[00:00:01]
UH, WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE CAMBRIDGE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL.
MY NAME IS STEVEN ING, AND I'M THE CHAIR PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO OF THE ACTS OF 2023, ADOPTED BY MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO USE REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL.
THIS MEETING IS BEING VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDED AND IS BROADCAST ON CABLE TELEVISION CHANNEL 22 WITHIN CAMBRIDGE.
THERE WILL ALSO BE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
ALL BOARD MEMBERS, APPLICANTS, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL STATE THEIR NAME BEFORE SPEAKING.
ALL VOTES WILL BE TAKEN BY ROLL CALL.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE KEPT ON MUTE UNTIL IT IS TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT TIME.
AND YOU CAN ALSO FIND INSTRUCTIONS ON THE CITY'S WEBPAGE FOR REMOTE BZA MEETINGS.
GENERALLY, YOU'LL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I'LL ASK, I'LL START BY ASKING STAFF TO TAKE BOARD MEMBERS' ATTENDANCE FOR OUR 6:00 PM CONTINUANCES AGENDA ITEM, AND VERIFY THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE AUDIBLE.
VIRGINIA KEESLER, VIRGINIA KEESLER.
PRESENT, UH, STEVEN A AND STEPHEN ENG, PRESENT.
UH, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, UM, ON CONTINUED CASES.
AGENDA CASE NUMBER BZA 2 7 3 1 4 8, UH, 47 GRANITE STREET, UH, OWNERS, LUKE AND JUDY MITCHELL, SEEKING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION REQUEST, UH, WITH, BASED ON AN ORIGINAL HEARING DATE OF 7 25 20 24.
AND DECISION FILED SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2024.
LUKE AND JUDY, YOU ON, ON THE CALL? NO.
UM, SO LET'S, WE, IN THE FILE, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM, UM, UH, PAULA KIKI'S, UH, RE TO OLIVIA REGARDING, OR MARIA REGARDING THE REQUEST.
UM, AND JUST SEEKING, UM, SCOPE CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED.
SO THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET THROUGH, UH, THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
AND, UM, I THINK THEY'RE JUST NEARING THAT EXPIRATION TIME.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING, UH, PROVI, UH, PROVIDING AN EXTENSION.
UH, I MOVED TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2024, UH, OF THE DECISION FOR APPROVAL TO, AND IT'S WHAT, SIX MONTHS TO MARCH 30TH, 2027.
AND A VOICE VOTE BY THE BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE.
COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN, DANIEL? OH, SORRY, DANIEL.
SO THE MOTION TO EXTEND PASSES AND, UH, WE'LL, YOU'LL, OTHER, YOU, YOU'LL NOTIFY THE, THE APPELL APPELLANT.
UM, I BELIEVE THE AGENDA WAS JUST SIX O'CLOCK FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
SO NEXT ITEM UP ON OUR, UH, CONTINUED CASES, UH, IT WAS, UM, A UN THE PRESENTATION WAS NOT HEARD AT THE LAST, UH, MEETING, AND IT'S CONTINUED TO THIS EVENING, WHICH IS, UH, 1 27 MOUNT AUBURN STREET.
UM, PETITIONER 17 STORY LLC IN CARE OF PATRICK W. BARRETT.
I THIRD, UH, AND DESCRIPTION, UH, THE PROPO PROJECT 1 27 MOUNT AUBURN 17TH.
[00:05:01]
A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM CHC.HOWEVER, WE HAVE PROPOSED TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK, UM, TO FOUR FEET ON MOUNT AUBURN AND STORY STREET, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO INCREASE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND MOVE BUILDING AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THEY ALSO PROPOSED TO INCREASE THE COMMERCIAL SIDE SETBACK ON THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD FLOOR OF THE BUILDING TO NORMALIZE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ALLOWED HOTEL USE IN THE BUILDING, IN INCREASING BUILDING EFFICIENCY AND ADDING ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE SEEKING, UM, UH, CITING ARTICLE 5.0, UH, 5.31 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND ALSO, UH, SECTION 10.30, UH, SEEKING A VARIANCE.
MR. BARRETT, ARE YOU OF ON ONLINE, MR. CHAIR? I'M HERE.
UM, UH, A COUPLE THINGS OF NOTE.
WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO MOVE THE BUILDING.
I CAN'T, PARTICIPANT HAS REQUESTED CAPTIONS TO BE ENABLED FOR THIS WEBINAR.
I CAN'T, UH, OLIVIA CAN, CAN IT, IT'S NOT ASKING ME.
YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET RID OF THAT.
BUT I'M, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU.
OKAY, I'LL, I'LL CONTINUE WITH THIS LITTLE SCREEN SCREENING.
UM, WE, UM, WE'RE COMING TO YOU, UM, WITH A PROJECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING A GREAT DEAL OF TIME ON.
AND, UM, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE, UM, THE VARIANCE TO MOVE THE BUILDING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK.
AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET SORT OF A MAXIMUM, UM, UH, RESULT IN TERMS OF, UH, I THINK RIGHT NOW WE'RE SHOWING AT 5.6 FEET FROM MOUNT AUBURN STREET, AND WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO 0.2 OR ZERO ON STORY STREET, UM, WITH THE INTENT OF MOVING THE ENTIRE BUILDING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THE, UM, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO NORMAL, WHAT I, WHAT I REFER TO AS NORMALIZING THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK BECAUSE IT IS THE H PLUS L, UM, FORMULAIC SETBACK THAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED, UM, IN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW, A VERY SIGNIFICANT CANTILEVER OVER RESIDENTIAL FLOORS.
SO OUR SOLUTION WAS TO BUILD THE RESIDENTIAL AROUND THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK.
UM, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU, WHOEVER DID THAT.
UM, UH, BUT, UM, WHICH WE SPENT, UH, A FEW MONTHS WITH THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
WE DID GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND IN THOSE MEETINGS, UM, WHICH THERE WERE SEVERAL WITH NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, STAKEHOLDERS, UM, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ZONING ALLOWED FOR A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE.
NOW, THIS LOT IS A FIVE-SIDED CORNER LOT, UM, AND, UM, IT HAS A LOT GOING ON WITH IT.
UM, IT ALSO HAS A VERY SMALL SLIVER OF C ONE IN THE BACK, WHICH OUR PROPERTY IS NOT TOUCHING.
UM, OUR, OUR, OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NOT TOUCHING.
UM, AND WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE SORT OF A VIABLE, VIABLE PROJECT ON THE SITE.
UM, IT DOES ALLOW FOR HOTEL USE, UM, WHICH IS UNUSUAL, UM, BECAUSE IT'S FIF MORE THAN 50% WITHIN THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY.
ALL THOSE THINGS PUT TOGETHER.
WE CAME UP WITH THIS PLAN AND, UM, AS PART OF OUR APPROVAL PROCESS, I DID, YOU KNOW, PROMISE THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS CHARLIE SULLIVAN THAT I WOULD WORK WITH CDD TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO INCREASE THE SETBACK AND BACK, UM, AND TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE PRESSURE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SORT OF BEING SQUISHED ON THE LOT BECAUSE WE HAVE A HARRIET JACOB'S HOUSE, UM, AND THAT WE HAVE TO PRESERVE AND TO IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING LANDMARKED.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE THIS VIABLE PROJECT BEHIND IT AND CONNECT IT AND RESTORE THIS CORNER.
UM, UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF JULY, I HAD NO REAL SOLUTION FOR THIS.
I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH CDD AND I, I HAVE A, ANOTHER CORNER LOT CASE THIS EVENING THAT ALSO DEALS WITH SOME SIMILAR ISSUES, BUT CORNER LOTS DO NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE CONTEXTUAL SETBACK.
A C TWO ZONE IS ALSO NOT A ZONE WHERE THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING WAS TRULY IMPLEMENTED IN TERMS OF CONTEMPLATING MIXED USE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SETBACKS FOR, UH, TWO DIFFERENT USE CATEGORIES.
UM, BUT THEN AS YOU GUYS WELL KNOW, UM, THE STATE LEGISLATURES CHANGED THE,
[00:10:01]
UM, WHAT IT MEANS TO GET A VARIANCE.UM, I PROVIDED A MEMO TO THE BOARD, SORT OF OUTLINED WHAT I THOUGHT WERE SOME OF THE MORE PERTINENT ISSUES.
I THINK IN THE OLD STANDARD I WOULD'VE BROUGHT, UH, MAYBE A FURLONG, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF SALEM TYPE CASE CITING, UH, SITE SAFETY FEATURES.
UM, I THINK THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF, UM, LARGER ISSUES THAT ARE BEING ADDRESSED BY MOVING THE BUILDING FORWARD, NOT JUST TO THE BENEFIT OF THE NEIGHBORS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL HONEY LOCUST TREES THAT ARE ABOUT 50 TO 60 FEET IN HEIGHT BEHIND THE LOT.
THERE'S ALSO A TWO, UH, INEXPLICABLY TALL 80 FOOT PINE TREES BEHIND THE LOT AS WELL, THAT IN THE PREVIOUS DESIGN, THE ONE THAT'S BEEN GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WE WOULD BE ABOUT FIVE FEET TO SIX FEET AWAY FROM EIGHT FEET AWAY.
A LOT OF THE CASES THAT ARE BEING, YOU KNOW, SORT OF CAUSING SOME AITA AMONGST THE NEIGHBORS AND, UH, RESIDENTS IN CAMBRIDGE DEALING WITH, UM, VERY TIGHT SETBACKS IS BECAUSE OF THIS FIVE FOOT, UH, REQUIREMENT.
WE ARE, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT, UH, IN A DIFFERENT SCENARIO WHERE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THE BUILDING FURTHER AWAY, ALLEVIATING THE PRESSURE ON THE TREES, ALLEVIATING, UM, THE PRESSURE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE DO MEET, I, I WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT WE MET THE OLD STANDARD, BUT I THINK WE MEET, I CERTAINLY THINK WE MEET THE BALANCING TEST OF THE NEW PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDARD.
AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SORT OF, UH, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEING IN, WE ARE A CORNER LOT FIVE-SIDED.
WE HAVE, UH, THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE THAT WE HAVE TO PRESERVE AND TO MAINTAIN AND RESTORE, UM, WHICH IS REALLY PUSHING THE PROPERTY FURTHER INTO THE LOT AREA.
HAD THE TERRY SAUCE NOT BEEN PRESENT ON THIS LOT, WE WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE IN THE POSITION THAT WE ARE.
AND FURTHER WE DO HAVE, UM, AND THE REASON WHY I ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP FURLONG IS BECAUSE WE HAVE, WE DO HAVE, HAVE A PLAN THAT WE ARE ZONING COMPLIANT.
AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO MOVE THE BUILDING, UM, IN A WAY THAT I THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED FOR THIS NEW VARIANT STANDARD TO WORK TO ALLOW THE BZA TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE PUBLIC REALM.
I ALSO INCLUDED IN, UM, UH, I, I SENT IT TO MARIA LATE 'CAUSE WE TOOK A LONG TIME TO RUN TO THEM SOME SHOTS OF, UM, STORY STREET, UH, WHICH I CAN BRING UP ON MY SCREEN TO SHOW, TO SHOW FOLKS IF, UH, IF, IF IT'S NECESSARY.
'CAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN RAISED ABOUT PUBLIC REALM.
UM, BUT WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT THIS IS A, A MUCH BETTER RESULT, NOT ONLY FOR THE NEIGHBORS, BUT UM, FOR THE PUBLIC REALM THAT IS FACING IN THE BACK OF THE AREA.
STORY STREET IS A NARROW WIDTH STREET.
IT HAS A NARROW SIDEWALK ABOUT FIVE FEET.
UM, NOT AUBURN'S A LITTLE BIT MORE BLESSED, BUT IT IS ALSO SOMEWHAT TIGHT.
AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURES GO TO ABOUT ZERO RIGHT NOW.
UM, 1 27 MOUNT AUBURN HAS A STAIRWELL THAT TOUCHES THE SIDEWALK, UH, VERY SIMILAR TO HOW WE IMAGINE THE HARRY JACOBS WILL LOOK, UH, WHEN IT'S MOVED TO THAT LOT SITE FURTHER DOWN.
UM, THE, UM, STORY STREET RESIDENCE HAS A SERVICE STRANGE UNDERGROUND VESTIBULE THAT TOUCHES THE STREET.
THERE'S A STAIRWELL GOING DOWN, BUT IT'S SOME NICE BIG SORT OF HOLE AT, AT, AT THE, AT THE STREET CORNER.
AND OUR PLAN IS TO MOVE THE BUILDING ON THE STORY STREET SIDE TO AS CLOSE TO ZERO AS WE CAN TO INCREASE THE SETBACK, UM, ON THE HILLIARD STREET LINE TO ABOUT 13 FEET 0.8 INCHES.
UM, AND ON THE MOUNT AUBURN STREET, WE ARE STILL CONSTRAINED BY THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE, BUT, UM, WE'RE WORKING WITH HISTORICAL RIGHT NOW TO SEE HOW WE CAN ADJUST THE HARRIET JACOBS BUILDING TO MAYBE INCH A LITTLE BIT, UH, FURTHER AWAY, UH, CLOSER ACTUALLY.
AND, UM, AND WORKING WITH THEM TO, UM, ADJUST SOME A DA COMPLIANCY REGULATION ISSUES.
AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE, AND I DO APOLOGIZE, THIS IS GONNA UNUSUAL.
UM, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH SOME SIGNIFICANT PROCESS, UM, AND WE STILL HAVE A WAYS TO GO, BUT I CAN'T FULLY DESIGN THE BUILDING WITHOUT KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN BUILDING INTO THE SETBACK.
UM, WITHOUT THAT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, IT REALLY BECOMES, UM, NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO DESIGN THE BUILDING.
UM, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, FOR THE REASONS I'VE ALREADY STATED, THAT WE DO MEET THE STANDARD AND I'M HAPPY TO, UM, POP UP ON THE SCREEN IF THAT'S HELPS VISUALLY TO SORT OF GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THE STORY STREET SIDE IN MOUNT AUBURN.
UM, I WASN'T SURE HOW MUCH THE MATERIALS, THE BOARD HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS QUITE A BIT AND I DIDN'T WANT TO EXTEND THE MEETING, YOU KNOW, INTO EXTRA DAYS BECAUSE WE HAVE, I THINK IT'S A 60 PAGE PRESENTATION FOR THE HISTORICAL PIECE ALONE.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT IN A NUTSHELL, ENCAPSULATES WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT SHEET THAT I'VE PROVIDED YOU IS SORT OF THE PROPO, THE, THE, THE APPROVED SETBACK AND
[00:15:01]
THE PROPOSED SETBACK.AND THERE'S, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A HOST OF REASONING WHY, UM, THANK YOU OLIVIA.
UM, THAT SHOWS YOU, UH, THAT'S A NEW RENDERING.
THAT'S PART OF OUR, UH, TRYING TO ADDRESS THE, UM, THE NEEDS OF, UH, THE PLANNING OR THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAD LOOKED AT THIS.
AND THEY WERE ASKING, UH, FOR SOME SHOTS ON, UH, STORY STREET, THIS IS HOW WE IMAGINED THE BUILDING WOULD SET.
UM, AND THIS SORT OF GIVES YOU A, UM, BETTER, UH, SORT OF VANTAGE POINT.
OLIVIA, DO YOU HAVE THE ONE THAT'S THE, UM, YES.
UH, THE ONE THE, THAT GIVES YOU EXISTING, IT SHOWS YOU WHAT THE STREET CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE, UM, AND HOW WE IMAGINE THE BUILDING SITTING ON STORY STREET, WHICH IS SORT OF THE BIGGEST CONCERN RAISED BY, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH THEM THE OTHER DAY.
IT ALSO SHOWS THE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS ALSO AT A ZERO LOT LINE.
THE WHOLE STREET REALLY IS AT ZERO.
UM, AND WHILE IT IS A TIGHT CONDITION, UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT AS YOU GO FURTHER DOWN, UM, INTO OUR DEVELOPMENT, IT DOES BREAK.
AND NOT ONLY DOES THIS MOVEMENT ALLOW US TO MOVE THE BUILDING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENCES, IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO LOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED HOTEL.
WE WERE AT SIX STORIES BEFORE, NOW WE'RE AT THREE.
WE'RE FULLY BEHIND THE HARRIET JACOBS BUILDING.
WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY MORE KEYS TO THE HOTEL.
WE DON'T GET MORE HOTEL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WE'RE ACTUALLY CONSTRAINED BY FAR, BUT WE DO GET EFFICIENCY IN THE BUILDING THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE.
SO THAT ALLOWS FOR THE EXPANSION OF, UM, MORE RESIDENTIAL USES.
THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS BUILT IN HARVARD SQUARE THAT COMES WITH, THAT ACTUALLY WILL HAVE INCLUSIONARY UNITS.
IT MAY BE THE FIRST INCLUSIONARY PROJECT IN HARVARD SQUARE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT SHOULD CARRY A LITTLE BIT OF WEIGHT IN TERMS OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC GOOD.
UM, NOT TO MENTION THE HARRY JACOBS HOUSE, BUT WE REALLY ARE THE, THIS, THIS WHOLE PLAN REALLY CAME ABOUT TOWARDS THE END OF THE SUMMER.
UM, AND MY CLIENT WAS SORT OF GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO ALLOW ME TO ATTEMPT THIS BECAUSE I THOUGHT WITH THE NEW STANDARD IT SEEMED MUCH MORE CLEAR TO ME HOW WE COULD MEET THAT STANDARD.
UM, I DO THINK IN THE OLD STANDARD, WE STILL DO MEET THE STANDARD, BUT AGAIN, UM, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DIFFICULT CLIMB WITH A ZONING COMPLIANT PROJECT.
OLIVIA, DO YOU HAVE THE, THE, I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS IS, IS WORKING, BUT DO YOU WANT ME TO PULL UP MY SLIDE FOR THE PRESENTATION AND I CAN SHOW THE SETBACK? OR IS THAT NOT, NOT SURE.
I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH MY ENTIRE PRESENTATION 'CAUSE I THINK WE WOULD ALL FALL ASLEEP.
UM, BUT I WILL GET TO THE SORT OF THE, THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
SO THIS IS THE EXISTING SETBACKS AS APPROVED AND ZONING COMPLIANT.
UM, AND THIS IS THE POSITION OF THE BUILDING, UM, WITH THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE SEEING, UM, TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, THE, UH, CAN YOU SEE MY CURSOR? YES.
UM, SO THE TREES THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ARE HERE, HERE, HERE AND HERE.
UM, IN THE PREVIOUS CONDITION WE'RE, YOU KNOW, PRETTY TIGHT AGAINST THAT SIDE.
WE ALSO HAD SOME BALCONIES, UM, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF THIS.
BUT BY ALLOWING US TO GO UP WITH THE COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST THREE FLOORS, WE ELIMINATE ALL BALCONIES ON THAT SIDE.
THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT UNTIL YOU GET TO THE FOURTH FLOOR.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THE FULL 13.8 AT THAT BACK LOCATION.
YOU ALSO GET, UM, AN ADDITIONAL, UH, INCREASE SETBACK ON THE MOUNT AUBURN SIDE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR US NOW TO LOCATE OUR TRANSFORMER ON THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND CREATE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE ALL BEHIND HERE, WHICH WILL ADD PRIVACY FOR BOTH RESIDENCES AND THE HOTEL.
UM, THE HOTEL, THE LOWER FLOORS DOES NOT HAVE OPERABLE WINDOWS.
UM, IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCENARIO AND I THINK, UH, IN TERMS OF PROGRAMMING THE BUILDING A MUCH BETTER PROGRAM FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND FOR, UM, THE, MY, MY CLIENT, UM, AND ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE TREATMENT AT THE HARRY JACOBS HOUSE ITSELF, UM, GETS CONSIDERABLY BETTER WHEN WE MOVE THE BUILDING THIS WAY.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE EXTREMELY TIGHT.
THERE'S A, UM, THERE'S RAMPING SYSTEMS THAT WE HAVE TO USE TO GET TO THE APPROPRIATE GRADE.
WE MOVE THE BUILDING MORE LIKE SLIDING AROUND THE LOT, AND
[00:20:01]
NOW WE HAVE A NORMALIZED COURTYARD.THE HARRY CHICO'S HOUSE IS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE CURB.
WE HAVE A NICE SPACE HERE TO PROGRAM WITH GREENERY AND FOR, UM, UH, FOR OUTDOOR SEATING PERHAPS.
BUT, UM, I THINK THIS IS A MUCH BETTER PROGRAM THAT THE ZONING JUST DOESN'T ALLOW FOR AT THIS MOMENT.
IT ALSO POINT OUT THAT AS OF TWO DAYS AGO AT THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING DISCUSSION, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE CONTEMPLATING AS PART OF THE LARGER GROUP OF CHANGES, UM, TO AT LEAST ALLOW FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, A SUM OF APPROACH THAT WOULD GET US TO, UM, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A, A RELIEF PROCESS.
UM, WE'RE COMING BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I JUST, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH BECAUSE THIS AFFECTS EVERYTHING, UH, IN TERMS OF HOW THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED, INCLUDING ZONING AND GREEN FACTOR, UM, UH, AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE BUIL, OTHER, OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE DESIGN THAT WE'D OTHERWISE HAVE AN ANSWER FOR.
BUT FOR THIS ISSUE, UM, I'M, I THINK I'M GONNA LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE I THINK, I DON'T WANNA MAKE IT UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED IN WHAT OUR ASK IS, BUT I DO, I AM HAPPY TO GET INTO THE NEW STANDARD.
I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN REALLY ANYTHING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT AND, UM, I'LL LEAD AT THAT.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? THIS IS DANIEL YAGO.
CAN I, CAN I JUST ASK, UM, I, I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE NOT EVERYTHING IS SETTLED, SO, SO THAT'S FINE.
BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE SOME, SOME OF THE NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE APPLICATION, JUST IN TERMS OF LIKE THE NUMBER OF U HOUSING UNITS AND, UH, CONTEMPLATED FOR, FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO A NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, UM, AN ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL PRESENTATION TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WHO DOESN'T REALLY, THEIR JURISDICTION IS NOT IN, IN INSIDE THE BUILDING.
UM, THIS NEW CONFIGURATION WOULD ALLOW US TO GET TO ABOUT 60.
I WAS WONDERING, YOU MENTIONED AT SOME POINT THAT, AND I, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE HOW, HOW RELEVANT THIS WILL END UP BEING TO WHAT WE'RE EVALUATING HERE TODAY, BUT I WANTED TO ASK ANYWAY, UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL SPACE WOULD NOT BE COMING ABOVE THE HOTEL.
IS THAT ACCURATE? IT LOOKED LIKE SOME OF THE RENDERINGS MIGHT HAVE IT BE TALLER THAN THE RESIDENTIAL SPACE IS ABOVE THE HOTEL.
SO THE, THE, WE WANNA PUT THE HOTEL ON THE FIRST THREE FLOORS, UM, WITHIN MM-HMM
WE CONSIDER THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH INCLUDES THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK.
AND WE WANT TO BUILD, SO THE HOTEL, THE HOTEL WILL BE THREE FLOORS.
THE RESIDENTIAL FLOORS WILL BE FOUR THROUGH EIGHT.
SO PER, PERHAPS, PERHAPS THERE'S A DISCONNECT.
SO IS THE, UM, IS THE HISTORIC HOME SHORTER THAN THE, THE YES, THE BUILDING.
THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE ITSELF IS NOT GOING TO BE A RESIDENTIAL USE PART OF, UM, THE CHARGE OF THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
THIS IS AN OLD OLDER RENDERING, BY THE WAY, THIS IS THE APPROVED HISTORIC PIECE.
UM, PART OF THE CHARGE IN THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WAS TO MAKE THE HARRY JACOBS A PUBLIC USE.
UM, THERE ARE NOT MANY OPTIONS WITH THAT.
SO WE THOUGHT THAT THE HARRY JACOBS HAS, AS THE ENTRY POINT TO THE HOTEL MIGHT BE THE BEST SOLUTION.
WE'RE PUTTING HOTEL ROOMS WITHIN THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE, BUT THAT ALSO CREATES A DIFFICULTY FOR US, WHICH IS WHY I MENTIONED FURLONG.
UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A WOOD FRAME BUILDING NEXT TO A STEEL BUILDING, I GOTTA KEEP 10 FEET AWAY FROM IT IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY WINDOW PENETRATIONS AROUND IT.
SO, UM, THE HARRY JA, I CAN'T CLOSE UP THE WINDOWS, THE HARRY JACOBS SAUCE, THAT'D BE WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE.
UM, AND WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO HAVE A BUILDING THAT ON THE THIRD FLOOR OR FOURTH FLOOR REGISTERS AS JUST BEING A FLAT WALL.
UM, SO OUR SOLUTION WAS, OUR SOLUTION REQUIRES TO KEEP THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, BUT THE HARRY JACOBS HOUSE WILL BE ROOMS ON THE SECOND AND, UH, THIRD FLOOR, UH, CONNECTING TO THE BACK OF THE HOTEL FOR A DA COMPLIANCE.
I THINK I JUST MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE SAYING HERE, 'CAUSE THAT, THAT COMPLETELY MAKES SENSE.
SO HOW MANY, HOW MANY, UH, KEYS ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THIS PROJECT FOR THE HOTEL? THE ORIGINAL WAS 67.
65 HOTEL AND THEN 60 RESIDENTIAL UNITS? YES, SIR.
AND ARE THE RESIDENTIAL AND HOTELS COMBINED IN TERMS OF ACCESS AND SO ON? I I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE FLOOR
[00:25:01]
PLANS TO SHOW US? WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A FLOOR PLAN.UM, WE HAVE OUR, UM, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, WE DID CONTEMPLATE A SEPARATE ENTRY POINT FOR THE RESIDENCES AND FOR THE HOTEL, THE HARRY JACOBS HOUSE, BECAUSE OF THE GRADE THAT IT'S AT IS GONNA REQUIRE RAMPING, UM, WE ARE LOOKING AT AN ENTRY POINT AT THIS LOCATION FOR THE RESIDENCES.
AND AT THIS POINT FOR THE HOTEL, UM, THAT WILL NOT BE MUCH ALTERED IN NEW DESIGN.
THEY WILL BE SEPARATED IN TERMS OF ENTRY POINTS.
UM, BUT WITH THE MOVEMENT OF THE BUILDING TO THE NEW LOCA TO THE NEW LOCATION, THAT DOES CHANGE A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF HOW WE'LL EX EXACTLY ADDRESS THAT.
UM, IT DOES GET A LITTLE BIT, UM, SEE YOU'RE SHOWING QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS HERE.
I, AND I'M NOT GONNA APPROVE ANYTHING WITHOUT KNOWING WE'VE GOT SOMETHING LOCKED IN THAT WE'RE, WE KNOW IS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
SO IF THERE'S ANY AMBIGUITY THAT'S GONNA CAUSE PROBLEMS, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF.
SO IF YOU HAVE COMMON ENTRANCE FOR THE HOTEL AND THE RESIDENCE, SO THEY BOTH COME IN, THEY ACCESS THE ELEVATOR TOGETHER, GUESTS AND, AND PERMANENT RESIDENCE, IS IT CONDOS OR RENTAL? UH, CONDOS.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S KIND OF A STANDARD, UH, LUXURY HOTEL SET UP WHERE YOU'VE GOT, UH, CONDOMINIUMS, THEY GET SERVED BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR AND, UH, AND THEN GUESTS CAN COME AND STAY IN THE HOTEL SECTION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, I GUESS SOME OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ALSO REGARDING THE SITE PLAN.
UM, FOR A COMMERCIAL HOSPITALITY PROJECT THIS SIZE, I, I JUST DON'T SEE ANY SERVICE OR PLACE FOR A DUMPSTER.
I THOUGHT MAYBE THAT ALLEY ONTO OFF OF MOUNT AUBURN WAS WHERE YOUR, BUT YOU HAVE A TRANSFORMER COMING IN ON THAT SIDE.
SO LOADING AND TRASH ARE SERVED ON STORY STREET.
IS THERE LIKE A, I I'M LOOK, TRYING TO FIND A FLOOR PLAN HERE.
CAN YOU SHOW US, WHICH, TELL US WHICH DOCUMENT TO LOOK AT.
UM, WE HAVE THE FLOOR PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED AS PART OF THE HISTORICAL PRESENTATION.
UM, THEN INCLUDE, UM, UM, ON SLIDE ON THE SLIDE THAT I'M SHOWING NOW, LOCATION FOR LOADING AND FOR TRASH.
SO IF WE'RE COMBINING IT, IT'S ESSENTIALLY KIND OF A, THE RESIDENCES AND THE HOTELS ARE COMBINED AND BEING SERVED BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR.
CAN YOU, ARE YOU CLASSIFYING THE RESIDENTIAL ABOVE AS, AS RESIDENTIAL UNITS, OR IS THAT BASICALLY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL? NO, THEY, THEY'RE RE THEY'LL BE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THEY'LL HAVE NO, UH, CONNECTION WITH THE HOTEL OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE IN THE SAME BUILDING.
THEY WON'T BE OPERATED BY THE SAME OPERATOR.
IT WON'T BE MANAGED BY THE SAME COMPANY.
UM, THEY'LL BE FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP.
THEY WILL NOT BE PART OF THE HOTEL PROGRAMMING AT ALL.
THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THEM BE STANDALONE, TO SELL THE CONDOS AND, UH, TO HAVE A HOTEL OPERATOR, PREFERABLY A LOCAL ONE TO OPERATE THE SMALL SORT OF BOUTIQUE HOTEL OPERATION.
THIS IS WENDY LEISER AND I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND UM, AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO LIKE THE CONFUSION OF WHICH PLAN AND THE DETAIL LEVEL OF THE PLAN, UM, HERE.
SO IN LOOKING AT THE, UM, WHAT WAS PRESENTED, UH, OVER A YEAR AGO NOW TO THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
UM, SO IN THAT PROJECT NARRATIVE, IT SAYS THAT THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE WILL SERVE AS THE HOTEL LOBBY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THAT'S GOING TO CONNECT TO A SMALL CAFE? CORRECT.
AND THEN WILL THAT HOUSE, UH, BE CONNECTED TO THE FIRST THREE
[00:30:01]
STORIES OF THE NEW BUILDING? CORRECT, YES.AND SO, UM, I ASSUME THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE PROVIDING A SEPARATE ENTRANCE TO THE RESIDENCES, THEY COULD CONCEIVABLY WALK IN OFF OF MOUNT AUBURN THROUGH THE HOTEL AND UP TO THEIR RESIDENCES.
CORRECT? THEY COULD WALK IN THE HOTEL TO THE LOBBY.
UM, THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COURTYARD TO GO THROUGH A SEPARATE DOOR TO GET TO THEIR ELEVATOR, TO GO TO THE RESIDENCES.
SO THEY CAN'T, IF YOU'RE ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE HOTEL, YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE RESIDENCES, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT, CORRECT.
SO, UM, THEN I ALSO WANTED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE DIMENSIONS, UM, BECAUSE, UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW WE GRANT A VARIANCE WHEN WE'RE UNCERTAIN WHAT DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS APPLY.
AND SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO GET SOME, HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UM, YEAH, PART OF THE, PART OF THE ISSUE THAT I'M, THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH THAT WE PRESENTED THE, UM, THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WITH A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWED, UM, THE DIMENSIONAL ELEMENTS, WHICH IS PART OF OUR SUBMISSION, UM, FOR THE HOTEL AS BUILT.
UM, WHICH BECAUSE IT'S A FIVE SIDED LOT, THE H PLUS FIVE H PLUS L PLUS FIVE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS TUCKS THE BUILDING IN VARYING, VARYING DIRECTIONS AND VARYING FEET ON THE MOUNT AUBURN SIDE.
UM, WHICH WOULD BE THIS, THIS SIDE, IT WAS ABOUT 34 FEET.
UM, I'M SORRY, WHICH SIDE? UM, I CALL, I'M CALLING IT THE MOUNT AUBURN SIDE, BUT IT'S THE SIDE THAT ABUTS MOUNT AUBURN.
UM, UM, THIS SIDE WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT 34 FEET.
THIS, THE HILLIARD STREET WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT, UH, 24 TO 26 FEET.
SORRY IF I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS BY HEART PROBABLY, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YEAH.
MYSELF AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE FALLING.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT ON THE MOUNT AUBURN SIDE, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S 34 FEET? CORRECT.
BUT THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK, WHEN YOU SAY COMMERCIAL SETBACK, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY COMMERCIAL SETBACK? 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE.
WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING WAS PASSED, THEY ALTERED THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES, BUT THEY DID NOT DO THE SAME FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
THAT ALSO ALLOWED FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
SO THE COMMERCIAL, THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK REMAINS THE FORMULAIC SETBACK WHILE THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK WAS PUSHED TO FIVE FEET.
WELL, SO THE, SO RESIDENTIAL, SO WHERE, WHICH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK? THE, THE, UM, SO ONE TO THE LEFT OF THE HOTEL FACING MOUNT AUBURN STREET, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT.
THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE BIT ON THE CONFUSING SIDE.
SO I'LL SHOW THE HOTEL AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, THE MOUNT AUBURN STREET GAVE US A 34 SET FOOT SETBACK FROM THIS POINT TO THIS POINT.
THE HILLIARD STREET REQUIREMENT, GIVEN THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE HOTEL WAS AT SIX STORIES AND, UM, SLIGHTLY CHANGED IN WIDTH, WAS ABOUT 26 FEET FROM THIS LOCATION TO THIS LOCATION.
ON THE, UM, STORY STREET ELEVATION, THE SETBACK WAS REQUIRED TO BE ABOUT ANOTHER, UH, 26 TO 28 FEET, DEPENDING ON HOW WE, HOW WE LOOKED AT THE FLOORS.
BUT THE IDEA WAS THAT THIS, THIS RED ZONE REPRESENTED WHERE THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK REQUIRED THE HOTEL TO BE BUILT IF IT WAS TO BE BUILT STANDALONE.
THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING, WHICH ARE RESIDENTIAL, ARE ALLOWED TO GO TO THIS FIVE FOOT, FIVE FOOT SETBACK IN 10 FEET ON, ON THE CORNER IN THE FRONT.
WE INCREASED THE BACK STEP BACK ON THE HILLIARD SIDE BY THREE FEET DURING OUR PRESENTATION TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AS SORT OF A NOD TO THE NEIGHBORS ON HILLIARD STREET WHO HAD A REAL ISSUE WITH THIS BUILDING BEING BUILT.
UM, AND WE WERE TRYING TO GIVE THEM SOME MORE SPACE AND SORT OF AN INDICATOR OF THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD TRY TO LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS TO GIVE THEM MORE SPACE.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE TO NEIGHBORS THAT, UM, IS PART OF THE NEW AND OLD STANDARD
UM, BUT, UH, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GETTING TO THAT SETBACK DIMENSION.
UM, PUTTING ASIDE FOR A SECOND, WHAT YOU'RE CALLING COMMERCIAL VERSUS NOT COMMERCIAL, UH, SETBACKS, UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME QUESTION IN THE FILE ABOUT WHAT THE PERMISSIBLE HEIGHT IS FOR THIS BUILDING.
YEAH, SO THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL HEIGHT, UM, CAME FROM A NEIGHBOR ON THE HILLIARD STREET SIDE.
[00:35:01]
THERE'S TWO HEIGHT DIFFERENTIALS FOR THE HARVARD SQUIRREL LINE, THERE'S A 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS WHY THE HOTEL, WE SHOWED IT BEING SIX FLOORS AND THERE'S A, THERE WAS AN 80 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR RESIDENTIAL THAT GOT CHANGED IN 2025 TO 85 FEET, WHICH IS WHAT THE ALLOWABLE C TWO ZONE IS.UM, SO THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT IS 85 FEET, THE COMMERCIAL HEIGHT IS 60 FEET.
UM, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IN OUR NEW PLAN IS THE HOTEL BEING ON THE FIRST THREE FLOORS AND THE RESIDENTIAL GOING UP THE REMAINDER OF THE HEIGHT.
UM, THE HEIGHT IN CERTAIN IN THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY CAN BE AUGMENTED BY SPECIAL PERMIT.
UM, BUT IT ONLY ALLOWS FOR THE COMMERCIAL TO GO TO 80 FEET.
AND THEN THERE'S THE DIFFERENTIAL AND THE PIPE.
WE, WE HAD NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT BECAUSE WE ARE ALSO CONSTRAINED BY FAR ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE TO 1.75.
SO I'M GONNA STOP YOU FOR JUST ONE SECOND.
SO, UM, SO THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY YEAH.
IN SECTION OR ARTICLE 20, SECTION 54.2 DISCUSSES BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY.
AND IT SAYS THAT THE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 60, BUT THEN THERE'S OF COURSE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO DISCUSS
UM, AND IT SAYS, UM, YOU KNOW THAT IF THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT HAS A MORE RESTRICTIVE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SHALL APPLY, RIGHT? WHERE THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT ESTABLISHES A MORE PERMISSIVE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR RESIDENCES, THEN THE MORE PERMISSIVE SHALL APPLY.
SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT BECAUSE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL USE IN THIS BUILDING, YOU'RE SAYING THE MORE PERMISSIVE OF THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT SHOULD APPLY TO THE HEIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE TWO APPLICATIONS OF HEIGHT IN THIS BUILDING THAT THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS LIMITED TO 60 FEET, AND THAT THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS LIMITED TO 85 FEET.
AND THAT IF WE WERE THE, A MIXED USE BUILDING, WE WOULD TAKE THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT OR THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE AS THE LIMITATION AND THE COMMERCIAL HEIGHT AS THE LIMITATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL PIECE.
BUT IF IT'S A MIXED USE BUILDING, THEN IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE COMMERCIAL HEIGHT RESTRICT LIMITATIONS IN A BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
I BELIEVE THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY OVERRIDES THAT.
UM, SO WHAT HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY IS SAYING IS, I READ IT ANYWAY.
I AM OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION HERE AS I READ IT, IS THAT THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY DISTRICT SETS THE HEIGHT LIMIT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF BUILDINGS IN THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS GOVERNED BY SECTION 20 54 2 SECTION 2054.
TWO NUMBER ONE SAYS AS OF RIGHT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ANY BUILDING SHALL BE 60 FEET.
NOW IF YOU GO BACK TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE, IT THEN GOES ON TO SAY WHERE YOU HAVE A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.
IF THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT ESTABLISHES A MORE RESTRICTIVE HEIGHT LIMITATION, THAT APPLIES.
SO IF THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT ESTABLISHES A MORE RESTRICTIVE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, WHICH MEANS THAT IT WOULD BE LESS THAN 60 FEET TO BE, BE MORE RESTRICTIVE, THEN THAT WOULD APPLY WHERE THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT ESTABLISHES A MORE PERMISSIVE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR RESIDENCES AS LISTED IN SECTION 4.31 A THROUGH J.
THE MORE PERMISSIVE SHALL APPLY.
HOWEVER, WHEN YOU HAVE A MIXED USE BUILDING, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USE HEIGHT LIMITATION.
SO YOU DO NOT QUALIFY FOR A MORE PERMISSIVE HEIGHT LIMITATION.
SO THAT MEANS THAT THE HEIGHT LIMITATION IN HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS 60 FEET, UNLESS YOU GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH TWO OF THAT SECTION, I HAD BEEN OVER THIS WITH ISD SEVERAL TIMES, UM, AS WELL AS WITH THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN GO TO 85 B FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE AND WE WERE LIMITED ON THE COMMERCIAL PIECE.
IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE ARE NOW SUBJECT TO A 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION, THEN WE DON'T NEED A VARIANCE TO MOVE THE BUILDING AT ALL.
WE CAN ELIMINATE THE HOTEL USE, BE AN ALL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND GO TO 85 FEET.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WELL, UM, I CAN'T SPECULATE ON WHAT'S NOT BEFORE ME RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE READING OF THE OTHER, THE ALTERNATIVE READING THAT YOU SUGGEST WOULD MAKE THE SUBPARAGRAPH TWO
[00:40:01]
BE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHICH SUB.SO IF YOU, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ARTICLE 20 YEP.
54.2 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY DISTRICT, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE TWO PARAGRAPHS, ONE NUMBERED ONE AND ONE NUMBERED TWO.
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH SAYS THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
IT SAYS IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT TO 80 FEET, YOU NEED A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN MAKE SENSE OF THAT PARAGRAPH IN THIS SECTION.
IF YOU'RE SAYING AS OF RIGHT, YOU GET TO GO BEYOND 60 FEET, THAT DOESN'T, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH STATES THAT WHERE THE BASES ZONING DISTRICT ESTABLISH THE MORE PERMISSIVE HEIGHT RESIDENCES ELICIT A THROUGH J, THE MORE PERMISSIVE SHALL APPLY.
BUT YOU HAVE A MIXED USE BUILDING.
YOU DON'T HAVE A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
WHEN YOU PROVIDE A DIM FORM FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, YOU PROVIDE THE BASE HEIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AND FOR THE BASE HEIGHT FOR THE COMMERCIAL, IT'S TREATED AS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, ACTUALLY HISTORICALLY HISTORIC.
HISTORICALLY, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MEASURED FOR THAT, UM, SETBACK EQUATION THAT I GAVE YOU THAT THEY NEVER LOOK AT THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
THEY USE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO DETERMINE THAT FORMULA AIC SETBACK.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN RECONCILE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE THIS BUILDING NOW IS MIXED USE, WHICH I DON'T SEE, I, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T SEE THAT THEY'RE SAYING NOW BECAUSE OF THAT MIXED USE THAT THAT DIFFERENT USE IN THAT BUILDING THAT NOW THE BUILDING CAN'T ACHIEVE THE RE THE HEIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IT CLEARLY SAYS IT CAN.
WELL, I THINK PERHAPS WE'LL PUT THIS ON THE TABLE IF WE NEED TO REFER THIS TO THE CITY'S LAW DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW, WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION ALSO TO ARTICLE 5 23 0.3 SUBPARAGRAPH C IN TERMS OF HOW MIXED USE BUILDINGS AND HEIGHT, UH, CALCULATIONS ARE DONE.
BUT I THINK I'M GONNA TABLE THAT NOW BECAUSE, UM, THIS MAY NEED THE CITY SOLICITOR WEIGH IN.
DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WENDY? UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANY OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS YEP.
BEFORE I, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I JUST YEP.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT I AGREE WITH WENDY'S INTERPRETATION AND I THINK IF WE HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO CONTINUE, UM, UNTIL THE BOARD CAN GET MORE INFORMATION FROM THE CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE.
I DO HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VARIANCE STANDARD, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO HOLD THAT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE IT.
I DEFER TO THE CHAIR ON THIS MATTER.
DO YOU WANNA TAKE A READING OF THE BOARD'S POSITION? UH, YEAH, WE CAN CHECK WITH THE BOARD HERE.
UM, WHAT'S, UH, THE FAVOR OF THE GROUP? DO WE WANNA JUST CONTINUE WITH THE DISCUSSION AND THEN, UH, ESSENTIALLY I THINK WE WOULD REQUIRE A CONTINUOUS CONTINUANCE TO SEEK OUT, UH, GUIDANCE FROM, UH, CITY COUNCIL, BUT WE COULD ALSO HEAR FROM ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE, SO THAT OF COURSE, WE WOULD KNOW HOW TO WEIGH THE BENEFITS AS REQUIRED.
UH, I THINK I'VE ALREADY MADE MY POSITION CLEAR, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, BUT THEN ALSO CONTINUE THE HEARING AS IT RELATES TO OUR QUESTIONS SUBJECT TO GETTING CITY SOLICITOR'S INPUT.
UM, THIS, I MEAN, I, THIS IS DANIEL D**O.
I'M, I MEAN, I'M FINE CONTINUING, BUT I'M A LITTLE PUZZLED AT WHY, LIKE, I, I WOULD ASSUME THIS WOULD'VE BEEN FLAGGED EARLIER BY ISD OR SURE.
UM, SO THAT'S JUST, I'M INTERESTED IN THAT.
UM, ONE QUESTION I IS, I MEAN, WE CAN HEAR THE PUBLIC THOUGH, IF THE CALL CHANGES.
CAN I, CAN I, CAN I PLEASE JUST WEIGH IN ON THIS? YEAH.
ON THIS SIDE ISSUE REAL QUICKLY, BECAUSE
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I'LL PARAPHRASE SOME OF IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IN A MIXED USE BUILDING CONTAINING BOTH RESIDENTIAL, UH, AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL USES MAY EXCEED THE NON-RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT LIMITATION.
SO, BUT NOT EXCEED THE, THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT LIMIT.
SO IN A MIXED USE BUILDING, THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT IS ALLOWED TO GO ABOVE THE COMMERCIAL HEIGHT.
THAT IS WHAT A MIXED USE BUILDING IS.
[00:45:02]
SO IT IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY CAP IS 60 FEET FOR COMMERCIAL USES.THE BUILDING DOESN'T BECOME MAGICALLY COMMERCIAL.
THE COMMERCIAL SECTION OF THE BUILDING IS COMMERCIAL, AND THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION OF THE BUILDING IS DEALT WITH A RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT LIMITATION, WHICH IS 85 FEET.
WE'LL HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE PENDING INPUT FROM THE CITY SOLICITOR.
FOR NOW, I'M PREPARED TO BE WRONG, BUT I WANT THE CITY SOLICITOR TO BE THE DECIDER.
I WAS GONNA SAY, THIS IS VIRGINIA.
I THINK, WENDY, IF YOU DO HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD GET ALL OUR QUESTIONS OUT NOW SO THAT THERE'S NOT LIKE ANOTHER THRESHOLD QUESTION THAT COMES UP IN THE NEXT MEETING AND WE'RE CONTINUING IT AGAIN.
UM, I DID HAVE A QUESTION, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS NOW, WE NOW HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THREE SUBMISSIONS FROM DIFFERENT WELL-KNOWN ATTORNEYS IN THE LOCAL AREA ABOUT HOW TO CONSTRUE THE NEW VARIANT STANDARD, AND THEY'RE NOT ALL THE SAME.
UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT, OR TO HEAR FEEDBACK ABOUT HOW WE'RE APPLYING THIS NEW VARIANCE STANDARD.
THE WAY I READ YOUR MEMO, WHICH I THANK YOU FOR, UM, ON YOUR SECOND PAGE OF YOUR SUBMISSION, THAT'S, UM, THE HEADER SAYS, FROM YOUR LAW OFFICE SAYS 70 17 STORY STREET VARIANCE, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY MEMORANDUM, AND IT SHOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC FILES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO LOOK.
BUT ON THE SECOND PAGE, YOU'VE CITED THE NEW 40 A SECTION 10, AND THEN YOU GO ON TO SAY BELOW THAT, UM, STRUCTURALLY, UM, THE REWRITTEN STATUTE IMPOSES ONE MANDATORY FINDING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND ONE MANDATORY BALANCING TEST.
AND YOU CITE THE LANGUAGE FROM THE SECTION, AND THEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FOUR ENUMERATED FACTORS THAT ARE OPTIONAL.
BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW TO INTERPRET THE NEW STANDARD DIFFERS FROM BOTH OF THE OTHER ATTORNEY'S ARGUMENT.
AND IN THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 10, THE NEW LANGUAGE IT SAYS IN MAKING ITS DETERMINATION, THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT WOULD RESULT IN A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, THE PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY ENGAGES IN THIS WEIGHING, UM, BALANCING TEST THAT YOU'VE ENUMERATE AND THEN SAYS, WE MAY ALSO CONSIDER THESE FOUR ADDITIONAL FACTORS.
BUT, UM, WHEN YOU DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, UM, AND I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS NOT NEW LAWS OFTEN HAVE DIFFERENT READS.
THIS IS WHY THEY USUALLY END UP IN COURT CASES FOR US TO BE TOLD HOW TO READ THEM
SO IT'S, UH, NO REFLECTION ON, YOU KNOW, UM, HOW YOU'VE TRIED TO HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY CANNOT BE DEFINED BY THE IMPACT OF APPLYING THE STRICT, THE, THE ZONING LAW OR THE BUILDING CODE OR THE A DA LAWS OR THE FIRE CODES.
THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BASED ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE SAYS THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF WEIGHING THE BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING THE INTEREST IN SUPPORTING THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND AS PART OF THIS, I'M THINKING WE MAY ALSO CONSIDER THESE FOUR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THERE.
SO I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT BECAUSE, UM, AS I SAID, ALL THREE VERY WELL QUALIFIED ATTORNEYS HAVE PRESENTED A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT READ OF THE STANDARD.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO HELP US NAVIGATE THAT? SO THIS IS WHY I MENTIONED, UM, FURLONG AT THE ONSET OF MY, UM, PRESENTATION.
UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHERE THE BALANCING TEST LIES IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SAFETY IS ALSO INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT.
UM, THE, UM, THE, THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING IS CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN THIS PROJECT.
[00:50:01]
I SEE THIS STANDARD AS BEING SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE BZA HAS BEEN DOING FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND IT'S NOW JUST SIMPLY BEEN CODIFIED.UM, THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE, UM, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE, THE, THE LANGUAGE OF A SPECIAL PERMIT AS WELL AS THE VARIANCE.
UM, BUT IT GIVES YOU THE ABILITY AND, AND GREAT WIDE LATITUDE TO LOOK AT THE NET BENEFITS OF WHAT THE VARIANCE WILL GRANT ME AS THE APPENS ARE, UH, MY CLIENT, AND AS WELL AS WHAT BENEFITS GIVEN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I CITE, UH, FIRE CODE, UM, THAT I CITE.
UM, I THINK FIRE CODE WAS THE BIG ONE AS WELL AS SOME EFFICIENCIES GRANT IN THE BUILDING LOOKING TO CONNECT THOSE ISSUES OF FIRE SAFETY AS BEING CERTAINLY SOMETHING IN THAT'S OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
UM, THAT, UM, THE DIFFICULTY OF DESIGNING A BUILDING THAT HAS MIXED USES ON EVERY FLOOR VERSUS MIXED USES ON STACKING FLOORS, WHICH IS JUST A PRACTICAL AND MORE PRACTICAL AND BETTER WAY TO BUILD A BUILDING THAT THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE ITSELF PRESENTS A CHALLENGE ON THIS LOT THAT DOESN'T EXIST ON ANY OTHER LOT, UM, IN THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED, WHICH IS TRADITIONALLY HISTORICAL PROPERTIES HAVE NOT BEEN SOMETHING YOU CAN LEVER A, A VARIANCE OR, UH, VARIANCE ON AT LEAST.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY WE, WE'VE, WE'VE TRIED, I THINK THE, THE STANDARD AS I SEE IT, UM, LOOKS AT THESE THINGS HOLISTICALLY.
UM, SO I INCLUDED, UM, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE CODE, WHICH YOU DON'T NORMALLY CONSIDER TO BE PART OF YOUR CALCULUS IN DETERMINING A VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE ACTUALLY IS CASE LAW THAT LOOKS AT SAFETY IN PARTICULAR AS BEING TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I GO BACK TO FURLONG, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE YOU HAD A 25 CIED LOT AND THE VARIANCE ALLOWED FOR A BETTER CONDITION FOR THE PUBLIC, THE BETTER CONDITION FOR THE PUBLIC, I'M CI AS WELL, IS THE MOVEMENT AWAY FROM VERY LARGE, DEEPLY ROOTED TREES.
THE MORE WE CAN PRESERVE THOSE ROOT STRUCTURES, THE BETTER OFF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S GOING TO BE AND THE PUBLIC REALMS GOING TO BE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STANDARD AS I, I DID GET THE, UM, THE TRAINING THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SOLICITOR GAVE EVERYONE, UM, THAT THAT BALANCING TEST CAN LOOK AT THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES AND THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO, TO WEIGH WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A BETTER DEVELOPMENT SCHEME WITH A VARIANCE THAN IT WOULD BE WITHOUT.
UM, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT WE CAN BUILD AND WELL, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DISAGREE ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF 5.2, 3.3 C, BUT WE HAVE A BUILDING WE CAN BUILD THAT THAT'S EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE LOT LINE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IS IN ANYONE'S BEST INTEREST THAT WE BUILD IT THIS WAY.
AND FOR ALL THE REASONS I CITED IN MY MEMO, I THINK THAT THAT GIVES YOU AT LEAST A ROADMAP TO SEEING HOW WE DO MEET THE STANDARD.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THE, UM, IT IS CUT AND DRY AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE OTHER ATTORNEYS DRAFTED FOR YOU, BUT I DO THINK THAT HOW WE'VE PRESENTED THIS, WE DO MEET THE STANDARD, IT'S NOT JUST THE FIRE CODE AS IT RELATES TO US, IT'S THE FIRE CODE AS RELATES TO OUR, ALL THOSE AROUND US.
IT'S NOT JUST THE PROXY, IT'S NOT JUST THE TREE ROOT SYSTEM ITSELF, IT'S HOW WE ARE ABLE TO DESIGN THE BUILDING IN A WAY THAT'S SAFER FOR THOSE ABUTTERS AS WELL AS, UM, PRESERVING TREES FOR THE PUBLIC REALM.
SO I DON'T, I JUST, I, I, I SEE THESE THINGS AS ALL BEING INTERCONNECTED, AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU'RE PRECLUDED FROM LOOKING AT ANY OF THESE THINGS, UM, BASED ON HOW THE STANDARD IS WRITTEN.
UM, I, I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I THINK, I THINK WHAT I AM, SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT, I THINK IS THAT, UM, IN YOUR MEMO, YOU START BY DEC DECIDE DETERMINING WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND THEN GOING INTO THE BALANCING TEST.
AND I THINK MY, MY UNDERSTANDING OR WHAT I SAW IN SOME OTHER VARIATIONS
SO IN OTHER WORDS, FIRST IDENTIFY WHAT'S THE BENEFIT TO YOU? THE BENEFIT TO YOU, YOU SAID IS, YOU KNOW, YOU GAVE US A NUMBER OF THINGS, AND THEN YOU IDENTIFY THE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AGAIN, YOU'VE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF THINGS, AND YOU ALSO IDENTIFY THE DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH'S WAY OF WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOWEVER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS DEFINED.
AND THEN AT THE END OF THAT, YOU MAY ALSO ASK THESE FOUR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
AND BY GOING THROUGH THAT ANALYTIC PROCESS, THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
YOU DON'T START BY SAYING THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
[00:55:01]
UM, YOU KNOW, UM, OR THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING.THE, THE WORD MAY IS, IS OPERABLE THERE.
SO I DON'T THINK THE, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THOSE THINGS, THEN IT WOULD BE PART OF THIS, UM, DETERMINATION OF WHAT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? Y'ALL ALL SET, WENDY? FOR NOW,
UM, IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, I'LL MOVE TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND I THINK, AND I PROPOSE, UM, THAT AFTER WE HEAR BACK FROM THE PUBLIC, WE'LL ALSO SUMMARIZE, UH, ANY WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE THAT, UH, WE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE, UH, SO THAT WE SEEK OUT, UH, GUIDANCE AND INTERPRETATION FROM, UH, TOWN CITY COUNCIL.
SO WE'LL HOLD OFF ON, UM, BOARD DELIBERATION ON THE CITY SOLICITOR.
UH, SO, UH, CHECKING, UM, OPENING UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK SHOULD NOW CLICK THE ICON AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR ZOOM SCREEN THAT SAYS RAISE HAND.
IF YOU'RE CALLING IN BY PHONE, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND BY PRESSING STAR NINE AND UNMUTE OR MUTE BY PRESSING STAR SIX.
I'LL NOW ASK STAFF TO UNMUTE THE SPEAKERS ONE AT A TIME.
YOU SHOULD BEGIN BY SAYING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT WE CAN HEAR YOU.
AFTER THAT, WE WILL HAVE UP, YOU'LL HAVE TO UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK BEFORE I ASK YOU TO WRAP UP.
UM, I LIVE AT FIVE FULLER PLACE, WHICH IS NEAR, UM, UH, IT'S, IT'S RIGHT, RIGHT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT OFF OF HILLIARD.
AND I'M ALSO PRESIDENT OF THE HARVARD SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND BY PROFESSION, AN ART AND ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN WHO ALSO DOES WRITING ON CITIES.
UM, THE HARVARD SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS DECIDED TO OPPOSE THE CURRENT PLAN FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, AND I WANT TO ADDRESS IT HERE.
I'VE BEEN AT MANY OF THESE MEETINGS.
ORIGINALLY THIS WAS PRESENTED TO US AS A LUXURY HOTEL, SOME SOMEWHAT WE WERE HOPING LIKE THE VERITAS HOTEL, UM, FROM THE OUTSET IT WAS KNOWN THROUGH THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION IN OTHER WAYS THAT THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE REALLY MUST BE PRESERVED.
AND WE'VE GOT GREAT EXAMPLES OF THIS KIND OF THING, WHETHER IT'S FROST TERRACE OR IN OTHER, UH, MANNER, JUST THE MOVING OF A HOUSE LIKE THIS WOULD BE A GREAT EXPENSE, AND THEY KNEW THIS GOING INTO IT.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC GOOD, ET CETERA, IS THAT BETWEEN THIS HOUSE AND 1 27 MOUNT AUBURN, WE WILL BE LOSING IN LET'S SAY 1 27 MOUNT AUBURN, ABOUT 35 ROOMS THAT ARE NOW LOCAL BUSINESSES.
UM, BUT THEY COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ANY HISTORICALLY WERE RESIDENCES.
UM, WE COULD THINK ABOUT THE SAME THING WITH THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE, WHICH HISTORICALLY WAS RESIDENCES.
AND NOW, UM, MOST RECENTLY LOCAL BUSINESSES, THERE WERE THREE ON THE, THE SORT OF BASEMENT AREA AS YOU ENTER THROUGH MOUNT AUBURN STREET.
UM, I AND OTHERS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE VERY DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD.
ONE ISSUE THAT, THAT I HADN'T HEARD HERE, BUT I CAME IN LATE TO THE MEETING, IS THAT THERE'S A TROUGH, UM, THAT RUNS DOWN THE BACK OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET OR THE HOMES BEHIND MOUNT OBERG STREET FOR FLOODING.
AND WHAT IS GONNA BE THE IMPACT OF A DEEP CEMENT, UH, WELL, UH, OR WALL RATHER ON THE FLOODING THAT, THAT MAY CAUSE TO THESE AREAS, BOTH TO THE TREES AND TO OTHER CONCERNS.
THE OTHER ISSUE WITH THIS, AND I I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I I SUPPORT HOTELS.
I'M A STRONG PROPONENT OF, OF, UM, BOLD, GREAT NEW DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
BUT ANOTHER MAJOR CONCERN OF MINE IS, AND AND YOU ALLUDED TO THIS, THIS IS A MASSIVE STRUCTURE WITH A LOT OF RESIDENCES AND HOTEL ROOMS, AND IT'S SUPPOSEDLY SEPARATE, BUT WE HAVE ONE PLACE FOR THE, UM, INTERIOR, FOR THE DELIVERY AND THE, THE TAKING OUT OF TRASH, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ON STORY STREET.
THAT'S A VERY NARROW STREET, AND IT'S A CRITICAL STREET FOR ALL OF THE BUSINESSES IN HARVARD SQUARE AND ANYBODY GETTING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
'CAUSE PEOPLE, IT'S A ONE WAY GOING DOWN OFF BRATTLE.
AND IF WE'VE GOT LARGE TRUCKS TRYING TO BACK INTO THAT AREA AND TRYING TO GET OUT, IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S
[01:00:01]
A VERY TIGHT SPACE.AND, AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ROOM IN THAT FOR A SEPARATE SPACE FOR BOTH THE RESIDENCES ON THE ONE HAND AND THE HOTEL ON THE OTHER.
SO I AM DELIGHTED THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE, AND I HOPE THAT THE, UH, AMONG THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING HEIGHT, WILL BE THE QUESTION OF THE LOSS OF THESE OTHER RESIDENCES POTENTIALLY IN LOCAL BUSINESSES, BECAUSE WE REALLY NEED MORE AFFORDABLE, NOT ONLY HOUSING, BUT ALSO MORE AFFORDABLE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO CARRY OUT THEIR BUSINESS IN HARVARD SQUARE.
YEAH, THIS IS ANITA PATTERSON, BUT I'M MY HUSBAND.
ORLANDO PATTERSON IS HERE TOO.
UM, WE'RE ABUTS ONE OF THE FIVE ABUTS.
AND, UM, LET ME SAY FIRST THAT, UM, WE'VE BEEN IN LONG DISCUSSIONS, UM, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPERS OF THIS PROJECT.
AND, UM, UM, WE, WE VOICE OUR SUPPORT FOR THE GRANTING OF, UM, THESE VARIANCES TONIGHT.
AND THIS COMES AT THE END OF, UM, LONG DISCUSSIONS.
LEMME JUST SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I, I'M A STRONG BELIEVER IN, UH, UM, POSITION THAT THE, WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THE PERFECT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.
UM, I THINK, UM, WE'VE, THE, THE, THE FIVE OF US WHO ARE ON THE MA ABUTS OF, UM, FACED WHAT WE THINK IS A NIGHTMARE OF HAVING A BUILDING ONLY FIVE FEET FROM US.
UM, THE DEVELOPERS HAVE, UM, COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL, WHICH BRINGS IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO OVER ALMOST 14 FEET.
AND FOR THAT REASON, WE, UM, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT, UM, GRANTING OF THESE VARIANCES.
UM, WE SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THIS VERSION OF THE PROJECT RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION FROM CHARLIE SULLIVAN AND FROM THE HARVARD SQUARE ADVISORY COUNCIL.
IT'S NOT PERFECT BY ANY MEANS, BUT WE THINK IT'S THE BEST POSSIBLE, UH, COMPROMISE.
UH, AND IT CERTAINLY WILL MAKE LIFE, UM, A LOT BETTER, UM, FOR US IF THIS BUILDING IS THE
MR. AND MRS. PATTERSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHRISTOPHER MACKIN, UH, THIS IS CHRISTOPHER MACKIN.
I AM RESIDENT OF 48 JFK STREET IN CAMBRIDGE, AND A TENANT, UM, AT 17 STORY STREET SINCE 2011.
I'M ALSO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE HARRIET JACOBS LEGACY COMMITTEE, A 5 0 1 C3 NONPROFIT THAT HOPES TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE STORY OF THE ESCAPED SLAVE AND AUTHOR HARRIET JACOBS.
WHEN THIS BUILDING IS BUILT, UH, THE PROJECT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HAS OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM THE CITY.
THAT MEANS IT'S GOING TO PROCEED.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A PLAN CAN GIVE GREATER RELIEF TO THE ABUTTERS.
UM, AND THIS VARIANCE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS HOW THIS CONVERSATION IS, IS CONTAINED OR THIS MEETING IS ABOUT THE VARIANCE.
THIS NOT ABOUT THE PROJECT IN GENERAL, BUT ABOUT THE VARIANCE.
THIS VARIANCE, UH, GIVES THAT RELIEF TO THE ABUTTERS AND ALSO SAVES TREES THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL TREES.
ON THIS, ON THIS SITE, THE HARRIET JACOBS LEGACY COMMITTEE, UM, ADVOCATES FOR A PROJECT THAT INCLUDES PUBLIC ACCESS TO THESE BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BRING PEOPLE IN TO TELL THE HARRIET JACOBS STORY.
A A HOTEL USE ALLOWS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS.
UH, IF THIS WAS JUST A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT WOULD BE MUCH, MUCH MORE LIMITED.
UM, THE AMENDED PLAN, NOT ONLY THE VARIANCE BEFORE YOU NOT ONLY HELPS THE NEIGHBORS, IT STRENGTHENS THE CASE FOR A HOTEL, UH, COMPONENT.
IT APPEARS, IF I AM, HEARD THE DISCUSSION CORRECTLY, THAT THERE'S SOME PERHAPS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION THAT HOPEFULLY COULD BE IRONED OUT ABOUT A MIXED USE PROJECT VERSUS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT.
UH, THIS TO ME SOUNDS LIKE A MIXED USE PROJECT, AND A MIXED USE PROJECT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED.
UH, THIS, IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO HAVE MORE HOUSING IN HARVARD SQUARE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HARVARD SQUARE AND TO
[01:05:01]
HAVE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC BUILDING WHERE PEOPLE CAN LEARN THIS STORY.UH, MY WIFE SUSAN AND I LIVE AT 16 HILLIARD STREET.
SO WE TOO ARE ABUTTERS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WE MOVED HERE IN 1980 AND NEVER LEFT.
AND SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE VERY COMMITTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I, THE MEMBERS RAISE SOME TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHOULD BE 85 FEET OR 60 FEET.
I'LL JUST SAY, AS A NEIGHBOR LIVING IN A THREE STORY BUILDING, UM, WHO UNDER WHATEVER HEIGHT IT IS, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE A LOT OF SUN.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED, VERY FOCUSED ON THE SETBACK BECAUSE, UH, EVEN IF WE COULD PERSUADE YOU THAT THE LIMIT WAS 60 FEET, IT'S STILL VERY, VERY TALL.
AND SO THE SETBACK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US.
AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHAT'S REALLY BEFORE THE BZA TONIGHT IS THE SETBACKS, AND PARTICULARLY THE SETBACK, UH, THE STORY STREET STEPBACK, BECAUSE ONLY BY GRANTING THAT VARIANCE CAN YOU ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO THEN MOVE THE BUILDING FURTHER AWAY FROM US.
UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD A COUPLE OF, OF, UM, I'D LIKE TO QUOTE A COUPLE OF THINGS, UH, REPORTS TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT ON STORY STREET.
I JUST THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION STUDIED THIS IN 1980 AND WROTE THAT QUOTE, STORY STREET IS A TRANSITION POINT FROM THE MIXED USE CHARACTER OF HARVARD SQUARE TO THE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE HALF CROWNED CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH IS HILLIARD STREET.
I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT 17 STORY STREET IS, IS IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AS, AS THE MEMBERS ARE AWARE, WHEN THE CITY ADOPTED THE OVERLAY, IT DESCRIBED IN SECTION 20 POINT 52 OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES WAS THE NEED TO MITIGATE THE FUNCTIONAL IMPACTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
PUTTING THESE TOGETHER, UM, IT MAKES GOOD SENSE TO GRANT A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO PUSH THE HOTEL UP AGAINST STORY STREET BECAUSE BY DOING SO, SHE CAN INCREASE THE SETBACK FROM OUR HILLIARD STREET HOUSES AND ALLOW FOR THAT TRANSITION FROM HARVARD SQUARE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE CITY INTENDED.
SO WE SUPPORT THE PETITION THAT IS BEFORE THE BCA TONIGHT, WHICH IS TO PERMIT THE, UH, VARIANCE TO, UM, UH, UH, TO, TO ZERO OUT THE, UM, THE SETBACK ON, ON, UH, STORY STREET.
AND WE SUGGEST THAT DOING SO WILL CARRY OUT, HELP CARRY OUT THE TWIN OBJECTIVES OF THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND THE OVERLAY.
MY NAME IS NICOLE BRYANT AND I, TOO AM IN A BUTTER THIS TIME AT 18 HILLIARD STREET.
AND I JOIN IN MY NEIGHBORS, UM, TO SUPPORT, UM, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE AS REGARDS THIS SETBACK OF THIS PROJECT.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, MANY OF US HAVE BEEN ON A JOURNEY OVER THE, THESE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE LEARNING, UM, ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
AND, UM, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY TO BE OFFERING OUR SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE.
UM, TONIGHT, UH, I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE, UM, LOOKING AT THIS BUILDING FROM MY KITCHEN, FROM MY DAUGHTER'S BEDROOM.
UM, BUT I WILL ALSO OFFER ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE ALMOST EVERY MORNING YOU CAN FIND ME AT THE CORNER OF MOUNT AUBURN AND STORY STREET WAITING FOR A CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL BUS WITH MY FAMILY.
AND SO I SEE THIS CORNER, UM, IN MY BLURRY, UH, MORNING MOMENTS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST OFFER THAT THE SETBACK THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY MOVING THE BUILDING CLOSER TO STORY STREET IS PRETTY MUCH IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AT THE POST OFFICE WHERE I'M STANDING EVERY MORNING.
IT WOULD SEEM THEN COMPLETELY IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE STREET TO HAVE THIS BUILDING, UM, CLOSER THAT WAY, AND OBVIOUSLY OFFER A LOT OF GREAT RELIEF, UM, ON THE BACKSIDE AS WELL AS GREEN SPACE AND PRESERVATION OF THESE TREES, WHICH ARE SO, SO IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US IN PRESERVING THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I'M HERE TO OFFER MY SUPPORT.
IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO HAVE, UM, THIS PUBLIC SPACE WITH THE HOTEL, THE PUBLIC SPACE WITH THE CAFE THAT IS PLANNED.
AND SELFISHLY AT SEVEN 15 IN THE MORNING, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A LATTE AS I'M OUT THERE WAITING FOR THE YELLOW SCHOOL BUS EVERY MORNING.
[01:10:01]
I LIVE AT 12 HILLIARD STREET, ALSO DIRECTLY BEHIND, UM, THIS SITE.SO I JUST WANTED TO ECHO WHAT MY NEIGHBOR, UH, DON WARE RECENTLY SAID, WHICH IS, I THINK, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAIN ISSUE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS NOT THE QUESTION OF HEIGHT, BUT IT'S ABOUT THE SETBACKS.
AND SO I WANNA FOCUS MY COMMENTS ON THE SETBACKS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENT OF THE HARVARD SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THE ABUTTERS WHO LIVE DIRECTLY NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY SUPPORT THE VARIANCE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED TONIGHT.
UM, BECAUSE WE THINK THIS MEANINGFULLY IMPROVES CONDITIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I ALSO WANNA ECHO MY NEIGHBOR NICOLE BRYAN'S COMMENTS JUST NOW.
BUT AS SOMEONE WHO WALKS PAST ON THIS SITE ALMOST EVERY DAY, I JUST WANNA STRESS THAT A ZERO FOOT SETBACK ON STORY STREET REALLY DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF PUBLIC USE.
MANY OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS ON STORY STREET ALREADY HAVE THESE SAME NON-CONFORMING ZERO FEET SETBACKS.
THE POST OFFICE BUILDING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SITE HAS A ZERO FOOT SETBACK.
AND THE BUS STOP FOR THE 71 AND 73 BUS, THAT GATHERS A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THAT SIDEWALK EVERY DAY.
AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT DOESN'T POSE ANY ISSUE FOR WALKING BY THAT STRETCH OF SIDEWALK.
SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GONNA REALLY IMPOSE A COST ON THE PUBLIC TO PULL THIS BUILDING FORWARD, BUT IS GONNA MEANINGFULLY IMPROVE, PREDICT, UH, CONDITIONS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO LIVE NEXT TO THIS BUILDING.
AND FOR THAT REASON, WE REALLY HOPE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SUPPORT, UM, THIS VARIANCES PETITION.
THANK YOU, MR. NATHAN MARLEY MAYER.
HI, AM MARYLEE MEYER 10 DANA STREET.
UM, I AM A MEMBER OF THE HARBOR SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND ALSO THE HARRIET JACOBS, UH, LEGACY, UH, COMMITTEE.
UM, BUT I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.
I HAVE, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND I'M SURE THAT IF I STRAY OFF THE RESERVATION AS NOT BEING, UM, UH, PERTINENT, UM, I YOU WILL TELL ME.
SO I HAD A, A, A COUPLE OF, UH, UM, QUESTIONS WHAT WAS, UM, FLOATED ABOUT THE HEIGHT, EVEN THOUGH, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETBACK, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER THE HEIGHT IS 80, UH, 80 FEET OR 85 FEET, BECAUSE BOTH HAD FLOAT FLOATED AROUND IN THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT A RESIDENTIAL, UM, UH, PORTION WOULD BE.
AND NUMBER TWO, UM, IF A, IF A HOTEL IS, IS COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL IS, UH, A, A SEPARATE, UH, A SEPARATE, UM, UH, UM, RULES OR WHATEVER, UM, AND THEY, THEY DON'T MATCH.
BUT IF YOU PUT THEM TOGETHER ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER, UM, THAT'S WHERE I GET CONFUSED BECAUSE, UM, WHAT HAS PRIORITY, UM, AND IT SAYS, UM, TECHNICALLY THE RES RESIDENTIAL, THE, THE, THE GREATER, THE GREATER, UH, HEIGHT, UH, WOULD PREVAIL.
BUT, UH, UM, AND I'M GLAD YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAVING, UM, UM, LAW DEPARTMENT LOOK INTO THAT.
AND, UM, JUST A, UM, A SMALLER DESIGN QUESTION, EVEN THOUGH, UM, THAT AGAIN, IT MAY NOT BE YOUR PURVIEW, IS PULLING, PULLING THIS, UM, WHOLE MASS FORWARD TO MOUNT AUBURN AND, UM, STORY STREET, UH, PATRICK, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOUR CAFE? I MEAN, BEFORE YOU HAD, YOU KNOW, A, A A PLAZA OUT FRONT AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
UM, AND SO YOU'RE JUST, YOU'RE JUST PULLING IT, UM, FORWARD AS A, UM, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, SMALL BUSINESS.
UM, AND I STILL HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE WAY THE WINDOWS ARE, UM, JUST, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T FIT WITH THE REST OF THE, UM, THINGS.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW EITHER.
UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT, UM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GIVING THE NEIGHBORS MORE SPACE BEHIND, AND I THINK THAT WOULD, UH, THAT'S GOING TO REALLY WORK WELL.
AND ALSO, UH, PULLING THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE FORWARD ALSO GIVE, ITS MORE, MORE PROMINENCE ON THAT CORNER, SO, UM, IT CAN BE MORE VISIBLE FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT, UM, STREET SCAPES.
UM, THE CHAIR, THIS IS WENDY EREN.
THE CHAIR WAS JUST, UH, ASKING ME JUST TO QUICKLY COMMENT ON THOSE QUESTIONS, ALL OF WHICH I THINK ARE GOOD AND WHICH I SHARE.
UM, THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE 80 FEET VERSUS 85 FEET NUMBER THOUGH, UH, COMES FROM ONE REFERS THE 85 FOOT NUMBER REFERS TO THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT IF IT WAS NOT COVERED BY THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY.
AND THE 80 FOOT, UH, FIGURE COMES FROM THE SECTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT THAT, THAT IS ARTICLE 20.5, 4.2, AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE TWO ENUMERATED PARAGRAPHS IN THAT SECTION.
[01:15:02]
AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, UM, TALKS ABOUT GETTING A SPECIAL APARTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UP TO 80 FEET.UM, AND THEN I ALSO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, HEIGHT IS A VARIABLE THAT IS USED TO CALCULATE THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK.
AND SO THAT IS WHY HEIGHT IS RELEVANT TO A VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE HEIGHT IN ORDER TO COME UP TO WHAT IS THE VER, UH, SETBACK THAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO, UH, GET ZONING RELIEF FROM.
AND I ALSO, UH, JUST WHILE I HAVE THE FLOOR, I GUESS, WOULD SAY THAT MY QUESTIONS ARE MEANT TO HAVE CLARITY ON THE LAW AND ON WHAT WE AS A BOARD CAN DECIDE.
IT'S NOT A COMMENT ON WHETHER I BELIEVE, UM, THE IDEAS PROPOSED ARE GOOD OR BAD.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? UM, MY WIFE CATHERINE, AND I LIVE AT 20 HILLIARD STREET.
AND, UH, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF THIS CONVERSATION.
UM, WE AGREE WITH OUR, WE'RE ONE OF THE, WE'RE THE FIFTH OF THE ABUTTERS, UH, AND WE, UH, WE AGREE WITH WHAT ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID THAT THIS IS RIGHT NOW, UM, UH, UH, THE BEST OF, UH, OF WHAT THE OPTIONS APPEAR TO BE.
UM, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT, UH, IF, IF THE, UM, UH, IF THE, UH, UM, IF THE, UH, BUILDING IS NOT APPROVED AT THIS HEIGHT, THAT THEY WOULD SIMPLY TURN IT INTO A FULLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP IT AT THIS HEIGHT, I DON'T, UM, AND ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE CASE, UH, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY UPSETTING IF, UH, IF THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD FORCED THEM TO CONVERT THIS MIXED USE BUILDING TO A FULLY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SO THAT THEY COULD THEN, UM, BUILD A 85 FOOT BUILDING WITH A FIVE FOOT SET BY WITHOUT NEEDING ANY VARIANCES AT ALL.
THAT WOULD BE THE, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, A WORSE CASE THAN THE CURRENT SITUATION IN WHICH WE STILL HAVE AN 85 FOOT BUILDING.
IT ISN'T CLEAR THAT THE TREES WILL SURVIVE, EVEN IF THE ROOTS AREN'T DAMAGED WITH THE MINIMUM OF SUNLIGHT THAT IT'S GONNA BE REACHED.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT INCREASES THE ODDS AND IT MAKES IT MUCH MORE LIVABLE FOR THERE TO BE GREEN SPACE, 13 AND A HALF, 13, ALMOST 14 FEET OF GREEN SPACE IN BACK OF US INSTEAD OF FIVE FEET.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THIS BOARD IS GONNA MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE GONNA PUSH THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD A FULLY RESIDENTIAL 85 FOOT TOWER, FIVE FEET FROM US, THAT WOULD BE, UH, A PRETTY TERRIBLE OUTCOME.
HEARING, UH, I THINK WE'VE ALLOWED ALL PUBLIC SPEAKING, UM, TO HAVE, UH, THEIR TURN.
UM, SO RUNNING THROUGH, UH, CORRESPONDENCE, UM, WE HAVE AN EMAIL FROM MS. GIL GILSON, UH, AT THE HARVARD SQUARE, UH, BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, UM, IN FAVOR OF SHARING A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE VARI VARIANCE PETITION, UM, CITING, UH, THE RESTORATION OF THE HARRIET JACOBS HOUSE, UM, AND, UH, THE ADDED VIBRANCY OF HAVING A HOTEL IN ANOTHER HOTEL IN HARVARD SQUARE, AS WELL AS, UH, THE ADDITION OF NEW HOUSING.
UM, AND, UH, PROJECT HAS, THE APPLICANT HAS CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, INCLUDING MEETINGS WITH NEIGHBORS AND ABUTTERS, AND HAS WORKED TO INCORPORATE THEIR FEEDBACK.
THE PROJECT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, CONFIRMING THAT ITS DESIGN IS APPROPRIATE FOR ITS HISTORIC SETTING.
UH, FOR THESE REASONS, UH, JILL DENISE, UH, REQUEST THE BOARD TO GRANT, UH, THE VARIANCE.
AND, UH, THANKS FOR CONSIDERATION.
ALSO RECEIVED, UM, UH, A LE A LETTER OR EMAIL FROM NICOLA WILLIAMS, UM, UH, ATTACHING A MEMO FROM THE HARRIET JACOBS LEGACY, UM, AS CITED BY,
[01:20:01]
UH, UH, JUST GOING THROUGH MY NOTES HERE, UM, FROM MR. MACON.UM, THE MEMO CITES, UH, SUPPORT FOR, UH, THE APPLICATION, UM, AND, UH, FROM THE BOARD OF, UH, DIRECTORS, UH, OF THE HARRIET JACOBS LEGACY COMMITTEE.
UM, THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THIS PLAN RESPONSE BOTH TO THE IMPORTANT CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY ABUTTING NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
WE THEREFORE BELIEVE THE REQUEST SHOULD BE GRANTED.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS, THANK YOU FOR SENDING THAT IN, UH, A MEMO FROM THE, UH, PLANNING BOARD TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
UM, IT WAS ISSUED, UH, SEPTEMBER 23RD.
UH, THEY WERE CITING, UH, THEY, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DISCUSSED THE PROPOSAL AND VOTED TO FORWARD THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS, UM, AS EXPLAINED IN THE CDD MEMO, UH, THE PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW, UH, MORE AS A ADVISORY CONSULTATION, UH, WHERE BOARD MEMBERS CAN MAKE, UH, NON-BINDING COMMENTS OF THE DESIGN.
UM, IT HAS NOT CONDUCTED ITS FULL REVIEW AT THIS TIME, BUT I'M SURE THAT'LL GET SCHEDULED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
UM, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS GENERALLY RECOGNIZE THE BENEFIT OF GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF TO MOVE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE FURTHER AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND MATURE TREES, UH, PARTICULARLY ON MOUNT AUBURN STREET.
THIS SHIFT TOWARDS THE EDGE STREET EDGE IS A FAVORABLE TRADE OFF FOR THE OVERALL SITE PLANNING.
UM, BOARD MEMBERS FELT THAT A CLOSER STREET WALL WAS APPROPRIATE FOR ACTIVATING THE HOTEL FRONTAGE ALONG AN ALREADY WIDE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 12 FEET.
UM, THEY DID CONCERN EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS OF THE PROPOSED PROXIMITY OF THE PROJECT TO STORY STREET, GIVEN THE NARROW FIVE FOOT EXISTING SIDEWALK.
UM, BUT THEY, SINCE THEIR REVIEW IS NOT IS, HAS NOT REALLY BEEN COMPLETED, THEY HAVE NOT, UH, PROVIDED A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION, BUT ADVISES THE BCA TO ENSURE THIS CONDITION IS THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED.
UM, WE ALSO RECEIVED A MEMO FROM C UH, C, NO, THAT'S, UH, PART OF THE PLANNING BOARD LETTER.
UM, HARVARD SQUARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATED SEPTEMBER 16TH.
UH, UH, THE, THE HARVARD SQUARE ADVISOR COMMITTEE, UH, VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CURRENT APPLICATION.
UM, LET'S SEE, UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO SUMMARIZE HERE.
UM, THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, UH, FOR 1 27 MOUNT AUBURN STREET, UH, 17 STORY STREET CONDITIONED ON CONTINUED DIALOGUE WITH ABUTTERS FOR IMPROVED DESIGN OUTCOMES.
UM, AND THE VOTE WAS PASSED, UH, FOUR TO ONE VOTE.
UM, FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTAIN ABSTENTION VOTE OF AMONG VOTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
AND WE DID RECEIVE, UH, A LETTER FROM THE HARVARD SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026.
UM, KEY TAKEAWAYS, UH, THEY, THEY COMMENTED, CURRENT APPROVAL RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR.
UM, THEY WOULD LIKE, UH, KIND OF A SYNOPSIS OR HISTORY OF, OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME.
UM, PRES SECOND PRESERVATION AND RELOCATION OF THE HARRIET JACOB HOUSE WAS A KNOWN PROJECT REQUIREMENT, NOT AN UNEXPECTED HARDSHIP.
UM, NUMBER THREE, STORY STREET IS NARROW, AND ONE WAY, UH, THE PROPOSED 250 SQUARE FOOT LOADING AREA SHOULD BE TESTED, UH, FOR TRUCKS MAKING 90 DEGREE TURNS, UH, AND 100% INTERIOR LOADING.
UM, AND, UH, ITEM FOUR, UH, REGARDING THE C ONE C TWO BOUNDARY, UH, QUESTIONING, UM, HEIGHT CALCULATIONS, UH, THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED, UH, CITING THE HARVARD SQUARE OVERLAY MAY ALLOW UP TO 80 FEET BY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL PERMIT.
THE APPLICANT SHOULD SHOW HOW THE BOUNDARY EIGHT LEVEL MIXED USE PLAN AND GRADE CALCULATIONS APPLY.
UH, FIVE ITEM FIVE PROPOSAL MUST DISTINGUISH PERMANENT
[01:25:01]
HOUSING FROM HOTEL AND TRANSIENT USE.UM, AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR, UH, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONDOMINIUM RENTAL MODEL, UM, REGARDING THE HOUSING.
AND, UM, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH, UM, THEIR CONCERNS LISTED.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS IT FOR, UM, WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE.
SO, UM, MR. BARRETT, UH, WE, WE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
UM, AND I GUESS, OLIVIA, DO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE DATES FOR US? EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I JUST ASK FOR SOMETHING? SURE.
IF WE ARE GONNA CONTINUE THIS, BECAUSE I, I DO HEAR LOUD AND CLEAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE WHO ARE DESIROUS OF, UH, SOME CHANGE TO THE SETBACKS, BUT I ALSO HEARD OR READ IN THE FILE SOME REQUEST FOR CLARITY OF THE PLANS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC.
SO I DO WONDER, UM, THE OTHER VARIABLE THAT IS NEEDED TO CALCULATE HEIGHT IS THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING.
AND, UM, WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE PLANS THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, IT WAS UNCLEAR, UH, WHICH SIDE OF THE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THAT LENGTH WAS DERIVED FROM.
SO I JUST WONDER IF THE PETITIONER COULD DO SOMETHING SIMPLE.
I'M NOT ASKING FOR STAMPED DRAWINGS OR ANYTHING, BUT SIMPLE WHERE THEY, UM, SUBMIT SOMETHING AS PART OF THE CONTINUED PACKAGE THAT CLEARLY MARKS WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO AS THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK.
THE LENGTHS OF THE BUILDING SIDES THAT ARE RELATIVE TO THE SETBACK CALCULATION, THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WILL BE, UM, SEPARATE FROM THE HOTEL ROOMS MM-HMM
BECAUSE WE ALSO SAW THAT IN THE FILE, UM, AND CLEARLY MARKING WHICH PARTS OF BOTH THE OLD, THE HISTORIC BUILDING AND WHICH PARTS OF THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE HOTEL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
UM, AND WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD HELP THEM TO REVIEW THE NO, I THINK IN, IN, UH, THE CORRESPONDENCE, THERE WAS SOME REQUESTS FOR JUST, UH, MORE COMMITTED INFORMATION FOR US TO REVIEW FOR THE RECORD.
AND I, I THINK MR. BARRETT, THAT'S, THAT'S A FAIR REQUEST BECAUSE WHEN WE MAKE A MOTION, I HAVE TO CITE A SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE GONNA BASE, YOU KNOW, THE APPROVAL OFF OF.
AND OF COURSE IT WILL HAVE THE SETBACKS, BUT IT, I THINK HAVING A CONFIGURATION FOR THE BUILDING AND SOMETHING THAT'S OFFICIALLY SET, UH, FOR US TO APPROVE IS GONNA HELP GO A LONG WAY FOR THAT.
DO YOU THINK HAVE TO COVER, YEAH, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WEIGH IN ON ANY OF THAT OR SHOULD I YEAH, UH, JUST, I THINK THAT REQUEST, UH, WILL HELP US WITH THE MOTION AND SO ON.
YEAH, I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
AND I, AND I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS OF A VARIANCE AND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TYPICALLY USED TO SEEING.
AND I DO APOLOGIZE THAT THIS PROJECT IS IN FLUX, BUT THERE'S NO OTHER LEGAL MECHANISM TO ADDRESS THE SETBACK.
WHAT I'M CONFUSED BY, AND I, AND I THINK WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS NOT CONTINUING, UM, IS ON THE ISSUE OF HEIGHT.
AND WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT WITH ISD MULTIPLE TIMES.
I'VE WRITTEN SEVERAL MEMOS IN THE SUBJECT.
UM, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE, UH, SUBJECT TO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT IN TERMS OF GOING THROUGH A LAW REVIEW.
UM, AND THAT ALSO CAUSES FURTHER DELAY.
WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO BE HERE.
WE DID THIS PRIMARILY AS A GESTURE TO MOVE THE BUILDING TO ADDRESS CONCERNS TO THE NEIGHBORS.
AND THIS IS THE ONLY LEGAL MECHANISM I HAVE.
UM, SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU GUYS TO, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLICATION AND FRUSTRATION THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING WITH THIS.
UM, AND TO BE FRANK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS EXPECTING FOR THIS EVENING FOR THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE NOT FULLY BAKED IN NO UNIT COUNTS AND HOTEL ROOM COUNTS.
THEY'LL, THEY'LL BE FORTHCOMING.
UM, BUT THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT FOR A PROJECT THIS SIZE TO DO ALL THOSE THINGS, ONCE WE'RE, ONCE WE'VE DONE THAT, THE SITE IS, WE'RE CITED, WE'RE NOT GONNA MOVE THE BUILDING.
UM, SO I'VE CONSULTED WITH MY CLIENT AND I THINK, UM, UH, THE, THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR MY CLIENT IS NOT TO CONTINUE.
UM, WE'LL WITHDRAW AND, UM, WE'LL JUST CONTINUE ON WITH THE BUYRIGHT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, UM, AND MOVE ON FROM THERE.
[01:30:03]
UH, UH, EXCUSE ME.THIS IS WENDY ERS, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T THINK THAT WHEN A LEGAL DECISION IS BEING ASKED TO BE MADE, THAT IT IS UNUSUAL TO ASK FOR THE RECORD TO SHOW WHAT THE ACTUAL CRITERIA AND FIGURES ARE.
I'M SORRY THAT YOUR CLIENT FEELS THAT WAY BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE DISAPPOINTING, UM, MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND YOU'VE ALREADY PUT THIS MUCH EFFORT INTO IT, AND IT WOULD BE SAD TO SEE YOU WITHDRAW THIS WAY.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK AND THE HEIGHT.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CALCULATIONS, THE SETBACKS.
THOSE ARE ACTUALLY LARGELY IRRELEVANT.
UM, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND WIDTH, THE BUILDING TO DETERMINE THE SETBACKS, WE'RE ASKING TO BE ABLE TO USE THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS.
SO WHATEVER CALCULATION WE COME UP WITH, WHATEVER WE'RE ASKING FOR IN TERMS OF RELIEF WE CAN PROVIDE, I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT CALCULATION TO SHOW YOU WHAT IT WOULD'VE BEEN AT THE NEW CONFIGURATION.
WE'VE ALREADY SHOWED THE CITY, WHAT IT HAS BEEN, WHAT IT WOULD BE WITH OUR CURRENT CONFIGURATION, OUR CURRENT
WELL, IT NEEDS TO BE A MATTER OF THE RECORD THAT WE'RE REVIEWING, AND IT IS NOT AS YOU'VE CONCEDED.
SO, UM, THE PROPONENT HAS, APPELLANT HAS, UH, REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A DISCUSSION FOR THE BOARD TO, UM, DECIDE WHETHER TO MAKE THAT MOTION AND MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I GUESS OUR OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO DELIBERATE ON WHAT WE HAVE OR, UH, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE BOARD'S FAVOR, UH, TO MAKE A DECISION OR, UH, APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL, RIGHT? SO ANY COMMENTS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? THIS IS, THIS IS DANIEL DOGGO.
SO I, I, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE LEGAL COMPLEXITIES HERE, BUT I, I GUESS I'M WILLING TO TRUST ISD, ET CETERA.
UM, YOU KNOW, UH, CONSIDER ALL THESE ISSUES.
AND SO I, I'M ACTUALLY PERFECTLY FINE MOVING FORWARD ON A VOTE, AND I, I WOULD SUPPORT THIS, UH, GIVEN WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS PROJECT.
BUT, UM, BUT, BUT I UNDERSTAND IF, IF THAT'S NOT THE, WHAT, WHAT THE REST OF THE BOARD WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.
THIS IS WENDY LE AND I'M ALSO TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IS THERE ANY REMEDY HERE? AND MY QUESTION IS, IS THE PETITIONER ABLE TO STATE CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD WHAT THE DIMENSIONS ARE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING? AND THEN WE CAN AMONGST OURSELVES DECIDE WHETHER WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE DIMENSIONS ARE, DO SATISFY THE LEGAL QUESTION, WHICH ACTUALLY I DO WANNA CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER HIMSELF RAISED THE FACT THAT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED IN THIS NEW, UM, ZONING.
AND THEREFORE, THIS IS WHAT'S PARTLY CAUSING THE PROBLEM.
AND, AND, AND I, I CITED THAT BECAUSE WE'RE, WE HAVE AN ISSUE WHERE WE HAVE TWO SETBACK CONFIGURATIONS.
UM, WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL SETBACK AND A COMMERCIAL SETBACK.
SO, UM, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE DIMENSIONALLY IS VERY CLEAR ON THE TABLE, ON THE, IN THE CHART THAT WE GAVE YOU, UM, THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING, UH, CONFORMING APPROVED SIDE SETBACKS.
BUT, UM, BUT NOT THE, UM, WELL, THE SIDE SETBACKS, I GUESS THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FRONT AND SIDE AND WHAT WE CAN, WHAT, WHAT WE WANNA MOVE THE BUILDING TO, WHICH IS THE FIVE 10 ON MOUNT AUBURN, THE 10 FOOT SIX AT THE, IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS IN MOUNT AUBURN, 13.8 BEHIND HILLIARD, FIVE FEET, NEXT TO 15 STORY.
UM, AND WE'RE AT ZERO, UM, ON, ON THAT STRETCH OF STORY STREET, UH, FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE BUILDING.
UM, THOSE DIMENSIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, UM, I'M NOT SURE I CAN BE ANY MORE CLEAR.
I THINK WHAT I THINK IF, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS I'M NOT TRYING TO BE COMBATIVE, WHAT YOU'RE, I THINK WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR BEFORE WAS WHAT WOULD THE DIMENSIONS BE IF WE HAD TO CONFORM TO THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK FOR THE HOTEL? IS THAT CORRECT? NO.
UM, MY QUESTION WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE INVOKING TWO DIFFERENT SETBACK, UM, FORMULAS HERE, OR RULES, YOU KNOW, FOR CALCULATING THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS A CLEAR STATEMENT
[01:35:01]
THAT'S LEGALLY SUPPORTED.UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE OF THE MIXED USE ISSUE, IT'S, WHICH YOU REFERENCED, IT IS A MATTER THAT HAS NOT BEEN WELL WRITTEN, SHALL WE SAY.
UM, SO I'M SIMPLY ASKING FOR THAT DATA, THAT EVIDENCE TO BE ON THE RECORD OF THIS DECISION, BECAUSE RECALL ALSO THAT YOU ARE NOT THE, WHETHER I LIKE YOUR PROPOSAL OR NOT, WHETHER THE NEIGHBORS LIKE YOUR PROPOSAL OR NOT.
THERE'S ALSO A PRECEDENT HERE THAT WE'RE SETTING, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE IN TODAY'S LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, ARE USING THE RIGHT DIMENSIONS AND THE RIGHT CALCULATIONS.
SO, UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON, AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.
AND FROM SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO LOOKED, YES, YOU MAY TALK, SORRY, WE, WE ARE, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE DIMENSIONS THAT WE SHOW ON THE TABLE THAT SHOWS THE BEFORE AND AFTER OF THE SETBACK.
UM, I JUST CITED WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE.
AND AS FAR AS PRECEDENT GOES, UM, THE CITY IS ALREADY LOOKING TO FIX THIS ISSUE.
WE ARE AHEAD OF THE CURVE ON THEM ON THIS.
UM, THE, I ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER CASE THIS EVENING, SO YOU'RE GONNA SEE ME AGAIN, I'M SORRY.
UM, THAT'S ANOTHER CORNER LOT, UM, DEALING WITH A MUCH SMALLER SITE, BUT SIMILAR ISSUES.
UM, THIS, UM, COMPORTS VERY WELL WITH URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'RE TOLD, UH, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEVELOP A SITE.
BUT FROM A, A NUMERICAL STANDARD, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS 10 FOOT, SIX, FIVE ON THE SIDE, FIVE FOOT, 10 ON THE MOUNT AUBURN SIDE, ZERO ON THE STORY STREET SIDE, FIVE FEET ON THE ABUTTING, UH, 15 STORY STREET PROPERTY LINE, AND 13.8 FOR THE HILLIARD LINE.
THOSE ARE WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, FOR THE BUILDING.
SO, UH, I'M SORRY, UH, ATTORNEY, UH, BARRETT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT HERE'S THE THING.
I WOULD LOVE TO PLEASE THE NEIGHBORS.
I WOULD LOVE TO NOT CONTINUE THIS CASE.
AND, UM, I'M FEELING, FRANKLY, A LITTLE BULLIED BY THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE GONNA WITHDRAW AND JUST DO WHAT WE WANNA DO WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY COME TO A, AN AGREEMENT THAT PLEASES THE NEIGHBORS, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE A NICE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN HARVARD SQUARE SIMPLY BECAUSE I'M ASKING FOR CLARITY ON THE LAW, AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME.
AND, UM, SO, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU JUST TOLD ME YOUR NUMBERS, BUT I RECALL NOW
WE'RE WILLING TO PUT YOU ON A CALENDAR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
YOU'VE HAD THIS PROPERTY FOR A LONG TIME, THERE'S NO CALCULATION TO BE DONE.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO NO CALCULATION THAT'S REQUIRED.
WE ARE CON WE ARE ASKING TO USE THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS AS, AS THEY ARE TO HAVE THE, THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK MIRROR, THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK.
WELL, I'M TRYING, I'M NOT TRYING TO BULLY YOU, BUT WE, I KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE FRUSTRATED.
I DO THIS, THIS OPTION CAME TO US AT A VERY, SORT OF LAST MINUTE.
WE HAD NO, NO INTENTION OF EVEN DOING THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGAL WAY TO DO IT.
UM, BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU WANT THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE SETBACKS WHEN I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO CALCULATION.
THE REQUIRED SETBACK, UH, ON THIS LOT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE WOULD BE 10 FEET ON THE, AND FIVE FEET ON THE SIDES.
LIKE YOU, I HAVE ALSO CONSULTED ISD STAFF, SO I'M NOT JUST BRINGING THIS OUTTA THE BLUE EITHER.
AND SO I WOULDN'T, I TRUST THE ISD STAFF AS WELL, AND IF THERE'S ANY CONFUSION, THEN THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO GO TO LAW.
BUT I'M GONNA, MR. BARR GONNA STOP TALKING ABOUT, I THINK, I THINK IF BOARD MEMBERS NEED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION, IT'S NOT AN INDICATION.
I DON'T THINK OF, YOU KNOW, DENIAL OR NOT IN FAVOR, BUT WE, I THINK WE HAVE TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WE FEEL IT'S, WE ARE DOING ALL THE RIGHT THINGS TO GET TO A DECISION FOR YOU AND YOUR, AND YOUR, YOUR, UH, CLIENT.
SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET, UM, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK AND I SEE THE, THE PUBLIC SUPPORT AND ESPECIALLY THE ABUTTERS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S BETTER TO ALLOW THIS BOARD TO DO THE, OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT INFO AND, AND JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT TO THAT NEXT STEP.
UM, AND IS, SO I'M GONNA MAKE, AND WE WILL CATCH UP WITH YOU ON THE, THE, UH, NEXT APPLICATION COMING UP, BUT, UM, YEAH, SO LET ME MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE,
[01:40:01]
UH, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER OF BZA CASE 1 2 2 5 4 0 3, UH, FOR 1 27 MOUNT AUBURN STREET TO THE, WHAT'S OUR NEXT, NEXT ONE IS OCTOBER 15TH.DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU, MR. BARRETT? I'M SORRY.
UH, TO THE OCTOBER 15TH, 2026 HEARING ON THE CONDITION THAT THE PETITIONER CHANGED THE POSTING SIGN TO REFLECT THE NEW DATE AND THE NEW NEW TIME OF 6:00 PM ALSO THAT THE PETITIONER SIGN A WAIVER TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEARING.
THIS WAIVER CAN BE OBTAINED FROM MARIA PACHECO OR OLIVIA
I ASK THAT THE PETITIONER SIGN THE WAIVER AND RETURN IT TO THE INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT BY A WEEK BEFORE THIS COMING MONDAY.
FAILURE TO DO SO WILL DEFACTO CAUSE THIS BOARD TO GIVE AN ADVERSE RULING ON THE CASE.
UH, ALSO, IF THERE ARE ANY NEW SUBMITTALS CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS, DIMENSIONAL FORMS OR ANY SUPPORTING STATEMENTS THAT THOSE BE IN THE FILE BY 5:00 PM ON THE MONDAY PRIOR TO THE CONTINUED MEETING DATE ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE.
DID THE OTHER MEMBERS MAKE THAT DATE? OH, UM, CAN, UH, BEFORE I CLOSE THE MOTION, CAN, UH, OTHER MEMBERS, UH, MAKE THE OCTOBER 15TH HEARING? YES, VIRGINIA.
I, AND THANK YOU DAN AND MIRANDA, SO, AND WENDY.
THANKS, WENDY, UH, ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER UNTIL OCTOBER 15TH.
UH, WENDY LYON VOICE, VOTE PLEASE.
AND BOTH IN FAVOR, VIRGINIA KEESLER.
CECIL IN FAVOR, AND STEVEN IN FAVOR.
OUR NEXT, OUR NEXT CASE FOR, UH, SIX 15 WAS 86 SHEPA STREET, UM, EREZ, UH, YOLI, UH, SEEKING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIDE LANDING AND STAIR THAT INCREASES LENGTH OF STRUCTURE, BUT MAINTAINS EXISTING WIDTH THAT SITS IN THE SIDE SETBACK, UH, CITING ARTICLES, 5.31 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
UH, ARTICLE 8.22, 2D NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND ARTICLE, UH, 10 SECTION 0.40, SPECIAL PERMIT.
UM, MR. JOE, ELLIE, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? YES.
TELL US ABOUT, UH, YOUR SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST.
LET ME CAVEAT BY SAYING I'M JUST A HOMEOWNER WHO DOESN'T
UM, I'M NOT DEVELOPING ANY HOTELS.
UM, I OWN A VERY SMALL HOUSE IN EAST CAMBRIDGE.
UH, THE ENTIRE HOUSE THAT'S ON A 20 FOOT BY 30 FOOT LOT, UM, IT WAS PROBABLY THE CARRIAGE HOUSE TO ONE OF THE HOUSES AROUND THE CORNER 150 YEARS AGO, UM, AND WAS CARVED OUT.
THE, UH, HOUSE SITS ON MOST OF THE LOT.
THE HOUSE HAS THREE POINTS OF EGRESS, THE FRONT DOOR, UH, DOOR FROM THE BASEMENT, WHICH IS NOT, UM, A COMPLIANT, UH, FORM OF EGRESS.
AND THE REAR, UM, DOOR FROM THE KITCHEN, WHICH IS THE, UM, UM, POINT OF EGRESS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.
IT HAS A LANDING THAT WAS, UH, PROBABLY BUILT IN 2013.
IT HAS BEEN FALLING APART FOR MONTHS.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS PERMIT FOR MONTHS SO THAT I CAN FIX IT AND MAKE IT SAFE.
UM, AND, UH, I AM ASKING TO CHANGE THE DIMENSIONS OF THIS A LITTLE BIT.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND THE LANDING ITSELF SO THAT IT CLEARS THE WINDOW THAT IS UNDERNEATH IT.
YOU CAN'T SEE THAT WINDOW FROM THE PHOTOS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE IS A WINDOW LIKE IT, UH, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT YOU SEE, UH, BEHIND THE STAIRS.
UM, IF YOU WANT, I'LL GET UP AND SHOW IT TO YOU BECAUSE I'M SITTING IN THE BASEMENT, WHICH IS WHERE IT'S AT.
UM, AND THAT WINDOW IS BLOCKED BY THE LANDING.
AND SO IF WE EXTEND THE LANDING BY A FEW INCHES, UM, AND ADJUST
[01:45:01]
THE HEIGHT OF IT, AND SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO EXTEND THE FULL RUN OF STAIRS, WE CAN ACTUALLY CUT A STAIR, UM, AND STAY WITH ALL VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING DIMENSIONS, THEN I CAN PUT IN A GLASS FLOOR OVER THAT WINDOW AND, UH, GET IT SOME LIGHT.UM, SO THE PROJECT SORT OF DESIGNED TO MAKE THE MINIMAL CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, BUT ALLOW FOR THAT.
UH, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR, UH, PERMISSION TO DO.
WHAT, WHAT CAN I ANSWER THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO YOU GUYS SINCE I, I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW IF ANYTHING I SAID WAS HELPFUL.
WELL, I THINK, I THINK YOU NOW, I NOW UNDERSTAND THE GLASS, UH, DE UH, GLASS MATERIAL PRODUCT INFO YOU GAVE IN, IN YOUR APPLICATION.
SO I, I CAN SEE WHY YOU COULD GET DAYLIGHT DOWN INTO, UM, THAT PARTICULAR WINDOW.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
UM, UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? THIS IS WENDY LEISEN.
UH, ANY ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I OKAY.
UM, I'LL, UH, MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, IN THE FILE, WE HAVE ONE EMAIL, UH, FROM ABIGAIL LEWIS BOWEN.
UH, AND SHE WRITES, WE ARE WRITING TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION BY EZ YOLI, UH, AT 86 EUROPA STREET.
UH, WE LIVE AT 80 D**E STREET, AND OUR BACKYARD DIRECTLY ABUTS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE NO CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PETITION AND SUPPORT, THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT, WHICH MAKES THE SIDE LANDING AND STAIR MORE USABLE WHILE HAVING NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT ON ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
KIND REGARDS, UH, THE ALL, UH, ABIGAIL AND ALISTAIR LEWIS BOWEN.
UM, AND I'LL ALSO, UH, CHECK, UH, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK.
SHOULD NOW CLICK THE ICON AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR ZOOM SCREEN THAT SAYS, RAISE HAND.
IF YOU'RE CALLING IN BY PHONE, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND BY PRESSING STAR NINE AND UNMUTE OR MUTE BY PRESSING STAR SIX.
I'LL NOW ASK STAFF TO UNMUTE THE SPEAKERS ONE AT A TIME.
YOU SHOULD BEGIN BY SAYING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT WE CAN HEAR YOU.
AFTER THAT, YOU WILL HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK BEFORE I ASK YOU TO WRAP UP.
SO THERE'S NO ONE, UM, ONLINE FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING.
SO, UM, CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT, MOVING TO, UH, DELIBERATIONS.
UH, IF, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OR ARE YOU READY TO, TO OBTAIN A MOTION? READY FOR A MOTION? THANK YOU.
SO, UH, THE CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO GRANT A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTIONS, UH, 5.31, UH, SECTIONS 8.2, 2.2, A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND SECTIONS 10.40 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.
UH, RESPON, UH, REVIEWING RESPONSES, UH, FOR SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT A, IT APPEARS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE MET.
UM, THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT EXTENDED LANDING DOES NOT CREATE ANY NEW DIMENSIONAL NON-CONFORMITY.
UM, A PROPOSED STRUCTURE HAS IDENTICAL FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT, AND LOCATION TO THE EXISTING PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LOT.
UH, ITEM B, TRAFFIC GENERATED OR PATTERNS OF ACCESS OF EGRESS COULD CAUSE CONGESTION, HAZARD, OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
UH, THE PRO PROPOSED REPLACEMENT LANDING IS A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS AND WILL NOT, UM, GENERATE, UH, TRAFFIC OR ALTER PATTERNS OR OF ACCESS OR EGRESS TO OR FROM THE PUBLIC WAY.
UM, ITEM C, THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF, OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT USES AS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
UM, AND THE REPLACING THE IN INSTRUCT EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, IN, IN KIND, SAME LOCATION, FOOTPRINT, AND HEIGHT, WILL NOT IMPACT, UM, OR CREATE AN ADVERSE, UH, CONDITION.
UH, ITEM D NUISANCE OR HAZARD WOULD BE CREATED TO DETRIMENT OF HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANT, AND IT WILL NOT, AND FOR OTHER REASONS, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT OR ADJOINING DISTRICTS.
AND, UH, WE FIND THAT IT WILL NOT.
[01:50:01]
SO, BASED ON THAT FINDING, THEY MEET, UH, THE CRITERIA IN THE SECTION 10.40 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.AND FURTHER THAT WE INCORPORATE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS AND DIMENSIONAL FORMS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE.
SO VOTE IS FIVE ZERO IN FAVOR, AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS GRANTED.
NEXT UP IS, UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, BZA 1 2 2 5 4 0 3, UM, 200 AUBURN STREET, UH, CARE OF ADAM DASH.
UH, SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING, MINIMAL FRONT YARD SETBACK, UH, REQUIRING RELIEF OR CITING OUR SECTION ARTICLES, 5.31 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
UH, SECTION 8.2, 2.3, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND SECTION 10.3 FOR VARIANCE.
UM, MR. DASH, MR. CHAIR, GOOD EVENING.
UH, ATTORNEY ADAM DASH 48 GROVE STREET IN SOMERVILLE, UH, REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER 200 AUBURN STREET, LLC.
UH, WITH, THIS IS JEREMY HENRY OF THE PETITIONER, UH, CLA FAO, UH, THE BUILDER AND TATIANA OMI THE ARCHITECTURE.
UM, PETITIONER SEEKS A VARIANCE FOR NON-CONFORMING MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, AS YOU STATED IN THE RESIDENT C ONE ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS IS A VERY ODD SITUATION BECAUSE WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO KEEP THE BUILDING AS IT IS WITH REGARD TO THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR WHICH WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE.
I HAD NOT SEEN THIS HAPPEN MUCH IN THE PAST.
BUT ALLOW ME TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT OF A STORY HERE.
I APOLOGIZE IF IT MAY GO ON A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE NEED FOR THIS RELIEF, UM, COMES OUT OF AN UNFORESEEN ISSUE, WHICH AROSE DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY WRIGHT.
THE PETITIONER OBTAINED A BY WRIGHT BUILDING PERMIT TO ALTER THE EXISTING FOUR UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
IT WAS FOUND THAT THE EXISTING FRAMING WAS ROTTED, SO IT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED IN THE SAME LOCATION TO REMEDIATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION.
AND YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM ANDERSON PACHECO OF ALPHA CARPENTRY.
UH, WHO WAS DOING THAT WORK? WHO CORROBORATES THIS? THE CITY THEN SAID THAT SINCE THE FRAMING HAD BEEN REPLACED, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE, THAT THE PROJECT NOW CONSTITUTES NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND THE PREVIOUSLY GRANDFATHERED PREEXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK NOW REQUIRES A VARIANCE EVEN THOUGH IT'S STAYING EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE.
SO KEEP IN MIND, THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS NOT CHANGING IT'S PREEXISTING.
IT'S ONLY BECAUSE THE EXISTING FRAMING WAS FOUND TO BE ROTTED AND NOT FEASIBLE TO RETAIN THAT THE NEED FOR THE FRONT YARD VARIANCE AROSE.
UM, THERE'S PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO THE PETITIONER RELATED TO THE LAYOUT AND LOCATION OF THIS PREEXISTING STRUCTURE.
HAD THE STRUCTURE NOT BEEN IN A SITUATION WITH THE PRE-EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK, IF NON-CONFORMITY THEN REPLACING THE ROTTED FRAMING WOULD NOT HAVE TRIGGERED ANY NEED FOR VARIANCE WHATSOEVER.
UM, STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO DEMOLISH AND OR MOVE THE STRUC, THE BUILDING FROM ITS PRE-EXISTING LOCATION, WHICH WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP AND IMPRACTICALLY DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY WITH WORK UNDER THE BUYRIGHT PER BUILDING PERMIT BEING PARTLY DONE.
UH, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT HERE WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, BECAUSE THE ROTTED FRAMING HAD TO BE REPLACED FOR SAFETY REASONS, AND THAT WOULD CREATE THE NEED FOR THIS VARIANCE.
UH, THE PETITIONER'S ONLY SEEKING TO KEEP THAT EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK THE SAME AS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, AND THE SAME AS IT WAS FOR THE BUYRIGHT BUILDING PERMIT.
AND THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE EXISTING STREET SCAPE TO BE RETAINED.
UH, THERE'S NO NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING PROPOSED.
THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS FOR THE SIX FOOT PREEXISTING FRONT SETBACK WHERE 10 FEET IS REQUIRED.
HOWEVER, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PLANS WE FILED, THE AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK OF THE HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE IS ONLY SIX FOOT 10 INCHES.
SO THE RELIEF SAW WOULD KEEP THINGS BASICALLY THE SAME KIND OF A CONTEXT AND KEEP EVERYTHING CONTEXTUALLY APPROPRIATE.
THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WAS NOT SELF-CREATED.
A PETITIONER HAD NO IDEA THE FRAMING WAS ROTTED, AND, AND WE, AND WOULD END UP STUCK IN THE SAME SITUATION.
WHETHER THEY'D ACTUALLY REPLACE THAT FRAMING OR COME TO YOU FIRST, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
THE SITUATION WOULD'VE BEEN THE SAME.
UM, THERE WAS NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE.
AND PETITIONER, YOU KNOW, AS I SAID, WOULD BE HERE ANYWAY.
AND I, I HOPE THAT THEY DON'T END UP PENALIZED FOR REMEDIATING AN UNSAFE SITUATION.
[01:55:01]
YOU HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE CAMBRIDGE ZEN CENTER DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE.UM, I PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORIGINAL DIMENSIONAL TABLE, JUST FOR THE RECORD THAT WAS FILED AT THIS PETITION WAS LATER REVISED, BUT IT, IT, THE REVISION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
IT WAS HAD TO DO WITH ISSUES THAT CAME OUTTA THE MASS ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD FOR OTHER, OTHER THINGS, WHY WE HAD TO FILE AN AMENDMENT.
BUT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ISSUE WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS NOT RELATED TO THAT.
SO THE, THE PETITIONER REQUEST THAT THE BOARD GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, EVEN THOUGH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS NOT CHANGING FROM WHAT IT WAS.
SO THERE IS THE ODD SITUATION I HAVE FOR YOU THIS EVENING,
UM, I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD SITUATION HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? THIS IS WENDY ERS, AND I ALSO DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS, JUST SEEKING CONFIRMATION OF THE ANALYSIS THAT UNDER THE NEW VARIANCE.
SO THE BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER IS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO STAY EXACTLY THE SAME WITHOUT COSTLY AND FRANKLY, UH, SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.
UH, THE BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS TO MAINTAIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SCAPE AS IS AND NOT DISRUPT IT.
THERE, UH, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NO DETRIMENT ARTICULATED, UM, TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, UM, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I HAVE NOT FOUND ONE, BUT PERHAPS OTHERS WILL CHIME IN ON THIS.
AND THEN THE FOUR ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT WE MAY CONSIDER PER THE NEW LAW ARE AS ATTORNEY DASH JUST ARTICULATED, SO I WON'T REPEAT THEM.
AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS, I AGREE THAT, UM, THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE THAT, UM, SUPPORTS A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? UH, WE'LL MOVE TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, WE DID AS MENTIONED, UH, BY MR. DASH, UH, AN EMAIL FROM THE CAMBRIDGE END CENTER IN SUPPORT.
AND SO WE'LL CHECK FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ONLINE.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK SHOULD NOW CLICK ON THE ICON AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR ZOOM SCREEN THAT SAYS, RAISE HAND.
IF YOU'RE CALLING IN BY PHONE, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND BY PRESSING STAR NINE AND UNMUTE OR MUTE BY PRESSING STAR SIX.
I'LL NOW ASK STAFF TO UNMUTE THE SPEAKERS ONE AT A TIME.
YOU SHOULD BEGIN BY SAYING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT WE CAN HEAR YOU.
AFTER THAT, YOU'LL HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK BEFORE I ASK YOU TO WRAP UP.
SEEING NO ONE, UH, NEEDING TO SPEAK, UH, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE TO DELIBERATIONS.
UM, ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? UM, I WILL MOVE INTO, UH, A MOTION.
UM, THE CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTIONS 5.31 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SECTIONS 8.2, 2.3, NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND SECTION 10.3, UH, FOR VARIANCE, UH, REVIEWING, UM, STANDARDS, UH, FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, UH, PERMANENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY FINDS THAT A STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE OR BYLAW WOULD RESULT IN A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION.
THE PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY SHALL WEIGH THE BENEFITS TO THE APPELLANT OR PETITIONER AND TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING THE INTEREST IN SUPPORTING THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND MAY ALSO CONSIDER ONE, WHETHER THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY RELATES TO SOIL CONDITION, SHAPES, OR TOPOGRAPHY OF SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURES.
UM, THE LAYOUT AND LOCATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK CREATES THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
HAD THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAD NOT BEEN PREEXISTING NON-CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK, THEN REPLACING THE FRAMING WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED THE NEED FOR VARIANCE.
UH, ITEM TWO, WHETHER THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD IMPOSE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ON THE APPELLANT OR PARTI.
PETITIONER, UH, PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY WRIGHT AND GIVEN A BUILDING PERMIT TO ALTER EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, DURING CONSTRUCTION, IT WAS FOUND THE EXISTING FRAMING WAS
[02:00:01]
ROTTED, UH, SO IT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED IN SAME LOCATION, UM, TO REPAIR THAT DAMAGE.UH, THE CITY REQUIRED, UH, SINCE THE FRAMING WAS REPLACED, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN THE SAME PLACE, THE FRAMING CONSTITUTED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AS SUCH, THE PREEXISTING NON-CONFORMING MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK NOW REQUIRED A VARIANCE, EVEN THOUGH THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE AS BEFORE, UH, HAVING TO TEAR DOWN MOVE THE BUILDING FROM WHERE IT HAD BEEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME, ONLY TO DO ONLY DUE TO THE REPLACEMENT OF ROTTED FRAMING WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
UH, WHETHER THE BENEFIT SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT OR PETITIONER CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD FEASIBLE, UH, FOR THE APPELLANT OR PETITIONER TO ACHIEVE, UM, THE REPLACED, UH, REPLACING THE STAIR, UH, DUE TO ROTTED FRAMING WAS WHAT TRIGGERED THE VARIANCE.
UM, TRYING TO SHIFT THE BUILDING, UH, WOULD, WOULD BE AN, UH, WOULD NOT BE THE BEST, UH, METHOD FEASIBLE, UH, TO MEET THIS.
UH, AND ITEM FOUR, WHETHER THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED AND IT WAS, IT WAS NOT.
IT WAS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION FOR THE EXISTING STAIR, UH, AND, UM, A APPLICANT SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FROM REMEDIATING THE DANGEROUS SITUATION.
UH, SO BASED ON THAT FINDING, UH, THE APPLICANT MEETS THE CRITERIA UNDER 10.34 VARIANCE ON THE CONDITION THAT THE WORK PROPOSED CONFORMED TO THE DRAWINGS, UH, TO THE DRAWING SET, UM, ENTITLED 200 AUBURN STREET HOUSE RENOVATION BY TC STUDIO DATED AUGUST 15TH, 2026.
AND FURTHER THAT WE INCORPORATE THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS AND DIMENSIONAL FORMS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE.
AND STEVEN ING IN FAVOR, VOTE IS FIVE ZERO IN FAVOR, AND THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED.
UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
AND FINAL APPLICATION FOR THIS EVENING IS CASE NUMBER BZA 1 2 1 8 8 8 5, UH, ONE MYRTLE AVE.
UH, OWNERS FAN WANG AND MARK WAGNER IN CARE OF, UH, PATRICK W. BARRETT II.
UH, SEEKING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING TWO FAMILY ON A THREE STREET FACING CORNER.
LOT, ADDING ONE ADDITIONAL FLOOR FOLLOWING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LOT TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT OF HOUSING.
UM, CITING, UH, SECTION 5.31 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 8.2, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND SECTION 10.4, UH, FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.
UM, SO I'M, I'M COMING BEFORE YOU WITH A ANOTHER CORNER LOT AND A SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST.
UM, THIS PROJECT HAS HAD SORT OF A WINDING HISTORY.
UM, IT CAME TO ME, UM, A FEW MONTHS AGO.
IT IS, IT IS IN THE MID CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
IT HAD GONE THROUGH AN ADVISORY REVIEW.
UM, THE OWNER HAD PROCEEDED ON SEVERAL BUILDING PERMITS, AND THE PROJECT HAD STALLED SOMEWHAT.
WE INCLUDED SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS, UH, IN A STATE OF MID-CONSTRUCTION.
UM, THIS CASE COMES BEFORE YOU, UM, AS A SPECIAL PERMIT, NOT A VARIANCE.
UM, AND IT CANNOT MEET, UH, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY OF CORNER LOTS TO USE, UH, THE CONTEXTUAL SETBACK, UM, AND WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
AND I THINK IT'S BETTER ILLUSTRATED.
UM, I'M GONNA SHARE MY SCREEN AGAIN IN TERMS OF, UM, WHAT
[02:05:01]
I'M TALKING ABOUT.UH, UH, THE, HERE'S, HERE'S THE LAW.
AS IT SAYS, THE NONE OF THIS IS CHANGING.
THE, UM, UH, SETBACKS, EVERYTHING RE REMAINS THE SAME, BUT IT IS A THREE FACING LOT, UH, THREE STREET FACING LOT.
AND IT DOES PRESENT ITSELF WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, NATURAL DIFFICULTIES, UM, IN, IN, IN TERMS OF ITS CONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS HOW THE BUILDING CURRENTLY IS IN, IN PLAY.
IT DOES HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT.
IT IS PROCEEDING ON THAT BUILDING PERMIT.
UM, BUT THE DEVELOPER AND OWNER WHO'S WITH ME TONIGHT, FELT AS THOUGH THAT THE DESIGN ITSELF IS REALLY BEING DRIVEN BY ZONING AND NOT BY WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE PRACTICAL BUILDING DESIGN AND URBAN PLANNING, UM, METHODOLOGY.
UM, AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE FOR YOU TONIGHT IS BECAUSE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS BECAUSE THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SET BACK ON THE UPPER FLOORS, UM, TO CONFORM WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD NOT.
AND THAT REALLY ONLY EXISTS AT THE, UH, FOR, FOR CORNER LOSS.
THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE 3 51 CARDINAL MADEIROS, WHICH I BROUGHT TO YOU, I THINK ALMOST EXACT SAME TIME LAST YEAR.
UM,
UM, BUT, UM, THAT IS SORT OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF THE SAME, SAME DIFFICULTY, SAME, UM, UH, PRACTICAL ABUTTING OF THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING BEING PARAMOUNT IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, THIS ALLOWS FOR US TO GET TO, UM, UH, A MORE UNIFORM LOOKING BUILDING THAT CONFORMS BETTER WITH WHAT SURROUNDS IT.
UM, THIS IS A SIDE BY SIDE THAT I HAD THE ARCHITECT PUT TOGETHER TO SHOW YOU SORT OF WHERE WE WERE, THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED, AND WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY BUILDING, AND WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BUILD.
AND I THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY I CAN ILLUSTRATE THE, UM, MAYBE THE IMPERFECTIONS OF SOME OF THE RESULTS IN THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PLANNING, WHICH, UM, AS I STATED AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN ABOUT MAYBE SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS, THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A MOOD ISSUE ANYWAY.
UM, BUT HERE, BUT HERE WE ARE.
UM, AND I THINK THE DEVELOPER WHO, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU HAVE A FEW LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TONIGHT, AND I, WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE ALSO, WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK BEFORE THE MID CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, NEXT MONTH FOR, UH, SOME FINAL REVIEW.
UM, I THINK THERE'S BEEN AGITATION, UH, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE BUILDING, HOW LONG IT'S TAKEN TO BUILD.
UM, YOU SAW THE CONDITION OF THE SITE, AND I THINK I, YOU KNOW, CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH NEIGHBORS UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO TRY TO GET THIS PROJECT ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
SINCE MY INVOLVEMENT, THE BUILDING PERMITS HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM FIVE TO ONE.
UM, AND WE ARE GETTING IT SORT OF PROPERLY ALIGNED IN A REGULATORY FASHION TO, UM, TO PROCEED ON, ON SOME DEVELOPMENT.
AND I THINK WHAT THE DEVELOPER OWNER IS SAYING IS THAT I THINK THAT IN GENERAL, IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE TO DESIGN THE BUILDING IN A MUCH MORE CONFORMING, YOU KNOW, TRIPLE DECKER ESQUE STYLE THAN THE, UM, YOU KNOW, PARDON EXPRESSION LAYERED, UH, WEDDING CAKE DESIGNED THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, UM, HERE'S SOME DIFFERENT ANGLES OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF ELEVATIONS, UH, APPROVED.
AND WHAT WE WOULD, UH, LIKE TO BUILD.
THIS IS THE APPROVED BUILDING.
THIS IS, UM, THE, UH, UH, THE BUILDING WE'D LIKE TO BUILD.
AND I THINK WE WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT WE ARE IN THE MID CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
AND WHILE TYPICALLY WE WOULD BE UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION FOR THE ADVISORY, UM, UH, BUILDING, WE ARE APPRO, WE ARE, WE DON'T NEED APPROVAL TO BUILD THIS FOR THE MID CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
UM, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK IN GENERAL, WHAT OUR, MY CLIENT IS TRYING TO DO IS, IS A MUCH BETTER RESULT IN TERMS OF UNIFORMITY WITH WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, HERE'S ANOTHER SORT OF EXAMPLE OF THAT, UH, WEDDING CAKE SET UP.
AND, UM, WE COULD GO THROUGH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN, BUT I THINK AT THE HEART OF THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR IS IT'S REALLY A MIRROR IMAGE OF WHAT WE LOOKED AT AT THREE, UH, 51 CARL MADERO.
IT'S TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS CORNER LOT ISSUE IN A WAY THAT MAKES A LITTLE BIT OF DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT SENSE.
IT'S CERTAINLY MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO BUILD A BUILDING THIS WAY.
IT DOESN'T, THIS MIDDLE DESIGN DOESN'T REALLY CONFORM TO ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE FOUR STORY BUILDING DOES ADD AN ADDITIONAL UNIT AND DOES LOOK A LOT MORE LIKE A BUILDING YOU YOU'D EXPECT TO SEE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, YOU KNOW, HEIGHT IS AN ISSUE, BUT THIS WAS THE SAME ISSUE THAT CAME UP IN THE CAR MADERA'S
[02:10:01]
CASE.BUT THAT'S ALSO SORT OF REFLECTION OF THE, THE, THE, THE, THE NEW WORLD WE LIVE IN, IN TERMS OF THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONE.
IT DOES REQUIRE A LITTLE MORE INVOLVEMENT WITH IN TERMS OF MEETINGS, BUT, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS IS IN THE MID CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, THERE WOULDN'T REALLY BE MUCH MORE, ANY MORE LAYERS OF REVIEW.
BUT WE WILL BE GOING BACK TO THEM.
WE HAVE SOME REQUIREMENTS FROM THEM IN TERMS OF, UH, THEY WANTED TO SEE WHERE THE BZA STOOD ON THIS, UM, AND, UH, SOME EXTERIOR, UH, DETAILS, ET CETERA THAT THEY, THEY NORMALLY TAKE A LOOK AT.
UM, WE DID PROVIDE SOME, UH, ANOTHER STUDY.
THINK, I THINK THAT'S THE END OF THAT, UH, PRESENTATION FROM THE ARCHITECT.
THE ARCHITECT IS WITH ME TONIGHT.
UM, EL PTA, UM, FROM PROCO ARCHITECTS, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF AN ARCHITECTURAL NATURE, I THINK.
UM, AND WE DID TRY TO SHOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN, IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE NATURAL SETTING AS BEST WE COULD, UM, WHICH IS A CITY, WHICH IS A STREET LINE BY TRIPLE DECKERS, AS WELL AS TWO FAMILIES ALONG MAGNOLIA THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, 25 TO 30 FEET TALL.
UM, THAT IS IN A NUTSHELL, WHAT THIS CASE IS.
UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? I, I THINK MY ONLY COMMENT, MR. BARRETT, IS IF YOU COULD, UH, 'CAUSE THE PLANS I HAVE IN THE FILE DON'T REALLY SHOW THAT FOURTH FLOOR PLAN, UM, OR, 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S A FOUR, UH, UNIT STRUCTURE.
IT'LL BE A THREE UNIT STRUCTURE.
AND THEN, UH, THE THIRD TO FOURTH FLOOR IS THAT THIRD UNIT, KIND OF TWO FLOORS.
THEN WE DO, WE GOT THE RIGHT DRAWINGS.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? MR. CHAIR, YOU CAN JUST NOTATE THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT TO CORRECT THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S, I WAS A LITTLE, SO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT SAYS FOUR UNITS, THREE UNITS.
UH, SINCE, UH, NO COMMENTS FOR, UM, QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, WE'LL MOVE TO, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO WE'LL, OH, DO WE HAVE SOME FOLKS ONLINE? OKAY.
UH, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK SHOULD NOW CLICK THE ICON AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR ZOOM SCREEN THAT SAYS RAISE HAND.
IF YOU'RE CALLING IN BY PHONE, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND BY PRESSING STAR NINE AND UNMUTE OR MUTE BY PRESSING STAR SIX.
I'LL NOW ASK STAFF TO UNMUTE THE SPEAKERS ONE AT A TIME.
YOU SHOULD, UH, BEGIN BY SAYING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT WE CAN HEAR YOU.
AFTER THAT, YOU WILL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK BEFORE I ASK YOU TO WRAP UP.
HELLO, UH, MR. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS, I DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT THE THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT WITH THE OTHER, UH, ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
WAS THAT ALSO THE CASE AND I JUST DIDN'T HEAR IT? YES, WE, WE TRY TO KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES.
UM, I THINK A FEW OF THE SPEAKERS ON AN EARLIER APPLICATION SPOKE.
UH, THEY WENT OVER A LITTLE BIT, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ARE OKAY.
I KNOW, UH, FROM PRIOR EXPERIENCE THAT ATTORNEY BARRETT KEEPS TRACK OF TIME, SO I'M ALREADY NERVOUS.
UM, SO, UM, WE, I THINK HAD SOME CONFUSION, FIRST OF ALL, UM, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE JUST TWO WEEKS AGO, WE ALL HAD A HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.
UM, AND SO I THINK SOME PEOPLE WERE FEELING LIKE THEY HAD ALREADY VOICED THEIR OPPOSITION THEN AT THAT MEETING, WHICH I THINK WAS BEFORE THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
AND, UM, WE AREN'T REPRESENTED BY, WE DON'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY BARRETT.
AND, UM, WE, I THINK WERE FEELING, UH, CONFUSED.
AND THEN ALSO AT THAT SAME HISTORICAL COMMISSION HEARING, UH, ATTORNEY BARRETT SAID THAT IF WE DIDN'T, UH, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, IF WE DIDN'T GO ALONG WITH THE HISTORIC PROPOSITION, THAT THIS NEW
[02:15:01]
PROPOSAL THAT WAS MADE ON SEPTEMBER 9TH DIFFERENT FROM THIS, THAT HE ALREADY, WHERE THEY ALREADY HAD BY RIGHT TO MAKE THIS THING HE DESCRIBED AS THE WEDDING CAKE.SO WE WOULD GET THE WEDDING CAKE IF WE DIDN'T GO WITH THIS NEW HIS, THE NEW PROPOSAL, WHICH I IS I GUESS OUR NOW THE HISTORIC COMMISSION, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT ONE, WHICH I'M CONFUSED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, I THINK WE'RE ALL FEELING PRETTY CONFUSED.
AND SO THIS IS THE WEDDING CAKE, AND I DON'T, I, I DON'T, I THINK WHAT WE LACK, IF YOU LOOK AT THE YELLOW MAP WITH THE YELLOW, UH, BUILDINGS IN YELLOW, YOU CAN SEE HOW DENSE WE ARE.
WE LACK OPEN SPACES AND OUR BACK WINDOWS, WE ALREADY LOOK OUT ON CLABBERED.
UM, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO LIVE WITH THAT.
WE STAND CHEEK TO JE WITH LINE STREET AND ON THE OTHER, THIS, UH, IS A CORNER ON TWO STREETS.
I HEARD ATTORNEY BARRETT SAY THREE STREETS.
AND OUR ONE OPEN SPACE IS AT THIS CORNER WHERE WE SEE THIS GUY THINGS OPEN UP.
WE'RE A SMALL STREET WITH ONLY TWO STORY.
BUT YOU CAN SEE ON MYRTLE, WE'RE VERY SMALL, TWO STORY, VERY TINY, ONE WAY STREET.
AND, UH, THIS IS, UH, THE WAY I, IN FAVOR OF THE WEDDING CAKE, AND I KNOW A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE LET'S IN THE SUN.
THIS IS GONNA BLOCK THE OPEN SPACE.
WE ALREADY, THIS PROPERTY, ONE MYRTLE IS, TAKES UP ALL THE LAND VIRTUALLY ON ITS LOT.
IT'S ALREADY TAKING UP ALL THE LAND, BUT ABOVE IT YOU HAVE OPEN SPACE.
UM, SO THAT'S BEEN REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE THAT AREA WHERE THINGS FINALLY OPEN UP.
AND THE SETBACKS ARE A VITAL WAY TO PRESERVE WHAT LITTLE OPEN SPACE WE HAVE.
YOU CAN SEE HOW DENSE OUR CORNER OF THE CITY IS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE YELLOW BUILDINGS ONLINE AND ON MYRTLE AND ON ROBERTS.
UM, AND SO ON A SMALL SITE LIKE THIS, WHICH AS I SAID TAKES UP ITS ENTIRE, UH, LOT, ALMOST LIKE THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT EXTENDING HIS STAIRS.
IT TAKES UP ALREADY ALL OF ITS LOT.
AND ON A SMALL SITE LIKE THIS, EVEN A FEW FEET MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS WHY EVEN THOUGH I HAD A PRESERVATION AWARD, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE WEDDING CAKE BECAUSE IT GIVES US OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT GIVES US LIGHT.
IT'S MORE IN SCALE, EVEN IF IT'S A WEDDING CAKE.
IT'S MORE IN SCALE WITH OUR SMALL BUILDINGS ON ONE MYRTLE, I MEAN ON MYRTLE AVE.
UM, AND GRANTING THIS PERMIT WOULD ALSO DAMAGE OUR CLIMATE RESILIENCY BECAUSE DESPITE THE DRAWINGS, BECAUSE IT SITS AND TAKES UP ITS WHOLE LOT, THERE'S VERY LITTLE SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING.
AND IF YOU'VE GOT THESE THREE UNITS, WELL THESE RESIDENTS ARE GONNA NEED SPACE FOR THEIR CHAPMAN.
IF YOU COULD FINISH UP RECYCLING, I'M FINISHING UP.
THE, THE, THE RECYCLING BINS AND THINGS, WHERE ARE THOSE IN THE DRAWINGS? THEY HAVE TO HAVE RECYCLING, TRASH, COMPOST.
THREE SETS OF THOSE ARE GONNA BARELY FIT.
AND I, HOW ARE YOU GONNA BE ABLE TO HAVE THE, UH, LANDSCAPING THERE? UM, AND THEN THE, UM, I FEEL AS THOUGH, UH, WE HEAR THIS WORD NORMALIZING.
HE IS GONNA NORMALIZE THE BUILDING.
WELL, THE ORIGINAL OPTION THEY'VE ALREADY DUG OUT THE BASEMENT, WAS TO HAVE THIS DORMERS AND KEEP THE ROOF LINE AND STILL BE ABLE TO INCREASE TO THREE UNITS.
WHY HAVE A FOURTH FLOOR, THE THREE UNITS THEY'VE GOT THE BASEMENT, YOU CAN ADD DORMERS TO THE THIRD FLOOR.
I, I GUESS I, I REALLY STRONGLY OPPOSE SOMETHING LIKE THIS BECAUSE ITS ALREADY FOUR MINUTES PROFIT.
AND I THINK IT'S OUR JOB TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY, NOT WHAT'S JUST GOOD FOR PROFIT.
SORRY FOR GOING OVER IT'S, THANK YOU, MS. CHAPMAN.
UM, UH, THANK YOU FOR, THANK YOU FOR GIVING US US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
UM, ALBERTO TI I LIVE AT, UH, SIX MYRTLE AVENUE, SO RIGHT ACROSS FROM, UH, RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY.
UM, I, UM, ACTUALLY TO FOLLOW UP, IT'S A GOOD SEGUE ON WHAT, UM, MS. CHAPMAN WAS JUST SAYING.
UH, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS, A PREVIOUS PROJECT THAT DIDN'T, THAT DIDN'T SHOW UP IN THE COMPARISON THAT ATTORNEY BY WAS, UH, WAS SHOWING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SCROLL TO PAGE 24, 23, 24, AND 25 OF, UM, WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW.
I GUESS MAYBE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF DRAWINGS THAN THE ONES THAT WERE POSTED IN THE CITY.
IT'S THE DRAWINGS THAT THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS FROM A CP DESIGN, SO A TWO ONE, A TWO, TWO, A TWO THREE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT, UH, MS. CHAPMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT.
THE, THE HOUSE THAT, THE PROPO, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS MUCH MORE, MUCH MORE IN, UM, IN KEEPING WITH, WITH WHAT MERLE AVENUE LOOKS LIKE.
UM, WHICH IS NOT THE THREE IES, UM, THAT ARE ON, THAT ARE ON MAGNOLIA.
[02:20:08]
THIS IS OLIVIA TE CAN I GET THE, UM, THE DOCUMENT PAGE NUMBERS AGAIN? 23, 24 AND 25? THE DRAWINGS 8 2 1 8 2 2.THIS IS FROM THE VERSION THAT I DOWNLOADED FROM THE, THE VERSION FROM THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
SO THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, UM, FOR THIS, UH, FOR THIS SITE.
I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER AT THIS POINT.
UM, BACK WHEN THE STORY WAS, WE'RE A FAMILY, WE'RE MOVING IN, WE WANT TO BE PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, THIS WORK.
AND I THINK THAT THIS DID NOT PASS HISTORICAL, HISTORICAL HEAD A SAYING IN PROJECTS BACK THEN, UH, DIDN'T PASS HISTORICAL, I BELIEVE WAS BECAUSE OF THE, THE REASON OF THE ROOF LINE.
UM, AND THEN WHEN THE, AND I BELIEVE THAT IN COINCIDENCE WITH THE, WITH THE ZONING CHANGES, UH, THEN THAT THIS BECAME THE WEBBING CAKE, AND NOW IT'S BECOMING THE HIGH RISE THAT'S, UH, THAT'S BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT? SO WE ARE ALL IN CAMBRIDGE, WE'RE ALL, UH, FOR, UH, FOR MORE, MORE HOUSING, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE'RE WHAT THE FOURTH OR FIFTH DENSEST, UH, CITY IN AMERICA.
BUT WE ALSO WOULD LOVE TO, TO KEEP CAMBRIDGE WHAT IT IS.
KEEP, UH, KEEP THE, KEEP IT AS A, AS A CITY THAT I WOULD LIKE MY KIDS TO COME BACK WHEN THEY'RE, WHEN THEY'RE ADULTS, WHEN THEY'RE WORKING OR STUDYING SOMEWHERE, AND FEEL THAT THEY BELONG AND THAT THEY RECOGNIZE THEIR HOMETOWN AS, AS THE PLACE, THE PLACE WHERE WE GREW UP.
WE BROUGHT OUR KIDS HOME FROM KRICK HOSPITAL.
THEY GREW UP PLAYING AT THAT INTERSECTION, THAT INTERSECTION IN FRONT OF, OF ONE MIDDLE WITH ALL THE OTHER KIDS ON MYRLE AVENUE WITH THE KIDS ON MAGNOLIA, BECAUSE THIS IS A, IT'S A FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE, WHO WANT TO BE.
PLEASE FINISH UP MR. FERRARI, CAMBRIDGE.
WE DON'T WANT CAMBRIDGE TO BECOME A ONE OR TWO YEARS RESIDENCE WHILE I'M WORKING MY TECH JOB.
I WOULD LIKE IT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, WHICH WAS MUCH MORE, UH, MUCH MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE STREET LOOKS LIKE.
THE WEDDING CAKE AT LEAST GIVE US, LET'S US KEEP SOME LIGHT.
UH, THAT WAS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ONLINE, UH, JUST RUNNING THROUGH THE LEDGER HERE, UH, CORRESPONDENCE, UH, AN EMAIL OR LETTER FROM, UH, WELL, QUITE A LETTER, UH, MR. ORI POAT, UH, 24 MYRTLE AVENUE.
UM, HE IS AGAINST THE APPLICATION, UM, CITING, UH, ES ESTABLISHED ONE PROJECT, ONE UNIT COUNT, AND A DOCUMENTED LAWFUL BASELINE.
UM, JUST CITING DOCUMENTATION, UM, REQUIRE CORRECTED, UH, CURRENT SURVEY AND CORRECTED DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION.
UM, ALSO CITING, UH, DE DETERMINED ACTUAL TOTAL HEIGHT AND LEGAL TREATMENT OF THE HEAD HOUSE, UH, FOLLOWED BY, UH, COMMENTS REGARDING SUPPLIED BICYCLE PARKING AND REC RECONCILE THE AUTOMOBILE SITE PLANS, RESOLVING BASEMENT FLOOD RESILIENCE ISSUES, UH, DEMONSTRATE LAWFUL OPEN SPACE ACCOUNTING AND COORDINATE BUILDING FACIL FEASIBILITY REQUIRED DIMENSION, SITE ACCOMMODATION EXHIBIT.
UH, AND, UM, I THINK, UH, A LITTLE MORE, UH, CRITICISM OF, UH, DOCUMENTATION, UH, AND THAT, UM, ANOTHER, UM, WELL, TIA, MS. CHAPMAN, UH, WROTE, UH, AN EMAIL, BUT WE'VE HEARD HER PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
UM, UH, SEVERAL, UH, EMAILS FROM MS. CHAPMAN AND, UM, UH, INCLUDING SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF KIDS, UH, PLAYING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT WAS IT FOR, UH, CORRESPONDENCE.
SO WE'LL CLOSE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT AND, UH, MOVE INTO DELIBERATION.
UH, ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? THIS IS WENDY EREN.
UM, I AM PROFOUNDLY DISAPPOINTED, UM,
[02:25:01]
BY WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE TONIGHT.I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT, UM, TO HEAR THAT THE NEIGHBORS IN GOOD FAITH EVALUATED A PLAN SET AS RECENTLY AS SEPTEMBER 9TH THAT THEY'RE NOT SEEING HERE, AND THAT, THOUGH THIS IS HEARSAY, UM, BUT THEY HAVE REPRESENTED THAT THEY FEEL BULLIED AS WELL AS, UM, TO HAVE BEEN THREATENED BY THE DEVELOPER THAT IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I WANT TO PUSH THROUGH THE ZONING BOARD, I WILL CONSTRUCT SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS NOT VISUALLY APPEALING THAT I WILL CALL A WEDDING CAKE.
I THINK THAT IF THIS IS THE PATTERN WITH WHICH DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GOOD FAITH PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS, I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE IF THE CITY COUNCIL OR VOTERS DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE DEVELOPMENT FRIENDLY IN THIS WAY.
UM, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT AS THE EARLIER CASE, YOU ALSO SAID TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT BASICALLY TO THIS BOARD.
AND I WOULD BE VERY DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR OF FUTURE INSTANCES OF THAT SAME PATTERN OF A LACK OF GOOD FAITH ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS OF ALL SORTS TO THINK ABOUT THEIR LEGACY IN THE ARCHITECTURE THAT THEY ARE BUILDING, AND THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, I'LL BUILD SOMETHING UGLY IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I WANT SO THAT I CAN GET MORE PROFIT, THAT'S NOT A VERY GOOD LEGACY TO LEAVE BEHIND IN THIS WORLD, IN MY OPINION.
UM, WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL CRITERIA, I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE CLEARLY SAID THAT THIS, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST WOULD FAIL THE SECOND CRITERIA THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OR ACTUALLY, I GUESS IT WOULD BE THE THIRD CRITERIA.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, THOUGHTS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? A LITTLE PARTICIPATION WOULD BE GOOD.
HELLO? UH, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS STREET AND, UM, JUST AS A, A PERSON WHO LIVES IN CAMBRIDGE, UM, AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE ABUTTERS THAT WHILE MAYBE TRIPLE DECKERS ARE COMMON IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T THINK, UM, NECESSARILY TRIPLE DECKERS OF THIS SCALE ARE.
UM, AND I THINK THE, THE WEDDING CAKE, UH, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH DOESN'T SEEM THAT UNATTRACTIVE TO ME.
UM, BUT I DO ALSO RECOGNIZE ATTORNEY BARRETT'S NOTE THAT THE CITY HAS MADE HOUSING A PRIORITY, AND IF THIS IS TRULY THE WAY THAT, UM, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE THREE UNITS VERSUS TWO, THEN THAT'S WORTH, UH, WORTH CONSIDERING AS WELL.
SO I THINK THAT GIVES US A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.
YEAH, I'M, I'M TORN ON THIS ONE.
UM, A YEAH, I WANT BETTER ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THE OTHER HAND.
UM, YEAH, I, I, I SEE THE NEED FOR HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT.
I DON'T SEE, I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY, UH, PRETTY WELL, AND, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THE PROPOSED PLAN SO OUTTA KEEPING, UM, WITH WHAT'S AROUND THERE.
UM, BUT YEAH, I, I, I, I GUESS I, I AM, I'M KINDA A LITTLE BIT TROUBLED ABOUT THE, THE TIMELINE, BUT, BUT I'M OTHERWISE DISPOSED TO IT.
UM, I WOULD SAY I HOLD A SIMILAR VIEW TO DANIEL WHERE I'M NOT, AS OPPOSED TO THE DESIGN OR HOW IT FITS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PER SE, BUT AGREED REGARDING ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND, UM, WANTING THERE TO BE A GOOD AND THOUGHTFUL PROCESS.
UM, YEAH, AND I, I ALSO, I, I THINK, AND I KNOW THE ZONING CHANGES IN, IN CAMBRIDGE HAVE, HAVE REALLY CHANGED A LOT
[02:30:01]
OF, UH, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN NEIGHBORHOODS GETTING BUILT THESE DAYS.BUT, UH, UM, I, I THINK IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR CORNER LOT, IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, SEE WHAT WORKS, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORS WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO, UH, MAXIMIZE AND, AND MEET THOSE NEEDS, UH, THAT ARE LISTED BY THE CITY.
UM, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS WENDY LEISEN AGAIN.
UM, UM, IF WE JUST SIMPLY ADHERE TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA, UM, FIRST OF ALL, UM, WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE CANNOT BE MET DUE TO THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE LOT, WHAT WOULD YOUR, YOUR OPINION BE ON THAT, PLEASE? FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA.
I THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENTS, THE ORDINANCE COULD BE MET, UM, BASED ON THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE LOT, BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL PROPOSALS IN WHICH THEY WEREN'T MET.
UM, CRITERIA, THE SECOND CRITERIA IS WHETHER TRAFFIC GENERATED OR PATTERNS OF ACCESS OR EGRESS WOULD NOT CAUSE CONGESTION OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I MEAN, I, I, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I, I, I DON'T, I'M NOT, UM, A PROBLEM.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DENSE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S, I, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TAKING PUBLIC TRANSIT, BIKING, ET CETERA AS WELL.
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT AS A, AS A, AS AN ISSUE HERE PERSONALLY.
ANYONE ELSE? AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A, THE, IS AN ISSUE ON THAT POINT.
AND I WOULD JUST, UH, REMIND THE BOARD AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT, THAT BOTH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, WHICH WAS MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS, WAS THREE UNITS.
AND THIS, UH, NEW PROPOSAL IS ALSO THREE UNITS.
SO THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THE HOUSING STOCK FROM THIS PROPOSAL.
THE THIRD CRITERIA, THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF, OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT USES AS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED USE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
WE'VE, IN MY OPINION, HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC SAYING THAT THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF ADJACENT USES WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED DUE TO THE LACK OF SUNLIGHT AND OTHER GREEN SPACE ISSUES IN CIRCULATION.
THAT WAS CITED OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? I TEND TO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'VE SAID THERE, WENDY.
I THINK WE'VE HEARD THAT, UM, THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT.
ANYONE ELSE? I'D AGREE WITH THAT THE FOURTH CRITERIA, NUISANCE OR HAZARD, WOULD NOT BE CREATED TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND OR WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANT OF THE PROPOSED YOUTH, SORT OF CITIZENS OF THE CITY.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT ONE? I DON'T THINK THAT THIS WOULD CREATE A NUISANCE OR HAZARD BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD.
THE FINAL CRITERIA, UH, FOR OTHER REASONS, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT OR ADJOINING DISTRICT OR OTHERWISE DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
UM, SO MY OPINION IS, UM, THE PARAGRAPH HERE IS TALKING ABOUT, UM, HOUSING.
I KNOW THAT CAMBRIDGE IS ENCOURAGING INCREASE IN HOUSING STOCK, MEANING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AVAILABLE.
THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AVAILABLE.
AND BECAUSE TWO OUT OF THE FIVE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO, UM, EVALUATE, UM, HAVE NOT BEEN MET, I WOULD DENY THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT FINAL CRITERIA AND WHERE THEY'RE LEANING? SO YOU CI I ALSO LEANING IN FAVOR OF, IT'S WHAT? I'M SORRY.
I, THAT WAS CONFUSING LANGUAGE USE.
I'M LEANING TOWARDS DENIAL, UM, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS.
SO WHILE I THINK THAT THAT IS A COMPELLING, UM, IDEA, TYPICALLY IN A SPECIAL PERMIT SCENARIO, IF WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY ADDITIONAL UNITS AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE
[02:35:01]
ALSO, UM, OPPOSED TO THIS CONFIGURATION, WHEREAS THEY WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION, I DON'T FIND IT COMPELLING THAT THE CITY HAS PRIORITIZED HOUSING.SO YOURS, WE ARE CITING, UM, SECTION A AND C, UM, NOT MEETING THE CRITERIA.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. CHAIR.
UM, I, I'D LIKE TO ADD, WE ARE ACTUALLY INCREASING ONE UNIT.
IT IS CURRENTLY A TWO UNIT HOUSE, AND WE ARE INCREASING IT TO THREE UNIT.
AND THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ALSO CREATED THREE UNITS, CORRECT? NO, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS A TWO UNIT.
THE APPROVED, THE BUILDING PERMIT IS A TWO UNIT ONLY.
AND THE WEDDING CAKE, WILL THAT BE TWO OR THREE UNITS? TWO UNITS? MM-HMM
WELL, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN OVER THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
SO IF YOU FAIL ONE CRITERIA, THAT'S ENOUGH.
I COMPLETELY OBJECT TO THIS ENTIRE PROCEEDING.
THE, THE APPROACH FROM MS, UH, FOR COMMISSIONER LEER HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT INSULTING THROUGHOUT MY FIRST PROCESS.
AND NOW THIS, YOU'VE TAKEN THE WORD FROM NEIGHBORS AT FACE VALUE AND YOU'VE THROWN IT BACK AT US AS IF WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING WRONG.
WE HAVEN'T THREATENED ANYBODY.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE CONDITION BETTER ON THE SITE.
WE HAVE A TWO UNIT PROJECT THAT HAS A BUILDING PERMIT THAT AS OF RIGHT, WE'RE TRYING TO ADD A THIRD UNIT AND, AND WE'RE PRESENTING A PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ZONING COMPLIANT, BUT FOR A SETBACK.
AND I'M ASTOUNDED BY THE APPROACH OF THIS BOARD AND THEIR APPROACH OF ME TALKING ABOUT LEGACY OF DEVELOPERS IS, IS IS THE INTENT OF THIS BOARD TO MAKE EVERY CASE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU, RIGHT.
FOR APPEAL? I'M ASKING YOU TO LEAVE THIS.
IT'S ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOU, MR. BARRETT.
I'M PLEASE, YOU'VE ASKED YOU, YOU'VE MADE YOUR COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO YOU.
I HAVE NOTHING PERSONAL AGAINST YOU OR THIS DEVELOPER, BUT YOUR, UM, BEHAVIOR WITH REGARDING THE FIRST CASE, UM, MADE ME FRANKLY FIND IT PLAUSIBLE TO BELIEVE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE NEIGHBORS, UH, WHO TESTIFIED IN THIS CASE.
NOW, I ALSO SAID THAT IT WAS HEARSAY, MEANING, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS TRUE OR NOT, BUT IN EVERY CASE OF THE ZONING BOARD, WE LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS AND WE WEIGH WHAT THE NEIGHBORS SAY.
SEVERAL NEIGHBORS SAID THAT THEY WERE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
AND I WILL SEED THE FLOOR TO THE CHAIR.
UM, AND MR. BARRETT, I, A PUBLIC COMMENT IS HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN WHEREVER AN APPLICATION IS SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER APPLICATION.
UM, AND THOSE WERE VERY COMPELLING STATEMENTS.
SO I MEAN, IN EVERY CASE, IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE BOARD SEES, UH, OTHER, YOU KNOW, OUR FELLOW CAMBRIDGE WELL, FELLOW RESIDENTS, UH, AND THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT IT.
AND WE DO FILTER THAT THROUGH.
SO I THINK WHEN, WHEN OUR BOARD, UH, FEELS, UH, THEY SEE, UM, THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT, BROUGHT TO LIGHT, I, THAT, THAT IS THE PURVIEW OF OUR REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION.
I, I'M, I'M WELL AWARE OF HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS, AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
I KNOW THAT INTERACTION WITH THE NEIGHBORS IS A PARAMOUNT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEIR OPINIONS MATTER DEEPLY.
I ALSO KNOW THAT THIS PROCESS IS ALWAYS SOMEWHAT CONTENTIOUS.
YOU JUST HAD A CASE WITH ME ABOUT AN HOUR AGO WHERE PEOPLE ON HILLIARD STREET UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE WHAT WE WERE DOING.
IT SHOWS WE KNOW HOW TO DO OUTREACH.
IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, YOU'VE HAD TWO PEOPLE SPEAK AGAINST IT.
YOU'VE HAD, I THINK, ONE LETTER FROM ONE OTHER PERSON, UH, WHO'S ALSO A DEVELOPER AROUND THE CORNER WHO JUST DEVELOPED A PROJECT VERY SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.
UM, AT 3 51 CARLO MADERO, YOU HAD ONE PERSON IN A, IN OPPOSITION, AND YOU APPROVED THAT CASE.
WHAT I HEARD TONIGHT THOUGH, WAS NOT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, WAS ABOUT ME PERSONALLY.
UM, I HEARD, I HEARD, I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT LEGACY, WHICH I'M NOT SURE, LEGACY OF DEVELOPERS, LEGACY OF ME, AND WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS, BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.
UM, AND WE HAVE NOT BROUGHT SOMETHING THAT IS DEEPLY CONTENTIOUS.
THIS IS A FOUR STORY, UH, FOUR STORY PROJECT IN A PREDOMINANTLY THREE STORY DISTRICT.
THAT ZONING ITSELF IS, AND THE, AND THE PROJECT'S GONNA BE FOUR STORIES.
NO MATTER WHAT WE DO NOW, WE COULD INTRODUCE FRONT DECKS TO THE BUILDING TO MAYBE SET IT BACK A LITTLE BIT.
IF THAT'S MORE PALATABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT A REDESIGN OF THAT.
BUT TO FLATLY DENY A SPECIAL PERMIT, SIMPLY BECAUSE TWO NEIGHBORS SHOWED UP AND SAY WE'RE BLOCKING THEIR SUNLIGHT.
THIS ISN'T, UH, UH, MANCHESTER BY
[02:40:01]
THE BAY, WHERE WE EXPECT TO HAVE A VIEW OF THE OCEAN.MR. BARRETT, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, WENDY, PLEASE.
YEAH, I, I'M, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, AND, AND, AND, AND MS. LEER, I, I HAVE TO SAY I, I, I, I'M PROBABLY GONNA FILE A COMPLAINT, BUT I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PERSONAL ISSUE.
UM, BUT WHAT I DO UNDERSTAND IS IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, UH, THERE WAS A MISSTATEMENT OF LAW, AND WE'LL BRING THAT UP LATER DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WE'D ALSO VETTED THIS PROCESS THROUGH ISD MULTIPLE TIMES.
SO EITHER THERE'S AN, A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN THIS BOARD AND ISD AND WHAT'S ZONING COMPLIANT, OR WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
WE ARE ZONING COMPLIANT, BUT FOR THE SETBACK ISSUE, AND WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE CHANGES IF WE, IF NECESSARY, BUT A FLAT OUT DENIAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD TONIGHT IS IN, IN MY OPINION, I'VE NEVER, I'VE NEVER, I'VE NEVER SEEN THE BOARD DO THAT.
UM, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME NEIGHBORS ARE UPSET, BUT TO SAY THAT WE'RE BLOCKING OUT THE SUN TO SAY THAT WE'RE CREATING AN UNSAFE CONDITION AND TO ACCEPT THOSE THINGS WITHOUT HAVING SEEN ANY REAL VALID PROOF, I'M KIND OF, I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE BOARD'S SO WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT, THAT TESTIMONY AND NOT LOOK AT OUR DESIGN, OUR, OUR, OUR SHADOW STUDY AND LOOK AT THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE AND SAY LARGELY THAT WE'RE ADDING HOUSING, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS A GOAL.
WE ARE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT IS LARGELY CONFORMING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE HAVE OPEN SPACE ON THE SITE.
WE KNOW THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP, BUT YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE OUR OPEN SPACE PLAN.
SO I'M, I'M NOT HEARING THAT THIS IS A BAD PROJECT NECESSARILY.
I'M HEARING THAT THERE'S MAY BE SOME OTHER ISSUE, AND I, I, I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
SO WHAT I THINK, AND MR. MR. BARRETT, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WE'RE GRANT, WE'RE GIVING YOU, YOU KNOW, THE OPPORTUNITY TO DELIBERATE WITH US IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE WAY OUR BOARD, IT, IT, WE WE'RE GONNA MAKE OUR DECISION.
I MEAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND, UM, THAT'S UP TO BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE A VOTE ON WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING ME A VOICE.
YEAH, NO, AND I, I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA, YEAH, NO, IT'S NOT MY INTENT TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE IN THE CONVERSATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH, I THINK, UM, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS WILL BE.
SO, UM, THE CHAIR, UH, WILL MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO GRANT A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTIONS, UH, 5.31, 8.22, AND 10.40 SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND, UM, REVIEWING, UM, RESPONSES, UH, FOR THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT, FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT THAT, UM, A, IT, IT APPEARS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE MET.
UM,
UH, ITEM B, UH, TRAFFIC GENERATED OR PATENT OF ACCESS OR EGRESS SHOULD CAUSE CONGESTION, HAZARD, OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
UH, EXISTING USE IS A TWO-FAMILY HOME IN A PREDOMINANTLY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT WHERE COST COMPOSITION IS LARGER.
THREE UNITS, UH, PROPOSED, UH, USE AND INCREASE TO THREE UNIT.
UH, WELL, IT'S, UM, MAINTAINING THREE UNITS AND WILL NOT POSE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S AN, IT'S AN INCREASE TO THREE UNITS.
IT'S AN INCREASE, INCREASE TO THREE UNITS, TWO, THREE UNITS.
AND INCREASE TO THREE UNITS WILL NOT POSE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
UM, ITEM C, THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF, OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT USES AS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
UH, THE ADJACENT USES ARE THE SAME USE CATEGORY AS PROPOSED AND WOULD BE UNIFORM AND HARMONIOUS.
UH, D NUISANCE OR HAZARD WOULD BE CREATED TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANT.
UH, THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL BRING THE ENTIRE SITE UP TO CAMBRIDGE'S RIGOROUS CODE STANDARDS AND CLEAN UP A SITE THAT HAS BEEN RUN DOWN THROUGH PASSAGE OF TIME, CREATING A VIBRANT POINT TO AN OTHERWISE AWKWARD LOT CONFIGURATION.
AND E UH, FOR OTHER REASONS, UH, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT OR JOINING DISTRICTS.
UH, CAMBRIDGE HAS COMMITTED ITSELF TO A BUILDING AND HOUSING, AND THE RULES RULE CHANGES THAT PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES OR
[02:45:01]
PROOF.THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND ENCOURAGED, WHICH IS MOST RECENTLY CITED IN NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING PRESENTATIONS GIVEN ON JUNE 25TH.
UM, AND SO BY THAT FINDING, THEY MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER SECTION 10.40 FOR SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND FURTHER, WE INCORPORATE THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS AND DIMENSIONAL FORMS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
AND SO ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE.
BOARD MEMBERS, UH, WENDY EREN, MR. CHAIR, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR MY, UH, ME TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS VOTE, UH, BECAUSE, UH, THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BELIEVES THAT I CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE.
SO I WILL DO THAT AND ALLOW MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTOOD.
CECIL OPPOSED? AND STEVEN ING, UH, OPPOSED.
SO THAT'S, UH, TWO OPPOSED, AND TWO IN FAVOR? TWO OPPOSED.
UH, SO IS THAT THE RIGHT COUNT FOR YEAH, THAT'S A DENIAL.
AND, UM, SO I'LL ALSO MOVE THAT, UM, I HAVE TO CITE THE REASONS, RIGHT? FOR, UM, UH, SO THE DENIAL IS BASED UPON, UM, ITEM A THAT, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE COULD BE MET, UH, DUE TO SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE LOT, AS WELL AS, UH, SECTION C, THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF RIGHT DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT USES AS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
UM, AND WE WOULD BE AT THIS PROJECT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IN, THROUGH A VARIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION IMPACTS, SUCH AS SUNLIGHT AND, AND OPEN SPACE.
SO, AND THEN I JUST ASKED FOR THE BOARD TO APPROVE THAT, RIGHT? YES, THEY AGREE.
SO BASED ON THOSE CRITERIA, UH, I ASKED THE BOARD TO, UH, APPROVE, UH, THOSE REASONS FOR DENIAL.
SO BY A VOICE VOTE, UH, WITH WENDY LYON, UH, RECUSING HERSELF, UH, VIRGINIA KEESLER, UH, I'M SORRY.
SO, SO ALTHOUGH I VOTED IN FAVOR, I AM JUST VOTING NOW ON APPROVING OUR, THE REC, THE
CECIL IN FAVOR, AND STEVEN ING IN FAVOR.
SO THAT CLOSES OUR, UH, AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING.