the city owns more than what's there, it should still be fine. As long as you have a full parking stall in there, which is, Danielle, I don't have the zoning ordinance in front of me, but is it a nine by 19? Is that our size or nine by 18?

[Bill Forte]: So you have to have 19 feet from the pool area to the sidewalk, and I'm not sure if you have to adjust that, but we'll take a look at that during the plans exam. make sure and we do have we do have that space yeah okay all right yeah it wasn't measured on the plan but i'm assuming that you have it so all right so it doesn't look like you need relief for the driveway great thank you uh dennis you want to just go over next steps so just uh

[Denis MacDougall]: I will be working on the decision and I'll write up the decision in the next week or two. And then it'll get checked by our legal counsel. And once I get back from them with their corrections, you know, we kind of might, sometimes might go back and forth a couple of times. But once that's all done, I'll send it off to the members to sign. Once they've signed it, it gets filed in the clerk's office. At that point, it will start a 20 days appeals period.

If the appeals period passes and there's no appeals, then you can contact me and I'll give you a letter of no appeal. You take that letter and the decision and you go to the registry and you file it there and then you come back here and you get your building permit.

[SPEAKER_18]: Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate the board's time. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: You too. Thank you. All right, Dennis, any more items on the agenda?

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn. All right, I'll go with Mark and then Jim on that one. One second. That's fair. Oh, roll call vote. Jim? Aye. Marcus.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: I'm an eye. So meeting is adjourned and thank you all very much.

[Yvette Velez]: Can we talk really quick about next meeting? Cause I'm actually going now. I'm going on vacation, going to Curacao. So I will not be here. I'll be on a Caribbean islands.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Oh, you are inspired by their soccer team. I will be away also. That's mine. Oh yeah.

[Denis MacDougall]: Well, if we have Mary, we'll have four. And if we just don't, then what we'll end up doing in that case is opening it up and continuing until we can pick, we can just meet the following week. We can just, we can talk about this sort of offline in the future. So I'll send out an email to Mary tomorrow just to confirm that she'll be available. And if that doesn't look case, then we can just move it a week. Like, but we'll have to open up the hearing and then continue it. And right now, the only, We have attorney Desmond's and then there's one other potential case that hasn't no notices have gone out yet. So I think we're actually okay in this instance, because, you know, I think turning Desmond would probably be amenable to just opening and continuing a week or so to a to a time that works for everybody else. So, you know, would you just be gotten that last week or the following week as well?

[Bill Forte]: Listen, I'm really excited about the next meeting. But I, all kidding aside, I received a spreadsheet today showing almost by chart, what the old 48 section three used to say and what it says now. And it's all the bullet points of everything that you folks need to know. I'm going to forward it to Dennis tomorrow. And I'll share it with you folks. And it'll really be helpful. It'll be a very good tool, one of the planning, I think it's, I'm not sure, I think it's a Cushnet planning, actually put it out and it's really, really good. It describes everything that's important, any changes that you need to be made aware of, it goes into reasons for approval and so forth. So I think you'll find it a good reading, it's simple.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thanks Bill, that's helpful. And Dennis, can you just check with, Kp law about these things so that we have some legal advice on what we talked about.

[Denis MacDougall]: I'll go over that and just send them a note and with a request.

[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay and I can be available to meet with them if that's helpful.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah they might just want to maybe just do a zoom call that way we can sort of go over in the interim and Probably, although not tomorrow, because as of this meeting, I am at 35 hours for the week, so I will not be in tomorrow. So I will do this. This becomes a Monday task.

[Denis MacDougall]: That's why I never really complain too much about these meetings on Thursday, because that usually means I have Friday off.

[Chris D'Aveta]: Can I make a suggestion? What about meeting the week prior to the scheduled meeting?

[Denis MacDougall]: The only trickiness with that is that we announced during that hearing that we were going to do it on the 27th. Oh, OK. I could do it, but I'd have to re-notify everyone, which is doable, but it's trickier. And actually, that would be the 23rd, and I am not going to be in town. I'm actually away on vacation then.

[Denis MacDougall]: Well, no, sorry. The 20th. Yeah, that's right. Sorry. I'm looking at this month. We had a 20th. I'm gone from the 19th to the 24th.

[Denis MacDougall]: So, but I think probably the third, hopefully the third, we'll start a talk and I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll depend on what we hear from Mary tomorrow, because I think Mark, Chris, and Andre, you're all available then, right, the 27th? Current, yeah. Okay, right now. So I think if Mary is available, then we can just move forward. Okay, but we'll sort of see it. We'll sort of, but then again, things happen and life gets in the way and you never know what's gonna happen between now and then. But I think that's, I've rambled enough. So I think we'll just sort of see how it goes when I send out, when I hear back from Mary. And I'll talk to Attorney Desmond as well.

[Bill Forte]: Have a good one. You're stuck with me until further notice. All right. Nice meeting you, Bill. Yeah, you too. Very good. Have a great night. Thank you.