[00:00:02]
WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 15TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE CAMBRIDGE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL.
MY NAME IS STEVEN ENG AND I AM 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, THAT TIME.
AND YOU CAN ALSO FIND INSTRUCTIONS ON THE CITY'S WEBPAGE FOR REMOTE BZA MEETINGS.
GENERALLY, YOU WILL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I'LL START BY ASKING STAFF TO TAKE BOARD MEMBERS' ATTENDANCE FOR OUR 6:00 CONTINUANCE AGENDA ITEMS AND VERIFY THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE AUDIBLE.
VIRGINIA KEES - VIRGINIA KIESLER PRESENT.
AND WE'LL GET BRENDAN ON WHEN HE COME, COMES ON AFTER CONTINUANCE.
SO FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS THIS EVENING IS ON THE CONTINUED CASE AGENDA 6:00 PM, CASE NUMBER BZA1215768, UH, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR SEVEN / 16 / 2026, 51 STERN STREET, UH, MR. ROBERT FRANKENHEIM.
MR. FRANKENHEIM, ARE YOU ONLINE, UH, AT THIS TIME? NO? NO.
MR. FRANKENHEIM HAS REQUESTED, UH, THAT HE WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION.
AND SO, UM, UH, I'D LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION, UM, BZA1215768, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE, UH, WENDY? WENDY LEISERSEN IN FAVOR.
VIRGINIA KEES - VIRGINIA KEISLER IN FAVOR.
ANY REASON WHY WE'RE GETTING THE...
UH, YEAH, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE SOUND PROBLEMS HERE.
YEAH, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE SOUND PROBLEMS HERE.
AND, UH, STEVEN KING - AND, UH, ALSO IN FAVOR.
SO THE WITHDRAWAL - SO THE WITHDRAWAL - PASSES.
WE, WE JUST GOT A LITTLE ACOUSTIC SOUND ISSUE.
OKAY, LET'S SEE IF WE STILL GET THAT, UH, AUDIO ISSUE.
[00:05:01]
OKAY, SO, UH, THE 51 STERN STREET WITHDRAWAL MOTION PASSES, UH, AND WE MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE CONTINUANCE AGENDA, UH, BZA1225403, UH, UH, THE 127 MOUNT AUBURN STREET, UH, 17 STORY LLC, UH, SEEKING VARIANCE, UH, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS ALONG MOUNT AUBURN STREET AND STORY STREET.AND WE PROPO - UH, ALSO A REQUEST TO INCREASE, UH, COMMERCIAL SIDE SETBACKS ON FIRST, SECOND, THIRD FLOOR OF THE BUILDING, UH, TO NORMALIZE FOOTPRINT OF ALLOWED HOTEL USE IN THE BUILDING.
UM, IS, UH, MR. BARRETT, UH, ONLINE? I AM, MR. CHAIR.
UM, SO, UH, AS WE LEFT OFF, UH, AT OUR LAST HEARING, UH, UH, CONTINUANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD YOUR PRESENTATION, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, WE'RE KIND OF IN THAT, UH, M- MODE TO MOVE INTO DELIBERATIONS, BUT WANTED TO CHECK IN TO SEE IF, UH, YOU HAD ANY UPDATES ON MODIFICATIONS.
SO WE GOT, UM, A LIST OF REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS - YES.
OR, OR CLARIFICATIONS ON FRIDAY, AND I SPENT SOME TIME WITH THE TEAM OVER THE WEEKEND.
UM, THE HOLIDAY DISRUPTED US A LITTLE BIT, BUT WE FEEL WE CAN GET, UH, A MUCH MORE CLEAR AND CONCISE PRESENTATION FOR THE BOARD TO EXPLAIN, UM, VISUALLY AND TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING ASKED, BUT WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE, UM, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU IN NOVEMBER, UM, WITH THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED CLEARLY.
AND THAT DATE IS NOVEMBER NOVEMBER 19TH? YEP.
UH, SO CHECKING WITH FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, UH, RIGHT NOW, IS NOVEMBER 19TH WORK FOR EVERYONE? UH, VIR- VIRGINIA? ME.
UH, DANIEL? UH, YES, THAT SHOULD WORK FOR ME.
MIRANDA, DOES THE 19TH, UH, WORK, DOES THE 19TH, UH, WORK? YES.
AND WENDY, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? YES.
SO NOW I JUST GOTTA PULL UP MY SCRIPT FOR A CONTINUANCE.
UH, SO, UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER, UH, CASE NUMBER 1225403, UH, 127 MOUNT AUBURN STREET, 17 STORY STREET, UH, TO THE NOVEMBER 19TH, 2026, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE PETITIONER CHANGED THE POSTING SIGN TO REFLECT THE NEW DATE OF, UH, NOVEMBER 19TH AND THE NEW TIME OF 6:00 PM.
ALSO, THAT THE PETITIONER SIGN A WAIVER TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HEARING.
THIS WAIVER CAN BE OBTAINED FROM MARI- MARIA PACHECO OR OLIVIA RITTE AT THE INSPEC- INSPECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
I ASK THAT THE PETITIONER SIGN THE WAIVER AND RETURN IT TO THE INSPECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT BY A WEEK FROM THIS COMING MONDAY.
FAILURE TO DO SO WILL DEFACTO CAUSE THIS BOARD TO GIVE AN ADVERSE RULING ON THE CASE.
ALSO, THAT IF THERE ARE ANY 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,
[00:10:01]
MEETING DATE.UH, ON THE MOTION TO THIS MATTER UNTIL NOVEMBER 19TH, UH, VOICE VOTE, PLEASE.
UH, DAN- DANIEL HIDALGO IN FAVOR.
UH, VIRGINIA KIESLER? VIRGINIA KIESLER IN FAVOR.
AND STEVENING IN FAVOR AS WELL.
WE'VE GOT FOUR MINUTES BEFORE OUR NEXT, UH, AGENDA ITEM, UH, AT, UH, 6:15.
SO WE WILL GET - WE, WE LOSE MIRANDA, BUT WE GAIN BRENDAN.
UH, SO MIRANDA, I THINK YOU'RE FREE TO, UH, ENJOY YOUR EVENING.
UH, AND, UH, WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 19TH AND WE'LL BRING IN, UH, BRENDAN SULLIVAN TO JOIN US FOR THE 6:15.
AND BRENDAN, CAN YOU, UH, HEAR US? ARE YOU, CAN YOU REPORT? I AM, UH, PRESENT AND AUDIBLE.
SO WE'LL SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
UM, NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA, UH, IS CASE NUMBER BZA, UH, 1230378, UH, 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE.
UM, IT IS, UH, AN APPEAL, UH, SUBMITTED BY WENZING DU, YAO FING
[00:15:01]
LI, PETER STURGIS, SACHA LADERBUCK, UH, AND, UM, REPRESENTED BY DENNIS MURPHY, UM, TO, UH, APPEAL, UH, THE BUILDING PERMIT, UH, ISSUED FOR 90 LEXINGTON AVE.DO I HAVE TO KIND OF READ THE WHOLE DESCRIPTION? IT'S PROBABLY BENEFICIAL.
AN APPEAL UNDER GENERAL LAW, SECTIONS 40A, EIGHT, AND 15, SECTIONS 10.21 AND THE Z - OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FROM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSPECTIONAL SERVICES TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT RECORD NUMBER 1196760 FOR 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE ON AUGUST 21ST, 2026.
PETITIONERS ARE DIRECT ABUTTERS.
PETITIONERS REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ANNULL THE PERMIT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE ATTACHED NOTICE OF APPEAL.
ARTICLE 22, SECTION 22.90, THE GREEN FACTOR STANDARD, SECTION 22.94.3, UH, COOL SCORE, SECTION 22.
97B, IMPLEMENTATION OF GREEN FACTOR STANDARD, ARTICLE SIX, SECTION 6.106.1, AD, A AND D, PRIMARY ACCESS, ACCESS STANDARDS FOR BICYCLE PARKING, SECTION 6.104.2, LOCATION OF SHORT-TERM BICYCLE, UH, 5.2, UH, P- PARKING, I'M SORRY.
UH, SECTION 6.102.5, TIP - TYPES OF BICYCLE PARKING, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 5.22.1.5.22.4.
UH, A, ARTICLE TWO, OPEN SPACE, SECTION 5.24, 5.24.1, AND 5.31, TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 5.40, FOOTNOTE 37, AS WELL AS ARTICLE TWO, LACK OF NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION, ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 4.21.
ARTICLE TWO, UH, YARDS, ARTICLE 11, ARTICLE TWO, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, AND ARTICLE 10, SECTIONS 10.2, UH, REGARDING APPEALS.
UM, IS THERE, UH, MR. MURPHY ONLINE? YES.
I'M AN ATTORNEY AT HILL LAW IN BOSTON, AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONERS.
UH, I SERVED IN YOUR ROLE ON MY OWN ZONING BOARD FOR NEARLY A DECADE, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT EVERY DAY THAT YOU SEE A BUILDING PERMIT APPEAL LIKE THIS ONE.
UM, MY CLIENTS MADE GREAT EFFORTS TO TRY TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES DIRECTLY WITH CITY STAFF AND WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, AND SO THAT'S WHAT BRINGS US HERE TONIGHT.
UH, WE HAVE WITH US TWO EXPERTS, AN ARBORIST, JOHN COPPINGER AND, UH, AN ENGINEER, LARRY HAYES, AND I ASK IF YOU COULD PLEASE PROMOTE THEM TO PANELISTS.
UM, IN CASE THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS FOR THEM, THEIR REPORTS WERE INCLUDED IN MY SUBMISSION.
AND, UH, TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, I, I REALIZE THAT WHAT I FILED WAS VOLUMINOUS, UH, BUT I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO OUR CONSULTANT, TOM POUNDS, WHO IS GONNA HELP YOU MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL AND - YEAH.
AND, UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE QUEUE UP THE SLIDE PRESENTATION THAT HE SUBMITTED.
YEAH, WE'LL GET THAT ALL SET UP FOR YOU, MR. MURPHY.
UM, I DO ASK THAT WE MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO STAY FOCUSED ON ZONING ORDINANCE-RELATED ITEMS, WHICH IS OUR PURVIEW.
UM, AND, UH, I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE'RE GOING A LITTLE TOO ASTRAY, BUT, UH, I'LL, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST A REQUEST THERE TO STAY FOCUSED ON WHAT WE CAN, UH, MAKE DECISIONS ON.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, WE CAN, MR. POUNDS.
I LIVE AT 102 LEXINGTON AVENUE, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ABUTTERS, UH, ON THIS PLANT REVIEWS FOR THIS PLAN, FOR THIS PROJECT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
UH, OLIVIA, CAN YOU ADVANCE THE SLIDES? I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP AS WE GO.
[00:20:02]
THANK YOU.UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GO TO THE FULL SIZE SCREEN, UH, FOR POWERPOINT.
WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE? IT'LL BE EASIER TO SEE SOME OF THESE SIDES.
SO THIS IS A PICTURE OF 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE TODAY.
IT'S ONE OF THE FAMOUS 16 SISTERS, FOR THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE STREET AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS THIS TIMELINE OF EVENTS THAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO.
UH, IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY AVENUE CAPITAL PARTNERS AND THEIR, UH, RELATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, TREADSTONE CONSTRUCTION, FOR $2.6 MILLION.
IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR, THEY GOT A PERMIT TO DO INTERIOR DEMO, AND THEY COMPLETED THAT DEMO.
ON JU - JANUARY 30TH, THEY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION, UH, UNDER THE NAME OF TREADSTONE CONSTRUCTION.
UH, IN AUGUST, ON THE 21ST, THAT PERMIT WAS GRANTED.
UH, ON THE, UH, SEPTEMBER 11TH, UH, WE APPEALED OUR, UH, WE FILED OUR APPEAL OR THE, THE PLAINTIFFS FILED THEIR APPEAL TO BZA.
AND ON THE 15TH OF SEPTEMBER, JUST THREE WEEKS AFTER THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED, THE PROPERTY AND THE PERMIT WAS FLIPPED TO TRIO DESIGN BUILD FOR $3.2 MILLION.
WE'RE HERE TO ASK THE BOARD TO ANNUL THIS PERMIT ON THE 10 COUNTS LISTED HERE.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF OUR DETAILED COMPREHENSIVE MEMO IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL.
MY GOAL, MY GOAL AND PURPOSE TODAY IS TO SHOW YOU A NUMBER OF THE MAJOR ZONING AND CODE NON-COMPLIANCES BY LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL PLANS FOR THE PROJECT.
THE MEMO CONTAINS FAR MORE DETAIL AND PRECISION THAN I'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE HERE, AND WE HOPE YOU'LL FIND SOME TIME TO REVIEW THAT MEMO CAREFULLY.
SO THIS IS THE, UH, NORTH ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
UH, THE PLANS CALL FOR 10 UNITS OVERALL, INCLUDING TWO BRAND NEW BASEMENT UNITS.
FOUR UNITS GO IN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE ON THE LEFT.
LEXINGTON AVENUE IS OFF TO THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN HERE.
AND SIX, UH, FILL THE ADDITION, UM, THAT, THAT FILLS THE, THE CURRENT BACKYARD.
THE RAMP YOU SEE RUNNING ALONG THE BUILDING IS A NON-COMPLIANT ACCESS ROUTE TO THE BIKE STORAGE ROOM.
IT'S SET IN THE YARD RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS THIS IN SOME DETAIL SHORTLY.
THE FRONT FACADE OF THE ORIGINAL GAMBLE ROOF BUILDING, AS IT'S DRAWN HERE, IS LITTLE CHANGED FROM WHAT'S THERE TODAY.
WHAT'S MISSING FROM THIS ELEVATION, FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, IS A MAJOR NEW NON-COMPLIANT OBSTRUCTION THAT FILLS THE FRONT YARD FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE SIDEWALK.
IT'S AN ELEVATED STORMWATER INFILTRATION STRUCTURE.
THE REAR ELEVATION ON THE RIGHT SHOWS NON-COMPLIANT WINDOW WELLS WITH GUARDRAILS ALL SITTING IN THE YARD.
WE'LL COME BACK TO BOTH OF THESE ITEMS AS WELL.
THIS SITE PLAN VIEW SHOWS THE, SHOWS THE ADDITION ON THE LEFT, UH, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING ON, ON THE RIGHT, AND IT, THAT ADDITION REACHES WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE ON BOTH SIDES AND THE REAR.
THAT MAXIMIZES THE FOOTPRINT ALLOWED BY THE CZO, UH, UNDER THEIR MINIMUM SETBACKS, AND WITH IT, THE DEVELOPER'S SALEABLE SPACE AND REVENUE.
NOW, WE UNDERSTAND EVERY DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHT TO START THERE AND TO TRY TO SHOW THROUGH PERMITTING THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE ORDINANCE AND CAN KEEP THAT FOOTPRINT, BUT NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE GUARANTEES THOSE MINIMUM SETBACKS.
IF THE PLANS CAN'T MEET EVERY STANDARD FOR AN AS OF RIGHT PERMIT, THE SETBACKS AND THE DESIGN MUST BE ADJUSTED TILL THEY DO.
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, THIS IS THE PROCESS THE CITY CED DESIGNED WHEN IT DRAFTED THE CZO.
AND OVER RECENT MONTHS, IT'S BEEN TELLING ANYONE WHO WILL LISTEN, CITY COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC, CITY LEADERSHIP, THAT FEW PROJECTS WILL BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND STILL, UH, BE WITHIN COMPLIANCE.
SOME WILL, CERTAINLY THAT'S WHY THEY SET IT AT FIVE FEET, BUT THEY EXPECT MOST WILL NOT.
HERE, THE PROCESS HAS SO FAR FAILED TO REIGN IN THE DESIGN, BUT THE NON-COMPLIANT RESULT WE'RE GONNA SHOW YOU HERE PROVES THEIR POINT.
AT 90 LEXINGTON, AS IT TURNS OUT, THAT MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE CREATES TWO UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS. FIRST, THE YARDS ARE TOO SMALL TO HOLD WHAT THE ORDINANCE AND THE CODES REQUIRE.
SECOND, THE ROOF OF THE ADDITION IS TOO LARGE TO DRAIN ON THIS SITE, WHICH HAS BOTH HIGH GROUNDWATER AND IMPERVIOUS CLAY SOIL.
SO WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THOSE TWO MAJOR THEMES.
LET'S START, LET'S SLIDE, UH, ADVANCE THE SLIDE.
WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE YARDS AND THE SITE AND
[00:25:01]
ADVANCE AGAIN.EVERYTHING ON THIS LIST HAS TO FIT IN THE FIVE-FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARDS AND A 17-FOOT FRONT YARD.
HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? WELL, FIRST, YOU, YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE PLAN SETS TO SUBMIT, ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, STORM WATER, GEOTECHNICAL, ET CETERA.
YOU, YOU DEVELOP DRAWINGS THAT ARE INCOMPLETE, MISLEADING, AND INCOMPATIBLE.
YOU THEN DEPLOY THOSE DRAWINGS STRATEGICALLY TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
NO REVIEWER SEEMS TO HAVE COMPARED ALL THESE DRAWINGS UNTIL WE DID.
THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET FAILS TO SHOW LOTS OF DETAILS IN THE YARDS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTANDING CODE COMPLIANCE.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CIVIL LANDSCAPE AND MECHANICAL PLANS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON, AND CONFLICTS AMONG THOSE REVEAL ADDITIONAL ISSUES.
SO WITH THAT INTRODUCTION, LET'S JUMP TO THE PLANS.
UM, AND I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY SOME OF THESE SLIDES ARE QUITE DENSE AND I DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A CURSOR OR A POINTER TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
SO IF I LOSE YOU, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO SPEAK UP.
SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE A TOUR AROUND THE BUILDING AND WE'RE GONNA START IN, IN THE, IN THE SIDE YARD ON THE NORTH.
AT THE TOP OF THIS SLIDE IS THE NORTH YARD AS SHOWN IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT PLAN SET.
AND IT SHOWS, UH, UH, WELL, UH, IT SHOWS, UM, UH, EXCUSE ME, I, UH, LET ME, UH, LET ME START THIS SLIDE AGAIN.
GIVEN THE CITY'S AND THE, AND THE ZONING COMMITMENT TO ENCOURAGING AND ENABLING BICYCLING, PROVIDING ALL THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD SEEM LIKE A HIGH PRIORITY.
SECTION 6.106.1 OF THE CZO REQUIRES A PRIMARY ACCESS PATH TO THE BIKE STORAGE ROOM THAT'S AT LEAST FIVE FEET WIDE AND CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTIONS.
THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AT THE, SHOWN AT THE TOP HERE, UH, SHOW A BIKE RAMP COMPLETELY FILLING THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK, BUT NOT AN INCH MORE.
UH, THIS IS THE SHEET THAT, THIS IS THE DRAWING THAT THE COMMISSIONER REFERENCES IN HIS LETTER RESPONDING TO OUR APPEAL.
BUT THAT FIVE FEET IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE BUILDING WALL TO THE LOT LINE.
IT'S NOT A CLEAR ACCESS ROUTE.
WHEN YOU, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY HANDED THAT SPACE OFF TO THE CIVIL DESIGNER WHO ACTUALLY GOVERNED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTERIOR YARDS, THEY ADDED A FENCE AND SOME SPACE AND A LOW RETAINING WALL WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT SPACE, UM, AND A RAILING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCHEMATIC WALKWAY SECTION DOWN ON THE LOWER LEFT, YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE REMAINING AREA FOR A BIKE RAMP IS ONLY ABOUT THREE FOOT, SIX INCHES WIDE.
UM, AND IT'S ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE RAMP IN THE, IN THE CIRCLE WITH THE THREE FEET, THREE FOOT NEXT TO IT, THAT'S A PLACE WHERE AN EGRESS WELD ACTUALLY BUMPS INTO THE RAMP, UH, AND IT HAS A RAILING AROUND IT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY A WIDTH OF LESS THAN, UH, UH, LESS THAN THREE FEET, WE BELIEVE.
SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, CARGO BIKES AND LOADED E-BIKES NEED THE FULL FIVE FOOT WIDTH PROVIDED FOR THIS ACCESS ROUTE TO BE FUNCTIONAL, ESPECIALLY AS THEY'RE TRYING TO TURN THE, UH, THE CORNER INTO THE BIKE ROOM AT THE TOP OF THE RAMP.
THERE'S ONE MORE THING ABOUT THIS, WHICH IS THAT UNDER 5.24 OF THE CZO, THIS ACCESS ROUTE IS ONLY ALLOWED IN THE SETBACK IF IT'S FULLY COMPLIANT WITH SECTION SIX.
THE COMMISSIONER'S LETTER STATES THIS CLEARLY.
THIS TOO NARROW ACCESS PATH MEANS THE WHOLE PLACEMENT OF THE RAMP AND THE SETBACK IS NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE CZO.
IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTION AT ALL ABOUT WHO GOVERNS THE EXTERIOR F, UH, UH, CONSTRUCTION, I THINK THIS LETTER SHOULD ANSWER THAT.
THIS IS A LETTER TO, UH, DPW FROM THE CIVIL ENGINEER THAT STATES, "CIVIL PLANS SHALL GOVERN CONSTRUCTION OF ALL EXTERIOR SITE FEATURES, AND IT'S COPIED TO THE APP - THE, UH, APPLICANT." UH, NEXT SLIDE.
THERE'S ONE MORE REASON THAT THIS ACCESS RAMP CAN'T BE IN THE SETBACK.
WITH ITS REQUIRED GUARDRAIL, THE STRUCTURE STANDS SEVEN FEET FIVE INCHES TALL AT THE ENTRY TO THE BIKE STORAGE ROOM AT WHERE THAT RED ARROW IS.
[00:30:01]
STRUCTURES IN A YARD.BUT IF THEY'RE OVER SIX FEET TALL, THEY NEED TO ALSO MEET THE ACCESSORY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS UNDER 4.21.
THIS DOESN'T QUALIFY AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT CAN SIT IN THE SETBACK.
SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE NORTH YARD.
WE'RE NOW GONNA WALK AROUND TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
I CAN'T, I CAN'T, THEY CAN'T SEE ME.
UH, SO MOVING TO THE FRONT YARD, UH, ON THE LEFT, WE SEE THE, UH, DRAWING FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT SET.
THIS DRAWING SHOWS GRASS AT GRADE IN THE FRONT YARD WITH SOME HARDSCAPE IN FRONT OF THE PORCH THAT REALLY SHOWS UP ON LITERALLY NO OTHER DRAWING.
UH, ACCORDING TO THAT DRAWING, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOOKS A LOT LIKE IT DOES TODAY.
LOOKING ON THE RIGHT, WE SHOW THE SAME AREA AS PRESENTED ON THE CIVIL PLAN SET.
THIS PRESENTS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PICTURE.
THERE'S A RETAINING WALL THAT EXTENDS FROM THE FOUNDATION ALMOST TO THE SIDEWALK, AND THAT RETAINING WALL SURROUNDS A STORMWATER RETENTION CHAMBER.
UM, THERE'S A KIND OF A MISLEADING SECTION DRAWING OF THIS STRUCTURE PROVIDED IN THE CIVIL PLANS THAT LABELS THE TOP OF THIS CHAMBER AS AT, AS BEING AT FINISHED GRADE.
AND SINCE CHAMBERS LIKE THIS ARE TYPICALLY PLACED UNDERGROUND, A REVIEWER MIGHT THINK THAT THIS, THIS WHOLE STRUCTURE IS AT GROUND LEVEL AT FIRST GLANCE.
BUT LOOK AT THE DRAWING INSIDE THE RED CIRCLE.
WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT THE TOP AT ELEVATION 57.8 STANDS ABOUT THREE FEET ABOVE THE BASE OF THE WALKWAY SHOWN THE EXTENSION TO THAT RED CIRCLE AT ABOUT 54.8.
THAT COMES OUT, I'M ABOUT ALMOST SIX FEET TALL AND THAT COMES ABOUT TO MY HIP LEVEL.
SO THIS IS A MASSIVE STRUCTURE FILLING THE FRONT YARD THAT'S SIMPLY NOT SHOWN IN THE ARCHITECTURAL SET.
AND, AND HONESTLY, AS YOU'LL SEE IN A FEW MINUTES, IT SEEMS, IT ALMOST SEEMS POSSIBLE THAT THE ARCHITECT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THIS STRUCTURE IS HERE.
THIS IS THIS DRAWING THAT WAS MISSING FROM THE APPLICANT'S PLAN SET.
THIS IS A DRAWING OF, OF THE ACTUAL FRONT YARD WITH THE ELEVATED STORMWATER INFILTRATION, INFILTRATION STRUCTURE.
SECTION 5.21 SAYS EVERY PART OF A REQUIRED YARD SHALL BE OPEN TO THE SKY AND UNOBSTRUCTED WITH NINE EXCEPTIONS.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION FOR WATER RETENTION, WHICH SOMEBODY COULD PERHAPS CALL THIS, UH, WHICH IS PARAGRAPH I, APPLIES ONLY TO LOTS IN THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY.
THIS LOT IS NOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY.
SO THIS STRUCTURE IS A MAJOR YARD OBSTRUCTION THAT'S NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IN ADDITION TO BEING AN UNALLOWED OBSTRUCTION, THE STORMWATER ENCLOSURE ITSELF DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS WHICH FOLLOW MASS DEPS.
THOSE STANDARDS REQUIRE AN INFILTRATION SYSTEM TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE, 10 FEET FROM THE FOUNDATION AND TWO FEET ABOVE SEASONAL GROUNDWATER LEVEL.
THIS ONE IS ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK.
IT'S LITERALLY ZERO FEET FROM THE FIELDS, FROM THE ORIGINAL FIELDSTONE FOUNDATION OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AND IT'S ABOUT 1.4 FEET ABOVE HIGH WATER LEVEL.
SO FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, IT'S AN UNALLOWED OBSTRUCTION AND ACCORDING TO STORMWATER STANDARDS, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T FIT IN THIS YARD.
WE'RE GOING TO RETURN TO THE HYDROLOGICAL DEFICIENCIES OF THIS CHAMBER A LITTLE BIT LATER.
SO AGAIN, LET'S RETURN ON THE LEFT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT SET.
AND ONE, ONE THING THAT'S DIFFICULT TO READ HERE, I APOLOGIZE, BUT IN THAT CIRCLE, IN THAT SORT OF DOTTED SQUARE INSIDE THE CIRCLE IS, IS AN ARROW THAT INDICATES THAT'S SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING.
AND IT'S SHOWN ON THAT ARCHITECTURAL SET AT SITE GRADE ELEVATION.
LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD FIT THERE JUST FINE.
BUT WHAT WE KNOW BASED ON WHAT WE'VE JUST SEEN IS THAT THAT SITE SITS THREE FEET ABOVE GRADE WITH NO MEANS OF ACCESS.
THE SITE, THE BICYCLING SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS VERY CLEAR THAT ANY BIKE PARKING CAN'T REQUIRE LIFTING BICYCLES OVER ANY STEPS OR STAIRS AND CERTAINLY NOT UP A THREE FOOT WALL.
SO THAT SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING IS, UH, OUT OF, OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.
ADDING TO THE INAPPROPRIATE USES OF THIS ELEVATED NON-COMPLIANT STORMWATER CHAMBER, WE FIND IT DESIGNATED AS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, WHICH AS YOU KNOW IS RESERVED FOR THE USE OF OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING.
BUT SINCE THERE ARE NO RAMPS OR
[00:35:01]
STAIRS TO THAT SURFACE, NO ONE CAN REACH IT.IT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.
ONCE WE TAKE OUT THIS INACCESSIBLE 300 SQUARE FEET, THE PROJECT FAILS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
PERHAPS YOU CAN SEE AFTER THESE LAST TWO SLIDES PUTTING THESE, MAKING THESE CLAIMS OF THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE, WHY WE WONDER IF THE ARCHITECT IS EVEN AWARE IT'S THERE.
THE, THE COOL FACTOR SCORE LAYERS ONE MORE USE ONTO THIS PRECIOUS SPACE ON TOP OF THE CHAMBER.
THEY, THEY DESIGNATE THAT SPACE AS HIGH PLANTING AND LOW PLANTING AREAS.
THESE AREAS REQUIRE 12 TO EIGHT, 18 INCHES OF PLANTING SOIL UNDER THE COOL SCORE GUIDELINES, BUT THE SECTION BELOW AT THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THE SLIDE SHOWS ONLY SIX INCHES OF COMPACTED FILL AND NO PLANTING SOIL.
AND THESE CHAMBERS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANYTHING WITH DEEP ROOTS ON THEM AS THEY'LL EVENTUALLY GROW THROUGH THE GEOTEXTILE PROTECTION.
WITHOUT THE POINTS FROM THE PLANTING ON TOP OF THE ENCLOSURE, THE PROJECT FAILS THE COOL SCORE.
FINALLY, MOVING AWAY FROM OUR OVERBURDENED NON-COMPLIANT STORMWATER CHAMBER, WE FIND A SINGLE CANOPY TREE PLANTED IN A NARROW STRIP OF SOIL THAT ACCOUNTS FOR 55% OF THE COOL FACTOR SCORE.
IT'S IN THAT BLUE CIRCLE AT THE, ON THE TOP DIAGRAM.
THE COMMISSIONER'S LETTER SAID THAT IT'S IN A REASONABLE AREA AND IT'S VIABLE, BUT THE CITY'S QUANTIFIED GUIDELINES FOR CANOPY TREES BEYOND SUBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS.
SPECIFICALLY, 700 CUBIC FEET OF SOIL ARE REQUIRED FOR TREES OF THIS SIZE.
TWO CERTIFIED ARBORISTS FIND THIS LOCATION FALLS FAR SHORT OF THAT STANDARD.
UM, AND YOUR, UH, MR. COPPINGER IS AVAILABLE AND, UH, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, UH, IF YOU HAVE THEM.
UH, THE COMMISSIONER SUGGESTS THAT THIS COULD EASILY BE FIXED AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
NOTE THAT CANOPY TREES GET DOUBLE CREDIT IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE STREET AS THIS ONE IS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FRONT YARD IS FULLY SUBSCRIBED IN THE PERMITTED PLAN WITH NO LOCATION THAT COULD POSSIBLY PROVIDE NO OTHER LOCATION THAT COULD POSSIBLY PROVIDE 700 CUBE, CUBIC FEET OF SOIL.
MOVING MORE THAN 20 FEET FROM THE STREET WOULD MEAN YOU'D NEED TWO CANOPY TREES FOR THE SAME CREDIT, AND THERE'S SIMPLY NO EXTRA ROOM TO FIT THOSE IN NARROW YARDS ELSEWHERE.
SECTION 5.225 REQUIRES THE LOT TO SATISFY THE GREEN FACTOR COOL SCORE BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A BUR - BUILDING PERMIT.
WITHOUT THE CANOPY TREE AND THE PLANTING AREAS ON THE STORMWATER CHAMBER, THE PROJECT FALLS FAR SHORT.
THE PERMITTED PLAN DOESN'T MEET THIS STANDARD.
SO WHILE THE FRONT YARD HAS NO ROOM FOR A NEW CANOPY TREE, THE PERMITTED PLAN IS LIKELY TO CAUSE IMMEDIATE HARM TO AN EXISTING ONE AS SEEN IN THESE PICTURES.
IT'S, THE, THE PICTURES ARE SMALL, I APOLOGIZE, BUT THIS IS A, A, A RED OAK THAT IS, IS, THAT BORDERS LEXINGTON AVENUE.
IT'S A PROTECTED PUBLIC SHADE TREE.
THE CIVIL PLANS, A SLICE OF THE CIVIL PLANS ARE SHOWN ON THE LEFT AND THAT TREE IS REPRESENTED INSIDE THAT RED CIRCLE.
THIS TREE HAS A 20 INCH TRUNK.
IT'S SHOWN IN THAT, IN THAT DIAGRAM FROM THE CIVIL PLANS WITH A CANOPY OF MAYBE SEVEN FEET.
UH, THEY SHOW THE CANOPY NOT EVEN REACHING THE PROPERTY LINE, MUCH LESS THE HOUSE OR THE PORCH WHERE IT ACTUALLY REACHES.
UH, MR. COPPINGER SAYS THAT EXCAVATION SHOULD STAY AT LEAST 21.75 FEET FROM THE TRUNK.
THE STORMWATER CHAMBER EXCAVATION REACHES WITHIN A COUPLE FEET OF THE TRUNK.
THE APPLICANT, YOU'LL SEE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE HERE, UH, UH, TOLD DPW THAT THE PROJECT WAS NOT PLANNING ANY IMPACTS TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE TREES.
WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS IS NOT THE CASE AND THE PUBLIC TREE WOULD FACE GRAVE HARM FROM THIS PLAN.
SO TURNING TO THE SOUTH YARD, WE'LL START AT THE TOP, THE AR - WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
THEY SHOW GRASS FROM FRONT TO BACK.
THE LANDSCAPE PLANS NEXT DOWN BRING REFUSE, LARGE REFUGE STORAGE AREA SIT- SITTING ON PAVERS TO AN AREA ALONG THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, ALONG WITH SOME SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE ARCHI - ELEMENTS.
AND THEN MOVING TO THE THIRD PLANS, THE MECHANICAL PLANS, THEY REVEALED 10 HEAT PUMP COMPRESSORS IN THE SOUTH YARD.
ALONG THE ORIGINAL BUILDING, THOSE COMPRESSORS INTERFERE WITH THE WASTE BINS.
THEY OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE, MAKING THAT SPACE INA - UNUSABLE FOR ITS ASSIGNED PURPOSES WASTE STORAGE.
ALONG THE ADDITION, THEY OVERLAP WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND WINDOW WELL FURTHER COMPROMISING THE GREEN, THE,
[00:40:01]
THE GREEN, GREEN COOL FACTOR SCORE.BUT AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM IS THAT 10 HEAT PUMP COMPRESSORS AREN'T AN ALLOWED OBSTRUCTION IN A YARD PER THE ORDINANCE.
THREE AND FOUR TON HEAT PUMP CONDENSERS WITH DENSE POWER CONTROL AND REFRIGERANT CONNECTIONS TO THE BUILDING SET ATOP 18 INCH STANDS ON CONCRETE PADS FILLING HALF THE SETBACK HARDLY SEEM TO QUALIFY UNDER 5.2 POINT, 5.24.
1A, AS THE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO SUGGEST, AS SIMILAR OBJECTS TO SAY A CLOTHES LINE OR AN ARBOR GROWING A- A- AGAINST A WALL.
10 HEAT PUMP COMPRESSORS WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THE FENCE WILL EXCEED THE CITY'S NOR - NOISE LIMITS AT THE LOT LINE FOR ABUTTERS.
ALSO, THOUGH IT'S NOT A STRICT CODE ISSUE, THEY'RE GONNA CAUSE QUITE A RACKET FOR THE BUILDING'S OCCUPANTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT.
IMAGINE LIVING INSIDE SIX HEAT PUMP COMPRESSORS.
UH, TH- THERE IS PERHAPS A SILVER LINING THERE, SINCE THEY'RE PLACED JUST A COUPLE FEET FROM THE PERIMETER FENCE, WHICH IS ABOUT A THIRD OF THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED CLEARANCE FOR RUNNING THIS MANY UNITS SIDE BY SIDE, IT SHOULD ACTUALLY BE QUITE HOT, QUIET ON HOT SUMMER DAYS BECAUSE ALL THE UNITS WILL OVERHEAT AND AUTOMATICALLY SHUT DOWN, LEAVING NOBODY IN THIS BUILDING WITH AIR CONDITIONING.
SO TURNING THE CORNER TO OUR LAST YARD, LET'S, LET'S COMPLETE OUR WALK AROUND THERE.
ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE THAT THE CIVIL, THE, THE PLAN VIEW FROM THE CIVIL PLANS SHOWING THE EGRESS WELLS EXTENDING ABOUT THREE AND A HALF FEET FROM THE FOUNDATION, MUCH LARGER THAN YOU SEE IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
1H IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CZO THAT MENTIONS WINDOW WELLS AS AN ALLOWED YARD OBSTRUCTION, BUT ONLY AS FEATURES THAT PROVIDE FLOOD RESILIENCE.
THIS LOT AGAIN IS NOT IN A FLOOD ZONE, SO THESE AND FOUR OF THE OTHER FIVE WINDOW WELLS AROUND THE BUILDING VIOLATE THE ZONING, ZONING ORDINANCE BY BEING IN THE YARDS.
THERE'S ONE MORE INTERESTING THING TO NOTE ON THE ELEVATION DRAWING FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET, AND THAT'S THIS NOTE IN THE RED CIRCLE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
THEY'VE ADDED A NOTE THAT SPECIFIES THAT THE TOP OF THIS WELL NEEDS TO BE ABOVE THE 1% LTFE, AND THEY EVEN INCLUDE, UH, AN ELEVATION, UH, WHICH WE'RE NOT AWARE OF WHERE THEY FOUND.
THIS FLIGHT'S NOT, THIS SITE, THIS SITE'S NOT IN A FLOOD ZONE.
IT'S ALMOST AS IF THE ARCHITECT KNOWS THAT THESE WELLS WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED FLOOD RESILIENT FEATURES TO BE THERE.
AND SO THEY ADDED SOME KIND OF FLOOD RELATED LANGUAGE TO THEM TO CREATE THE FALSE IMPRESSION FOR SOMEBODY REVIEWING THIS, UH, THAT THESE, UH, WELLS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.
SO WITH OUR, WITH OUR BUILDING WALK AROUND COMPLETE, LET'S TURN TO SOME LIFE SAFETY ISSUES.
SECTION 8.12 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MAKES CONFORMITY WITH THE STATE BUILDING CODE A REQUIREMENT.
THE ABUTTERS HIRED A RESPECTED FIRE CODE CONSULTANT, COSENTINI AT TETRA TECH COMPANY TO REVIEW THE PLANS FOR 90 LEXINGTON.
THEIR CODE REVIEW FINDS THAT THERE MUST BE 36 INCHES OF CLEARANCE BETWEEN EACH EGRESS WELL AND THE LOT LINE AND A 36 INCH UNOBSTRUCTED PATH FROM THE WELL TO THE PUBLIC STREET.
THEY OBSERVE THAT THE PLANS FAIL ON BOTH OF THESE COUNTS.
HERE'S A SIDE ELEVATION OF THE ADDITION AT THE REAR SHOWING THE EGRESS WELLS WITH GUARDRAILS EXTENDING FROM THE BUILDING.
YOU CAN SEE THE GUARDRAILS STAND ABOUT ONE FOOT FROM THE FENCE.
IT'S THREE AND A HALF FEET FOR THE, FOR THE WINDOW WELLS WITH GUARD, WITH RAILS.
IT'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND THE FENCE IS ABOUT SIX INCHES WIDE.
PICKING UP ON CONSTANTINI'S, ON CONSTANTINI'S LARGER POINT ABOUT MAINTAINING A CLEAR 36 INCH WIDE PATH ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET, IT'S US- USEFUL TO LAY THE CIVIL LANDSCAPE AND MECHANICAL PLANS SIDE BY SIDE.
STARTING WITH THE CIVIL PLANS ON THE LEFT AND LOOKING AT THE, UM, KIND OF UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THAT, THE FIRST OBSTRUCTION YOU MEET COMING OUT OF THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY IS THE FOUR FOOT TALL WALL AT THE END OF THE BIKE RAMP.
CLEARLY NOT PASSABLE AT ANYWHERE DOWN THE, THE, THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
WORKING AROUND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WE CAN, UH, UH, WE, WE CAN LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE PLANS WHERE WE RUN INTO THREE TO FOUR FOOT WIDE ARBOR VITA - ARBORVITAE TREES.
[00:45:01]
CAN LOOK AT THE MECHANICAL PLANS AND SEE THE INTERFERENCE OF THE HEAT PUMPS, AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE OVERCROWDED TRASH STORAGE AREA TO FIND THAT THERE'S REALLY NO 36 INCH CLEAR PATH IN ANY PART OF THE REAR AND SIDE YARD, AND IT'S MORE TYPICALLY ONE TO TWO FEET.UH, SO ONE MORE LIFE, LIFE SAFETY, UH, ISSUE.
UH, THERE'S ONE MORE INSTANCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE BUILDING CODE, AND THAT'S THE SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS IS NOT PROVIDED FROM THE FOURTH STORY SPACE IN THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
WE'RE INCLUDING THIS AS A YARD ISSUE BECAUSE A SECOND EGRESS WOULD LIKELY NEED TO BE AN EXTERIOR FEATURE, AND IT'S NOT CLEAR WHERE AN ESCAPE WOULD FIND ITS WAY TO THE GROUND AND TO AN UNOBSTRUCTED PATH TO THE STREET IN THESE OV - ALREADY OVERCROWDED YARDS.
SO FINALLY, IN THE YARDS, THE, THE RED SQUARE YOU SEE ABOVE IS THE SIZE OF, OF AN, THE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO RUN THIS ALL ELECTRIC BUILDING.
AND THE STRIKED AREA AROUND IT IS THE REQUIRED CLEARANCES AROUND THAT TRANSFORMER.
A LOCATION FOR SUCH A TRANSFORMER WITH ITS REQUIRED CLEARANCES IS NOT SHOWN ANYWHERE ON THE PLANS, AND THERE'S SIMPLY NO PLACE ON, LEFT ON THIS SITE WHERE IT COULD POSSIBLY FIT.
SO THIS IS A SUMMARY OF OUR WALK AROUND AND, AND WHAT WE FOUND.
THESE RED SHADED AREAS INDICATE AREAS OF CODE VIOLATIONS.
EVERY YARD HAS MULTIPLE ZONING AND CODE VIOLATIONS.
THE BIKE ACCESS RAMP ON THE NORTH, THE STORMWATER STRUCTURE WITH ITS MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES IN THE FRONT, THE HVAC OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE SOUTH AND WINDOW WELLS IN THE REAR AND SIDES.
THERE ARE OBSTRUCTIONS ALL AROUND.
AND TWO REQUIRED ITEMS, SECOND EGRESS FROM THE FOURTH STORY AND THE ELEC- ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER STILL HAVE NO LOCATIONS.
SO THAT'S THE STORY WITH THE YARDS.
WE'RE NOW GONNA MOVE ON TO STORMWATER AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT.
AND MR. HAYES, OUR CIVIL ENGINEER, IS HERE TO ANSWER, ANSWER QUESTIONS IF NEEDED.
SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE STORMWATER RETENTION STRUCTURE, WHICH WE LOOKED AT EARLIER.
IN ADDITION TO BEING AN UNALLOWED STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD, THIS SYSTEM FAILS TO MEET MOST STATE AND CITY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYS - STANDARDS AND BUILDING CODE.
THINK OF THIS CHAMBER AS A SWIMMING POOL WITH AN OPEN BOTTOM DESIGNED TO CATCH AND HOLD STORMWATER RUNOFF UNTIL IT CAN SLOWLY SEEP OUT, REPLENISHING THE GROUNDWATER ON THE SITE.
THESE CHAMBERS ARE TYPICALLY ENTIRELY BELOW GROUND, SO YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THEM.
AND AS WE SAID EARLIER, THEY'RE TYPICALLY SET FAR AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINES AND BUILDINGS.
THIS TABLE PRESENTS THE STANDARDS THAT GOVERN THE DESIGN OF THESE CHAMBERS.
UH, HERE, THIS DIAGRAM AT THE TOP SHOWS HOW THE CHAMBER IS PERCHED ABOVE THE FRONT YARD AND WALKWAY SO IT CAN SIT ABOVE THE HIGH WATER LEVEL.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE HIGH WATER LEVEL IS SO HIGH, IT'S JUST TWO FEET BELOW GRADE THAT THE CHAMBER, CHAMBER CAN'T QUITE STRETCH HIGH ENOUGH TO MEET THE FULL TWO FOOT SEPARATION REQUIRED BY THE STANDARDS.
IT SITS ONLY ABOUT 1.4 FEET ABOVE SEASONAL HIGH GRO- GROUNDWATER, AND SO IT WON'T DRAIN AS EFFECTIVELY.
NEXT DOWN IN THE TABLE IS SOIL TYPE.
THE CI- CIVIL ENGINEER DID ALL THEIR DESIGN AND ANALYSIS BASED ON SILT LOAM SOIL, AND THAT'S PRETTY PERMEABLE.
IT DRAINS AT 0.27 INCHES AN HOUR.
EVERYONE ELSE LOOKING AT THIS SITE FINDS IT TO BE SILT CLAY, WHICH IS A THIRD TO A 10TH AS PERMEABLE.
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE CHAMBER WILL DRAIN SLOWLY AND THAT, THAT WATER CAN TRAVEL SIDEWAYS ALONG THE CLAY LAYER TO BUTTER'S PROPERTIES AND THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
THIS STRUCTURE CAN CHANGE THE ENTIRE HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE AND THE DESIGNER FAILED TO PRODUCE ANALYSIS THAT WOULD TRY TO CHARACTERIZE THAT, LEAVING SIGNIFICANT RISKS OF PROPERTY DAMAGE.
NOW, ALTHOUGH THE CIVIL ENGINEER USED SILT CLAY IN THEIR ANALYSIS, SILT LOAM, EXCUSE ME, THEY USED SILT LOAM FOR THEIR ANALYSIS, THEY WROTE A LETTER TO DPW WHERE THEY SAID, "OUR SOIL TESTING FOUND EXTREMELY HIGH GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS IN THIS PROPERTY, LIKELY ABOVE CLAY." THIS WAS AFTER THEY'D DONE THEIR BORINGS.
SO THEY WERE AWARE, THEY'RE FULLY AWARE THIS IS A, THIS IS CLAY SOIL.
NOW, BEAR WITH ME ON THIS STORY, BUT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT AND IT REALLY SHOULD, UM, MAKE CLEAR WHAT THE CHALLENGES AND DIFFICULTIES ARE WITH THIS, WITH THIS STORMWATER
[00:50:01]
RETENTION STRUCTURE.UH, SO THIS STRUCTURE WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO CATCH THE STORMWATER OFF JUST 700 SQUARE FEET OF ROOF AT THE FRONT OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
THE REST OF THE FLOW WAS DIRECTED TO A FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.
SO YOU CAN SEE 700 SQUARE FEET IN BLUE GOING TO THE FRONT, 2355 GOING TO THAT SERIES OF FRENCH DRAINS, UM, IN THE BACK.
IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS, JUST LOOKING AT THIS DRAWING THAT WAS PRESENTED ON JANUARY 30TH, THAT THIS WASN'T GONNA WORK.
THE DRAINS IN THE BACK WERE SET ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY SET UNDER A FENCE AND IN THE NARROW YARDS.
IT WAS EVIDENT FROM THIS, FROM THE START THAT MORE ROOM, ROOM WAS NEEDED IN THE REAR TO ACCOMMODATE THESE DRAINS.
IN JUNE, DPW SEEMED TO REALIZE THE PROBLEM AND THEY SAID THEY RECOMMENDED AN OVERFLOW FROM THE REAR TO THE LEXINGTON AVENUE DRAIN.
THAT'S THE INFILTRATION CHAMBER IN THE FRONT.
A FEW WEEKS LATER ON JULY 7TH, THE DEVELOPER, THE PR - APPLICANT'S ENGINEER WROTE BACK TO SAY THAT THIS IDEA WAS NOT HYDROLOGICALLY FEASIBLE AND IT WOULD BREACH DESIGN CONSTRAINTS BECAUSE THE FRONT CHAMBER WAS ALREADY FULLY UTILIZED AND THEY KEPT THE TWO SYSTEM DESIGN.
TWO DAYS LATER ON JULY 9TH, DPW GOT MUCH MORE DIRECTIVE.
THEY REJECTED THE REAR SYSTEM ENTIRELY BECAUSE IT WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE FOUNDATION AND THE LOT LINE.
UH, IT'S ACTUALLY FARTHER FROM THE FOUNDATION THAN THE CHAMBER IN THE FRONT.
BUT INSTEAD OF ASKING AN APPLICANT TO MAKE THE REAR SYSTEM COMPLIANT, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A BIGGER YARD, DPW APPROVED A SYSTEM THAT SENDS ALL THE STORM WATER TO THE FRONT INFILTRATION CHAMBER.
THAT EVENING, JUST A FEW HOURS LATER, THE REAR SYSTEM WAS DELETED AND DPW'S REVIEW WAS MARKED COMPLETE THE NEXT MORNING.
SO THIS FRONT CHAMBER REMAINED THE SAME THROUGH ALL THIS.
IT WAS NOT A LARGE, BUT IT NOW HANDLES MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THE ROOF AREA.
SO WHERE DOES ALL THAT ADDITIONAL WATER GO? WELL, IT GOES TO THE MUNICIPAL DRAIN, WHICH AT THIS LOCATION FLOWS TO THE CHARLES RIVER AS A CSO, OR A COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW.
SO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WHERE IT DRAINED 700 SQUARE FEET WOULD OVERFLOW ONLY IN A HUNDRED YEAR STORM WITH 12 INCHES OF RAIN.
NOW THAT IT'S HANDLING THIS MUCH WATER, IT OVERFLOWS INTO THE CHARLES IN JUST A ONE YEAR STORM WITH JUST AN INCH OF RAIN OVER 24 HOURS.
I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT A NOTE THAT THE, THE, THE, THE ENGINEERS DIDN'T HAVE MUCH, THE, THE CIVIL ENGINEERS DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TIME TO TURN AROUND THESE PLANS, BUT THEY DID HAVE TIME TO ADD AN IMPORTANT SENTENCE TO THEIR REPORT.
IT'S UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND, IN A BOX IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER.
THEY SAY THIS APPROACH, UH, WAS DEVELOPED BASED ON CONVERSATIONS AND COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS WITH THE CAMBRIDGE DPW IN RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGING SUBSOIL CONDITIONS.
WHAT THEY'RE DOING THERE IS REDIRECTING LIABILITY BACK TO THE CITY.
WHEN THIS PROJECT FAILS, THEY DON'T WANT ANY PART OF IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THAT SENTENCE WAS ADDED FOR.
SO JUST A SMALL EDITORIAL COMMENT.
THE CITY HAS MADE BIG INVESTMENTS OVER THE BA - PAST DECADE JUST ON LEXINGTON AVENUE TO MANAGE STORMWATER WITH PERMEABLE STREET GUTTERS OF BIOSWALE, AMONG OTHER MEASURES.
LAST MONTH, CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL PASSED A UNANIMOUS POLICY ORDER CALLING FOR VIRTUAL COMBINED WITH SEWER OVERFLOW ELIMINATION, A POTENTIALLY GIANT PROJECT.
WITH THE GOAL OF ZERO CSOS BY 2050, WE FIND IT REMARKABLE THAT DPW WOULD TAKE THIS STEP OF CREATING A BRAND NEW PERMANENT SOURCE OF CSOS WHEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY OTHER MEANS.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS NEED TO ALSO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY REDUCE PHOSPHORUS RUNOFF ADEQUATELY, AND THIS ONE FAILS TO.
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REDUCTION ARE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON WHERE THE SYSTEM DRAINS.
THE GREEN AREAS SHOWN ON THIS DPW MAP, UM, UH, UH, SHOW SEPARATE AREAS WITH SEPARATED SEWER SYSTEMS WHERE ONLY A 65% REDUCTION IS REQUIRED.
THE YELLOW AREAS SHOW AREAS WHERE THE SEWER SYSTEMS ARE STILL COMBINED AND SO REQUIRE 100% REDUCTION.
THIS REPORT OUT OF THE CIVIL ENGINE, THIS, THIS, UH, UH, MAP OUT OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S REPORT POINTS ODDLY TO THE LOCATION OF THE EASTERN BANK ON HURON AVENUE IN A GREEN AREA TO SUGGEST THEIR TARGET SHOULD BE 65%.
UM, IF YOU ADVANCE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, LOOKING A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY, THE LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT IS AT THE PURPLE DOT AT 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE, AND THAT'S CLEARLY IN AN AREA THAT NEEDS 100% PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT.
USING THE CORRECT REDUCTION TARGET
[00:55:01]
AND THE RE-ENGINEERED DESIGN THAT DIRECTS ALL THE ROOF STORMWATER THROUGH AN UNDERSIZED RETENTION CHAMBER, THE SYSTEM IS NON-COMPLIANT ON TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL.SEEING ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THE STORMWATER AND GROUNDWATER DESIGNS AND CONCERNED ABOUT EFFORT, THE EFFECTS THEY'D HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTIES, THE ABUTTERS HIRED LARRY HAYES, A RESPECTED CIVIL ENGINEER FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA.
HIS REVIEW SURFACED A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND VIOLATIONS, WHICH HE SHARED IN TWO LETTERS TO DPW.
MR. HAYES IS HERE WITH US TODAY AND HE'S, HE WILL ALSO BE WILLING TO ANSWER, UH, QUESTIONS.
UM, UH, SHOULD WE DO THAT NOW OR SHOULD WE, UH...
I THINK YOU CAN FINISH UP FIRST.
YEAH, WHY DON'T I COMPLETE AND THEN WE CAN, WE CAN BRING LARRY IN LATER.
UH, ADVANCE THE SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, WE LEARNED HOW MR. HAYES' LETTERS LANDED AT DPW, UH, VIA SYSTEM INTERIOR IN- INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE AT DPW.
THEY SAY IN A SORT OF EXASPERATED TONE THAT THE NEIGHBORS AND THEIR ENGINEERS SOMEHOW GOT THEIR HANDS ON THE REVISED PLAN AND SUBMITTED AN UPDATED REVIEW LEVEL, LETTER.
I SENT THEM A GENERIC RESPONSE TO THE EMAIL THAT INCLUDED ADDRESSING THE NEW LETTER.
THEY WENT ON TO SAY, "THE DESIGN DOESN'T MEET THE LETTER OF THE LAW FOR DEP STANDARDS, BUT N - DOESN'T HAVE TO SINCE IT'S NOT UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION." UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY'S OWN WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE, WHICH REFLECT VIRTUALLY ALL MASS DEP STANDARDS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE, FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL, AND SHOULD STILL APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.
SO THE PERMITTED PLANS CONTRADICT NOT ONLY OUR ENGINEER'S ASSESSMENT, BUT ALSO THE APPLICANT'S OWN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
THERE'S A LOT TO SEE HERE, BUT I'LL JUST MENTION THIS FIRST POINT.
HE STATES A FOUNDATION DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS REQUIRED FOR THE...
PER THE MASS STATE BUILD- BUILDING CODE.
THERE ARE NO DRAINS OR SUMPS SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS.
REMARKABLY, GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE STORMWATER RETENTION CHAMBER TO THE BUILDING AND THE HIGH GROUND ROD - GROUNDWATER AND THE FACT THAT THIS HOUSE IS WELL KNOWN FROM FORMER OWNERS TO HAVE A VIRTUAL RIVER RUNNING THROUGH THE BASEMENT, THE BASEMENT SLAB IS SPECKED IN THE STRUCTURAL SET AS DESIGNED FOR, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE IN ALL CAPS.
NOW, THE BASEMENT UNITS WILL LIKELY SUFFER THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THESE FAILURES, BUT ALL THE OCCUPANTS WILL SUFFER WHEN THE BUILDING'S MECHANICAL EQUIPMENTS, UH, IN THE BASEMENT ARE FLOODED.
SO WITH THOSE PHYSICAL ITEMS COVERED, PHYSICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL ITEMS COVERED, THESE LAST TWO ITEMS MOVE INTO THE MORE ADMINISTRATIVE REALM.
FOOTNOTE 37 REQUIRES NOTICE AND A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR A BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS THREE STORIES ABOVE GRADE AND 35 FEET ABOVE GRADE.
THE ADDITION IS 36 FEET FIVE INCHES, SO THAT REQUIREMENT IS EASILY MET.
IN THE APPLICANT'S OWN CIVIL PLANS, GRADE IS SHOWN AT 55, AND THE FIRST FLOOR IS 4.7 FEET ABOVE THAT.
THAT'S MORE THAN THE FOUR FEET THAT MAKES THE BASEMENT COUNT AS A STORY ABOVE GRADE.
SO BY THEIR PLANS, THE ADDITION IS MORE THAN THREE STORIES, AND THE SECOND REQUIREMENT FOR NOTIFICATION IS MET.
THE COMMISSIONER'S LETTER INCORRECT- INCORRECTLY TREATS THE GROUND LINE ON THE DRAWINGS AS GRADE TO SAY THAT THE ADDITION IS ONLY THREE STORIES, AND THAT'S JUST BY AN INCH.
WE BELIEVE THIS PERMIT WAS ISSUED WITH AN INCURABLE PROCEDURAL DEFECT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
HERE'S WHY THE PROJECT SHOULD TRIGGER THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
IT'S 10 NEW UNITS BECAUSE THE INTERIOR OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED ON A FIRST PERMIT WITH NO UNITS REMAINING AS OF GRANTING...
AS OF THE TIME OF GRANTING OF THE SECOND PERMIT.
EVERY FLOOR AND UNIT IN THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BECOME COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN LAYOUT, ACCESS, ET CETERA.
THE GROSS FLOOR AREA IS ABOUT 11,690 SQUARE FEET FAR OVER THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD.
FINALLY, BY PERFORMING A SIMILAR CALCULATION AS TO...
IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, THE BASEMENT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS ALSO A STORY ABOVE GRADE.
SO WITH THE ABOVE GRADE BASEMENT AND THE FOURTH FLOOR, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING HAS FIVE STORIES IN A RESIDENCE C1 AREA, WHICH UNDER FOOTNOTE TWO REQUIRES INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGARDLESS OF SIZE.
WE FIND IT REMARKABLE THAT THE COMMISSIONER SEEMS INTENT ON MAKING THE STRONGEST CASE HE CAN AGAINST INCLUSIONARY HOUSING HERE, WHERE WE'RE SHOWING A STRONG CASE
[01:00:01]
CAN BE MADE FOR IT.WHY IS ISD FIGHTING AGAINST THE CITY'S OWN PRIORITIES TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? SINCE THE PERMIT APPLICATION RECORD HAS NO CDD CERTIFICATION UNDER 11.205, THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE AND THE PER- PERMIT WAS IMPROPERLY GRANTED.
SO, TO SUM UP, VIRTUALLY EVERY FAILURE WE'VE SEEN TRACES BACK TO THIS, THIS MAXIMAL FOOTPRINT SET ON A MODESTLY SIZED LOT WITH HIGH GROUNDWATER AND POOR DRAINAGE.
THE YARDS CAN'T HOLD WHAT THE ORDINANCE AND CODES REQUIRE, THE ROOF RUNOFF AND GROUNDWATER FROM THE NEW BUILDING HAVE NO COMPLIANT PLACE TO DRAIN.
THE PERMIT FAILS ON ALL THE 10 COUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE APP - BY THE APPELLANTS.
EACH OF THESE IS PROVEN BY REFERENCE TO THE APPLICANT'S OWN PLANS.
WE HOPE THE BOARD FINDS THIS TABLE USEFUL AS A SUMMARY OF THE APPEAL.
THIS PROJECT IS NON- NON-COMPLIANT ON ALL 10 COUNTS, SO IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR AN AS OF RIGHT PERMIT.
WE REQUEST FOR, RE- RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ENFORCE THE LAW AND ANNUL THE PERMIT.
GIVEN THE SCOPE, THE BROAD SCOPE AND COMPOUNDING NATURE OF THESE VIOLATIONS, SEEKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT PLANS WILL BE FRUITLESS AND TIME POORLY SPENT.
BY REQUIRING A COMPLETE RETHINK, MEETING ALL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND COORDINATING ACROSS ALL DESIGN DISCIPLINES, WE HOPE HOUSING THAT'S FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE AND OTHER CODES AND STANDARDS CAN BE BROUGHT TO THIS SITE IN A WAY THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF ITS UNIQUE ASSETS WHILE RECOGNIZING ITS NATURAL LIMITATIONS.
UM, MR. MURPHY, DO YOU HAVE ANYONE ELSE, UH, NEEDING TO PRESENT ANY INFORMATION? UH, YES, MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE, UH, WITH US OUR EXPERTS WHO ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND I WAS GONNA MAKE A COUPLE OF...
UH, SO I'LL ASK MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS IF THERE, IF ANYONE HAS, UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE APPELLANT.
I'M STILL TRYING TO ABSORB -
UH, 1,019 PAGES OF SUBMITTALS, UH, LAST TUESDAY AFTERNOON AND THE, UH, THE, UM, PRECEDING PRESENTATION.
UM, I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME TO MIND RIGHT NOW.
CAN, CAN I JUST ASK A MORE OF A PROCESS QUESTION OF JUST, DID THE, UM, OWNERS RECEIVE THESE, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS EVIDENCE AND REPORTS, UM, WITH, IN SOME, LIKE, WHEN DID THEY RECEIVE THAT? I'D JUST BE CURIOUS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT TO PROCESS THERE AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE FAIR IF, IF THEY HAD SOME ABILITY TO RESPOND.
UM - YEAH, MR. HIDALGO, I DID SERVE, UH, A COPY OF WHAT I FILED LAST MONTH ON THE ATTORNEYS AND THE RECORD OWNERS AT THE TIME.
UM, I WAS NOT RETAINED UNTIL THERE WAS A BUILDING PERMIT APPEAL, AND SO I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS WHERE MY CLIENTS WERE ADVOCATING WITH THE CITY STAFF.
UH, BUT THOSE WERE ALL DONE IN THE PUBLIC FORUM, SO THOSE WERE, UH, AVAILABLE, OUR PEER REVIEW REPORTS AND REQUESTS TO ISD AND DPW.
THOSE WERE ALL DONE VERY PUBLICLY.
I GUESS ONE QUESTION THAT DOES COME TO MIND, UM, TO, UM, ATTORNEY MURPHY, IF YOU, UM, WAS A LOT OF THE INFORMATION, AND, AND AGAIN, CONTAINED IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION AND ALSO THE HAYES ASSOCIATE, UM, REPORT, DID THEY ACTUALLY WALK THE SITE? WAS ANY, WAS IT DONE BY INSTRUMENTS AT ALL AS FAR AS GRADES AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF? OR HOW DID THEY HAVE, OR DID THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SITE, UH, AND, OR DID THEY JUST GO BY THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED? YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, MR. SULLIVAN.
SO, UH, I CAN LET LARRY SPEAK FOR
[01:05:01]
HIMSELF.I KNOW HE DID CONDUCT A S- SITE VISIT.
I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID, UH, INSTRUMENTATION.
I DO KNOW THAT HE PERSONALLY OBSERVED, UH, SOME PUMPS IN MY CLIENT'S BASEMENTS TO CHECK THE, YOU KNOW, THE GROUNDWATER LEVELS, WHICH ARE QUITE, QUITE HIGH.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, UM, UH, MOST OF WHAT WE'RE TELLING YOU IS DISCERNED FROM A CAREFUL REVIEW BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OF THE APPLICANT'S OWN DRAWINGS AND PLANS.
BUT, UH, I'LL, I'LL LET MR. HAYES SPEAK FOR HIMSELF IF HE, IF HE HAS, UH, SOME CLARIFICATION.
BUT THEY HAD NO ACCESS TO THE SITE AT ALL, BASICALLY.
ALL SITE VISITS WERE CONDUCTED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND OBSERVED CONDITIONS IN THE, UH, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS OUTLINED IN MY REPORTS.
AND THAT, THAT'S FAIRLY S - CLEARLY STATED.
SO THAT YOU WERE REFERENCING, UM, A TYPICAL CONDITION, BASICALLY, I THINK, PREVALENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND JUST OBSERVING THE PLANS AND REPORTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED - YEP.
INCLUDING, BY THE WAY, THE BORINGS THAT WERE WITNESSED BY DPW.
SO OUR ASSESSMENT OF SOILS AND GROUNDWATER IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS.
IT'S BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S OWN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WHO PUBLICLY FILED THAT INFORMATION WITH THE PLANTS.
IT'S ALSO, UH, REFERENCED, UH, EXISTING BORING DATA, WHICH IS OBTAINED RIGHT FROM CAMBRIDGE DPW.
THERE'S, THERE'S LOGS OF TEST BORINGS ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE READILY AVAILABLE ONLINE.
AND THEY, FROM MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, MATCH WITH WHAT THEIR OWN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ENCOUNTERED ON SITE.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S REFERENCED IN MY REPORTS.
I HAVE NOTHING ELSE AT THIS MOMENT.
ANYONE ELSE? WENDY? IT'S WENDY THANK YOU.
I JUST HAVE, UM, A COUPLE OF VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, LIKE OTHERS I'M HEARING ON THE BOARD.
UM, MY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ARE, ONE, FOR THE ARGUMENT, UM, THAT CENTERS ON THE MULTIPLE USES IN THE PROPOSED FRONT YARD THAT ARE EITHER ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT OR INCOMPATIBLE.
UM, COULD YOU REMIND ME OF THE SPECIFIC ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHERE YOU'RE SAYING THAT THESE ARE, UM, NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THAT ALLEGATION, PLEASE? YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
AND IT ACTUALLY DEPENDS ON WHICH YARD.
UH, SO WE, WE DID WALK AROUND THE BUILDING AND WE DID DO, UH, AN ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THE FOUR SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
AND I'M, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO REITERATE IT.
THIS IS ALL IN THE MEMO THAT I SUBMITTED, UH, BUT I DID CITE IN, IN DETAIL THE, UH, CHAPTER AND VERSE OF EACH OF THE, UH, CAMBRIDGE ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS THAT WE CLAIM ARE, UH, OBSTRUCTED, UH, I'M SORRY, VIOLATED BY THE PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED UNDER THE PERMIT.
UM - SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO RE - YOU JUST WANNA REFER ME BACK TO YOUR MEMO THEN FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS? OKAY.
YEAH, I THINK, I THINK MR. POUNDS KNOWS THE SITES.
UH, I, I WROTE DOWN SOME OF THEM, BUT HE IS MORE, UM, HAS GREATER FACILITY.
SO, UH, LET ME TURN IT OVER TO TOM AND SEE IF HE CAN POINT YOU IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
HOW ABOUT NOW? IT'S OKAY? YEP.
SO, UM, WENDY, I THINK YOU WERE ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FRONT YARD, IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY.
AND YOU WERE ASKING TO BE REMINDED ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE, THE, ALL THE, UM, DIFFERENT USES OF THE TOP OF THIS ELEVATED CHAMBER.
IS THAT, DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY? I THINK, UM, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE MEMO, THE FACT THAT THE SAME SPACE CAN'T BE USED FOR MULTIPLE PURPOSES IS OUTLINED CLEARLY IN YOUR MEMO, AND I WILL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AFTER HAVING SEEN YOUR PRESENTATION.
[01:10:01]
SO IS THAT CLEARLY OUTLINED IN THE MEMO THAT'S ON FILE, YOU BELIEVE? ABSOLUTELY.YOU'LL FIND IN LOT, LOTS OF DETAIL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? UH, HEARING NONE, UM, WE CAN MOVE INTO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, ANY MEMBERS - STEVEN, THIS IS FOR - OH, GO AHEAD.
SO RELATED TO THE ARGUMENT YOU'RE MAKING AROUND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, UM, DO YOU HAVE, UH, LIKE AN EXAMPLE YOU COULD CITE, UH, REGARDING LIKE HOW THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PAST AND WHETHER, UH, JUST LIKE SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT THAT 10 NEW, NEW UNITS ARE BEING CREATED VERSUS SEVEN? YEAH, VIRGINIA, THAT'S A...
YEAH, LET ME SEE IF I CAN TAKE A STAB AT THAT QUESTION.
YOU, YOU ASKED FOR AN EXAMPLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A CAMBRIDGE EXAMPLE.
I, I THINK THE COMMON SENSE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU'VE HAD A DEMOLITION, COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND BEFORE ANY...
SO THERE ARE NO EXISTING UNITS RIGHT NOW, UH, WITHIN THE BUILDING.
NOBODY LIVES THERE, NOBODY COULD LIVE THERE.
AND NOW YOU HAVE, AS PERMITTED, AN EXTENSION OF THAT BUILDING THAT WILL ADD MORE UNITS, INCLUDING IN THE BASEMENT, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER IS 10.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET TO THAT.
AND, UH, ALSO OUR NUMBERS BASED ON STORIES AND GRADE AND ELEVATION, THAT'S ALL BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S OWN PLANS.
UH, WAS THAT RESPONSIVE TO YOUR QUESTION? UH, YES.
MR. CHAIR? UH, IT'S WENDY LISERSAND AGAIN.
I HAD A, ONE OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTION.
UM, WITH REGARD TO THE CANOPY TREE, I BELIEVE YOUR, IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU SAID, UH, THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S STATEMENT THAT, UM, THE SPACE ALLOTTED WAS REASONABLE AND VIABLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM,
CAN, DO, ARE YOU REFERRING TO A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT GOES TO THAT POINT? YES.
SO, UM, IF IT'S THE TREE THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT WHERE IT ACCOUNTS FOR OVER HALF OF THE COOL FACTOR SCORE, UM, WE, WE HAD A PROVISION THAT, UH, IS AT...
LET ME JUST GIVE YOU THE CORRECT SITE.
97B, AND, UH, WHAT I, I THINK, UH, TOM SHOWED YOU WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE SLIDES IS WHAT IS DEPICTED IS A, UM, VERY SMALL CANOPY, BUT WHAT ACTUALLY IS REQUIRED IS MUCH LARGER.
AND, UH, IT, IT HAS TO BE, UH, DECIDED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT, UM, UNTIL THESE CONFLICTING USES IN THE SAME SPACE ARE WORKED OUT, UH, YOU REALLY CAN'T WAIT UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WHEN THE SLAB IS POURED AND THE BUILDING IS BUILT, UH, IT'S JUST TOO LATE.
UH, MR. MURPHY, JUST GOING BACK TO YOUR PREVIOUS RESPONSE ON THE INCLUSIONARY, UH, ASPECT, AND, AND YOU STATED THAT THERE WERE, THE THREE EXISTING UNITS WERE COMPLETELY RENOVATED, AND AS SUCH, NOBODY LIVES THERE NOW, SO THEY ARE NOT UNITS.
I DISAGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO RENOVATE YOUR HOUSE, YOU'RE NOT LIVING THERE, BUT ITS STATUS DOES NOT GO AWAY.
IT IS STILL, WOULD IT BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? IF YOU RENOVATED A TWO OR THREE FAMILY, UM, BUILDING,
[01:15:01]
AND THERE'S NOBODY LIVING THERE, UM, THEY CAN'T LIVE THERE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT ITS STATUS AS A, UM, HOUSING UNIT REMAINS.SO I DON'T, I'M, I'M, I'M, I CAN'T CONNECT THE DOTS ON THIS ONE WHERE YOU SAY THAT IT'S, IT'S, UH, THOSE UNITS ARE NOT THERE.
AND I THINK MAYBE THE STANDARD, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IS WHEN DOES A UNIT'S STATUS DISAPPEAR IN A BUILDING IF THERE WERE POSSIBLY MORE THAN 50%, UH, TOTAL RENOVATION OF A BUILDING, UM, IN ALL ITS UTILITIES, UM, AND THEN THAT MAY LOSE ITS GRANDFATHERING BECAUSE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE NON-COMPLIANT AS FAR AS, UH, THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS CONCERNED.
BUT BECAUSE YOU'RE RENOVATING IT AND NOBODY LIVES THERE, IT DOESN'T LOSE A STATUS AS A, UM, HABITABLE, UH, UNIT OR A, UH, RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
NO, YOU'RE RIGHT, MR. SULLIVAN.
AND I AGREE, IT IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION.
UM, AND LET ME JUST - SO I GO BACK TO WHAT IS THE USUAL AND THE COURSE OF BUSINESS INTERPRETATION OF THE DEPARTMENT.
AND I THINK THAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED, AND AGAIN, IF IT'S INTERPRETATION, THAT THERE WAS A RENOVATION OF THE THREE UNITS, BUT IT DOES NOT LOSE ITS STATUS AS A, AN EXISTING LIVABLE UNIT, EVEN THOUGH NOBODY LIVES THERE.
IN ARTICLE 2.000, THE INCLUSIONARY, UM, UH, REFERENCE, UH, DEVELOPMENT IS MEANT TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS OR ADDITIONS.
NOW, UM, THE DEMOLITION INTERIOR IS AN ADDITION OF NEW UNITS.
THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME PLACE.
UH, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A BLANK SPACE.
UM, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT, UH...
I, I, I THINK IT, UH, IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL, UH, AND IT, IT IS IN MY MEMO, BUT I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION.
LET ME LET US BOTH THINK ABOUT THAT THEN.
UH, IF YOU LIKE, I CAN PROVIDE MORE DETAIL AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE I HAVE A SUBJECT MATTER.
MY HEAD IS BURSTING WITH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, SO, UM, DON'T ADD ANYTHING ELSE, JESS.
YEAH, I JUST WANT TO JUMP INTO MAKE ONE SMALL COMMENT TO REFER US BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER'S LETTER WHERE HE HAS ALREADY GIVEN HIS STANDARD.
IF YOU READ HIS LETTER ON PAGE THREE, THE EXISTING UNITS WILL NOT BE REBUILT OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDEVELOPED.
SO WE BELIEVE THE THREE NON-EXISTING UNITS WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDEVELOPED, AND THEREFORE USING COMMISSIONER'S OWN LETTERS INTERPRETATION, WE BELIEVE 10 IS THE RIGHT UNIT COUNT THAT TRIGGERS IHP.
UH, WHO'S SPEAKING? CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE? OKAY.
WENDY, YOU WANT, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO ADD? UM, I JUST HAD A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, WENDY LISERSON.
SO, UM, I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THIS QUESTION TOO.
SO ABOUT THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING AND WHAT COUNTS WHAT.
SO IF THIS BUILDING NOW, LIKE I UNDERSTAND THE, UM, IDEA THAT IF YOU'RE DOING A GUT RENOVATION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IT'S STILL A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
IT DOESN'T LOSE ITS STATUS AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHILE IT IS BEING RENOVATED, IF THAT'S WHAT THAT POINT WAS.
IF I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING, BRENDAN, YOU CAN COME BACK AND TALK, TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.
UM, BUT IN THIS CASE, UM, WE'RE GOING FROM A THR - UH, WHAT IS IT? THREE UNITS NOW OR, UH, INTO A 10 UNIT? IS IT, IT'S GOING TO BE ALL ONE BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT? BY THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S NOT TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE ITS BUILDING CLASSIFICATION? IS, I MEAN, IS THAT, IS THAT A DIFFERENT SCENARIO? IS THERE AN ARGUMENT THERE AS TO WHY IT WOULD NOT BE ANALOGOUS TO THE POINT THAT BRENDA WAS SAYING? IF, IF YOU COULD JUST SPEAK TO THAT QUESTION.
UH, SO FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE TWO WAYS THAT YOU GET THERE.
[01:20:01]
WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.AND I AGREE THAT IS A PROPOSITION THAT IS SUBJECT TO SOME INTERPRETATION BECAUSE THE CZO IS NOT ENTIRELY, UH, DETAILED ON THIS ISSUE.
UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE OTHER WAY, WHICH IS UNDER TABLE 5.1, FOOTNOTE TWO, AND THAT IS A BUILDING OVER FOUR STORIES HAS TO COMPLY WITH 11.203, WHETHER OR NOT IT EXCEEDS THE UNIT COUNT.
AND SO IN, IN OUR OTHER ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS, UH, OF THE, THE, UH, GRADE, IT IS A FIVE-STORY BUILDING, AND THEREFORE WOULD NEED TO INDEPENDENTLY COMPLY WITH INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU COUNT THE UNITS.
I'M STILL GOING TO PROCESS THAT.
ANYTHING ELSE, FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY.
I THINK IT'S TIME WE, UH, MOVE TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, 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 SAY - STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT WE HEAR YOU.
AFTER THAT, YOU WILL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND WE WILL NOTIFY YOU OF THAT TIME PERIOD BEFORE I ASK YOU TO WRAP UP.
UH, MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD INTERJ - THIS IS BRENDAN.
I COULD INTERJECT HERE AND ASKING FOR MERCY UPON US.
UM, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? COUNT.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE - THAT NUM - THREE MINUTES IS REASONABLE GIVEN THE NUMBER.
I MEAN, WE PRESENTLY...THIS IS OLIVIA RITA.
WE PRESENTLY HAVE FIVE PEOPLE RAISING THEIR HAND, BUT WE HAVE - ALL RIGHT.
I LIVE ON 140 LEXINGTON AVENUE.
I HAVE BEEN A LONGTIME ADVOCATE FOR THOSE WITH DISABILITIES.
ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION IS ALWAYS MY PRINCIPAL FOCUS.
PLANS BY THE DEVELOPER FOR 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE SHOW SERIOUS LIFE SAFETY ISSUES, NOT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO MAY HAVE CHALLENGES, BUT EVEN FOR THE ABLE-BODIED.
I URGE THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER TO REVIEW THESE PLANS CAREFULLY AND ENSURE 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE COMPLIES WITH ALL EX - APP- APPLICABLE LAWS.
THE FIVE-FOOT EXTERIOR YARD ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS PARTICULARLY TROUBLESOME.
THE 10 DWELLING UNITS MUST HAVE EXTERIOR SPACE DEDICATED TO HEAT PUMPS AND REFUSE BINS.
ALSO PLAN FOR THIS SPACE IS THE PLANTING OF ONE APOLLO MAPLE TREE AND SIX EMERALD ABERVITE.
PEOPLE WHO SUCCESSFULLY EMERGE ONTO THIS SPACE WILL HAVE TO MANEUVER AROUND THE BINS, THE HEAT PUMPS, AND THE TREES IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.
FOR THE BASEMENT UNIT ONE, BEDROOM TWO HAS ACCESSIBLE WI- WINDOW WELLS ON THE NORTH SIDES.
DRAWINGS SHOW AN ESCAPE ROUTE FROM BEDROOM ONE THROUGH THE NORTH SIDE WINDOW, BUT THAT ACTUALLY OPENS BENEATH THE BICYCLE RAMP THAT IS INACCESSIBLE, SO THEREFORE IS INACCESSIBLE.
THE LIVING AREA OF ANOTHER WINDOW WELL ON THE SOUTH SIDE, UM, DOES PROVIDE EXIT, ASSUMING THEY CAN GET TO IT.
UNIT TWO HAS TWO WINDOW WELLS IN THE LIVING AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND BOTH BEDROOMS HAVE TWO WINDOW WELLS ON EACH ON THE WEST SIDE.
ANYONE EXITING FROM THE BEDROOM WOULD NEED TO MAKE THEIR WAY SOUTH TO- TOWARD LEXINGTON PAST THE TREES, REFUGE BINS, AND HEAT PUMPS.
THEY CANNOT EXIT TO THE NORTH BECAUSE THE BICYCLE RAMP BLOCKS ACCESS- ACCESS ALONG THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE.
I'M NOT SURE ACTUALLY THAT THE WEST EXITS ARE VIABLE BECAUSE THEY, AT PRESENT, ARE SURROUNDED BY BARS.
[01:25:01]
I THOUGHT THE BICYCLE RAMP COULD DOUBLE AS A WHEELCHAIR RAMP, ALLOWING THE REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE UNIT TO ACCESS THE BUILDINGS AND AGGRESS FROM IT.THAT RAMP GIVES ACCESS, HOWEVER, ONLY TO THE BE - BICYCLE STORAGE AND NOT TO THE LIVING UNITS.
THAT IS ONLY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FRONT STAIRS, SO NO GROUP ONE UNITS ARE IN THE BUILDING AT ALL.
I HIGHLIGHT, HOWEVER, WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW.
UNITS THREE AND FOUR HAVE A SINGLE EN- ENTRY EXIT POINT.
THE BEDROOMS OF BOTH APARTMENTS ARE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, LOCATED SEEMINGLY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM THE SINGLE EXIT DOOR.
THE ABOVE-GROUND APARTMENTS ON LEVEL TWO ON THE NORTH SIDE, UNITS SEVEN AND 10, HAVE THEIR FRONT DOOR PLUS DECKS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
HOWEVER, UNIT SIX AND NINE, WHAT WE USED TO CALL EFFICIENCY APARTMENTS, HAVE ONLY THE FRONT DOORS FOR EGRESS.
UNIT EIGHT HAS ACCESS TO THE FOURTH LEVEL, WHICH SERVES AS AN OFFICE.
THERE IS NO EGRESS FROM THERE, AND, UM, ON THE FLOOR BENEATH, YOU CAN GET TO AN EXTERIOR DECK.
UM, I'VE SUBMITTED THIS TESTIMONY, UM, AND SO YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE A COPY OF IT AND COMPLETE IT.
HOW YOU DOING? STEVE SUDA, CO-OWNER OF AVENUE CAPITAL PARTNERS, THE ORIGINAL COMPANY WHO GOT PERMITTED, 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE.
UM, I FIND IT A LITTLE IRONIC ON, UH, SOME OF THESE POINTS, UM, SPECIFICALLY ON THE AFFORDABLE, BECAUSE EVEN IF WE TAKE MR. MURPHY'S INTERPRETATION THAT A GUTTED U - A GUTTED BUILDING IS NO LONGER ITS ORIGINAL STATUS, THEN TECHNICALLY, WE ONLY BUILT NINE MORE UNITS, WHICH BY CODE IS ACCEPTABLE.
IF WE WANNA GUT RENOVATE A FOUR UNIT, AND BY MR. MURPHY'S ASSUMPTIONS, IT BECOMES A SINGLE FAMILY, THEN AGAIN, THERE'S 10 UNITS.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD NINE MORE UNITS PER THE CODE.
UM, SECONDLY, GARBAGE AND THE LOCATION OF THE GARBAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING.
A LOT OF THESE INTERPRETATIONS THAT MR. HAYES HAS MADE, AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT WE'RE LISTENING TO IS PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEIR ENGINEER FOR A MONTH OR TWO MONTHS OF RESEARCH IS MUCH MORE EQUIPPED THAN OUR ENGINEER WHO'S WORKED ON THIS FOR 10 MONTHS, AND THE DPW, AND ISD, AND ZONING, AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A LOT OF THESE POINTS...
AND WE RECEIVED NOTICE OF THIS 172-PAGE DOCUMENT FROM MR. MURPHY WITHIN THE PAST 36 HOURS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO JUST RUN THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING.
BUT I, I, I JUST, UH, I, I, IT'S...
I JUST FIND IT A LITTLE BIT UNACCEPTABLE THAT WE'RE HERE.
QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S KIND OF FRUSTRATING.
I KNOW I SOLD THE PROJECT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE LISTENING FOR 45 MINUTES FOR THEM TO SPEAK ON EVERY SINGLE POINT, AND WE DON'T EVEN GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT.
SO I, I, I, I'M A LITTLE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF HARD TO GO TO THAT DIATRIBE THAT THEY WENT ON FOR ALMOST AN HOUR AND THEN ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO KIND OF ASSESS IT AND NOT HAVE A LEGAL TEAM BEHIND US FOR THIS, AND ALSO NOT HAVE OUR ARCHITECTS TO REPRESENT US.
SO I, I WOULD LIKE FURTHER US THE ABILITY TO COMMENT.
AND SECONDLY, WE HAVE SENT LETTERS, UH, TO THE ZBA, UH, AND TO ISD TODAY ABOUT OUR RESPONSES ON SOME OF THESE.
AND A LOT OF THESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING, A LOT OF THE CLAIMS THEY'RE MAKING.
AND I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER POINT.
THERE'S A LOT OF RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD OF PROPERTIES AND ABUTTING STREETS.
SO PER MR. POUND'S ASSUMPTIONS, UH, UH, SESSION, WHATEVER THE WORD IS, I APOLOGIZE, WE SHOULD JUST GO RIP, RIP UP EVERYONE'S RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARDS.
WE CAN'T USE THOSE IF THEY'RE COVERED IN GRASS AND SOIL.
SO AT THE SAME TIME, MY LAST POINT I'M GONNA MAKE, I APOLOGIZE, MY SON'S IN THE BATH.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE THIS AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.
ISD HELD US UP FOR ALMOST AN EXTRA MONTH TO MAKE SURE THEIR T'S WERE CROSSED AND THEIR IS WERE DOT ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT HAD SO MUCH SCRUTINY FROM THE BEGINNING.
AND LASTLY, THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND US ABOUT THE TREE ISSUE, WE RESPONDED TO THEIR DEMAND LETTER BACK IN JULY, AND WE NEVER GOT A RESPONSE.
WE NEVER GOT A MEETING, AND WE NEVER GOT EVEN ABLE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM ON HOW WE COULD KIND OF REMEDIATE SOME OF THEIR ISSUES.
SO IT'S, IT'S IRONIC THAT WE'RE HERE AND NO ONE EVER HAD A DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE FOLLOWED EVERY LETTER OF THE LAW FOR THE NEW ZONING WITH ISD, AND ISD AND THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND ZONING DEPARTMENT CAN ATTEST TO THAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
GOOD EVENING, UH, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD.
I'M A CAMBRIDGE HOMEOWNER, AND I'M STRONGLY SUPPORT THE ABUTTER'S APPEAL TO ALLOW THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR 17 LE- LEXINGTON AVENUE.
AFTER HEARING THE APPELLANTS, UH, COMPELLING PRESENTATION, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMEROUS SERIOUS ZONING AND SAFETY DEFICIENCIES THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED.
THESE ARE NOW THE MINOR TECHNICAL ISSUES.
THEY INVOLVE REQUIRED SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE, BICYCLE ACCESS, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, PROTECTED TREES, AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS EMERGENCY EGRESS CONDITIONS.
[01:30:01]
WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST IS HOW ISD COULD HAVE APPROVED THAT AS A PERMIT.WELL, SO MANY SIGNIFICANT COMPLIANCES QUESTIONS APPARENTLY REMAINED UNRESOLVED.
THIS RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF ISD'S REVIEW AND THE CONDITION WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE CODE COMPLIANCE SHOULD REST WITH THE CITY, NOT WITH NEIGHBORING HOMEOWNERS WHO MUST SPEND CONSIDERABLE TIME AND MONEY UNCOVERING POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS WITH 170 PAGE DOCUMENTATION.
I SUPPORT CAMBRIDGE'S EFFORT TO CREATE MORE HOUSING, BUT INCREASED DEVELOPMENT MUST NEVER COME AT THE EXPENSE OF A PUBLIC SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, OR ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.
I URGE THE BOARD TO INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE, AND IF THE MULTIPLE SERIES ZONING VIOLATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIATED, AND NOW THE BUILDING PERMIT PLEASE, AND REQUIRE PROPER OWNER, PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE A PROPER CORRECTIONS TO THEIR PLANS AND REFILE A NEW BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
I LIVE AT EIGHT LEXINGTON AVENUE, AND I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO AN- ANNULL THE BUILDING PERMIT AT 90 LEXINGTON AVE.
UM, THE PETITIONERS HAVE IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL, WHICH EACH ARE SUFFICIENT, UM, TO SUPPORT, UM, THEIR APPLICATION.
AND, UM, THEY, THEY PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION TO THE INSPECTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION AND DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE RESPONSES FROM THEM.
I SHARE THE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS HAS HAPPENED.
UM, AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE TO ANNUL THIS PERMIT AS IT, AS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TONIGHT.
IT CLEARLY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH NUMEROUS PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AND ALSO PRESENTS SIGNIFICANT LIFE SAFETY, STORM WATER, AND PROTECTED TREE RISKS.
UM, AND IN ADDITION TO THE MANY AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE, I THINK THE, THE CODE ITSELF FAILS TO CONSIDER MANY OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENTS LIKE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, PROTECTING OF TREES, NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, AND PROTECTION OF EXISTING RENTERS.
I MEAN, THIS IS A HOUSE, THIS IS A BUILDING THAT SITS EMPTY, THAT HAD THREE RENTAL UNITS IN IT.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE, UM, THAT ANYONE CAN LIVE IN.
SO, UM, IT'S JUST, I FULLY SUPPORT THE ABUTTERS AND URGE YOU TO VOTE TO ANNUL THE BUILDING PERMIT.
MR. LESSER, YOU THERE? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, MR. LESSER, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING.
I LIVED ON LEXINGTON AVENUE FOR 23 YEARS, UH, NO LONGER THERE.
BUT I'D SAY, BE VERY BRIEF, I SUPPORT INCREASED HOUSING DENSITY, BUT I THINK THE PROCESS NEEDS TO BE VERY CAREFULLY MANAGED.
AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING HERE AND WHAT I'VE SEEN, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS PROCESS AND THE REVIEW WAS A BIT PIECEMEAL AND NOT FULLY INTEGRATED.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS DUE TO STAFFING SHORTAGES OR LACK OF COORDINATION.
I CAN IMAGINE THE DEPARTMENT IS OVERWHELMED WITH THIS NEW ORDINANCE, BUT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE DONE, RIGHT, THE PROCESS HAS TO BE CARRIED PROPERLY.
AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING IN TERMS OF A NUMBER OF THESE DEFECTS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PROCESS WAS NOT COMPLETE.
SO I WOULD SUPPORT, UM, ANNULING THE, THE, UH, PERMIT AND CARRYING THE PROCESS AS IT SHOULD BE DONE.
UH, ILYA'S PHONE? ILYA'S IPHONE.
HI, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M AN ATTORNEY AT KERSNER, FUCHS & HILL, BUT I'M ALSO ONE OF THE PARTNERS FOR TRIO DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE THE NEW OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN AFFORD ME AT LEAST FIVE MINUTES BECAUSE,
[01:35:02]
UH, AS MENTIONED, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL OF THESE HUNDRED AND SOMETHING PAGES A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO.AND SINCE OUR TEAM WAS NOT THE DESIGN TEAM, UH, WE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TIME TO GO THROUGH IT.
BUT I HAVE A THREE-PAGE, WHICH I WILL READ VERY QUICKLY RESPONSE THAT OUR ARCHITECT REVIEWED, UH, ACCORDING TO THE ZONING, UH, GUIDELINES.
AND IF YOU ALLOW ME, I'M JUST GONNA READ AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND IT'LL BE THREE OR FOUR MINUTES.
SO THE PERMIT SHOULD BE UPHELD.
THE COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED IT AFTER A SEVEN-MONTH MULTI-DEPARTMENT REVIEW, ISD, CDD, DPW AND FIRE OF AN AS OF RIGHT PROJECT THAT MEETS EVERY DIMENSIONAL LIMIT.
FRONT YARD 17 FEET WHERE THE REQUIRED IS 10 FEET.
SIDE AND REAR YARD'S FIVE FEET WHERE THE REQUIRED IS FIVE FEET.
OPEN SPACE, 46.8%, REQUIRED 30%, AND 9,259 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
APPELLANT'S EIGHT-PAGE LETTER AND 164-PAGE MEMORANDUM LARGELY CONCERNS STATE BUILDING CODES, STORMWATER AND TREE MATTERS THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT DECIDE, AND DRAFTING COORDINATION AMONG CONSULTANT SHEETS THAT IS CURED BY PLAN REVISION, NOT ANNULMENT.
WHERE THE APPEAL DOES RAISE ZONING QUESTIONS, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, YARDS, OPEN SPACE, UH, BICYCLE PARKING, THE ORDINANCES TEXT AND ISD WRITTEN DETERMINATION SUPPORT THE PERMIT.
THE SCOPE OF THE BOARD'S REVIEW.
UNDER GENERAL LAW CHAPTER 40A, SECTION EIGHT AND 15, THE BOARD DECIDES WHETHER THE PERMIT COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE AND EGRESS QUESTIONS ARE DECIDED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH APPEAL TO THE STATE BUILDING CODE.
STORMWATER AND FOUNDATION DRAINAGE ARE UNDER DPW STORMWATER REVIEW, WHICH DPW COMPLETED ON JULY 10TH.
TREE PROTECTION IS UNDER THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE ADMINISTERED BY DPW AND THE CITY ARBORIST.
SECTION 8.12 DOES NOT ENLARGE THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION.
APPELLANT CITES 8.12 TO CONVERT EVERY CODE AND ENGINEERING DISAGREEMENT INTO A ZONING VIOLATION.
READ THAT WAY, THE BZA WOULD BECOME THE APPEAL BOARD FOR ALL BUILDING, FIRE, PLUMBING AND DPW DECISIONS, WHICH CHAPTER 40A AND CHAPTER 143 DO NOT CONTEMPLATE.
SECTION 1.3, PURPOSES ARE NOT STANDARDS.
PART TWO OF THE LETTER RELIES ON THE ORDINANCE'S STATEMENT OF PURPOSES, LIGHT AND AIR OVERCROWDING DRAINAGE.
PURPOSES ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE ORDINANCES SPECIFIC DIMENSIONAL AND USE STANDARDS.
AN AS OF RIGHT PROJECT THAT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS CANNOT BE DENIED ON GENERAL PURPOSES.
THE BOARD HAVING THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER MAY AFFIRM THE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS WHERE USEFUL.
PLAN COORDINATION ITEMS ARE CURED, CURED BY AN AMENDED SHEET.
THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANNULMENT AND A RESTART.
RESPONSES TO THOSE UNZONING GROUNDS, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
ARTICLE 11.200 DOES NOT APPLY.
AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROJECT IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT CREATES AT LEAST 10 DWELLING UNITS OR 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESIDENTIAL, UH, GFA.
AND DEVELOPMENT EXPRESSLY INCLUDES INCREASING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
THE TEST IS WHAT PRO - THE PROJECT CREATES, NOT THE POST-CONSTRUCTION TOTAL.
THE PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING THREE-FAMILY STRUCTURE AND ADD SEVEN UNITS.
INTERIOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING UNITS UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT DOES NOT ERASE THE EXISTING THREE-FAMILY USE.
FLOOR AREA, UH, G014, THIS REFERS TO PAGES OF THE APPROVED PLAN, REPORTS 9,259 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL GFA, OF WHICH THE ADDITION IS 4,955 FEET.
EVEN COUNTING THE ENTIRE BASEMENT OF 2,431 AS NEW GFA, THE FLOOR AREA CREATED IS AT MOST 7,426, ABOUT 2,574 SQUARE FEET BELOW THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD.
CONDITION FLOOR AREA, WHICH IS ON G015, IS AN ENERGY CODE MEASURE, NOT GFA UNDER SECTION 5.25.
[01:40:01]
A- APPELLANT'S FOOTNOTE ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON THE BASEMENT BEING A STORY ABOVE GRADE.AS I WILL LATER DESCRIBE, IT IS FULLY BELOW GRADE.
NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION, FOOTNOTE 37.
ISD DETERMINED IN WRITING ON JUNE 22ND, 2026 THAT FOOTNOTE 37 IS NOT TRIGGERED.
THE EXISTING BUILDING IS AN EXISTING FOUR STORY, 41 FOOT, ONE INCH STRUCTURE WHOSE HEIGHT IS UNCHANGED AND THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS THREE STORIES OR 36.5 WITH LEVEL ONE AND THREE FEET 11 INCHES ABOVE GRADE.
THE FOOTNOTE REQUIRES A BUILDING EXCEEDING THREE STORIES, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT.
APPELLANT'S CONTRARY COUNT RESTS ON THEIR ENGINEER'S RECALCULATION OF MEAN GRADE 54.77 FROM THE SURVEY SPOT ELEVATION.
GRADE IS THE MEAN FINISHED GROUND ELEVATION MEASURED EITHER AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING OR ALONG ANY EXISTING WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET.
THE APPLICANT MAY USE THE STREET WALL METHOD AND FINISHED GRADE IS SET BY THE APPROVED DESIGN, NOT BY PRE-CONSTRUCTION SPOT ELEVATIONS.
THE BUILDING MEETS EVERY REQUIRED SETBACK.
THE ITEM APPELLANT LISTS ARE FEATURED, UH, ARE FEATURES THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS IN YARDS.
WINDOW WELLS, STEPS, RAMPS AND ELEVATED WALKWAYS ARE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY SECTION 5.24.
1H, NOT OVER FOUR FEET ABOVE GRADE WITHIN 12 FEET OF THE FOUNDATION.
FENCES ARE PERMITTED, SECTION 5.24.1A.
FRONT YARD STORM WATER SYSTEM.
THE CONTACT INFILTRATION CHAMBERS ARE SUBSURFACE.
WHAT SITS ABOVE THEM IS LANDSCAPE, SOIL AND LAWN SURFACE.
OPEN TO THE SKY, HELD BY LOW LANDSCAPE, RETAINING WALLS OF ABOUT TWO TO THREE FEET.
THAT IS GROUND, NOT BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT OBSTRUCTS THE YARD.
HEAT PUMP CONDENSER - OH, HOLD ON MR. FUCHS, JUST, JUST A MOMENT.
I JUST WANT TO LET EVERYONE ON THE MEETING KNOW YOU DID EMAIL THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO US AND I WOULD HAVE READ IT OUT LOUD SO THAT'S WHY I'M ALLOWING YOU TO KIND OF CONTINUE.
KIND OF TRY TO CONDENSE IT OR SPEED IT.
THE HEAT PUMP CONDENSERS WILL BE WALL MOUNTED AND TRIO WILL FILE AN AMENDED MECHANICAL SHEET CONFIRMING THE LOCATION.
BINS ARE PORTABLE CONTAINERS STORED AT GRADE.
LOCATION AND TYPE ARE SET BY EVERSOURCE AFTER THE PERMIT IS ISSUED.
IF A PAD MOUNT UNIT IS REQUIRED, AND THAT'S A BIG IF, IT WILL BE PLACED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5.24.1 AND THE OPEN SPACE FIGURES BELOW WHICH CARRY A SURPLUS.
SHEET G013 SHOWS 2,478 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE OR 46.8% AGAINST 1,589 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS REQUIRED.
1,480 SQUARE FEET PERMEABLE, OF WHICH 794 IS REQUIRED, AND 988 SQUARE FEET OF PRIVATE, WHICH 794 IS REQUIRED.
APPELLANT'S DEDUCTIONS ASSUME IMPERVIOUS PADS AND ENCLOSURES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE DESIGN.
THE SIDE YARD WALK AND REFUSE AREAS WILL BE PERMEABLE PAVERS.
CONDENSERS ARE OFF THE GROUND.
EVEN APPELLATE'S WORST CASE DEDUCTIONS ARE CURED BY THESE SPECIFICATIONS.
LET ME FAST FORWARD TO THE BICYCLE DISCUSSION.
THE PERMIT DRAWINGS DIMENSION ARE FIVE FEET AT BOTH ENDS AND LABEL IT BIKE PATH.
SECTION 6.106 REQUIRES A ROUTE AT LEAST FIVE FEET IN WIDTH.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE FIVE FEET CLEAR BETWEEN HANDRAILS AND BUILDING CODES ROUTINELY ALLOW HANDRAILS TO PROJECT INTO A REQUIRED WIDTH.
THE LONG-TERM BICYCLE ROOM ITSELF IS INSIDE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, NOT OUTSIDE.
SHORT-TERM, POST AND RING PARKING IS PROVIDED AT THE FRONT ENTRY.
IF THE BOARD PREFERS, THE SPACES WILL BE RELOCATED AT GRADE BESIDE THE FRONT WALKWAY BY AMENDED SHEET.
THIS IS A SITTING DET, A SIDING DETAIL, NOT GROUNDS FOR AN ANNULMENT.
CDD REVIEWED THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S COOL SCORE OF 1.12 AND CLEARED THE PROJECT BEFORE ISSUING, UH, THE PERMIT.
APPELLATE'S ARBORISTS DO NOT DISPUTE THE ARITHMETIC.
[01:45:01]
THEY DISPUTE SOIL VOLUMES AND PLANT PLACEMENT, WHICH THE COOL SCORE GUIDELINES EXPRESS AS QUOTE SHOULD CRITERIA IN WHICH ARE MET BY PLANTING DETAILS, STRUCTURAL SOIL, SOIL CELLS, RELOCATED SHRUBS, NON-ZONING GROUNDS AND IRRELEVANT MATTERS.BUILDING CODE MATTERS FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ON THE MERITS, THE EXISTING LEVEL FOUR IS THE UPPER LEVEL OF A TWO LEVEL DWELLING UNIT.
IT IS INTERNAL STAIR, UH, ITS INTERNAL STAIR IS EXIT ACCESS WITHIN THE UNIT LEADING TO THE UNIT'S LOWER LEVEL AND THE COMMON EXIT STAIR.
AS THE CODE PERMITS FOR MULTI-LEVEL DWELLING UNITS, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE UNIT ON THE FOURTH FLOOR IS A MULTI-LEVEL UNIT.
THAT SINGLE STAIR CONDITION IS ALSO EXISTING.
BASEMENT EGRESS, UH, WELLS WILL HAVE HINGED STEEL GRATES FLUSH WITH GRADE AS REPRESENTED, UH, TO ISD ON AUGUST 12TH, KEEPING THE ROUTE TO THE STREET CLEAR, STORM WATER AND GROUNDWATER.
DPW REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE DESIGN ON JULY 10TH AND THE CITY ENGINEER HAS CONFIRMED IT AS MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
MASS DEP STORMWATER STANDARDS APPLY TO REDEVELOPMENT ONLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PRACTICABLE.
THE INFILTRATION SYSTEM IS ENTIRELY BELOW GRADE.
FOUNDATION DRAINAGE AND SUMP PUMP DISCHARGE POINTS ARE CONSTRUCTION DES - DETAILS SUBJECT TO DPW SIGN-OFF.
THE ABUTTER'S TREES ON OUR THEIR, ON, ARE ON THEIR LAND.
THE WORK IS TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SUPPORT WITHIN TRIO'S LOT.
TRIO WILL RETAIN A CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND FOLLOW ROOT SENSITIVE EXCAVATION AT THE SHARED LINE.
I'M NOT EVEN GONNA TALK ABOUT, UH, THE SALES PRICE BEING HIGHER.
UM, HERE'S THE RELIEF REQUESTED.
THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE APPEAL AND UN - AND UPHOLD THE PERMIT.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE BOARD SHOULD AFFIRM THE PERMIT SUBJECT TO FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WHICH TRIO WOULD ACCEPT.
BEFORE EXCAVATION, FILE ONE, COORDINATED SITE PLAN, ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, LANDSCAPE AND MECHANICAL SHOWING ALL YARD ELEMENTS WITHIN A FIVE-FOOT CLEAR BICYCLE ROUTE.
TWO, CONFER THE HEAT PUMP LO - CONFIRM THE HEAT PUMP LOCATION, WALL MOUNTED OR ROOF BY AMENDED MECHANICAL SHEET.
THREE, REPLACE WINDOW WELL GUARD- GUARDRAILS WITH HINGED GRADE LEVEL STEEL GRATES.
FOUR, LOCATE SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING TO GRADE BESIDE THE FRONT WALK.
FIVE, SPECIFY PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR THE SIDE YARD WALK AND REFUSE AREA.
SIX, SUBMIT FOUNDATION DRAINAGE AND SOME DISCHARGE DE- DETAILS FOR DPW APPROVAL.
SEVEN, SUBMIT AN ARBORIST APPROVED TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THE SHARED REAR AND NORTH LINES.
AND FINALLY, HOLD A VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.
AND BY THE WAY, WHEN I FOUND OUT OF THIS, UH, APPEAL, I CONTACTED THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANTS IMMEDIATELY AND SAID, "CAN WE PLEASE MEET? WE WOULD LOVE TO LISTEN TO ANY OF THEIR CONCERNS AND SEE HOW WE CAN RESOLVE THEM." WE WERE MET WITH CRICKETS.
SO WE ARE NEW TO CAMBRIDGE, BUT WE ARE A HIGH STANDARD DEVELOPMENT FIRM THAT'S BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR NINE YEARS WHO HAVE BUILT OVER 60 PROJECTS IN THE NEWTON, BROOKLINE, NEEDHAM AREA.
AND WE ARE NOT FLY BY THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS DEVELOPERS.
UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING.
CAN YOU HEAR ME FIRST? YES, SIR, WE CAN.
SO I'M CALLING IN ABOUT, UH, 1230992 14 BOWDOIN STREET.
IS THAT WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW? NOPE.
WE'RE, UH, WE'RE WORKING ON 90 LEXINGTON, NOT 14 BOWDOIN.
I WILL, UH, LOWER MY HAND UNTIL THEN.
UM, I DON'T ENVY YOUR JOB THIS EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BZA.
UM, I DO THINK I'M JUST FOLLOWING UP IN PART ON ILYA FUKES THAT I, I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED HERE IS A CENTRAL PLAN.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING IN ALL S- SORTS OF OTHER PROJECTS IN THE CITY IS THAT DIFFERENT PLANS ARE BEING GIVEN TO DIFFERENT SORT OF SECTORS WITHIN THE CITY.
AND SO MY, YOU KNOW, LARGER QUESTION FOR ALL OF THIS IS, IS THERE NOT A FINAL SIGN OFF LOOKING HOLISTICALLY AT
[01:50:01]
ALL THE PLANS TOGETHER? THERE WERE SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WERE SIMPLY INCONGRUENT.THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT FOR ME ON THIS IS SAFETY, GETTING IN, GETTING OUT, FIREFIGHTERS BEING ABLE TO DO IT WITH ALL THAT'S HAPPENING BOTH FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN HERE, STORMWATER PROBLEM, IF THIS IS IN FACT GOING, UH, TO THE CHARLES, BUT ALSO WATER IN THE BASEMENTS OF ABUTTERS IF YOU'VE GOT A MAJOR CEMENT, UH, FOUNDATION HERE THAT'S GONNA DISPLACE WATER IN THAT AREA.
CERTAINLY THE SOUND FROM THESE TRANSFORMERS WILL BE IMPACTFUL AND THEY'RE LIKELY POSSIBLE BROWNOUTS AS WELL.
ON ISD BEING HELD UP FOR A MONTH OR EVEN SEVEN MONTHS, THEY ARE HUGELY OVERWHELMED.
JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE CAMBRIDGE HOUSING MAP.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING FROM SOME IN OTHER AREAS, NOT HERE, IS THAT DEVELOPERS ARE WRITING THEIR OWN PERMITS.
SO I DON'T KNOW REALLY WHAT TO SUGGEST TO YOU ABOUT THIS, WHETHER IT'S ANNELLING THE PERMIT OR SEEKING A CONTINUANCE, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE HAVING ONE CENTRAL PLAN IN WHICH ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE TOGETHER, UH, SO THAT YOU CAN EVALUATE IT WOULD REALLY MAKE GOOD SENSE.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE UPHOLD THE WELL-REASONED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED BUILDING PERMIT DECISION OF THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER AND DENY THIS APPEAL.
THE GOAL OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND PASSING THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE WAS FOR THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS LIKE IT TO PROCEED BY RIGHT.
AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE INTENT OF THAT ORDINANCE AND, UH, FOR THE ZONING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD BY RIGHT.
IF YOU COUNTENANCE THIS APPEAL, BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS AND FOLLOW ON LAWSUITS WILL BECOME ROUTINE FOR EVERY SINGLE PROJECT ALONG THESE LINES IN CAMBRIDGE.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW HOUSING OPPONENTS TO MISUSE THIS PROCESS, JUST AS WE HAVE SEEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS SIMILARLY ABUSED, INCLUDING AN INITIAL ATTEMPT TO DO SO BY THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE APPEALING THIS BUILDING PERMIT.
THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT, THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT BLOCKING HOUSING.
ANOTHER PROJECT IN CAMBRIDGE HAS STATED PUBLICLY THAT IT HAS $23,000 PER WEEK IN CARRYING COSTS.
IT'S A TREMENDOUS COST FOR THESE PROJECTS TO HAVE YEARS, MONTHS AND MONTHS TO YEARS OF DELAY FROM THE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT PROCESS TO FURTHER APPEALS SOUGHT HERE NOW WITH BUILDING PERMIT.
I CAN SAY THAT I AM A HUGE FAN OF PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
THAT SAID, THE CITY HAS PURPOSELY ALLOWED PROJECTS TO ADD INFILL HOUSING AND DO NOT HAVE TO ADD INCLUSIONARY WHERE THEY PRESERVE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND DO NOT, UH, GO OVER THE NEW 10,000 SQUARE FEET OR 10 UNITS THRESHOLD.
AND THERE ARE MANY PROJECTS IN CAMBRIDGE THAT ARE, UH, IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION.
UH, SO IF YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE EXPECTATIONS HERE WITH THIS PROJECT, THAT'S GOING TO RIPPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND RESULT IN, UH, A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND THE LOSS OF, YOU KNOW, NUMEROUS HOUSING UNITS IN EACH OF THOSE PROJECTS, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO GO OVER, THEY'RE GOING TO STAY UNDER.
CAMBRIDGE HAS A HOUSING SHORTAGE.
WE MUST PROJECT REGRESSIVE ATTEMPTS TO PRESERVE EXCLUSIONARY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE SEGREGATED BY RACE AND CLASS.
31% OF CHILDHOOD POVERTY IN MASSACHUSETTS IS CAUSED BY OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE.
I'LL QUOTE A RECENT PIECE IN A REPORT.
"HOUSING SHORTAGES DON'T JUST DRIVE UP COSTS, THEY'RE REGRESSIVE.
MAINTAINING RESTRICTIVE ZONING THAT EXACERBATES THE HOUSING SHORTAGE PUTS VULNERABLE TENANTS IN A MORE PRECARIOUS POSITION BY BURDENING THEM WITH STEEP RENT INCREASES.
ALLOWING ENOUGH HOMES FOR EVERYONE IMPROVES AFFORDABILITY OVERALL, BUT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IT BENEFITS LOW INCOME RENTERS MOST.
I HOPE YOU KEEP THAT IN MIND AND THAT YOU DENY THIS APPEAL.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? OH, THANK YOU.
HELEN WALKER, 43 LINIAN STREET, A RETIRED ARCHITECT.
I THINK IT'S RELEVANT BACKGROUND THAT CDD IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON CLARIFICATIONS TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING THAT IT'S GOING TO DELIVER IN SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT CDD CLAIMS IT IS KNOWN FOR A LONG
[01:55:01]
TIME THAT DEVELOPERS CANNOT BUILD TO THE ENVELOPE ALLOWED UNDER THE ZONING BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS TO MEET.THESE INCLUDE SCHOOL, COOL SCORE, STORMWATER, EGRESS AND FIRE SAFETY.
UM, YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN HEAR THIS PRESENTATION FOR SEPTEMBER 16TH, HOUSING AND LONG-TERM PLANNING WHERE THEY SPOKE OF THESE THINGS.
THEY ARE GOING TO CLARIFY THAT BUILDING TO THE ACTUAL ZONING EN- ENVELOPE WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR ALL PROJECTS.
WE HAVE JUST SEEN THE MOST STRIKING EXAMPLE OF WHAT CDD IS TALKING ABOUT IN THE PRESENTATION YOU HAVE SEEN THIS EVENING.
CERTAINLY THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO SEE MR. POUND'S PRESENTATION.
I SUGGEST THAT YOU ANNULL THE PERMIT, BUT IN OTHERWISE, PLEASE CONTINUE.
DEMAND THAT THE DEVELOPER PRESENT TO YOU THE EXTRA DOCUMENTATION HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT YOU WILL READ THE 10,019, UH, THE 1,019 PAGES AND UNDERSTAND THE DETAIL IN WHICH THE PRESENTATION OF THIS EVENING HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER.
HELLO, HEATHER HOFFMAN, 213 HURLEY STREET.
I WILL TRY TO BE FAR MORE POLITE THAN, UM, THE BUILDER OF SO MANY STRAW MEN.
I WAS, I WAS HOPING THAT NO ONE LIT A MATCH.
AND IT IS VERY NICE TO FOLLOW HELEN WALKER, WHO REALLY KNOWS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, AND I DON'T.
BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT WHAT I HEARD IN THIS PRESENTATION WAS THAT THE PLANS DIDN'T SHOW THE SAME THINGS.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE A REASONABLE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT...
WHETHER SOMETHING COMPLIES WITH ZONING IF YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING.
AND THAT'S WHY THE EXHAUSTIVE COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT PLANS MATTERS.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU GET ENOUGH TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS DESERVES THAT KIND OF THOUGH.
THIS IS DIANA PAOLITO, AND I HAVE LIVED WITH MY HUSBAND FOR OVER 50 YEARS AT 147 LEXINGTON AVENUE.
I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THE PETITIONERS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL GRANT THE APPEAL AND REVOKE THE BUILDING PERMIT.
I'M GONNA TAKE A DIFFERENT TACT.
AS A LEXINGTON AVENUE RESIDENT, I'M GONNA ZOOM OUT AND LOOK AT THE SAFETY AND CROWDING ISSUES THAT THIS PARTICULAR, UH, BUILDING WOULD IMPACT.
THE PROPO- PROPOSED SITE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ON LEXINGTON, AS YOU KNOW, BETWEEN HURON AND BRATTLE.
LEXINGTON IS A NARROW TWO-WAY STREET WITH A FIREHOUSE.
IT ALSO HAS A SNOW EMERGENCY STREET.
DURING THE LEXINGTON AVENUE BLOCK PARTY ON OCTOBER 4TH, A NEIGHBOR ASKED THE THREE FIREFIGHTERS AT THE STATION WHAT THEY THOUGH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE STREET, WHICH WOULD ADD MANY MORE HOUSING UNITS AND PARKED CARS, DESPITE THE EMPHASIS IN THIS HEARING ON BIKES.
THEIR REACTION WAS THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT DRIVING FIRE TRUCKS DOWN THE STREET, ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER.
CURRENTLY, A FIRE TRUCK CANNOT GO DOWN THE STREET IF ANY CAR IS COMING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
THE CAR NEEDS TO QUICKLY FIND AN OPEN SPACE AND PULL OVER TO LET THE FIRETRUCK BUY.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE, THREE HOUSES FROM THE FIRE STATION FOR OVER 50 YEARS AND HAVE WITNESSED THIS DANGER AND CROWDING INCREASE OVER TIME.
WHAT WILL THE IMPACT BE ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH 20 OR MORE RESIDENT CARS, PLUS VISITOR CARS AND THE MANY DAILY WORKERS ALREADY BUSILY AT WORK IN EXISTING HOMES AND APARTMENTS PARKED ON THE STREET? WHY DIDN'T THE CITY DEPARTMENTS COMMUNICATE WITH THE FIREHOUSE AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT THAT COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON COMMUNITY SAFETY, NOT JUST THE BUILDING OF A SPECIFIC HOUSE, RENOVATION OF A SPECIFIC HOUSE? SIMILARLY, TWO CARS TRAVELING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS CANNOT PASS BY EACH OTHER IF THERE
[02:00:01]
ARE CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.ONE CAR NEEDS TO FIND AN OPEN SPACE AND PULL OVER TO LET THE OTHER CAR BUY.
THIS BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE WHEN IT SNOWS AS THINGS STAND NOW, ESPECIALLY WITH TWO BUMP OUTS JUST RECENTLY BUILT ON OUR STREET AS WELL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UH, SO, UH, THAT WAS IT FOR FOLKS, UH, CALLING IN.
UH, JUST REVIEWING CORRESPONDENCE WE'VE RECEIVED.
UM, WE'VE RECEIVED EMAILS AND LETTERS FROM, UM, POLLY EKSAN, UH, COBB, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, UH, FRO - UH, SHE LIVES ON LEXINGTON AVENUE, ROBERT O'NEILL AT 175 HO- HOLWORTHY STREET, AS WELL AS PHYLLIS SIMPKINS, 249 HURON AVE, SUSAN BLAIR, WE'VE HEARD FROM, FIVE FULLER PLACE, JEFFREY LANSBURY, UH, DOUG AND JUDY WEINSTOCK AT 88 LARK STREET, RACHEL COBB, 140 LEX, LEE GILMORE, 102 LEX, UH, BILLY BIAN AT 29 GROZIER ROAD, YUAN WANG AT 31 GROZER ROAD, AND DENNIS MURPHY, UH, OF COURSE FROM HILL LAW WROTE LEFT CORRESPONDENCE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
UM, THOSE AGAINST THE APPEAL, UH, UH, EMAIL FROM ITMAR TURNER TARING, UH, 139 OXFORD STREET, TODD CHAPIN AT 462 CAMBRIDGE STREET.
AND, UM, WE ALSO HAVE THE MEMO FROM, UH, ISD COMMISSIONER PETER MCLAUGHLIN, UH, THAT SUMMARIZES HIS EXPLANATIONS FOR, UH, JUSTIFYING, UH, THE BUILDING PERMIT BEING ISSUED AS WELL AS, UH, AND WE'VE HEARD FROM MR. FUCHS, UH, FROM KERZEN, FUCHS AND HILL, AND THANK YOU MR. FUCHS FOR READING, UH, YOUR CORRESPONDENCE FOR ME.
UM, SO THAT CLOSES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVES US INTO BOARD DELIBERATIONS.
UM, I GUESS WHAT WE CAN, UH, JUST START AND HEAR WHAT, UH, WHAT'S ON OUR, MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS', UH, THOUGHTS.
STEVEN, CAN I, CAN I ASK YOU A PROCESS QUESTION JUST - SURE.
UH, JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T SEE VERY MANY OF THESE.
UM, IS THE THRESHOLD FOR SUSTAINING THE, UH, OR TO, I GUESS ACCEPTING, TO REJECTING THE, THE PERMIT, IS THAT FOUR VOTES? WHAT'S THE...
I, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE THRESHOLD IS.
SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF I HAVE, SO I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING.
UM, OLIVIA JUST LEFT THE ROOM.
SORRY, FOR THE PERMIT TO BE OVERTURNED, JUST WHAT'S THE...
WELL, IF FOUR MEMBERS VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, I THINK THAT'S - GOT IT.
SO ANY, UH, ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? WELL, THIS IS BRENDAN.
UM, YOU KNOW, BEING IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND SUBMITTING NUMEROUS PLANS, UH, PERMITS OVER THE YEARS, UM, FOR PERMITS, UH, THE NORMAL PROCEDURE IS FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONAL SERVICES TO REVIEW IT AND BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU SUBMIT.
AND ON ANY PROJECT, AN ARCHITECT, IF HE'S INVOLVED, WILL OBVIOUSLY DO THE DRAWINGS.
THEY WILL CHECK COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING.
THEY ALSO CHECK COMPLIANCE WITH STRUCTURAL, SHOULD WE BE TAKING WALLS DOWN OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
AND SO CONSEQUENTLY, THEY WOULD RETURN PROFESSIONALS, RETAIN PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN WHATEVER PARTICULAR FIELD, UH, THAT IS IN QUESTION OR NEEDS TO PRESENT DOCUMENTATION.
AND I THINK THAT ALL THE BUILDING DEPARTMENTS, UM, THAT I'VE HAD, I MEAN, BOSTON, CAMBRIDGE, UH, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, UM, VERY GOOD AND VERY ASTUTE.
IT TAKES THEM A WHILE TO ISSUE PERMITS AFTER THEIR REVIEW PROCESS.
AND THEY GO UPON THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THEM.
ANY ARCHITECT WILL RELY UPON, AGAIN, SUBSEQUENT ENGINEERS AND THEY ATTEST TO THE ACCURACY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
[02:05:02]
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE THEY'RE DURING INSPECTION PROCEDURES THAT THE INSPECTOR MAY PICK UP, OH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG HERE OR THIS IS NOT RIGHT.YOU GO TO THE DRAWINGS AND YEAH, BUT, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CODE IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE...
AND YOU MAKE CHANGES AS YOU GO ALONG.
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, IT'S NOT FATAL TO THE OUTSTANDING PERMIT AND IT'S NOT GROUNDS TO ALL OF A SUDDEN STOP AT EVERYTHING UNTIL YOU CORRECT WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
YOU DO IT IN THE COURSE OF, UH, THE WORK.
AND SO I THINK THAT WHAT IS BEFORE US HERE IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT, WHO I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR, I HAVE AN ASSOCIATION WITH THEM OVER MANY YEARS BEING ON THE BOARD AND ALSO BEING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTER, UM, HAVE DONE DUE DILIGENCE ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED.
THE OWNERS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, BASICALLY THE ONUS IS ON THEM THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED AND HAVE RECEIVED A PERMIT FOR, UM, PUTS THEM IN THE POSITION THAT THEY, UM, THEY OWN IT.
AND IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE, SHOULD, DURING THE COURSE OF INSPECTIONS, THEY HAVE TO CORRECT IT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE PERMIT, UM, IS, UM, OR THAT THAT FLAW IS FATAL TO THE PERMIT AND GROUNDS FOR, UH, REVOKING THE PERMIT, UM, CORRECT IT.
AND THEY, AGAIN, THEY RUN THE RISK, UH, AS PRESENTATION WAS THAT THESE ARE SOMEWHAT SEASONED DEVELOPERS, UM, AND THAT THEY RUN THE RISK OF NOT, OF NOT HAVING COMPLIANCE WITH IT ALL, UM, NOT GETTING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN THEIR INVESTMENT IS, UH, IS THAT RISK.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.
UM, AND SO I LEAN ON, UM, NOT REVOKING THE PERMIT, NOT SUPPORTING THE APPEAL, AND THAT THE, IF ANYTHING COMES OUT OF, UH, ATTORNEY MURPHY'S, UM, UM, PRESENTATION IS IT'S AN EDUCATION.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, YOU HAVE EDUCATED EVERYBODY ON SOME OF THE, UH, ISSUES, WHETHER THEY BE ZONING OR CODE COMPLIANCE, UM, AND DIFFERENT, UM, FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, AND, UM, USE ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AS A GUIDE, UH, POTENTIAL ISSUES AND THAT THEY NEED TO BE DEALT WITH.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE ISSUES THAT HE HAS RAISED, AND AGAIN, THAT MAY BE MERIT TO IT, UH, I SUSPECT SOME OF IT DOES HAVE MERIT, NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT I THINK IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION AND IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF INSPECTIONS THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED.
UM, SO I WOULD, UM, UH, I WOULD LEAN ON NOT ACCEPTING THE, UH, THE APPEAL AND LETTING THE PERMIT STAND.
I ALSO THINK THAT THE SUBMISSION THAT, UM, MR. FUCHS, UM, UH, PRESENTED TODAY WITH, UM, SOME, UM, CONDITIONS AT THE VERY END IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO ADDRESSING ALL OF POTENTIAL ISSUES AND ALSO HAVING A, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
SO, UM, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF, UM, RECESSION OF THE PERMIT.
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? THIS IS WENDY LISERSON.
I DID LOOK UP, UM, THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 15 TO ANSWER, UM, BOARD MEMBER HIDALGO'S QUESTION.
IT DOES SAY THAT A CONCURRING VOTE OF FOUR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, OF A BOARD CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS IS NECESSARY TO REVERSE ANY ORDER DECISION APPEALED, BASICALLY.
UM, I ALSO JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO BRENDAN JUST NOW.
UM, SO I AM A STAFF MEMBER IN A DIFFERENT CITY'S INSPECTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION, AND I HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE, UH, PLAN SETS PERMITTED, UH, SUBMITTED AFTER THE BUILDING PERMIT HAS ISSUED.
SO I DO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH BRENDAN THAT MANY, UM, CHANGES ARE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF
[02:10:01]
A PROJECT.UM, SO I TESTIFY THAT I, I HAVE SEEN THAT TOO.
HOWEVER, UM, MY ONLY CONSIDERATION HERE IS I AGREE WITH, UM, A LOT OF WHAT WAS SAID IN TERMS OF BEING CAREFUL TO DECIDE, UH, TO REMIND OURSELVES OF WHAT THE SCOPE OF OUR REVIEW IS, WHICH IS WE CAN ONLY REVIEW THE ZONING ORDINANCE ISSUES.
AND A LOT OF WHAT WAS SAID ARE BUILDING CODE ISSUES OR OTHER CODE ISSUES THAT WE SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR EXPERTISE TO REVIEW.
AND THAT IS, UH, SOMETHING THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND EXPERTISE TO REVIEW.
UM, BUT I DO THINK I HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO PROPERLY DIGEST, UH, THE THOUSAND PAGES AND RESPONSES TO BE CERTAIN OF WHAT IS OR IS NOT A ZONING ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW.
SO THAT'S HOW I'M FEELING WITH A LOT OF THE MATERIALS PRESENTED IN, IN GENERAL.
I LEAN TOWARDS, UM, WHERE BRENDAN'S COMING FROM WITH REGARD TO UNDERSTANDING THAT PLANS DO GET REVISED, THAT THE BUILDING CODE IS NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.
UM, IT'S JUST I'M NOT CLEAR WHICH OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED ARE ACTUALLY ZONING ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD BE REVIEWING.
JUST, UM, YEAH, I, I, UH, APPRECIATE, UM, THE PRESENTATION.
IT REALLY HELPED ME, YOU KNOW, UH, GET MORE OF A HANDLE ON, UH, ON THE MATERIALS, UH, THAT I WAS REVIEWING EARLIER, UH, THIS WEEK.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I, I, I AGREE WITH WENDY THAT I THINK, TO ME, MOST OF THE ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION CLEARLY FALL, DON'T FALL UNDER OUR PURVIEW.
UM, THE ONE THAT I WAS MORE, YOU KNOW, INTERESTED IN WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE, UM, ABOUT THE IN- INCLUSIONARY ZONING.
UM, BUT GIVEN BRENDAN'S DISCUSSION, I SORT OF AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S IN SORT OF THIS LIMINAL STATE BETWEEN BEING KIND OF REMODELED OR RE- REDONE DOESN'T UNDO ITS PREVIOUS STATUS.
AND SO I'M CONVINCED THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY, UM, AN ISSUE.
AND THEN FINALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I, THIS IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE ABUTTERS BECAUSE THIS IS THE PROCESS IN THE LAW AND, AND SO IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, BUT I REALLY DON'T LIKE THAT WE CAN HAVE THIS, YOU KNOW, VERY COMPREHENSIVE, VERY CLEAR, VERY GOOD PRESENTATION FROM THE, UM, THE, THE, THE ABUTTERS, BUT NOT, YOU KNOW, I THINK FEEL LIKE HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME AND ALSO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE IN A COMPREHENSIVE FULL WAY.
SO I, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NO ONE'S FAULT, BUT I JUST DON'T LOVE, LOVE THE SETUP OF THIS.
UM, SO, BUT ANYWAYS, TO, TO, TO, TO END, JUST I WOULD SAY I, I, I AGREE WITH BRENDAN BASICALLY THAT, AND I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARDS, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THE, THE PERMIT TO STAND.
VIRGINIA? UH, THIS IS VIRGINIA.
AGREED THAT IT FELT LIKE A NUMBER OF THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED PERTAIN TO LIFE SAFETY, STORMWATER, OTHER ITEMS THAT AREN'T UNDER OUR PURVIEW.
I THINK A LOT OF THE ZONING POINTS THAT WERE RAISED, INCLUDING THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING POINT, BUT ALSO A NUMBER OF OTHER POINTS, THE LANGUAGE WAS AT THE LEAST, LIKE, QUITE AMBIGUOUS AS TO HOW IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED.
AND THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS BEING MADE WASN'T, TO ME, STRONG ENOUGH, UH, THAT IT DROVE ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERMIT SHOULD BE, UM, OVERTURNED BY THE ZONING BOARD.
SO I'M, UH, I THINK ALIGNED WITH MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS IN TERMS OF, UH, BLEEDING AWAY FROM, UH, OVERTURNING THE PERMIT.
AND, UH, FOR MYSELF, UM, I, I'M LEANING, I ALSO AGREE WITH BRENDAN, UM, THAT THE PROCESS, AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REINFORCED BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN, THE COMMISSIONER OF ISD'S L- LETTER THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, IT, IT, THIS GOES TO A RIGOROUS REVIEW, CDD, DPW, FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND THEN FINALLY ISD.
AND, UM, FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, YOU'LL ALL AGREE, WE GO THROUGH M- M - HEARINGS WHERE WE HEAR, UH, APPLICATIONS WHERE THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT ALL THE WORK THEY HAVE TO DO TO COMPLY WITH, UH, EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IS REQUIRING OF THEM.
SO, I MEAN, MY CONFIDENCE IS, IS WITH, UH, ISD AND OUR CITY'S DEPARTMENTS WHEN THEY REVIEW AN APPLICATION.
UM, AND, UH, I THINK AS, AS MR. MCLAUGHLIN CITES IN HIS LETTER THAT, YOU KNOW,
[02:15:01]
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS A VERY HIGH THRESHOLD TO MEET.AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU KNOW, UH, COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH OF THE STEPS, UM, YOU'RE GONNA BE, UH, HAVE A LOT OF DIFFICULTY GETTING YOUR OCCUPANCY PERMIT.
SO I THINK, UM, AS BRENDAN DESCRIBED, THE PROCESS IS YOUR OWNERSHIP, THE OWNER'S OWNERSHIP OF THE PROCESS.
AND IF, IF YOU'RE, UM, NOT STAYING ON TOP OF IT, IT COULD REALLY, UH, CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR YOU DOWN THE ROAD, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING I THINK OUR BOARD SHOULD OVERTURN OR, UH, ACCEPT THIS APPEAL.
UM, I THINK WE, WE, UH, I HAVE, UH, CONFIDENCE IN THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, THAT THE CONTINUAL REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROJECT WILL EVENTUALLY GET YOU TO, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S MEETING THE ZONING, UH, THE DENSITY.
I, I THINK, UH, THE INCLUSIONARY ISSUE WAS, IS ANSWERED BY OUR, OUR CDD AND, AND, AND CITY DEPARTMENT.
SO, UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M NOT NECESSA - I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF, UH, THE APPEAL MYSELF.
WENDY? I THINK, UM, IT'S WENDY LEISTERSTAND FOR THE RECORD.
I DO, I THINK WE'RE ALL LEANING THE SAME WAY.
UM, HOWEVER, I AM CONCERNED THAT, UM, FOR MYSELF, THAT I DON'T THINK THAT I'VE HAD AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO DIGEST A THOUSAND PAGES AND THE 45-MINUTE PRESENTATION.
AND, UM, AND I ALSO AGREE WITH, UM, BOARD MEMBER HIDALGO'S POINT OF VIEW THAT, UM, WHILE THE, UH, PERMIT HOLDER WAS, UH, READ THE THREE-PAGE LETTER INTO THE RECORD, UM, AND I FOUND THAT, UM, COMPELLING, I'M JUST WONDERING IF ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS FEEL THAT, DESPITE OUR LEANING, WHETHER THEY ARE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO ZONING ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE, OR CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO UPHOLDING IT AS WAS PROPOSED BY THE PERMIT HOLDER.
SO THAT'S MY, MY QUESTION FOR THE BOARD.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS GRACIOUS FOR, UH, THE PERMIT HOLDER TO KINDA OFFER THAT, BUT HE HAS A BUILDING PERMIT AND IT'S APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK SOME OF THOSE ITEMS HE MAY HAVE TO DO THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
AND, UM, BUT, UH, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HOLD HIM TO THAT.
HE'S, HE'S IN, YOU KNOW, HE'S, THEY'VE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, THEIR WORK TO GET, TO GET TO WHERE THEY ARE.
AND I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, I DON'T THINK WE NEED, I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO INCLUDE THOSE CONDITIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT ARE MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS THINKING? AGAIN, FOR, FOR ME, I MEAN, UH, THIS IS DANIEL DALGO.
UH, YOU KNOW, MANY OF THO SEEM QUITE SENSIBLE, AND AS YOU SAY, THEY'RE, I IMAGINE MANY OF THEM WILL HAPPEN IN THE COURSE OF, OF THE, THE ONGOING PROCESS.
I GUESS THE THING I'M ALWAYS JUST A LITTLE BIT CAUTIOUS ABOUT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IS JUST KNOWING, BEING COGNIZANT THAT THAT ALSO PUTS ADDITIONAL BURDENS ON, ON, ON THE STAFF TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE BEING MET.
AND SO I WOULD JUST, IF WE DO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I WOULD JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST THINK CAREFULLY THAT, AND THAT, THAT ACTUALLY, LIKE, CHECKING THAT THESE ARE MET ARE, YOU KNOW, IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND NOT REQUIRE A LOT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, BACK AND FORTH OR, OR EFFORT FROM THE STAFF.
UH, BRENDAN SULLIVAN, IF WE WERE TO INCLUDE THOSE CONDITIONS AT THE END AS A GROUNDS FOR US, UM, UPHOLDING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION AND DENYING THE APPEAL, WHAT HAPPENS IF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET?
I MEAN, HOW CAN WE, HOW CAN THAT BE POLICED IN A SENSE? SO I WOULD NOT, UH, I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL GESTURE.
I THINK IT'S VERY NECESSARY GESTURE FOR THEIR OWN PEACE OF MIND FOR, UM, GOING FORWARD, UM, BECAUSE THEY ARE WELCOME TO CAMBRIDGE AND, UH, IT'S NOT NEWTON AND BROOKLINE.
IT'S, UH, WE HAVE AN ISLAND UNTO OURSELVES AND THAT, UM, REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL VIEW ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY, AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT I SEE AROUND THE CITY, FROM SOMEBODY,
[02:20:01]
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I HAVE PROGRESSED FOUR BLOCKS MY ENTIRE LIFE.SO I'VE SEEN THE CITY CHANGE DRAMATICALLY.
REGARDLESS OF THAT, UM, I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WELCOME TO CAMBRIDGE, BUT THOSE CONDITIONS THAT YOU OFFERED, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THOSE TO THE, UM, TO THE OWNER, UM, AND THE DEVELOPER.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, UM, I THINK IT EXCEEDS A LITTLE BIT OF OUR AUTHORITY AND WHAT IS THE END GAME THERE IF, UM, IF THEY DON'T ME- MEET THEM.
SO I WOULD JUST MAKE A, MY SUGGESTION, MR. CHAIR, WOULD BE A, UH, A MOTION TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND ASK, REQUEST THE COMMISSIONER TO, UM, RESCIND, UH, REVOKE THE PERMIT, UH, BASED ON, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO FILL IN THE BLANKS THERE, AND THEN TAKE THAT TO A VOTE.
AND IF THE VOTE IS, DOES NOT RECEIVE THE NECESSARY FOUR VOTES, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE OUR REASONS WHY WE VOTED THE WAY WE VOTED.
SO THAT WOULD BE MY TWO CENTS WORTH HERE.
UM, SOUNDS LIKE I GOTTA PULL TOGETHER A COMPLICATED MOTION HERE.
UM, UH, SO, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION NEEDED OR I'LL GIVE IT A SHOT? UH, THE CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL, AND I WILL STATE IN THE POSITIVE, UH, MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL TO ANNULL THE BUILDING PERMIT RECORD NUMBER 1196760 FOR 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE ATTACHED NOTICE OF APPEAL, WHICH IS ARTICLE 22, SECTION 22.90, UH, FAILURE TO MEET, UH, THE GREEN FACTOR STANDARDS IN SECTION 2294.
3A, THE KOOL SCORE 2297B, IMPLEMENTATION OF GREEN FACTOR STANDARDS, AS WELL AS ARTICLE SIX, SECTION 6.106.1 A AND D, UH, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRIMARY ACCESS, ACCESS STANDARDS FOR BICYCLE PARKING, SECTION 6.104.2, UH, FAILURE, UH, IM- IMPROPER LOCATION OF SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING, SECTION 6.102.5, UH, TYPES OF BICYCLE PARKING, UH, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 5.22.1, AND, AND 5.224A, UM, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OPEN SPACE, UH, IN ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 5.24, 5.24.1, AND 5.31, TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, AS WELL AS SECTION 5.40, FOOTNOTE 37, ARTICLE TWO, UH, REQUIREMENTS F- F - UM, FOR, UH, NOT MEETING NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION.
UM, NEXT, UH, F - ARTICLE 4.0, 4.21 H, ARTICLE TWO, UH, REGARDING YARDS.
UM, UH, ARTICLE 11, ARTICLE TWO, UH, IN, IN FAILURE TO PROVIDE, UH, CORRECT, UH, OR COMPLY WITH INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, AND FINALLY SEC - ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10.20, UH, APPEAL PROCESS.
UM, AND, UH, IF, IF VOTED IN FA - IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, WE WOULD DIRECT, UH, THE ISD COMMISSIONER TO RESCIND THE BUILDING PERMIT AS NOTED.
UH, SO ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE, UH, WENDY LYSERSON.
I CANNOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL BASED ON, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT AT THIS POINT AND THE REVIEW THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.
UH, VIRGINIA? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, VIRGINIA.
UH, SORRY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
UH, VIRGINIA KIESLER, UH, SORRY, SO I'M VOTING IN OPPOSITION NOT TO, UH, UH, IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPEAL.
DANIEL HIDALGO, I DECLINE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
[02:25:01]
UM, VOTE IN, UM, OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION.AND - NOT IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
AND STEVEN ENG ALSO VOTING NOT IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL MOTION.
SO THE VOTE IS ZERO FIVE AGAINST.
UM, AND I GUESS, UH, BRENDAN, AS YOU WERE SAYING, WE NEED TO KIND OF PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR THE REASONS FOR - IT'S OUR DECISION I WOULD RELY UPON AND THAT WE AGREE WITH THE, UM, MEMORANDUM OR THE LETTER SENT TO THE BOARD BY THE COMMISSIONER DATED OCTOBER 13, 2026 IN REFERENCE TO THE APPEAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE.
AND HAVING READ, UH, UM, THE COMMISSIONER'S REPLY TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, THAT THE BOARD AGREES WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISIONS ON EACH ONE OF THOSE COUNTS, AND AS SUCH, ACCEPTS HIS LETTER AS, UM, BEING VALID OR, UM, ALLOWING THE PERMISSION, THE PERMIT TO STAND.
UM - PLEASE, PLEASE CLEAN THAT UP.
WE CAN CLEAN THAT UP RIGHT OVER HERE.
UH, SO ON A VOICE VOTE, UH, FOR, UH, THAT, THE, THE CRITERIA, UH, WENDY? WENDY LISERSON.
UM, AS I WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT I'M VOTING NOT IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS THAN, UH, PARTLY RELYING ON THE LETTER OF THE COMMISSIONER AND IN PART NOT.
UM, MS. KIESLER? UH, VIRGINIA KIESLER, UH, VOTING IN SUPPORT OF OUR EXPLANATION.
AND THAT WAS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? UH, IN FAVOR OF THE RATIONALE BEING PROVIDED BY THE V- VVA FOR OUR VOTE IN OPPOSITION.
UH, DANIEL HIDALGO IN FAVOR OF, UH, BRENDAN SULLIVAN'S EXPLANATION.
AND BRENDAN? I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSEQUENT REASON FOR THE DENIAL OF THE APPEAL.
THE REASONS FOR THE BOARD DENYING THE APPEAL.
ACCEPTING THE COMMISSIONER'S LETTER.
AND STEVENING IS ALSO IN FAVOR OF, OF THAT CRITERIA, UH, STATED.
SO, UM, I GUESS THAT CLOSES THIS, THIS ITEM.
UM, SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT CASE, UH, BZA1229438, UH, 131 RAYMOND STREET.
UM, OWNERS TAYLOR SOKOLSKI LIVING TRUST, UH, JAY GLOVER TAYLOR AND LAURIE SOKOLSKI, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT, ENCLOSURE OF A PREEXISTING NON-CONFORMING FRONT PORCH WITHIN YARD, FRONT YARD SETBACK.
IS SOMEONE ONLINE, UH - YES, I, I'M HERE.
THANK YOU.MY NAME'S GLOVER TAYLOR AND, UM, I LIVE AT 131 RAYMOND STREET.
I'M THE OWNER OF THIS, UH, TWO-STORY, TWO-FAMILY, UM, HOUSE THAT WE'VE LIVED IN FOR 34 YEARS.
AND WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OUR FRONT PORCH UNIT, UM, REQUIRES EXTENSIVE WORK, AND WE HAVE A PERMIT AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT WORK, BUT WE WOULD LIKE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW US TO ENCLOSE ONLY APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD OF THE LOWER LEVEL PORCH TO CREATE A MUD ROOM IN THE ENTRANCE, UM, TO THE UNIT.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE DRAWING THAT, UM, ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, ON THE LOWER LEVEL TO THE LEFT, UM, YOU'LL S...
WELL, YOU'LL SEE A DOOR STRAIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, UH, UP, UP THE STAIRCASE TO A DOOR, AND OVER TO THE LEFT IS, UH, IN WHAT WE ENVISION AS THE CLOSED AREA THAT WOULD BECOME A MUDROOM.
IT'S ABOUT 60 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE SIZE OF THE FRONT PORCH.
THE REST WOULD REMAIN OPEN, AND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PORCH AND THE ELEVATION OF THE PORCH REMAINS THE SAME AS THE EXISTING PORCH.
THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PORCH OR THE ELEVATION.
[02:30:01]
UM, AND OH, WE'RE REQUESTING THIS BECAUSE THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH ON THIS 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSE IS SEVEN FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THEREFORE DOES, UH, NON-CONFORMING WITH A 10-FOOT FRONT SETBACK, UM, REQUIREMENT.IS THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT OR? UH, ALL OTHER CONDITIONS IN ZONING ARE MET OR OVER MET.
THE, THE PROPERTY IS, UM, THAT'S A NICE EXISTING VIEW.
SO YOU CAN SEE, UH, WHERE THE STAIRS ARE GOING NOW IS WHERE THE MUDROOM WOULD BE ENCLOSED AND THE STAIRS WILL BE MOVED TO THE MIDDLE SECTION.
UM, AND, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S ON THE LAR - 5,000 SQUARE FEET PROPERTY.
THERE'S A LOT OF GREEN SPACE WITH, UH, MULTIPLE TIMES WHAT'S REQUIRED AND THAT WILL REMAIN.
UM, OUR NEIGHBORS ON RAYMOND STREET, ADJACENT ON BOTH SIDES AT 125, 127 RAYMOND STREET AND 135 RAYMOND STREET HAVE ALL SUBMITTED LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT YOU HAVE AND, UM, AND ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS, OF ALLOWING US TO PROCEED.
AND, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION IS DONE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT, UM, AESTHETIC STRUC - OF THE BUILDING AND WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE MANY HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SIMILAR MUDROOMS, UM, AT THE ENTRY.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? UM,
UM, IN YOUR PLEADINGS, IT SAYS, UM, THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THE ENCLOSED SPACE WILL BE PRIVATE FOR USE BY THE OWNERS.
THE APPEARANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DROVE UP AND DOWN WALDEN STREET, RAYMOND STREET, ALL AROUND TO FIND A SIMILAR HOUSE WITH A, UM, ENCLOSURE LIKE THAT AND COULDN'T FIND IT.
I MEAN, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENCLOSING OR HAVE ENCLOSED, UM, THEIR PORCHES ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
BUT I, UM, I SAID, HMM, I'M, I'M LOOKING,
UH, COULD YOU PUT, PULL UP, UH, OLIVIA, A PICTURE OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE? THE, UH, SUBMITTAL THERE.
UM, THAT'S THE EXISTING, UM, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S EXISTING, RIGHT? NO, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S THE NEW.
BUT IT, BUT, BUT IT COMES FORWARD.
I'M SORRY, WHAT? IT, IT COMES FORWARD, THAT'S RIGHT.
UM, ANYHOW, I'D BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AMENABLE TO IT, BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT, UM, IF I OWN THAT HOUSE, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT A SEPARATE ENTRANCE ALSO, SO.
IT'LL, IT'LL, IT'LL BE, YOU KNOW, EASIER.
SO ANYHOW, UM, I'M OKAY WITH IT.
UM, YEAH, THEY NEED A MUDROOM, BRENDAN.
THEY'RE GONNA BE HAVING A GREAT TIME IN RAYMOND PARK AND THEY DON'T WANNA BRING THE MUD INTO THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW? THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF MUD
THE PARK IS GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL.
YES, IT'S, IT'S ALMOST, ALMOST FINISHED.
YES, COMING ALONG SLOWLY, BUT IT WILL GET THERE.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? THIS IS WENDY LEISTERSON.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION MORE FOR OLIVIA, BUT JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE SETBACK AND THE EXISTING, UM, QUESTION, WHICH IS WHERE ARE WE MEASURING FROM THE LANDING OF THE PORCH OR FROM LIKE WHERE THE, THE PLANE WHERE THE FRONT DOOR IS? WHAT'S THE EXISTING MEASUREMENT BETWEEN THE TWO? I'M JUST TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT'S THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY HERE.
SO WHAT'S THAT DIMENSION FROM THE PLANE OF THE EXTERIOR WALL OF THE HOUSE TO THE STREET? I HIT THAT DIMENSION SHEET.
SO IF, IF THE REQUIRED ORDINANCE, UH, REQUIREMENTS ARE 10 FEET, I'M JUST, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING, ARE THE STAIRS AND THE PORCH, OLIVIA, ARE THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SETBACK? LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S NOT COUNTING TOWARDS THE SETBACK? IT IS COUNTING.
SO THE SEVEN, THE EXISTING SEVEN FEET IS BEING MEASURED FROM THE, UH, PLANE
[02:35:01]
OF THE BUILDING OR FROM WHERE THE PORCH LANDING...I WOULD ASSUME IT'S THE PORCH.
AND SO, UM, AND THAT, THAT CREATES THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY, CORRECT? OKAY.
AND SO DOES, IT DOESN'T, SO IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THAT IT'S ENCLOSED.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? UH, HEARING NONE, UM, WE'LL MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, CHECKING THE FILE FOR CORRESPONDENCE, YES, AS MENTIONED, UH, WE DID RECEIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM ANNE DENSMORE AT 125 RAYMOND, UH, ADAM AND BROAD AND EMILY SILLE.
I'M SORRY IF I MISPRONOUNCED THAT.
135 RAYMOND AND LESLIE AND DAVID BLISS AT 127 RAYMOND STREET.
IT'S WHAT? DO YOU WANNA OPEN THE - YEAH, SURE.
UH, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK SHOULD NOW CHECK, CLICK THE BO - 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.
SEEING NO ONE THERE, WE'LL CLOSE FOR, WE'LL CLO- CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, UH, FROM BOARD MEMBERS OR I'M HAPPY TO GENERATE A MOTION? READY FOR MOTION.
UH, THE CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO GRANT A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTIONS 5.31, UH, TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SECTIONS 8.22.2.
D, NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, AND SECTION 10.40 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.
UM, REVIEWING, UM, THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, ITEM A, IT APPEARS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE MET.
UH, RESPONSE IS THE ENCLOSED SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR PORCH WILL NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE CURRENT PORCH LAYOUT.
THE CONSTRUCTION WILL MATCH THE CURRENT DESIGN AND WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPEARANCE OF OTHER RESIDENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, ITEM B, TRAFFIC GENERATED OR PATTERNS OF ACCESS OR EGRESS WOULD CAUSE CONGESTION, HAZARD OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
UM, PATTERNS OF ACCESS OR EGRESS WILL NOT CHANGE.
NO ADDITIONAL CONGESTION WILL BE CAUSED.
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 PROPOSED USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE CURRENT USES OF THIS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND WILL NOT AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UH, ITEM D, NUISANCE OR HAZARD WOULD BE CREATED TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANT.
UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL NOT AFFECT THE EASE OF ACCESS, UM, AND, UH, NOT CREATE, UH, A DETRIMENT TO HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE AC - O- OCCUPANT.
AND LASTLY, AND FOR OTHER REASONS, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD IMPAIR, UH, THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT OR ADJOINING DISTRICTS.
UM, THE ENCLOSED SPACE WILL BE PRIVATE FOR USE BY THE OWNERS.
THE APPEARANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR HOMES IN THE AREA.
UM, AND ON THE CONDITION THAT THE WORK PROPOSED CONFORMED TO THE DRAWING SET INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, UH, DRAWING SET ENTITLED TAYLOR RESIDENCE PORCH RENOVATION BY NICK PORTNOY BUILDERS DATED JUNE 22ND, 2024.
UM, SO BASED ON THIS FINDING, THEY, THIS PROJECT MEETS THE CRITERIA UNDER SECTIONS 10.40 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND FURTHER THAT WE INCORPORATE THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS AND DIMENSIONAL FORMS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, UH, WENDY.
UH, VIRGINIA? VIRGINIA KIESLER IN FAVOR.
UH, BRENDAN? UH, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
VOTE IS 5-0 IN FAVOR AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS GRANTED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND I WANNA SAY THAT IT WAS QUITE EDUCATIONAL TO LISTEN TO THE PREVIOUS CASE.
[02:40:01]
WHAT YOU'RE DOING.UM, AND, UH, YES, GOOD LUCK ON, UM, THE ADDITION.
NEXT UP IS OUR, UH, IS OUR 645 CASE.
UM, CASE NUMBER BZA1230918, UH, THREE MICHAEL WAY, UH, APPLICANT NAMED SHRU YI KONG, UH, SEEKING A VARIANCE PARKING WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK, DIMENSIONALLY NON-CONFORMING PARKING SPACES, PROPOSED CURB CUT LENGTH GREATER THAN ALLOWED, CITING SECTIONS 5.31, UH, TABLE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.42, DIMENSIONS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, SECTION.
A, ACCESS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES AS 6.44.1.
C, LAYOUT OF OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES, AND OF COURSE, UH, 10.30 FOR VARIANCE.
UH, MR. KWONG, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? UH, KANG, I'M SORRY.
ARE YOU AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTING YOUR APPLICATION? YES.
YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE AVAILABLE.
UH, DO WE START NOW? NOW HOLD ON.
SO, UH, WE CURRENTLY, WE LIVE ON, IN A HOUSE WHERE OUR STREET IS, UH, NO PARKING SIDE ON OUR STREET.
AND, UM, WITH A LOT OF, LIKE, RECENT REDEVELOPMENT OF, UH, UNITS NEAR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IT, IT ADD A LOT OF CHALLENGES TO THE, UH, THE ALREADY VERY CHALLENGED PARKING SITUATION, ESPECIALLY, LIKE, ON STREET CLEANING DAYS AND AS WELL AS A VERY HEAVY SNOWSTORM.
SO WE PROPOSE, UH, TO ADD ANOTHER TWO PARKING SPOT BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS, AS WELL AS OURSELF, WE HAVE TWO CARS, AND WE ALSO HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS VISITING VERY OFTEN.
SO, UH, AND WE HAVE NO TREES AT OUR FRONT YARD, SO WE PROPOSE TO HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE.
UH, SO JUST TO, TO ORIENT YOU A BIT, SO THIS STREET AT MICHAEL WAY, UH, IT IS, UH, PART OF A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD IN LINDEN PARK.
UH, THERE ARE THREE STREETS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER.
MICHAEL WAY, I THINK WE MAY HAVE A MAP OF THE SURROUNDING AREA THERE.
MICHAEL WAY, CORNELIUS WAY, AND JAMES WAY.
UH, THOSE ARE OFF OF THE MAIN ROAD, CAR - UH, CARNO MADEIROS, WHICH IS NEAR ONE KENNEL SQUARE.
UH, SO OUR HOUSE IS NEAR THE END OF MICHAEL WAY.
SO IF YOU GO OFF TO THE, TO THE RIGHT, TO THE EAST SIDE THERE, THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL HOUSE ADJOINING OURS, NUMBER ONE MICHAEL WAY.
AND THEN BEYOND THAT IS, IS THAT, UH, MEMORIAL WAY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE LABELED THERE.
UH, THERE'S, THAT IS UP AGAIN.
UM, IF YOU GO FURTHER EAST FROM THAT, IT'S TRAIN TRACKS.
SO THERE'S REALLY NO THROUGH TRAFFIC.
UH, SO OUR, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED PARKING SPACE WOULDN'T INTERFERE WITH ANY OTHER, UH, TRAFFIC IN, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYTHING.
AS JOANNE MENTIONED, UH, OUR, OUR SIDE OF THAT STREET IS ALREADY NO STREET PARKING, SO WE WOULDN'T BE TAKING, UH, STREET PARKING AWAY FROM ANYBODY AND WE MAY BE, YOU KNOW, LEAVING ONE EXTRA PARKING SPACE IF WE'RE PARKING OUR CAR OFF OF THE STREET.
UH, THE OTHER, UH, ISSUES ABOUT THE, THE VARIANCE, UM, IF YOU, THE WAY THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT, UH, EACH OF THE PARKING, EACH OF THE HOMES, THERE'S ABOUT 50, 60, I THINK 54 TOTAL HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EACH ONE OF THEM HAS A CAR PARKED IN FRONT.
UH, THE, EACH OF THE DRIVEWAYS IS, UH, ALREADY HAS A CAR PARKING, PARKED WITHIN THE OFFSET.
UH, SO IF WE, YOU CAN JUST GO RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, EVERY CAR IS, YOU KNOW, PARKED RIGHT UP AGAINST THE SIDEWALK.
SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT, UH, WE'RE ASKING, WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE OFFSET SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS, YOU KNOW, ANY NEW PARKING SPACE, WE PREFER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PARKING SPACES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ARE RIGHT, RIGHT UP AGAINST THE SIDEWALK.
UH - SO, UM, YOU NOTICE THAT I TOOK TWO TYPES OF PICTURES, THE ONE WHERE ONE CAR IS PARKED DIAGONALLY - YES.
IT WAS, IT HAPPENED TO BE ON STREET CLEANING DAYS, SO I, I, I FIGURED THAT IT WILL BE A GOOD ILLUSTRATION TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST MYSELF, I THINK SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL, WE WILL HAVE TO DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SOMETIMES EVEN OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO LOOK FOR PARKING ON STREET CLEANING DAYS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO PARK ONE CAR DIAGONALLY ON THE FRONT YARD, AND IT ALSO HAPPENED TO BE A TRASH DAY,
[02:45:01]
SOSO WE FIGURED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN HAVE THAT EXTRA PARKING SPACE, IT WILL REALLY, YOU KNOW, UM, MAKE SENSE.
AND LIKE WHAT JUSTIN HAS SAID, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE HOUSES, NOT JUST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UH, WE NOTICED THAT THROUGHOUT CAMBRIDGE, THERE'S HARDLY ANY, UH, FRONT SETBACK, ENOUGH FRONT SETBACK FOR CARS TO PARK SO INWARDS FROM THE SIDEWALK.
UM, SO WE ARE SEEKING THAT BIT OF A VARIANCE THERE.
AND THERE IS ONE OTHER HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE KNOW OF THAT HAS, UH, SECOND PARKING SPACE ON CORNELIUS, SEVEN CORNELIUS WAY.
UH, SO IT'D BE, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT - YEAH, I THINK WE SAW THAT PHOTO, UH, A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE BLOCK, RIGHT? BUT, UH, IS IT JUST YOUR SIDE OF THE...
ARE YOU, UH, IS THAT YOUR PRESENTATION? I SHOULDN'T HAVE INTERRUPTED YOU.
UH, I THINK THAT'S BASICALLY - YEAH, YEAH, THAT, THAT'S BASICALLY IT.
SO IS IT, IS IT, UH, TO NOW QU - JUST QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, IS, UH, YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET ALWAYS DESIGNATED NO PARKING? YES.
UM, JAMES WAY, CORNELIUS, AND OUR STREET ON THE, UH, THE, THE LEFT, RIGHT SIDE? THE ODD NUMBERED SIDE.
THE EVEN NUMBERED SIDE IS STREET PARKING.
SO RIGHT, THAT IF, IF YOU DO GET THE CURB CUT, YOU'RE NOT REALLY IN, YOU KNOW, DISRUPTING ANY PARKING ON YOUR SIDE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? UH, BRENT SULLIVAN, I HAVE NONE.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANYBODY.
SO, UH, WE'LL JUST OPEN IT UP TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
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 AT, 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.
ANYONE OUT THERE, OLIVIA? YEAH.
AND YOU CAN HEAR ME, YES? YES, WE CAN.
UM, YEAH, I AM CALLING IN SUPPORT.
UM, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAT IT CREATES ONE MORE PARKING SPOT IN THE AREA WHERE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR PARKING, OFTEN NOT ONLY ON STREET CLEANING DAYS, SO THAT'S DEFINITELY A THUMBS UP FOR THAT ALONE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE OWNERS ARE, HAVE, HAVE DONE SOME NICE RENOVATIONS IN THE HOUSE.
A- AN ADDITIONAL THING THAT'S NOT STRICTLY SPEAKING, PART OF THE ZONING IS THEY'RE GONNA PUT UP LITTLE BARRIERS SO THE GARBAGE CANS ARE HIDDEN A LITTLE BIT, WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE DO AT THIS END OF THE STREET.
AND THEN THINGS LIKE THE PAVERS, UM, BEING POROUS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD THING.
SO I, I REALLY CAN'T THINK OF ANY NEGATIVE.
UH, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, UM, WE ARE GOING TO PUT PERIMETER PAVERS TO HELP WITH THE DRAINAGE OF THE RAIN, RAINWATER.
YEAH, NO, THANK YOU FOR, FOR DOING THAT.
UH, SO YEAH, THAT WAS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, WHAT'S THE BOARD'S FAVOR? UH, HAPPY TO PULL A MOTION TOGETHER? ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT.
UM, THE CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTIONS 5.31, TABLE DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS, 6.42, DIMENSIONS OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, SECTION 6.43.3.
A, ACCESS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES, 6.44.1.
C, LAYOUT OF OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES AND 10.30 FOR A VARIANCE.
UM, AND, UH, REVIEWING THE STATEMENT, UM, UH, WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT AGAIN? WELL, REVIEWING THE CRITERIA FOR, UM, THE VARIANCE.
ONE, WHETHER THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY RELATES TO SOIL CONDITION, SHAPE, OR TOPOGRAPHY OF
[02:50:01]
SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURES.AND, UH, THE SUBJECT PARCEL POSSESSES A UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT.
ITS ENTIRE STREET FRONTAGE IS DESIGNATED A STRICT NO PARKING ZONE BY THE CITY.
UNLIKE TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHERE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS CAN UTILIZE ADJACENT ON-STREET SPACES, THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ZONING LIMITATION DEPRIVES THIS PROPERTY OF ANY VIABLE PARKING ALTERNATIVE.
RESTRICTING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WIDTH CREATES A HARDSHIP TIED DIRECTLY TO THE PROPERTY SITE CONFIGURATION AND FRONTAGE RULES, RENDERING THE PRE-EXISTING HOME FUNCTIONALLY DEFICIENT RELATIVE TO BASIC RESIDENTIAL ACCESS STANDARDS.
UM, I JUST WONDERED IF WE HAD DEFINED THE NEW VARIANCE.
ARE WE APPLYING THE NEW VARIANCE STANDARD AFTER THIS? YES, YES.
GOVERNMENT THE BENEFITS AND...
YEAH, IT'S KIND OF BUILT INTO - YOU'RE GONNA GET TO THAT.
SO, UH, WHETHER THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD, UM, IMPOSE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ON THE APPELLANT OR PETITIONER, UH, STRICTLY ENFORCING A 10-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT ON THIS LOT CREATES AN ARTIFICIAL PHYSICAL HARDSHIP.
IT WOULD FORCE THE REMOVAL OF HIS EXISTING OPEN GREEN YARD SPACE TO INSTALL 10 ADDITIONAL FEET OF UNNECESSARY PAVEMENT PURELY TO MEET A DIMENSIONAL THRESHOLD.
UM, UH, F- FURTHERMORE, ALL NE- NEARBY PREEXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS ALREADY OPERATE SAFELY WITH ZERO FRONT SETBACK.
ENFORCING THE SETBACK RULES HERE WOULD ALTER THE ESTABLISHED PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ELIMINATE VIABLE GREEN AREA, AND INCREASE THE SITE RUNOFF.
UM, NUMBER THREE, WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT OR PETITIONER CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, UM, TRANSITIONING VEHICLES OFF THE PUBLIC STREET INTO JUNCTURED OFF STREET SPACES REDUCES CONGESTION, IMPROVES EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, AND REDUCES CIRCLING TRAFFIC ON NARROW RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
AND, UM, FOUR, WHETHER THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, UM, AND, UH, WE DO NOT FIND THAT IT WAS.
UM, AND I THINK IN TERMS OF BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT THAT WHOLE ACCESS, UH, UM, AND, UH, EASIER FLOW THROUGHOUT THE STREET, LESS CONGESTION AND SO ON.
UM, SO BY THIS FINDING, THEY MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER SECTION 10.34 VARIANCE AND ON THE CONDITION THAT THE WORK PROPOSED CONFORMED TO THE DRAWING SET INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION, WHICH INCLUDED, UH, PROPOSED CONDITIONS PLAN, THREE MICHAEL WAY CAMBRIDGE, MA, DATED AUGUST 4TH, 2026 BY BOSTON SURVEY INCORPORATED, AND FURTHER THAT WE INCORPORATE THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT AND DIMENSIONAL FORM SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
SO ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE, BOARD MEMBERS, WENDY.
WENDY LISERSON, I AM NOT IN FAVOR.
VIRGINIA? VIRGINIA KIESLER IN FAVOR.
DANIEL? DANIEL, DON'T GO IN FAVOR.
BRENDAN? UH, BRENDAN, UH, RELUCTANTLY, BUT IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, OF THE MOTION TO GRANT.
UH, THE VOTE IS FOUR TO ONE IN FAVOR, SO THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED.
HOPE EVERYBODY CAN HAVE DINNER NOW.
MR. CHAIR, COULD WE MAYBE TAKE JUST A STRETCH BREAK? OKAY.
WE'LL, WE'LL, UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND, UH, WE'LL TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? YEP.
IT'S 9:00 PM, AND, UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR, UH, NEXT APPLICATION, 14 BOWDEN STREET.
UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, BZ8123099214 BOWDEN STREET, UM, APPLICATION, UH, FOR MARY MORRIS IN CARE OF ADAM GLASSMAN, ARCHITECT, SEEKING A SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, REMOVAL OF A PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING CARPORT AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SLIGHTLY ENLARGED CARPORT, CITING SECTIONS 5.31, TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 8.22.2.
[02:55:01]
STRUCTURE, AND SECTION 10.40 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.MR. GLASSMAN, ARE YOU, UH, AVAILABLE TO PRESENT? I AM.
UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TONIGHT.
UH, I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND BEFORE I PRESENT, UH, THE PLANS FOR THE NEW CARPORT.
UH, I'M REPRESENTING, UH, OWNER, MARY MORRIS, WHO'S LIVED IN THIS HOUSE SINCE 2020.
SHE'S AN OBSTETRICIAN AND HAS BEEN A PRACTICING OBSTETRICIAN FOR 30 YEARS.
SHE CURRENTLY WORKS AT BETH ISRAEL, UM, DEACONESS HOSPITAL IN LONGWOOD.
AND ONE OF THE FEATURES OF THIS HOME, WHICH, UH, MADE IT VERY ATTRACTIVE TO HER WHEN SHE PURCHASED THE HOME IN 2020, UH, WAS THE EXISTING CARPORT.
UM, THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BACK IN 2023.
MARY WAS BEING, UH, NOT ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED BY HER CONTRACTOR WHO DID AN INADEQUATE JOB OF PRESENTING THE CASE.
AND THE BOARD, UM, THEY WANTED TO RE-ROOF THE CARPORT, AND THE BOARD SEEMED TO BE THROWING SOME LIFELINES TO HIM THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO GRASP.
HE NEITHER ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE NOR ANSWERED QUESTIONS PROPERLY.
SO HER APPLICATION AT THAT TIME WAS DENIED.
UM, WE'RE BACK NOW TO, UH, REMOVE THE EXISTING CARPORT AND TO RECONSTRUCT IT WITH A PROPER ROOF.
ONE ISSUE THAT CAME UP IN 2023 WAS THE FACT THAT THIS WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT, UM, AND THERE WAS NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION AT THAT TIME.
UM, I DID REACH OUT AGAIN THIS TIME AROUND TO ALL OF THE OPPOSERS WHOM I COULD LOCATE, UM, ASKING FOR A CHANCE TO MEET, TO REVIEW OUR PLANS, BUT WE NEVER HEARD BACK FROM ANY OF THEM.
UM, BUT IN FACT, WE DID RECEIVE, UH, MANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER ABUTTERS AND OTHER, UH, NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET.
UH, SO THE CARPORT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN, UM, 2007 AND 2011, WHICH IS SHOWN ON GOOGLE STREET VIEWS, WHICH MEANS THE CARPORT'S MORE THAN 15 YEARS OLD.
AND ACCORDING TO MASSACHUSETTS, UH, GENERAL LAW, UH, CHAPTER 40, UM, 40A, SECTION SEVEN, ANY STRUCTURE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT IN EXISTENCE FOR 10 YEARS OR LONGER WITHOUT ANY, UM, ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN AGAINST IT IS CONSIDERED, UH, LEGALLY, UH, EXISTING NONCONFORMING, AND I DID REVIEW THAT WITH THE ZONING STAFF.
SO WE ARE HERE, UM, TO, UH, REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT, UH, AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING CARPORT.
UH, THE REASON FOR THIS IS WHEN, AFTER MARY INSTALLED, UM, SOLAR PANELS ON HER ROOF, THE, THE SNOW LOADS COMING DOWN ONTO THE EXISTING CARPORT, PLASTIC CORRUGATED ROOF WERE TOO MUCH FOR THE CORRUGATED ROOF TO HANDLE.
UH, SO THE, OVER TIME, THE CORRUGATED ROOF, UH, WAS RES - WAS DESTROYED AND REMOVED, AND, UH, WHAT MADE THE CARPORT SO ATTRACTIVE FOR HER IS THAT SHE'S OFTEN CALLED TO THE HOSPITAL, UM, ALL HOUS - HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER, SHE CAN'T BE CALLED TO THE HOSPITAL AND THEN SHOVEL OUT HER CAR, WHICH SHE DOES RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE CARPORT, UM, LOST ITS CORRUGATED ROOF.
SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, UM, REMOVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, RECONSTRUCT IT TO NEARLY MATCH, UM, WHAT IS THERE NOW, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD MAKE IT SLIGHTLY MORE NARROW SO AS NOT TO HAVE AN OVERHANG ON THE, OVER THE RIGHT SIDE LOT LINE, WHICH THIS CARPORT STRUCTURE CURRENTLY HAS.
SO WE WOULD BRING THE CARPORT, UH, FURTHER INTO, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE BY, UH, REDUCING ITS WIDTH.
UH, WE'D MAKE IT SLIGHTLY LONGER TOWARDS THE BACK, UM, BUT REALLY ITS PROFILE, ITS SCALE, ITS MASSING WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED.
NOW, MARY COULD, AS OF RIGHT, KEEP REPLACING THE CORRUGATE, THE, THE PREVIOUS CORRUGATED ROOF WITH A NEW CORRUGATED ROOF, AND SHE COULD DO THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BUT IT SEEMS TO MAKE NO SENSE TO HAVE MARY, UH, REPLACING HER CORRUGATED PLASTIC ROOF EVERY WINTER BY RIGHT, UM, WHEN SHE COULD, UH, OBTAIN RELIEF, UM, THAT WOULD CAUSE NO ADVERSE IMPACTS TO HER NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, BY JUST REBUILDING THIS WITH A, A PROPER SOLID ROOF OVER IT.
UH, OLIVIA, COULD YOU SHARE, UM, THE DRAWINGS? THIS IS THE, UH, EXISTING HOUSE, UM, THE STREET VIEW, AND YOU CAN SEE THE CARPORT ON THE LOWER RIGHT, AND, UM, YOU CAN SEE IN, UH, IN THE, THE PHOTOS BELOW, UM, THAT IT APPEARS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TWO, IN, UM, AUGUST OF 2011.
UH, ANOTHER VIEW, UM, TAKE 2023,
[03:00:01]
UH, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING CARPORT, UM, IN MARY'S CAR, UH, PARKED UNDERNEATH IT.UM, IT'S FAIRLY LOW PROFILE, WHICH WOULD REMAIN.
UH, IT COVERS THE EXISTING LEGAL DRIVEWAY.
YOU CAN SEE THE RAFTERS, UM, IN THE CORRUGATED ROOF IS NO LONGER THERE.
SO RIGHT NOW, THIS CARPORT SER- SERVES NO REAL PURPOSE.
IF YOU SEE IN THE LOWER RIGHT, THERE'S A NOTE THAT SAYS EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE.
TO THE LEFT OF THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE CURRENT CARPORT ROOF HANGS AT SIX INCHES OR SO OVER THAT LOT LINE.
AND WE WILL, UH, CORRECT THAT WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN.
UH, COMPARE AND CONTRAST ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING CARPORT, UM, ROOF PLAN.
AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED, UH, ROOF PLAN WHERE WE MAKE IT A LITTLE LONGER JUST TO ENGAGE THE MASONRY CHIMNEY, UH, AND GIVE HER A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, PROTECTION AS SHE COMES INTO THE CARPORT FROM THE SIDE YARD.
UH, THE EXISTING WIDTH OFF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE CARPORT IS 9'10".
WE'LL BE REDUCING THAT TO 9'6".
UH, THE ROOF PLAN ON THE FAR RIGHT, UH, SHOWS THAT THE ROOF WILL HAVE A DRAIN TO PITCH TOWARDS THE REAR ONLY.
ALL STORMWATER RUNOFF AND SNOW MELT RUNOFF WILL RUN TO A GUTTER OFF THE BACK AND A DOWNSPOUT INTO A BELOW-GRADE INFILTRATION SYSTEM.
OUR STREET VIEWS, UH, REMAIN MORE OR LESS UNCHANGED.
UH, THE HEIGHT, UM, IS IDENTICAL.
THE WIDTH IS NEARLY IDENTICAL.
UM, VERY LITTLE CHANGE TO THE EXISTING, UH, CHARACTER SCALE, UM, OR OVERALL PRESENCE, UM, THAT THIS HAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING RIGHT SIDE VIEW, UH, WITH SOME EXPOSED STRUCTURE.
UH, WE'RE PROPOSING A RIGHT SIDE VIEW WITH A SCREENED TRELLIS TO PROVIDE, UH, UH, VISUAL SCREENING, UM, BOTH, UM, FOR MARY AND FOR HER NEIGHBORS.
NOBODY NEEDS TO SEE INTO THE CARPORT.
SO WE THOUGH THE, UH, THE VISUAL BUFFER, UH, WOULD BE AN APPEALING, UM, ADDITION TO THE DESIGN.
AND OUR LAST SLIDE, AGAIN, FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS, UM, VERY LITTLE CHANGE, VERY LITTLE MEANINGFUL CHANGE IN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING COMPARED TO WHAT IS THERE NOW.
UH, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, IT'S APPLYING FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.
THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS? WHO DOES THIS HARM? AND OUR POSITION IS THERE ARE NO ADVERSE EFFECTS AS THEY'RE TYPICALLY MEASURED IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, DENSITY, UH, SHADOWS, NOISE, UH, POLLUTION.
AND, UM, THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY IN A, PROBABLY AN IMPROVEMENT.
IT'S DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT IN TERMS OF ZONING COMPLIANCE, AND WE THINK A VISUAL, UH, A VISUAL IMPROVEMENT AND CERTAINLY A FUNCTIONAL, UH, AN IMPORTANT FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT FOR MARY.
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND, UH, YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW THAT WE HAVE MANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT, UM, IN THE FILE.
ADAM, WHEN WAS THIS BUILT? BETWEEN 2007 AND 2011.
WELL, I DON'T WANNA BEFORE THE TIME HERE, BUT I SAT ON THE...
WHEN IT CAME BEFORE, BEFORE US, BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THERE WAS A COMPLAINT FILED WITH INSPECTIONAL SERVICES.
SO THEY BASICALLY, UH, IT WAS A, I THINK IT WAS AN ELDERLY LADY AT THE TIME WHO LIVED IN THE FIRST FLOOR APARTMENT AND REALLY NEEDED A COVERED, UM, COVERING FOR HER CAR FOR THE SAME REASON.
WELL, IT'S THE SAME, IT'S THE SAME.
I JUST WANNA SAY IT'S THE SAME OWNER AND SHE'S DEFINITELY NOT ELDERLY.
BA- BACK, WAY BACK THEN IN 2000...
I'M TALKING WAY BACK WHEN IT WAS BUILT.
UM, 2010 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WASN'T IT? WELL, ANYHOW, ASIDE FROM THE POINT.
BUT WHEN IT WAS BUILT, IT WAS BUILT, YOU KNOW, SOME GUY JUST BUILT IT FOR THIS LADY AND THAT WAS FINE.
BUT, UM, HE PUT THE ROOF RAFTERS, IF YOU WILL, THEY WERE OPEN, UM, TWO FEET ON CENTIMETER, WHAT HAVE YOU.
IF HE TOOK THE TWO BY EIGHTS THAT HE HAD AT THE TIME, TURN THOSE INTO FOUR BY
[03:05:01]
SIXES AND SPACED THEM FOUR FEET APART, THEN IT BECOMES AN ARBOR, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE.AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT AS AN ARBOR.
AND I THINK THEY PUT, UM, AGAIN, THE PLASTIC CORRUGATED, UM, UH, MATERIAL ON TOP OF THE ROOF AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY TO IT, AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO ENFORCEMENT OF IT BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED AN ARBOR.
WELL, I GUESS I WOULD SAY IN THE PHOTOS THAT WE CAN SEE ON GOOGLE FROM 2007 OR 2011, YOU CAN SEE THE CORRUGA...
YEAH, IN THAT ONE YOU CAN SEE THE CORRUGATED ROOF.
SO THERE'S BEEN NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED AN ARBOR.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I JUST FORWARD A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY THERE.
UM, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.
SO ANYHOW, I THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
MR. GLASSMAN, I'LL GIVE YOU CREDIT WHEN I STEAL YOUR, UH, TIME LAPSE STRIP PRESENTATION SLIDE.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS WENDY LYSERSON.
I WAS ALSO ON THAT ORIGINAL CASE WITH BRENDAN, AND SO I'M JUST, UH, LOOKING...
AND ACCORDING TO, UM, THE RECORD, WHICH I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, IT DOES SAY THAT IT WAS BUILT IN 2009 AND, UM, SPEAKS TO WHAT BRENDAN SAID.
IT'S THAT IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO BUILD AS A TRELLIS OR AN ARBOR, BUT CHANGED WHEN THE PLEXIGLASS WENT ON TOP.
SO, AND I THINK THAT CASE WAS PRESENTED AS A VARIANCE AS OPPOSED TO SPECIAL PERMIT BECAUSE, UM, WELL, FOR THE REASONS THEN, I GUESS MR. GLASSMAN SAID.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? UH, LIKE, AS MR. GLASSMAN MENTIONED, THERE WERE SEVERAL LETTERS, UM, IN THE FILE, UH, UH, LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM AN- ANDREA, AN- ANDREA LORDEN AND HUGH RILEY, 16 BOWDEN, UH, A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM PHOEBE WINDERS, UH, FROM 10 BOWDEN STREET, DAVID HANNAH, UH, 20 MARTIN STREET IN SUPPORT, AND HELEN AND RAY SOLOR- SOLORZANO FROM 13 BOWDOIN.
AND, UH, A DIRECT, UH, JOHN PAXMAN, WHO AT 10 BOWDOIN IS A DIRECT ABUTTER WAS ALSO WRITING LETTER SUPPORT, UH, FOR THE APPLICATION.
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'LL HAVE UP TO TWO TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK BEFORE I ASK YOU TO WRAP UP.
HELLO, BERT SINGER, 11 BOWDOIN STREET.
MY DINING ROOM WINDOW LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN.
UM, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE ORIGINALLY...
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 60 YEARS.
UM, THE ORIGINAL LADY WHO BUILT IT PARKED HER CAR IN THE STREET.
SHE GOT A HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, AND SHE PUT HER WORKING PEOPLE AND STUFF IN HER CARPORT INSTEAD, SO IT WAS NOT USED - MM.
AS A WEATHER PROTECTION, UM, AS, AS, AS THE VARIOUS HISTORIES OF THIS CARPORT, UM, EXIST.
UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT FOR WHATEVER THE ODDNESS IS OF THIS BLOCK OF BOWDOIN STREET, THERE ARE 20 OTHER PARKING SPACES THAT DIRECTLY ABUT THE SIDEWALKS.
UM, AND I WONDER IF ALL THOSE 20 OTHER PEOPLE WOULD START COMING FORWARD AND ASK FOR CARPORTS.
THAT WOULD CERTAINLY CHANGE THE
[03:10:01]
NEIGHBORHOOD A GREAT DEAL.UM, SO I'M OPPOSED TO HAVING THIS, UH, PROJECT GO FORWARD.
UM, SO WE'LL CLOSE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION AMONGST BOARD MEMBERS? DANIEL DONGO.
THIS, THIS STRIKES ME AS REASONABLE GIVEN THAT, UH, THEY, THEY WOULD BE...
HAVE THE RIGHT TO, I GUESS, PUT BACK THE CORRUGATED OR ROOF THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THIS, UM, POINT.
AND SO THIS SEEMS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT TO ME O- OVER THAT STATUS QUO.
SO I, I GUESS FOR THAT, FOR THAT REASON, I, I'M IN FAVOR.
I, I'M ONLY JUST CITING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE OLD CASE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE NOT THE SAME FOR THIS CASE, AND NEITHER IS THE LEGAL STANDARD, UM, AS THIS IS PRESENTED AS A SPECIAL PERMIT CASE.
THERE WAS SOME CONCERN IN THE RECORD THAT ECHOES WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM THE ABUTTER, UH, A CONCERN ABOUT, UM, HAVING THIS BE A NEW NORMAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO SAYING THAT, UM, IN THAT CASE, SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO, UM, THERE WOULD NOT BE A RIGHT TO ROOF IT IF IT WAS NOT A LEGAL STRUCTURE AT THAT TIME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS WOULD BE THOUGH, GIVEN THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN DOWN.
UH, ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
UM, THE CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO GRANT A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTIONS 5.31, TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, 8.22.2.
D, NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND 10.40 FOR SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.
IT APPEARS, UH, ITEM A, IT APPEARS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE MET.
UH, THE RE- RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING CARPORT, WHICH IS EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING PER THE RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO BE RECONSTRUCTED WITH A SOLID ROOF WITHIN THE FIVE-FOOT REQUIRED RIGHT SIDE SETBACK WILL HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ABUTTERS FOR WHOM THERE WILL BE NO LOSS OF PRIVACY, NO INCREASE IN NOISE OR LIGHT POLLUTION, AND NO IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE OR DENSITY.
THE ADDITION ITSELF WILL NOT REDUCE OPEN SPACE.
THE BUILDING HEIGHT WILL REMAIN CONFORMING.
ITEM B, TRAFFIC GENERATED OR PATTERNS OF ACCESS OR EGRESS WOULD CAUSE CONGESTION, HAZARD, OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
UH, THE PROPOSED CARPORT ADDITION TO BE CONSTRUCTED OVER AN EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE WITH AN EXISTING CURB CUT WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE EXISTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON OR ON STREET PARKING.
ITEM C, CONTINUED OPERATION OF OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT USES AS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED AND, UH, THE PROPOSED WORK WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT USES OR THE CONTINUED USE IN ANY WAY OF THE ABUTTING DWELLING UNITS.
ITEM D, NUISANCE OR HAZARD WOULD BE CREATED TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANT AND, UH, THE PROPOSED WORK WILL NOT CAUSE DETRIMENT TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY, UH, OR, OR THEIR, UH, THEIR SAFETY AND THEIR WELFARE AND NO DETRIMENTS, UH, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, AND FOR OTHER REASONS, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT OR ADJOINING DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED ROOF CARPORT WILL MATCH THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING CARPORT.
ALL STORM WATER WILL BE CONTAINED ON SITE WITH ZERO RUNOFF TO THE ABUTTING LOT.
ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREAS WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED.
ADDITIONALLY, AS AN ADDED IMPROVEMENT OVER THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE IMPRO - THE PROPOSED DESIGN INCLUDES A SLATTED PRIVACY, PRIVACY SCREEN AND VISUAL BUFFER ON THE RIGHT SIDE BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE ABUTTING LOT.
UM, SO BY THESE FINDINGS, UH, THEY MEET THE CRITERIA IN THE SECTION 10.40 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT.
UM, AND ON THE CONDITION THAT THE WORK PROPOSED CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS
[03:15:01]
SET INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE, WHICH INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, DRAWINGS SET ENTITLED PROPOSED CARPORT ADDITION PREPARED BY GCD ARCHITECTS, UH, DATED, UH, 24 AUGUST 2026, UM, AND FURTHER THAT WE INCORPORATE THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS, DIMENSIONAL FORMS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE.UH, BOARD MEMBERS, WENDY LYSERSON.
BEN SULLIVAN IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
VOTE IS 5-0 IN FAVOR AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS GRANTED.
AND, UH, BRENDAN, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE BREAKING INTO YOUR HALLOWEEN CANDY A LITTLE EARLY THIS YEAR.
UM, NEXT UP, OUR FINAL ITEM OF THE EVENING, UH, BZA1231728, 263 MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY, UH, SPECIAL DISTRICT ONE FOR SUMMER- SUMMER BRIDGE HOTEL, LLC IN CARE OF JAMES RAFFERTY, ESQUIRE, UH, SEEKING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A HOTEL USE CONTAINING 145 GUEST ROOMS, ONLY 40 OF WHICH ARE LOCATED IN CAMBRIDGE IN THE SD1 ZONING DISTRICT.
A SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED FOR HOTEL USE ON THIS SITE IN 2023, BZA CASE 230010 WITH A DIFFERENT FOOTPRINT HAS LAPSED.
ALSO TO AUTHORIZE PARKING LOCATED WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, UH, CITING SECTION 6.44 B, PARKING, 17.12.1.
A, HOTEL USE, AND SECTION 10.40, SPECIAL PERMIT.
WAIT, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS - UH, MR. CHAIR, IS, IS WENDY ABSTAINING FROM THIS? IT'S A LONG NIGHT.
I AM RECUSING MYSELF, UH, BECAUSE MY EMPLOYER IS THE CITY OF SOMERVILLE.
AND WE WILL BE BRINGING ON BOARD Z- ZARIA MIRANDA.
CAN YOU HEAR US? GOOD TO SEE YOU.
THANKS FOR BEING SO PATIENT, UH, TO GET TO THIS POINT IN TIME.
UH, MR. RAFFERTY? GOOD EVENING, MADAM, UH, MADAM.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UM, CAN I ASSURE YOU THIS CASE WAS WORTH THE WAIT? YOU'VE HAD A LONG NIGHT, BUT, UH, YOU, YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THIS CASE.
FOR MANY OF YOU WILL BE A CASE OF DEJA VU.
UH, BY MY COUNT, AT LEAST FOUR OF YOU HAVE SAT ON PREVIOUS CASES.
THIS PROPERTY HAS THE DISTINCTION OF RECEIVING NOT ONE, BUT THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THIS HOTEL USE.
BECAUSE OF VARIOUS CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY, IN THE SOMERVILLE ZONING, THE DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR, WE'RE NOW HERE FOR THE FOURTH SPECIAL PERMIT.
UH, AS NOTED IN THE APPLICATION, UH, IT IS A USE THAT IS PERMITTED BY SPECIAL PERMIT.
I SHOULD, UH, NOTE THAT WITH ME THIS EVENING IN, UH, IS CHRIS DEAN THOMAS OF SUMMERBRIDGE HOTEL AND THE PROJECT ARCHITECT, JASON DIORIO.
COULD THEY BE BROUGHT INTO THE HEARING IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SO? SURE.
THA- THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OLIVIA.
UM, SO, UH, AS, AS NOTED, UH, TH- THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO THE APPLICATION.
THE HOTEL ITSELF IS, UH, IN A SITE, UH, ON O'BRIEN HIGHWAY.
IT HAS THIS UNIQUE DISTINCTION OF THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY, WHICH FOLLOWS THE FORMER, UH, MILLER'S RIVER GOES, UH, RIGHT THROUGH THE SITE.
IN FACT, IT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
AS WE WERE DESCRIBING THE HOTEL THE OTHER NIGHT AT THE EAST CAMBRIDGE PLANNING TEAM, I TOLD THEM THERE ARE FIVE ROOMS ON EVERY FLOOR WHERE THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY GOES THROUGH THE ROOM.
SO YOU CAN GO TO BED IN SOMERVILLE AND WAKE UP IN CAMBRIDGE AND HAVE NEVER LEFT YOUR ROOM, UH, GIVEN THE WAY THIS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY WORKS.
IT'S FOR THAT REASON THAT THERE'S JURISDICTION BOTH WITH THE SOMERVILLE PLANNING BOARD AND, UH, THE SOMERVILLE ZONING BOARD AS WELL, THEY GRANTED A VARIANCE AND, UH, IN THE CAMBRIDGE ZONING BOARD.
UH, THE SOMERVILLE OF THE LARGEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS IN SOMERVILLE.
SOMERVILLE, UH, HAS ALREADY CONDUCTED THEIR HEARINGS ON THIS PROPERTY.
SO BOTH SPECIAL PERMITS, UH, INCLUDING SITE PLAN APPROVALS WERE GRANTED IN SOMERVILLE AND A VARIANCE, UM, UH, REGARDING HEIGHT WAS PERMITTED IN SOMERVILLE.
[03:20:01]
THE BOARD TONIGHT IS THE QUESTION, AS IS THE CASE IN NEARLY ALL SPECIAL PERMITS, IS WHAT, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES.AND I THINK AS, UH, FOUR OF YOU HAVE DETERMINED OVER THE YEARS, I THINK THAT'S A, AN EASY DETERMINATION TO MAKE.
I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT WE DID PROVIDE, UH, IN THE FILE A COPY OF THE SOMERVILLE DECISION, UH, IN THE PLANNING BOARD, BECAUSE IN THE SOMERVILLE CASE, UH, AND FOR MANY YEARS, UH, MS. THOMAS AND THE OWNERSHIP OF THE HOTEL HAS BEEN WORKING WITH, UH, BICYCLE ADVO- ADVOCATES TO PROVIDE, UH, AN EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL SERVE AS A LINK IN THE FINAL SECTION OF THE GRAND JUNCTION BICYCLE PATH IN CAMBRIDGE THAT'S GONNA COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GOLD STAR MOTHER'S PARK ACROSS O'BRIEN HIGHWAY.
AND THEN BEHIND THIS SITE IS THE COMMUNITY PATH IN SOMERVILLE THAT RUNS ALONG, UH, THE GREENLINE RAILROAD TRACKS.
SO THIS IS A CRITICAL STEP THAT WILL CONNECT THOSE TWO PATHS.
SO, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS WILLINGLY AGREED, AND THERE ARE CONDITIONS IN THE SOMERVILLE, UH, DECISIONS THAT I HAVE, UH, SUGGESTED, UH, TO MS. UH, ROTE THAT THIS BOARD MIGHT WISH TO INCORPORATE INTO YOUR FINDINGS BECAUSE THE COMMITMENT EXISTS AND IT'S SET FORTH, UH, IN THE SOMERVILLE DECISIONS.
AND FRANKLY, THE AREA WHERE THE PATH IS LOCATED, IF YOU LOOK AT, UH, OUR SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE IT, THAT AREA IS ACTUALLY EN- ENTIRELY IN CAMBRIDGE.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD'S DECISION, EVEN THOUGH THE PRIOR DECISIONS DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS, IT WASN'T AS PROMINENT AN ISSUE, UH, IN THE YEARS THAT THIS WAS BEFORE THE BOARD, BUT THE APPLICANT IS CERTAINLY WILLING TO DO THAT.
AND THEY ALSO, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DECISION, THEY ALSO AGREED TO PAY FOR 25% OF THE DESIGN COST, UH, FOR THIS RAMP.
THIS IS GONNA BE A RAMP BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET UP TO THE TOP OF, UH, THE BANK, UH, WHERE THE, THE BANK THAT THE, UH, RAIL BED SITS ON.
SO, UM, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, UH, IT'S A RATHER STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION AROUND USE, AND THE SETBACK, BY THE WAY, IS IS FIVE FEET OFF THE REAR, THE REAR SETBACK IS OWNED BY THE MBTA, AND IT'S THE LAND, UH, IN WHICH THE, UH, RAILROAD SITS.
SO THERE REALLY ISN'T A BUTTER THAT WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THESE PARKING SPACES GOING A BIT CLOSER.
THE PARKING SPACES ALSO ALLOW, PROVIDE AMPLE ROOM AND ACCESS FOR THE RAMP.
SO EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT A HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR IT, IT'S ALSO THE CASE THAT THE ADJOINING USES WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY ALLOWING THIS PAR - THESE PARKING SPACES TO GO SLIGHTLY, UH, WITHIN THE FIVE-FOOT SETBACK.
UM, WE HAVE MR. UM, DIORIO HERE WHO CAN DESCRIBE THE HOTEL, WALK YOU THROUGH THE ELEVATIONS.
IT'S SMALLER THAN YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE, IN THE SENSE BECAUSE THE, THE BUILDING GOT A BIT SMALLER, UH, BUT IT, UH, IT, UH, IS GOING TO BE A SIX-STORY BUILDING, UH, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING OR THE HOTEL OPERATIONS.
SUMMERBRIDGE ALSO OPERATES A HOTEL A FEW DOORS UP FROM HERE.
THE FAIRFIELD, UH, SUITES ON, ON O'BRIEN HIGHWAY IS ALSO OPERATED BY SUMMERBRIDGE, SO THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.
THE LOCAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, I BELIEVE, HAS SHARED WITH ME A LETTER OF SUPPORT THAT THEY SENT TO MS. PACHECO TODAY.
AND AS I SAID, WE, WE APPEARED BEFORE THE EAST CAMBRIDGE PLANNING TEAM, UH, LAST EVENING, AND WE FOUND THEM TO BE, UH, THEY WERE, UH, THEY WERE QUITE ACCUSTOMED TO US BECAUSE THE LAST TIME MS. THOMAS WAS THERE, SHE LEFT SAYING, "WELL, HOPEFULLY THE THIRD TIME IS A CHARM." SO, UH, IT'S PROVEN TO BE THAT WE NEED A FOURTH TIME.
BUT, UH, AS I SAID, BOTH MS. THOMAS AND MR. DIORIO ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOTEL OPERATIONS OR ABOUT THE BUILDING DESIGN ITSELF.
UH, JASON DIORIO, 10, UH, NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE.
JASON, JASON, JASON, JASON, EXCUSE ME.
WHY DON'T YOU WAIT AND SEE IF THE CHAIR HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU? SORRY, THANK YOU.
OH, NO, THAT, THAT, UH, JASON, THAT'S FINE.
YOU CAN, UM, I THINK, I THINK WE COULD JUST GO FORWARD WITH THE PRESENTATION, SO.
I, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT JASON, BUT I KNOW - OH, NO WORRIES.
HIS LATE AND, AND THE BUILDING IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT, UH, JASON, YOU COULD PROBABLY TAKE TWO MINUTES TO TELL THEM ABOUT - YEAH, THAT, THAT'D BE FINE.
UH, IF IT'S OKAY, WE HAVE A, A QUICK MIXTURE OF SLIDES HERE.
UM, MICHAEL MALINOWSKI FROM ALLEN AND MAJOR IS ALSO ON THE CALL.
IF HE COULD BE PROMOTED AS A PANELIST TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE CIVIL SLIDES, AND I WILL SPEAK TO THE ARCHITECTURE IF THAT'S OKAY.
MICHAEL, MICHAEL, WHY DON'T WE LET JASON GO AND SEE IF IT'S NECESSARY, UH, THE, THE, WE'LL WAIT AND SEE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
[03:25:03]
OKAY.UH, SO THIS FIRST SLIDE IS JUST A, THE COVER PAGE FOR THE HOTEL, UM, 145 KEYS, UH, AND NOTING THE LOCATION.
UH, IF YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, JUST EXISTING, UH, ALTA SURVEY.
UH, SO THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE NEW PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF THE HOTEL.
UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT REMEMBER, THE DRIVEWAY WAS PREVIOUSLY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS SITE, WHICH WAS, UH, IN THE SOMERVILLE PORTION OF THE SITE, CLOSER TO THE RUFO ROAD INTERSECTION.
SO DUE TO THE SITE CONSTRAINTS OF THE ABUTTING NEIGHBOR AT 15 MCGRATH, WE'VE REDESIGNED OUR BUILDING TO PULL IT OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO AS YOU'LL SEE, IF YOU RECALL, THE BUILDING USED TO GO ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, UH, BETWEEN US AND 15 MCGRATH.
SO WE'VE NOW MOVED THE BUILDING AWAY FROM THAT FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY PURPOSES, AND WE HAVE A DRIVE AISLE WITH AN EXISTING CURB CUT ON THE CAMBRIDGE SIDE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE.
UH, TO THE FAR RIGHT IN THE ZIGZAG PATTERN IS THE SPACE, THE DEDICATED SPACE RESERVED FOR THE PATH.
UM, AND THERE'S 13 PARKING SPACES LOCATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY OF CAMBRIDGE THAT YOU CAN SEE AT THE TOP RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THE PLAN NOW.
THE TWO PARKING SPOTS AT THE TOP RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBER SEVEN, AND THEN THE PARKING SPOT DIRECTLY TO THE LEFT OF IT.
THOSE ARE THE TWO PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE IN DISCUSSION THAT ARE WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE, OF THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THOSE BOTH ABUT, UM, THE MBTA RETAINING WALL, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 14 FEET IN THAT AREA.
UM, SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A WALL RIGHT IN FRONT OF THOSE, UH, STOPPING THAT FROM PROTRUDING ANY FURTHER.
SO THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
YOU CAN SEE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING ON MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY.
THERE'S THE TREE WELLS, UH, AND THEN THERE'S LANDSCAPING THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY CONCURRENTLY WITH SOMERVILLE AND CAMBRIDGE REQUIREMENTS.
THE LANDSCAPE IN CAMBRIDGE, YOU CAN SEE ON THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.
UH, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE TOO, I APOLOGIZE, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER, THE ZIGZAG LINE THAT YOU CAN SEE GOING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN, THAT IS THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY, SUMMERVILLE TO THE LEFT, CAMBRIDGE TO THE RIGHT, UM, JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AS WELL.
SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING, UH, OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S VERY SIMILAR MATERIAL IN CONCEPT TO THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL, VERTICAL CORRUGATED METAL PANEL, ALONG WITH AN ACCENT PANEL THAT GOES BETWEEN THE WINDOWS, UH, AND ALSO IN THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING THERE.
YOU'LL SEE THE BUILDING SIGNAGE.
IT'S CURRENTLY BRANDED AS A, PROPOSED AS A MOXIE HOTEL, WHICH IS A MARRIOTT, UH, FLAG HOTEL.
THE NEXT FEW OF THESE ARE ELEVATIONS JUST SHOWING BUILDING HEIGHT AND, UH, AREAS OF THE BUILDING.
SO YOU'LL SEE THE RED LINE GOING DIRECTLY DOWN THE BUILDING.
UH, THAT IS, AGAIN, THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR VIEW, CAMBRIDGE IS ON THE LEFT, SOMERVILLE IS ON THE RIGHT.
WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A FRONT AND BACK TO THIS BUILDING DUE TO, UH, THE STREET FRONTAGE ON MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY AND THE MBTA AND COMMUNITY PATH ON THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.
SO WE'VE TREATED EVERY FACADE AND EVERY ELEVATION AS IF IT IS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
UH, SO YOU'LL SEE THAT AS YOU MOVE AROUND THE BUILDING.
UM, SO SAME MATERIALS, SAME, UH, VALUE OF AESTHETIC THROUGHOUT.
UH, THIS IS JUST A BUILDING SECTION THROUGH THE BUILDING, AGAIN, SHOWING BUILDING HEIGHTS, UH, IN LOCATIONS, GUEST ROOMS, CORRIDORS, UH, ET CETERA, JUST SHOWING THE STACKING OF THE BUILDING.
UH, SO FIRST FLOOR PLAN, YOU CAN SEE, AGAIN, THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY GOING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE.
SOMERVILLE IS DEPICTED, THE LOBBY OF THE BUILDING IS ON THE LEFT SIDE THERE IN THE PASTEL GREEN, AND THEN CAMBRIDGE IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
THERE IS A, A PULL-OFF AREA FOR GUEST DROP-OFF, AS WELL AS A, UM, UH, OVERHANG OF PORTE-COCHERE THAT WILL STICK OUT AND HAVE, PROVIDE A COVERED ENTRANCE, UH, FOR GUEST DROP-OFF ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE BUILDING THERE.
UH, SO THIS IS REALLY WHERE YOU CAN SEE HOW THE BUILDING HAS BEEN PULLED OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
PREVIOUSLY, THIS BUILDING WAS, UH, GOING ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AS 199 KEYS, UH, AND IT WAS 86,765
[03:30:02]
SQUARE FEET, 23,205 SQUARE FEET WERE IN, UH, CAMBRIDGE.THE CURRENT PROPOSAL HAS REDUCED THE BUILDING TO 145 KEYS.
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 62,646 SQUARE FEET.
18,183 SQUARE FEET OF THAT IS IN CAMBRIDGE.
UM, SO AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT PORTION ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE BUILDING THERE.
UM, THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR.
THIS IS JUST THE TYPICAL THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH FLOOR PLAN, UH, AS WE MOVE UP THE BUILDING.
THE, THE GUEST ROOM STACK, THE CORES OF STAIRS AND ELEVATORS, UH, ET CETERA, ALL STACK FOR EFFICIENCY THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING.
UH, THIS IS JUST A, A PHOTOMETRIC OF THE SITE.
IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO READ ON THE SCREEN HERE, BUT JUST PROVING THAT WE'RE MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, BOTH CITIES OF CAMBRIDGE AND SOMERVILLE AS WELL AS, UH, MARRIOTT LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS ARE ADHERED TO.
UM, THIS IS JUST SHOWING FACADE FENESTRATION, UH, FOR THE FIRST FLOOR JUST TO MEET THE CAMBRIDGE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
UH, SO IT'S A 47% FENESTRATION ON THE FIRST FLOOR LOCATED WITHIN CAMBRIDGE, UH, WHICH IS ABOVE THE 30% MINIMUM.
UM, JUST AN EXISTING PHOTOGRAPH.
UH, THIS IS ACTUALLY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DATED.
THE BUILDING'S ACTUALLY BEEN, UH, REMOVED AT THIS POINT.
I THINK THAT WE PROBABLY COVERED IT, JASON.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? UM, BRENDAN SULLIVAN, NO, I'M GOOD.
UM, HEARING NONE, UH, FROM THE BOARD, UH, WE'LL MOVE TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, GOT QUITE A FEW, UH, LETTERS, UM, MORE FOCUSED, UH, SUPPORTING THE PROJECT, BUT MORE FOCUSED ON ENS - TRYING TO ENSURE, UH, THE BIKE PATH IS, YOU KNOW, UH, STILL INCLUDED, UH, IN THE AGREEMENT, UH, OR THE DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS SOME SUGGESTIONS OF MAIN - UH, MATCHING THE 25% DESIGN FEE, AS WELL AS SOME ASKING FOR A LITTLE MORE, LIKE 100%.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, UH, I THINK, UH, MR. RAFFERTY, YOU'VE, YOU'VE PROPOSED YOUR 25.
UM, AND THOSE WERE FROM ELLIOT, UH, LB, UM, AS WELL AS A LETTER FROM, UH, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CHARLIE CREE, CREE, CREE, CREE.
UM, RENEE SCOTT, UH, SHE, SHE WROTE, UH, A LETTER, UM, REGARDING THE CASE, UM, S - FOCUSED, UH, ON, UH, MAKING, ENSURING, ASKING US TO ENSURE THE BIKE RAMP WILL BE, YOU KNOW, UH, RESERVED AND, UH, FUNDED, UM, AS WELL AS EMAILS FROM, UH, UH, ALEXI KLIEGER, UH, FRIENDS OF THE COMMUNITY BIKE, COMMUNITY PATH, UM, ALL VERY CON - UH, YOU KNOW, INTERESTED IN ENSURING, UH, THE BIKE ACCESS IS MAINTAINED.
I DIDN'T SEE THE BUSINESS GROUP LETTER.
DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE THAT? I S - I SAW AN EMAIL TO MS. PACHECO TODAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT MADE IT - OH, OKAY.
MAYBE, YEAH, MAYBE IT JUST DIDN'T GET IN HERE, BUT, UM, I, IT'S NOTED IN, IN THE RECORD NOW, UH, YOU'RE MENTIONING IT.
UM, AND, UH, EMAILS FROM DAVID MARCUS, UH, ALSO FOCUSED ON, UH, SUPPORTING THE INCLUSION OF THE BIKE RAMP.
SO, UM, THAT WAS IT FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
UH, CHECK, UH, WE CAN NOW ASK, UH, MEMBERS, UH, ONLINE, 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 COULD 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.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UH, MY NAME IS JOHN DUNDERDALE.
I AM THE BUSINESS MANAGER OF THE PILE DRIVERS, DIVERS LOCALS 56, AFFILIATED WITH THE NORTH
[03:35:01]
ATLANTIC STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS.WE REPRESENT SKILLED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS THROUGHOUT THE GREATER BOSTON AREA, INCLUDING RESIDENTS OF CAMBRIDGE.
I'M HERE TONIGHT REGARDING THE PROPOSED HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 263 MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY.
I HAVE ONE STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WILL YOU COMMIT TO USING RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTORS WHO PARTICIPATE IN MASSACHUSETTS STATE-APPROVED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS AND PROVIDE CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD PAYING CONSTRUCTION JOBS? AS A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE SHOULD BE, SHOULD BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY BEYOND FINISHED BUILDING.
IT SHOULD PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL WORKERS, SUPPORT APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING, AND ENSURE THE PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED SAFELY BY QUALIFIED WORKERS.
WE ARE ASKING TO DEVELOP TO MAKE A COMMITMENT PUBLICLY HERE TONIGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD.
UH, UH, MR. RAFFERTY, YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT REQUEST? UH, THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO, BUT I MEAN, THE, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE CONTRACTOR, UH, WILL, WILL BE SELECTED AND I'M SURE THERE'LL BE OPPORTUNITIES.
UH, UH, SUMMERBRIDGE, UH, OPERATES SEVERAL HOTELS AND HAS, UH, A TRACK RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT.
UH, AND, UH, THIS IS THE FIRST WE'VE HEARD OF THIS REQUEST FROM MR. DUNDERDALE, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO GIVE HIM MS. THOMAS'S CONTACT INFORMATION AND THEY CAN HAVE, UH, CONVERSATIONS, UH, ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
I'M NOT QUITE CERTAIN, UH, THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
NO, I, AND I, I THANK YOU, MR. RAFFERTY, BUT, UH, YEAH, THANK YOU FOR, UH, SHARING THAT INFO WITH MR. DUNDERDALE.
HI, MY NAME IS, UH, CHARLES HINES, THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF EAST CAMBRIDGE PLANNING TEAM.
I LIVE AT, UH, 207 CHARLES STREET IN EAST CAMBRIDGE.
I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
UH, WE COULDN'T GET OUR LETTER IN TIME BECAUSE WE MET WITH THE APPLICANTS LAST NIGHT, BUT I DO HAVE A, A SHORT LETTER I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD.
UH, ON OCTOBER 14TH, 2026 AT A REGULAR ECPT MEETING, CHRISTINE THOMAS AND ATTORNEY JAMES RAFFERTY REPRESENTING SUMMER BRIDGE HOTEL, LLC, PRESENTED A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW 145 GUESTROOM HOTEL, WHICH WILL BE PARTIALLY IN CAMBRIDGE, 40 ROOMS, AND PARTIALLY IN SOME OF 105 ROOMS. AFTER DELIBERATING THE PROPOSAL, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT, UH, GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HOTEL USE AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PARKING AT THE SITE, WHICH IS IN THE, UH, SD-1 DISTRICT.
UH, THE SUPPORT IS CONDITIONED ON THE PETITIONER BUILDING THE HOTEL ACCORDING TO THE PLANS PRESENTED AT A MEETING.
THAT'S THE SAME PLANS THAT WERE TODAY AT, UH, PRESENTED AT THE BZA AND COMMITMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY PATH PRESENTED TO US.
THOSE COMMITMENTS, UH, INCLUDE DEDICATING 10% OF THE LAND SITE TO THE COMMUNITY PATH, UH, PAYING FOR 25% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PAYING FOR THE PATH'S FEASIBILITY STUDY.
UH, OUR SUPPORT IS ALSO CONDITIONED ON THE PETITIONER MEETING THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED TO THEM BY THE SOMERVILLE BZA.
UH, AND IT'S ALSO OUR REQUEST THAT THE PETITIONER WORK WITH THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO DESIGN A SAFE CROSSING FOR BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS TO CROSS MCGRATH, UH, EXCUSE ME, MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY USING THE COMMUNITY PATH.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR.
I LIVE ON CHERRY STREET IN, UH, SOMERVILLE.
I'M CO-PRESIDENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE COMMUNITY PATH.
UM, AND AS WAS MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPONENT FOR ABOUT A DECADE ALREADY ON, UM, HAVING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE GRAND JUNCTION PATH AND THE COMMUNITY PATH, UH, UH, BE CREATED ON THIS SITE.
UM, I AM, UM, SUP- SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTIONIST HOTEL.
I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE, UM, THE PROVISION, THE DONATION OF THE, UH, PART OF THE SITE FOR THE FUTURE RAMP TO CONNECT THOSE PATHS.
I APPRECIATE THAT, UM, UH, A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UH, FUNDING HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO HELP DESIGN THE RAMP.
UM, BUT I WOULD ASK THE BOARD IN, IF YOU MAKE CONDITIONS ON, UH, RELATED TO THE, TO THIS RAMP, THAT YOU COULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING, UH, REQUIRED.
UH, I KNOW IN THE PAST WHEN THE ADJACENT 15 MCGRATH, UM, PROJECT
[03:40:01]
AND THIS HOTEL PROJECT TOGETHER WAS GONNA, THEY WERE GONNA PAY FOR THE ENTIRE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATH.I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW THE, THE, UH, SMALLER PROJECT WITHOUT THE ADJACENT MEANS THERE'S LESS FUNDING AVAILABLE, UM, BUT I STILL THINK THE PROJECT COULD AFFORD, UH, MORE THAN THE, UH, 107,000 THAT MAXIMUM THAT'S AGREED OR SPECIFIED IN THE SUMMERVILLE PERMIT.
I THINK, UH, IT'D BE APPROPRIATE FOR, UH, A, A LARGER AMOUNT OF THE FUNDING FOR THE DESIGN OF THE RAMP TO, TO BE REQUIRED IN YOUR, UM, IN YOUR DECISION.
HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN.
HI, UM, MY NAME IS LYNN WEISMAN.
UM, I AM, UH, CO-PRESIDENT, UM, ALONG WITH ALAN AND CO-FOUNDER OF THE FRIENDS OF THE COMMUNITY PATH.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE, THE RAMP AND THE PATH, THEY'RE NOT, UH, ALL THESE THINGS, THEY'RE NOT BIKE PATHS WHERE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ADVOCATES AND SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, 85 TO 90, 90% OF USERS OF THESE PATHS ARE PEDESTRIANS.
SO WE'RE VERY AWARE OF CYCLISTS ON THESE PATHS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WE'RE COMMUNITY PATH PEOPLE, UM, AND VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT I WAS GRATEFUL TO HEAR, UH, FROM MR. RAFFERTY ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT, THAT HE, UH, RECOMMENDING THAT THE SAME CONDITIONS, UH, AS IN SOMERVILLE ARE PART OF THE CONDITIONS.
I BELIEVE THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE, OF THE BZA CONDITIONS FOR THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE WE'D LOVE TO SEE THIS CODIFIED IN CAMBRIDGE SINCE SOMERVILLE PROBABLY DOESN'T REALLY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ANY PARTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE IN CAMBRIDGE, AND WE'D LOVE TO SEE THIS CODIFIED IN CASE OF, UH, A PROPERTY TRANSFER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'VE WORKED IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE, WITH THIS DEVELOPER, AND, UM, SO I WAS JUST VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IF THESE CAN BE ALSO CONDITIONS OF THE CFO, WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, IT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE AT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF THINKING ABOUT, UH, THE FUNDING OF THE DESIGN TO 100%, NOT NECESSARILY THE PROJECT DOING THE DESIGN, BUT FUNDING THE 100% DESIGN IN IMAGINING THE SOONER THIS PROJECT, THE, THE, THE RAMP GETS BUILT, UH, THE SOONER IT CAN SERVE, UH, THE HOTEL VISITORS AND THE GUESTS AND THE COMMUNITY AROUND IT.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IS ACTUALLY FUNDING AND DESIGNING, UH, THE ADJACENT SPUR RIGHT ABOVE THE RAMP, UH, ON THE MBTA PROPERTY WITH MBTA PERMISSION TO DO THAT.
AND WE'D LOVE TO SEE THAT DESIGN BE SEAMLESS.
UM, SO IF, UH, I'M JUST SORT OF IMAGINING IF, IF THE 100% DESIGN COULD BE FUNDED ALONG WITH THAT SPUR DESIGN, THAT WOULD BE PRETTY AMAZING, UM, FOR THE HOTEL AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, BECAUSE CURRENTLY THERE'S NO FUNDING IDENTIFIED FOR THE 25% TO THE 100% DESIGN, AND EVERYBODY REALLY WANTS TO SEE THIS GET DONE.
AND OF COURSE, THERE'S NO FUNDING IDENTIFIED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, HAVING THE FULL DESIGN WILL ALLOW, UM, THAT TO HAPPEN MUCH FASTER.
UM, WE ALSO RECOMMENDED SOME SORT OF PREFAB DESIGN SO THAT SHOULD THE, THE RAMP BE BUILT AFTER THE HOTEL IS IN OPERATION, IT COULD BE KIND OF PLUNKED INTO PLACE QUICKLY AND EASILY AND NOT INTERRUPT THE HOTEL OPERATIONS.
SO, UM, UH, THOSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS WE'RE ASKING FOR IS, UM, ANYTHING WE JUST, WE JUST WANNA SEE THIS, WITH THIS HAPPEN, UH, THIS CONNECTION.
IT WILL HELP CONNECT THE C- CURRENT COMMUNITY PATH WITH THE GRAND JUNCTION PATH THAT'S BEING, UH, DESIGNED AND IS PARTIALLY BUILT IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
AND SO W- WE'RE, WE'RE JUST ALL ABOUT, UH, PATH CONNECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS.
SO, UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO THIS, THIS COMMENT.
[03:45:06]
HELLO, HEATHER HOFFMAN, 213 HURLEY STREET.AND I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, ADD MY VOICE TO EVERYTHING THAT CHUCK HINES SAID.
UM, I WAS ACTUALLY THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION AT THE EAST CAMBRIDGE PLANNING TEAM MEETING LAST NIGHT, UM, AND I THINK HE, HE CAPTURED IT WELL.
ANOTHER THING THAT I WOULD POINT OUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS, UM, IS THAT, UH, IT FITS IN WELL WITH THE TYPE OF CLIENTELE THAT WE WERE TOLD THEY WANTED TO GET FOR THIS HOTEL.
SO I REALLY HOPE THAT THE BOARD WILL SEE ITS WAY CLEAR TO INCORPORATE EVERYTHING THAT SOMERVILLE, UM, LISTED AS A REQUIREMENT THAT COULD APPLY TO THIS SO THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY QUESTION OF HAVING THE, THE TWO DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNS FIGHTING OVER WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN HERE.
UM, THESE PATHS M- MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
I USE THE COMMUNITY PATH AND, UH, HAVING A, A CONNECTION THAT MAY ALSO INCLUDE A WAY TO GET SAFELY ACROSS THE O'BRIEN HIGHWAY OR BOULEVARD IF IT EVER BECOMES SUCH IS, UM, AN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY.
OKAY, SO, UH, THAT CLOSES, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, SO I THINK IN TERMS OF THE MOTION, I'LL BE INCLUDING, UH- UH, MR. CHAIR, IF MR. RAFFERTY COULD, UM, SORT OF ADDRESS SOME OF THE, UH, F- FUNDING ISSUES AND THEIR COMMITMENT, UH, UM, JUST TO, UM, MAKE IT CLEAR TO US, UH, THEIR COMMITMENT.
UH, UH, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, MR. CHAIR.
UM, AND, UH, CHRISTINE THOMAS, WHO'S ALSO ON THE CALL, UH, HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE FRIENDS, UH, ON THIS ISSUE FOR A DECADE, AS NOTED.
UH, THE, THE LANGUAGE IN THE SOMERVILLE DECISION BY THE SOMERVILLE PLANNING BOARD, UH, WAS ACHIEVED THROUGH COLLABORATION AND, UH, COORDINATION WITH THE SOMERVILLE, UH, TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS, AND IT INCLUDED A 25% COMMITMENT ON DESIGN WITH A CAP AT $105,000.
UH, THE NUM - A NUMBER BEYOND THAT IS ONEROUS.
THE PROJECT IS NOT WHAT IT ONCE WAS IN TERMS OF ITS SCALE, UH, AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THE REAL VALUE HERE, AND PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THESE ISSUES WILL UNDERSTAND THAT, IS GETTING THE LAND.
WITH ALL THIS, WITH ALL THIS TALK ABOUT THE, THE DESIGN COST, UH, THE VALUE OF THAT EASEMENT THAT WILL PROVIDE THE PHYSICAL CONNECTION IS NEARLY PRICELESS, UH, AND IT'S, BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ON THIS SITE, IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AT ALL.
SO THAT, THAT WILLINGNESS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS TO AGREE TO DO THAT IS REALLY WHAT'S, UH, ADVANCED MOST OF THIS DISCUSSION.
SO, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT I, I'VE PROVIDED, UH, IN THE FILE FROM SOMERVILLE IS, IS APPROPRIATE AND THAT THE TWO DECISIONS WOULD, WOULD, UH, BE, UM, WOULD BE COMPLIMENTARY.
THEY WOULD CONTAIN THE SAME CONDITIONS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SOMERVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES ARE ENFORCING IT OR THE CAMBRIDGE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY.
SO, UH, IT, IT'S SIMPLY NOT, UH, FISCALLY POSSIBLE TO EXTEND THE COMMITMENT BEYOND THE 100, UH, THE 25% FUNDING AT THIS TIME.
YEAH, THAT, MY, MY POINT WAS I, I WANTED TO GET THAT OUT ON THE RECORD AS TO, BEFORE WE START ATTACHING ANYTHING TO OUR DECISION, THAT'S ALL.
SO, OKAY, I WANTED A FULL, A FULLER UNDER- UNDERSTANDING.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE, UH, YOU'RE CORRECT, IS THAT THE LAND, THE EASEMENT, UM, THE NECESSARY ELEMENT TO THIS WHOLE, UM, DEVELOPMENT AREA, SO ANYHOW.
NO, THANK YOU, BRENDAN, FOR, FOR MAKING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT.
UM, ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS FROM, OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS REGARDING THE APPLICATION? THIS IS DANIEL.
[03:50:01]
SUPPORT THIS.I, I WAS ON SPECIAL PERMIT NUMBER THREE, SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WELL, I HOPE THIS TIME IS THE LAST ONE.
UM, UH, AND I, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'M FINE WITH THE 25%.
I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT WELL POSITIONED TO, LIKE, BARGAIN HERE AND, AND UNDERSTAND ALL THE, UM, CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED WITH CHANGING THAT NUMBER.
SO TO ME, I'M PERFECTLY FINE JUST MATCHING SOMERVILLE.
I THINK THE, I THINK THE NATURE OF THE ASK, UM, EXCEEDS OUR AUTHORITY A LITTLE BIT, UH, BY IMPOSING THAT, UH, AS A CONDITION.
UM, I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE THAT YOU'RE RIGHT AS TO, UM, ATTACHING THAT AND WHATEVER THAT MAGIC NUMBER OR PERCENTILE IS, UM, BEYOND WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO AND WHAT IS UNDER DISCUSSION.
SO, UM - UH, UH, MR. CHAIR, I DIDN'T WANNA RAISE THE LEGAL ISSUE, BUT, UH, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, MR. SULLIVAN IS QUITE CORRECT, THERE ARE THINGS CALLED PERMISSIBLE CONDITIONS.
THIS IS A USE SPECIAL PERMIT, SO, UH, TO PUT, TO PUT A FINANCIAL BURDEN, SO THESE CONDITIONS ARE BEING AGREED TO UPFRONT.
SO THAT'S WHY FOR THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE I THINK AS THE, UH, AS A PURE CONDITION ON A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR USE THAT'S OTHERWISE ALLOWED UPON THE GRANTING, IT, IT COULD BE SEEN AS A BIT ONEROUS, UH, IN, IN EXCESS OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO GRANTING - NO, I, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M HEADED, THAT, THAT IT EXCEEDS OUR AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
I ACTUALLY DID, I DIDN'T SIT ON THE LAST CASE, UM, IN 2023, BUT I DID GO BACK AND REVIEW IT, AND THE QUESTION OR THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE BIKE PATH, UM, OBVIOUSLY CAME UP THAT NIGHT, AND WHEN WE, WHEN YOU GUYS MADE THE VOTE, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE ACTUALLY IN THE - THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I WOULDN'T ALSO BE COMFORTABLE OR NEEDING TO PUT IT IN, SO.
UM, SO YES, I, I BELIEVE, UH, USING, UH, FOLLOWING OR INCLUDING THE SOMERVILLE PLANNING BOARD CONDITIONS, UH, ALONG WITH...
AND ARE THOSE THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS, MR. MR. RAFFERTY, IN, IN - THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIR.
THOSE THREE HIGHLIGHTS WERE REFERRED TO, AND THAT IS, THAT IS THE SPECIAL PERMIT, WHAT, WHAT'S CALLED SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
SOMEVILLE ACTUALLY ISSUED THREE SPECIAL PERMIT DECISIONS, BUT THE ONE THAT CONTAINS THESE CONDITIONS IS CALLED THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE SUMMER PLANNING BOARD, AND THE THREE HIGHLIGHTED CONDITIONS ARE SPE- SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE RAMP, WHICH IS ALSO GONNA COST THE APPLICANT.
UH, AND THEN, UH, THE, UH, FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE RAMP, THE DESIGN, 25% DESIGN FOR THE RAMP, AND THEN AN EASEMENT FOR THE LAND FOR THE RAMP.
SO THOSE THREE CONDITIONS ARE SPELLED OUT.
I WOULD THINK THE, THE LANGUAGE, UH, IN THE SUMMER DECISION COULD BE, UH, CUT AND PASTE RIGHT INTO THE BOARD'S DECISION.
AND THAT INCLUDES THE EASEMENT ITEM, SO THAT, THAT, UH, GETS THAT LOCKED IN AS WELL.
SO, UM - YES, THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD BE ITEM 16 ON THAT DECISION YOU HAVE, MR. CHAIR? RIGHT.
YEAH, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NINE, A PORTION OF 11, 13, SOME, UH, AREAS HIGHLIGHTED, 16 AND 18.
UM - YEAH, YEAH, BUT, BUT, BUT I'M SORRY, THE, THE, THE NINE, THE SOMERVILLE HAS SOMETHING CALLED A MOBILITY DIVISION.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE THAT, SO I APOLOGIZE.
SO, SO I THINK WHAT'S REALLY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IS 13, 15, AND 16.
UH, JUST LOOKING, JUST LOOKING OVER IT QUICKLY.
IS 18 APPLY AS WELL OR NO? FOR, UH, PROVIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? YES, YES, IT COULD THEN, THAT'S - OKAY.
YEAH, THAT'S, UH, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.
THIS IS THE, UM, THE, THE SIDEWALK ON, UH, ON MONSIGNOR BRYAN HIGHWAY IS GONNA BE EXPANDED.
UH, IT WIDENED AND, UH, IT WILL THEN GO ON TO PRIVATELY OWNED LAND THAT THE, THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS.
AND THEY'RE PREPARED TO, TO GIVE AN EASEMENT TO ALLOW A PUBLIC SIDEWALK TO BE ON THAT PORTION OF THEIR FRONTAGE.
SO, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS REGARDING
[03:55:01]
THE PROJECT, UH, OR - I, I'LL EDITORIALIZE A LITTLE BIT AS BRENDAN SULLIVAN, UM, THAT IN THE FOUR ALLITERATIONS OF THIS PROJECT AND THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM WHAT IT WAS BEFORE, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY AND MAKING A SAFE PASSAGEWAY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH ACROSS THERE.UM, AND, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DICTATE, UM, THAT IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY ON SAFE PASSAGE ACROSS, UM, THE, UM, THE HIGHWAY.
SO ANYHOW, UM, IT'S NECESSARY, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT ON THE OWNERS OF, UM, ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THAT STRETCH.
BUT, BUT I, BUT I WILL POINT OUT, MR. SULLIVAN, THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING, UH, WITH DOT STATE HIGHWAY BECAUSE THAT IS A STATE HIGHWAY AND AN ACCESS PERMIT.
SO THE NEW, THE NEW, UM, THE NEW EXPANDED, UH, SIDEWALK AND PLANTINGS THERE ARE ALL BEING DONE IN COORDINATION WITH THE ACCESS PERMIT FROM, UH, STATE HIGHWAY FOR, FOR THAT FRONTAGE.
SO, UH, THEY, THEY ARE, THEY ARE A SIGNATOR, A SIGNATORY TO, TO THE, UH, FINAL, UH, DESIGN IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL.
UM, SO YEAH, I GUESS, UH, LET ME GIVE A SHOUT AT A MOTION, I GUESS.
UH, SO CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO GRANT A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS, SECTION 6.4.
A, HOTEL USE, AND SECTION 10.40, SPECIAL PERMIT.
UM, REVIEWING RESPONSES TO, UH, SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT, A, IT APPEARS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE MET.
ACCORDING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.12, A HOTEL USE IS PERMITTED IN SPECIAL DISTRICT ONE UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL.
ITEM B, TRAFFIC GENERATED OR PATTERNS OF ACCESS OR EGRESS WOULD CAUSE CONGESTION HAZARD OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
UH, VE- VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH DRIVEWAYS ON MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY, AND AS SUCH, WILL NOT HAVE ANY CHANGE IN THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
ITEM C, THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF, OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT USES AS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
UH, THERE ARE TWO HOTELS USES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE ON MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY, AS WELL AS A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER.
NONE OF THESE USES, USES WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ADDITIONAL HOTEL USE.
THE REAR ABUTTING USES ARE TRAIN TRACKS AND A COMMUNITY PATH, BOTH SCREENED BY A FENCE.
NEITHER USE WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE SIGHTING OF PARKING SPACES WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
ITEM D, NUISANCE OR HAZARD WOULD BE CREATED TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANT.
THE HOTEL WILL BE OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
AND FOR OTHER REASONS, UH, ITEM E, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT OR ADJOINING DISTRICTS.
THIS USE WILL REPLACE A FORMER CAR WASH AND WAREHOUSE WITH A WELL-DESIGNED BUILDING THAT WILL PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PEOPLE VISITING THE CITY.
UM, SO THAT BY THAT FINDING, THEY MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER SECTION 10.40 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND ADDING CONDITIONS, UH, TO INCLUDE, UM, THE CONDITIONS, THE MOBILITY CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE CITY OF SOMERVILLE PLANNING BOARD, UM, SITE PLAN APPROVAL CASE, UH, P&Z21-028, UH, IN THE HIGH-RISE HR ZONING DISTRICT CITING SECTIONS IN MOBILITY, UH, NUMBERS 13, WHICH, UH, STATES, UH, PRIOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE APPLICANT OR THE SUCCESSOR SHALL FUND AND EXECUTE A DESIGN OF COMMUNITY PATH RAMP TO THE 25% DESIGN LEVEL, UM, AND, UH, PROVIDE TO THE CITY A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF 25.
UM, HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT SAID PAYMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 105,000.
[04:00:01]
BEING THE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT CALCULATION OF 44,508 SQUARE FEET TIMES TWO POINT, $2.36 PER FOOT.UH, ITEM 15, WAS IT 15? THE APPLICANT OR THEIR SUCCESSOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE CITIES OF SOMERVILLE AND CAMBRIDGE ON THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY PATH RAMP.
THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE THE SPACE ON THEIR SITE FOR THE COMMUNITY PATH RAMP AND WILL ALLOW FOR ALL SITE ACCESS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR.
UH, 16, THE APPLICANT OR THEIR SUCCESSOR MUST PROVIDE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT IN PERPETUITY BY A COMMINANT OR OTHER DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE FULL AREA OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY PATH RAMP.
AND, UH, 18 FINALLY, 18, THE APPLICANT OR THE SUCCESSOR MUST PROVIDE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT IN PERPETUITY BY A COVENANT OR OTHER DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE FULL AREA OF THE SIDEWALK PROVIDED WITHIN THE FRONTAGE AREA OF THE LOT.
UM, AND, UH, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE WORK PROPOSED CONFORMED TO THE DRAWING SET INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, DRAWING SET ENTITLED 145 ROOM HOTEL, 263 MONSIGNOR O'BRIEN HIGHWAY DATED 15TH OF OCTOBER 2025.
IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? I'M SORRY.
I THINK THAT WAS, YEAH, UH, BY XX, UH, SORRY.
WHERE'S THE DRAWINGS? SORRY GUYS.
UH, FOR DRAWINGS PREPARED BY, UH, ALAN AND MAJOR ASSOCIATES AND...
JASON, CAN YOU, CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE NAME OF YOUR FIRM OR THE STAMP? XSS HOTELS? YES.
AND FURTHER, WE INCORPORATE THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS, DIMENSIONAL FORMS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
SO ON A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE, BOARD MEMBERS, BRENDAN SULLIVAN.
IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO GRANT.
THE VOTE IS FIVE, ZERO IN FAVOR AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS GRANTED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, FOR A LONG, HARD EVENING.
YOU'RE REALLY EARNING THAT STUFF.
YOU'RE REALLY EARNING THAT STIPEND THEY PAY YOU.
TONIGHT WAS, THAT WAS A MARATHON.
GOOD TO, GOOD TO CLOSE WITH YOU, UH, UH, TO END THE NIGHT, SO - THANK YOU.
SO THAT CONCLUDES, UH, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BUSINESS ON, UH, OCTOBER 15TH.
THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS FOR HANGING IN THERE, GETTING THROUGH THIS EVENING, AND, UH, WE'LL SEE YOU ALL SOON.