The Board discussed local development applications, focusing heavily on state regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Board postponed decisions on two ADU petitions on Vassar and Wellesley Streets but approved residential and commercial use requests on Sturgis Street and Riverside Avenue.
[Andre Leroux]: Good evening, everybody. I'm Andre Larue. I'm the chair of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. Welcome to tonight's meeting. It's September 24th. We've just been in a brief executive session, and now we'll be starting the regular portion of our meeting. Dennis, would you mind, we already took a roll call vote for attendance, although Chris DeVetta has joined us as well, so we now have five, full complement of five board members. And just a reminder, variances generally require a super majority, so that would be four out of five, and special permits as well. Dennis, would you be able to read the first item on the agenda, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. 1-3 Vassar Street, continued from August 27, 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 1-3 Vassar Street, which is in the General Residence Zoning District, requiring a variance and or finding pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 48-3.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Thank you. So we had, um, you know, we had some discussion about this last time. Uh, this was sort of brought up a number of new questions and principles for us. And 1 of the things that we wanted to do is to get the city's legal counsel advice about the framework for decision making around this. We're. I'm fortunate to be joined tonight by Robin Stein from KP Law. And before we kind of get into this, I'm wondering if, Robin, would you mind sort of sharing with the proponent and the public kind of what your take on the situation is in terms of what's the decision making process that this board really needs to abide by?
[Robin Stein]: Sure, good evening. Everyone Robin Stein from KP law. Thanks for having me before I started. I did want to mention I have another meeting at 7, so I don't want to offend anyone. If I sign off the zoom and you don't see me, but I can be available later to help with this. But unfortunately, a little double book tonight. Yeah, so. My read on the treatment of ADUs is that the statute, general chapter 40A, section 1A defines an ADU and that's what the attorney general and their regulations at 760 CMR 71 have treated and defined as a protected use ADU. So if you're proposing to build an accessory dwelling unit that meets that definition, and it's based on not being more than 900 square feet or half the gross floor area of the structure, whichever is less, there's a definition in there that I think you're familiar with, that ADO is entitled to certain legal protections. And one of those legal protections is that it's not supposed to be subject to any discretionary reviews or approval. So it can still be subject to a site plan review. It might even be subject to a finding, but not a special permit finding. And the confusion I think sometimes that comes up in that is even though that type of ADU is entitled to certain legal protections, neither the statute nor the regulation says, however, that You have an absolute right to build the maximum size that you could build if doing so creates a new zoning violation. So, the statute is protecting the use, but it's not saying that you have a right to make that use to do that use and a right to violate zoning. It doesn't really address how we deal with that. So. We have looked at the situation, we've looked at the regulation, which says that you cannot subject these to discretionary reviews like variances or special permits. And we've taken guidance from other types of cases that the law treats similarly, like religious and educational uses, as well as language in the regulation itself that says you can still subject these units to reasonable regulation and the same dimensional requirements, not more severe dimensional requirements, but the same dimensional requirements as other uses in your zoning bylaw. And my opinion based on all of that is that you start by applying the dimensional requirements of your own bylaw, but you have to apply them reasonably. You cannot have an unreasonable regulation. And I can, I sent over earlier, I don't know if it's something that it would be helpful for me to screen share or Danielle, but the regulations have language in them that talks about when you are unreasonably, when a municipality is unreasonably, you know, regulating or restricting an ADU. And so, in the regulation at 760 CMR 71.03, it gives a number of examples of what is an unreasonable regulation. So, for example, the, sorry, some, I have a question. Okay, sorry I thought someone was asking something. So in the regulation, a regulation would be unreasonable if it does serve a legitimate municipal interest. It would be unreasonable if it does serve a legitimate municipal interest, but applying it to the protected use ADU does not rationally relate to the legitimate municipal interest, or it serves a legitimate municipal interest, But the application to the ADU, while it rationally relates to the interest, would still result in a complete nullification of the use, impose excessive costs on the development of a protected use ADU without significantly advancing the municipal interest, or substantially diminish or interfere with the use of the protected use ADU without appreciably advancing the municipality's legitimate interest. So in my opinion, the way to look at how you apply your zoning to a protected use ADU is to say, what is the legitimate municipal interest that this zoning provision that the ADU may violate? What is that legitimate municipal interest? What is the goal of it? What is it seeking to achieve? And to evaluate how First of all, to determine that the interest is legitimate, which presumably it is because it's in your zoning ordinance, but what is the municipal interest? Is it a reasonable municipal interest? Does applying it to this ADU accomplish those municipal goals? Does it do so in a way that nullifies the use, makes it much more expensive? I think you just have to apply that language in the regulation. Then ultimately, you can say either, We're going to essentially grant relief from the application of our ordinance because we think it would be unreasonable to hold you to X, Y, Z. So you can do X, Y, Z, or you would conclude with detail findings that, you know, matched. The legal standard you have to apply that you're not going to grant relief because you think it's reasonable to apply the ordinance the way it's written and that would allow. something else to be built. So in my opinion, it's, it's not so much a variance request because variances are discretionary review. It's, um, you know, an application it's for you to determine, is it unreasonable to apply the city zoning ordinance requirements to this project in a way that would let them build something less than the maximum amount they could build as defined? Um, and I think that is the way right now. that we think, I know that's the way that I think that this should be evaluated. That said, you know, it's a completely new use, and it's not like we have a lot of guidance from courts. So we're looking towards education cases, religion cases, other 40A3 cases. We're reading, you know, the regulations, and that's where it leads us. So, I'm happy to answer any questions about that.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Attorney Stein and just another clarification that the, the, the maximum square footage for an 80 is 900 square feet can be below that.
[Robin Stein]: So, the, in order. A protected-use ADU, one that benefits from these protections as opposed to some other kind of ADU that doesn't get these legal protections is, and I can read you the exact definition if you want, but it's just too many screens. Hold on one second. So it's a self-contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping, cooking, and sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling subject to other applicable dimensional and parking requirements. And one of the things included is that it is not larger in gross floor area than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. And again, I sent over the, um, You know, the, the complete regulation earlier today so that you would have it. Handy for the meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Attorney sign. I see a member has his hand up. Chris, do you have a question?
[Chris D'Aveta]: I do, if you don't mind Mr. chair to council. I'm I'm the 1 I'm the member that brought up a couple meetings ago when we heard this case 1st. that the calculation for the 900 square foot was essentially incorrect in that they were counting the whole of the structure, which contains two units, to calculate the 900 square feet. So it's true that the total structure is about 2,000 square feet, which would allow for the 900, but each unit is about 1,000. And that then would be the, one of those units would seem to be the principal dwelling, but I don't know. You know, for example, if you had four units of 500 square foot feet each, would it still be the same calculation that you'd get to add a 900 square foot unit to a building that has 500 square foot units inside?
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, I mean, so that is definitely a good question and it's a little tricky because we really are, you know, we're just looking at the definitions in the regulation and when the regulation. Defines gross floor area, it does say that it's the sum of all of the stories of the building. And then the only thing it says about multiple dwellings, it says that where there are multiple principal dwellings on the lot, not dwelling units, the gross floor area of the largest principal dwelling shall be used for determining the maximum size of the protected ADU. So it is my opinion that you have one dwelling, you don't have two different structures, and that because it's my understanding that two families are allowed, We, I don't think that you can fairly treat 1 of the existing units as an, and I do think you take the entire building and that's just how I read the regulation.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, but just to be just it would be different if you had 2 buildings.
[Andre Leroux]: But just to be clear, there is no mandate for the size of an ADU. That calculation just refers to the maximum possible square footage for an ADU allowed.
[Robin Stein]: If you can build a dimensionally compliant ADU, then that does let you go to the maximum. There's nothing that a town could do to say less. The only reason you might have an ability to say to somebody, you don't actually get to build to the maximum contemplated by the definition. is because you are allowed to apply your regular dimensional controls to what's being proposed, so long as you're applying them reasonably. But I don't read the statute or the regulation until a court says otherwise, as allowing someone to come in and create new dimensional nonconformities to build a protected use ADU.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Members, do you have any other questions? Attorney Desmond, I see that you have unmuted. I assume you have a question as well, which I will. While we have Attorney Stein for 10 minutes, I'll allow it.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. Just because they're going to be raised. First off, I think in terms of procedurally in the vote this evening, the vote would be, um, three members as opposed to a super majority because we're not dealing with a special permit or a variance and it's a Dover finding analysis. So I think the majority, um, and I think that's the BC case, uh, the trustees of BC that it would be, uh, three out of five, uh, that would need to vote in favor of, um, the, the, the finding, so to speak, because it's not a super majority.
[Robin Stein]: Well, I, I think the honestly, unless you have some language in the BC case that specifically says it's only. A simple majority and not a super majority. This is essentially here as an administrative appeal, right? Because the building commissioner. applied the zoning and said, you can't do this as of right and sent you here. So I think, you know, and maybe hopefully we don't have to get into that. But if I, if I had to guess off the top of my head without looking into that issue, um, I don't know that I would agree that it's a simple majority because this isn't, this isn't a 48 six finding, right? You're here asking essentially to overturn the building commissioner saying that either you need a variance or the regulations apply to prevent what you want. So I mean, I would hope it wouldn't come down to that, but I would have to look into that further if that becomes an issue.
[Andre Leroux]: So my interpretation of the case that's before us is that it would need to be a variance because you're asking for dimensional relief in order to build the ADU.
[Robin Stein]: So what I guess maybe, so it's technically not a variance because you can't require discretionary relief for the ADU. So what you're doing is making a decision about whether or not to strictly apply your ordinance to this use, which is what the building commissioner essentially did or you wouldn't be here. Or if you should, allow them, what you're basically deciding is how do we reasonably apply our ordinance to this. So it's not the variant standard. You have to evaluate the reasonableness of the application based on what I pointed out in the code talks about When and how you are reasonably regulating the use, but based on the legitimate municipal interest, the impacts of the project. Right that kind of thing, but I'm sorry, do you so it's not a variance and it's not a variant standard. I think it's more akin to an administrative appeal because as of now. Right. The building commissioner has said, you're not entitled to a building permit because your project is violating our ordinance. And the applicants coming in and saying, no, I should be entitled to a building permit because if you reasonably apply your ordinance to me, I should be able to build the full 900 square feet. I mean, that's my understanding of the posture before you.
[Andre Leroux]: So just a couple of questions here. So if we if we treat it as an administrative appeal, I mean, is it kind of a yes, no sort of thing? I mean, with a variance, there could at least be some middle ground.
[Robin Stein]: No, no, because under general chapter 40, a section 14, when you're looking at Essentially, administrative appeals, and this seems at least akin to that. You have all the same powers as the. Building commission or zoning enforcement officer had to begin with. So, Robin, I'm sorry.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, we so potentially we would. The vote would be what would the vote be? Exactly? It would be just to understand that clearly.
[Robin Stein]: So, I think. Um, and I, you know, again, I think the applications and, and, you know, I'm a little bit, um, at a disadvantage in getting into the details of this, just be given the timing that I've had with the. Involvement on the specific applications, but, um, you know, I think it's important that you make sure that whatever has been applied for you address. So, even if you say, you know, the applicant originally applied for a variance, it turns out. they don't need a variance. What they really need is us to decide, you know, what is the reasonable way to apply our bylaw? Either we're applying it as written and we think it's okay. So we are denying the application, um, and you know, not giving them relief from the height requirement. Um, Or you could say, you know, essentially, we're going to treat your application is a request that we reasonably apply the file on a way that will allow you to build you've proposed and we are granting the application. But I do think it's important that you're clear on what was applied for, and that you make sure that your ultimate vote covers all of those things so that you have a complete decision.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, I guess I'm sorry, I guess I'm just trying to understand if we do decide to. Award some what we consider reasonable dimensional relief. Yes, is that that's not a variance you're saying, like, what would it be?
[Robin Stein]: Yes. So you would be deciding that a reasonable application of your zoning ordinance will allow. The following to be built and this is why.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I think that would be a finding under 48-3, which is why I included that originally in my application. And, you know, the procedural issue, it doesn't fall within the two statutory requirements. So I just, procedurally I did ask for relief under 48-3 in addition to the variance that I was required to, so I wanted to include it all so that it was there, so that I wouldn't have to come back.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, but I could just I could just see, I mean, I just don't see how it's a finding if, if, for example, the board decides that, you know. That what is being asked for is not reasonable, given our dimensional standards and our zoning code in the city, but the board may be amenable to considering some lesser dimensional relief. And that's that's the confusion that I have, because I'm not fine. I mean, what do we there's no, I'm not finding that that's.
[Robin Stein]: Well, no, so finding, I think maybe is a little bit of a confusing term because we normally use it in the context of 48 six changes to existing nonconforming structures. And I'll be honest, I do not know. I know these structures are nonconforming and I don't know if they, if they need a finding under 48 six or not, that's not something I have been asked to look at or no, but you do want to make sure that you're acting on all parts of the application and, um, you know, doing so timely, but. These get complicated because you're essentially being asked to find or decide, make a decision about what the reasonable application of your zoning bylaw is to this project. You're doing so with the benefit of the regulation that talks about when it's unreasonable. to apply something. So I think the decision you have to make in this case is what is the reasonable application of our zoning ordinance to this project? Would it be reasonable to allow this project to go forward as the applicant wants to do it because it doesn't offend municipal concerns or whatever the things you are that you decide. But essentially the question before you is what is the reasonable application of our zoning ordinance to this protected use?
[Mary Lee]: So Robin, how is reasonable defined? How should we define reasonableness?
[Robin Stein]: Yeah. So again, and I sent over and Danielle has it. I think she's on the meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: I have it as well. Yeah.
[Robin Stein]: Okay. So I sent over the whole CMR and it literally just lists in here what's unreasonable. It gives you criteria to consider. So I would apply those criteria. It's in 71.03. I would apply the criteria that are in there.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, attorney Desmond just before before attorney Stein leaves the one of the questions in terms of municipal interests and legitimate interests. I just wanted to reference with her that that the regulations make clear the density in this instance isn't a permissible consideration. And that would be under 7103 2D that it can't come into density calculation. So. Just in terms of she's here, and that that that concern what's 70103.
[Robin Stein]: To 2D, but yeah, but what that says is that any limit quota or restriction on the number of protected use 80 years that may be permitted construction, or at least is is not. Allowed, so I don't think that's an issue. I don't think anybody's saying. That you can't build in a year because too many have already been built. but I don't read the regulation as saying the board can't be concerned about the impacts on, on a butter because the bulk of the structure is dense. I think that's a different story. So, I mean, again, you have, you know, unfortunately I, I won't be able to stay through the whole hearing, but you do have the whole regulation. And if I don't know exactly when these were applied for. So if you ultimately go through this with the benefit of this discussion and want some more help or guidance for me, I can certainly attend another meeting. I just would, you know, ask you to keep an eye on the 100. I mean, I would say the 100 days because a variance was applied for, you know, and at least get something in writing if you needed to agree about when you're going to wrap this up. But I'm happy to come back another time and talk about it or even have conversations with Attorney Desmond in between if it's helpful, because I know this is a bit last minute. But, you know, the regulation says right in it how you figure out what's unreasonable or reasonable. And, you know, I can stay on for like, a couple more minutes. I think Danielle, maybe had a question.
[Danielle Evans]: I'm trying to paste it into the chat and I'm having trouble pacing it into there. Yeah, thank you so much. Attorney Stein for being on and explaining this. I had the same kind of question that Charlie had was that. Could the board make the finding that the full 900 that create the third story was unreasonable, but maybe smaller shed dormers that perhaps still triggered the third story, but not as egregious. So maybe like a 750 square foot ADU or something like that, Versus the 900, if that would mitigate. Some of the concerns. For the potential detriment that it could be caused and why we have the. The story limit to begin with, which is to control massing and bulk and crowding and light and air and all those things.
[Robin Stein]: So, I mean, again, I, I think the board has to. The board, the, the practical charge for the board is to figure out, is it reasonable or not to hold this applicant, this project to the dimensional requirements in the ordinance, or would that be unreasonable? And if that's unreasonable, you know, how much can you, is it reasonable to relax them? And the, the regulation gives you that framework.
[Danielle Evans]: Um, you know, to do that, there's not really a binary decision. Like, yes, you can do this or no, you can't. There could be some kind of compromise. Potentially, I think so.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah. And again, like, the, the city, the board has to has to make a decision about what's reasonable. So it's possible. You might say. Well, we don't think the full amount is reasonable. We get what you're saying. We think you need a little bit more space, but we do want to protect this legitimate municipal interest. So we would approve this much. Um. You know. I think it's just going to depend on your conversations go. I know kind of this is the 1st time that you're seeing the regulation and you might need some time to digest that. If you want me, if it becomes necessary, or you want me to look into the quantum of vote issue, I can do that as well. It's not something off the top of my head. I can give you a definitive answer to. Okay. I know in the B.C. case that the court did take exception that some of the discretionary relief that was being required was by a two-thirds vote, but they did remand it. And I don't know in that case they ever actually answered the question of what the vote would be on the remand. So it would have to be something I would want to take a look at before it becomes an issue. But I hope this gives you a framework for the discussion on this application tonight.
[Andre Leroux]: And just a quick question about the, uh, that that vote quantum. So, I mean, a finding would be a simple majority, but like, and. Overturning and administrative, but basically an administrative appeal. Would be a super majority.
[Robin Stein]: So, under forgetting Dover, if you were just doing a 48 6 finding that you're zoning bylaw. Or zoning ordinance didn't make a special permit. That is a simple majority vote. If you're doing special permits variances and building commissioner appeals. Those are super majority votes. I think that it may very well be that there's a good argument that this should be a simple majority, but I can't give you a definitive answer. Without looking at that question, given given that in this situation, because you cannot subject these to discretionary review, even if your zone were been said it was a special permit finding, I would say do a non special permit finding just a 48 six finding and that would be three fifths. So there may be an argument that it should just be three fifths. But I can't tell you off the top of my head if a court has answered that question. It's just not something I was asked before now and. if it becomes an issue, I would want to at least take a look and try to give you, if there is an answer, an answer, and if not, my opinion on it, based off looking at the question. Because obviously I got some of these questions this afternoon, so did my best to get you what I could for the meeting tonight. When was the application originally filed?
[Andre Leroux]: Do you have that, Attorney Desmond?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't have it we've continued this a couple of times. I don't have any objection to a continuance. I understand and I'll wave the 100 day piece of it as to that. I'm not, you know. We wanted the board to be able to make an informed decision and this is on them. So we're not.
[Robin Stein]: In that situation, I just trying to be careful. So, I mean, I think, you know, it sounds to me like it makes a lot of sense if it's the boards inclination to ask some questions with an eye towards the regulations and have that discussion. And then if you think you need more from me, we can, I can always follow up and give you more or come to another meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. I appreciate you taking a little extra time as well.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, no, of course. I'm sorry I can't stay longer. I appreciate it, guys. Let me know if you need anything.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thanks, Attorney Stein.
[Robin Stein]: All right. Thank you. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, after all that, then Attorney Desmond, would you like to kind of present where your client is at right now, just for purposes of teeing up the discussion?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right. So by way of background, this is a two-family, 3952 square feet structure. We're looking to create an ADU on the third floor of 900 square feet based on the total square footage of the dwelling being half is over obviously 900. And then the lesser of the two options is the 900. I did provide you with the Brooklyn case or the AG's opinion. And, you know, I heard counsels that until a court decides that a court, you know, it's not written in stone, but the AG's opinion appears to be that because it's in a protected ADU that it's a simple math problem. It's either half the structure or 900 square feet, whichever is greater. So that would be my client's position at this point with regard to that question. And also in terms of the regulations, I think we went through it before and if it would be helpful to go through the plans again, but this is a situation where my client intends to make the property green. So he's going to spend, I believe his fixed costs are roughly 250 to put heat pumps in on the property. In terms of safety, there'll be sprinkler systems, not just on the third floor ADU, but the entire structure itself. So in terms of weighing the legitimate interests of the municipality, Um, in that instance, I would say that, you know, when, when you look at, at what the city is attempting to achieve, um, in terms of greener structures, um, and, and fire safety. Um, and also if you look at the, um, the comprehensive plan, um, in this instance, um, there, there makes reference to the fact that only roughly 13% of the housing um, in Medford is what they called middle housing, which is, um, three units versus, um, three to, to, to 20 units. Um, and that there was in the comprehensive plan, um, a, um, a desire, let's say, um, to, to increase those, um, those, those types of structures. Um, and this isn't, And looking at what was first proposed in February of 2025, and I know that it didn't go anywhere, so I'm not saying, but in terms of what was proposed for this specific area and for the Main Street Wellesley area, three families were included within that. So, you know, this ADU, to an extent, you know, gives you that. It's a rental unit because it is accessory. At this point, you cannot, you cannot expand it to ownership as a condo, so it increases the rental units. Under the Leicester opinion, I can never say that word, that town, but there's an AG's opinion which also indicates that you can't limit the number of bedrooms in an ADU, that to limit it from to say one bedroom or to a studio isn't allowed, it's prohibited. In terms of So in terms of the municipal interests and appreciably advancing them, I think the only interest that, you know, perhaps the massing, but especially with respect to Vassar, if we take the two properties separately, Vassar is on a corner of Vassar and Wellesley Street. So there is no neighbor adjacent to that along the street side. And in addition, on the other lot line, on the other, side lot line, that's a vacant lot. So in terms of the density with respect to Vassar Street, I'd say that even applying the municipal interest at that point, that it's a little bit different because in that instance, neither of the side yards have neighbors, so to speak. So the dormer size, and I think we had done renderings and I don't know if those, if I could share my screen, I can show the renderings on that is it shared?
[Andre Leroux]: No, make that happen.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, I think I'm set. Okay. I'm square. I'm sharing at this point. Correct?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, you are.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So, if I scroll down to, so this would be the Vassar street, the side yard and as you can see, there's very large houses. So it within that neighborhood, um, I believe it is if you go all along main street, those are three family dwellings. Um, if you look at that's here and that would be the site. So this is, um, the adjacent property, um, which is very, um, large in terms of massing. Um, so what we're doing here isn't necessarily out of character. with the other structures. And I would say, too, that with respect to the whole half story, I don't want to say it's subjective, but let's just say it's not quite as objective as some of the other dimensional measurements, because when you're looking at what a half story is, it's half of what the second floor is. And for instance, I was looking at the dimensions on 8 Wellesley Street, and it appears that that second floor has a gross floor area of 2,100 square feet. So, you know, what we would be looking for would be even greater than the 900 that we're asking for in this instance. And actually it's not 900, on Vassar it's 899, but it's not out of character with the neighborhood in that instance. And so in terms of, of municipal interest that would be appreciably advanced if this was denied. I just, I don't see where my client's agreeing to, and he would condition it, that this will be a green structure, the entire structure, that it will be fire safety, there'll be sprinklers on the property, and that he's in essence making it a safer dwelling, it's over 100 years old, and it's within a neighborhood which, has three families along Main Street, and I believe there's one on Wellesley Street as well. And the other point would be that this is going to be a rental unit. It has to by virtue of the fact that it's an accessory dwelling and not a, you know, a third, a three family per se. I understand there are smaller three families. I'm not saying that it doesn't somewhat act as a three family, um, but you know, I always say to, and I've said it before that the, the three families kind of the ugly stepsister, um, because it doesn't get the protection of ones and twos, um, where it's really a smaller structure where you can increase density as opposed to apartment buildings. Um, but that it doesn't have the protections and it's not really a multifamily in the sense of being a multifamily. I think also in terms of this, I know that there was an abuttor's letter who had some issues. This isn't a situation where you have an absentee landlord. My client, Christian, has lived in that on the Vassar Street property for 13 years. He's since moved over to Wellesley Street and actually, you know, he's considering and he, you know, he's not guaranteeing it, but part of this was, well, I'll take, I'll have a new third floor and I'll, I'll take the third floor ADU. Um, so he's not moving out of the neighborhood. It's not a situation where you, you're just having someone putting, taking out, um, you know, putting in the ADU and then not being present. Um, so, um, that, that would be, um, what my points are in that, that there are no neighbors on this particular, um, structure that it, that it's, the same size as in the neighborhood and that it would be a rental unit. And we did do after the last meeting just to, and much of the second mortgage, the second presentation would be the same. But in looking at the bedrooms, you know, the one bedroom doesn't really assist people that, because then you've got one person paying the rent and you've got one bedroom. Um, and so from a tenant or from a renter perspective, and I've, I went through this with my son who moved out with his girlfriend to Everett and then, you know, they broke up and they had an apartment, but neither one of them could, could, could afford the rent for the one bedroom. Uh, but if they had had a two bedroom, um, they could have been able to bring somebody in, um, and then maintains, uh, the living space. And it's the same with, you know, if you're married, I've been married for 35 years. I don't know that I'd like to be in a one bedroom either. You know, it just gives you more space for visits, for, you know, for your own personal space. So that would be what I would say in that regard. And also that the board has over the years granted variances for third stories quite frequently. And so, you know, to not do so with respect to a ADU, You know, I don't think that that serves any legitimate municipal interest. And I think that's it.
[Mary Lee]: Attorney Desmond, can you, I'm not sure if I got the interest part that you explained, that there's more protected interest for ADUs versus a three family. Could you elaborate that a little bit more?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, so the ADU, In 48 section 311, they refer to this as a protected ADU. So you're allowed as a right to have a protected ADU. And in this particular instance, I think I went through it in the first meeting, there isn't the ability to put that ADU as a detached ADU. The basement doesn't have high enough ceilings to have an ADU in the basement, which I'd say too would be allowed probably as a right if it was a situation where, and we wouldn't be here if it was a situation where it had seven foot ceilings, but it doesn't and you'd have to dig out the basement in their old homes. You might risk some structural damage if you attempted to do that, plus the cost would be astronomical. So in terms of the protected ADU, that's just what it's called under 40A section three. If you wanted to have a greater size ADU, then that wouldn't be a protected ADU. And I think at least the decisions that are coming down from the AG's office seem to indicate that you would need a special permit for that type of a structure. But the one ADU of 900 square feet or half the square footage of the actual structure um, is, is protected and it's a Dover protection, um, protected under the Dover amendment, much like educational, um, and, um, daycares and also, um, religious entities.
[Mary Lee]: So what, how, how would you, uh, compare that to a three family that why not a three family? Why an ADU?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, I need to use variance for a 3 family because it's a general residence and, you know, that's not what what he's looking to do. I mean, the protected is. Is permitted, it's an, it's essentially, you know, as of right, but subject to reasonable regulation under Dover, a 3 family is an entirely different animal.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Planner Evans, I see your hand raised.
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you, Mister chair, I just wanted to comment on the issue about the condoing. My understanding is you can condo eyes and the previous building commissioner thought that there are developers planning to do that currently.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I thought that was left to to local. Municipalities under what I saw from the, because it's a separate it's a separate regulation.
[Danielle Evans]: We don't we don't have anything that would prohibit that. We don't even have a condominium conversion ordinance at all. So, it's just if someone goes to receive deeds. And, you know, files condominium docs condo. I'm not sure.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, it has to be litigated because it's all because it's still accessory. and it's an accessory dwelling, which indicates, and that's what that AG's opinion discusses, that it is accessory, it's not, but then you're right, they go into this whole scenario about condo statutes and whatnot, but that hasn't been litigated, and my read of it is that that's gonna be left to municipalities to decide, but until a court decides, I don't know.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that currently, like, on the books, we don't have anything that would say they can't do that. So that wasn't a correct statement, but also, yes, it is an accessory dwelling unit, but the building code thinks of it as a 3 family. So. Pretty sure it has to be sprinkler because there's 3 units there. So. Let's building code doesn't care. So I just wanted to just.
[Andre Leroux]: Let's not get into discussion right now. We're going to take public comment.
[Danielle Evans]: I was just trying to correct some facts. That's why I'm coming to this.
[Andre Leroux]: All right. Any other clarifying questions from members of the board? We'll get into the board discussion shortly. Um, attorney does me, can you just put up on the screen, the, uh, the 3rd floor plan? Cause I do think that the renderings are different, right? They, the windows are have different alignments, so they're not. Uh, I wouldn't take those as accurate. I just want to see what the 3rd. I could just, I'm sorry, I just went, so if you want to just, if you want to look at the records, I just want to show you what the differences.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. So, for example, in this 1, you have the 2 window base or on either side of that. Right here, central area and then if you look at the other perspective that you showed us, which is.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Oh, okay. Yeah, that's different.
[Andre Leroux]: So it's not clear what is correct. Really?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. Well, I think if you look at the plan, right? It appears to be probably the, it would be the 1st. Because those seem spaced apart and I apologize for that. I didn't notice that when I looked at the writing, but that would seem to be more in line with the windows as they appear on this particular rendering.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, can you show us that that 3rd floor again? 1 more time? Well, it does look like it's set back further to one side towards the rear of the house. So, okay. Thank you. You can stop sharing. It will... Let's open the public participation part of this hearing. Are there any members of the public that would like to weigh in on this project 1 to 3 Vassar Street? And Dennis, do we have any written comments that have been submitted on this matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: We do receive the letter. I'll just call it up.
[Andre Leroux]: I'd like to. And in the meantime, I just want to thank everybody for your patience. As you can see, you know, there's a lot of new state law that we're, we have to kind of figure out how to apply and there's new regulations associated with that. So where this is figuring things out for the, for the first time. So I appreciate your bearing with us.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry about that. It was a letter from Patricia Cherry from Wall Street and basically it's in with concerns. I mean, she doesn't come quite out and say she's against it, but it's not, you know, just to express concerns about more potential units to the street and also its impact on traffic.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Attorney Desmond, can you remind us also of the parking situation with the ADU?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. So this is within a half mile of what would be the main street. Actually, I think this main street, Wellesley bus stop. So it would be within transit and then within the ADU, I think it's. Let me just look at the section. There's a section that deals with being within a half mile or not within a half mile. So this is within a half mile of the public transit. So there wouldn't be a requirement of a parking space with respect to that. And I'm not certain, that there was that Medford hadn't enforced it even over if it was over a half mile. That's not the instance here. It's within a half mile. There's a stop it at Wellesley in Maine. Um, bus 101, which travels along that route, um, regularly. Um, so it would not require a parking space.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Uh, we're in public hearing and I see a hand raised. You can unmute yourself and state your name. And address for the record, please.
[Patricia Chery]: Hi, this is Patricia Cherry. I actually am the one who sent in the letter, and I believe my neighbor Camille did also. I live at 20 Wellesley Street, Medford. I understand, and yes, he said that he wasn't sure that we were against it. We are against it. Well, I can speak for myself. I am. I understand that there is no Statue of for requiring a parking space but one of our big our concerns in this neighborhood and I've sent in some pictures also to Dennis along with my letter is that yes, you are renting to tenants and yes, we have a bus stop at the corner and You know, we're told all these people will use public transportation they don't have cars when you're dealing and living in this neighborhood and you have five people to an apartment just say who are sharing they're not all on the same schedule they're all ordering uber eats five different uber eats five different uber rides Cars is so that's great that you know they're not required to have a parking spot, but us and that live in this neighborhood are getting inundated with people who are coming in. and it's causing a safety issue. I sent in pictures of a fire truck trying to get down the street, going five miles an hour to get to a call. I've sent in a picture of a woman who actually parked at the end of my street, halfway in the street, so that I sent in pictures of people parked at the bus stop. I mean, I understand that it's not required, but we are very concerned about this, adding more people on top of more people on top of more people. That's basically what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: And Dennis, do we have the other comment that was referenced by an additional neighbor?
[Denis MacDougall]: I went looking up and I couldn't search. I didn't get anything in my email from the other neighbor, but I know they were on previous calls expressing opposition. Okay, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Any other members of the public who wish to speak? All right, seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing portion?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to close public.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. Is there a second?
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Andre Leroux]: All right. Thanks, Mark. Roll call vote. Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mary.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Yvette.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, and I'm an aye as well. All right, board members, we're now in deliberations. What do you think about what you've heard?
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so I know that this is relatively new and I think for me to really consider according to the standards as to what is reasonableness or what is unreasonable, I think we need to have some guidance or define what is the legitimate municipal interest for the city of Medford to start with that. Okay, I'm going to the analysis.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, well, let me, I guess, let me lay out my understanding and we can see if it's helpful. Maybe if you might disagree some of you, but. Just a few things 1 is that. ADUs are allowed by right across the state. There's nothing we can do to prohibit that. And the way that the state has interpreted it is very broad so that any place where a single family house could be built, even if it's a multifamily property, like a two or three family property, you are legally allowed to Create an accessory dwelling unit on your property. That being said, as we've heard from attorney Stein earlier. If dimensional relief is required, we still have our zoning code. This doesn't. You know, obviate our zoning code in any way. And so if what is being asked for requires exceptions to that zoning code, then I do strongly believe that this board has the right to interpret whether. Upholding our dimension, the dimensional requirements of our zoning code, we should use that reasonableness standard. And so the reasonableness standard I can share with you, we can go through those regs as well in just a second. But that's 1 thing I would say. The other thing I would say is that 900 square feet. I think I have, I don't know if you have a, it sounds like you have a slightly different perspective on this, Attorney Desmond, but I'm very firm in my belief that the 900 square feet is a cap. It's a maximum. It is not a requirement. We do not have to create 900 square foot ADUs all over the city. It's a maximum. And so the calculation that you're referring to only refers to the calculation of the maximum. So if you had a house that was only a thousand square feet and you wanted to build an ADU, then you could only build an ADU of 500 square feet because the calculation says it's either 900 square feet, the maximum, or half of the square footage of the primary residence. In this case, the primary residence, it's two floors. We've talked about it. I think we all understand that you could do a 900 square foot ADU if the dimensions allowed it. In this case, the dimensions do not allow it because the Bedford zoning code in that area only allows a two and a half story building. And the 3rd story that is that half story, which means you can only have half of the. Footprint of that 3rd floor can be livable space. So that's really what we're what we're debating right here is essentially. If the ADU as proposed could fit in half of that third floor, there would be no debate here. They could do that by right. However, that's not the case. The proponent is requesting a 900 square foot 2 bedroom ADU, which requires dormers, and that goes beyond the half floor that is allowed in our zoning code. So I just want to be clear about that. So the way that I look at this is, you know, They're not asking for something by right. They're asking for us to find it reasonable to give them to waive Medford's dimensional requirements and allow them to build this 900 square foot ADU. And that's, I think, really what we have to focus on at this time. Does that make sense to everybody or any questions about that? Yeah, Chris.
[Unidentified]: You're muted.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Thank you. I guess I'll echo what Mary said, too. The legitimate municipal interest is still a question mark for me. And I think coming in as an ADU will protect it. But I don't see that we have to allow 900 square feet. I'm not convinced of that.
[Andre Leroux]: No, that's what I just said, Chris. I said that the proponent is saying that 900 square feet.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I'm not talking about the maximum and then what you said relative to the attorney, but I'm just saying that an ADU can be smaller. Absolutely. I agree with that. That's the essence of what I'm saying. ADU can be smaller than 900 square feet. I'm agreeing with you there, but I'm also raising that point of legitimate municipal interest that I don't, you know, there's a lot to be parsed in the law that I don't think, you know, we can, we could spend, you know, dozens of hours doing that. And obviously we can't do that. So I think we need, Possibly another session to to say what is the city's legitimate municipal interest in in seeking this because there will certainly be many many others that come along. similar in design to this application. And I think we need some coherence to what we're about to decide because that will change, I think, the landscape quite a bit if we're essentially making two families into three families and adding a third floor onto all two-family, two-story houses. So that's my situation at the moment. I don't think I'm prepared to make a decision tonight on it.
[Andre Leroux]: Um, well, let's look at, I'm going to just pull up the. The regulations so that we can, I do think it's important for us as attorney Stein said to base our decision on, on the regulations, um, you know, as basically applied the rules and the regulations, um, clearly, I think this issue of municipal interest, um, is. You know, I think that's very squishy. So let's. I think reasonableness is kind of the standard. That's it's a little bit more clear for us to apply. So, let's just look at it and see what the actual language says here. I'm going to share my screen.
[Danielle Evans]: And through the chair, I did put it in the chat if you wanted to read that there.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, but I want to cover some of the other absolutely.
[Yvette Velez]: But before you go into that, um, Andre, can I get some clarity? It is going on the top with dormers because it doesn't fit properly in the basement and it's, um, it won't be quite as livable without dormers because then. Um, roof roof slope, right? Like the quality of life would be better with dormers. Is that what I understood though, for. How why it was set up as large it was at the top.
[Andre Leroux]: We can ask the proponent that, but. I think it's really a choice, I guess, you know, is. whether they wanted to propose a 900 square foot ADU rather than a smaller ADU that they could build by right or with less relief. Because we have obviously had a lot of projects come to us that have requested small dormers and we've evaluated those generally through variances or special permits. The standards have been changing a lot around all of these things. All right, so here are the definitions. An ADU, basically, not larger in gross floor area than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit, or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. But remember, the language here is not larger. It doesn't say it has to be the largest allowed. through all the different definitions. So unreasonable regulation is explained more down here below. So municipality shall not prohibit, impose a prohibited regulation or unreasonable regulation here. So here are some examples of prohibited regulation. You can't require air owner occupants. You can't require minimum parking if it's within a half a mile radius of a high frequency transit stop. You can't kind of do that kind of base a cap based on density or number of ADUs in the neighborhood. You can't use like occupancy restrictions. So, here's the unreasonable regulation. This is what we should really kind of be applying here. So, a municipality may reasonably regulate and restrict protected use. You say to use provided that any restriction or regulation imposed by a municipality. shall be unreasonable if the regulation or restriction when applied to an ADU does not serve a legitimate municipal interest sought to be achieved by local zoning, serves a legitimate municipal interest sought to be achieved by local zoning, but its application to a protected use ADU does not rationally relate to the legitimate municipal interest, 3, serves a legitimate municipal interest sought to be achieved by local zoning and its application to a protected use ADU rationally relates to the interest, but compliance with the regulation or restriction will A, result in complete nullification of the use or development of a protected use ADU. B, impose excessive costs on the use or development of a protected use ADU. C, substantially diminish or interfere with the use or development of a protected use ADU. So that's kind of the analysis that we need to apply here. So, you know, the way that I, I read this is that. You know, we do, we need to allow for an to be built. But the question is right here, our local zoning does not allow. 3 story, 3 family dwellings in this area. It allows 2 family, 2 and a half stories by right. And so the ADU, which is allowed, could by right be in that 3rd floor half story. Or as the attorney said, could be in the basement if there was enough room in the basement. There's not enough room in the basement for engineering reasons. So that's why they're looking at the, you know, the, the 3rd floor space. Now, my, my opinion about this, like, the municipal interest by from local zoning is that. You know, if the city had wanted to allow 3 families in this area, then they would have allowed 3 families in this area and that. Allowing. You know, just obviously they're not coming in and asking for a 3 family, although they are requesting using almost all of that 3rd floor. So. The problem that I that I have in the municipal interest that I think this challenges is that. It would essentially allow everyone to, you know, if we allowed this here, then basically. We'd have to pretty much allow those kinds of 2 and a half story. Buildings to become 3 story 3 family buildings. I think the city has spent time looking at updating its zoning and there are areas in the city where it is up zoning. But my understanding is that this is not 1 of the areas. At this time, so. I am familiar with that neighborhood. I. I do understand that it's congested. You can't make a determination based on that. And we also can't require additional parking. I assume, Planner Evans, the parking evaluation is that it's within half mile of a high frequency transit. Is that correct?
[Danielle Evans]: Any transit. So it could be a bus stop. That doesn't have to be high frequency in that council. You don't have to. Require a parking space for that, but 1 thing that we have been doing is. Not allowing for parking permits, so. If. If a developer doesn't. It says that no, 1 is going to have cars, then like, then there shouldn't be a problem with not having a. parking permit then so that that private cost isn't born by the public by not providing that. And if I may, if you're looking for understanding of municipal interest, you can always look to the purpose of the zoning ordinance because there's always like a purpose and why there's dimensional regulations that they are. And in section 94, Uh, 1.1, it's kind of like an old timey kind of, um. You know, why why do we have zoning? It's like, promote health, safety morals, convenience and general welfare of its inhabitants to lessen the dangers from fire congestion and confusion and to improve and beautify the city. Um, yada, yada, yada. Those are those things you could look at the comprehensive plan and I'm happy to do some. research and provide some things so that it's not just this board making a determination of what is the municipal interest because there's adopted ordinances and plans where there's been consensus of what that is. And if anyone has any questions about The direction of the residential zoning, we actually have a grant that will be studying some of the different residential zoning districts to see. How to. Add density where appropriate, because there's some places that it wouldn't be appropriate to overburden if there's already like storm water issues. You know, a lot of like heat island with canopy, so we're going to be studying them all. So it's not going to be a blanket. Everyone gets up zoned. Some areas might not. So, whatever was proposed before, like, that has been scrapped. Because it was basically the consultants were just. Writing zoning, like, from a desk. Without being out in the field.
[Yvette Velez]: Can I. So I just feel like it's, you know, grossly sized at this point as a two bedroom, because I, when I think of ADUs, right, I think of like the mother-in-law's apartment, right? The one bedroom for, so I guess that's sort of where I'm hung up on is the, you know, why can, can we say that? Can we, allow, is that, you know, because the way that it is bumped out, if only one, they do one dormer versus like two, how do you, how do you, how can you Because I personally love the idea of an ADU. It's unfortunate this space is only designated for two families, and that it feels a little weirdly manipulative to do it in this way, to make it a three family. But at the same time, I do think those things are required. But again, it's usually like a one bedroom. Is my understanding then, you know, it's a luxury to have 2 bedroom and it's meant to, like, subsidize housing for, like. You know, elderly and, um. Disabled, right? Like, isn't that what, like, 80 use are also meant for? So I think you can accomplish that as a 1 bedroom. We don't. Need a 2 and then that would help with the. Over popular, like.
[Andre Leroux]: I certainly agree with you, but this doesn't feel like an accessory unit. It feels like a full third unit. Attorney Desmond, if you'd like to clarify, let's jump in. I don't want to have a back and forth right now.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, no, I understand. I mean, when we're not opposed, I guess I guess my question would be, you know, my clients looked at this in addition to the 900. I do think it's more appropriate with Vassar than Wesley. We haven't gotten to that. I think I don't know where the board would want to go in terms of a reduction you know mindful of the fact that if if you if you're putting in a kitchen and you're putting in sprinkler systems and you're putting in all of that and you can't reduce you can't require that there not be two bedrooms that's that's clear from the AG's opinions but but what what is the board you know you know what would I guess some parameters as to what would be acceptable. I mean, my client has, we have discussed that. We have looked at a plan, which is less than 900, but, you know, the half story at this point is, I think it's, I had it, it's 568, which is, you know, when you have to put in HVAC and all of that in that space, it's not, it's not, and run the soffits and whatnot, it's not enough. I mean, if we were talking somewhere around 780, somewhere in that vicinity, maybe that could be a workable plan, and he's kind of looked at what that would look like. But, you know, in the first part of this, I was hearing that from maybe getting cues that there's something less that could be agreeable, I guess. I don't, and not that we're not willing to come back and discuss it and continue it, But in terms of having a sense of it, I just kind of don't want to keep shooting darts at a board and then find ourselves in a situation where it's not going to fly. I think personally, from what I've said, that 900 is the minimum, but we disagree, and I understand that.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Well, I think, you know, I would like to take the temperature of all the board members in terms of, of, you know, where you're at. So, again, I will just say. I'm of, I'm of 2 minds on on this particular 1 because. As I said, I don't think it's a good. Precedent to set, I think it would undermine completely the zoning ordinance. If we were to do this on every 2 and a half story property, there's a reason why 2 and a half stories was was created. That's sort of a standard in these neighborhoods. Again, this is a very congested. Neighborhood, um, and. I, I think it's reasonable to, you know, maybe have a allow. I mean, we have to allow, you know, 80 use as long as they fit into the dimensions. Um, that being said, with this particular 1 being on the corner. And the dormers, uh, do not. Um, it's not, you know, looking in right into like, uh, uh, property next door. Um, potentially I would be more. lenient on this one than I would on other ones. But that would be, you know, in my opinion, that would only be an exception. It wouldn't be sort of a consistent standard that I would want to apply across the neighborhood. But I want to kind of want to hear what all of you think, the members. I don't know, Mark, we haven't heard from you. Do you have any thoughts?
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I've been trying to, you know, kind of quietly try to absorb a lot of this. And, you know, I, I mean, I, I tend to agree with you in the sense that, Hey, listen, the two and a half story rule is there for, for a reason. And, you know, making an exception in is, I guess one thing that's sticking in my head is that 900, you know, if it doesn't have to be 900, then. and it can be smaller, then in that circumstance, that's not necessarily some sort of a hardship. And I usually think about it from that perspective. And so it's like, hey, you kind of work within the confines that you have. And so I think from my perspective, I would lean towards the, hey, I'm not inclined to give the extra room for the, yeah, because I think you are effectively turning it into a three-family home. And that's, it's kind of a backdoor way of doing that.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, and it is right next to Tufts, so not surprising if down the road it gets rented to multiple people who could have multiple vehicles.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: The one question I did have, or at least is more of it, and maybe just because I look literally next door there is a three-story building, and even it looks like, and so I don't know if that is because if it's a two-family home or that circumstance, so is it so much an issue about three stories, or maybe the zoning is different between the building that's the literally next door, versus the one right along, what is that street? I shouldn't know the name of the street. The main street across Delaware, so Boston.
[Andre Leroux]: But no, it's Main Street.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Main Street, Main Street. Yeah, I was kind of curious if that that was three stories, no issues there. So I don't know if it's a, this is a different style building, different style zone or whatnot. But, you know, that was just kind of more intellectual question to some extent. But, you know, provided that there is a reason for that one being different, then yeah, I would, you know, I would, you know, lean towards, hey, listen, that's the two and a half is there for a reason. So that now all of a sudden, not all these houses now all suddenly become 3 story, 3 family homes and completely change the density character in the neighborhood.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Danielle, do you happen to know if that I assume the zoning may be a little. Uh, higher right on Main Street there.
[Danielle Evans]: For those properties, it might be what is what is that address? Because I can look it up. Yeah, a lot of a lot of Main Street is like an apartment zone.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: It is, let's see, zooming in on it, on Street View to see if I can get a number on it.
[Andre Leroux]: 317 maybe?
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: 317, yeah.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I have the GSI in my presentation if that helps. With the zoning marked out.
[Danielle Evans]: Okay. It appears that that's still in the GR. And that's a 3 family trying to see when it was built. A lot of things are built before we had zoning. So. I'm trying to get them.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, it does seem like right along Main Street, there is a line of of.
[Danielle Evans]: Houses that are, it was built in 1920. so that's before we had zoning.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: And I guess my other question at the same time is that there's a house that's, you know, on Wellesley Street, number eight, which almost, it's a brown one, it's kind of one step back, which almost looks like it has the same sort of dormer on top of it that is being proposed on this particular house, the one that's on the corner. And again, I'm trying to understand if, you know, if, you know, obviously, you know, we can't do the, you know, we're, you know, we would agree that, hey, the one on Vassar doesn't, you know, would not be, you know, something we would want to allow to go ahead. But I've been trying to say, well, then what about the one that's across the street? What's different about that one versus the one that's on Vassar? Because if I'm looking at it right now on Street View, it looks, it's, you know, the same exact housing style. It looks like it's got a different, you know, thing built on the front. But It has what looks to be a dormer very, very similar to what I saw in the. The proposed diagram that you have the, uh, what would be built on.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, that is a lot smaller just to be clear. I'm looking at it now.
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah, and it looks like it's in the back.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, if I may, so this can still be a half story with dormers when I measured it out. I don't even think you had to cut them in half. It was. You can have dormers and still comply with the half story limit. So there's. It's not a, you stay within the envelope or you pop it all up.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Um, well, members, if I could get some, uh, I don't know your, your thoughts about whether, um, you know, you favor, uh, uh, stricter adherence to the, um, you know, to the dimensional requirements of the zoning code or whether you would, um, consider, you know, supporting smaller dormers.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Chris. Yeah, Mr. Chair. I think it's interesting, too, in a way, because I believe we've had cases in the past, you know, two, two and a half years, I've been on the board that add a dormer to the second floor, to the third floor, rather, to create larger living space for an expanded family. You know, no one I guess I'm playing devil's advocate with my own comments earlier, but, you know, the, you know, if you have five children living in the house and you want a bedroom, then you expand into the, and you live on the second floor, and then you expand into the third floor. And I don't think we've had any issue with that because it's remained a two unit building, essentially. It's not been converted to three units. And so I think the issue from my perspective, at least, is not so much the dimensional requirements, because it seems we've allowed dormers that are somewhat large in the recent past, but that we're creating a third unit here. which, as has been stated, is allowed because of the ADU law. It's the size of the unit that I guess is in question and the fact that it goes from two to three. And as Mark pointed out, the house just adjoining or abutting is probably larger in physical size than this house that we're talking about tonight. So I guess there are precedents for the size of the space. It's the two to three that, does it serve a legitimate municipal interest? And I'm hung up on that because I would say it does not serve a legitimate municipal interest because it goes against what zoning says and what the building commissioner has determined. So at the moment, my, you know, until we get a different view on that, perhaps the legitimate municipal interest, I don't think I could vote to advance this application. Thanks, Chris.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Commissioner 40.
[Bill Forte]: Now, hi, Mr. Chair. Thanks. I've been kind of listening to the conversation. I just wanted to add a couple of caveats here for your information. So the dormers are required under the state building code because habitable living space can't really exist underneath the peak of a roof. The reason for the dorm is it's not for luxury. It's not so much for floor space as it is for the requirements for the minimum height of a habitable space. I would also add that because this ADU, if you will, even though it has the characteristics of a three-family, and I get the concern with that, I think that there are more lax standards Um, that have recently come out in chapter 48 that allow for this type of situation where. Uh, does it, you know, does it meet the, you know, does it does it meet the interest of housing? And those sorts of things I haven't really heard that mentioned here tonight, but I think it might, it might be something that you want to consider and maybe. maybe consider holding off on the vote, maybe do a little more digging. But I just wanted to say that the state building code would require this building to be sprinklered because the state building code does not recognize an ADU as an accessory dwelling. It recognizes it as a third unit. So that would have to be a requirement anyways. So the life safety factor of the building would increase. It does also eliminate the need for one means of egress when complying with section 13R of NFPA. So there are some advantages to this, but I just wanted to have that information out there to the board that the you know, the standards for dimensional variance have been laxed. And I think the state's message is pretty clear on this. But in addition to that, the requirements for the dormers are because the minimum habitable height would not be met without them. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Danielle Evans]: Can I just ask a follow-up? I think what we need is for the applicant to show what is the The smallest the smallest dormers that they could build. To come as close to complying because commissioner 40, they, they can still do dormers and be within a half story. So I don't think it's a, you don't get them or you don't. And it just declared it's not a variance. So we have to do the other findings.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Danielle Evans]: And I mean, is a municipal interest to create housing. I guess that's up for discussion.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Well, that's why I mean, there's obviously there's different municipal interest. There is, you know, more housing is a benefit. But also having livable neighborhoods, you know, as designed through our zoning is also a benefit. So, you know, I think those are both benefits. You can make a case either way, which is why I think sticking to, like, you know, the reasonable regulation standard is probably, like, the way to go in order for us to kind of navigate this. Yvette and Mary, do you want to just kind of give your thoughts about what you're thinking about right now?
[Mary Lee]: I would tend to lean towards what Chris has said, and in light of what Commissioner Forty had also stated, I would think that a legitimate municipal interest would be safety of habitability as well, in addition to the need to satisfy the need for housing. So I would seriously considered, really have some guidance specifically for the municipal interest for Medford in order to appropriately analyze a proper decision for this. So at this point, I would have to vote against it without a clear defined interest. legitimate municipal interests and in light of all the safety concerns.
[Andre Leroux]: So. Attorney Desmond, what I'm what I'm sort of hearing from the board is that there's not a clear consensus right now and not enough to, I think, support the proposal as offered. So I guess to. two things there. One is probably, well, maybe three things. One is that we probably, you know, would you consider a continuance so that we can deal with two things. One is would your client be willing to, you know, come back with a modified proposal that might gain more support. And then secondly, um, you know, as attorney Stein said, I think we could have some more conversations with her to kind of suss out the legal issues a little bit more so that we're being clear about how we're applying them.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't have an objection to that. Just one thing procedurally, and I don't want to make people wait, but we haven't opened the hearing as far as I know with respect to 1214 Wellesley. And I don't have an issue continuing that per se because they're very similar in terms of stance and arguments, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't know if, Even briefly, yes, no, I agree.
[Andre Leroux]: We should look at that 1. I did talk to attorney Stein about this and we should have 2 separate procedures for them. So I think this 1. If you're willing to do a continuance on this 1, we can move on to the next 1.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right and even just in terms of, I mean. If we, I don't even know if you want to open public comment until the following hearing, and I don't necessarily have an issue with that because I know that there are people are waiting, but just to open it and go through what the project is.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, because this 1, that 1 has a is a little bit different. So let's let's do that. Okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. All right.
[Andre Leroux]: So. We, is there a motion to continue this matter to next month's meeting and Dennis, what's the date of next month's meeting? Do you have that? It is October 29th.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, you literally caught me as I was throwing popcorn into my mouth.
[Andre Leroux]: I think it's October 29th is the last Thursday.
[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct. Yes. Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, is there a motion to continue 1-3 Vassar Street to October 29th?
[Mary Lee]: Motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Chris. Roll call vote. Mark?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Chris? Aye. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Mary?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'm an eye as well. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your patience on that attorney Desmond. I know we're working through a lot of things here and thank you to members of the public and we're waiting. Dennis, can you read the next item on the agenda? You're muted.
[Denis MacDougall]: sorry, 12 Wellesley Street. Applicant Christian Austin construct two shed dormers and expand the existing attic space to create a full third story at 12 Wellesley Street for purposes of protecting ADU, which is in the general residence zoning district, requiring a variance and or finding pursuant to MGL chapter 48, section three.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Attorney Desmond, do you want to just kind of throw our hands again and illustrate how this one might be, you know, any differences with the last one? share and since we have like uh talked about a lot of these these issues i think we can focus on just the the distinct points or let me see for some reason you know what let me having difficulty going from one to the other let me get rid of vassar and see if that helps no um We can see your screen.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, right. Yeah. Let me see if I can't get. There they are. You see that now?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. All right. So this is the Wellesley Street project. The Sachu family, and again, in a general residency area with approximately 3,158 square feet excluding portions of the unfinished basement. It's on a non-conforming lot. This does comply with all setback requirements. The only issue in this regard is that it doesn't meet the lot area size. Again, this is a situation where they proposed to renovate the attic space to 875 square feet. We can go through the plans. So this is the plan for the unit on Wellesley. And again, if you look at what the square footage would be for the unit on a half a story, that would be 424 square feet that would be permitted. This again has two bedrooms, a living area, kitchen, and a dining area. Again, this would also be a situation where it would be sprinklered in addition to making it green, so heat pumps would be installed throughout, not just the third floor. It would be the entire building would be green in essence. This is the structure, and this is a photo of what, with the dormers, what this would be. As you can see, it again is in context with the other buildings in the neighborhood who also have dormers. on the property. And I actually, again, I think in terms of design on this, if you look at it, um, I actually think it improves the look of the building from, from what it is existing because of the door situation here. I know that's a matter of taste, but it does tend to, to square off, um, the original house. Um, and again, this would be an accessory dwelling, uh, less than the 900 square feet, uh, permitted under, um, the ordinance, I'm sorry, the statute and the regulations. Again, moving towards the municipal interest, this would be a protected ADU because it comes within the 900 square feet that's permitted under the statute. In terms of municipal interest, you would have fire safety. You would have improved fire safety for the structure. You would also have a green structure. And as previously indicated, you would also have additional housing, which is accessory and a rental unit, which, as the commissioner mentioned, and if this wasn't a variance, we had talked about that in terms of the new standards for variances, and that one of the things that's weighted, again, in a variance situation is the advancement of housing. In addition to that, you know, even if you looked at that standard by comparison versus reasonable, which is probably, you know, symmetric in some respects, the practicality in this instance of being able to construct an ADU in a basement setting or as an accessory dwelling based on the shape of the lot and also the ceiling heights of the basement make that prohibitive to place an ADU. So the only really appropriate place for a protected ADU would be in the attic space. I know that we have a disagreement about the 900 square feet. And I've had this conversation with Alicia about the fact questions that the state put out the fact sheet. And in that particular fact sheet, and I didn't raise this in the other, hearing, but in that particular fact sheet, it states whether you could actually craft an ordinance that hit a limit of less than 900 square feet for a unit. And that answer is no, which I think would support the position that if you can't have an ordinance that restricts ADUs to less than 900 square feet, then it would be per se unreasonable. And that again brings the Brookline case or opinion up into question. In terms of costs, again, would it be prohibitive to do anything other than the attic? Yes, because you couldn't in the back as a detached, but in addition to that, you'd have to dig down, shore up your foundation, hope that nothing happened in the intervening time to put an ADU in the basement. So there isn't really anywhere else to put a protected ADU, and it is and has a right use. And if it prohibits or makes the use more expensive, then that all goes into the municipal interest and whether there's a municipal interest that is being appreciably advanced on the basis of a restriction. And I, you know, there's a couple of cases I don't want to, this is just so complicated, but there are a number of 48 cases. It is a couple where they talk about use and dimensional restrictions. And I think one has to do with a floor as to education that that by restricting it, you're restricting the use. So, so that's, you know, that's essentially the presentation. Um, again, this fits within the context and to answer that question, um, about the neighborhood, which was raised, um, here's the GIS. So as you can see, all of these structures are, um, these are all three families here as is this structure. Um, the one here is not a three family, the eight, 10, but again, and I think I raised that in my original presentation, um, The floor space on that, when you look it up on the assessors anyway, is roughly 2,000 square feet of that second floor. So, you know, the issue with the whole second floor argument is it's very subjective in terms of, you know, what's your second floor worth. And even in terms of, I know I had a case with a variance where it kind of becomes a vanishing violation, because if you can increase your second floor space, then you can increase your third floor attic space. So, it's, it's somewhat of an objective, subjective standard to a degree, but we're also very close to the apartment district. In addition to that, so it wouldn't necessarily be out of character with what's existing in the neighborhood or the, the size of the houses. And I think when we did those renderings, we tried to show the structures in context and that's basically the presentation.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, thank you. Attorney doesn't appreciate it even though it's not required. Just a question. Is there any off street parking provided on this unit?
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, because that that would be for the 2 existing units, but they do all fit within. No, 1 has permit parking with respect to this. They do. They have the existing tenants have off street parking and it's been sufficient. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: I will just to note a couple of things just because that you brought up. So I just want to be clear. So it is close to the apartment district. I would say that the apartment district does have parking requirements for those apartment buildings and I think there might be less than 1 per unit. I think it's 0.8 per. Uh, per unit, but it is there is onsite parking that's provided by those units. So it's a little different. Obviously, it's, you know, 80 years are allowed. There's no question about that. We cannot prohibit these units from being built, but. And we also cannot prohibit a 900 square foot. Uh, 80 you from being built by right if that. Amount of space was available in neither of these properties. I just want to be clear to the general public. So they're not confused. That that is not provided, right? It's only a half floor. Uh, that exists on the 3rd floor, because it's a 2 and a half story. Zoning district, and so there is this board does have an obligation to review and, uh, you know, find a reasonable basis for. uh, for what kind of an ADU can be allowed there. If the proponent came in with, uh, I don't know, it was 468 square foot, you know, that's what's- that's what's allowed as the half story. If you can't- if the proponent came in with something like that, with a little, you know, kitchenette and- and, uh, you know, very- a small unit that fit in that space, like, we wouldn't even be here because they could do that by right, and they'd be talking to the building commissioner. Um, same thing with the other one, which I think is- could be even bigger, 500 and something square- square feet. What's being asked for is a larger. Then what the dimensions allow, and so we need to find a reasonable. Position on that, and I think given to what, you know, member Chris said earlier, we have allowed. Folks to come in who are doing renovations to their properties might be having kids, expanding their family. We have allowed dormers. I would say that this board has been very consistent in not allowing full stories to be built, but in allowing modestly sized dormers generally sited towards the rear of the property so that they're less visible from the street. I'll leave that there any other clarifying questions about this project? I know it's quite similar from the board.
[Yvette Velez]: I just want to say that. You know, I have to, I disagree with attorney Desmond in regards to like, oh, it's so close to the apartment district and therefore 1 more. Like, there's always there's a line. And I think there's lines for reasons. And so I think that's a little unfair to like, add that as part of why this would be acceptable to turn this into a three bedroom or a three unit property. But that's all.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. I don't see any other clarifying questions, so maybe attorney Desmond, you could take down the share screen and we can just see if there are folks here who we can open the public participation portion of the hearing. See if there's anybody that wants to make comments on this. And then I think we're in the same situation here. We won't really have big deliberations about this. If you're okay with continuing this 1 as well, we'll do that. Let's open the public participation portion of this hearing and I see.
[Patricia Chery]: I pad again, I'm sorry, could your name and it's me record Patricia cherry and I do want to I hung in here for 2 hours. I do want to thank all of you for really putting effort and time into this because it means a lot to the community. 1 thing I wanted to point out is that we, I keep hearing all of this about need to create housing and this is going to help the, you know. It's going to help us with housing. It's going to help us with housing. I think we have like 700 vacant apartments right now in Medford. So I'm not sure, you know, how much help we need. This house is directly across the street from the other one. So now this is in the same neighborhood that we're trying to do the same thing. And lastly, if you guys could just really remember that you're not making a decision, you're setting a precedent. Um, for out for where I live and again, I appreciate you guys taking all the time to look at this. That's it. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you so much for all the time you spend here. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to comment on this project? Dennis, do we have any written. Comments on this 1.
[Denis MacDougall]: Um, the actual the letter that I referenced earlier was also sorry. I forgot.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, it reference both properties.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, great. Thank you. All right, I don't see anybody else raising their hand. So, uh, is there a motion from a board member to close the public. Participation portion of the hearing motion. Thank you, Mary. Is there a 2nd. Thanks, Mark roll call vote. Mark. Hi, Chris. Hi, that I. Mary I, I'm an eye as well. The. Public participation section is closed and we enter into deliberations. So. We don't want to repeat we spent a lot of time on the other 1. this 1 is very similar, but if there's any, does anything, any comments you want to make that strike you as as different. About this 1 that you might want to point out.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Now, it seems like it's the same story, so nothing new to add here.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, the 1 thing I will note that's a little bit different is that it's this 1 is not on a corner a lot. It's between 2 other properties. It's pretty close. So. But, you know, so my feeling was, if we were to make a little bit more of an exception, I probably do it for the other 1 because it's not, uh, you know, it's facing facing the street and not facing another property. But. Any other board members want to say anything at this time? Okay. Attorney Desmond, would you be amenable to continuing this one as well?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Thank you so much. Is there a motion to continue Wellesley Street to October 29th? Thank you, Mary. Second?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mark. Roll call vote. Mark? Aye. Chris? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Mary?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. So this matter is continued to October 29th. Thank you again for everybody's patience on this. Sorry it's taking so long to work through these issues, but I think as the resident said, it's an important precedent.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks so much. All right, Dennis, the next item on the agenda.
[Denis MacDougall]: 60 Sturgis Street. Applicant Paul Connolly to construct a 2nd single family dwelling at 60 Sturgis Street, which is a single family, one zoning district. The 2nd principal structure will require a use variance.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Mr. Connolly, are you able to kind of share your screen or walk us through the project?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: Hi, yes, I have Marina McIntosh with me from context architecture as well as Jerry Griffin, who represents the current owner of the home. I think the 2 of them could start off and I'm here to answer any and all questions. Perfect, thank you. We can start with the picture and I think Jerry might have some words to begin.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yes, good evening. Mister chairman and members of the board again. My name is Attorney Gerald Griffin and I'm here this evening representing the property owner, Margaret Griffin Beltran and before the board this evening seeking to use variance for the construction of a second principle structure on the property. Uh, and if, uh, if if the borders approves, I'd like to proceed by reading a prepared statement and remarks in the interest of time, which should be less than 10 minutes.
[Andre Leroux]: Uh, could you shorten it?
[SPEAKER_11]: Okay. Let me, let me just start and get started. I'll go right through it. Um, the applicant, um, Margaret Griffin Beltran, she's resided at 60 Sturgis Street for over the past 30 years. The property itself is on the McCormick subdivision plan from 1915 and consists of two lots, 365 and 366, containing a confined total area of 9870, 9870 square feet, which makes it unique in the area. It's probably one of the largest lots in North Medford. It's shown as lots 14 and 15 on the assessor's plan. Under state zoning law, the two lots have merged for purposes of zoning in an effort to make the main house lot more conforming. A meeting of the neighborhood was held on September 3rd and was well attended, and all received copies of the plans and renderings. And all of the abutters attended, we have about 18 to 20 people at the property. The applicant seeks to construct an additional single-family dwelling on the property that has been designed and would be positioned on the parcel in a manner to ensure that both structures conform in all respects to the SF2 District's dimensional requirements other than lot area. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Medford Zoning Ordinance, two principal structures are permitted on a single lot by special permit of the Community Development Board. The ordinance, however, is silent as to multiple uses and the current building commission has determined that a use variance is required. The detached single family use is generally allowed in this area and is the predominant use within the SF2 district in North Medford. As stated, Margaret Griffin has resided in the property at 60 Sturgis Street for over 30 years. It's been a family homestead for over 70 years. back to when it was purchased by her parents in the 1940s. However, like many homes in the Heights, the climbing of stairs, cutting the grass, and shoveling the snow have been ever challenging to her and her husband's ability to live and thrive in the property. Additionally, the funds necessary to properly maintain the house, including the electric plumbing, heating systems, as well as updating kitchens, bedrooms, and baths, has not been available to her. A major practical difficulty is that a strong possibility exists if sold as is, the amount of work to bring the home up to date structurally, mechanically, and cosmetically would preclude the average home buyer would most likely need a mortgage financing to purchase a home, which may be difficult to attain based on its condition. Over the years, there have been a lot of interest in property from developers purchasing it. The majority of which would most likely tear it down and replace it with one much larger, which would not fit the character and spirit of the neighborhood. This would be crushing to her as 60 Sturgis Street has been a family homestead as far back as the 1940s. She knows the current plans of the buyer call for restoring it to its former charm, as well as providing much needed additional housing to the city of Medford. If the use variance is granted, the existing house and new single family dwelling will be in harmony and not degregate from the intent and spirit of the ordinances to principal structures. A single parcel are permitted by special permit of the Community Development Board, as previously stated. Moreover, the single family use is an allowed and favored use in the SF2 district. As to public good, the variance will serve to provide additional housing that will easily blend into the existing character of the neighborhood, as a majority of the homes in the immediate area sit on parcels that also fail to meet the threshold for lot size in the SF2 district. The proposal calls for the addition of one single family dwelling. The dwelling as proposed will include a two car tandem garage that will provide two parking spaces as required in SF2. The project will tie into the existing utilities on Sturgis Street. The proposed dwelling will meet as stated all substantial all SF2 district requirements including height, lot coverage and setback requirements with the exception of lot size. As previously stated, most of the lots on Sturgis Street are less than 5,000 square feet. The home has been designed to fit in with the character of most of the homes on the street and in SF2 overall. The proposed dwelling will require a permit for a second driveway and curb cut. The application was made by Paul Connolly to the engineering department. Paul will address the status of that in his comments. Overall, the granting of the requested use variance will be in keeping with the spirit of the revisions to MGL 40A section 10, as signed into law by the governor in July of this year, to ease the ability of homeowners to provide additional land and space for the expansion and construction of much needed residential housing. Thank you very much. All right, thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_10]: Thanks, Gerald. This is Marina McIntosh, project architect, and I'm happy to run through the drawings as we have them on the screen here.
[Andre Leroux]: Perfect. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_10]: The existing home is located here at 60 Sturgis Street as referenced. It's the tan building on the left side here with the existing curb cut and car in the driveway. Our proposed single family building here at 62 is 2.5 stories tall, curb cut there with the driveway entry, and it's the building right here in front of you. This is our proposed civil drawing here, and the red outline highlights the proposed dwelling on the site. Again, the total lot area is 8,970 square feet, and we have an architectural site plan that will better show some of these setbacks, the lot area, and the curb cut as proposed on site as well. As Gerald had mentioned, if this was to be built today with one building, one footprint on the lot, as opposed to preserving the existing structure, it would be quite a large, significant building. We want to show what that footprint would look like. It would be about 3,500 square feet, give or take. That's what the orange box here shows. So instead, we're proposing, and this shows the lots around our area, a lot of 60 Sturgis, as shown here in white, the neighboring lot, or the neighboring building, I should say, that's going to be proposed planned north here, right where my arrow is, actually shows that it's very contextual to the rest of the lots that are within the surrounding area here in red. If this was to actually be one building on one large lot, it would actually be quite out of context relative to the neighbors. This is our architectural site plan here designating where we're going to propose the second single-family home right here where I'm highlighting on the PDF. As mentioned, we're proposing a curb cut here at the bottom of the plan. It's a 10-foot curb cut. This is going to be a reverse-inclined driveway coming up, and then we have two parking spaces as proposed inside the garage, similar to the existing condition right now on 60 Sturgis Street. Dimensionally, we're compliant with all the setbacks. If there's any specific questions, I'm happy to go into the zoning table that we've included here. but all of our setbacks are compliant. Again, the use variance that we're seeking is to add that second single family hall to the lot. As far as the plans go, fairly straightforward here. Our basement plan is located on the left with two parking spaces. We've got open concept living, kitchen, dining area on the first floor plan with a rear porch. Upstairs, we've got two beds, two baths, and on the upper level, there's a loft or office space with a third bedroom and a deck going out to the rear. Paul, unless there's anything else that you want to add, happy to answer any questions or comments from the board.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: And only one quick thing, just to correct what Jerry had said, to be fair, I did tell him I was going to have that application for the curb cut actually filed. I was able to communicate with both Owen Wartella and Tim at the DPW and had a favorable conversation in regards to location and the ability to grant that curb cut, but that application technically is not in as of this meeting. Other than that, yeah, that's, I think they both did a great job of summarizing what we are proposing to go forward.
[Andre Leroux]: Uh, sorry if I, if I miss this in the materials, but I didn't see. Um, like, the, the zoning narrative said that it. You needed to use variants for lot size. But I didn't see the number how big is the lot. That's being proposed and how undersized is it.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: So the lot is 8970 for the total. And off the top of my head, I don't have that. I think it's on the area plan. It might show. Oh, there we go. There it is. Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: Sure. So as far as in the character of the neighborhood too, I believe even the five or six houses directly to the left of 60 Sturgis are all 4,500 square feet lots. So pretty well within the character of all the existing nonconforming on the street. I think they range from 3,200 to 4,900 for the majority with only a handful of spot picked houses that actually exceed the threshold of the 5,000.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, the ones that we have directly below us here are 4500 each actually, the 4 below us and then the ones above us are about 4830. 4999 and a couple of 5 up here.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Yep. Was there ever was that ever a separate lot?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: I can't speak to this 100%, but I believe what happened was it originally was designed in the subdivision as two separate lots. And then because it was under common ownership, through some mass statute, it was combined at some point in the past. And it just sat there as like a vacant lot of land, but essentially the size of every other lot. And it's just a side yard now for the existing house.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. But all other dimensional requirements are met?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: Correct. We proposed what we thought was, you know, something well within the character of the neighborhood, completely conforming 100% if this was its own lot, with the exception that the lot size itself would be nonconforming, a few hundred square feet short. Okay. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Board members, do you have questions for the applicant?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair, I actually do. Well, actually I have perhaps the question of the city planner, which is that how would the city look at two principal dwellings on one lot
[Andre Leroux]: Uh, we had a case, I think, uh, Danielle had to drop off, but we had a very similar, um. Parcel and proposal not too long ago, Chris, that we approved that was a similar.
[Denis MacDougall]: But just if I can jump in, so yeah, so we had a property on Lincoln Road, which was, I mean, essentially it was the exact same proposal, two lots in each lot, individual lot were on their size, one lot already had a house on it and they wanted to build another one. And it was decided that through this, in order to build it there, that a use variance would be required to build the second property on the lot.
[Chris D'Aveta]: So that was- Okay. Maybe the building commissioner may have something to say.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so these, these lots, basically, they merge, they merge by deed when it's called the merger doctrine. So, for purposes of zoning, if lots are held in common ownership, they automatically combine after the zoning ordinance or the start of the zoning ordinance. Here, this would be a typical example of one of those lots. There is protections now afforded to lots that are 10,000 square feet or greater. They're allowed to have an 1,850 square foot house, but that doesn't apply here because I think the lot is still under that size. And this lot would only have to go, it wouldn't even have to go to planning for an A&R. You could actually divide it up with an 81X, which is a section of Mass General Law that allows you to separate that lot line on that same lot line that originally was there. So that's what the backside of this would look like.
[Chris D'Aveta]: So that, if I could just continue with my line of questions. I'm curious why they wouldn't do an ANR. Is it deficient in, Deficient in lot size, they wouldn't get an A&R so that they could separate.
[Denis MacDougall]: That's basically it because if they did that both lots. You know, there's no way they could create a lot. And that would basically create an undersized lot on the existing house, which you can't do. You can't create your own exist, you know.
[Andre Leroux]: A&R is only like, as of right has to meet those certain requirements.
[Chris D'Aveta]: But I'm back to sort of the two principal dwellings, which I guess ties into the previous two hours we've been here, which is both of these would be eligible for an ADU. Or would they, I guess, that's the question. Would both units be eligible to add an ADU in the future?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: or if it helps, if I could jump in here for a quick sec, because I know you guys have spent a lot of time on this tonight. I believe the way we're going to do this where they're not actually going to be separate lots, there'll be a common ownership. And essentially, even though there'll be two, fit within the character of the neighborhood, be two freestanding single family homes for all intents and purposes, there'll be a master deed and there'll be a condo, it's a quote unquote ordinance, you know, association to deal with it. And as we will be developing it, I have no intention of doing that. I'd be happy, I know you guys, as it's protected, probably can't weigh in on that, but I have no problem putting in there to protect both buyers that there would be no ADUs or additional building footprint to be done somewhere along those lines. It's just kind of what we are proposing will be all that lives on that lot.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay. Yeah. So my question, I mean, it sort of just gets to the technicalities of it all, which is that, which is the principle dwelling, you know, on that, on that property, which from our perspective, we're really just looking at the use variants, but, um, it speaks to the future of the, you know, use of that land.
[Bill Forte]: respectfully, if I if I could just interject here. Go ahead. There's nothing in an ZBA order that would restrict an as of right accessory dwelling unit, you you can't restrict, you can't restrict it by order. Because it's it's an allowed it's a protected use, right? I don't think that the applicant is going to, you know, You know, give that right or give up that right, if you will, to condition this. I do see that two principal dwellings on a lot, I think, makes sense. And there's really nothing that would prevent them from having an accessory dwelling on each one. You know, I mean, if that's it.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I agree that you cannot, you cannot require that. That's it's a statewide law. that you can create an ADU. And I think even if there was something in writing, that could probably be challenged in court. But Commissioner, just to clarify something that you just said. So the proponent said that they're gonna keep, they're gonna have a master deed, they're gonna condoize it. In that case, they would only be allowed one ADU. Correct?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, that's right. They would have one ADU. But if you get into the whole minutiae of the law, one could argue that each principal dwelling, as Attorney Stein had said earlier, that each principal building could each have a dwelling unit. You know what I mean? Again, I don't think it would be restrictive.
[Andre Leroux]: But they would have to be there, but the lot would have to be divided right to each one. No, not necessarily.
[Bill Forte]: No, no, you could have, you could. So if you have a, let's just say this is a condominium park, or let's just say this is a, you know, these are, these are just condo buildings. Each one of those condo buildings is entitled to have an ADU. So there's each, each principal building, if you will, or each principal you know, as Attorney Stein described it, at least their reading of the statute, is that each one of those individual buildings could have an accessory dwelling unit.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Well, this is all hypothetical. I mean, the applicant is not saying that that's not their intention, so I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole. You know, the ADU law is a statewide law, so it's not like It's not like we should be talking about it in every single case that comes up, because we could, but it's going to be unproductive, I think. Are there any other questions about the application? All right, I just have a question. I know this isn't necessarily part of it, but are you going to be, in order to build this house, is there a ledge on that site that you're going to have to deal with?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: We haven't got that far as to a, I couldn't speak to what's below the ground there. Just by the, I guess the, you know, I could talk to Jerry in the neighborhood, but it doesn't, it appears
[SPEAKER_11]: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there's any ledge on that side there. That was all built up to grade to mirror the elevation of 60 Sturgis Street back in the 40s or 50s. This was kind of information passed down and I think my father may have been involved with getting that done at the time. So I don't think there's any ledge under there, at least that he found.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, sorry, commissioner 40. I know you just went off, but I had 1 more question for you there. Does this. Well, they need to go to the community development board for a site plan review or anything or is this it?
[Bill Forte]: No, not to my knowledge. This doesn't qualify. It's a single family. And there's no really no site plan review for single family. So okay, that's what I just wanted to get in any variance that is issued here should should include that, that they're seeking dimensional, you know, this seeking dimensional relief for two principal dwellings on the same lot. that language should be in there with any order, just to be sure that because the lot's not going to be divided, there'll be no separation of the lot. I think it should be clear that there are two principal buildings on the same lot because that's something that's restricted and residential, not in commercial, I think in the zoning ordinance.
[Andre Leroux]: The new changes to state law around the use variance is, Does that impact here at all, would you say?
[Bill Forte]: Well, I would say that the standards for approval have relaxed, if you will. Under the new guidelines, you have other considerations that you can make. The fact that it benefits the city for housing, that there are practical difficulties, as they explained in their argument, that expanding this house to be a duplex would be massive and those sorts of things. Um, other practical difficulties, um, would also be a qualifying factor, so. Right. Okay. But there are no relief, just so that, you know, there's no relief in the current regulations for a lot this size. Obviously, it's an unusual shape, but again, they're going to keep the same lot line. It doesn't even look like they're, they're asking for anything, you know, except a second principal dwelling that meets all the required setbacks. Right. Okay. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Architect, you can stop sharing your screen. Thank you. And let's open the public comment period. Are there any members of the public who'd like to speak on this matter? Dennis, have we gotten any written commentary? We have not. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir, your name and address for the record, please. And you have to unmute yourself.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, can you hear me now?
[Andre Leroux]: We can, yes, thank you.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, my name is Mark and I live in the house next door, 74 Sturgis Street. And first of all, I would like to commend, uh, Paul and Gerald for the, um, uh, essentially open house session that they had a couple of weeks ago for the neighbors and the abutters. Uh, they shared the plans. The plans have been a little bit more, uh, fully developed for the presentation tonight, but, uh, uh, they're a little bit clear, you know, no substantial changes that were shared with us. So, you know, first off, just want to comment that we really appreciate it. the transparency and the roughly hour and a half that they spent with the neighbors. Understand that this is essentially by right and appreciate that the design of the home, the size of the home, and the siting on the side yard does actually fit within the character of the neighborhood and the fact that they have implemented a curb cut to be able to park two vehicles underneath the dwelling. I think addressed certainly my wife and a primary concern of my wife and I, and that of the neighbors, which there's quite a bit of on street parking on Sturgis street. So that was addressed for us. We've lived in our home since 2017. We have been the beneficiaries, frankly, of of that side yard and the green space. And so, as we had spoken with Paul tonight, the only comment. that we would make this evening, which we actually don't believe is enforceable, but just wanted to get it on the record that if there was the ability to plant some shade bushes or some bushes just to help mitigate a little bit the proximity of the side of the house to our property, That would be appreciated and and, uh, you know. Paul's not it was not in the position to make any promises. They're not asking for him to make promises tonight, but just wanted to get that on the record that if there is the ability to do that and we would appreciate that. We know that he stated that their intent is to try to maintain or retain as many of the existing trees along the lot line with 74 Sturgis as possible. We appreciate that. And just if there's the ability at all to perhaps plant some type of fast growing trees or bushes, we would appreciate that. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Connelly, you and your team, do you want to respond to that at all? Is that possible?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: Sure, happy to. Yeah, that did come up. It's great to see you again, by the way, that evening from the two of the abutters directly to the right of the property and behind. And like I said, without having like a finalized landscape plan in mind. There wasn't anything specifically proposed. Just my word that we would have that conversation with them under construction and definitely amenable to that. I think it's mutually beneficial to our lot as well as theirs to just have a little bit of privacy along the back of the lot. Because there aren't too many trees and actually most of that lot, the proposed lot is vacant. There's one large beautiful tree that we've, if you can see where we've tucked the house, stays away from that and hopefully, you know, the root system and everything so that that'll live and stay where it is, which I think everyone will like. And then some of the other stuff along is tends to just be along the fence line anyway and out of the way of any digging that would take place. So then to add some, you know, tall you know, a few tall bushes between the two on the side and along the back line, I think, you know, it makes a whole lot of sense. And it's definitely something we'd be looking at and, you know, kind of talking through with the neighbors kind of as we progressed. Great. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Are there other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? Okay. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public participation portion of this hearing? Sorry, Dennis has his hands up.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, well, it's a letter from city staff, so I'm not sure if this is public comment or the other one. Okay, well, we received a letter today. Sorry, I think it was when you were in transit from coming in. So Owen Nortel, the city engineer, submitted a letter basically saying that while the proposed dwelling is subject to the city's water and sewer regulations, The existing dwelling will not be subject to those requirements because proposed renovations could be minor if any, but the engineering division recommends that any approved variances be conditioned to require replacement of the existing water service line to the dwelling at 60 Surgey Street as city records identify the existing services being a lead pipe. The existing service should be equated to a one-inch copper service from the water main to the water meter. That's the recommendation.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. Mr. Connolly, were you aware of that?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: I was so I actually had the opportunity to speak with both Owen and Tim over the last two days via email and phone and he did mention that and obviously I think that makes a whole lot of sense as well so we'll be in the street anyway bringing utilities in and to obviously replace while we're doing that for the additional structure to dig a little further left and replace a lead water line to a new construction you know to a renovated house that we were going to sell I can see how that makes a lot of sense. Okay, perfect.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. All right, is there a motion now to close the public participation portion of the hearing?
[Mary Lee]: Motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. Is there a second?
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mark. Roll call vote. Mark?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Chris I. Mary I. And I'm an eye as well. The public hearing portion is closed. We enter board deliberations now board members. What are your thoughts? Again, I think this is pretty similar to an application we reviewed not too long ago, very similar. In my opinion, I think it is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. They're really not asking for a lot of relief in terms of what the new lot size is going to be. It's just a little bit less than 5,000 square feet, which is the requirement. Frankly, it's more than some of the neighboring parcels and then, you know, in terms of our, the state's new. Criteria around variances, um. You know, it's really. The variance now requires a finding that a strict enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw would result in a practical difficulty. So. You know, the practical difficulty, I think, and in this case, being that that. that lot would not be able to be used to the benefit of the property owner, nor to create an additional home for a family in Medford. And the Optional kind of other categories we could apply if we want to consider them is whether that practical difficulty relates to the soil condition, shape, or topography of the land or structures, whether strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship, and whether the benefits sought can be achieved by some other feasible method, and lastly, whether the practical difficulty was self-created. So there's this new standard really gives us a lot of leeway in terms of how we, we want to interpret that practical difficulty. Standard and, uh, you know, for myself, I think that. This is, uh, it's a reasonable request and I think it's. You know, if they had just a little bit more room, like, they wouldn't even need our approval. So I think it is just kind of a meets the practical. Difficulty standard. Your thoughts?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, go ahead, Chris. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I think it, you know, I was never a fan of the lot merger, you know, doctrine, which was misapplied, I think, in a lot of cases. And I think this is a good example of a lot that would have been developed had it, you know, had someone put a house there in the 1920s, it would be a house today. So I think it's a reasonable application. And I think beyond that, I think the applicant honestly should be praised for doing a very contextually appropriate house there. They're doing a single family, which, honestly, I was a little shocked. I thought it was going to be a two-family house. So it's within context of the neighborhood and within the type of house in that area. And it sort of fits the lot. It's even a narrow house. They're not stretching out. trying to impede on the setbacks on the side yard. So I think it's very well done. I think a lot of times we criticize things, but there should be the opposite effect too. We should applaud when someone does something good. So it looks good to me. Thank you, Chris.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: nicely put for us. I mean, I think that's exactly it. It looks like it belonged there all along. It actually was interesting when you saw all the plot plans that, you know, it just looked like that would be very contextual with it. Yeah, I think when they showed if you were to build one house there, it would not have fit. So kudos to the team for doing a good job and especially giving the parking underneath. I think that's an important addition for the neighborhood to kind of keep some extra cars off the streets. So nicely done.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mark that or Mary, would you like to chime in?
[Mary Lee]: Well, I agree with what everyone says so far, and I am kind of familiar with that neighborhood and I think it will be a beautiful addition to that Sturgis street.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks Mary.
[Yvette Velez]: I concur everything. Ditto.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thanks. Yeah, I just want to add a couple more points. Just that the looks like a very attractive design. So nice nicely job with the design. And then also, thank you for being proactive and meeting with the neighbors. That's always much appreciated. All right, so, uh, is there a motion to. Approve a use variance that would allow 2 principal. Uh, dwelling units on this lot, and I believe we have 2 conditions 1 offered by the. The city engineer that for replacing the lead pipe at 60 Sturgis and then the second one, which I'll add an offer, which is to to have some landscape screening between the neighbors property.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_05]: If you'd like to add. that condition, just because it was discussed with two separate neighbors, just to speak against myself here, but in the back as well as that side, would be the intent because we had spoken to both neighbors, but only one spoke tonight. So we want the other gentleman to feel like he was precluded.
[Andre Leroux]: I appreciate that. All right, so landscape screening on the rear end side of the property. Thank you. Would someone make that motion? Motion to approve. Sure. Thank you, Chris. Is there a second? Thanks, Mark. And roll call vote. Mark?
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Chris? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. The variance is approved for Sturgis Street. Appreciate it. Good luck. And Dennis, is there anything you want to mention to them about next steps? You're muted still.
[Denis MacDougall]: Keep doing that. Yes. So I mean, as we sort of had mentioned earlier, a spectacularly similar case was just before us. So I'm going to literally take that decision and use that as my template. And so the turnaround should be relatively quick. So basically, but in this instance, what I still end up doing is I'll write it up, I'll send it off for a legal counsel to review, they return it to us, and then it goes out for signatures. Once we have the signatures, it gets filed in the city clerk's office. At that point, it starts 20 days appeals period. At the end of that 20 days appeals period, there have been no appeals. Let me know and I will print out a letter and you basically take that letter with the decision filed at the registry and you can bring it back and get your permit. I know that was a lot there, but I'll walk you through it when we get there. But basically the gist of it is we've been kind of doing pretty good in turnaround and I would say you should probably get the building permit within just a little over a month from now.
[Andre Leroux]: Excellent. Thank you, Dennis. Yep. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate your diligence on this matter. And best of luck. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dennis, what's the next item on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: 583 Riverside Avenue. Applicant Maria Delomba to change from one non-conforming use real estate office to another non-conforming use aesthetic spot at 583 Riverside Avenue requiring a special permit.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Do we have the applicant here?
[SPEAKER_02]: Good evening.
[Andre Leroux]: Can you guys hear me? Sorry, you have to wait so long. Thank you for your patience.
[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, no worries. I want to say good evening, Mr. chairman and all the members of the board. I've learned a lot today listening to what you guys are deciding on today. I'm seeking a special permit to change from 1 non confirming use, which was a previous real estate office into another non confirming space. an aesthetic spot at 583 Riverside Avenue in Medford. The property is currently used as a commercial space and it has other businesses already operating out of there. There is a corner unit that's been empty for several months and I was looking to sign a lease and I'm just going in front of you guys to get the special permit. The spa will be Velour Aesthetics and we will be doing facials and it will be a space where Medford residents and the surrounding neighborhood can come to feel refreshed and relaxed. We also plan on giving back to the Medford community by holding some complimentary classes monthly to discuss health and wellness and skin care. The aesthetic, we will see patients 1 at a time because it's. A 1 person shot, so they will be booked out and so that won't affect the traffic because they will be booked out. ahead of time and we will only be seeing one person at a time about every hour and it will be regular business hours that are already in place with the other businesses that are occupying the space at this time. So there will be minimal impact to the traffic and there will be no structural changes to the building. We will just update the space with Paint and furnishings and maybe a new floor. We'll be making no changes to the plumbing. There'll be no changes. To the existing commercial storefront. The proposed aesthetics will have little. Impact to the environment, there'll be no demolition, no new construction. And. It will complement the other businesses that are already in the space.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Um. Commissioner 40, is there any are any particular considerations we should be thinking about given this the change of use in your opinion?
[Bill Forte]: No, it sounds like a use of similar in nature. The number of stops really would be, you know, the parking out on the street. I mean, it's obviously there's no parking as part of this, am I correct? There's no assigned parking?
[SPEAKER_02]: When I visited the space, there's parking in front of there. There was, but just street parking.
[Bill Forte]: Right, so just on street parking, yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I mean, the only thing that impacts one non conforming use to the other is usually the amount of foot traffic or the amount of visits per hour. And it doesn't seem to me like if anything, this would be less, less trips per hour. So no, there's nothing here from from an enforcement standpoint that raises any concern. Right. Thank you, Commissioner 40.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I'll just share, let me just share the street view here so people can see. So, I assume that this is the. The 1 that you're talking about, right?
[Robin Stein]: Correct.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so it's part of this little Plaza right here. That already has some commercial uses and this is. Uh, you know, Riverside have this is the end. Uh, away from the. Kind of the stop and shop. Area so further the other the other side from the stop and shop from Medford squares. All right, um. Let's open the public comment period. Is there anybody who would like to speak on this matter? I don't see any members of the public, so let's. Do we did Dennis, did we get any, uh, any written comments?
[Denis MacDougall]: We did not.
[Mary Lee]: No.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Uh, is there a motion to close the public comment period?
[Mary Lee]: Motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mary. Is there a second? Thanks, Mark. A roll call vote. Mark. Hi, Yvette.
[Unidentified]: Hi.
[Andre Leroux]: Chris, hi, Mary. Hi, I'm an eye as well. So the public comment period is closed for this hearing and we enter deliberations board members. What are your thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: I welcome new business. Yeah. Sorry, I would say it's a great location for. For this additional business, and it sounds like it's a quick move in and ideal timing and. Nothing, but a benefit for the neighborhood.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. Yeah, I will note that we did something pretty similar if you remember a while ago with a small Middle Eastern cafe that actually was adding a takeout window. That was a lot more traffic than this. So it's not something we've seen recently. Yeah, it is something we've seen recently.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, totally all for it. Makes total sense.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, yeah, Chris or Mary.
[Mary Lee]: I agree with everybody.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I don't know why we wouldn't allow it.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Do we have a motion to approve the change of nonconforming use to the aesthetic spa?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to approve.
[Andre Leroux]: Is there a 2nd? I'll take Chris. Sorry, Mark. Roll call vote. Mark. Aye. Yvette. Aye. Chris. Aye. Mary. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So 5-0. The use variance is or the, yeah, the use change is approved.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sorry. You have to wait so long. The advantage is that we're all tired by this time and we want to go really quick.
[Denis MacDougall]: Same sort of thing as I sort of just mentioned. So I'll just write. And again, like the same one, I already have a decision pre like one done that I can just sort of substitute stuff in and get it out much. I'll get it out to legal counsel next week. And then, you know, again, it should be, if you don't go and get your permit to do this and a little over a month. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you for investing in a business in Medford.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. You guys have a good evening.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. You too. Take care. Good luck.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Dennis, next item on the agenda.
[Denis MacDougall]: Next item would be the approval of the meeting minutes from the August meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: I've been around all day today, so I'm wondering if we could just postpone those to... We can do that.
[Denis MacDougall]: And again, thanks, Kyla, for doing them.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you, Kyla.
[Denis MacDougall]: And thanks in advance for doing these ones.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, is that it? Anything else?
[Denis MacDougall]: Otherwise, that's it.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, great. Thanks everybody for hanging in there. Sorry for working through all these difficult state changes that we never asked for, but there's some good stuff, but we got to figure out how to apply it so that we don't change all of the zoning in Medford.
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, that's exactly it. I just wanted to talk about this all night, so. Oh, come on, yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Endlessly fascinating. I love this stuff. Great. I mean, it is very interesting. It's complicated, but it is interesting. And I wonder how, you know, it'd be nice if there were some more guidelines, I think, from the state around how to apply it so that all communities are doing the same thing.
[Denis MacDougall]: Right.
[Andre Leroux]: It's going to take a while to work out all the stuff, you know, too much.
[Denis MacDougall]: But I was talking to someone who was actually before us earlier and he was coming in to pick up the decision. And he had a case in front of Drake and Drake had basically just told him we're not doing case. We're continuing everything. We're just not because I said, yeah, because of the changes in the state. We're just putting a whole. or at least one month just to make sure, you know, so.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I was gonna say, I mean, you can't do that too long. I mean, we've already continued. No, no, exactly. We're ahead of them. Yeah.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Can I ask one thing though? Just like getting legal opinions, vis-a-vis KP law, are we able to keep using them? Like, you know, and how is it gonna work?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, it's part of our, the city has a contract with them and part of this literally is one of the items that is in there. So we have them for legal counsel and advice. So we can just go to them and it's part of, I mean, it's sort of standard sort of thing. It's not like an extra that we're adding on by asking them questions. It's part of the agreement that we have signed with them to get help on zoning board matters and such.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, this should be training coming up for, you know, some of these organizations. You have, obviously, the Association of Bar and you have a lot of planning. I'm sure that there are planning groups like Metro, you know, Metro South and some of the other old colony planning and so forth that are probably having, you know, seminars on this. And I would say just keep your ears out. That would be something that the city would pay for to you all, for you all to go and get some education on, you know. And there's plenty of, if you just AI it, I mean, there'll be several different drafts there that kind of give you just a quick rundown on some of the, you know, just some of the cursory information that you need to know as a zoning board, you know, but it's not that complicated. It actually gives you a little bit more freedom to issue, you know, to issue variances on a lighter note. It expands non-conforming uses from two years to four years. Zoning orders are now going to be valid for two years with the ability to extend it for another two years. There's some rules in there that you probably need to know. But also time when they say they got to go in front of planning after they've come to the ZBA. that time is told. So anytime that they spend going through planning, it actually stops the clock and then it recontinues on through. Another thing would be if something was going to be zoned out or something was going to be taken out of the zoning ordinance and that person applies for a variance under that old statute, then their application is valid. Let's call it zoning freeze. So, you know, there's some small fundamentals, but it's really nothing complicated. It just, it gives you more freedom to make choices and a better, you know, not a stringent requirement for the standards for variants, you know, so.
[Andre Leroux]: I'll give you know, I think, I mean, the biggest surprise really is just how the, I think the state is interpreting the law by saying that I think most people expected that the law meant that if you had a single family house, you could add an, but. this is a much broader interpretation, which I think is surprising because it's basically allowing multifamily. Yeah.
[Bill Forte]: I mean, the law is pretty clear. It says, you know, it's allowed in multifamily zones and, um, you know, I, this, they're still working out some of the regulations. Like I don't necessarily agree with Robin on, um, the square footage thing. I think that one principal dwelling, is one floor space dedicated to a unit. Again, a lot of this stuff needs to be tested in the courts and I'm sure that there'll be challenges, but we created a pretty restrictive zoning ordinance in Brockton and I'm actually, I've got changes proposed to the city council that align it better with the state regs because they created some instances where the ZBA actually has jurisdiction on buildings that are less than the 15 and 30 foot side and rear setbacks on existing buildings. You know, so I had to get that corrected. And there was some other corrections that also had to be made to put it in line with the statute.
[Chris D'Aveta]: So, you know, yeah, I was I was going to raise that exact point built, which is, I think we need clarification on the square footage is otherwise you're going to just be getting 900 square foot. ADUs everywhere, and I agree with you. I don't think that's actually a correct interpretation.
[Bill Forte]: I mapped out some pretty specific language in there for things like, you know, that parking gets deducted, that if you have a common hallway that's outside the ADU, that that doesn't count against the square footage. Things like you can't have habitable height space if you have a detached ADU and you want to create storage space underneath it's got to be under six foot eight, because you're more than that you can have a, you could have a finished space down there so there's, we're still working a lot of this stuff out and that and I think a majority of the people get it somewhat right then you know it's as good as you know the freight the state has this really great genius for throwing things out there that don't work, like the energy code, you know, very, very difficult. You know, this wouldn't be the first time that we've had regulations thrown in our face and just said that go figure it out, you know, your problem, not ours, you know.
[Andre Leroux]: Dennis, if you could give attorney Stein just a heads up that we would like to have her at the next meeting. That would be great. I will, I plan to communicate with her in the meantime. And so Kyla, can I ask a favor from you? Would you be able to take a look at the notes from this meeting and the conversation around the 80 years and maybe kind of can you send me like a bulleted. piece, because there are some questions I think we want to make sure we ask Attorney Stein and that she's ready to answer.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I can definitely do that. I can pull together a couple of summaries of the conversation and a couple of the main points of the ADU and the continuations from Vassar and Wesley and pull that together. Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. Do you know when you would need that by or just in the next couple of weeks?
[Andre Leroux]: In the next couple of weeks, I think is fine. OK.
[SPEAKER_01]: Cool. Yeah. Awesome.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thanks.
[Mary Lee]: I still would I just want to make 1 call. I still would like some guidance on that. The legitimate municipal interest what that would be, because every municipality has their own individual interest, even though we may have some common interests among all the municipalities, but in terms of making the decisions, I really prefer if we have that guideline will be helpful. You know, it will be probably less likely for anyone to appeal these decisions if we based on these certain guidelines that's directed by the city.
[Bill Forte]: You know, if you just a suggestion as a board, if you could request that you have just a separate zoom meeting with just the board, you know, call it as a quorum. and open it up to the public and just let them view it. And maybe have Robin give you a half an hour dissertation on some of the standards with maybe a small slideshow. That might be something that the board could really use. And then you'll have a training on just the basics.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. All right. Is there a motion to adjourn?
[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_15]: Motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you mark a 2nd. 2nd, thanks Mary roll call vote. Mark. Hi. That I Chris. Hi, Mary. Hi, I'm an eye as well. So we are adjourned. Thanks everybody for your patience.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you all much. We'll get some dinner.
[Unidentified]: All right. Bye now.