Good evening. This is the zoning board of appeals. I'm going to start by doing the roll call. Joan Cromwell >> here, >> Yugo Ber Perdomo, >> Joseph Mahoney >> here, >> Marilyn Vega
>> here, >> Janice Tatara, and we'll be joined later by Arthur Arsenalt. Um, we're going first, we have a little business to take care of. Have people had the opportunity to read the draft minutes from the last two meetings? They were made available to us. Do we have any Let's start with
the one. What's What's this from October? Does anybody have any comments or suggested changes to the October meet October minutes? If not, do I have a motion to approve them? >> I make a motion to approve them. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> Um, and also the any comments or suggested changes to the draft minutes from November's meeting. >> There being none, do I have a motion to approve those? >> Make a motion to approve them. >> All in favor? I
>> I >> Okay, now we're going to move on to our cases. The first case in front of us is 2025-17124126 Pearl Street Wang Gaygo and Ever Savala trustees of GZ Realy Trust for special permit and variant seeking approval for the conversion of an existing
residential space on the third floor for special per uh for one residential unit to two residential units with first floor and second floor space remaining commercial which does not meet the minimum requirements for rear yard setback, usable open space and off- streetet parking. I'm going to say just
one thing please. That's right now we have only two. We have a stand uh a non-moving mic if you will right in front of you. So please use that one but or the other one if you are traveling and need to speak please pick up the mic over there. So please um I know John
this is has this already been to the planning board? >> It has and the planning board has uh recommended approval. uh uh at the request of the planning board, the applicant has made some changes to the plans which I'm sure he will >> Can you please share with us the changes that you've proposed?
>> Yes. Uh just as a formality, David Mlin representing the petitioners, Juan Ggo is here. >> So either talk into it, but um yeah. >> Um so originally when we had filed the petition um petitioners were looking at the two
commercial units. David, David, want maybe speak into the microphone over there. That might be easier. >> Thank you. >> So, the petitioners were looking at um 12 units. Uh one each floor was going to
have a studio, uh one bedroom, excuse me, and three onebedrooms. So, it was four units per second, third, and fourth floor. and then the two commercial units on the ground floor. Um after meeting with the planning board
and this board and um the historical commission um the petitioners have changed or modified the plans and they're now looking at again the two commercial rent retail units on the
ground floor. um and two onebedrooms and one twobedroom on each floor for a total of nine units. So there'd be three on each floor. Um one of the suggestions from the planning board was that the
unit or it may have been this board that the units were too small so they added the two bedroomedroom units. Um they also redrrew the plans to include a center entrance and hallway on the ground floor to make it more functional.
Um [clears throat and cough] again provided the larger units. Um addressed window placement and consideration of the abuts. um provided a roof plan and after we met with the
historical commission um paid special attention to the exterior finishes um the materials that were going to be used. So now we're looking at nine unit nine residential units and two
commercial units. Then the basement will have um laundry facilities, um storage, and that's basically it. >> Um do you have any questions before I open it again to the public?
>> We are continuing this from uh the previous hearing. This is the public partition the public participation portion is still open. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this matter? There being none, I'm going to close the
public hearing portion of this and we are going to John. Does the department have a recommendation or comment? Push your button. >> Thank you. Uh the planning department recommends approval as uh amended uh
with standing conditions as applicable. Uh petition to submit a lighting plan with all lights compliant with uh international doc association standards, roing control plan, waste management plan and construction management plan. Uh petition install white roof. Uh petitioner shall not be permitted to
place or use grills, gas grills or umbrellas on the roof deck. Uh prior to issuance of building permit, the petitioner must participate in design review with the department permitting land use planning with consideration comments from the Chelsea Historical Commission and occupants will be ineligible to participate in the city's on street parking sticker program. So
before we get to the particulars of the variances and special permit requirements, are you comfortable with those recommendations? >> Yes. >> Could you get a little closer to the Could you acknowledge that please? >> Yes, we are. >> Thank you. Um so we have again we have we are looking at a variance for minimum
yard setback um t minimum rear yard setback and minimum usable open space. And can we see the requirements for the so again to to to clarify the diff we
have when it comes to the variances we ask the petitioner and they have to answer they have to respond to each of the questions and we have to find that they're in compliance with all of them. When we talk about the the special permit, that's a separate discussion that we have where we will find that
they are more likely than not met the conditions of what's require what's required for a special permit, but that's a little slightly different discussion. But let's begin with the variance. So the variance is sought because of soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structure and
especially affecting such land or structure but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. >> Okay. So, excuse me. The building sits on the lot line in the front and is bounded by passageways to the right and
to the rear. Um, passageway at the rear is common and must remain open. That one runs toward Congress Avenue. The one to the right is owned by the petitioner but has been closed off in cooperation with the butter, which is a small restaurant
next door. that was done by Kershaw, the prior owner. Um, >> so you're not proposing any changes to the structure of the building. You're you're just building on up on what's there. >> So, no changes to the footprint. Um, and
these factors limit the buildable area to the existing footprint except for a small apron in the rear, which really isn't enough to provide parking. Um, there's no other additional space available for setbacks. space and makes
it very difficult to develop. Um, in particular, if if they provide for increased setbacks even on the upper stories, it'll result in units which are just not practical and are too narrow. Um,
>> okay. Do do we thoughts on that one? >> Joan, you go. >> Joe, >> yes. >> Marilyn, yes. And Janice says, "Yes." Okay. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve
a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or applicant. Okay. So, this site, as I'm sure you're familiar, and I believe we mentioned in our petition, is the former Kershaw paint and wallpaper building. Then it
became home decor for a short time after Kers sold. Um, right now the site is currently It's vacant at the moment, but it's currently underperforming as a single commercial retail unit and the
building is just old and tired and really is in dire need of an upgrade and repair just to keep it up to code. um petitioner wouldn't be able to construct or extend the or alter the pre-existing nonconforming use of structure except by
building up and in conformity with the restriction of the dimensional regulations. So it would really effectively prevent much needed improvement of the lot to create a hardship financial and otherwise for the petition. >> Joan
Hugo. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. And yes for me desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. >> So there'll be really be no adverse impact to the neighborhood. The
construction of nine much united needed residential units will serve to benefit the public good site is adequately served by existing utilities and public services and to petitioners knowledge. I believe there are plans to upgrade the
infrastructure in that area. Um, public transportation is readily available both immediately adjacent to the building with the bus stop and within reasonable distance. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Yes. Um, desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent or purpose of this chapter. >> So, this project is in the retail business zone which whose purpose is to provide downtown area with a range of
business sales and services which generally constitute a central business district with the aim of promoting promoting enhanced commercial identity, pedestrian activity. Um mixed use has been favored in these areas. The
immediate the um butter to the left is a fourstory mixeduse building at this point and the proposed structure would not out of character for the neighborhood. It would fit in very nicely
expand the number of retail spaces and make the most appropriate use of the lot. >> You go. >> Yes. >> Joe, >> yes. >> Marilyn, >> yes. >> That's a yes with me. So, you've met those detail criteria. Now, let's have a
discussion about the special permit criteria. So, I think there is certain there's certain words there that I think we have to take into consideration. Um yeah that the benefit to the city and
the neighborhood outweigh the ass so the adverse effects of the proposed use take into account the characteristics of the site in the proposal. So when we're talking about those are the things we keep in mind as with unlike the plan as I said unlike the variances we don't
have to meet each of the criteria here but we have to find that well yes we should find that in fact they meet at least majority of them >> so let's but we should we have to discuss each of them separately and so it will be a discussion. So the first
one is social economic or community needs which are served by the proposal. What are our thoughts on this? So this is for us to discuss not them. >> Okay. [clears throat] No, I think there's a great need in the city for
housing and I think based on the size and all I think it would be very beneficial. >> Do we agree that that that Joe's comment >> and as well put your button up.
>> There you go. Um in terms of the economic um development um it's absolutely beneficial to the community with the two additional um storefronts to the bottom level. So I agree. >> So do we all do we agree that they've
met this first criteria? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. Traffic flow and safety including parking and loading. I'm not you know thought I mean I don't I'm not sure that there's been a lot of discussion about the traffic flow. We do know that
there's a proposed changes in this area that are coming up. Do we feel that this addition will create any undue burden in that area with regard to parking or I mean traffic flow or
>> I would tend to think that the [clears throat] participants uh might not have automobiles and the fact that the business community is right there uh would be a criteria
for uh about having need for an automobile. >> I think it would be okay. >> Thoughts? >> Any other thoughts on that one? Or do we agree that you know that's in looking at that consideration that it is not more
detrimental to the community? >> I don't think it is. I don't think it is. I mean, there's in the past there's been a business there where you know traffic has come and and you know has flowed. throughout for many years, you know. So, I don't think it's going to be
an issue. And with the traffic plan, the new traffic plan that's coming along in the near future, I don't foresee it being an issue. Residents not having parking there. >> Everyone commutes or Ubers these days.
>> I agree. >> Okay, great. So, again, we're looking at sort of a is it, you know, when we're on balance, is it is it, >> you know, on the positive higher than the negative sign if there's any adequacy of utilities and other public services.
>> I don't think that that's an issue. >> No, I mean it's a pretty it's a busy area now and they have what they have. >> Are we Yes. >> Yes. >> Um neighborhood character and social structures.
>> Do we think it's in keeping with the neighborhood? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> You go. >> Yes. Okay. Me, too. >> Um, impacts on the natural environment, including drainage. >> I don't think it's going to have much. I mean, there's to be honest, there's not
a whole lot of natural environment there. >> Agreed. >> So, it's not going to have a ne it's not going to have a greater impact than what's there already. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Okay. We all agree in that? >> Yes. And um the last one we have to consider is a potential fiscal impact
including impacts on city services tax base and employment. >> I don't do you see it as a big hit on services and it will have a you know a tax benefit to some extent >> as well as employment. >> And yeah
>> okay so I think that we feel we've met the criteria for the special permit. Um, that being said, do we have um interest in voting on this? >> Yes. >> What would be Do we have a motion? >> I make a motion that case number 202517
124 126 Pearl Street be approved with the conditions as outlined >> as articulated by John. >> Yes. >> Do we have a second? >> A second. >> All in favor? There you go. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Now we need to be joined again by Mr.
Arsenal. Where is he? Outside. So Joe and on the next case, neither Joe nor Joan is going to be voting. So this one will be Janice Arthur Hugo. >> Let the record show that we've been joined by Arthur Ross.
The next case in front of us is 2025-9 403-405 Broadway New Properties LLC. Special permit and variance seeking approval for the conversion of an existing residential space on the third floor from one residential unit to two residential units with first floor and
second floor space remaining commercial which does not meet the minimum requirements for a year re year setback usable open space and off street parking. This also went to the planning board at our last meeting. John, what did they have to say? >> Um planning board recommended approval
with conditions. >> Okay. Um any Has has the has those have those conditions been shared with the petitioner? >> Uh they were discussed at the committee would meeting. >> Okay. Um do you want to update us on any changes that you may have? Please
introduce yourselves but then tell us if you've made any proposed changes to our last meeting. >> Yes, please. James Cipto. I'm attorney for the uh the appellant and the applicant. Uh with me is David Choy who is the architect. As the uh the chair and and the members may recall, we were
here initially a few months ago and then we went to the planning board and uh we presented our case to the planning board. The planning board had some recommended changes which if u allowed uh Mr. Choy would be able to
describe those. They weren't overly burdensome, but they were the planning board members were sort of concerned about the amount of space in the uh proposed extended portion of the restaurant on the second floor which would be used as a function hall that
there would not be enough storage. So they wanted us to reconfigure some of that and David did that. Uh secondly, there was some u talk about reconfiguring some of the uh division of that one u large apartment in the rear
into two by making some internal changes. Now there are no external changes at all being proposed to the either the uh the building or or or the use. Um while we were at the uh planning board stage, we also visited the
historical commission. Uh David attended as did the clients and they received a very warm welcome and were uh pleased with with the outcome and whatever the historical uh people had told them that they needed
to do changes are are included in in the updated plan. Uh when we went back to the uh planning board after having uh received their suggestions and made the amendments to the plan, we presented it to them. um
they voted unanimously to recommend with conditions. The conditions were enunciated to us. We discussed them with the client. The clients uh uh in full accord uh with those conditions and willing to make those those changes and
u and upgrades if you will. So uh with that uh if there are any questions on uh the plan which has been slightly modified uh from the last time that the board of appeals has seen it um maybe Mr. Joy can walk you through that. >> Yes, we'd like you to do that. So, if
you could tell us [clears throat] >> David Troy, architect for the proponent. Um, so this is the second floor where we're proposing to have the addition in the back above the existing kitchen. The biggest comments that came
out of the planning board was that they wanted to have storage space. Again, the second floor is an extension of the restaurant, correct? >> Yes, exactly. Second floor party function area. >> Function area. Yep. Um they wanted to make sure that there is a storage for
foldable furniture used only for during the functions so that it's not a permanent restaurant seating. So that was implemented in this design. Um no changes to the back. If you go to the next page,
Um the biggest well the modifications that happened was that um the planning board felt that the unit in the front was too small. They wanted to make sure that it's 600 ft minimum for a two-bedroom and as many light as you could get into
that unit. Um, the planning board also had issues with the the rare unit being over 1,000 square feet and too too big at the same time having the bedroom too small. So,
we balanced that by reducing the size to 900 ft but enlarging the bedrooms in the back so that they're more they're not just closet spaces 10 by >> Did you open did you um make the front off the front apartment bigger? Yes. >> By how much?
>> By 60 square feet. >> So it's 660 now. Is that what >> Well, 600 600 in the front and 900 in the back. >> Okay. >> So, yep. >> Um again, the back the if you go to the next page, you could see the
recommendations that the historic commission had made. So, one of the conditions would be that we would the owner would have to hire an artist for the mural because this is division street is actually there's a mural
program. Um, that's one of the conditions that the proponent the owner is willing to u abide by. So, what so this mural would could be replaced or extended or or beautified. So that's we left it as a blank blank slate for the
moment. The other recommendation was to um emulate the balcony design that's here onto a sort of a guard rail. Not not for deck, not for any functional deck, but just for decorative purposes.
>> Okay. So I was going to ask, you're not creating a roof deck up there. >> There's no roof deck >> aesthetics. >> Exactly. Um, and it's actually uh it's just just to create that decorative almost widow's walk of balcony on on on top of the roof so that it's not just a
flat roof. So that would the owner agreed to that. Um they wanted to see more activities in the in the function hall, larger windows. Um perhaps more perhaps more greenery inside or however
that that is activated for people to view inside. So those are the three major recommendations from the historic commission which were implemented into the design. So um again we met with the planning board twice and historic
commission once and all the the plans were were adjusted according um to the to the wishes of those two boards. So >> do we have any questions before I open it to the public? >> Okay, there being none, um is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this
matter? >> Okay, I'm going to close the public participation portion of this hearing. John, what would Recommendations of the planning department. >> Planning department recommended approval with standing conditions as applicable. Uh petition must submit the following
plans. Lighting plan with all lights complying with international doc association standards. Road and control plan. Waste management plan. Construction management plan. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the petition must participate in the design review with the department of planning and land use planning. Department of permitting and land use planning.
consideration of comments from the Chelsea Historical Commission due due to its location of Bellingham Square Historic District and occupants of the two-bedroom unit will be ineligible to participate on street parking program and then as uh the architect said uh u
condition relative to the mural. >> Okay. The mural I want to make sure that was in there. Okay. >> Can I ask a couple questions? John, has there has there been any discussion in regards to like um hours of operation for the um the room the second floor
where the um function hall is going to happen? Has there been any like discussion about hours of operation? >> We have to reopen the public. >> Would we have to Oh, okay. I'm sorry. >> No, no, >> it just came to mind after you was >> Yeah. Hours of operation. I'm only
thinking because there's residential on the third floor. there's residential abuing on both sides. So, if there's going to be an activity there that's going to be happening regularly, you know, we should maybe perhaps put um a limit on hours of operation
>> if we can. >> I have I've not heard any discussion relative to the hours. Um I don't know if the licensing board has limited put limitations on the hours or not. >> Uh not to my knowledge, sir. I I know that uh it's operating as a small
function uh room now and um I don't think there have I know that the license commission has not taken any action against them for uh amendment of ours or any anything to that. >> Would it operate at the same times as the restaurant? >> Same time as the restaurant downstairs.
And the other thing is um like a exit plan in the event that the fire alarms go off. You know, like an exit plan since there's functions that are happening there, there's people that are living in the building at the same time. In the event that there is an emergency,
is there some form of um emergency exit plan for everyone? >> You would we could Would you like to have that? >> Yes, I would like to add that. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Based on those conversations, is there anybody who wishes to speak on that? Okay. Again, I'm going to close
the public participation portion. So, let's talk about again, we have the similar situation as the last one. We have both the variance and special permit situation. Uh the ones voting on this one again are just myself, Arthur, Hugo, and Marilyn. So,
so let's so the variance is sought because of soil. So, we need the variance for minimal us minimal minimum minimum usable open and minimum year rear yard setback. So the variance is sought because of soil conditions, shape
or topography of such land or structure and especially affecting such land or structure but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. >> The uh the lot in question is a long skinny lot uh that um is taken up lot
line to lot line to lot line by the existing building. These are pre uh pre-existing uh conditions. There is no room for parking. Um historically, there has been no parking here. It is a small sliver of a uh lot that was carved out
of a larger uh subdivision. Uh when it was historically uh subdivided compared to other lots in the zoning district, it is it is rather small and indeed it is very narrow. Um there is no plan to expand any part of the footprint or to
build outside of the footprint nor to engage in any of the ongoing uses outside of the existing footprint. There will be added no further livable interior space. We're just uh dividing what we have as livable space on the
second floor into two units. Um so to that extent um it would be very difficult to utilize this building to extend the um the viable uh restaurant and um function hall uh without building
forward and building out uh because we can't we can't go left or right. We just have to come be come forward because because of the constraints of the lot. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. myself as well. Um, a [snorts] literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or applicant. >> Again, because of the constraints of the lot and the building have been built lot line to lot line and with no parking, uh, it is very difficult to utilize the the property to its highest and best use
to serve the public. Uh, to build other than um coming forward um, it would be impossible even financially or physically to build to accommodate even the function hall and more residential
livable space without >> expending. >> They wouldn't innumerable. >> Are you saying they wouldn't be be able to get full and best use out of >> they would never get your highest and best use without spending uh money that would not be a good ROI?
>> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. As well desirable relief. granted without substantial detriment to the public good. >> Uh the the expansion actually would would uh uh be a positive to the public
good because we're adding u livable space, one one unit without adding more uh interior space, not going beyond the the lot line. Uh it the encroachments are pre-existing. Uh there's nothing we
can do about uh the encroachment into the sideyard and the rear yard and the lack lack of parking. Uh we are increasing the even by one uh the housing stock in the uh in the community
and that um again no change is outside of the footprint we have. We're just working within the box. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent or purpose of this chapter.
>> So, a number of the intents and purposes of the uh zoning ordinance in Chelsea are satisfied um by this uh proposal. One, we are encouraging housing for persons of all income because we're creating another unit. We are conserving the value of the building, in fact,
increasing it, which would also increase the uh tax revenue. Uh we're increasing the amenities by expanding the business that is servicing the public and the mixed use is an is an appropriate use for this zoning district. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. So having met those now let's have a discussion about the permit again where you know on balance is it more to the positive to to the negative the social economic or community which are served by the proposed community needs which are served by the proposal.
Could you please keep that open? Please open the door. Thank you. >> I didn't shut it all the way. >> I know. That's okay. Just keep it open. >> Does any I mean, you know, it seems to me like again as with the earlier case,
um, housing is something even one seems to be a good thing. Arthur? >> Yeah. I mean, you know, and the goal of of development on Broadway is is to add more housing and and um even though there may not be parking. So, I think it
definitely meets the community need especially on Broadway. >> Yes. >> Yes. Myself as well. Traffic flow and safety including parking and loading. >> I don't see it having big impact on that.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Do we all agree? Yes. >> Yes. >> Um, adequacy of utilities and other public services. Again, it's Broadway. >> Yes. >> Um, neighborhood character and social structures. >> Yes.
>> It's I mean, it's not inconsistent with what's there now >> and really doesn't change anything. So, >> yes. Um, impacts on the natural environment including drainage. Again, not a whole lot of natural environment.
>> Yeah. No impact. >> Yes. Um and last but not least, potential fiscal impact including impacts on city services, tax base, and employment. >> I think it's kind of >> Yeah. Neutral.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that works. Um based on that discussion, do we have a motion? I make a motion to accept case 20259-19 40345 Broadway uh with the standard
conditions and the additional uh conditions as um articulated by the department >> including Maryland's request. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Very well. Thank you very much.
>> Happy holidays. you as well. >> Okay. So, on the next one, Joe and Joan are once again just sitting here to hear what's going on. 2025-205961 carry out Roy Gillo uh for special
permit invariance seeking approval to establish two additional residential units by constructing a third floor above the res existing residential place space which does not meet the minimum requirements for a sideyard setback, rear yard setback, usable open space,
off streetet parking, front yard setback, lot size and maximum requirements for density, floor area ratio and lot coverage. Um again this went to the planning board. What did they have to say John? >> Planning board recommended approval with conditions. They had some concerns
relative to the um some design elements and had requested some additional plans which the applicant has provided and which was included in your packet on the today. >> Okay. So, um, why don't you share with us the changes that you're proposing,
uh, based on the conversation you had with the planning board. >> Good evening. My name is Raquel Glo. This is my father, Rory Gillo, and the property owner. Um, I believe we spoke about that last time. I think we just needed to speak about the um, the
lighting plan and the garbage. >> Open the door, please. >> The garbage disposal plan and the rodent control plan. Um, we did email a different plan that shows the light fixtures that were added.
All right. So, most of the like light fixtures are going to be added on the doorways. Um, we plan on putting like a light picture that the light is showing like above and below. I think it's called down lights. Um
that way it's not going onto the neighbors property on their windows and whatnot. Um what other no other changes that you >> and so again remind us this was was it previously it had previously it had a
third floor and it burnt. Is that this one? Yes, I had a third floor and there was a fire in the early 80s that destroyed that top floor. >> So, it's your your interest is sort of restoring it that third floor. >> Um, any questions before I open it to
the public? >> Can you just remind us how many units again on the the third floor it's going to be? >> Uh, it's going to be two units. >> Two units. >> And how many bedrooms in each unit? >> Um, And are you staying with right within
the footprint of the building? You're not going out. >> No, we're just >> straight up. >> Before I open it, any other questions? >> Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this? There being none, I'm closing the public
participation portion of this. John, what was the planning department's thoughts on this? Planning Department recommends approval uh with the uh standard conditions as applicable. Uh occupants of the new third floor units be ineligible to
participate in the city's on street parking sticker program. Applicants shall construct a white roof and exterior material shall be shown as on the renderings >> and you're comfortable with that. >> Okay. So, we have to go through each of these. Um you you're looking for variances. Just as a reminder again,
we're looking for variance for minimum lot size per unit, minimum rear yard setback, minimum sideyard setback, minimum front yard setback, minimal minimum usable open space, maximum density, maximum floor area ratio, maximum lot coverage, and extension of
an existing nonconformity. Seems similar to the other ones. We're being built on something that's already there. So, let's let's go through each one of these and respond to them. Okay. Um the variance is sought because of soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structure and especially
affecting such land or structure but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. So so why do so again it's if you heard a little earlier we talked about the fact that the building can't go anywhere. I mean the only place you're
going is up. >> Yeah. So you can't go left, right, or whatever. >> Couldn't do anything. >> Do we think I mean? >> Yeah. Nothing is really affecting the soil. They're just going >> You can't do anything if except go up is
what you're saying. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Joe, you're not on this one. >> But that's okay. You can still say yes. Um, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve a substantial hardship financial or
otherwise to you. Would you be able to maintain the property in a in the way that it should be maintained if you were not able to have that extra income or that extra building up there?
>> Yes. I mean, not is going to change. I think we're just adding >> You have to you have to explain a little bit though like you know if you if we if we said that you couldn't do minimum space you wouldn't be able to do a single thing in that in that area. You wouldn't be able to do anything or restore it to what it was before.
So that would be a hardship on your father. >> So presumably you're adding that those uh that floor in order to derive extra income. Correct. >> Yeah. um provide extra income, provide
more housing. Um >> and and if you could not get that extra extra income, would it affect your ability to maintain that house, that building? >> Think about that for a minute. So, if you didn't have more money, would the building not be kept up as well as you'd
like it to be kept up? I mean essentially, you know, the um extra income does help of course um with maintaining the building. >> Then that's all you want to say. >> That's it, right? Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. A literal Okay. A desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. This one's pretty easy because you're adding something to help the public need housing and you're
proposing the addition of two new units. So, that's actually a benefit to the public, correct? >> Yes. Correct. And it's um making like the value of the property as well go up and that'll help with um >> surrounding property values.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Good for the city. Still being good for the city. >> I I'm sorry. You have to say your name. >> What I'm saying is it's going to look good for the city. >> Yeah. Say your name just for the for the record. Just announce who you are. >> My name? Oh, you don't know my name.
Sorry about that. My name is Roy. >> Roy Glo. >> Okay. You just have to for the record it has we have to say. Okay. Thank you. >> Push the button. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> And yes is m as well. desirable relief
may be granted without substantially nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent of the purpose of this chapter. So basically what we're saying is this area is you know this is meant to be that that's it's not what's what
you're proposing is typical for what's in the area. It's completely consistent with the rather the other buildings in this area. Is that true? Yes, it's a residential area and we're just planning to put more units more >> but it's not there in the other buildings there are there are threetory buildings nearby
>> yes there is >> yes >> yes >> yes >> okay [clears throat] now let's talk about the conditions on the special permit again our discussion on this one >> which is again balance
so um social economic or community needs which are served by this I mean, I see a couple they're adding housing and they're making the building kind of nice. >> Yes. Yeah, I agree. >> I agree. >> Yes. >> Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading.
>> I don't think it'll be an issue. >> It's two units. >> Yeah, it's two units. >> Make substantial change in what's going on. Okay. Adequacy of utilities and other public services. There's already utilities going into the
building, so it shouldn't, you know, >> okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Um, neighborhood character and social structure >> seems consistent with the neighborhood, right? Those kind of size. >> So, we all agree on that. >> Yes. >> Um, and um, natural environment
drainage. >> Yeah, I think it's it's pretty consistent. Um and potential fiscal impact including impacts on city services tax base and employment. >> Yeah. It increases the value and increases the tax base
>> but and it's not going to have a an inordinate impact cost of services. Okay. So I think we all agree. >> Yes. Okay. Good. Then we have that. Um do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve case 2025-20
59 and 61 carry out um >> with with this with the act with with the conditions articulated by John. >> Yeah. >> Have a second. >> A second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. The next one we're all about it is the next case that we'll be seeing is 202521271 Washington A JCG Investments for special permit and variance seeking approval for
the reconstruction of a rear deck and the conversion of an existing residential structure from a two family to a three family structure which does not meet the minimum requirements for lot area and off street parking. John, this who's here on this? He's just He's just grabbing Anthony Ross.
>> Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm like, where'd he go? >> Sorry. >> Sorry. >> It's okay. Um, so John, this already went to the planning board. >> Yes. Planning board recommended approval with conditions. >> Okay. Um, any do any of the So, could
you please articulate what changes you may have made from your earlier presentation to us? >> Yes. Good evening, madam chairman, members of the board, Anthony Rosski on behalf of the petitioner. I have James who is the owner of the property to my left. Um, basically everything that's being
altered, it's being altered inside the dwelling. Um, I don't know if John, if you have a picture, just briefly showing he's already um renovated. It was a pretty large two family was it was run down and he restored it. Um, and yeah, and now what he's trying to do is he
could have did an ADU unit by right and that and I've said this uh that for financing purposes, appraisal valuewise, it was better to not have it in his ADU and it was a three family. But everything is being done on the existing structure. He's not adding to it. It's all just basically changing the
footprint. Um and do we have a picture of the exterior by any chance? And this was u pretty much as close as being condemned as possible. it made more sense to tear it down. But at this point, he James restores buildings and
homes. And that was a structure before. And you have one now, John, by any chance? >> I don't think I don't think I do. >> We had in the last one, right? But I don't know if showing up here. I don't know if it shows up in an aerial
Google search, John. But yep, there it is. You can see it now already restored with all the uh the gable roof, the windows. That door in the front is not the double door. It's just a temporary door because the whole inside has been gutted, which
is why he had to go to add a third unit to make it sense. That will have a new um door and it's up to design review. But a lot of people homeless were coming in there breaking in which is why he put that door in. >> So are you adding a third floor or you just turning the gabled area into >> just the inside's being changed? We're
not adding it. It already had the three stories. We're just cutting it up. And actually, it's it's a less of a bedroom count than what's existing. >> It's just now three units instead of two very large units. >> And the de and the deck on the back. >> So, the deck is all going to be restored. The stairwell is going to be
restored. We just showed a new entrance coming in because that stairwell is not to code today. >> It's pretty dangerous. So, it's going to have the deck. It's going to have stairs coming down to a landing and then stairs coming back down. And the same thing goes for the rear. Those stairs were not
to code. He's building new um egress stairs to code. >> That's essentially what's being presented. >> Any questions before I open it to the public? >> Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this? There being none, I'm going to close the
public participation portion of this. Um John, recommendations of the planning department. U planning board recommends approval with the following conditions. >> The department >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, this is the department >> planning. Uh the department recommends
approval with special permit conditions. Standing conditions as applicable. Uh petition participate in design review of the department of permitting land use planning with consideration of the comments from the Chelsea Historical Commission and the occupants of one of the two one of the new units be ineligible to participate in the city's
on street parking sticker program. >> Are you comfortable with those? >> Yes. Um let's go through the the variance criteria and again as similar to the cases that we've heard previous today it's minimum lot size and minimum lot
size per unit that we're looking at strangely enough I have not memorized these you think I would have by now the variance is sought because of soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structure and especially affecting such land or structure but not
affecting generally the zoning district. >> Correct. So the lot size and the that on this property this is on a hill essentially. It's it's like almost like 35 ft above the actual grade. So the topography there's nothing to do. He's not changing anything on the existing
structure standing the way it is. So he's everything he's doing on these inside. So it wouldn't be affecting the zoning district because we're not adding to it and we really can't do anything with the topography because the way it is now set up on a hill. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Me too. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve a substantial hardship financial or otherwise. >> It would certainly be a financial hardship because the building has be would really should have been demolished
but he wanted to preserve the entire toal of the building. So the hardship would be substantial because he would have to, you know, spend a considerable sum of money to do this to convert it back to what it was as a two family. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Joan, >> I'm sorry. >> I'm not. >> You can. Well, you can still you can still say >> anything else. Okay. Yes. Yes. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good. It won't it certainly won't be detrimental to public good because you're actually getting less cars on the street because one of these units now will not have um permits and more importantly it's less bedrooms than what's existing and we're not changing
the actual size of it for FI wise we're just changing the footprint and it's also going to be a far a building that's not condemned fully regulated sprinkler building which is currently not fire alarm addressable so not only is not detrimental to public good it's actually benefit And you're adding another unit.
>> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent of the purpose of this chapter. >> Court every project stands on its own. Certainly relief by giving this is not going to be dergating from the intent of
the chapter because the whole chapter is is to get relief if if a property meets those guidelines and this property here um wouldn't nullify or or change anything in the zoning district or the chapter. In fact, if anything, >> it's resial. >> It's residential. It's adding residential units to it.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, again, special permit. Let's just have discussion about this the social economic or community needs which are served by this purpose by this proposal. I mean, social
thoughts, we're adding housing. >> We're cleaning up the building. It's kind of messy. We're going to make a safer staffing area >> and preserving the building. I mean, it's a beautiful, you know, it's a beautiful building. So, yeah. >> Yes.
>> Um, traffic flow and safety including parking and loading kind of irrelevant. >> Yeah. I don't think it I don't think there's any increase. >> No, >> you agree? >> I agree. >> Yeah, >> I agree.
>> Uh, adequacy of utilities and other public Yeah, I think it'll be adequate. Absolutely. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. For me. Um neighborhood character and social structure. >> Definitely. I mean, it's it's just
actually preserving and making the uh the structure better. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Um natural environment impacts. >> I guess if you talk about the and making them a little I don't know if that's a natural environment, but it seems as
though we're safer environment. >> It's really not changing >> the environment and um um yeah, I think it just maintains it and makes it better actually draining building stays the same.
>> Yes. and fisc potential fiscal impact including impacts on city services tax based employment >> minimal I mean it's relative you know the services are there it's going to have some kind of tax benefit but
>> yes yes >> okay so do we have a motion >> I make a motion to accept case 2025-21 271 Washington a uh standing conditions and conditions articulated by the
department and the planning board. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. >> Happy holidays. >> We are going to take things slightly out of order. Um
>> Madam Chair, I just want to let you know, make sure John on the next property on 123 Washington, that's the one we for the funeral home, correct John? >> Yeah, we're going to continue that. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure it's going to table. Is that your case? >> Yes. >> Then we'll get you out of here. Okay. Um
we have do we have a motion to continue 2022 2025-22123 Washington A to move that >> the planning board has not finished with their review. >> So do we have a motion to continue that? >> I make a motion to to continue 2025-2022. >> Okay. Second by Joe. All in favor?
>> I. >> Thank you. >> Now you can go. >> Yeah. I still won't stay. >> I can do Ricky. >> Okay. Thank you. So the next case we're going to do is the mod 2020 2025-1383 watts.
>> You were provided with a copy of the request in your packet. >> Let me see. Okay. So, there we So, we're here to determine whether this is a major or minor modification. So, they're seeking to modify the decision on all units,
including the two newly approved units, shall be able to utilize Chelsea's public parking system with no restrictions. All units shall be able to be issued parking stickers and permission to park six units total, including two newly approved units. So, first of all, um
is the only We're looking for so I'm a little confused on how this is worded. Are we only work proposing to >> amend the restriction on parking? >> Correct. The zoning board uh issued a decision that included a condition that
um the units were not eligible for on street parking stickers. However, they actually meet the zoning requirements for off streetet parking. So it doesn't trigger that request that uh restriction automatically. >> So we shouldn't have that should not
have been included as a condition because it was not necessary. >> Correct. >> So so from a tech I just want to make sure. So technically we are if we consider it a minor modification because we say that we're not trying to wave
that requirement. We're saying that we never should have imposed that requirement. So because so that's sort of verbiage but it's I think it's a very different if we wave the required means they entitled to it but we're saying they don't have to in reality they never should have had to
>> so you know >> yeah so it's it's definitely a minor modification and it's just uh rewriting or modifying the original >> removing that removing that that requirement >> correct >> do we agree >> yes
>> minor minor >> minor minor Okay. >> Thank you. >> Now, everybody, >> happy holiday. >> Now you say happy holiday. >> Bye, Arthur. >> Bye. >> Oh, wait. Who made it?
>> All right. Arthur made the motion. It was seconded by Joe >> and we all agreed. >> Okay. Sorry. Now, the next one in front of us is the new case 2025-23
4648 Library Street. Hold on. for a special permit and variance. Seeking approval to construct an addition and convert the property from a three dwelling unit structure into a 12 dwelling unit structure which does not meet the requirements for minimum parking space, minimum rear yard
setback, maximum floor area ratio, minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, minimum sideyard setback, and minimum front yard setback. So, we're not going to be voting on this case because this is the first time we'll have heard it. This will you will continue this. you
have to go between before the planning board on the 16th, which is a week from today rather than two weeks from today because of they're moving things because of the holiday. Okay. >> And um and then and then you're back here on January 13th, 2026 >> before we release the um interpreter.
There's anybody who needs interpretation services. >> And it kind of creeps me out to think it's January 2026, just so you know. >> Okay. So, please introduce us to your proposal. Introduce yourselves and introduce and introduce us to your
proposal. >> Good evening, madam chairperson. My name is John Mackey and I'm here on behalf of Efron Molina. A little background, Efron moved to Chelsea 47 years ago. And during those 47 years, he's purchased six major
properties in Chelsea. Uh he also runs two businesses, two restaurants, and in his spare time he runs a full food distribution. >> Hold on one second. >> Food distribution. >> Could you know it might be easier actually if you just grab that and speak because it's it gives us a little more volume.
>> Thank you very much >> again. My name is John Mackey. I'm representing Efron Molina. Efred moved here 47 years ago. He has six properties. He runs two restaurants and a food distribution service. In all of the time that he's had these
properties, he's never had any problems with police, with fire, with drug addicts or any other solutions. He's never had a problem with the board of health or the building department. He's a a very fine member of the community and a solid solid citizen. Uh
the project that we're working on is 4446 Library Street. As you look at the property now, there's an existing three family house and to the left of it, there's a garage unit with several garage units along. He's uh
we're look we're coming before the board. We're going to need a variance and a special permit. Uh the project as proposed is going to construct three levels on top of the existing garage.
Three units on each level for a total of nine. And the garage, the new construction will be attached to the existing three family house. So it'll be one unit and it's going to be a tremendous asset
to the neighborhood. It's going to be a beautiful project. There's not going to be any increase over the footstep. The footstep of the property will remain the same. He's intending to put in two and threebedroom units. So, he's appealing to families.
>> Well, I mean, what you mean is it's going to the building's going to get bigger. >> It's going up. There's three levels on top of the garage, but it's not going to change the footprint. >> Three levels on top of the garage. Okay. And again, I have Beth McDougall with me
today, who's the architect, and she'll get into more of the details. >> So, you're not touching the building on the right. >> No, they're just we're going to connect to the building by means of a deck. >> Okay. >> And basically what at a higher level like at
>> Well, we'll get to that in a minute. Let me but in the back of the property behind the garage now there's a parking lot and there's no units next door so to speak. There is some trees and whatever on the property line but there'll be no
windows at the lower levels on the rear part of the property. So there'll be no privacy issues. The third floor will be recessed a little bit and they will have windows on that but again it'll be effectively no privacy issues on that as well. He's planning to have two and
three family houses. Again, we've got a million new units with one bedroom, which provides for transient people that come for a year or two, whatever. He's building proposing two and three bedroomedroom units, which would appeal to families and stability in the
neighborhood, etc. Also, as a practical matter, we've spoken with Mr. Driest. as a practical matter. This would require two affordable housing units as part of the project. So, what he's going to do is going to considerably increase the
visual benefit to the neighborhood. It's going to uh provide more housing. It's going to provide affordable housing. It's not going to increase the footprint of the existing property.
And um it, you know, basically provide the full and best use. >> Wait, actually, I want to ask for one clarification clarification point is so that's the part I don't quite get because if they're going to be attached, does they now become one building? Are
they considered one building? >> Correct. >> So, in fact, we are increasing the footprint of the building just not, >> you know, I mean, if it's going to be one building, right? Now, it's one building that's straight up one. Now, it's going to be one building that's wider. For all intents and purposes, >> there'll be one building that's
connected to an addition to the rear. So, yeah, technically there is an increase in the footprint. Um, under our zoning, you can't have two primary uses, primary structures on one lot. So, there by by uh connecting it
becomes one building. Therefore, you're >> right. That's me. So, I mean, it's I just mean semantics on this, but it's just it's um because it's clearly, you know, it's not going to state if you're not you're changing the footprint, then you're going to be going up really high. And I don't think that's your intent. So, what you're saying is you're not
going to incorporate the garage and the building together and make it into one building, if you will. >> Okay. >> I mean, tell me, you're the explain. >> My name is Beth McDougall. I'm the architect. So, let's walk through and I can answer all your questions. Okay. So, we have here the existing. Now, can I
walk up there? >> You take only if you take that with you. >> So, hi. All right. So, this is where the two buildings don't connect, but see, you see that ramp right there? So, as we go up, we put a roof on that will cover this ramp, and that's our connection
that connects the two buildings together. We went through this with um the building department with John and how one building, >> how we connect. Yes, we can only have one building on the site, right? Right now, they're connected by a ramp, but if if this was a roof and it was connected to this building, it's still one building. Right now, it's a building and
garages. And so and you know the garages are in disrepair but what we our idea is to go up. You can um go to the next one please. Next one. Okay. So what we're doing here is see here's the existing three family and then these are the existing garages.
We would be putting in two sets of stairs um to go upstairs. Can you go the next one please? So the second and third level are exactly the same. We've pulled it back three feet from the front so that we can have windows on the
front. We have small overhangs here on over the um garages. It's a couple feet. And what that also does is it helps us get in and out of the garage without people slipping and sliding. Um here is the stairs. You go in the stairs from
downstairs and you can go to unit 2011, 202. And then this stair that you enter here downstairs, that's a private entrance for 203. The same happens on the third floor if you want to go to the third floor. So the third floor is exactly the same. Now, if we go to the
fourth floor, what we've done here is we've pulled it back three feet on this back side so we can get windows in there because what happens is on two and three, this is a threebedroom, a threebedroom, and a two-bedroom. On the fourth floor, because we pull this back
and we get these windows here because we're higher, this becomes a two, a two, and a two. So, we have, let's see, three, four, five, two bedrooms and four three bedrooms. And then we also have
the other house, which is now one building, this building here, which are um three bedrooms. Three three bedrooms. >> They're not Can you Can you walk from the existing three family all the way over to the other side? In inside the un not inside the building. No, not inside the building. No. >> So, unlike an apartment building,
they're not connected by a corridor. >> They're not connected. No, you cannot go from the existing three family interior >> to go into here. I mean, you would come outside no matter I mean, you can't you can't do that. I mean, if you're like your neighbor here, you can go here to here, but you can't get to this unit
unless you go outside and go to it. So, it's not an apartment building like you think of, you know, like down on Second A or on Route 16 that they've been building. So, if you go the next, >> but John, that's still considered one building for the purpose of >> It's one building. That's why I just >> Yeah, it's one building. Um then we have
these roof decks which give us our outdoor space that's required. Um and what happens is this bank of unit this bank of um apartments you know they have there's two decks here and then the apartments on this side um these three apartments can use that one
and go to the next one. So here's and and the the uh rendering will show you better but this is basically because the building is not straight in any imagination. There are no 90° angles in this thing. Everything's a little bit disjointed.
So, keep going. So, this is the side. This is not the side at the parking lot. This is the other um back side. And these would be panelized um for the garage and then up above for the um apartments. Next one,
please. And that's the side that faces the um parking lot. So, this is where we stepped it back. this floor up here, the top floor, we have stepped it back three feet so that they can have windows on that side. >> So there's no windows at that in that >> there are no windows down here. No. So
what we did was we worked with um John in the building department. We've come up with a panelized system on this. The rest of the building looks much more traditional. We've kind of panelized this because if you put a ton of clabards on this thing, it got really crazy looking. Next one, please. I keep going. This is
just Well, go back one. That's just the detail of how we've connected everything that um John um Mike McIT asked for. Next one. So this is basically what it would look like. So the you can see how it steps in here three feet and you see how it steps in the back three feet. You
come in, you have the garage doors, you've got your stair door, your stair door. It it's simple, but it pulls um details from this building. Everything gets cleaned up and it looks all fresh and new. So, so again, and I don't mean to to
beat a dead horse here. Yeah. >> And it's it's just more for clarification. This is not being built on the same exact footprint of what's there. >> Yes. >> But you're adding you're adding a connection that doesn't currently exist between the two buildings.
>> The connection is a roof. >> Okay. If you think I mean, >> can you go Can you go back? >> The connection is one floor up. So, technically, it's not touching the floor. Touching the ground. one connection. >> So it's not that that means it's not touching us. It's not a footprint
problem. >> So go go back one uh two I mean. >> So here's what happens. So it I know this is skewed because the buildings are not are not 90 degree but what happens is this is that ramp I showed you on the
existing um photograph. And what happens is this becomes a roof with a little with and the deck is there. But this roof, the roof comes from here, right? And we can put this new deck means that it's a new walking deck because it's at
00. So by the building code, by connecting the two buildings with that roof over that existing deck, it's now one building. >> Okay. >> But what was the um was there a reason to connect two building? Well, that >> we're not allowed to have more than one
building on the job site on a on a piece of property. >> Um, >> so that's how that's how it gets connected. >> Um, how many cars are parking today on the existing building
>> in the existing building? >> Yeah. >> Two. >> Only two. So those the garages are empty, >> right? because they're kind of >> so the the three units there only two cars parking >> my name. >> Go talk into the microphone please.
>> My name is Ephraim Molina and and yes there is two cars on this side and two cars the other side because there is two entrance to the parking. We still got more space on the other side. >> Right. So let's let's go I'll show you something. >> Can you go back
>> take the microphone. Can you go back to the first floor, John? Keep going. Okay. So, here's what happened. So, here's our piece of property, right? And this is the big curb cut that we just showed you in the rendering. There's also a curb cut here. And if you notice,
I've got two cars coming in here, >> right? So, you can park, you can come in and out this driveway right here. >> And then you can also come in here and come into these um spaces. Okay. But those um car 9 and 10 will be to the
existing building or to the new building. >> It'll be to anyone. It doesn't it doesn't m I mean he he can assign them. There will be a total. So with what we're proposing there would be a total of 12 units. That's where we fail on the
parking thing and we have 10 spots. >> But at currently currently I think I know what he's saying. It's like, you know, it it makes more sense that eight, nine, and 10 belong to the existing building and then the other ones belong to this new part. >> Yeah, I mean it. >> Yeah,
>> it could. I mean, he can assign them to whichever units they go with, I guess. >> Well, we can say that they have to be assigned that way. >> Okay. So my another question is if the people in the existing building leave
whatever apartment the new ones come coming with car which spot they going to get >> does that really ma matter? So if the third floor existing building leaves, >> okay, >> right, new attendants come in. >> Mhm.
>> The new parking spot, >> they they So if each if each spot is assigned to units 1 through 12, right, and two of them don't two of those units won't have a parking spot. So if so, let's say building has one, two, and
three, right? So the existing family those one, two, and three, let's say it's eight, nine, and 10. If the third floor moves out, whoever moves back in gets the same parking spot. >> Oh, no. I'm talking about the existing building. The building that is right now, >> this one. Yes.
>> Yeah. >> If one of those tenants leave, >> they still get the same parking spot that the previous tenant had >> on the rear. >> But don't don't first floor need a a parking spot. The second one will be the same and the third. So, you need three.
>> Correct. One, two, three. >> Okay. And the new building that you're trying to build, >> we have nine, but we only have seven. Correct. >> Right. >> So, what I see what you're saying, >> we're short on parking. I mean, that's
why we failed with the parking. Yes. >> Um, can you go to the renderings? this one. >> Uh, next one. So that so this rendering right here shows you what the back would look like to the um parking lot and um
this is the street side. So we're not increasing this footprint of the garage. We're building on top of the existing garage and we are connecting them with that roof. And that's just a a tweak in the building code that allows us to do that to make it one building. Are you
adding green space? >> This is This is existing. This is not ours. >> That's not yours. >> No, it's it's there's existing grass here. It look This looks nicer than it is, [laughter] >> but there's existing grass with some trees. And we just >> But that's not the property that that has nothing to do with this.
>> No, I we just wanted you to see it. Now, the ghosted trees, they're actually really big trees with leaves. You wouldn't really see the backside of this, but we wanted you to see what it looked like. So, we had had our renderer ghost the trees. >> That's the parking lot of St. church. >> Oh, okay. All right.
>> Is that our last slide? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Good. So, what would be the flow of traffic for the cars like coming in and out like if um as Hugo me as you showed
Hugo the um parking plan? >> Yeah. >> For parking spots um 9 and 10 and Yeah. >> How would they exit? Like Yeah, >> these guys would back out. >> They would have to back out. >> Yep. >> These guys, they can back out or turn
around. There's enough space that you can turn around. I mean, >> how does eight get out? >> Who? >> They have to back out. >> This one? >> Yeah. >> Back out. >> Oh, that way. Okay. That way. >> You can back out and go out this way. So, the curb cut is here and here. >> In theory, can nine and 10 pull forward
and go out if if eight's not blocking? >> Who? If nine can nine and nine and 10 pull forward and and rather than back out if eight's not >> You mean come in here? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, >> I guess. But I wouldn't think you'd want him to. >> Well, I wouldn't think I necessarily want them to be parking backing all that
way into the street either >> because >> Well, I mean, >> that's a very long way to be backing out. >> It's not open like So, you're saying that all the spaces are like um >> May I say >> individual parking spaces? They're not It's not >> May I say something?
>> Sure. on the on the rear two parkings. They can turn around and go back. >> Okay. >> There is no there is a lot of space to go back >> between and nine and 10 they can back out. >> Correct. On the on the different on a different uh exit. >> Okay. >> Not through the other exit, >> but there's enough room for them to back out and then make a three turn or
whatever you call it. >> They do it right now. So there is enough space. >> Thank you. >> More questions. this um I'm going to open the public participation portion. This will not be the only opportunity people will have to speak because they will be back here in
2026. Um and is there anybody here wishes to speak on this >> if there being none remember next week to the planning board too soon. Yeah. And then the 20 and the 13th of January here. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Assuming the planning board is done with you then. the silk. Well, I mean, you know, but that's when you'll be you'll be here when the planning board's made it recommendations to us. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Happy holidays. >> Thank you. >> Where is he? Okay. First of all, before
we all we just before we take off today for the holidays, I think we have to I would like to wish M counselor Midland despite the fact that he has been talking about retirement, he keeps getting pulled back into all of these
many zoning hearings. But in reality, he is finished. And I think I would like to say I wish you all a healthy and happy [applause] retirement. >> It's really been a pleasure working with you. >> You don't even have to be taken. But thank you. Really, David,
congratulations. And you've well, you've earned it and we have you've always been a pleasure to have here. So, thank you very much. >> I'll still be around. >> Yeah. You can't get away from us that >> no more friends around. No more >> cases. [laughter]
Thank you very much, David. And it really great. It's been >> Thank you, Mr. David, for all your help. >> Do we have a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjourn. >> By Joe, seconded by Marilyn. All in favor? >> I