Board of Appeals (ZBA) — 2021-06-09

Minutes

MELROSE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Public Hearing Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:30 p.m. Remote Meeting Present: Rita Mercado, Chair Megan Carriere, Associate Curtis Dooling, II Julianna Hanlon, Associate Bryan Thorp Absent: Katherine Moore David Roache Staff Present: Lori Massa, Clerk The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm. Pursuant to Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor’s March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Melrose Zoning Board of Appeals was conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting were found on the City of Melrose’s website, at www.cityofmelrose.org/remote-meetings. No in-person attendance of members of the public was permitted, but every effort was made to ensure that the public could adequately access the proceedings in real time, or in the event that we are unable to do so, on the mmtv3.org website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings was posted as soon as possible after the meeting. A link was also available on www.cityofmelrose.org. Application materials were posted to the City’s website: www.cityofmelrose.org/board-appeals. CASES BEFORE THE BOARD 21 010 – 34 & 45-55 Summit Avenue The appeal of North Shore Residential Development for a Special Permit under §235-17 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish four two-family dwellings at 34 & 45-55 Summit Avenue, Melrose, MA. This request is part of a proposal to demolish single-family homes and construct two new single-family homes and four new two-family homes on six lots of varying sizes that currently encompass lots on Assessor’s Map B13 0 21-27 & B14 0 1-2. This case was continued from the April 14, 2021 hearing. Attorney Patrick submitted a letter dated May 21, 2021 requesting to withdraw the application without prejudice. By roll call the Board voted, 5-0, to grant the request to withdraw the application without prejudice. Page 1 of 4 Documents: ZBA Application 21-010 Letter from Attorney McAvoy dated May 21, 2021 21 015 – 27 Temple Street The appeal of Joseph H. Higgins and Robin L. Higgins, Trustees for Variances from §235-18 & -19 of the Zoning Ordinance for lot area and front yard setback, and §235-73.C.1 & §235-73.C.2 from the Slope Protection Ordinance all to retain the existing single-family house 27 Temple Street Melrose, MA and construct a new single-family house on a separate lot. The property contains 23,126 sf of land and is shown on Assessor’s Map F4 0 63 & F4 0 64. Attorney Patrick submitted a letter dated June 9, 2021 requesting to continue the application to the July 7, 2021 hearing. By roll call the Board voted, 5-0, to grant the request to continue the case to July 7, 2021. Documents: ZBA Application 21-015 Letter from Attorney McAvoy dated June 9, 2021 21 014 – 14 Hawes Avenue / Ells Avenue The appeal of M. Razvan Teodorescu & Tina Teodorescu for Variances from §235-21 of the Zoning Ordinance to separate the lot into two, for Lot 1 Variances from §235-18 & -19 for lot area, lot depth, front yard, rear yard, and §235-41.O for tandem parking and for Lot 2 Variances from §235-18, & -19 for lot area and lot depth, §235-25.J for lot width at the rear building line, and §235-41.O for tandem parking, all required to retain the existing single-family house at 14 Hawes Ave and construct a new single-family house on Ells Ave, Melrose, MA, on a lot of land containing 13,114 sf and shown on Assessor’s Map D13 0 154 & D14 0 16. Attorney Judith Clark, and Applicants Tina and Razvan Teodorescu appeared to explain the application. Attorney Clark explained how she found the application met the variance findings. The backyard is unruly and it is a hardship to maintain it. She mentioned other cases for which the ZBA granted approval to build a single-family house on a lot with variances. Many houses in the neighborhood have tandem parking. The front and the rear yard variances are for the existing house which is not changing. They purchased the house in 2008 and were not aware that the City was going to do a drainage project that affected their yard. It was a hardship for them but the project fixed the drainage problems in the neighborhood. There is one deed that describes each lot separately. They receive two separate tax bills. There is an ANR plan on file at the Registry of Deeds from 1960 that shows multiple parcels. The Board asked why the triangular piece of land would be added to the Ells Avenue property. It would even off the property lines between the two parcels. Members were concerned with the plans which show structure close to and over the drainage easements. They asked if the end of the road is on private property or a paper street and who will be responsible for extending the road. The road is a paper street and they will get more information on who will construct the street. The following people submitted letters in opposition to the application: Audra Bieg of 18 Ells Avenue, Patricia Jones of 22 Ells Avenue, Robert & Judith Casey of 21 Heywood Avenue, Paul Cornacchini of 40 Page 2 of 4 Boardman Avenue, and Joan Hurley of 32 Ells Ave. Concerns were due to the high water table in the neighborhood, drainage and flooding, increased traffic on Ells Ave, impact of construction vehicles on the street and the large size of the proposed house for the lot. The following people appeared to speak in opposition to the application: Patricia Jones of 22 Ells Avenue, Michael Bouche of 25 Heywood Avenue, and Audra Bieg of 18 Ells Avenue. They said that this piece of land is a catch basin for rainwater to collect, the road does not have a standard width and it is hard to get by parked cars, it will be detrimental to have more curb cuts on the street, drainage is a problem, and asked since other projects on this small street in the area were denied – why approve this one? Members said that the DPW will ensure that the drainage easement is protected; however, they would like to know if the Planning Board will be reviewing and approving the stormwater management during the subdivision approval. It is typically not in the ZBA’s purview to consider drainage but it is related to siting a house here. The large lot coverage of the proposed house is complicating this request. There is not a lot of pervious surface on the site with the house and double-wide driveway. The drainage system in the neighborhood is resolved but putting a lot of impervious surface on this site might cause problems. It is always challenging to consider hardship when applicants buy an unbuildable lot and claim that it should be buildable. The lot currently has a reasonable use as a single-family house. A member suggested that the Applicants reach out to the neighbors on Ells Avenue. They are all against the proposal because this is a small street and they are concerned about extending the road among other things. If the ZBA approves the plan it sends a signal that the roadway extension is acceptable and they do not have any information about this part of the project. Adding one house on the street will not create a traffic problem but it may make maneuvering on the street more difficult. Attorney Clark said that they will contact a drainage engineer and work with the City on the roadway construction plan. The Applicants are proposing to live in the house so they do not want stormwater to be an issue. They were not in a position to engage an engineer before knowing if the project would move forward. Attorney Clark requested to continue the case to have time to work on the additional information requested during the hearing. By roll call the Board voted, 5-0, to grant the request to continue to August 11, 2021. Documents: ZBA Application 21-014 21 016 – 735 Newburyport Turnpike The appeal of Pugh Management, LLC for Variances from §235-18 & -19 of the Zoning Ordinance for building height and open space, and §235-41.L for the entrance/exit driveway width. The relief is sought to construct a 94,000 sf warehouse at 735 Newburyport Turnpike, Melrose, MA, on a lot of land containing 218,324 sf, of which 100,251 sf is in Melrose, and shown on Assessor’s Map J3 0 9. John Pugh, Applicant, Michael Rosen, Attorney, Doug Landry, part of the development team, and Jordan Loffredo, Civil Engineer, appeared remotely to explain the proposal. Information regarding the hearing and the Board’s discussion regarding the proposal and findings are documented in the decision for the case. Page 3 of 4 By roll call the Board voted, 5-0, to grant the requested Variances. Documents: ZBA Application 21-016 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Thorp made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from May 12, 2021. Ms. Carriere seconded the motion. By roll call members Rita Mercado, Curtis Dooling, Megan Carriere, and Bryan Thorp voted, 4- 0, to approve the minutes. The next meeting is set for July 7, 2021. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm. Page 4 of 4

Transcript

▶ 0:02 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Today is Wednesday, June 9th. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law 30A Section 18 and the Governor's March 15, 2020 order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Word of appeals is being conducted via remote participation. No, no, in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for. In the governor's executive order, a record of this meeting will be posted on www dot dot org and www dot city of morrow's dot org as soon as possible following its conclusion.

▶ 0:56 I'll introduce the members that we have here tonight. We have Brian Thorpe, Megan Carrier, Kurt Gulen, and Juliana Hanlon, and our clerk, Laurie Massa, and I am Rita Mercado. In case the members of the public were wondering, the executive order is still in play until June 15th. So that's the reason why it's still valid of what I read earlier. That will be changing. But I know that they have extended and the legislation has been filed. So remote participation has been extended. I think until September. So, I just thought I'd give that little update because I know that things have been opening up, but remote meetings will still be occurring through the summer. Until we decide how we're going to move forward and the legislature decides how to move forward and individual municipalities.

▶ 1:49 So, tonight we'll follow our usual procedure because we've been doing this remotely. 1st, I will call the petitioner applicant to come forward and they're going to be made panelists and have an opportunity to present. Their appeal to the board, basically giving a summary of the relief that they're seeking from this board. I'll give an opportunity for board members to ask any questions that they may have at that point. After that, I will open it for to members of the public to provide any public comments related to the application that they heard. We also have some letters that we will read into the record accordingly that have been submitted related to that particular application. If you are speaking, there's several ways that you can get our attention through Webex. 1 is that you can use the raise a hand feature.

▶ 2:42 Uh, 2, you could get our attention via the chat feature that is available on Webex and if you do not have that ability either way, you can just send us an email at appeals at city of morrows dot org. When you do speak, I ask that you just introduce yourself name and address. Um, because that'll just help us understand the context of your comments. And once we hear those comments, I will then give an opportunity for the applicant to issue a rebuttal to any of the comments or questions that they heard from members of the public from any of the letters. After that board members will be able to ask any follow up questions. I will close the public hearing the board will deliberate and we should have some decisions here for you tonight related to your request.

▶ 3:32 So, with that, the first item on the agenda, it's actually Case 211034 and 45-55 Summit Avenue. This was a case that was actually continued from April 14th, but we do have a request to withdraw the application. I will read the letter from their counsel. Um, I'm writing to ask the board for leave to withdraw our application for zoning relief and the above reference. Better please with prejudice. The applicant does not plan to go forward with the application at the June 9th meeting. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Um, their counsel, Patrick and McEvoy. So, board members, there's a request to withdraw without prejudice at case 21010. By roll call vote Brian Thorpe. Yes, Megan carrier.

▶ 4:39 Yes, Kurt dueling yes. Julianna Hamlin yes, Rita Mercado is a yes. This matter has been withdrawn without prejudice. So, to the extent there are any members of the public that were that were here related to this case related to summit Avenue. um this case has been withdrawn without prejudice so that means that it is now off our agenda it will not be appearing at any future meetings the only the only time that it would is that they're going to actually have to reapply and go through the process again which will require public notification accordingly to the statute related to a butters so that matter is officially off our agenda case 2110. the next item on the agenda that i'm going to just address because we do have

▶ 5:31 another procedural request to postpone it it's case 21 15 27 temple street um the email i have from their council attorney patrick mcavoy says as you will likely know the city solicitor for the City of Melrose have provided an opinion stating that our case cannot go forward without further publication and deliberation by the Planning Board. As such, I am ready to request the Board continue this case to the July 7, 2021 meeting of the Board of Appeals. So for a procedural matter, this matter, there's a request to postpone this case and be put on our July 7, 2021 agenda. So, that is the request is to postpone it to July 7 and continue to July 7, 2021 by roll call vote. Brian thought yes, Megan carrier.

▶ 6:32 Yes, Kurt dueling yes, Julianna handling. Rita Mercado is a yes, that case has been continued to our July 7, 2021 meeting. So all members of the public who are here related. To the 27 temple street application case 2115, that case has been continued to address some procedural threshold matters with the planning board. So it's been continued to our July 7th, 2021 meeting to the extent that members of the public cannot make that meeting. I encourage you. can submit comments ahead of time and we will read them during the public hearing or public comment section during that meeting when we do open that case. So the next item on the agenda is Case 2114, 14 Hawes Avenue and Ells Avenue, the appeal

▶ 7:39 of M. Razvan Theodorosku, sorry, I apologize for that pronunciation, for variances for section 235 21 of the zoning ordinance to separate the lot into two for a lot one variances from section 235 18 and 19 for lot area lot depth front yard rear yard and section 235 41 0 for tandem parking and for a lot two variances from sections 235 18 and 19 for lot area and lot depth section 23525J for a lot width at the rear building line and Section 23541O for tandem parking, all required to retain the existing single-family house at 14 Hawes Ave and construct a new single family house on L's Ave in Melrose on a lot of land containing 13,114 square feet and shown on assessor's map D130154 and D14016. Attorney Clark, can you please introduce yourself and your clients?

▶ 8:50 Okay, my name is Judith Clark. I am in my office at 106 West Foster Street here in Melrose and the Tater Eskies are with me and I believe that their architect was going to be with us Also, his name is Franco Garofalo. Laurie, do you find him to let let him into the to the fund? Maybe I'm sorry, can you say the name again? I was just responding to an email. Garofalo, I believe that he was intending to to be present at the meeting, but perhaps he hasn't gotten here yet. I don't see him on the list. I am not seeing him unless he would come in a different name. No. No, okay. Well, perhaps he'll be along. Please let him in a few if you see him. Okay. All right, so anyway, I, I am here representing, um, um, in November 2008, they purchased property at 14 Hawes Avenue.

▶ 10:10 Although it is identified and described. in one deed there are two separate parcels for tax purposes on one parcel there is a tall victorian home which is numbered 14 hawes avenue and the other is vacant land fronting on an unpaved portion of else avenue um we are proposing a slight modification to the plan which is on record which adds a small triangle of land to the else avenue lot increasing the frontage beyond what is required otherwise the frontage on elsa avenue would have a shortfall the property is in a ura district as a combined lot it has 13 185 square feet of land which is considerably larger than the other lots in the neighborhood if subdivided the currently developed lot would have 6 653

▶ 11:19 square feet and the lot to be developed would have 6461 square feet neither lot complies with the required 7 500 square feet in this district but both are as mentioned at the planning board meeting uh compatible with the neighborhood and they are close to compliant especially as compared to others in the neighborhood we're here to obtain variances necessary to separate the property into two lots since they have merged for zoning purposes and build a modest single-family home Fronting on L's Avenue. This house will be more energy efficient and easier to maintain the kind of house that will allow my clients to age gracefully in Melrose, which they would like to do. With respect to lot one, the Hawes Avenue lot, variances are needed for lot area, lot depth

▶ 12:25 and tandem parking other zoning requirements are met with respect to lot two the ells avenue lot variances are needed for lot area lot depth lot width at the rear building line because of the odd shape of the lot and tandem parking and other zoning requirements are met um i do feel that we meet the requirements for a variant these are this is a unique circumstance to have a basically double lot with frontage on different streets and lot two is very unusual shape a look around the neighborhood will show similarly sized lots many with tandem parking as i've tried to point out on the copy of the assessor's map or the gis map that i submitted yesterday i think um the unique conditions are not were not caused by my clients actions

▶ 13:33 and we're not talking a substantial detriment to the public good or impairment of the purposes or intent of the zoning ordinance it's going to be a single family home in a single family neighborhood on a lot similarly sized to all of the others in the neighborhood it's not a grant of special privilege to these people and it is a hardship for them having to maintain a large lot um and not being able to keep tabs on it very well um i am reminded of a case of in 2014 on bay state road in which the board allowed construction of a single family home on a lot containing 3 600 square feet of land mainly because it was consistent with other properties in the area and with siting consistent with adjacent properties

▶ 14:38 so um seems to me that we have a little history basically in the neighborhood for this and uh my clients would like to stay here in the neighborhood they would just like to have a house that would fit their needs a little bit better as they get older and um and that's my presentation be glad to answer any questions that you might have So, I just want to just clarify for the variances for lot 1. Which is the existing house we are, you are also asking for variances for front yard and where you are set back. Correct? Pardon me? I find yard and rare yard set back. You'll be also getting a requesting a variances for that. I know it's existing, but. I well, I don't recall that those were deemed to be necessary and anything that I saw, but.

▶ 15:44 Certainly, if they're necessary, we would be looking for them. Of course, because it looks like it was there in the, um. The building inspectors letter, so I just wanted to make sure nothing changed. Unless that was an error, the building inspector letter was an error. Well, if it is a zone, so I think that is right. That you would need really if you are a zone, so we're looking at front yard and rear yard. Yes, okay. Oh, yes. I'm not 1. I'm sorry. Yes. Right. Yard and rear yard are not 20 feet. As they would be required. So, yes, we, we are looking for those all. Any other questions from the board members other questions when did you say they purchased the property. They purchased it in 2008.

▶ 17:00 And they purchased it, it was, it's, I mean, it is a single lot. Or did they purchase is it. 2 lots on the deed there's 1 need. It's referenced as lots on 2 different lots on particular plans. But there's a running description that, um. That covers all of the, uh. Numbers so, but it has 2 separate tax bill. So, it's kind of a hybrid, I guess, but they, they purchased it pursuant to 1 deed. Which had a description of everything together, but the subdivision obviously was in place because that's how they're being taxed. Right? Or at least there's a subdivision between the 2 lots. There is a subdivision plan on record at the registry of deeds. And that, and it is to that plan that references made in describing the lots that they own.

▶ 18:25 But we are looking for a small variation. Which is that triangle piece, right? Right. Any other questions from board members, does the letter from public works talk about the easement, the drainage easement? It does mention it. It references it fine. Then we can talk about that later. Any other questions from board members at this time? Are the lawyers thinking about the subdivision plan and how it's common? I'm like, I'm like, I think all of us are thinking about this weird, uh, twist that it's 1 deed with a subdivision. Okay, so I'm oh, I'm sorry I. I do, I guess I, I'll defer for the moment. Any other questions from board members at this time? Can I ask what's the reason why you're adding the triangle proper? The triangle piece to the developed?

▶ 19:59 It would well, it would even off the lot. If you look at the original subdivision plan, it's just this very strange. Triangle that really looks like it should be on 1 lot, but it's on the other instead and. I wasn't around back then, so I don't know why that was done. Um, but it also serves to increase the frontage. For the minimum required, which it is not at the present time. Okay, um, with that, I'll just start reading some letters that we have received. I will read the planning board letter. Dated June 4th, 2021, the planning board reviewed the above reference case at this regular meeting held on Monday, May 24th to make a recommendation to you based on the application materials provided.

▶ 20:51 Information regarding the proposal and zoning data is in the attached table. The planning board took no position on the application. Members found that this case involves judgment that can best be determined by the board of appeals based on the application materials and the information provided by the applicant and abutters at the public hearing. if the project moves forward the applicant will need to submit an application for the subdivision approval to the planning board um before i read the department of public works letter um at this time if members of the public i know that that there has been some chat uh a chat there's that there's one individual that has been chatting with us that we will unmute after i read the dpw

▶ 21:36 letter but if there are any members of the public who'd like to speak please use the raise a hand feature email us or um send us a message via the chat and we will unmute you and let you know when we do that so the department of public works letter um i'm just going to be i mean it's a standard letter but i will read the section that is actually not as unique to this particular property um it has to do with so the letter is actually posted on the website so it's provided to members of the board prior to this but i will note that item number four it says neither water or sewer utilities appear to be in the vicinity of the new lot however there is a drain and drainage easement running north to south that crosses the eastern side of the proposed lot

▶ 22:29 utility marco should be requested prior to any new construction that may be approved so i just I mean, it looks like you're going to be building on the easement based on these drawings. Unless you're doing some fancy footing. From what I'm looking at, that would seem to be an issue, but attorney Clark, can we talk a little bit about hardship? I mean, one of the things that's a little bit that we don't like to do is create as have a client create further nonconformity by subdividing the lot. I'm trying to understand how that works, and how it relates to the hardship for why they're here. I'm curious to know what your thoughts are about that. Well, the lot is currently vacant. It's a huge unruly backyard.

▶ 23:53 And I know previous other times when I've presented cases similar to this, that the upkeep of that extra lot has been considered to be a hardship. Okay. I'm going to continue on as members of the public who'd like to speak. Laurie, why don't you go ahead and start unmuting individuals? Okay, Ms. Jones, you're muted. Hi, yes, my name is Patricia Jones and I'm at 22 and I sent an email. Just in case I wasn't able to attend and I, I know there's been a lot of talk about the easement and the water table. And so, obviously, that's a concern of ours, because I've lived there since 1996 and we had considerable amount of water. on our street the drain the drainage didn't actually get connected until the

▶ 25:10 Horace Mann out to the Saugus River that whole project that happened we had water in 96 we had water in 2005 and that piece of land seemed to be the catch basin of where the water went and I know the drainage has been renovated but the fact that now you're planning to probably build right right on that lot just seems to be disruptive possibly to the the drainage work that had been done and I'm concerned about what it's going to do to the water that currently flows down from the highlands across Main Street and down Elzab in addition to that the road right now is not even a standard width. So now you're in, there was just recently a house on Boardman Ave that broke the curb and built a driveway access from Elzav

▶ 26:10 which adds additional traffic. So now we have an additional house other than the five houses and then three or four other houses on Boardman that have a driveway on this non-standard width road That now you're going to add another house at the end of for additional traffic right now. It's very, it's hard. You can't even you can hardly even get to. Way traffic by, so that was that's my concern and I hope that the board would consider looking at the width of the road and. The history of the drainage in the area before they approve another dwelling to be built. Thank you given that you did speak, and we'll just note that the letter that you submitted has been entered into the record as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And what other person sent a message that they'd like to speak after the letters are read.

▶ 27:11 Okay, so do you or where any of the other ones. The other the other 2 letters that we have, Laurie, or are there any of the other ones participating in speaking or present. Seeing that anyone else is requesting to speak. Okay, go ahead and read the letters then. Okay. So, I actually 3 now that came in at a late hour, so I haven't sent them to the board members yet. I'm concerned about the requested variance for else out. I'm not in support and I'm worried about how it will impact the high water table and work that has been done to reduce the issues experienced by our homes on the street. In addition to the issues with adding more traffic to Elsa. Thanks. The 18 hours out, I have been arrested since 1971 50 years. I'm very concerned about the proposal for a new house built on the land next to this to the end of the street.

▶ 28:19 I don't understand how our small street will be extended, especially over the easement. This area has had severe planning for many years. The problem says the drains problem was the dreams cannot accommodate the water from range. We experienced many floods, especially the major ones and all of. 1996 and Mother's Day 2006, these floods were nightmares. We had to be evacuated until water levels receded. This took several weeks. Property damage was extensive, including the loss of a new car. Neighboring streets were in the same predicament. Eventually, the city completed a major project to prevent any future flood. The drains were finally fixed and seemed to work very concerned that any disruption to the street.

▶ 29:02 And the drains will affect our flood issues. Also, I'd like to know what impact construction vehicles will have on our small street. Anyone familiar with elves knows that it is a narrow street that only has houses on 1 side and no sidewalks. thank you for consideration we are opposed to granting any variance in this matter our property about the yards on L's out this catastrophic flooding in 2006 is sassy necessitated the reconstruction of the drainage easement on this property that ordeal was dramatic and costly we drained over four feet of water from our basement and had to replace appliances including our Furnace is an unfinished street, the idea of construction equipment, using for projects such as this would present serious disruption for our neighbors. Our major concern is the drainage easement issue.

▶ 29:55 Robert and Judith Casey 21 they would have and then I will unmute. Okay, Mike, you're unmuted. All right, you can hear me. All right. So, hi, I'm Mike Boucher. I'm on a budding property, 25 Haywood Ave. Just kind of similar concerns from the rest of the letters that have already been read aloud. Just more so, just expressing the concern there, but then just some other questions that I had. Um, 1, what's the drainage easement? So, you know, I moved in the property 2012 and I just heard nightmare stories from the past. Um, including about, like, 6 feet in my, in my basement currently. So, the easement, you know, from my understanding, you know, runs runs on the East side of my property. So you can tell where they where they dug up and it leads right into the East side of this proposed property.

▶ 31:00 Uh, where the drainage, um, where the drainage sits. So, again, just similar concerns. Everybody else, you know, what, what would that mean to disrupting? Um. You know, what seems to be a solution to, uh, to a major issue that was catastrophic as we've heard from others. Um, so, again, just number 1 concern there, and then just other questions of mine myself was, um, I didn't know if there was public record of any kind of architecture plans, um, that I haven't seen yet. And more so specifically, when you talk about the proposed rear yard, just, I was curious to see if there's on record which way the house would face. So the frontage would be L's. Would that be the front of the house or would that be the side of the house?

▶ 31:45 So it's all available on the website with the application materials. Did you see that? I did not see, I mean, I was able to find some documentation, but unfortunately wasn't able to see any architectural plans. But I can, no need to revisit that as I can dig into that myself. But yeah, so again, I have an embedding property, so I just wanted to see what does it mean in terms of the space there. Obviously, just privacy concerns as well as, there is obviously some very mature trees there as well. But it's just obviously a personal preference on my end. But again, there is the major concern that I have in terms of train achievement as we've all heard thank you thank you laurie i believe someone else who also

▶ 32:37 raised their hand and and they were also the ones that provided chat comments as well so they can speak to their comments publicly okay audra thank you this is audrey of 18 lzab so similar to the folks who have spoken before and you did read my message before i was just having trouble connecting so thank you similar concerns as others have raised primarily about what's being done from preserving the easement and maintaining the water solutions for our area the only thing to add was my question around something that um that was mentioned about the the request to shorten the amount of space that's needed to the street from your house i know that recently other requests for houses that already exist on boardman and but l's have been denied and i know in this space some

▶ 33:42 of the feedback for that at least what we've understood is that because it is such a small area we need to make sure that with our lots that we are maintaining as much as we can in terms of the code so i wanted to understand a little bit of of that perspective that this has been seen and done before because in my recent time here for the past five years i've only seen denials um of those requests that was the only other question i wanted to raise okay thank you do you see anyone else laurie no and did you receive any emails no do board member oh well attorney clark would you Would you like to issue a rebuttal to any of the comments you heard? Well, I think that 1 thing my clients know about is the, the water issues that there were in the neighborhood.

▶ 34:46 They were there, I guess everybody knows knows about the mother's day storm. So that is no surprise to them at all. They were delighted when the drainage easements and everything went into effect and there wasn't a problem anymore. But they, they love Melrose. They love the neighborhood. That's why they're trying to do what they're trying to do. They would not under any circumstances want to cause any recurrence of water issues. That played the neighborhood for years, but they were resolved in 2010. They do expect to engage a drainage engineer and work with the city and regarding the ultimate construction of the house. Um, they're for their own selfish purposes, they're building this house to live in.

▶ 35:39 And they're planning to sell the house on house Avenue. Um, it would be against their own interests to cause a problem and, and it would be contrary to what they would want for their neighbors as well. um that really is is not their intention and they know that this is a tricky it may be a tricky lot and they have to work with um with drainage with the drainage situation and a drainage engineer not knowing if this would even be feasible or possible for zoning purposes um they were not in a position to engage an expensive drainage engineer prior to getting a feel for um whether this is likely to fly let's put it that way so um but it would be contrary to their own interests and they know it would be contrary to the city's interest if they were

▶ 36:45 to do anything that would cause a recurrence of the drainage issues um one thing i just want to just clarify to make sure that if should should you receive relief from this board you would still have to go to the planning board to approve the subdivision yes modification okay that's yes because because the street is not yet developed if the street were developed we We could do it on an A and R plan, but the street is not developed. So we would have to go. To the planning board for a. For a hearing, and the subdivision that you said that was currently part of their record, you know, when. The prior subdivision was filed. Like, is it all I was just curious because obviously for tax purposes, it looks like there's 2 lots.

▶ 37:42 It was a long time ago. You'll have to excuse me as I shuffle through my records. No, that's okay. Talk amongst yourselves as they say. Do board members have any other. Or I can think of any other questions. Well, attorney Clark, I know is probably looking for the title. Report for this, I was going to ask after. After Ms. Clark is done looking at that, I was going to ask either her or the applicants if any effort was made. I know they live in the neighborhood, but around the corner and this is a separate street. I was going to ask if there was any effort made to speak to the folks on Ells Avenue about this project. Yes, we did speak with our next door neighbor that is abutting our property.

▶ 38:51 With John, so, um, Joan, so we did speak with her some time ago when we started thinking about this project. And just to compliment what, um, Ms Clark mentioned about the, um. The flooding that we were aware, uh, we moved here in 2008. so we moved in after all the floods happened, but. uh we actually were not aware of this uh city project to replace the draining system we were surprised when we purchased the home the previous owner did not tell us about the project and the fact that the city had they already approved with the city to turn the whole yard upside down so that was a hardship for us when we moved into this property but and i remember the neighbors on else app coming to us to to ask us to not stop this project because

▶ 39:43 We were not we never signed anything to approve the project from our property side. It was the previous owner So we inherited that from the previous owner without our knowledge money purchase the property But of course we did we did agree to go ahead with the project because we didn't want to cause Neither to us also also to the neighborhoods these drainage problem to continue here or during big storms So this is what happened after that project is as we all know we have had storms of course the last you know 12 years but we haven't had those those flooding problems and as miss Clark mentioned we would we would engage someone to design a draining system proper draining system to avoid any problems to the neighborhood of course to our property

▶ 40:31 as well when you said you're a butter that you spoke to is it a butter to the Lot that's developed, or is it to the, I was just curious because you have 2 lots on 2 different streets. So I was like, which butter are you talking about? Yes, it's the butter adjacent to the lot that we would like to build the, the new construction. Correct. So, if you're looking at the lot from the street, right, you're looking at the front, it's the house to the left. That's correct as you come to, uh, to else Avenue is the last house on the left, the body that our current. Fans that it's a mutual fans between our property and her property. Thank you. Any follow up questions, Kurt attorney Clark. Were you able to find I, I did everything somewhere.

▶ 41:34 Yes, the deed identifies the property as 2 parcels of land. Being shown as a lot and and lot 22 a on a plan. From 1960, 6, 0. Messages in the chat as well that I just wanted to point out in case you didn't see. I did, but they already did speak. Okay, so. Any other questions from board members? Yeah, is the, um, the question about the roadway and. Extension is that is that a request to the is that work going to be performed? So, that's is that that's city easement so you're asking the city to extend that roadway. Is that is that what's going on there? That's not part of your property, correct? Um, honestly. Avenue, I don't know. Is it a private way? I don't I, I'd like to be able to answer that question, but I, I don't think that I can. I mean, however.

▶ 43:08 However, whatever we have to do with connection with the planning board. And the and all of that is is what we would have to do. 3 wouldn't be on their private property, even though it's not on it's not on their private property. So, um. I am right so I'm just curious then is L's. Avenue, I mean, I live on a paper street. But I'm just curious what what's the, what's the, what is the applicant's intention? There that's a very good question. I think, um. We know that it's a paper road, so of course, we want to extend from the cut where else have. Paid paid road ends now, which is. Right where we have a fence now, basically. Open the fence and, of course, an extended road, we would address this with the city, because we know it's a paper road. You're right. Correct.

▶ 44:14 Well, because that's the only way. The property, that will be the entrance to our property basically from else out. To the driveway to the left that will allow us into the, um, the parking in the Roger. And build the house without the roadway extension, right? Attorney Clark, we acknowledge that. Yeah. Okay. Part and parcel of. Of getting permission to build the house would be that there has to be the road and and that really is the reason why. We would have to go to the planning board for subdivision. Rather than an a, in our plan, any other questions from board members. No, is there anything else that you'd like to add. Attorney Clark. i don't think so um i think that this is a project that starts starts with you folks

▶ 45:33 and then moves its way through some other city boards and and departments and my clients are aware of the fact that there is an easement and what the problems were in the past and they certainly are not either selfishly or unselfishly looking to exacerbate those problems and make them recur thank you okay with that we will uh close the public hearing and board members will deliberate what do we think about this application i know it's hard to like divide out the issues because usually sometimes i try to address them separately but it's one big application that affects two with a proposal of two separate lots all right i'll i'll start at least with addressing one issue i am not as cons the drainage easement i understand

▶ 46:49 is a concern for the neighborhood but i expect that the dpw and the city will assure that that is adequately protected given that that was their capital structure investment to address the flooding historical flooding issues in that area yeah Yeah, it's not really before us in terms of that work. And I guess that's why I asked the question about the. The, um, the roadway work, because there's a still a number of pretty. I think some significant, um, hurdles for the applicant to to, um. To navigate to actually get this project. Moving forward, I would guess, right? I mean, there have to be the. And as you said, you know, to your point, Rita, the will have definitely have something to say about it and.

▶ 47:44 Yeah, I just so I think some of the main issues that are before. Or that I've been talked about today are not things that aren't necessarily in our purview to look at. And that they'll be looked at by other groups within the city. So, let's look at the actual requests at hand, right? So the request is whether or not. We're going to almost endorse the development of. A lot on paper well, I guess you can make that argument too, but a lot that is currently not developed. become developed and is there a hardship involved like does it meet the variances threshold um given what we know about the history of this property yeah and that's where um i have some hesitation like like brian said before like i said

▶ 48:57 you know on an almost monthly basis um the hardship sometimes i have a trouble i have trouble finding where someone purchases a piece of property with a lot that is by right, not buildable. And then they come to us and say, well, it should be buildable. You know, it's obviously this is, you know, this is a street with small lots and I get that, which is why, I struggle a little bit because they want to build a lot in a house that is fitting with the neighborhood, but it does not comply and they knew that when they purchased it. That's my struggle with the hardship. I mean, like Brian said, I agree. The drainage stuff and easement stuff are matters that will be taken up by the planning board.

▶ 50:05 But the, the hardship with respect to lot size is something that's within our purview and I think it's a close call. So, this is why I was kind of asking more of the history of the title. So, could you say, and I mean, this is this is where I was like, but in their title history. it was two lots and i mean that's the that's the basis of why it's taxed separately i mean and in theory actually the lot that was in their history of their title was actually smaller than what they're proposing now because you take out the triangle piece so the question is is that can we because it's that tax history and that piece of paper that shows that that history that there was Because in 1960s, before zoning, theoretically, it was considered two lots.

▶ 51:06 So that's the only piece, because, Kurt, I totally agree with you, that is the only piece that is like holding me, like it's giving me pause and being like, well, wait a second though, pre-zoning, like it was- It was combined for zoning purposes, right? When those properties were held in common. So that's right. You know. Why it's here, right? So that's the reason why I'm like, I struggle. Like, it's a little bit different because if it was 2, if they went through with the subdivision was bought separately. And I don't know, I mean, I mean, that's just food for thought. What do I do? Others think. Julianna, what are your thoughts? I also struggle to see the hardship. So, I just don't think that it really rises to the level of.

▶ 52:16 You know, if they were not, if the variance is requested, we're. Not approve that it would deprive them of any reasonable use of their property because clearly. You know, they're making a reasonable use of the moment and. I think it was made made clear that it was, they want to build a house on the other law, so they can. know sell the other lot i just don't think it falls within kind of the strict application of zoning the way that it's um you know meant to i just yeah so that's my thought i really struggle to see how there's a adequate hardship here megan i mean i'm i'm on the same like the struggle the struggle to see the the hardship on this one i've been i've been going back and forth with the plans and looking at everything and i'm i'm

▶ 53:04 and I'm just having a hard time. That 1960 bit also just adds that. Brian, I know that you were talking about the other issues, but how about this particular issue? Well, I have some problem with it, a little bit less maybe. I mean, when I look at it, the thing that concerns me is just, if I look at the size of the footprint of the house relative to the lot size, I mean, I don't know if anybody looked at lot coverage here. It's a big house for the size of the lot. Yeah, look at it in comparison to the other houses. So from a scale perspective, I'm a little troubled by that as well. That speaks to the variances too that they're looking for. Correct. That's the other set of variances are really related to that.

▶ 54:18 I mean, it's a big footprint. I understand the reason why to limit the up and down in a house, but it's hard in that neighborhood To to to tell, but if you just look at the comparison between the footprint of the existing house and the. Proposed house, it's longer. As wide and and that's complicating some of the that's complicating some of their requests, I think, or. For some of their setbacks and parking and the like. And, you know, that roadway is essentially. Um, in in terms of its use, it's going to be it's there. I mean, it's going to be used by them almost exclusively. So, I question I question whether the city is going to is going to build is going to build the road so that they can develop the.

▶ 55:41 Property, and it's this chicken and egg thing, you know, we tell them they can build the house. They go to the planning board and say. Well, Sony board told us we can build a house. We just need you to extend this road. I just, I, I have some questions about that. Because the road is really only for their benefit. Okay, any other comments or points of discussion from board members? No, it's very hard. You heard him at the board said, I don't know if that gave you any indication that we can either continue to go forward with the vote. Or if you have any last minute requests that you would like to post to the board before we go ahead and vote. So, I, I guess the question would be, what, what is it that we could be prepared to tell you say, we asked for an extension to another month.

▶ 56:54 What is it that. You would like to hear from us. Laundry list of things that we could. Help out with in order to sway the votes our way. I mean, I, I don't know other board members. Is is there something I mean, I know Brian mentioned a few, but like. You need more and more board members to agree that that these are really important issues that need to be addressed that will. Potentially sway them. I mean, what do other board members think. Is is it like, could could making the footprint smaller. Change things I mean, I, I don't think that they could go. I know that there's the order of things in terms of going to the subdivision plan. 1st, I just don't know. Laurie, that's not etched in stone right as to which order to go in terms of the planning board subdivision plan versus us.

▶ 57:55 Correct well, typically when there's a variance needed in order for the subdivision to happen. The lot size would be a variance. So. Typically, people seek the variance and then go for subdivision. Okay. And it's kind of a. Construction, I'm not sure, you know, I. I'm not sure kind of the steps of that or. How much the planning board could get into the drainage on the lot with that subdivision approval because it's not a site plan approval to build a single family house. So, I'm not sure about that, but to answer your question typically for this kind of application for a variance for lot size. Applicants go to the zoning board 1st, and then go to get the subdivision approval because it wouldn't be an with the, um.

▶ 58:54 With the need to get a variance for the lot size. Thank you. That's the order that I've always done and that's always my preference is to. Come to your board 1st, because I, I. i just always come here first because i figure that's that's the important threshold that we have to pass before we start um spending a lot of money on other types of plans and and one thing i heard tonight was that elzav is a very small very narrow street and from what I can gather, the applicant spoke to one resident at LSF and every other resident who spoke was against this. So that is something that is important to me. However, that doesn't change the fact that I don't, I think perhaps the applicants have created the hardship, but

▶ 1:00:00 but I always am interested to hear what types of outreach has occurred, especially on a street like this, which is unique and small and narrow and is a private way and ends, and then the applicants are proposing for the street to go further. Granted, it's not very much, but it's a dead end, it's tiny, no one drives down it, and they're proposing to put on a house at the end. That's going to cause the folks who live on that street to be concerned. For someone who is trying to build a home there that they do not currently have the legal ability to build, it's important to find out and to speak to the folks who live on that street. Is there some further neighborhood outreach? I always think that's important,

▶ 1:01:06 especially on a tiny narrow dead end street. Where the variance concerns the size of the home, um that's something that affects the folks around um and um and you know looking on google maps for instance there's a little you know there's a swing set seemingly right next to where this house is going to be built and it doesn't seem like those folks have been spoken to so you know little neighborhood things like that are are important at least from my perspective any other helpful comments from board members um is there a question concerning who would be building the street um that's one of the questions sure i mean i think that needs to be confirmed um and i just i'm a little i am a little troubled about

▶ 1:02:51 the overall footprint uh attorney clark i mean i understand the purpose but you are building the second floor so it is a two-story house and the footprints extend it quite a bit i mean it's just that's 56 feet is long um and so i mean i would feel like i would feel more inclined on a lot of this size uh if i was looking at a smaller footprint you know so if i look at smaller footprint if i look at the amount of pervious soil or pervious pavement that's here you have a patio on the back side that's not inconsequential and you have a double wide driveway. You know, so in terms of the amount of that, you know, I understand the easement that addresses some of the water drainage system was more or less resolved, but that's still pulling a lot of,

▶ 1:03:52 that's putting a lot of impervious material out on the site. So there isn't any right now. I mean, I would agree with Kurt that a better neighborhood outreach would, I think, is appropriate. Now, that doesn't mean that everybody on the road is going to be happy. Typically, people don't like to see things change. I don't necessarily think a single house is going to create a traffic problem on the street. Uh, but I do think the condition of the street is just something that needs to be considered. Um, and and that could be, and that would go a long way to talking to you some of your neighbors concerns. If there was some, if there could be some kind of discussion or agreement about about the about itself about the road itself.

▶ 1:04:56 And I'm a little concerned about, um, but, um. What Laurie said was that they was 1 of the planning board has sufficient. Oversight to to comment on this either. You know, Laurie, in terms of, you're not. So, in the subdivision. That you would go that they would be before the planning board for I mean, they're not going to come back and look at reducing the size of the footprint. They're not going to come back and look at a lot of the things that we're talking about now, because you're right. Those are all site plan approval. Right, and you don't get a lot of. Subdivisions for single lots right? So, and, you know, in past jobs, I haven't dealt with that a lot. So. I'm not 100% sure if they have that authority to do that, but typically it's, it's looking at the.

▶ 1:06:02 the lot size and they would have to look at access um i'm not sure how much they would um be looking at the drainage and it wouldn't be a full site plan approval right i mean i think that then it's like one of the aspects though i think that we're kind of looking for is how that access is going to take place considering that it is a extension of an existing street that might be on that in a paper straight so i think that clarification would be important attorney clark i'm sorry certainly about the access uh i think from pub i think you i think there needs to be more discussions with public works about about the viability of extending the road and how that works and and and and just how that all happens um okay it's easy to draw it's just lines on paper but

▶ 1:07:04 Executing that's executing. It's a different matter. Well, that's the case. It's so many things. Yes, well, um. Thank you for your discussion and, um, I'm wondering if we could. Go back to the drawing board a little bit. I'll talk to my clients and see. If there's anything that they want to do. Um, with the plans and and certainly we can try and get further information. And, um, is there room on. Another meeting, say, in a month or so. I was July 7th. Yeah, the July meeting is July 7th. We have 4 cases on that agenda right now. So, we have space. Okay. Yes. Is July 7th enough time? Well, I'm, I'm a little bit concerned with that. As because that's kind of a large laundry list of things that we.

▶ 1:08:17 That when July 4th holidays in there to July 4th holiday and the summer and people are on vacation and and I'm. I'm inclined to think maybe August would make more sense. Let me just ask board members here. I, our, our meeting is on August 11th. So, I just, I'm just seeing that the members that are here, are you going to be able to attend the August 11th meeting? Okay, I just want, I just like to, I mean, things always happen last minute, but I like to at least try to take some informal survey now. It is summer after all, and people like to take a little vacation. So, Laurie, I'm correct. August 11th is the August meeting. Okay, so August 11th. Yes, can I see my clients shake their heads? Yes. Okay. Yes. I got a thumbs up. It's very awkward when you're not in the same location, you know? Um, yeah, I, I, I hope that we can go back to you on August 11th and.

▶ 1:09:26 Allay your fears and answer some questions that you have. Okay, so we have a request for a continuance of this case to our August 11th meeting for members by roll call vote. Brian Thorpe. Yes. Kurt Dooley. Yes. Julianna Hanlon. Yes. Megan carrier yes, Rita Mercado is a yes. This matter has been continued to August 11th for members of the public. That means that this will appear on our August agenda. To the extent that you can attend, you are always welcome to submit comments ahead of time, but we will be. We should still be meeting remotely then correct? Laurie in August. Yes, so we'll still be meeting remotely as well. So hopefully that helps a little bit for some folks too. Um, so August 11th, you will not be receiving another notification, but that is when this matter has been continued to.

▶ 1:10:28 Thank you very much. Thank you. Everyone. Thank you. Thanks. Next item on the agenda is case 2116, 735 Newburyport Turnpike, the appeal to management LLC for variances for sections 235, 18, 19 of the zoning ordinance for building height and open space. In section 23541L, for the entrance exit driveway width, the relief is sought to construct a 94,000 square foot warehouse at 735 Newburyport Turnpike in Melrose on a lot of land containing 218,324 square feet, of which 100,251 is in Melrose and shown on Assessor's Map J309. The applicant, please introduce yourself and your team or your council. Can you please introduce everybody? Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Board. John, do you want to do the introductions?

▶ 1:11:49 Can you unmute and speak? I'm just making John a panelist. Is there anyone else that you'd like to be a panelist? Yeah, let me see all the attendees. we'd like to make Doug a panelist. And then John, once you're unmuted, if you feel like we need to make anybody else a panelist, could you please let Lori know? Thank you. Sure thing. Okay. I'm sorry, just one question. John, you will be presenting? You'll be sharing your screen? Mike presenting. Okay. Okay, thank you. Great. Good evening. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, my name is John pew, the founder of few managements. Uh, my business partners. A. J. Bowman and Bonnie burger are here as well this evening. Uh, management is a locally owned real estate development.

▶ 1:12:54 Uh, firm, we partner with towns and cities and neighborhoods to make great places for people to live and work. Primarily our focus is both multi family and industrial properties. So, this is our 3rd public hearing for the project. And we have also held 3 neighborhood meetings meeting with butters and the neighborhood and both in Malden and Melrose. So, we've really enjoyed working with the city, getting to know the group and the neighbors, and we're excited to be here this evening meeting with you for this conversation. We put together a great team, and I think hopefully we'll some of that research and work we put in, we'll show this evening. So, Mike, you can take it away from here. I think we have a couple of slides to kind of show the team and then we can kind of dive into it. Go ahead. Mike. Yeah, let me see if I can share the right screen. Did that work?

▶ 1:13:56 it's black how about now it looks like it's taking a minute to log out okay can you see it now now we can okay it's like great now let's see how I if I can turn pages okay so as John mentioned we've put together a management team, a development team for this project. You can see Pew Management, our law firm, Roberto Israel and Weiner, Langan as our site engineers and landscape architects, ARCO for construction, GMA as architects, CHA as traffic, and Newmark as our leasing team. This is just a brief overview of the site and the site conditions. As you can see, the site is bifurcated by the municipal line between Melrose and Malden. The site is also adjacent to Revere and Saugus, so we have abutters in multiple communities.

▶ 1:15:17 The physical land on the site is slightly more in Malden than in Melrose. It's 2.7 acres in Malden and 2.3 in Melrose. But as you'll see in future slides, the majority of the building that we're proposing to construct is going to be in Melrose. And based upon our preliminary discussions with the planning directors, local building inspectors, it appears that Melrose would take the lead on this project and therefore we're basing our application as though Melrose will be the applicable jurisdiction for this site. The site has frontage in Melrose on Route 99 and in Malden on Route 1. So as you can see there's two frontages for the site and then you can see some of the surrounding properties. I would note that this isn't a

▶ 1:16:15 bb zoning district to give you an idea of the existing site conditions i'm guessing most of you are familiar with the property uh the town line in i'll just give you some depiction of what the site looks like today as you can see it is you know substantially covered with very little open space or landscaping multiple uses on the property and here's some depiction from route one uh to put the site in context as you can see by the neighborhood um you can see um i gotta move the speaking box over a little bit okay you can see where lowe's is the quality in tappies prime storage town line luxury lanes aggregate industries connolly transfer and you can see from the site where the fw web project that's also a melrose malden project is kind

▶ 1:17:22 of diagonally across the street from our site and you can see where all of the other communities are that surround this particular site. Here's some depiction of some of the neighboring uses. Here's our project overview. So the project overview, it's a 94,000 square foot trade and distribution space. As you can tell, the majority of it is on the Melrose side of the line. It is proposed to be improved with 107 parking spaces. There'll be some improvements to stormwater management they'll be adding and you can see where the landscaping is going to go it's identified in green on this project overview and then the addition of sidewalk and mbta bus along the route 99 side of the site here's a site plan to give you some more specific in detail

▶ 1:18:27 i'm happy to go through any of it if anyone wants to stop and ask questions but i'm going to keep turning slides unless and until somebody asks me to otherwise stop but again at any time if anyone would like me to please let me know this is the relief that we need so based upon our review obviously with Paul Johnson with the planning director and with Malden we believe we need variances from the zoning board in Melrose we believe we need no variances in Malden we believe we need site plan review from the planning board in Melrose we believe we need a special permit in Malden from the conservation commissions in Melrose we need a determination of applicability and John correct me if I'm wrong we already received a negative determination

▶ 1:19:23 That's correct. And then in Malden, we will need an order of conditions. So this is the relief that we will need. The zoning, there are going to be three variances that we're requesting. Madam Chair, Mr. Thorpe, you may recall when I presented to this board about a property at 423 pleasant street we had a pleasant discussion about whether you could use findings instead of variances when it relates to pre-existing non-conformities and we're going to approach that topic again tonight when it comes to minimum open space but as i mentioned in that last meeting on that other project before you we respect paul johnson's opinions as your building inspector and his determination letter seeks three variances we've applied for them in our

▶ 1:20:25 last discussion we talked about how a variance does have a higher standard and when we get to the second item up we can discuss finding versus variance but we're happy to pursue the variance because we know this board has a comfort level in looking at and reviewing variances so So with regard to maximum building height, your maximum is 30, we're proposing 42. Your minimum open space is 20%. We're proposing 12 and a half, that 12 and a half is the blend between Melrose and Malden. We're giving you the combined proposed open space because as I showed you a few slides earlier and I'm happy to go back to it if anyone would like, the majority of the building is in Melrose and the majority of the parking and the open space is in Malden

▶ 1:21:17 because of the way the site lays out. And then we are looking so the required maximum driveway width required is 24 and we're proposing 44. I think conditions that that relate to all three variance requests are that the lot is split by Melrose and Malden and it has abutters in Saugus and Revere which makes the site unique so it's two applicable zoning ordinances which have different requirements and standards and what also makes this site unique is the frontage on the two MassDOT highways and MassDOT also has different regulations and standards than contained within Melrose's bylaw. The unique conditions of the site are not the result of any action taken by the applicant. They relate to the lot as it existed prior to the adoption of

▶ 1:22:22 the zoning ordinances. So looking at the first variance, the first variance we're seeking is for height. Right now on the site the buildings in Melrose are between 15 and 20 feet and in malden they're 15. in melrose your max is 30 malden's is 50. um so you know if we were looking at each site differently you'd have two buildings each with significantly different heights to them what we're proposing is 42 which is uh slightly above the midpoint of the two Excuse me, um, we think that Mel wrote that that a variance is appropriate here, um, for 3 reasons, um. Industry standard, and I'll show it to you in the next slide, um, is a higher than 30 feet for a use that is allowed by right in this district. Um, number 2, the, the, the significant distinction between the 30 feet and the 50 feet.

▶ 1:23:31 on halves of the property that are on the same lot and then we also recognize that this board has previously granted variances for height including but not limited to fw web which is across the street from us we wanted to kind of give you some background information on the height and why the height and when you when you talk about this type of facility which is you know a storage facility you look at clear heights and clear heights are really defined by the interior of the property right now industry standard is a minimum of 32 and trending towards 36. so when you look at creating 32 on the interior you look at the size of the panels that create the walls you add in the depth of the loading dock and you put a slope on the roof

▶ 1:24:27 what you end out is a roof with a height at its highest point of 42 and then obviously in some areas it would be lower than that on average it certainly would be lower than the 42 but we give this to you as a layout of in this industry this is the height that you would need to be able to satisfy 70 percent or more of the potential tenants that would use a building of this sort which isn't allowed use by right in this district so again going through your variance conditions i don't i i'm happy to go through each one line by line we've submitted this to you in writing i don't think i need to but if you would like me to or we'd like to discuss these at the end of the presentation i'll come back to this slide

▶ 1:25:19 Our second variance request is for open space. So I think it's important to note what's existing. And today in Melrose, the existing open space is 0.6% open space. The required is 20. In Malden, it's 7.9. The required is zero. look at the total site the existing open space is 4.6 when you blend based on the square footage in each location and you took it as a combined analysis 9.2 would be required what we're proposing is 7.2 percent in melrose 17 in malden and again as i showed you earlier the majority of the building is in melrose the majority of the open space is in malden and it's a combined total 12 and a half percent open space which is triple roughly triple what's currently existing on the

▶ 1:26:25 property so i think when you look at the existing improvement when you look at the 20 requirement which is much higher than typical of a development of this nature and obviously much higher than malden um i think a variance would be appropriate um i you know i'd also point out that you could if if we saw a special permit as a planned business development under uh 235 section 71 this would qualify we would only need five percent proposed open space despite all that and again so So this is where I'm going to go back to our discussion from the last time I was in front of this board. Section 235.46 actually allows a non-conforming lot or open space on a lot to be continued so long as no further reduction.

▶ 1:27:22 So in this particular instance, not only aren't we reducing it in Melrose, but we're increasing it by almost 36 times. So I feel like a finding that 235.46 is applicable, you could reach that finding and not even need to grant a variance, but, you know, out of respect for Paul's finding in his letter, I would also argue that a variance is appropriate in these circumstances. And again, you know, here's a breakdown of kind of the different calculations. Again, I'm not going to go through the standards for variance. However, happy to come back to the slide and do. So, at the end of the presentation, if you wish. Our third is for maximum driveway with. What I just actually go back to your 2nd variance for a 2nd, just absolutely. So we're talking about the topic of open space and you said that you had neighborhood meetings and I understand that, you know, you're here Melrose, but.

▶ 1:28:27 With some of the, I mean, I would assume that some of the open space that you propose on the model side, was that a result of. Neighborhood meetings, the mall dinner butters. So, let me, let me go back to I'm going to pull the plan back up just so everyone can see. So I'm going to. Okay, here you go. John, you want to take it? Sure thing. I'd be happy to the. the meetings with the neighborhood uh really didn't drive the open space design we were really trying to maximize the open space given the the parking requirements that we're trying to satisfy for both of the cities so the parking requirement melrose is 1.0 per thousand the parking requirement in malden is 1.2 per thousand so what we attempted to do was uh comply as closely as we

▶ 1:29:27 could with the uh the higher standard which was the 1.2 and that was a big driver for that and also snow storage so we're looking to create opportunities for snow storage that was also driving some of the open space design so we're really trying to do our best to create that open space um but the neighborhood uh meetings wasn't a topic that really came up as you can kind of see there isn't much uh there certainly isn't much in terms of uh butters that are uh you know expecting all that much open space on this particular site given the use today and and the surrounding area um but uh but but yeah so we we've uh we've had those conversations and there wasn't really much said about open space at those meetings um what was that what what so

▶ 1:30:23 the 107 parking spaces that are being provided that's based on a 1.2 one per thousand i you've done the calculation we didn't quite get there we did our best what we did was we ended up doing the 1.2 uh and applying it to the malden the space portion it's in malden exactly the portion and And then we tried to do the 1.0 and Melrose, and we tried to balance it out, but we didn't, you know, we didn't quite get there. But as you can imagine, trying to satisfy the 2 zoning codes is kind of the challenge. So, so how by by if we, if we looked at if we looked at those. How many parking spaces by right? Would you need if you assume the 1.2? What does it. Come out to me. I'm sorry. I was not going to do the math, but I could figure it out. I suppose. But are you deficient? I guess where I'm going from here is.

▶ 1:31:17 What's driving the parking is it zoning or is it use need. 107 parking spaces zoning. Primarily zoning. Yeah. And then there is, I mean, there is. There is, we don't anticipate there being 107. Workers on site here every day, but there's a, you know, if we. Yeah, so that's that's that's where we are with that part of our, but at the same time, we don't have a tenant today. So we're trying not to limit the flexibility of what the needs might end up being. So. And Mr throw up, you asked what the total number would be if it was 102 for 1.2 for everything it would be 113. Okay, totally. I knew it was close. Yeah. Yeah. This is a chair chair. If I could also just go back to your open space question. Part of the site in Malden includes existing open space on this plan here to the south is a drainage dish that's

▶ 1:32:18 vegetated and open and we are preserving that. It's a regulated resource area. That's why we're in front of the Malden Conservation Commission and that's a source of a buffer to the residents on the other side of that as well. that one space actually exists and we're going to be maintaining that and enhancing it can you see when i move my my mouse over can you see that well can you only see my screen we can only see your screen yep okay talking about though he's talking about that area up and then against the the resident little residential pocket in that room yeah if you if you were on route one at the number one and you can sliding away from it across the site it's that it's that that swath of green

▶ 1:33:09 yep okay sorry that i interrupted you you can go ahead i was just going to say madam chair do you want me to go back to variance three now okay yes um so i'm gonna zip ahead to variance number three and that is maximum driveway width uh on the route 99 side it is currently 267 feet that is the entire length is an open curb cut. Required is 24, we're proposing 44. The reason we believe a variance is appropriate is it's a state road and the DOT, the driveway width under DOT is greater than 24. We're looking at the existing site and neighborhood conditions, we're looking at neighboring sites, and we're doing truck turning analysis for the buy right use and looking at related safety considerations. So the DET for this use requires

▶ 1:34:15 40 feet and when we look at some of the surrounding properties, the garden remedies is 48, FW web is 32.8 on one side, 36 on the other, and again right now ours is the full 267. we would be reducing it to 44. i could go through the variance standards again but i think at this point i think the board knows what they are and i'm happy to to read them but i don't feel like i need to unless you ask me to um and and so with that i'll stop sharing my screen if you'd like and then we can come back and answer questions that the board or uh citizens have do board members have any questions for the applicant at this time before i take the screen down um if you want to let me know or is it good to just come back to a viewing screen of of uh speakers do

▶ 1:35:17 board members have any preference uh i don't have a preference um it might be helpful to have the drawings um so i have a couple of questions um how what's where is the um Where are the mechanical systems for the building? Is it rooftop equipment? The design is, the intent is for it to be rooftop equipment. As I mentioned before, we do not currently have a tenant, so we haven't gone through the full mechanical design at this point, but the intent would be, yes, it would be on the roof. Any idea about the height of that? We have not gotten into that conversation just yet. So I don't have an answer for that. We can. Yeah, so, okay. Any other questions from board members? Okay. Um, can we I'm sorry can we go back and look at the section again?

▶ 1:36:28 Yeah, which which slide just I guess the wall section to to look at building nights for a 2nd. Sure. Absolutely. This 1, there's a little lag. Hang on. Yeah, that's good. Oh, actually, you know what it's the 1 before that, or the 1 after that where you showed there you go. Okay, so we're 40 foot at 40 feet at the top of the panel in this in this. And you're saying there's an additional couple of feet. Is that what you're looking at? So 39 I can walk in for Brian. Thank you. Yeah, sure. It's there's definitely kind of a lot too, which is why we want to include the drawing. So the, the base elevation Brian starts with, uh, the the uh taking the average height uh around the the footprint of the building uh and taking

▶ 1:37:27 that as our starting point as our base elevation and so there's a large influence of that four foot deep loading dock over the course of that average uh which is why you don't see 42 feet on this drawing and then you have a 36 foot high building face from the finished floor level on the south side of the building which is on the right side of the drawing here on the left side of the drawing you see 39 foot high panel and a two percent slope from the left to the right side of the building from the north to the south side of the building and so by taking that 39 foot high panel from that finished floor level adding uh about uh two and a half feet uh because of the change in elevation really largely in part because of that four foot deep loading dock you end up with a 41 and a half

▶ 1:38:20 foot uh high building which is where we ended up with a 42 foot request okay great thank you sure and your it looks like you're carving out the loading dock basically you've got retaining walls at either side of the truck phase that's right there are some retaining walls there too create that yep any other questions why don't i read some letters that we have at this time i'll ask any members of the public if you would like to speak during this public hearing portion please obtain our attention either using the chat feature to let us know that you'd like to speak you can also raise your hand use the raise your hand feature via webex or you can email us i'll first read a letter i have here from the planning board dated june 4th

▶ 1:39:26 the planning board reviewed the above reference case at this regular meeting held on monday may 24th to make a recommendation to you based on the application materials provided information regarding the proposal and zoning data is in the attached table the planning board recommended seeking additional information on why the 30 the 30 foot building height dimension could not be accommodated members were not necessarily opposed to the proposed height however there was no justification to the in the application materials for the need for the variance the board had no objection to the entrance driveway variance although large the driveway seems reasonable to allow trucks to enter and not have to cross into the travel lane of oncoming

▶ 1:40:06 traffic a crosswalk will be installed across the driveway for pedestrian safety members recommended denying the open space variance there appears to be an excessive number of parking spaces and reducing the number of spaces would free up space for more landscaping on the site to satisfy the open space requirement the planning board recently received a site plan approval application for this proposal and will be heard at the june meeting we request that the board of appeals take this recommendation into consideration along with the information provided by the applicant and the abutters at the public hearing in making the determination on this case. We also have a memo from the Department of Public Works dated June 4th. I'll read it because it's actually

▶ 1:40:53 really short so I can't say that it is a standard letter. It says, please be advised that the Public Works Department has reviewed the above reference case and offers the following comments relative to the project for your consideration one information provider reflects a request for the demolition of an existing motel of construction of a new warehouse facility two both water and sewer utilities appear to be on the malden side of the property three utility markouts should be requested prior to the construction of the warehouse that may be approved laurie i believe you stated that we did receive some letters or related to this i have one letter would you like Let me read it now. Yes, please here's the VA members. I'm ready to express my general support for the proposed develop redevelopment of the town line. And as a city counselor for word 6, which contains this parcel.

▶ 1:41:46 I am thrilled to see this property poised for commercial redevelopment. The developers have proactively engaged with elected officials and residents of both Melrose and Malden regarding their plans and have sought and incorporated feedback. I believe that this project will be an asset in the ward and in our city. I know that this project is before you for consideration and that there are likely many questions that still need to be answered. I encourage you to seek the answers you need and to continue to use your individual and collective experience to make the best decisions for our shared community. I deeply appreciate your service to our city and I'm grateful to you all for lending your skills and your time to the ZBA.

▶ 1:42:25 Thank you, Jen Gregor, I this word 6 counselor. Thank you I did not see anybody get our attention on the chat feature. Nor did I see anyone on the attendee list. You there have do you see anyone else or via email? Laurie, Madam chair, would you like me to address the planning boards? 3 points? Yes, go ahead. So, on on the driveway variance, obviously they, they had no objection. On the height, they were looking for our justification that we had just not yet submitted them. The materials that that Mr. Pugh went through with Mr. Thorpe. Earlier this evening, but in the meantime, we have submitted those materials. To your office, and they've been circulated to the planning board so that they should have the materials that show the justification.

▶ 1:43:37 And then, lastly, you know, with Billy, the open space and again, I, I would respectfully disagree with the planning board because the existing is 0.6 because section 23546 allows you to continue pre existing non conformities. I think you have planned business development that if we sought a special permit, we could go down to 5%. And then lastly, I feel as though, when you blend both the mall and and the Melrose site together and come up with a combined 12.5% open space. It does meet at least the spirit and intent, if not the exact language of the bylaw, and that's precipitated by the fact that you have this site that's half in Melrose and half in Malden and based upon the characteristics of the land,

▶ 1:44:29 the soil, the topography, conservation related issues, the building is more appropriately placed on the Melrose side, Which obviously has some benefits to Melrose as being the permitting authority on the project, and the open space ends up being more on the Malden side of the property. So, I do believe for those reasons, not only do I think a variance is appropriate, but I actually feel like you could reach a finding under 23546 and wouldn't even need to reach the higher variance standard. Can I ask a question? Yeah. Can you can you, um, say what you're what the 5% relates to? I didn't catch that. Sure, under your, if you look at section 235, section 71 of your bylaw for planned development sites, and this site would qualify as a planned development site, we could seek a special permit for a planned development.

▶ 1:45:37 And if we did that, everything else we have would qualify and a plan development would allow us to go down to 5% open space. For an industrial use praying for that. That's a totally different. Section of the ordinance, but my, my, my point is that within a BB district, you could do an industrial project. At 5% open space via a special permit special to get the special permit. Yeah. Right exactly. Okay. Do board members have any other questions? I have 1 other question and it's somewhat it's somewhat related to open. The open side area. The, um, so at the backside where it makes its angle in the corner there, you've not got a few dimensions noted there. 136 feet is tagged in a couple of locations.

▶ 1:46:47 Can you talk a little bit about the. Turning, I guess I'm trying to understand why. You need to dip back to 100 or why you need 144 feet versus. 136 feet just for in terms of maneuverability. You know, I'd love to see a little bit more green on this plan if there was any way I certainly. Stand with the constraints are, but I'd be curious to know about. That backside where the, where the trucks, where the. Loading docs are in terms of clearances. Are you talking about queuing trucks along there? I'm just wondering why that extra dimension in that area. I would defer to our civil engineer, Jordan Lafredo on that. She's run a series of truck turns and analysis. Jordan, would you mind speaking to that briefly?

▶ 1:47:42 Sure, good evening, everyone. Hi, my name is Jordan Lafredo. I am the civil engineer on the project and I'm with Lang in engineering. So I'm happy to answer your questions. So for the loading dock purposes, the truck turning movements that we did, we have tried to reduce as much of the pavement space at the back lot, but do need that to complete the turning movements in order to access all of the loading docks. There could be some queuing, but really that configuration is so they can complete it within the pavement. So is the 135 feet, it's noted where you have interior loading areas, Is that the minimum that you've plotted out? I'm just curious. I mean, obviously, I don't have the drawings to look at, but...

▶ 1:48:39 Sure. I think, are you talking about that small section, the dip that I think... Yeah. Right. Yeah. So, we are using that for some of the... That's where you kind of increase the dimension there, and if 135 or 136 is the critical dimension, I'm just wondering why you pushed it back further there. I mean, I understand there's an existing drainage that's ditched there and is the intent that you make no, is that to be left as is, as part of the, or is that what you're speculating since that goes before mold and concom, is that right? Yeah, typically we try to provide at least 140 feet for that space for turning movements. And in this case, we're actually have less, so it's a tighter turning movement.

▶ 1:49:26 So we're trying to use as much as we can within that small area and so have extended it as much as we could to meet, um, typical requirements of these type of in this, uh, industrial. Buildings and you're putting a fence along that and along that. Side right or retaining wall yes, there is some great change that we need to make up for that loading dock for the 4 foot drop. So, we do the retaining wall and then there is a fence that will serve as screening for the butters. Okay. So it's retaining wall and fence on top. Okay. Yep. Yeah, Mr. Phil again, from laying in the edge of the bank of that ditch, which is actually the edge of the resource area is right. It's that it's that edge. So, are you building that wall right along the edge of the resource area or is that already close? It's close. It is close, but we are not in. We are not building the wall on the resource area.

▶ 1:50:26 We do have a couple drainage outlets that will impact that. And so we have gone in front of conservation commission for those outlet locations and they are aware of that. But what we've done is try to reduce as much of our impact to the bank resource area itself. Okay, and those, thank you for those answers. No problem, Laurie, I just want to follow up. There aren't any other members of the public that you see that need to speak. I didn't see anyone new and. No, I'm not seeing anyone else either. Okay. Thank you. Do board members have any other further questions for the applicant? Okay, uh, counselor, do you want to add anything before I close a public hearing and we start deliberating? No, thank you. Madam chair. I think you were good.

▶ 1:51:29 All right, thank you so much. Thank you. Right board members what what do we think about. Well, we can, we can start with some of the variants and we can separate out the issues a little bit. Um. Let's start with the. I'm going to start with the easy 1, the driveway. Okay, yeah, let's start with 1. that's the easiest 1. I mean, that I just don't see that as an issue. Yeah, it's a severe reduction of what's already there. So. Yeah, and I think you're going to, they're going to be required. We, we can't. On that road, I think that's really problematic. So, I think the 44 foot dimension is being provided as reasonable for this kind of facility. So, I just don't, I don't think that's much of an issue.

▶ 1:52:31 So, I chose right when I said, I think this is going to be the easiest one. Well, that was it. I thought, I think that's the easiest one, but that's just me. I was hoping that was the hardest one. I'm sure you were. I'm sure you were. Um, so the next 1 is a building height. Yeah, you know, I, I think there's a, there's a case, um, you know, based on the information that we've seen here. Um, I know that that you're kind of working up from the minimum heights that you need to. It within the industry, the thing that's a little odd is that we, you know, we're. So, this building's being built without. Without a tenant or secured with that tenant. And I am a little concerned about the. I have some of the mechanical equipment and what that will do to this. I mean, I understand in general, I don't have an issue really with the 40 foot height.

▶ 1:53:34 Per se, but. I'm a little concerned about not knowing what that penthouse is even and I understand that's something that could be addressed. I would think that would be addressed under site plan approval. Through the planning board is that is that right? They will consider the utilities and the penthouse. okay okay that makes me feel better i mean there are solutions it can be pushed back so no one really sees it and and i i don't think it's a deal breaker but if i was somebody's going to put a big cooling tower on here i think i'd have some issues with that but these are probably package units that are just dropped straight on the roof they're probably no more than maybe six feet tall if you're putting them on dunnage maybe a little taller but um again i think how the heights

▶ 1:54:32 calculated it's consistent with the area i don't see it really being out of context from a from a building height perspective that specific location and i mean this is where we're starting to get into like the the uniqueness of that this is a piece of property that lies in two jurisdictions Malden and Melrose. And, you know, when you look at our standards and Malden's standards, you know, Malden's is 50, Melrose is 30, and they're kind of, like, right in the middle. So, and, you know, we have FW Web, too, that they cited, too, like, that are higher in the area. I'm pinning on FW Web in terms of kind of context and relative heights. But, I mean, I mean, I know we looked at that. I know we talked about that at the time,

▶ 1:55:24 but that's the nature of warehousing in terms of, I mean, that's how you gain for that use, which is allowable here. I think the 30 foot is from, this is a unique site, given where it is between 99 and Route 1, I think. If there is any place where we could relieve the height limitations in the zoning ordinance, it would be here. I'd have much more difficulty looking at exceeding the height limits in other areas in Melrose. Agreed. Any other thoughts on the building? I was just going to say I agree with that also. Clearly, this is a really unique site that it is split between malden and melrose and also that it abuts to other towns as well um and i think with this we've done a really great job of kind of um hitting a compromise between malden and melrose

▶ 1:56:26 and what's required there so i really don't have a have a problem with this one any other comments on building height just that this is the uh you know a part of the city where that building height can be easily justified and the applicants have shown that it's necessary and um i'm fine with it yeah they've done their due diligence in terms of context and also the necessity for higher than 30 feet okay now to open space yeah i i mean put it this way i acknowledge the the idea of findings and i know that we've we've talked about this before but um the mechanism that the city has used and and the building inspector is has been the variance standard so i appreciate that their council has acknowledged that that has been the building inspector's stance in previous

▶ 1:57:35 applications so um i i personally would rather view it as a variance but of course all of you can can tell us your comments and thoughts on that as you talk about this particular request for a variance. So, who would like to go first? I can go a little bit. How about this? I think that it's so difficult when people comply or do their best to comply with our parking requirements, right? And I think that's what always…so, there's that aspect of it, right? providing 107 spaces and it's a great compromise between the parking requirements that are required for the size building. The other aspect of it is they are making a good faith effort to actually improve the current state of open space that's currently on the site.

▶ 1:58:34 So I definitely appreciate that. So and that's where and that's where I am. What do others think? Um, I, I mean, I get it and, um. Now, as I'm just looking at the plants, I'm wondering, I mean, even if we're talking about. Um, I just wish I just wish we could get a little bit more green space on the site. I really do. You know, it's a, I get that you're not worsening the condition in terms of impervious soil. In fact, they're probably I'm sure that the. Drainage systems as was noted are going to be vastly superior to what's out there. Now, I would anticipate that that's all going to be covered in site plan approval. I just don't know what the magic they're building right there. They're building right to the very there. I mean, the building footprint is is is bound. It's, um.

▶ 1:59:54 You know, it might be bigger if there wasn't if you, if you had less parking, I'm not sure you would get more green space. It looks to me like you'd get more building just in terms of how just in terms of the approach. That's not. That's no editorialization, but that is just that that's, I mean, we're, we're, they're pushing the boundary of the building to its maximum to to and then when the parking's in place. What's left over is what we're getting for green space. The, the green space, you know, the majority of the green spaces is really kind of within within required setbacks or vehicle access. So, I'm assuming you're counting are you counting the emergency? I think you're counting that strip of emergency access.

▶ 2:00:46 As open space on this plan, right? So, if they'll look at, no, you're not. No. Okay, yeah, I need that other green. I can pull it up. I just, I mean, I'm not sure what I'm not sure what to do about it. I get I get what they're doing here and it's an improvement over what we have. I wish there was a little bit more of a buffer. That's all. But I'm not, I'd be curious to hear what other people think. Any thoughts? I don't know. I mean, considering just considering where this location is and what it is now. You know, that has to be taken into consideration. Okay, I mean, I'm not, I'm just, I raised it, but I'm not, I'm not going to fall on a sword over it. I mean, it's, it's. I, that's why I say it with some pause, because I do understand the location, Curt, and part of me is saying exactly what you're saying, you know.

▶ 2:02:18 I mean, I, you know, we always want more green space right to the extent that we can. And then they made a reasonable, I mean, I have to say, like, at least they, they could have done 0 and say, like, we're keeping it the same way that it is now. And there is. I mean, I'm looking at, like, their variance number 2, and they're taking the average of open space requirements from the adjacent. The adjacent communities that butts and I'm like, okay, so the average is 8%, right? So that makes you feel that's backwards calculation to justify what you've got. But, but that's fine. Yes, I mean, there's a case being presented there and a way to in a way to describe it that I think does show an effort and a reasonable accommodation that, but.

▶ 2:03:07 But, yeah, we know how it, we know how to put that number. I mean, if the line was a little bit the other way, wouldn't Maldon's then take it? I mean, that's why I'm like, it's so close between right. Maldon and Melrose that if we just went like, 20 feet 1 way in the Maldon line and Maldon's ordinance would have taken precedent and that's and that's why I'm like, I can almost justify the uniqueness based just on that. Yeah, what was there was Malden had no open space requirement. 0, that's what I was going to say. I think, you know, it really just shows the uniqueness of this lot. Like, yeah, Malden has none. We have 20%. You look just at the Malden side and we're getting 17%. So we're looking close to the 20 anyways.

▶ 2:03:55 And, you know, again, it's one of those things where, of course, we always want more open space, but looking at this in the effort that's been made. And the uniqueness of the law again, I don't have a problem with this 1. yep. Any other thoughts. Okay, are we ready to vote? I think so. Okay, I'm going to start off with the same order that we considered it. Um, with the respect to the requests. For a variance of section 23541 L. For the entrance exit driveway with all those in favor of granting all those in favor or opposed please. Indicate the roll call vote related to the entrance and exit driveway with Brian thought. Yes, Kurt dueling. Yes. Julianna Hanlon? Yes. Megan Carrier? Yes. Rita Mercado is a yes.

▶ 2:05:02 That variance has been granted. With respect to the request for a variance from Section 235, Section 18. Is it 18 for height? 18 and 19, it's 18 and 9. Okay, so respect to the manager lead to building height. By roll call about Brian Thorpe. Yes, Kurt doing yes. Julie on a handling Megan carrier. Yes. And the meter Mercado is a yes, that variance related to building height has been granted. With respect to the request for variance under sections 235, 18 and 19 of the zoning ordinance with respect to open space. By roll call vote, Brian Thorpe. Yes, correct dueling. Yes, Juliana Hamlin yes. Megan carrier yes, and Rita Mercado is a yes that variance has been granted. So, your variances have been granted, we good luck with site plan review and your other list of boards that you still need to confront. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

▶ 2:06:31 Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Okay, in terms of other business tonight, um. It's the approval of the meeting minutes from our May 12, 2021 hearing. Do I have a motion. To approve, I move to approve the meeting minutes as presented. Do I have a 2nd, I'll 2nd, there you go. All right. All right. All right. My role call about Julia. There you won't vote on this 1. Megan carrier. Yes, sir dueling. Yes. Brian Thorpe yes, and Rita Mercado is a yes. So the meeting minutes have been approved as written. and our next meeting thank you for responding to laurie will be on july 7th yeah laurie i'm so sorry i read your email and then i was like i need to reply and then

Original documents

• Minutes (CivicClerk PDF)
• Bulletin (IQM2 PDF)
• Minutes packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Agenda packet (CivicClerk PDF)
• Other (CivicClerk PDF)
• This meeting on the city portal