[Andre Leroux]: All right, good evening, everybody. My name's Andre LaRue. I'm the chair of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. Welcome to tonight's meeting. As we open the meeting, I'd like to take a roll call vote for attendance. I'm just going to take it how I see it. You go on the screen. Chris DeVetta? Present. Mary Lee?
[SPEAKER_13]: Present.
[Andre Leroux]: Mark Crowley. Present. And Andre LaRue is present. I believe that because it's late August, we're missing a couple of members tonight for vacations. So Yvette and Jim are not available today. Is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct. They stated at the last meeting that they would not be available.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, so what that means is that we have four members tonight. We can move forward. We have quorum. But for the purposes of variances and special permits that require supermajority, we will need to have 4-0 to approve. Just want to give everybody a heads up on that at the beginning. Dennis, could you read the first item on the agenda, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 1 to 3 Vassar Street continues from July 30, 2026. Applicant Christian Austin to construct two shed dormers and expand the existing attic space to create a full third story for purposes of the protected ADU at 1 to 3 Vassar Street, which is in the general residence only district requiring a variance under our finding pursuant to Massachusetts General Law 40A3.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. Attorney Desmond, I believe you are representing the proponent here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I am.
[Andre Leroux]: Uh, would you mind kind of re capping where things stand? If you want to do that, I can, I can do some of that if you'd, if you'd prefer.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. I guess one question I have is these aren't the four that were on the meeting previously. Correct. So I don't know where we continued that initial hearing. Um, if those members have read in and are prepared to vote.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Dennis, can you remind me who was at the meeting last month?
[Denis MacDougall]: It was actually everyone but Mary.
[Kathleen Desmond]: OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: So Mary, are you brought up and prepared to vote?
[SPEAKER_13]: I'll be a little bit more background information. I'm sorry.
[Andre Leroux]: So Mary, I said, I think I heard you say you read up on the background information. Did you watch the recording?
[SPEAKER_13]: No, I did not watch the recording. I just, I just read the what was presented today.
[Kathleen Desmond]: My screen is freezing. Come on.
[Andre Leroux]: Attorney Desmond, did you hear that?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. For some reason, my screen is freezing. I've got a new computer. I only heard a bit of it.
[Andre Leroux]: Mary Lee mentioned that she did review the material, but did not watch the recording from last month.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think, given that we had a full hearing and whatnot, that maybe I would prefer to continue those two matters before, at least before the board members who were present and were present for the hearing and heard the testimony.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I agree with that. Is there anything you want to kind of add before we kind of take that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But I guess the 1 thing, and we had a series of questions that that we went through at the last meeting and I actually went back Andre and read the fact sheet that was that you had referenced. in the meeting, and although I couldn't find a note for it, it appeared to me when I read it, and then I read the section of the statute again, that 900 square feet is the minimum, because it indicates that it's either the lesser of the two, and if you go to that state website, and I'm not, I couldn't find a reference, like a lot of those points had references to AG opinions, And you could trace that, but when I looked at that actual provision, it wasn't. There wasn't anything that it referenced specifically, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention because that was in that that fact sheet as well.
[Andre Leroux]: So, I'll, I'll have to check to see which the fact sheet that I referenced, but I do know that in terms of the state law, 900 square feet is the maximum.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct that's what I meant. I'm sorry, but it's it that's a maximum and a minimum threshold that appears from the language of the statute. In other words, it's the greater the lesser of. the total square footage of the dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is less. And it says or, so I'm just pointing that out because, you know, that's something that I came across when I looked at either the information that you had or there was a question and answer with the state. And there was that reference in there. Again, it wasn't a specific attorney general opinion that was included. But it was there.
[Andre Leroux]: Let me actually so I have the I've done a lot of reading as well and I have the regulations open right here. Let me just share my screen because I think it's actually says the smaller, not the larger. Okay, so these are the regs and the definitions.
[Kathleen Desmond]: 7102 under definitions.
[Andre Leroux]: Yep, accessory dwelling units. So B here says is not larger in gross floor area than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. So maybe there, I mean, maybe there's a fact sheet that kind of had a typo or misspoke, but these are the regs.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. And it appears to indicate it's either half. So for instance, in this instance, half would be more than 900. And then it says, or 900. And when I- It's not larger.
[Andre Leroux]: That's the, my interpretation is that 900 would be the max.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct. But also the minimum, I guess. What was that sorry, but also the minimum, I guess, and in terms of in terms of going below that 900, if if your principal residence is over. If half of that is over 900, then I believe you read that to say that it's then 900.
[Andre Leroux]: That's not the way I read it, and I don't think many people have read it that way. So, I mean, we can get in the meantime.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'll provide that to the board, what was on the website, because it just, to be honest, I wasn't sure that it was interpreted that way, but then when I read it again, in the context of that, and we're all kind of, you know, moving without guidance, certainly a bit, you know, because it wasn't any general, uh, attorney general opinion that was included in that referenced.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, my understanding is that there's no minimum. It's just this, there's a maximum, so it could be, could be smaller than 900 square feet. It just can't be larger than that. Um, I see Chris, you have your, your hand raised. Uh, do you want to jump in here?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't. So the first thing is, I'm not sure if we're discussing the case or continuing it. Um, because this will be part of the discussion if we continue it. If we continue this discussion, it'll be part of anything that happens next meeting as well. That's one thing. The other thing is, I mean, I was hoping based on what I said from last meeting to have an attorney for the city have reviewed the statute and our zoning ordinance relative to what the applicant was suggesting. And so I don't know if, I think personally that should probably be part of the continuance next meeting. But if we are talking about it, I think that's sort of the key in coming to terms with all of this.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so Chris Thera, the Community Development Office has inquired with KP Law, which is the city's council, on some of the questions that were raised. And so we do have some interpretations that can help clarify that some of the questions going forward, which, you know, as you mentioned, like during the debate, we can make that more, more clear and I can try to see if, if some of that can be circulated to all the members of the board before the next meeting. A lot of it is kind of referring back to, you know, the language of the regulations themselves. So I think I have more clarity now about what is required and what kind of our standards are. But I can try to make some of that information more available to all of you before the next month's meeting. And Bill, you had your hand raised or no? Okay. All right, well, before continuing down this, this rabbit hole, then attorney Desmond, you've put on the table that you, the proponent would be open to continuing so that we could have the members who participated in the. in the initial hearing also be voting members. So is there a motion on the floor to continue both the Vassar Street and sorry, I'm blanking for a second here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Wellesley 14, 1214 Wellesley.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. 123 Vassar street and 12 Wellesley street to next month. And Dennis, do we have the, uh, the date for next month's meeting? And you're muted if you're speaking.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry. I thought I, I think I've muted myself instead of I'm meeting myself. It is September 24th. Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: Would any of the members like to make such a motion?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to continue.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, motion to continue to September 27th. The Vassar Street and Wellesley Street matters. We'll take a roll call vote. Chris? Aye. Mary?
[SPEAKER_13]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Mark? Aye. and I'm an I as well. All right, so thank you. The motion, these two matters have been continued to next month. Thank you, Attorney Desmond for your patience.
[Denis MacDougall]: And just for those of you who are at the meeting, we're on the call tonight. The Zoom link for tonight's meeting will be the same for next month. So you can just use, just like last month, I mean, some of you were here, but just so you know, it's the same and the information will be up on the city's website. The agenda with the Zoom link as well will be there. And if anyone has any questions, I'm putting my email in the chat and you can just email me with any questions or comments. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you, Dennis. Dennis, could you speak to the next item on the agenda? And actually, are we going to take Surrey out of order?
[Denis MacDougall]: I believe so. Attorney Desmond, is that OK to? Yes. OK, great. So yes, so we're actually going to move out of the schedule a little bit out of order. We're going to take 73 Surrey Street next. So 73 Surrey Street, applicant Claudio Gonzalez. to convert an existing nonconforming single family dwelling at 73 story to a two family dwelling, which is in the general residence zoning district and isn't allowed use. This will increase the existing nonconformities for lot width and lot area requiring upgrades.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Is the proponent here to speak to this matter? Yes.
[Unidentified]: Good evening.
[Andre Leroux]: Good evening. Mr. Goncalves, would you mind walking us through what you're hoping to do and what relief you need from us?
[SPEAKER_09]: First, I want to say good evening to everyone. I've been in the city of Medford for quite a bit. I raised my two children in this great city. And I want them to continue. And to make that happen, I need to create a comfortable living space for all of us. I have two boys and it's me and my wife. So I just want to make sure there's enough room for all of us. In that case, we have in this moment 1500 square feet and we need to create the second level as a living space for both of them and unfinished basement. So on the first floor, we don't have a full bathroom, so we need to extend the sun porch we have, create a bedroom with, you know, with everything me and my wife, we need. to make that happen. So this is everything that I look for the moment. And so I believe probably the city of Medellin is concerned if I'm doing this for business, this is not a business for me. This is the place that I want to work the next 15 years of my life through retirement. And this is the place where I want my children to raise their children. So it's not a business property, it's just a living space for comfortable family.
[SPEAKER_08]: And we really made this neighborhood our home. We've been here since the end of 2015. It's more like over 10 years now. And we've been thinking about making it into two family for the longest time. So it'd be a dream for us.
[Andre Leroux]: So is it currently a single family now? Yes, and you're turning it into a 2 family, which is an allowed use in this. I believe it's the general residential zoning district.
[Andre Leroux]: Is that correct? And so a two family is allowed, but you need some dimensional relief for, uh, on the third floor. Is that correct? So you're putting a dormer in, is that right?
[SPEAKER_09]: No. Uh, just the second floor, uh, we're going to create a extra two bedrooms. So we're going to eliminate the bedrooms we have and create a living room and dining room, and then create a two bedroom. And the office, okay, I just want to.
[Andre Leroux]: I want to get the, uh, the plans, would you be able to walk us through the plans? Um.
[SPEAKER_11]: So currently, so I'm the GC in the project. I'm sorry. Um, so it's currently a single family in a nonconforming lot. And we're turning in into a 2 family. And so the thing that triggered the zoning is because the size of the lot versus the building that we're trying to build. All of our setbacks are being met, so that means that our setbacks should be okay. It's just the lot size. Got it.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so just kind of calling this back up here. So the lot has 4,950 square feet of lot area, 6,000 square feet is required for two family in this zone. No significant changes to the building footprint are proposed. And so what you need is the minimum lot area requirement for two family dwellings. So just a variance just for that. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And Kevin, would you be the right person to kind of walk through the plans just to show the public what's being done to understand it more?
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, myself and Irvin can walk us through the plan. I don't know if Irvin is there. Are you guys going to be able to screen share the plans? Because I don't have the capability of screen share because I'm on an iPhone. Do you guys want me to share the plans?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that would be great.
[SPEAKER_11]: All right.
[Andre Leroux]: And if you want, I mean, I could put it on my screen if you need me to.
[SPEAKER_11]: Let me see.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hold on.
[SPEAKER_11]: Only the host can share the screen.
[Denis MacDougall]: I can make you a co-host if that'll work.
[SPEAKER_11]: OK, let's see.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so let me know. I have them on my screen. I could share if it's easier for you to just tell me to kind of go forward. Yeah, of course. Go ahead. Okay. Hold on one second. Okay. You see that?
[SPEAKER_11]: Let's see. No, I don't see it. Hold on. Let me see. Hold on.
[Andre Leroux]: I think you might have to swipe right through if you're on a phone.
[SPEAKER_11]: Awesome. Yeah, I think it's coming up right now.
[Andre Leroux]: Oh, very good. Yeah. OK. So this is the existing home here.
[SPEAKER_11]: The six.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Cycling.
[SPEAKER_11]: So that's the plot plan. That's the existing plot plan of the property. They have a driveway to the right of the lot. And there was a patio in the back. I think it's no longer there.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, and as you mentioned, you're not changing the exterior of the property at all?
[SPEAKER_11]: We're replacing the windows and we're doing a small addition in the back.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, and, uh, but the addition is not, um, tripping any that backs that backs.
[SPEAKER_11]: No.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_11]: So, I'm going to kind of move through here. That's the addition right there. That's the existing basement. So those are kind of showing the existing what it looks like right now. That's the existing first floor plan. Very small space. So then we go to the existing attic area that's up there. Then if you scroll down a little bit more, Andrew. Very good. So that, yeah. Exactly. So as the elevation of the house, we're trying to keep the existing ceiling. So we're not going to surpass the, the height of the existing building. So everything's going to keep, everything's going to remain the same in the front of the house and on the sides of the house as well.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_11]: You can scroll down a little more, show the proposed for energy efficiency. We want to change all of the windows, new installation in the interior of the house. just so they can get a lot of the newer rebates and things like that. Because they're going to be updating all of their systems. So you guys can go all the way down, scroll. This is kind of the interior layout change that's showing the interior demos and where we're going to be removing all the windows and the doors for the bathrooms and a bunch of closet areas that remove space that can be used for something else. You can go down. Same here showing all of the removing of the chimney, removing of walls, and this is also showing the back wall that is coming down as well. Same here. This is now showing all of the demo there. That's the basement, right? Exactly. Now showing all of the elevation demolition for the windows and the doors that are going to be gone. That's the back and the side as well, all the demolition. That's kind of our setbacks. That's showing our setbacks and where our addition is going to be. Okay, that is showing our addition right there. That's just construction. That's now the plans per unit. Also, I'd like to mention that there's multiple two family houses in this neighborhood. We have As we walk around with the homeowner, we saw that there's almost every other house is a two family in the area. And that is going to be the front of the house, the side view of the house. So this is the addition right here? Yeah, that's the backside of the house. Back view of the house. side view of the house as well. And that's just showing the elevations how we're going to build and that's the schedule. Okay great thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Members do you have any any questions for the proponent?
[Mary Lee]: Can you point out on the diagram again, where that addition is. I think I saw it, but it's just in my mind, it's not too clear where that addition is.
[Andre Leroux]: Hold on one second. It's going directly back of the house. It's the width of the house and it's going straight back on the lot. Here's the house and the addition is going to extend the house. To the back. To the rear, yeah.
[Mary Lee]: Oh, okay, just to the back of that. Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes. So let's see if I can just get back to that. Yeah, so this, Mary, I don't know if you can see. So here's the existing house right here. And this red rectangle is what the setbacks are. What's allowed within the red rectangle is they can do that as of right. And so down here, this is what the addition is going to be. So the addition will all be within that red rectangle. So that's all by right. Our permission for any of that what they do need is they just their lot is, you know, for a 2 family in that area, you're required to have 6000 square feet. And that lot, like many other lots have has about 5000 square feet. So we need to give a variance just for allowing them to do it on a smaller size lot.
[Mary Lee]: Oh, I see. I see. So, so that building is within the red area. All right.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: Exactly.
[SPEAKER_04]: You're welcome. Hey, um, and I'm the abutting neighbor.
[Andre Leroux]: Uh, yeah, but sir, we're going to be taking a, we're going to be opening a public comment period. So right now we'll take questions from the members and comments from the, from the city officials, and then we'll open the public, the public comment period. But thank you. Uh, yeah, bill.
[Bill Forte]: Mister chair, I just want to point out to you a fact that one of the changes that came up in the 48 is that non conforming watch provided that any addition or improvement does not does conforms with the required setback then believe it or not this this variance would not be required under the new statute. if they were to, I know that you talked about the lot size and that might be a dimension, but special permits are no longer required for non-conforming lots as long as they meet the setback requirements. So if this was just a regular addition, this wouldn't be, they wouldn't need a special permit for an expansion of a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. Just wanted to point that out as a point of information.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, but the fact that, so, and just, so I'm, HAB-Danny Teodoru, Moderator): being correct so we're moved, but because we're moving from a one family to a two family yeah the lot size requirements change, which means that they need the.
[Bill Forte]: HAB-Michael Leccese, Moderator): Very yeah they lack they lack the the minimum square footage for two family up right that's, the only thing that the that the board really has to decide so great. Thanks, Bill.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Chris.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I was gonna bring this up. Thank you to the building commissioner for sort of jumping, reading my mind. On the plans, it says ADU. So is this an ADU versus a second?
[SPEAKER_11]: That's a second permit. That's phase two of the permit. That will be addressed at a later portion, not within this permit.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. So, they're not coming in for an ADU.
[SPEAKER_11]: All right. So, this isn't, even though the plan says ADU on the. Not as of right now. We're just straight focusing on the conversion from a single family to a two.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay. Okay. So, it's a two family. All right. So, I do, it's, you know, you're well outside of the setback. So, you know, everything. is good in that regard. Um, you know, as to the lot size, I wouldn't, you know, I understand that, um, smaller lots do exist. So I, you know, and that's in that part of the city as well. Um, my question, I guess would be for the parking situation and, you know, alongside the building and how that will be dealt with. I didn't, maybe I missed it on the site plan, but, um, Will there be parking just along the existing driveway? Will the driveway be extended from where it is now?
[SPEAKER_11]: So we, with the homeowners, we haven't talked about extending the driveway yet because I think they're thinking about using green area, using a lot of green area as well. I mean, I think that's something that with the building department, we can consider if we need additional parking spaces.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, just to let you know, the building department will work with you, I guess. you know, impervious area that, you know, needs to be addressed versus the pervious area too. So other than that, you know, it looks like a nice design.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Bill, do you want to jump in on that issue?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, sure. So, um, the parking requirements are two per dwelling unit. Now, if the parking for the, for the single family home is nonconforming, it doesn't negate the responsibility of the proponent to ask for A relief from parking. So if you're going to have two spaces here because you're creating a new dwelling unit and not an ad you Okay, then the requirement is two spaces beyond what's there now. So three spaces would be required if you had a non conforming You know, if you had a non conforming driveway with one parking spot. So that just might want to be a topic of discussion that should probably happen now.
[Andre Leroux]: So, Bill, you're saying that, yeah, they would need essentially a variance on the. for the parking relief?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, correct. I didn't see any request for relief in the application, but it is a requirement. So when it gets to us for a permit, I'm going to say, where's your parking? And if it's not there, then they'll have to create it on the site plan. And if they can't create it on the site plan, they should ask for the relief in this hearing as part of this.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, or else they'll be coming back again down the road.
[Bill Forte]: We don't want that.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah. And how can we do that? Sorry.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, Kevin, I'm just going through the site plan again. Do you have the parking marked anywhere there? I'm not sure I see it.
[SPEAKER_11]: No, we don't have the parking mark in there.
[Andre Leroux]: Could you speak a little bit more to Mr. Goncalves about how you plan to handle the parking and what you need, if any relief?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes. I've been talking to a few neighbors. I already talked to Kevin about it. We need to offer three parking spaces on the back. and create a green area with trees. And of course, and the parking space, I think is some regulation about pavement. We're not gonna go pavement. I wanna go with the block, concrete block, but not the way like it's gonna eliminate the water to not drawn in. So it's gonna be, the water is gonna stay on a lot.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Right, so like the permeable pavers, right, is what you're saying?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, at least a couple of feet, you know, far away from the foundation. I'm going to see if we can block the water to go in, but the rest of it is going to be, the water is going to be able to drown to the concrete block. So indefinitely, we're going to create at least three parking space on the back, plus the green area.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so you're you believe you don't need any relief because you're going to create the 3 parking spaces then.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yes, I have a question. So, we have more than 215 previous land that does that trigger the storm water plan?
[Bill Forte]: jim barker, PB – he or he, PB – he or he, PB – he or he, PB – he or he, PB – he or he, PB – he or he, You will probably have in the conditions that you must meet the requirements for parking, which I think in this case would be two additional spaces and one existing space to be moved. That might be something that you'd have to work out with the board. But you may need a drainage system design. So when you come to us for a building permit, it's going to go through that review anyways. And I can't opine as to whether or not I think that's going to require on-site drainage.
[SPEAKER_11]: Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: So, just to let me just throw this up 1 more time here. All right, so here's the site plan of the parcel. You have the existing dwelling. The extension is going to go back here somewhere around this area here. And then. This. What I'm hearing is that this parking, there will be a driveway extension down around the addition and that there will be three spaces up here somewhere with permeable pavers. Yes. Okay. Is the whole driveway going to be permeable pavers or just that area?
[SPEAKER_09]: I wish I can do all of it, but I'm not sure yet. Whatever is a blacktop on this moment probably is going to continue like that, probably. Of course, renew it. But the back, I want to be the way that I mentioned.
[Andre Leroux]: So if we conditioned that the extension of the driveway and the parking area would be permeable pavers, that would be acceptable to you?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: OK. All right, any other questions from the board before we open the public hearing? OK, seeing none, let's open the hearing to members of the public. Is there anyone who would wish to speak on this matter? I know, Mike, you had wanted to jump in. So feel free to unmute yourself or raise your Zoom hand.
[Denis MacDougall]: And we just ask, if you do want to speak, just give us your name and address for the record.
[Andre Leroux]: And Dennis, did we receive anything in writing, emails or calls?
[Denis MacDougall]: We did not.
[Andre Leroux]: OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: And I know I put it in the chat earlier, but with my email, if anyone just wants to email me any comments as well for this or any future matters, the email is, if somebody's watching on Medford Public Access, it's DMACDOUGALL at Medford-MA.gov.
[Andre Leroux]: I know there was a neighbor who wanted to speak, so I want to make sure they have that opportunity.
[Denis MacDougall]: If you do, you can also raise your hand.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, this is Michael Coyte. I'm right behind him.
[Andre Leroux]: Could you just state your address for the record? Name and address please.
[SPEAKER_04]: 78 Wicklow Ave. That's in Massachusetts. My question is how far is it from the property line coming to my house? I'm right on the other side of workload from Sudbury.
[Andre Leroux]: And you're directly in the rear?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Kevin, do you want to tackle that question?
[SPEAKER_11]: We're not even close to the setback. So I think you should be okay. We're very far away from the setbacks. So existing building right now is about 50 feet from the property line. So our addition is about, I want to say 20, I mean, 15 to 20 feet. So.
[SPEAKER_04]: So how much would that be from the property lines?
[Denis MacDougall]: I just found that if you want me to jump in, sorry. It's 37 and almost 38 feet from the property line.
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, okay. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, sir. Any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote to close the public hearing portion of this item. Chris? Aye. Mark? Aye. Mary? And I'm an I as well, so the public hearing is closed and we now enter into deliberations. Members, what are you thinking?
[SPEAKER_15]: Firstly, I don't see any issues here. I mean, I think the fact that the neighborhood is already, you know, predominantly or at least a large share of it is multifamily, so it's not changing the nature of the neighborhood. And so long as it's not impacting any sort of setbacks or violations, and the only issue is just the size of the lot, which would be the issue for pretty much any other building on the street. I think this seems like a a fine project, and I applaud the residents there for trying to keep the family all under one roof.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mark. Mary, I see you're unmuted.
[Mary Lee]: Did you want to speak in? Yeah, based on my initial question, I think they are building this within the confinement of what is required, and I think it's a great idea for them to maintain the community. So I would support this.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Chris, would you like to add anything?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, sure. There's no objection, of course. They're outside the setback. So there's nothing to be involved except for the lot minimum square footage, which I don't see as much of an issue, except for the parking situation, which Again, if they desire to add an ADU sometime in the future to this, it's going to make that whole 5,000 square feet just be a house and some parking. So I guess the building department would just have to do what they do for the the pervious versus impervious parking area and make sure that's followed and the applicant understands that, which from what we've just heard, he does understand that. I don't have an issue with that. I'm good.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. I think you've all covered it pretty well. The standard for a variance has changed over State law for variances has changed recently. So I just want to go back to that. So, you know, in the past, variances had to be related to a hardship and the applicant had to demonstrate a significant hardship due to soil shape or topography of the parcel. And the new standard is whether quote, strict enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw would result in practical difficulty. And in order to make that determination of practical difficulty, we need to weigh the benefits to both the applicant and the public interest. The public interest includes producing new housing, but we may also consider whether the practical difficulty relates to soil condition, shape, or topography. So that doesn't totally go away. Two, whether the strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship on the petitioner. Three, whether the benefit sought by the petitioner can be achieved by some other method. And four, whether the practical difficulty was self-created. I think on the basis of these new standards, it gives us a more more leeway and we can point to, you know, the public benefit of creating an additional unit of housing. And the fact that this is a zone that allows two family homes, but this is a smaller size lot. And so there's nothing that they could really do about that. So that seems to meet the definition of a practical difficulty as well, given the shape of the lot. So I would be comfortable. awarding this variance on the, with the new standard that we have. Is there, would someone, one of the members like to make a motion on this matter?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to approve the applicant's application for variance.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so we have a motion to approve the It's the variance for the lot size for a two-family home on 73 Surry Street. Is there a second?
[SPEAKER_15]: Second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mark. Let's have a roll call vote. Chris? Aye. Mark? Aye. Mary?
[SPEAKER_13]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. So by a vote of four, zero, the variance is approved.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, are we going to condition any of the parking situation with regard to the back?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, we had discussed that. And I would ask if the petitioner would be amenable to adding that condition about the permeable pavement for the parking. Right. Thank you very much. Appreciate you.
[SPEAKER_11]: Do I add that in the description of the permit or where do I add that?
[Denis MacDougall]: What I think, but with that, that'll be on the decision that I write. And then, so the building department will see that when they file, when they issue the building permit, they'll see the decision. So, and then to also jump back on that. So, what happens, I will write the decision. I'll get it. written in the next couple of weeks, and then it gets reviewed by our legal counsel. And then once they bring it back, as long as everything's good, I send it out for signatures, and then the members will sign it. At that point, it'll be filed in the clerk's office, and that'll start a 20 days appeals period. At the conclusion of that 20 days, I'll let you know, I'll give you the timings, everything, when it's filed, and then you come see me, I give you the decision, I give you what's called the letter of no appeal. and you bring that to the registry, and then you go eat your building permitting and start construction. So I would say, given timing-wise, how long these things take, put it this way. We had a meeting last month, and I just sent out the decisions for signatures like a week ago. So maybe about a month or so, give or take, some leeway.
[SPEAKER_11]: OK, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you very much. Have a good evening.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very much to you all and thank you very much to the city of Medford. Good luck.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, best of luck to you. Thank you, we appreciate it. Dennis, could you go to the next item on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: 501 High Street. Applicant Everett Bank to install an on-premises projecting sign at 501 High Street that is larger than that permitted by the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94-6.213.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Do we have a representative of the proponent here?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, Kathleen Desmond for Everett Bank. Let me apologize in advance if my computer gets a little wonky. I've been having trouble tonight, I've shut everything down, including my copy machine in the hopes that I don't know that that helps that helps somehow. So the application before you seeks relief from chapter 94, 6.2.13.4 of the Medford zoning ordinance to install an on premises projecting sign. that is larger than that permitted by that particular section. Specifically, the applicant seeks to install a projecting sign that is 16 square feet or 4 by 4 feet. The ordinance provides that projecting signs should not exceed 4 square feet or 2 by 2 feet. And if, Dennis, if you want, can I share my screen?
[Andre Leroux]: You're muted, Dennis, but I think you said yes. Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So my slide presentation should be there. You can't see that though.
[Andre Leroux]: And if Attorney Desmond, if it's easier for me to bring up anything, let me know.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, maybe because it's not here, but it looks like it's in my queue to bring up.
[Denis MacDougall]: Attorney Desmond, you sent me the one I can open it up to as well.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, on it. Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: Let me just open it up.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So I need to stop sharing. OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, yeah, I'll do that.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So let's be in it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Everyone see this. Yes.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, so, um, In support of the request for variance, and I'll get address the standards at the end of my presentation, but this, this would fall within the old standard for variance because what we have here is a building that takes up primarily all of the lot commercial buildings are allowed to have a freestanding sign in addition to a projecting sign. And as I put in my materials, a projecting sign with a face of 30 square feet is permitted. But in this instance, there would be no space for a freestanding sign that would give people notice or the public notice that they're coming up upon Everett Savings Bank. Dennis, if I could have the next slide. So this is the proposed sign. It's 48 by 48. You'll see a sign on the side of the building. We did have two applications before the board originally, one for a third wall sign and then one for the projecting sign. We withdrew the application for the wall sign, which faces the driveway and the Walgreens across the street or this little alleyway. And what's going to happen here is that the bank has decided to do a mural in that space. So the only real sign that will be visible to people driving down High Street would be the Everett Bank sign. So as indicated, we're not looking for more signage necessarily. We're actually subtracting a sign that would be permitted because a freestanding sign would be allowed. In addition, I think, Dennis, I have a picture of what was their previously citizens bank previously occupied this space and they had a sign of similar size and dimension however they had taken that sign down as part of their move out so so that sign was not there which is why we also need relief if that if the the the frame for that sign were still on the premises. We may have been able to just change the face of that sign. But where that sign was taken down, they require a new relief. In terms of the standard and the variant standard, we do have the conditions here. We have a lot. We are the only place that you can really place a sign that would be visible traveling to and from High Street. would be the projecting sign. They would be entitled to a freestanding sign, but there's no room for it. So practically speaking, there's one sign that they can't avail themselves of that would be used as a right. In terms of public interest, it alerts vehicles and pedestrians when they're coming down High Street that the bank is there and that the availability of turning into that particular area where the parking is. Um, and and so, um, we think we meet that standard. There really isn't anything that I can see that would in terms of public welfare or detriment to the neighborhood that would, um, adversely affect this particular petition. Um, and I did speak with the building commissioner and also with, um, Dan Danielle. Um, there is and Dennis, I think I have. On that, I'm sorry, on that screen, I believe I have the particular provision that deals with special permits for signage. So 6.21 indicates it's the next one, Dennis. Indicates that the SBGA or the site planning authority can approve larger or additional signage. Um, and the standard is by special permit, um, not detrimental to the neighborhood. I had discussions with Danielle and I've also had, um, discussions with, uh, Bill Forte and he's here tonight, but, but I think that the special permit authority or the site plan review would give you the ability to decide this on the lower standard of, uh, detriment, not substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Um, because it, it doesn't make sense from an ordinance perspective. that you would have businesses that were there as of right versus businesses that require site plan because, you know, you have to meet a certain threshold to require site plan. So it would be odd to have a standard which imposes a standard of a variance on businesses which are, you know, swapping out or are allowed as of right versus a special permit where you would then be allowed. the lesser standard of a special permit. And maybe Bill wants to opine on that. I just found it strange that you would have a variant standard in this instance where it's allowed under site plan and not every business needs to go through the site plan process.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Yes, Danielle from the city. Could you just introduce yourself for the public?
[Danielle Evans]: Hi, I'm Danielle Evans, senior planner. Yeah, I spoke with attorney Desmond about this and. The way that we had interpreted this section, which I believe is new and I believe it came in 2022. so I'm not sure. Why it was written that way, because if it says the SPGA. Like, that's, you know, that's a special permit granting authority, and there's no special permit granting authority for this use. So it's, in my opinion, the default would be to get a variance from the ZBA, but I do see the, you know, the conflict here of why is there a lower standard for something that needed to come in for site plan review, which could be by right. Those are by right projects usually. Or a special permit for use that's not by right, but it's discretionary. Yep, so yeah, I don't know how we handle that. So we have an unclear ordinance. I don't think this should go to the Community Development Board because they don't have a project in front of them. So I think the zoning board is the correct venue for this, but I don't know how you could apply the special permit criteria under that section of the ordinance if there's no SPGA. Unless there was a way, I don't know if it's under the authority of the building commissioner to declare that you are the SPGA for this purpose. I don't have that power, but I don't know. But I also wanted to add one more thing. I did comment on this application when it was in CitizenServe that I've noticed that it's internally illuminated and that's not allowed under our sign ordinance.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, it's not internally illuminated.
[Danielle Evans]: The plan showed the wiring and at least the sign permit that I denied in CitizenServe showed internal illumination.
[Kathleen Desmond]: That may have been an earlier plan, Danielle, and I apologize for that because there is no internal. It's not going to be internally illuminated, and we can agree to that.
[Danielle Evans]: I know those pop up all over the city, but I only know if it's nighttime and it's dark, and it's like, that's internally illuminated. No one approved that. I just wanted to add that if that's what you were seeking, you would need a variance for that or some form of relief.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Building Commissioner Bill Forty.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, so I looked over this section and it appears that when the zoning changed back in 2022, the idea of having this as part of site plan review or special permit is so that the applicant didn't have to do a double take. to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for dimensional variance if the SPGA found the signage to be appropriate. That's the intent of the ordinance. It doesn't really spell out anything else. In this case, because there's no special permit granting authority, because there is no special permit, this is merely a dimensional and more aesthetic, if anything at all, an aesthetic increase in the sign. It's really not a big deal, and I don't think we have to you know, surgically dissected too deeply. I don't think that standard is really something that matters in this case. It's a very simple sign dimensional variance. They're going to have to get construction control because it's over the sidewalk. And other than that, there's really nothing special about this. It's the only mechanism they have to approve it, because I couldn't have issued it by right anyway.
[Andre Leroux]: I agree, I think it would be kind of best for the proponent. If we just did it as a variance seems pretty straightforward.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'd agree as well, too, because a variant standard has changed. It was a little tougher previously certain, but I think we could have met that standard as well. And that we do have the shape of the lot and the inability to do a freestanding sign, which they are permitted to do as of right. Um. So, and the fact that I think the fact that the site plan also, you know, something to consider that that insight plan review signs can be enlarged or their additional signs can be added. And I think that would mitigate towards the, the applicants argument in the, in the sense that, you know, there should be some kind of a fair treatment between businesses that don't have to go through site plan versus businesses that are required to.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Do the members of the board have any questions?
[Mary Lee]: Attorney Desmond, so I just want to clarify that this is the exact site of the previous Citizens Bank, right? Yes. Okay, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Mark.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I had a question. This might even go for Bill or Sylvia. facility has a sign in this pretty much the same location, same size as well, but similarly also has a rather large sign on the window that is there. It actually looks like it's permanent. Now I know obviously that's not necessarily here, but to what extent do we kind of get reassurance that is that obviously we're giving them this sign, they're going to have a sign on the side of the driveway, But I do know that, for example, I believe there's an ordinance in the city is that the windows, for example, can only be covered by so much, whether it be a sign or covering, etc. So basically, I guess the question is, how does that play into covering the window versus having this sign at the same time?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and Mark, I do want to say what I heard from Attorney Desmond was that there will not be a wall sign on the alleyway, that there will be a mural instead. So that's not reflected. That change hasn't been reflected in the rendering that we saw.
[SPEAKER_15]: OK. So then really the only sign for this building will be that extruding sign building.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. If I could just confirm that with me tonight, are Johnson, Toronto, Carrie Lynch, and Tina Caruso of Everett Bank. I'm not certain as to whether they applied for any window signage. And as I said, the plans have changed. They've decided to do a mural on the side of the building. But if they could just, one of them could just confirm that that's the case, because I don't want to misstate something at this point.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, good evening, everybody. I'm Kerry Lynch. So yeah, Kathleen, we are not intending to put any window signs as you saw in the previous iteration from citizens. So we can confirm that. Right.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And there will be a mural, is that correct? Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Can I just to kind of clarify on that point, because again, I'm looking at the renderings, it's got windows all along that side. that's facing the, so it's my understanding now that those windows are not going to be put in and that's going to be a mural? Correct. Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: We had submitted two applications together, Mark. We withdrew the application for the wall sign. So that was the original design with the windows and the wall sign, but that's been changed. Got it. Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Planner Evans, did you want to comment on this?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes. So there is a wall sign, the one on High Street, which was Permitted by right so they have the sign that's by right and then they. Then there's this projecting sign, which they need a variance for because it's too big. And then they had another wall sign that they wanted to do, but I believe that they. Withdrew that 1, there was 3 wall signs at 1 point the mural. Is. was also originally going to be a wall sign. So there's, is there only one wall sign now? I thought there was two wall signs. So there was no, it was just, there was three wall signs and it's dropped to two wall signs.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct. Correct, so there's a front wall sign and the rear in the parking area. And then the change, the original applications, there were two applications filed, one for the projecting sign and then one for the wall sign facing, on the side of the building facing Walgreens. That is now going to be a mural and those windows are moving. Dennis, do you, maybe it would help if the screen was up? Could you share? Maybe I can. So that's the rear sign at the rear of the parking lot. That's not public facing at all, other than the MBTA station. And then, Dennis, if you could just go up to the first. So this is the front wall sign, which notifies people across the street. They can see it, but you can't see that coming up or down High Street. so that's why the projecting sign is there and you know the project projecting sign is larger but i i think that you could also include a freestanding sign and actually the ordinance says in a commercial district you shall have a freestanding sign but there's no ability to do that here um because of the the size of the lot and where the the um the building is situated so you know if you're maximizing all of the signs that you could have on the building we're not We're not maximizing that we're just trying to enlarge 1 of the signs and we're not we're not, you know, installing a freestanding sign, which is permitted under. 6.2 point, 13, 5.
[Danielle Evans]: But it would have to be set far back. And there's only one for the lot. So it would have to be shared amongst all the businesses in that block.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But we can't do it. It wouldn't be appropriate there.
[Danielle Evans]: It should be a pedestrian scale.
[Andre Leroux]: All right. I think that's good. Mark, do you have another question?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, so again, just to clarify what the variance we're looking for, it has to do with the size of that sign. So I guess as we think about variances, they're usually granted in the sense of a hardship created to some extent. So what is the hardship associated with the size of the sign that's there that the ordinance would allow versus the size that you're looking for?
[Andre Leroux]: Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : So mark before before the Attorney. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : just want to reiterate that. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : So the the state law on variance criteria has changed in the last couple of months, and so we're kind of applying these new standards for the. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : time they are more flexible than the. So, soil shape. Yeah, but go ahead attorney Desmond if you want to respond.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, you answered my question in part, but but the hardship would be to that with the mural and you're only afforded to all signs that you have nothing really facing. That's 2 by 2 is very small. It's 4, 4 square feet. So to have. traffic be able to see that and pedestrians see that it's difficult and you would typically in some instances be allowed if you had room to put a freestanding sign which would be more would alert the public you know in a greater way than than the projecting sign so we don't have that ability because we can't do it so having this sign a little bit larger makes it more visible to people driving up and down high street and in addition to that Um, you know, it, it makes it more visible and, um. And we don't have that side sign allows them to do the mural. So it just makes it more visible. And under site plan review, it would be a different standard, as I indicated before. It would be, is this a substantial detriment to the neighborhood? And I really don't see any factors that would find that to be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. And in terms of the new standards, I don't see anything that would be detrimental to the welfare of the neighborhood, which is the consideration. And we do have the shape of a lot. Um, so that would be my answer to that question. Long winded. I know.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And I, and I threw in the chat, just so you could, uh, members could kind of see the new standard there, the actual language. So basically we have the opportunity to weigh the benefits of the applicant with the debt, any detriment to the public and use like the, uh, you know, the four, um, standards that are, that are in there. to help us. Housing production is also defined as kind of a benefit to the public by definition, but this obviously doesn't apply in this case. Yeah, Chris.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess this is a question for Planner Evans. I'm not really familiar with Medford's sign ordinance, but if this were conforming two foot by two foot, or whatever the dimension is that's allowed by right. I assume that all projecting signs don't come for a site plan review, or is it because this is the CBD and this is a projecting sign? Not totally applicable to everything that's happening here. We're asking for a larger sign, but assuming that every business that would like a projecting sign because they are more visible for those traveling on the streets?
[Danielle Evans]: In the commercial district, businesses are allowed to have projecting signs at a maximum of four square feet, not to project more than two feet from the wall. They have to be at least 10 feet above the sidewalk from the bottom of the sign. And so not internally illuminated as well. So it's really meant for like pedestrian scaled signage. You know, you're walking, it's not, they're not really meant to notify, you know, motorists. It's a look up and you can see it when you're like walking and you know which, you know, storefront to go into. But just, so I review all the signs for the city and that's why I know this case so well Because I know which ones I issued already by right, and I know which ones that I denied, and that's why they're here. So yeah, we approve protection signs all the time. I think it's a preferred sign type. I think they're nice when they're pedestrian scaled, and they kind of match. So there's a nice rhythm when you're walking down a small business district. Did that answer your question? Yeah.
[Chris D'Aveta]: But is it just the CBD or is it just, um, is it all across? For projecting?
[Danielle Evans]: When it's not, when it's not by right?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Um, no.
[Danielle Evans]: Cause they're just, it's all projecting.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I know some communities disallow them unless.
[Danielle Evans]: Oh no, they're, they're allowed. They're allowed in the commercial districts as long as they're no larger than four square feet. Okay. Yeah, so it's an allowed sign type. If this was smaller, they could have it.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and Attorney Desmond, I think you referred to this earlier, but I just want to clarify it. Is the sign that's being proposed, how does it compare to this projecting sign that Citizens Bank had there before?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's virtually identical in terms of size.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I just want to make that clear. OK, thank you. Well, let's we can continue our deliberations. This is really just the question period. Let's open the public comment hearing period and see if there's any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter. And Dennis, did we receive any any calls or emails on this issue?
[Denis MacDougall]: We did not.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, seeing nobody weighing in on this, is there a motion to close the public hearing portion of this matter?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to close public hearing.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Chris. Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mary? I'm an I as well. The public hearing portion is closed. We enter deliberations now. Members, what are your thoughts?
[Mary Lee]: If the signs are the same as citizens, the previous occupant, why would this be different? The citizens sign was approved, right? Obviously, because it was there. And this is exactly the same, same base, according to attorney Desmond. So I would tend to move this because it's not something that deviates from the preexisting, which we already, the board already approved.
[Andre Leroux]: Planner Evans, is this?
[Danielle Evans]: I just wanted to point out that I don't think that the zoning board ever approved a sign for that. I don't know the approval, but I would not say that it received any variances that would run with the land. Signs are only for the occupant. Just want to clarify that, and I will butt out.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Other members have thoughts about this?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yes, Mr. Chair, I would say that I'm inclined to approve it based on what we've heard and the fact that there was a previous sign there, even though perhaps it was never approved to be installed or something to that effect. I don't want to cast aspersions, but I don't know if that was the case. It did exist, at least for some time, and it's been taken down. And I guess that's why we are here, instead of just changing out the faceplates of that previous sign. They have to put a whole new sign in. And so I'm inclined to approve it with the condition that it's not internally illuminated, as Planner Evans noted.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Chris. Mark, do you have any additional comments you want to weigh in with?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, I mean, I guess, you know, like Chris, you know, would be inclined to approve it. You know, I certainly do appreciate the, you know, the other compensating factor about, you know, there's no signage on the side and having that mural will certainly be a nice addition to the to the area and I do appreciate it also, I don't know to what extent we need to condition or not, but just make sure that I like the notion of not kind of covering up that window because I do see that a lot with businesses in Medford where they just kind of slap up everything on the windows and it just really kind of defeats the purpose of having windows, I guess.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, my perspective is, I would also be inclined to support this. I think the rationale, in my opinion, the kind of a benefit for the community is that. you know, that alleyway to get to the parking comes on, you know, comes on to you very quickly. And so having a projecting sign, I think really indicates where that entrance is actually contributes to public safety. I understand the point about kind of having more, you know, generally wanting a more pedestrian scale, but unfortunately, right in that area, it still is kind of a drive to location for the most part. So. So I think there is a benefit there. And the fact that the applicant can't do a standalone sign, I think this is kind of a fine mitigation for that. So it looks like everybody's weighed in. Do we have a motion to approve or disapprove the variance for the Everbank location? Motion to approve. Oh, sorry, Mark. Mark, did you want to jump in or make a qualifying comment?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, I think just Chris and I kind of were saying the same thing at the same time in terms of putting a motion out there. So, Chris, I'll defer to you.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I'll let the new guy go first.
[SPEAKER_15]: Oh, there you go. Motion to put the issue to a vote.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so, well, I'm confused. Mark, are you the one, are you motioning? I'm motioning. Okay, motion to approve the 4x4 signage for 501 High Street at the Everbank location. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Chris. Let's do a roll call vote. Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mary? Aye. and I'm an I as well, the variance for the sign is approved.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you very much. Appreciate your investment in Medford. We're excited to be there. Good luck. Yeah.
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Dennis, what's the next item on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: Are you sure? No, I am. I'm sorry. Half the time when I think I'm muted, I'm not and vice versa. 26 Second Street. Applicant R&M Properties LLC for a special permit in accordance with Chapter 94-5.4 of the Medford Zoning Ordinance to extend the existing dormer on the right side of the property at 26 2nd Street from 5.5 feet to 13.3 feet for an increased 7.8 feet. Relief was required as the proposed extension of the dormer will vertically extend the existing exterior sidewall of the structure that encroaches within the side yard setback by 1.6 feet.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Dennis. Attorney Desmond, I believe you're the point on this one as well.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, I am. Good evening, Chairman LaRue, board members. I'm here this evening with Neil Ryan, manager of R&M Properties, LLC. The petition before you is a special permit in accordance with section 94.5.4 of the zoning ordinance to extend an existing dormer on the right side of the property from 5.5 feet in length to 13.3 feet in length for an increase of 7.8 feet. The requested relief is necessary to comply with current building code requirements as it pertains to headroom above staircases. and will not further encroach in the side yard setback. So this is just an extension of an existing vertical encroachment. There isn't any further encroachment within the side yard. By way of background, the subject property, and I should be able to show my screen at this point. Yes, here it is. Yes, can I share? Okay. The subject property is a 7,200 square foot parcel of land on which a non-conforming two-family dwelling sits. As you can see, it conforms with all dimensional requirements, with the exception of the right-hand setback, side yard setback. And that's simply because, and this happens so many times, the house is set to one side of the lot. You have 30.6 square feet between the structure and the left side yard line. So the encroachment is in this 5.9 area. So the house was also built in 1923. They're not changing it from a two family residence. This request to extend the dormer only relates to the ability to be able to place the staircase in the property. We have some pictures of what's existing, and this is the existing dormer on the front right elevation. And as you can see, From the pictures that we have here, and the elevations, this is extending the dormer 13 to 13.25 square feet. There are no windows being included in that extension. So there isn't any. you know, we're just keeping it with the one window in that spot. So there's no interference with other people's properties in terms of viewing into their property. And this shows what the real problem is. So this is the existing staircase to the third floor. And as you can see, when you come up the stairs, there's not sufficient headroom to make that corner around. To the 3rd floor in addition, the existing staircase swings around and goes up to the 3rd floor. So, in order to bring the staircase into compliance, because the tread down the depth of the treads on code. Go compliant. and also the width of the staircase isn't code compliant. The intent is to bring the staircase forward, widen the stair column so that it meets building requirements and provide headroom up on the third floor. You can see that's the existing dormer. This is essentially to make the property compliant, I will indicate and express that when the framers came to the property and they were framing out that top portion, they did begin to frame out this area. And my client went to the building department when he realized that, in fact, they had increased the size of that dormer. And he spoke with Dennis McDonald. So Dennis McDonald is aware that the framers had started to frame out the dormer. and he was told he would need to go get a special permit, so that's why we're here. One other thing, if you look at the architectural plans, and in particular, the zoning avail, originally, this was over the two and a half story, the attic was over the two and a half stories, because if you multiplied it by two, the attic space was 466 square feet, which is more than the 875. There was an addition to The 2nd floor, so now the attic is actually compliant with the 2 and a half story requirement. So this is just to bring essentially the staircase into code. It's not creating any additional and we're seeking a special permit. My client did also obtain a letter from a couple of the neighbors indicated that they had no objection to the dormer and that so. You know that that's essentially the presentation. There is any increase in in story. It's just simply to bring the the code via staircase into compliance.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Yeah, do members have any technical or clarifying questions at this time?
[Chris D'Aveta]: I guess I do, and just briefly, Attorney Desmond could simply explain, this is just a renovation that started to occur and then, I mean, that was occurring and then the genesis of coming or needing the variants was because of the ongoing construction?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right, I don't know that when the framers I don't think the framers realized that they were working within the encroachment area because it's 5.8. So it's, it's 1.1, a foot and a half within the setback requirement. So they started to frame that out so that when they had the staircase run straight, they had the headroom up above. And I think that's when that realization occurred. And my client contacted Dennis McDonald and said, you know, we've, we've done this. He said, we're going to need to go get a special permit. So that's kind of where that is.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, but it looks like I mean, Chris, I think this is a looks like a gut renovation of a two family home into another two family home. Right.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. Right. It's actually been brought into conformance in terms of the half story.
[Andre Leroux]: Right.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Do you want to follow up on that Chris or no, no, no, I that's I mean, my point was to just clarify and. because I was a little confused as to how this came around. I do understand, of course, now that construction was happening and the house was set to one side more than the other side.
[Andre Leroux]: Any other questions by board members? All right, seeing none, Attorney Desmond, do you mind just shutting off your screen share?
[Kathleen Desmond]: My screen, yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Let's, yes, Building Commissioner.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so I don't see a building permit on CitizenServe for this, and I'm not clear, was the work stopped on this? I mean, this is completely gutted, and I don't see a single stitch of a building permit.
[Kathleen Desmond]: My clients on the oh, yeah, he's there. Yeah. Yeah, I think you need to turn your microphone on.
[SPEAKER_02]: It is on there we go.
[Andre Leroux]: We got you now. We can hear, you know.
[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, I apologize technical difficulty. So hello board and thank you for your time on this this evening. And there is a building permit pulled. We're probably about a year and a half into the building permit. It's been a pretty long project over here. But you should have it in the record for 26 Second Street. Yeah, I couldn't I couldn't find it.
[Bill Forte]: I was confused. But I'm sure as long as you've been talking with Dennis, then I would imagine, you know, it's 26 Second Street, correct?
[SPEAKER_02]: Correct. Yes. All the rough sign offs have been done. Okay. All right. Yeah.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Cause I don't see a building permit here.
[SPEAKER_02]: Maybe it would you not see it if it was over a year? I don't know how Medford does that. There definitely is one. Okay.
[Bill Forte]: All right. That's fine. Yeah. No problem. That's fine. I would just wasn't clear on it for some reason. And I don't see any violations either. So I would imagine that this, is this an ongoing renovation right now? In other words, are you, are you doing everything except the stormer?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[Bill Forte]: Okay, all right, terrific. Okay, yep, that satisfies my questions. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, we did take it a couple extra steps because we wanted to even make it watertight while we were waiting to go through the special permit. We knew it was going to take a little while. Excuse me, the light just went off. So we have finished up the outside of the dormer, you know, the roof and the siding and the windowings, so it's all weathertight. kept progress moving inside as much as we could without going too overboard. We knew it was going to be a little while before we could get into the permit with the city here. But as Attorney Desmond said, it was a full gut or is a full gut remodel. There was an older U-shaped staircase that went from the second floor up to the third floor. And quite honestly, you hit your head on the staircase, it didn't beat the rise, the run, the width or the headroom. So when the framers straightened the staircase out, they laid the staircase out directly on top of the two staircases.
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Ryan, sorry, your sound is coming in and out. I'm wondering if you could get a little closer to your microphone. Oh, sorry.
[SPEAKER_02]: Is that any better?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that helps.
[SPEAKER_02]: All right, my apologies, so I just started to reiterate what attorney Desmond had said. Um, you know, we originally had a smaller U shaped staircase going from the 2nd floor up into the 3rd floor. Uh, the 3rd floor was originally finished as well. Um, but that original staircase didn't meet. any of the building codes as far as the rise, the run, the width, or the headroom. When the framers were in there working, I wasn't there for a few days, so they just laid the new staircase out directly on top of the two staircases below it, which the need. Here we are today.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. I think at this point we should open the public comment period. Is there anyone member of the public who is here that would like to speak on this matter? And you can kind of just unmute yourself or you can raise your Zoom hand. Dennis, do we have any calls or messages on this matter? And you're muted.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right. Yes, we received a letter of support. I'm just trying to call it up on my computer and having and I'm talking and vamping until I get to that point, and I'm almost there, and so I should be only talking for another five to 10 seconds before I can actually get to the proper thing. And once I do, I will, of course, read it. And letter of support from neighbors. So we received a letter. Basically, the letter states we reviewed the plans online and or discussed the plans in physical journal with General Neil Ryan, and they were signed by Pasquale Robert, 21 Roberts or Roberto 21, 2nd Street and. Jameel Johnson, 22nd Street.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. 1 more call for anybody on the zoom right now that might like to speak up. Give you a few more moments. All right, seeing nobody is there. Is there a motion to close the public hearing portion of this matter?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to close.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Mark. All right. I'll vote aye to close. Chris? Aye. Mark? Aye. Mary? Aye. I'm an aye as well. The public hearing is closed. Now we enter deliberations. Members, what are your thoughts?
[Mary Lee]: So this is just a request to relieve from, so that they can comply with the existing housing code, right?
[Andre Leroux]: So, yeah, so they have there is a dormer on the third floor that exists right now. And what they're proposing to do is to extend that dormer on the third floor by, I think, what another seven and a half feet, I think, and. in order to accommodate the staircase that would meet building codes, like the modern building codes going up to the third floor. And so to do that, they need a special permit. We would have to grant a special permit that would extend the existing non-conforming use, because it's a little close to the property on that side.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you. That helps.
[Andre Leroux]: Chris or Mark?
[Chris D'Aveta]: I'm good.
[Andre Leroux]: All right.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I have no major, it's pretty self-explanatory.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and just to be clear here, so in terms of our special permit, what the standard that we have here is that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the city or the neighborhood. uh, in view of the particular characteristics of the site and of the proposal in relation to that site. Uh, we could also consider, um, you know, the following factors, uh, social economic or community needs, traffic flow and safety, uh, adequacy of utilities and public services, compatibility with the size, scale, and design of other structures in the neighborhood. impacts on the natural environment and the proposal's compatibility with purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. So by my kind of reading of these, I would, you know, I would say this is, you know, it's a two and a half story property. They're not asking for relief in terms of the third floor square footage. They're really just kind of bringing a stairway up to code. And so, you know, for, From my perspective, I think we could grant the special permit pretty easily on this.
[Chris D'Aveta]: And if I may, Mr. Chair, is this one of the minutia that have changed in the newest iteration of some changes to 40A where some special permits are even maybe no longer necessary for slate extensions or additions or alterations that would have typically fallen within this special permit category, but now are not considered so. I don't know. It's a question. I don't know.
[Andre Leroux]: So, yeah, so that you can allow a nonconforming structure or residential use to be extended or altered as of right provided that the extension or alteration complies with current dimensional regulations regarding height stories and setback. And so it's the setback that's triggering it. Cause it's that, um, it's a 1.6 feet into the, um, into the setback area where the dormer is. But again, you know, it's on the third floor. Does that answer your question?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, no, for sure. It's it's yeah. It's the, um, so I thought, um, the existing conditions, uh, they weren't so generous as to allow for. more work, even if it's within the setback. So that's clear.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I'm not 100% clear of when those new standards would come into play, because you still have to provide dimensional relief in most cases. Attorney Desmond, is that your read?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I don't know what that allowed for unless it it dealt with the case law that dealt with single and two families and and some of the issues like under our code lot area and whatnot. There are things the commissioner can consider like frontage. And within he can do it as a right. It might, it might've made that a state regulation, state law versus what municipalities were doing and what the case law kind of said about single families and two families and what you had to consider and what you didn't have to consider, but it didn't deal with setbacks at all. And even like in this instance where we're not creating any further encroachment, it's just a vertical increase because it's on the sidewall. It didn't take care of that.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Uh, yeah. Building commissioner 40. Did you want to weigh in on that?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, actually that was a metric fight upon when I'm on call for them too. So, um, so if this permit had come to us, we would have not come before this. We wouldn't have put this in front of the ZBA. Um, it provided that the setback is that the construction is behind the setback line. This, this special permit wouldn't be necessary.
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's in the setback line, Bill.
[Bill Forte]: It is, okay. So it is required then, yeah. And it's just a minor, yeah, okay, sure.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. So Bill, just, sorry, just out of curiosity, because if this comes, you know, we get things like this in the future, you would be, you would have the right to kind of approve an extending nonconformity under which circumstances really?
[Bill Forte]: So in this case where the living space is not increasing to create that third floor condition that a lot of these dormers do, and it's merely just an expansion of a non-conforming structure because it's non-conforming as to its location. then we would only do it if the construction was outside of the dimensional setback requirements. So if it was on the other side and they wanted to do this, this wouldn't be in front of you right now. Got it.
[Andre Leroux]: OK. Thank you. That's helpful.
[Bill Forte]: And the same with that small lot that we had prior. Sorry.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could just add to that, the areas where the building commissioner has the right and discretion is under 94, 5.51 under nonconforming structures. So it's all there, what he can do and what he can't do.
[Andre Leroux]: I'll have to take a closer look at that. There's been so many changes recently. Yeah. Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve or disapprove the special permit?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to approve the special permit.
[Andre Leroux]: Seconded. Okay, thank you. So we have a motion to approve the special permit to extend the dormer, which is a pre-existing nonconformity for 26 2nd Street. Let's go to a roll call vote. An aye would approve. Chris? Aye. Mark? Aye. Mary? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So by a 4-0 vote, the special permit is approved.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you very much.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you very much.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Have a good night. Good luck. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you. Dennis, do we have other items on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: The only thing we have is I sent you the meeting minutes from last month's meeting. I don't know if people had a chance to review it or not, but approval of that. But aside from that, no.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so I actually I did not have the chance to read them. So I would ask if we could maybe deal with that next next month.
[Mary Lee]: And I wouldn't be able to participate because I wasn't in the meeting. So to go on.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, thank you. Are there any other items on the agenda? Admin updates or anything?
[Denis MacDougall]: No other items on the agenda, but I know she's been trying to jump in and off all night and she's actually off right now due to spotty Wi-Fi on the Amtrak train, but Kyla from our office has been Helping out with the minutes and she was sitting in trying to work on some of the stuff. So I just want to say publicly, thank you very much for what you went through tonight. She will be probably seeing these minutes, this meeting at some point as well. But I just want to say publicly, thanks to Kyla from our office.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you to her.
[Denis MacDougall]: A 4-hour train ride, which is a little less boring. So hopefully we all played our part in keeping keeping her interests going.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, because we are scintillating bond share.
[Denis MacDougall]: Darn tootin'.
[Andre Leroux]: Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? Motion to adjourn.
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, Chris. Seconded by Mary. And I will adjourn. Chris. Aye. Mark. Aye. Mary. Aye. and Amini as well. Thank you everybody very much for participating and for your patience and appreciate all of you doing this late August.