Hello, this is the zoning board of appeals for the city of Chelsea. I am Janice Tatara. I am joined by Arthur Arsenal, Hugo Perommo, Joseph Mahoney, Marilyn Vega Torres, John Dri, Will Cio, and Hector. Um, we have a couple of
matters of business to take care of. Let's I'm going to do a roll call of the members. Um, Arthur Arthur Arsenal >> here. >> Yugo Pomo >> here. >> Joseph Mahoney >> present. >> Marilyn de Torres >> here.
>> Janice Dark here. Um, also I would like to I'm going to make a request that somebody make a motion to move the review of the minutes to our meeting in December. Can I have a motion for that? >> Second. >> Who's Arthur made the motion? Seconded
by Joe. Is that what I just saw? >> Yes. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you very much. The first case in front of us today is 2025 11186 816 through 818 Broadway Treetop Investments for special pair permit and
variance. Are they here? Okay, they aren't. I think they're running a little bit late. So, we're going to take the next one. >> Yeah, we're going to take the next one then. So, we'll keep things moving. The next one is 2025-12
471 Eastern A Filipe's Driving School LLC um for special permit seeking approval to establish a driving school and classroom in the first floor which does not meet the minimum requirements for off- streetet parking. Arthur, you are not on this case. Um
um John, can you tell us this has already gone to the planning board? What have they said? Leading board recommended approval with standard conditions as applicable. >> Okay. Um I'm going to open it up to the public. This is still a public hearing. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on
this? There was there being none, I'm going to close the public participation portion of this. Do we have any questions, discussion? We do we have discussion on this? Do we have a motion? >> Have there been any changes? Have there been any changes since the last time we
were here? >> Um, >> David, please speak and introduce yourself and please speak into the microphone. I'll >> take this one so Ricky can yell at me. Um, David Mland representing the petitioner. So, uh, Mr. Aguilar has informed me that there's been a change
within the state which actually benefits his position. the students have to do inclass instruction rather than online. But again, it sounds funny, but they're not
driving to the school, so parking shouldn't be an issue. >> The parental part of it now can be online, so there'll be less parents coming to the school. So, both are actually to the advantage. >> So, that being said, do we have a
motion? or a discussion or question. >> Just applicable standard conditions. The applicable standard conditions is what we had. >> Okay. >> Do we have a motion? >> I make a motion >> to >> to approve with the standard conditions. >> The special permit with the standard
applicable standard. Second, Joe. All in favor? >> I >> I >> There you go. >> Thank you. >> Very patient with your school. Thank you very much. >> Is um has Treetop Investment shown up? >> I don't see him yet.
>> Okay, we'll keep moving. We're not going anywhere. >> Hold on. >> Is he up in the treetop? >> 2025-1383 Watt Street. Watt Street Investment LLC for special permit and variance seeking approval to establish two additional
residential units by constructing an apartment in the existing basement space which does not meet the requirements for minimum lot area, minimum usable open space and maximum floor area ratio. Um we again the public participation port of John first before I open it it had
what did the planning uh board say? >> Planning board recommended uh approval with standard conditions as applicable. Okay. Um, and we can I You know what? Can we please have And I would like the requirements for special permit in front of me. Are they here? And the
requirements for a variance. >> It'll take me a second to bring them up >> because I think we need to walk through those and I apologize for not doing that earlier. Um, so before just we'll do that. I'm gonna open it up to the public. While you find this, is there anybody here who wishes
to speak on this matter? There being none, I'm closing the public participation portion of this hearing. Do we have any additional Well, I guess do you do you want is there been any change in your proposals? >> Introduce yourself for the
>> Madam Chairman. Uh good evening. Anthony Ross on behalf of the petitioner. I do have the owner and manager of the property, Ricky Costa, to the left of me. >> Um, >> recap for us again what you're proposing. >> So, this was a my client purchased this building. He's renovating the exterior and the interior. He It's four
residential units now. He's taken the first floor space and building uh which is on the ground level to build two residential apartments all in the same footprint. Nothing has changed. It has two separate egresses. It's a walk out. Um, it's adding two more affordable
units to the uh uh when I when I say affordable meaning units. So, >> yes, two more mockery units to the to the U market. I do want to note for the record that um as far as um the relief
for pocket for residential stickers, these two units uh wouldn't be eligible for residential stickers. Only the the four that are grandfathered in will be eligible for residential stickers. >> So, these two would not be Yeah. And John, is that is that TRA accurate? So the two new ones would not be eligible for stickers, but the current four who
exist that would be, >> right? >> And um can we again what are we looking for for the special? So we're looking for the special Hold on. >> So it's the special permit is for parking alterations to a non-conforming structure.
>> Correct. >> And the variance is for minimum lot size, minimum usable open space, minimum floor area ratio. >> Correct. Okay, let's go through the easier one first. John, where's the special permits? Okay, so again, with the special permits, we have to discuss
them, but we do not have to have we don't have to unanimously agree or we don't I mean, we don't have to have agreement on all of the criteria as we do with the varian. >> Okay, just one sec. >> And he does comply with all units, just so you know.
Okay. Okay. So the first one for criteria is the social, economic or community needs which are served by the purpose. So explain to us >> are we dealing with the special permit portion? >> Yeah, we're talking special. >> It's not detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, it's adding more,
as I stated, uh units. And when I say affordable units, they're not it's not like a full service luxury building. It's something that my client takes moving houses and makes market rate nice quality high quality units to the to the market. So it's not >> it's it's serving the community need for housing.
>> Correct. And it does not affect parking off street parking. >> We're not at that one yet. Next. That's the next one. >> Sorry. >> Do we agree that that is do we agree that this meets the community need? >> Do I hear it? Could you please raise your hands for
>> Yes. Arthur? >> Yes. I'm not on this case. >> He's not on this case. I apologize, sir. Um, the next one, traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. >> Again, these two units aren't going to be eligible for residential stickers. He
does have off streetet parking in the back of the building. That's consistent. I don't believe I mean, it's more than enough parking anyways for the unit. So, it's not going to be uh far more dangerous. If anything, it's going to be more accommodating. It's going to take two uh stickers off this property.
Yes. >> Yes. >> Joe. Yes. Say yes. >> Adequacy of utilities and other public services. >> It's going to actually upgrade the whole entire system because right now the building has gas and he's going to upgrade it to he does all electric high efficiency units. So it's going to
change the carbon footprint to make it a far more environmentally friendly building. And it's and as far as TPW and services, they've seen everything and they don't see any issues with the project. >> Gentleman and lady. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Neighborhood character and social structure. >> So again, everything is staying in the same footprint. It's not being changed. So as far as the neighborhood look and appeal, nothing changes in that aspect. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> You go. >> Yeah.
>> Yes. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage. >> I'm sorry, what was that? >> Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage. >> Yeah. it won't have any impact because as far as water and sewage concerned it complies with DBW the existing systems
we don't have to upgrade the system because it can maintain the current usage it's not like it's a brand new construction and so forth with a a cult system and so this all staying the same footprint >> yes >> yes
>> um okay potential fiscal impact including impacts on city services tax base and employment >> if anything it's actually going to create higher tax base because the property now will be reassessed based on two additional units with a higher value. Uh so the city will benefit tax- wise in that aspect also.
>> Okay. >> Um >> so we've so you've met the we've met the C the unanimously the uh conditions for a special permit. Now we're going to go through the variances. >> I'm sorry. >> Variances. >> I lost sorry. I'm sorry. Matt show. What
was that? >> I said we've met the conditions for the special permit requirements. Now we're going to walk through the variances. >> Yes. >> Okay. 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. >> So my understanding the variances is is the >> size basically maximum floor area ratio minimum lot size minimum usable open space. Technically speaking, as far as that's concerned, we're not adding to
the F or anything. It's all in the same footprint. There's nothing we really could do to to meet those standards because it's all already existing. >> So, there's no way we can make it smaller when it's already there. It's on the ground level. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or applicant. >> Of course, it would create a financial hardship if you had to take a floor off the building that's existing when he's
working at the same footprint. So, it'd be an impossibility to address it because there's no way to do it because >> and I assume that being able to build these would help him further upgrade the facilities itself. >> Correct. Correct. Because it's actually on the ground level. So there's no way
to do it because the whole entire building goes up from there. So you couldn't demo the first the ground level, first floor of the building and still have those uh units above. >> Yeah. But if you didn't Well, anyway,
I'm not >> Thank you. >> Yes or no? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. This is the layup. >> Well, it certainly won't be detrimental to the public good because first of all,
every petition stands on its own, but the varianc is here is is is basically a dimensional rag on an existing building. So, we're not >> it's going to help the public good by building two more units. >> Correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Design or relief may be granted
without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent or purpose of this chapter. And as far as design, it's all inside the building. So it wouldn't be detrimental to the public good because it's all inside the building. The exterior is not changing whatsoever. The doors are still being in place. Uh and it won't create any
>> consistent with what's going >> what's already there. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Then we've met all the criteria. John, um I sorry, did I already ask you this? The planning board commented. And what does the planning department have to say? Um, the planning department recommends
approval with the standard conditions as applicable. >> Okay. Do we have a motion? >> Maryland. >> Okay. I make a motion to approve case number 2025-383 W Street with with um special
applicable. >> Second. >> Second by Joe. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I just want to make sure John on the condition standard conditions it only is applicable for the two stickers for the first two units that are being added. Correct. No residential stickers for the two.
>> He says is that the only are the only two applicable conditions the related the applicable standard conditions or No, >> no, no. I don't mean that. I mean the stickers that are uneligible only for the >> only for the he did.
>> U Mr. Midland is your is the are treetops here? Yes. >> Okay. 8:16 88 case 2025-11 8:16 to 818 Broadway Treetop Investments LLC. Oh, there's Arthur. Um for special permit invariance seeking approval to demolish
a structure and for the construction of a 15 res 15 residential dwelling unit structure which does not meet the requirements for minimum front yard setback off- streetet parking, minimum lot size, minimum sideyard setback, minimum rear yard setback, maximum lot
coverage, maximum height, minimum usable open space, maximum floor area ratio, maximum number of stories, maximum density, minimum aisle access width and side and rear yard required parking setback. Have you made any because
introduce yourselves please and also have you made any changes to this proposal since it was initially presented. >> Yes, we have. Uh David Mlin representing Treetop and this is Sid Galhot that you can grab that um he is the principal of
Treetop Investments LLC. >> So what changes have you made? So, in response to this board's comments and the plannings board's comments, um the most recent revision provides for 12
units, um 12 covered parking spaces. Um the ground floor will include a lobby, mail room, utility service room, and electrical service room. Trash will be in a dumpster toward the back of the
property, which is now a garage. Um, each of levels two through four will have four units. Um, a two bed, one two-bedroom, one bath. um one slightly
larger two-bedroom one bath, a two-bedroom two bath, and a one-bedroom one bath, which we hope will address the board's concern about having too many small units um and ending up with a more
transient population. So, there'll be three one-bedroom, one bath units, six twobedroom, one bath units, and um two two-bedroom, two bath units. Uh three,
excuse me, three two-bedroom, two bath units for a total of 12. Um the ex as in the original petition the existing main building the cottage unit and the garage will be demolished. The project will now
provide 12 new residential units which are very much needed in the community. Two affordable units, one parking space per unit. Building will be fully sprinklered. Some of this was in the original also. Um, public transportation
is directly in front of the building and there'll be a common laundry room on each floor. So, the main changes from the original are 15 units will be reduced to 12 units. 14 parking spaces reduced to 12,
but previously there were 15 units, 14 spaces. So, now there's one space per unit. And then um importantly there was concern about setbacks and the footprint of the building being too large. So what
was done is um the building was set back an additional four feet on the left side and then at the rear along one of the common driveways common passageways. Um the ground floor will be as it was
almost on the setback but the upper floors will be set back or stepped back u at least 2 feet to give a little more distance between the abuter and this building and that's it in a nutshell s do you have anything else that I missed
>> talking to the microphone please >> I don't have numbers but initially when we came over here one of the board concerns was that the footprint was the size and the footprint. So we shrank the footprint as also significantly from the
original petition. >> John Based on the changes that have been proposed is that does that alter the variances and or special permits that are required? >> It does not it just changes the extent which is is required. Uh you should have on your packet a brief memo two page
memo page 25-1. >> Yep. >> And on the back you will see a new table with >> I see. >> So the the permits special permits stay
the same. So it seems pretty other than we had now have the answer for floor area ratio. It seems pretty cons Oh no that was earlier. So we're still trying to figure all right do you guys see that? Okay the
public this um is still open. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this matter? There being none, I'm closing the public participation portion of this. John, what did the planning board say? And what does the planning department say before we go through the various criteria?
>> Uh the planning board uh recommended approval uh with conditions and you'll I provided you with a list of potential conditions. Um the uh the planning department >> could you read those post? Yes. I want
to know what they are. Um standing conditions as applicable. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the petitioner must submit the following plans to the department of permitting and land use planning. Landscape plan, lighting plan. >> You guys paying attention? Landscape plan, lighting plan, >> road control plan, drainage plan. Uh a
stop sign and stop line must be installed at the exit of the common driveways. Uh prior to issuance of building permit, the petitioner must participate in the design review of the department of permitting and land use planning. Uh the petitioner must install a white roof and uh screen the parking with vegetation. >> Are you comfortable with those conditions?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, let's talk about let's um so we're going to ready to Oh, do we prepared to deliberate this? Shall we go through each of the criteria? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, again, let's start with the special permit. That's a slightly easier one. In this case, the special permit,
the maximum height allowed is 36 feet and 60 by permit. They're looking 39. The maximum number of stories is three. Five by special permit. They're looking four off street park. >> Oh, what? >> That's the old one. >> Oh, that's the old one. Sorry.
>> Sorry. Oh, 40. So, it's 36 to 40, 3.3 to 4, and 18 parking spaces to 12 was required. So, um let's go through each of those. The first one would be answer this social, economic or community needs which are served by the
proposal. Well, it's as I said, um, residential housing, nice residential housing is a necessity in the community. Right now, there are three aging units that are
almost beyond repair. And this would provide 12 brand new units, including two affordable units, which would benefit the community. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Traffic flow and safety
including parking and loading. >> So the way the pro the plan is designed there are two common driveways. So the entrance would be on Eleanor Street and the exit on Broadway. So there would be traffic flow through the parking area.
And this is upper Broadway which is not as densely populated as the downtown area and lower Broadway. So there should be plenty of room for parking um and traffic flow and safety. Um there's
actually the driveways exist ne is there an exit from the on Broadway also? I know there's an exit on Elanor Street. >> Yeah. So it would be maintaining what's already there. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Adequacy of utilities and
other public services >> should not be an issue in that neighborhood. There's always been adequate electricity, water. The water is already brand new and established unlike downtown in this area. Um that area has been completed and there's
water sewage um brand new drainage and should be more than adequate. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Adequacy of the neighborhood neighborhood character and social structure. >> Um, it's a very mixed neighborhood as
you know. My office is part of it. That's a one-story building. Um, across the street is 55 Eleanor, which is a fourstory uh fourstory apartment building. Uh, on the other side of Broadway is a loft building, which I
forget the number of that building, 29 maybe. Um, and then one block up the hill is another condominium building, 55 Elellanar. Um, so apartments fit well within that neighborhood.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage. You have a drainage plan. >> The drainage plan, I think we submitted that already. Do you have that, Will, or John? I'm pretty sure I either I
required as a that's that's indicated as a possible condition either way you look at it. So >> yeah, there was an extensive plan. If you don't have it already, we'll make sure you get that, but it's already been done. >> That would be >> yes. >> Yes. >> Potential fiscal impact including
impacts on city services tax base employment. >> It'll be a positive effect on the tax base going from three units to 12. Um and a general benefit to the city again with the affordable units fitting into
the the plan. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you meet the criteria for special permit. Now that we're going to go through the variances and again the variances are the usual you minimum lot size, minimum lot minim minimum lot size per unit, minimum sideyard setback,
minimum rear yard setback, minimum front yard setback, minimal minimal usable open maximum density, maximum floor area ratio and maximum lot coverage. So basically for the standard things that we see here. So let's go through each of
those. 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 the lot is oddly shaped. Um, it has,
as I mentioned, two, um, common passageways which are used as driveways that bound the lot at the rear and on the right. Um, also, there's a 22 foot wide extension toward the back. It's it's kind of a jigsaw puzzle-shaped lot.
U, that's currently where the garage is, and that will be the dumpster area and the trash area once the project is completed. >> So, basically, you couldn't build anything making it be any setbacks, etc. without making it look like a little boxes here and there.
>> Exactly. And um that twoft set the twoft step back is about as far as they could go and still have reasonably sized units within the building. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. A literal enforcement of the
provisions of this chapter would involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. >> So, the site is currently underperforming as a three family dwelling. As we mentioned, it's it's reached the end of its useful life. The
building is old and tired, and dire need of upgrade and repair just to keep it up to code. um petitioner wouldn't be able to construct or extend or alter the pre-existing non-conforming use and structure um which would effectively
prevent the improvement of the lot and um Mr. Galhad has gone through all sorts of permutations actually starting at 35 units when we first met with Mr. to priest to discuss it and uh cut it back
to something that would not be a hardship to him and would serve the city and meet the other requirements of the special permit and the um variances. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. >> Um again, as I mentioned, the neighborhood has two or three apartment buildings within easy view of of this
lot. Um it would include two affordable units um which will benefit the public good and at the same time it's as we discussed served by adequate utilities and public services. Public transportation is readily available.
There's a bus stop right outside the building. Um, and there's other public transportation within reasonable walking distance. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And last, desire desirable relief may be
granted without nullifying from the intent or purpose of this chapter. >> Okay. And uh project is in R3 which provides for apartment buildings. Um we've already mentioned discussed the other apartment buildings within the
neighborhood. Uh so this structure would not be out of character for the neighborhood and would make the mo the most appropriate use of the lot prevent and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and its
inhabitants. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. So you've met all of the criteria of the of the special permit. So we are in a position that we can vote on this. Do we have a motion? >> Can I just have a couple question? Um I think you said the entrance will be
in Broadway. The entrance of the uh >> actually the entrance as it is now the entrance will be on Elanor Street at the sort of the side back right of the lot but it'll be a oneway the the parking is ground floor.
>> Yeah. >> So it'll be a oneway entrance and then the exit will be on Broadway. So there'll be a one-way flow through the parking area. there will be any kind of gate on Elanor Street or just open
>> I believe it's planned to be open as it is now. >> But I'm sorry but the tendants can if there's nothing in there they can use it in and out right they can go Ellen or not only for entrance but an exit too.
>> Will you make in other words you want a one-way sign there. >> Well I think I think I think what he said Elanor will be one way but if it's not make a do not enter sign. Would that be something? >> I don't That's my question. >> Yeah, I don't know about a gate. >> No, we can ask for that. I'm saying if you want if you want if you want to put a, you know, do not enter exit, you
know, as to going if you're inside if there's a at least put a sign up as you're going toward Elanor. >> We can Yeah, we could put that. >> Yeah, that's that's very easy to do. That would not be a problem. >> Could you add that to the list? >> Uh, and other question is uh what's going to happen with the tendants that
are right now in the on the in the building? The tenants received notice I believe a year ago. April of 2024 were notified. So they're aware that this will be happening. They were given plenty of notice. Are all three units
still occupied? S. >> Yes. >> Okay. But the tenants are aware that the buildings they're in will be coming down. >> And when the old is approved and you got their green light to go, when will you start construction or tear it down?
Our plan is to if this thing get approved, we will still work with the tenant. We'll give them ample time because the idea is that even like this winter, we're not going to like typically for tenants is good and for us to even do construction is good to in
the springtime. So we we give we want to keep giving them more time and the plan is sometime in March to start the project. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um So, do we have a discussion or motion
or first a motion then a discussion? Whatever you guys want to do, >> I can make a motion. >> I make a motion to approve uh case 2025-11 A16-8
Broadway >> with the conditions that we t we listed and including the sign of do not enter on Elenor Street exit sign. >> Yes. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay. The next case in front of us is 2025-18 at 9 Madison Avenue ALAM for special permit invariant seeking approval to construct a new two family home which does not meet the
minimum requirements for the lot area combined sideyard setback parking spaces and maximum lot coverage. Um this has gone to the planning board. What did they have to say? >> Planning board recommended approval uh
as revised and with standard conditions. >> So what kind of revisions? So talk to us about So John said as revised. What revisions did you propose into the planning board that that he's talking about? >> Sure. So >> introduce yourself please. >> Y
>> good evening madam chair for the record. attorney. So the planning board actually didn't see the >> talk directly into that. >> Uh we appeared before the planning board and they did have some suggestions. They approved it as is with the conditions.
However, we did make several changes to try to improve the project. We can certainly go through and highlight it. Yes, >> please do that. >> What you're seeing here is just a structure two building each with their own parking
garage and two parking spaces within the building. The zoning district is a resial and the lot size just under 5,500 square ft. So although we are short still of the required lot size it is one of the biggest lots in the neighborhood
currently there is a vacant lot. This is just an aerial view of the site. You can see the arrow pointing to it. It's kind of right now so in the site is surrounded by various residential uses. There's single family, two family, three families. You move
down Palmer Street a little bit. There's a couple buildings and then you move up again some like so. So this is the from the planning board or since we met with the planning board last we
decreased the building footprint and what that did is that served several purposes. One, it obviously increased our open space. Um it also jump around a little bit here but decreasing the footprint also allowed us to have 10 foot sideyard setbacks on each side. So
with this proposal the required on a single side have 8 and 12 foot side setback but the aggreate required is 20 total feet. So we went before the planning board with the eight and a half on each side but obviously we only have 17 total. So at that time we were looking for relief from sideyard.
However we no longer need sideyard relief areas by decreasing the footprint. We were also able to get below the block coverage threshold. 30% coverage. We were just over 30 change. So we're now under 29.
>> Is that true? >> So we no longer need variance for coverage either. So we actually eliminated two variants. >> Could you go one question? The twocar garage again. So what's are they tandem parkings in tandem in the garage?
>> Correct. Yes. And again you'll see that better the floor plans when we get to it. has two interior parking spaces and then the one space in front which provides access obviously to the garage design windows side to side
break up the massing as well as more air into the future units. So again we eliminate the need for two of the four variances we were originally requesting >> and the only special permit is because the the way the parking lot set up.
So this is the general site plan. Each will contain a 500gallon drive for storm water management. We have a pervat. So we have ample space just under 3,000 total square feet of green space with a nice backyard. We have a small deck that
was previously reduced to start just enough for a chair or two and also provide screen on each side with all >> I'm going to open it to the public do
have any questions before I do that. size. What size of the >> Yeah, if you can. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought he was done. I apologize. >> I apologize. >> I'll be very brief. This is just a little rehearsal. Each unit has a garage.
Previously, there was some storage that was kind of separated in the rear. We've now opened it up. So, this is all parking and storage at the ground level. There two cars in the garage as well as allow your lawn mower, your extra storage, bikes, whatever that might be.
going concept dining room kitchen and a half bath. You can see the top of the screen that small deckress and then going the third flooring three bedrooms for this project. Overall, we are
proposing the two units. We feel this is a good use of the space. It is one of the larger lots in the district right now. two units allow us to sell the units at a more affordable level rather than doing one large unit. We're also proposing for
partner's mother to occupy one of the residences and then sell the off the other one as home ownership. So it would be two home ownership units. These are just additional windows. So I'm happy to pause at this point and
take any public comment or questions >> questions before I open it up. >> And the shade in the back will stay or you planning to take that down? What is that the third floor? What is that? D1
and D2 on the third floor. What is that? A closet. >> Third floor. Is it DO2 DO1? >> No. Uh by the two bedrooms at the entrance of the two bedrooms. Yeah. DO1, DO2, what is that?
>> Could talk into the microphone, please. >> Closet area. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, again, the public participation portion of this is open. Is there anyone wish anyone who wishes to speak on this? Please come up, introduce yourself, give your name and address, please. >> Sure. Uh, Raymond Bell, 21 Madison A,
Chelsea, Mass. resident of Chelsea 53 years. I've been up in this neighborhood as a homeowner 29 years. Never really wanted to leave Chelsea. Never seen the need. Um I'm here to tell you that this this this
project as proposed it's too big. I have a matter of and it's an R1 district. This is why they needed five. I didn't know they got it down to three. He's saying it's four. I don't believe it's four. But at the end of the day, it's uh it's a matter of
an R1 district is an R1 district because it's strict. It was very misleading to say there's apartment buildings. There's no apartment buildings on that R1 district street. Matt Washington A is probably a different district. So we have one three family that's like a
hundred years old. There are other than that there is no three families on that street. They're all two or less. So it was a >> two family though, was it not? >> Yes. So to say it's it's mixed, not in that area. So >> that area, >> this is a two family that they're
proposing. >> This is two houses wedged in there. You know, I mean, they didn't leave any meat on the bone, but they did revise it, which I didn't know. But it comes down to the parking. It's a quality of life issue. This street is only 24 feet wide.
It's parking on both sides. We don't park on the other side because people get mirrors wiped out. But it is a two-way street and there is parking on both sides. What happens on the Everett side? It does become one one way one
parking on one side. So I'm telling you now, I'm sending the flare up. When this goes parking on one side, the reduction of the two curb cuts, losing those spots in a street that's only 24 ft wide, 88 for a car, you can't fit two cars
through. You can barely fit one apparatus through. So, it comes down to the quality of life in the neighborhood. It's it's it's too big for that neighborhood. They did reduce it what, a foot and a half on each side to meet the 10 sides, you know, but it it's the
parking. Now, as far as the off- streetet parking, it's not two garages, it's one garage. I did an addition 20 years ago, and I had to make sure that you couldn't queue the cars up. Now, are these queued up?
as the three spots three spots per unit off off off streetet really able to get access on their own without moving another car because you know what's going to happen. They're not going to use them like that.
So, uh is is the three spots queued up or is it two cars wide and then a car in front of it? I don't think you can fit two cars in those garages. I don't think it's that wide. So it comes down to a call with a life issue. The neighborhood's been great for a long
time. It's a soughtafter neighborhood and because of that because you actually have room. I grew up down here in a 1500 floor lot. Now I have a backyard. We have newer people been moving in. They have more company. So the pictures
that he had on the original proposal were taken in the daytime. There was no cars. The aerial view, you'll see more cars there. So once we lose those two curb cuts in six bedrooms, six bedrooms combined is going to create more
traffic. So I know he only needs three exceptions now, but being that it's an R1 district, it is a public safety issue with the the parking is going to become a problem. And this it's only 24 ft wide the street. So
you can't fit two-way traffic. This street where it where it cuts in is a feed of street for every a lot of traffic there. So, I'm I'm urging you to vote this down and give the protection what an R1 district supposed to do. It comes down to
capitalism versus the quality of life of the people who live there. I have um like my my father-in-law, he's a senior citizen. He doesn't have off- streetet parking. Um you know, he's got to carry bundles. Sometimes you can't get a spot.
This is too much in that area. It's a big ask and I'm asking you to shoot it down in its current form. I know he reduced it and he got two of the variances out of five I believe were listed. Um it's a because of a matter of
public safety and a quality of life. It's it's going to be a problem for people who live there. And um we have company now there is no spots if one person has company because all the curb cuts and um further up the street it's even more congested all one and two
families u mostly one families. So I said I got a two family but we stacked them up. It's I bought it like that. So my house is only 21 ft wide. So uh I'm just this is a quality of life. It will it will to the detriment of of the
neighborhood. And as far as it being an economic windfall for the city, I think we have a budget of 250 million. So 17,000 in property tax, whatever it's going to be, that that pales in comparison. Now, I will say affordable units, it won't be affordable. Um good
to hear that his parent will live there, which he doesn't have to. They can sell it anytime they want. So, I'm um I'm just asking you to give the protections to the neighborhood because in our one district is strict for a reason. We're not like other cities. We we take it we try to protect the fabric of the
neighborhood. We don't need this project. Not in its current form. He could have he made it a little smaller, but I mean the first one it was shoehorned in there. So, it would it's a grab. It's a smash and grab. It's a rapacious grab is what it is. It's it's nothing more than that. Um, I'm not
anti-development, but just not here for all the reason matter of public safety with the the parking and and the detriment to the fabric of the community. Been up there 29 years, don't want to leave, never left after growing up right over the street there on Papa Street. And um I have tenants, my
father-in-law, I have people that can't get parking spots now on weekends. You know, I got a daughter coming home from college. I don't have off streetet park and I have enough for three. So, do we know, John, the parking as as proposed?
Are we queuing them up or are we going wide? Because we could have went up and parked underneath and have all our street parking, but again, that would cut into the profit, the square footage, which we need relief on square footage per lot per unit, and I think parking
now. That's all that's left, right? >> The kind of parking. Yes. Not the number of parking spaces. So, how many parking spaces you need? >> Four. They have >> per unit. >> No, four in total. >> Okay. So, are these parking garages queued up?
>> Are they side by side? >> First of all, we're not going to have a debate. What? >> Oh, no. I'm just asking. Okay. All right. I'm just No, but the question that's a question I'm asking you to believe I John, they're side by side, are they not? Well, are they side by side? >> They are. >> Do you have Are they Why? You're ask You're asking the question. So, listen
to the answer. So are they s are they is the garage wide enough for two cars? >> The garage is designed for single entry. So >> for two separate cars, single entry for two cars. Correct. A car and a car. >> Correct. So the idea would be that each
unit which is going to be condo and home ownership. >> No, but there's two separate garages. >> Three spaces. Correct. >> They're not. So they're not you're not trying to shoehorn two cars into one space. You have a onecar garage next to another onecar garage >> that goes two cars. And then tander parking like we grew up with.
>> Correct. >> Okay. All right. >> So, how wide how wide is this garage? >> Okay. He He's already told you it's one in one. It's like and they wouldn't be able to build it if it wasn't wide enough to accommodate the car. It wouldn't be allowed. So, I mean, just in the car in front of it,
>> which you're saying four and a half, would that be blocking the driveway to get into that garage? >> It's not barking the sidewalk. And that's what that that's the relief they're looking for that it's in the front. So, the relief we're looking for is actually to add another space to keep
cars off of the street to allow for parking in the front yard. We already made it to be interior parking. >> Okay. Well, I'm still asking you because of the overflow of anticipated overflow of traffic. I don't anticip I don't believe they're going to park like that.
Who because whoever they sell it to, they're going to do you know, you're adding six bedrooms in a neighborhood that really doesn't have the space right now. So I'm asking for the protection of an R1 district. It's an R1 district for a reason. This isn't an industrial ever.
So I'm I'm asking you to to turn this project down a as it currently >> stands. >> Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? >> If there is. >> Yeah. >> If you want to speak, come up to the desk and speak. Go ahead and give your name and address. There you go.
>> You're welcome. Everybody's welcome to long as I follow the rules. >> Hi, my name is Bruce Harrison. I live at 17 Madison A. When this um thing is going up, there's a well there. So, there's water under there. Where's this water going to go when they're building this? There's water. There's a big well
there. >> Yeah, the dry well. So, are they going to pump this water out? Where's it going to go? >> So, in terms we have a full engineering plan. We do have 500gallon dry wells composed under each driveway. So, water
will flow. Some of the uniqueness of site is that kind of goes up the street and also from front to rear to front. So we'll filter down into those driveways. We'll take all measures necessary during construction and then there is no full basement. We are not digging down
exceptionally far and then we will have those two 500gallon drys on site that will water. >> That wasn't my only question. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Good.
>> Hi, my name is Melody Tourish and I live at 16 Englewood Avenue and I have a couple of quality of life questions. Um, there is a beautiful maple tree, 100 years old, right on this property. And to have it cut down, this birds, you
know, nesting there, and to have it cut down would be really a travesty. Um, and another one is my uh I have a brick house 16 anglewood and uh it would cut the sunshine cut the sunlight out and a
brick house needs sunshine in order for the bricks to be um you know to keep growing. The mildew will grow in there and we won't have the bricks will be destroyed or slowly. It's 100. No, it's 95 year old house and uh so it needs the
sunshine for the bricks to be successfully going keep going. So that was it. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> I'm going to close up to council.
>> Todd Taylor, 45 Nickel Street, uh city councelor for Prattville. Um, I'm here just to again represent the people who called me up in the neighborhood to voice their opposition to this. Um, it's
it sounds like it got a little better than it was before. Um, uh, you know, I leave it to to to your good judgment, but as far as the residents go here, th this is this street and the next street,
Englewood, are the two last streets in Chelsea that that have a certain, you know, character. And and I I think that I think that this changes it a little bit. And and what I'm afraid of is if we
start changing the nature of those of of this neighborhood going forward, it's going to be the next one and the next one and the next one and the next one and then pretty soon that whole thing is gone. And th this is this is like this
is like the one neighborhood in Chelsea where you have these single family homes with nice yards, quiet streets, and and no, you can't find it anywhere else in Chelsea um like this. So I I would just
I would just uh ask you guys to take into consideration um uh really how this is going to affect the neighborhood and if I could just ask one question and that is what is what are the remaining variances that need to
be granted >> u minimum lot size and minimum lot size per unit. >> Yeah. So, so, so again, this is th this is kind of my point about, you know, preserving what's there.
And, you know, I I'm all for I'm all for, you know, people, you know, trying to trying to improve things and and and and I don't mind people making a buck in the in the meantime.
But I think that there's significant worry in the neighborhood about how this is really going to fundamentally change um not not just the parking but but the whole kind of you know domino effect of of how this goes. So you know I'll leave
it up to you but but uh that that that's how the residents feel and that's who I'm here to represent. >> Thank you. Anybody else who wishes to speak on this? There being none, I'm closing the public participation portion of this. John,
what did the planning board say about this? The plan board recommended approval as uh as revised with uh standard applicable standard conditions >> and plan department >> planning department recommends approval
with the conditions as listed uh as provided to you. >> Um I have a question just about R1 versus whatever is an R1 district also includes two family homes does it not? One district allows one and two family homes on 7500 square feet. >> Okay. I just want to be clear about
that. Um >> can I question? >> Yeah. >> If the drywalls can hold any more water, where's the water going to go? water and I would add almost 3,000 square feet of open space, we have as much natural
absorption there as some of the lot sizes total to our left and right. So we do have a lot of natural grass and kind of absorption that already exists plus the dry. So we do have a full engineering plan. There were no concerns that
>> okay let's we have to let's walk through the criteria. Okay. >> Do you intend on taking down that tree that the um resident spoke about? >> Like I said, almost
>> you're not taking it down. >> Um I I have a question. >> Would you ever consider making it a one family instead of two family? >> You know, we did look at that. That creates obviously persip language later on with
various criteria, but it has a bit of a domino effect. One, it's not even allowed by right still need the same relief we're seeking today. Uh, also it really be so big that it would be priced out and really not allow people in the
neighborhood potentially in there. So, it's a little bit of a a two-sided coin. This is a way to provide two units at a more affordable level than you know large home
needs the same relief and also pushes out a bunch of demographics. >> So if you built them on top because I I heard the gentleman say that there are two there are twotory buildings in is and I don't understand the build. Is there a difference between making a two family unit side by side versus a two a
two family unit up and down? Not really. This provides, again, we were looking for a combination because we hear all the concerns that were mentioned and we were trying to minimize that. You know, we're keeping, like I said, almost 3,000 ft of open space. We're asking for the special permit on top of what is already
adequate parking for zoning to get that third car off the street. You know, in terms of the typology, it just makes more sense to have each unit have the first level of parking and then the living space above. You know, there are There are certainly single families in
this neighborhood, but I think five out of six properties to the left are either two or three families on smaller lots. There are elevated two and threetory buildings that are just about as tall as we are. So certainly, as I mentioned at the outset, certain different typologies
of housing, some smaller, some bigger, some ones, twos, and threes. So we thought this fits within the neighborhood accomplishes kind of preserving as much open space as possible, giving those dedicated secure parking. having a parking facility, whether that's taking up the entire rear
of the lot or whatever it might be. >> So, if you built it on top of each other, you'd almost out you would take away the parking. So, if you do it side by side, you have the parking. If you build it up and down, you don't have which again would be consistent with the neighborhood, you don't have parking. You don't you wouldn't be able
you wouldn't be able to park underneath the >> That's that's correct. Most likely or be a different configuration code for parking and would have that triple effect more on the street. So we really didn't think this was the happy medium to like I said keep open space provide parking and you know we're happy to work
with planning if this were to be approved on design further but we thought the design was fairly nice and fit in there are some side by sides they might be around the corner but there's you look at the street it's really all different all different types of homes from elevated kinders to one and a half
story is a mix of a bunch of different types of housing com that way top down in the middle expect that makes more sense. the questions.
>> Yes. Have you talked to the the neighbors? It sounds like a lot of people are um voicing their concerns. Have you talked to them about uh the um what you have proposed? >> We have some we have had some conversations
were meeting for the first time tonight. Our director Butters we've asked questions for question came up before. I believe we answered that. People ask about general plans. Uh I think over concern of what we thought was overdevelopment and we thought too was reasonable. Um, so we never had like an
official butter meeting per se, but we have had conversations with some of the on questions. Let's go through let's go through the variance requirements first. So again the variance is for minimum lot size and minimum which is 7500's
required. It's 5 just under 5,500 proposed. The minimum lot size per unit is 3500 square feet. This one has 27. Um, 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. >> So this lot has a a few different characteristics which makes it unique.
There is as I mentioned subtle slope from the rear of the property to the front. It's also wide. It's as wide as any other lot on the street and wider than most which allows us to comply with all the other dimensional regulations. Uh and finally it is a pre-existing lot.
So it's made of a size based on the current regulations. As mentioned pretty much every other lot doesn't meet lot size. no way for the applicants to acquire any new uh square footage to make it comp. So this really is the
minimum request for variances to allow for this use which is allowed in the district. So it is unique in that it's actually wider and larger than most but the pre-existing nature of it means that we can't ever perform. >> Yes or no?
>> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. A literal enforcement of provisions of this chapter would involve a substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner.
>> It would cause a substantial financial hardship in this case with little literal enforcement between obviously acquisition and the current cost to build right now really necessitates the two units and again that does provide two more affordable units on the back end. As mentioned two very common in
this neighborhood and the use is actually allowed for code confirmed. So it would be a substantial hardship to prevent two family here based on pre-existing conditions. >> Well, that's not financial or otherwise. I mean that's not that's sort of more
>> it'd be a financial hardship to not be able to build the two units because the lot is afford. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. desirable relief may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good. >> Well, we believe that the residential use is prevalent throughout this neighborhood as mentioned includes one, two, and a few three family homes and two family use. We believe again going back to the fact
any dimensional relief for the building itself just total lot size although people have their own feelings we believe that this is a character of the neighborhood and yes
Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent or purpose of this chapter. >> Again, we believe the intent of this chapter is to provide resial housing in
R1 allowing single and two family zones which we're two homes which we're proposing. We think the relief that you saw is very typical within this neighborhood in terms of smaller lot sizes and small setbacks and whatnot which we are meeting proposal does
reflect an appropriate use again would allow for reasonable development at the site. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And I'm yes. So now let's talk about the
permit special permit. So again the special permit let's to clarify and John make sure I'm characterizing this correctly. The special permit is we have a two we have a garage that two car two separate garages in which one car is
parked and then they're proposing to also put a car on a driveway in front of the garage. Am I characterizing that correctly? You have a garage on each side where two cars are parked in >> one in each. >> One, no, two in each.
>> Oh. >> And then you have additional space on the driveway and the driveway is in the front yard. >> Therefore, requires a special permit. >> Okay. Okay. All right. >> And just to clarify, Madam Chair, originally we only had one spot in the
garage. Been working plans. We're now able to accommodate two cars. We are still seeking a special permit and would like to do it even further of what we've heard tonight cars off the street. So each unit would have a total of three parking spaces. >> Yeah. I mean, so one way the other we're
needing a curb cut. So So the question is whether it's a curb cut with two cars parked in a garage and nothing in the driveway in front or a curb cut with two cars in the garage and a car in the driveway. You understand? I think that's I think that's what it is. So either way a curb
cut is required for this. The question is is it taking is it accommodating a total of four cars or a total of six cars. >> Correct. >> Then let's walk that social, economic or community needs
which are served by the proposal. >> So again just looking at this as a special permit is for the front yard parking. It allows for two extra offset parking spaces. It's making use of the pad as we just discussed that's already there. I think it's pretty comparable to
many other driveways and garages which have parking in front of it. So we believe it serves community needs by keeping cars off the street. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. The next one is traffic flow and
safety including parking and loading. >> And again we'll be looking at special for parking. It's a little redundant, but we believe it'll improve safety by keeping the cars off the street. Again, we've heard it's a very tight street. Now, this will provide an opportunity for a guest. You know, if you have a
young family in there with one, maybe two cars and you do have a guest, this would allow the guest to park right in the driveway and not have to take up on street parking spaces or cause extra clutter. So, we believe it actually improves uh safety by getting cars off
the street and onto the private line. It's not adding to what's already basically how the street operates, which is the concern that it's a narrow street. >> Correct. >> It's not not further exacerbating that problem.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Adequacy of utilities and other public services. >> In this case, we don't think it's really just Yes. >> Yes.
>> Um, neighborhood character and social structures. >> Again, I think a lot of the properties in this area that have either garages or have driveways end up parking towards the front of the street, whether it's because they need
to extra space or don't want to pull all the way back. So, we think that parking in the driveway in this location is Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Impacts on natural environments
including drainage. >> So again we think this will actually improve drainage. We have the two 500gallon dry wells that will be actually located within the driveways themselves. We are proposing to the driveway. So, it's actually
increasing uh the actual or decreasing negative effects on the natural environment by keeping storm water with mitigation on the site and making use of space that needs to be accessible for cars to get to the garages anyways to actually collect rain water and store it
effectively. And would you agree I don't know if John if we can condition it to um to the ex to protecting the tree and you know to keeping the tree there as long you know as long as it's not it's not the tree itself is not compromised. So if the tree isn't injured if the tree
isn't sick that you would keep the tree there. >> Can we include that as a condition? >> Yes. Well, and then it's your job to make sure that he's paying attention to that. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Potential fiscal impact, including impacts on city services, tax base, and employment. >> Overall, I don't know the department has a great effect on the fiscal impact, but we think keeping two extra cars off the street will allowing screening and that sort of thing.
>> It's not having a negative potential. It's not having a negative fiscal impact though it may have a negligible positive impact. >> That's correct. >> Yes. >> And you met the criteria. So, John, and I if I already asked you this, I
apologize. Um, what are what kind of conditions are proposed by the planning department? Standard complet standing conditions as applicable. Uh prior to issuance of building permit petition must submit the following plans to the department of permitting and land use planning.
Lighting plan with all lights compliant with international doc sky association standards. Drainage plans plan. The petitioner must use permable pavement for the driveways and now must maintain the tree in the rear. These will be word smith
the final decision. So based on do we have a motion? >> What about like the snow removal? I'm sorry I should have asked. What about like snow removal? Like nothing. >> You can ask for a snow removal plan. >> Well, I guess it's a two family home. They don't really need snow removal
plan, right? >> Or the driveway. >> They have to clean the driveway like anybody else >> or anything like that. >> I mean, you don't >> I mean, you can't ask for it. So they have to make they just have to make sure that they meet city standards for any drivewalk clearing or they're
they're right. Any city the city requires certain like conditions while cleaning in the front >> cleaning your sidewalk and cleaning your you know making them accessible. So that's any individual I think has to do that. So it's not a multif family >> condition
>> I don't think. Right. That's And again, I would note that the actual driveway is as small as possible to accommodate the cars and there is ample storage on either side. So when you're snow blowing or shelving, there's no need to
>> Well, you don't go on other people's you can't put it in the street. You can't put on other people's property. Blah blah blah. That's just that's just the law. >> Um Okay. So, do we have a motion? >> Somebody's going to make a motion. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to make a motion.
>> Make a motion to approve case 2025-8 9 Madison Avenue with the standard um >> second. >> All in favor? >> I no. >> Okay. So, wait, let's go one by one. Arthur, >> no.
>> You go. No. >> Joe. >> Yes. >> Marilyn. >> Yes. >> Janice. Yes. >> Do you only need three or do we need four? Need four. Then we don't got it. Sorry. >> Would you? Well, let's Well, I guess it's too late to ask. Yeah. Well, you
can't come in front of us. You need four. Sorry. You only have three. >> I just may. Is there anything on the design? Well, if you came I think that like anything else if you you know it has to you have to come forward with us again with something that's substantially
different. Um so if you came with the one family that would be substantially different and we would see that or if you came with an up and down that would be substantially different. That's all I mean it's we just can't look at the same thing in >> two years or whatever. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Okay. >> We'll talk later. Um, next one. Okay. So, case 2025-9 403 to 405 Broadway New Properties LLC. Can I have a motion to continue that to the next meeting on December 9th? >> Make a motion to continue.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I um 2025-20 5961 karao. Uh, condition. May we have a recommendation to continue this to the next meeting of December 9th? >> Make a motion to continue. Second, Joe.
All in favor? I. >> The next case is a new one in front of us. It's 20 two 202521 271 Washington A JCJ Investments LLC uh for special permit and variant seeking approval for the reconstruction of a rear deck and the conversion of an
existing residential structure from a two family to three family structure which does not meet the minimum requirements for lot area and off- streetet parking. This is the first time we'll be hearing this. So, it will be going to the planning board on the 18th
of November and back here to the zoning board on the 9th of December. So, please introduce yourself and your project. >> James Katuso, the manager of JCG Investments. >> Essentially, this
just basically this actually falls [Music] >> issue with what >> appraisers they come they write on three to see
but um but everything is being done in in the footprint. So as you can see that's the actual footprint of the structure. Um and and if you look in the rear that's just proposed there. That's the only change to the site for >> Say that again. >> A proposed stairwell. You see the stair
in the back? Mhm. >> That's the only change to the structure is a new stairwell. Other than that, um the structure is staying the same and everything is being built on the same footprint. John, do you happen to have the uh floor plan if that's possible?
Oh, you have a question, John? >> I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> You said the only change is the rear stairwell. >> I think on the front staircase, wasn't there just a small entry? Was that the
stairs there? None of them are none of the stairs are code compliant right now. They >> make them throughout the years. >> But sorry, I just I I heard that the only change was the rear, but actually they changing the front as well. >> Right now it just goes straight down. It doesn't have to
>> correct. I I I apologize. It's still the same the stairwell was already there. He just making it now by today's code compliance stairs because they don't you can't do a straight run stair. It's actually illegal. you only can do a run up to 12 feet. So, all he's doing is making the stairwells code compliant for
today's standards. But, as far as where they are, where they're positioned, they're still in the same central locations. Um, but um if John, if you go to the floor plan, I can just show the additional dwelling unit. Is >> this what you're looking for? >> Yep.
As you can see, there's existing first floor, a proposed first floor, and I think there's Is there another one, John? When you say proposed first floor, that's the the basement. You're putting it in the basement or >> No, it's all above grade. >> Oh, >> it's all above the grade. It's just
basically cutting up a unit. That's >> okay. So, it's making the first floor from one unit into two. >> Correct. No, second floor. >> The second floor maybe. So, >> it's probably eas. >> So, this is existing. This is proposed. >> Correct.
So, the proposed first floor is still it's just showing the layouts. So this is the floor plan is that if John if you go to the second floor here's the second floor and that's you have one more floor plan John or is this the two? Yeah. Here's the third floor.
So basically it's one unit per floor if you could see >> what is it now? >> It's a it's a true family structure but the second floor the third floor is basically >> are one apartment. >> Correct. One huge large apartment. So you're turning So all right. So you're taking the second and third floor,
you're turning it into one big unit into two units. >> Exactly. >> All right. No parking. >> No, >> there wasn't any. There's Right. >> Questions before I open it up
on the stairs. Is it just stairs or is there stairs and a ramp to make it ADA compliant? leaders that are there. There's a first unit. You don't really criter for that many years to require group two
unit. I call it group two units but on these group one because the law group only construction >> no bathrooms in the basement >> floor and my
building. bought the idea of adding unitra which also citywise wise wise it's going to be a lot better than what's existing Any other questions before I open it up?
>> Okay, this is a public participation. >> Thank you. Um, this I'm going to open it up to the public. This will not be the only opportunity you'll have to speak because we will keep this open. And again, this will go before the planning board on the the 18th of November and back here on the 9th of December. Is
there anyone who wishes to speak on this? Again, this won't be your only opportunity. There being none, we'll see you on the 9th. >> The next case is 2025223 Washington A. 123 Washington A LLC for
special permit and variances seeking approval to construct an addition and convert the property from a funeral home into a nine dwelling unit structure and two retail units which require special permits for the use of the structure as a dwelling containing seven or more dwelling units. the change from one non-conforming use to another, less
detrimental non-conforming use, and to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a non-conforming structure, and does not meet the requirements for minimum parking lot aisle, minimum number of off- streetet parking spaces, minimum width of off streetet parking spaces,
location of off streetet parking, minimum lot size, minimum lot size per unit, maximum lot coverage, minimum usable open space, and maximum floor area ratio. Again, this is the first time we'll be hearing this, so we will not be deciding it today. It will go to
the planning board on the 18th of November and back here in front of us on the 9th of December. Please introduce yourselves and your project. Oh, hold on one second. >> That's what I say. I didn't think your microphone's working.
>> Switch. Stop me. >> Sorry. Oh, there we go. >> Yes. Something didn't sound right. Thought it was my ears. >> Sorry. >> If I may again, Madam Chairwoman. Um, >> start from the beginning. yourself again. >> My my name for the record is Anthony Rossy. I am the attorney for the petitioner. Uh to the left of me is
David Joy, the architect of record. And to the behind me is Hector who's the manager of the LLC, the owner, the proprietor of this property. Um currently this is a a funeral home with a an apartment above. Um my client um has met with the city on numerous
occasions to talk about redevelopment this property that he's acquiring. uh working with the city with the design regs and what proposing now is nine residential units with two retail spaces on the ground. Um this is one elevation that you can see. Uh John, can you do
you have other ele while he while he does that I just want to supply the city some uh letters from um in favor of this you can have them. Okay. Thank you. >> There's three of them. I'm not sure
>> what's that block in front in front of the sign of I mean what is that wall? Is that wall existing now? All right. >> It's existing. It's just >> okay. >> Basically he just transcribed the building what's on existing now just for
purposes of >> going before this board. So as you can see it's the way it's designed is you could identify the retail pretty identifiable with the commercial and then you have nine residential units on the floors two and three and those show
the bumpouts and so forth. And by unit mix we have five threebedrooms that average between 850 square feet to 1,000 square feet. one studio unit which is a pretty large studio unit. It's 500 square feet and then three one-bedroom units that are around 540 550 square
feet. So it's about nine units. He will have 11 off street parking spaces. Nine identified for the residential units and two for the retail space. So it's 11 off streetet parking spaces for the um seven uh for the nine residential and two uh
commercial. Total 11 11 spaces. I don't know if I said nine, but it's 11 total parking spaces. Um, and Sean, are those the only elevations we have or do we have other elevations? Just so I know that's existing structure. So, we're
basically working out the existing structure and going vertical and I think we're also going towards the front to make it more retail friendly. And here you can see the pocket spaces to the right and identifies the units. And if you like, I know this is the
first hearing, but I'll just go briefly. Well, David, why don't you go briefly to describe the unit mix. Okay. David Troy, architect. Um, so again, you have uh existing funeral home that's going to be extended to
bring the retail to the front, two retail spaces, and then we're putting in a studio in the back uh for accessibility. And then here, >> 80. Yep. Thank you for that.
Okay. Um, and on the second floor, we would have a threebedroom in the front. three bedroom in the front again side by side and then you would have >> those are above the retail space. >> Yes, this would be above the retail space. >> And so you have a onebedroom here and a
another threebedroom in the back. The three-bedroom actually exists, but it's not being utilized. It's part of the funeral home, but it's it's a kind of a hybrid uh residential use. And then here on the third floor, this is an existing
apartment that's existing that's that's there. Um, and the third floor is basically the same layout as the second floor. So again, >> show draw the line at what's new. So everything above the So
>> So everything from this line >> down is what you're adding. >> Yeah. Is adding, right? Um and we tried to make basically the building uh very contextual in terms of the bay window uh
reflecting on sort of the bay window caricature you know character on on across the street. try to keep as much of the existing features as possible so that it's the idea is to defer to the neighborhood in terms of the design and
make it look as though it were always intended to be part of that fabric. So again, the height of the building, we're really not exceeding any of the height of the adjacent buildings. Um, and that's really and and the
parking there's a there's a large parking lot there. So, we're we're maintaining as much of that as possible. >> And you you asked for what kind of So, you're proposing thinner parking um nar more narrow parking. Is that what I'm seeing here? >> Yes.
>> Oh, the pockets as much as uh 9 ft by 18. So, standard >> pocket space. I think it's just that your requirement is more, >> but we're it's basically one per unit. Um, and the reason why I brought up the accessible because I think you mentioned before about accessible. So, there's
going to be one uh group two unit on the ground level, which will be group two for purposes of anybody's listening. And >> well, it says here width of off streetet parking spaces, not 9 ft. It says 8t one in. >> If they are, it looks like it says nine, right?
>> Nine ft. >> So, They don't >> It doesn't matter. We still need parking relief. >> Well, that's that's looking for parking on that. >> And the aisle you want 22. >> The aisle feeds 22. You require have 24 feet. Again, the parkings is already the
aisle width and that is already existing. So, if you take the footprint from here to here, it's still with the same aisle width. >> But it looks like >> that's not that big a deal. Just clarify it. I'll double check it, but I can't I don't have vision like that. I used to,
but not anymore. >> So, um, yeah. So, the it most of the rel the relief, most of the relief as far as aisle width and so forth, that's that was already a pre-existing okay condition. >> So, all right. >> Any other questions before I open up?
>> Um, >> what type of retail you going to have on on on those two >> um >> spaces? >> Well, if I can bring Hector because he's the one operating what type of Can you come up please and just introduce yourself?
>> My name is Hector Angel, the owner of 123 Washington. So, it can be, you know, a barber shop, a convenience store. Um, we don't know exactly what type of retail is going to be interesting. Um, maybe a a convenience store. We have someone that already has another one in
Broadway that was trying to reach out to me, see if he can do a convenience store in that area. >> Okay. They're going to have a parking spaces. >> So, two of them two >> two park two parking spaces are going to be for the two commercial units.
>> So, one in one. >> Yes. >> What about the deliveries? >> I can talk about that. any deliveries as far as use they would have to first of all any type of units here if I'm not mistaken John wouldn't you have to get relief for whatever use would be if
there was parking >> for for retail right based on the use that goes there wouldn't they have to get relief for that use for parking so either way that would have to go before a board for use because it matters by seating and what you put in there we
don't know right now in our head we set aside two but if they may require 12 spots based on how many patrons they have and they're in use and employees and so forth. So they have to get relief. So if I tell you that we're going to do deliveries here when we
don't know what type of use it is, I'd be lying to you on that. >> So what you're saying is you would have to come back for the sport in any case when you decide >> any prospective tenant that goes there would would probably need some type of relief or parking, right, John? uh not unless the you as a board grant the relief that's being asked for which
is two spaces for retail and the rest for residential. Um you can also do shared parking you know uh retail becomes residential at night and vice versa. >> Correct. >> Which is Yeah. I mean I was thinking why wouldn't you could do something like that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But but again, as far as if if whatever type of use is going to be, I would expect deliveries usually happen before seven. That's how they usually do it because traffic, schools, and so forth. But again, if it's a barber shop, hypothetically speaking,
there's not really that much deliveries other than, you know, shaving equipment and so forth. If it's a convenience store, now we're talking something different because you're going to have deliveries pretty frequent on that type of use. But usually they deliver that in early morning hours on um on that. And
again, I I I have to believe the uses of FOD less um hindering to the neighborhood than a funeral home when you have funerals and off- streetet parking and events taking place when that's going to be, you know,
once every three or four days for deliveries and so forth for that major use. when a funeral from between wakes and funerals and they have nots causes far more parking concerns in neighborhood than a less restrictive use something like this. >> Well then to to tie into what what you
go saying is there would delivery take place in is there an extra is there a separate entrance for deliveries in the retail spaces or would retail deliveries go in through the front door? I there's if I am mistaken you only have one entrance and I don't want to speak if I speak out of school David let me know
it's on the right hand side where you see that 22 foot pathway that's the only entrance you have to enter >> but if the deliveries come at 7 like you're saying Washington being a busy street in the morning you know the school days they have to go into the
driveway block the other people that parked there and uh >> not not for a convenience store just so you just so you know I'm I can't I don't know convenience store could be six o'clock, could be 5:30, but I would think before 7 o'clock and I would assume the retail spots would be the
first two spots. So all they would do, they don't come. It's not like a stop and shop truck. It's a >> but if they're delivering Coke, those are what almost 10 wheeler trucks, they were kind of blocking the driveway
too those truck free coke, those days are long gone. They don't exist anymore around sometimes. No, but I'm saying they're delivering to Stop and Shop. They're not delivering to a convenience store because those come in with these like the Amazon truck
vans, you know, they just I get Coke deliveries every day and water at the house and my buildings. We we have them stocked. There's small little trucks that come in for that. You're not going to see a tractor trailer going down for >> I've seen it right there in Kar. They're blocking >> Car. Do you ask do you think and I don't
know I'm asking this would could we ask for even if we proposes that they had to come and get further approval for what kind of retail goes in there >> or or are we just sort of retail is considered retail >> uh retail for relative to parking retail
is considered retail it's one for every 300 square feet no matter what type of retail it is >> so it doesn't matter okay but that would change deliveries that's all I'm just thinking about Well, is the parking area big enough to add more parking spaces or no? There's no more room. >> That's pretty much all you got is 11
spots. I mean, hypothetically speaking, we don't think the residential is going to take all all nine spots per unit because you have one, two, three, four units that are under 550 square feet. So, those will always could be available
for retail. And again, John makes a good point. A lot of these people that do have a vehicle that leave for work, those could be eligible for the retail use. I just can't I don't feel comfortable telling you that, okay, they're going to be there at 5:00 and
they come with a 20 by 10 truck because I don't own a convenience store. >> But but but I I don't think you're going to see a a tractor trailer truck also come here, too. I feel more confident saying that than than otherwise. Well, I mean, definitely there will be like Amazon
trucks, you know, Amazon. I'm sure there'll be some vans or something that will want to double park because they want to quickly drop off something or maybe even pull into the parking area to make a delivery. So, there will be some type of traffic >> that I that will happen for not because
they're retail, I think, just for residential use. >> You're gonna see my wife because I get Amazon coming every five minutes at my house with the trucks. I think that's >> I mean, I I think you know, it's a legit I think the question really is kind of, you know, if it's an Amazon truck, which we can't get, they could pull in, you
know, let's let's make an assumption that act correctly. Pull into the garage parking lot, find an empty space, run in, run. So, I mean, that's but if there's anything bigger than that, I think the concern is absolutely legitimate that where would they, you
know, if it's anything bigger than an Amazon truck, then they're going to park on the street. >> Yeah. >> And they're going to block the street. >> They'll probably double park if that I I understand the concern, but I don't I don't know what's going there. So, I don't want to tell you that it's going
to be I would think that the biggest use that would have that problem would be something that has to always be refilled on a daily or by weekly basis and that's going to be food services. >> Why are you proposing retail instead of two more apartments? Uh I think we
worked with the city and the city wanted to see uh a mixeduse retail >> the city comfortable with retail or with residential >> I mean because I think if it's residential it's a little easier to figure out what they're looking for >> or maybe even like an office space would
that would be would office space be okay >> but can I be upfront with you I I don't see office space on the ground will work they can't you can't rent office space in Boston right now I don't think I if if there's a concern with a convenience store, I mean, I can speak to I wouldn't
have no objection to I don't know if it can be done this way, John, that says that they could go before board for a special permit for the use. I I don't know. >> I mean, I could potentially see like a law office there, >> you know, like or or like
>> there's no restriction someone that wants to do that. >> There's no restriction for an office to be there if that's the I mean, if a law office wanted to rent it, they could they could rent it, right, John? There's no So >> theor yes there is because retail is retail and office are listed as two separate uses. So if you're asking if
you want office to locate you should ask for office as well. >> Yeah we weren't looking at office because I don't think anybody's trying to put office anywhere in this >> you're thinking more let's say you're thinking more 7-Eleven. I mean that's what we're talking about. >> Yeah. I don't think I don't think a 7-Eleven is going. You know what I mean?
>> Yeah. I So I mean I I can make this. It could be one retail, could be two retail, it could be one larger retail. Um, I think the larger the space, the more likely or not you're going to get some type of food services in there, personally. But, uh, I mean, I I have no
problem if there's a way of doing it, if there's a concern, but convenience store, I think a lot of neighbors like convenience stores in there because they like the accessibility of picking up some groceries and milk and eggs or what have you. John, could we put in a
condition when they have the uh assuming they get approval, they uh when they uh have the retail people that they come to this board for approval. Could you put that in as a condition?
>> Well, that's what you're that's what seek that's what the applicant is seeking now. Retail on that first floor >> because we don't get to dictate what kind of retail. we just get to dictate if you're proposing that retail then they have to have x amount of parking >> and
I I think it's sort of that's what I was trying to understand and kind of grasp if that's possible because retail is retail you know we're not here to say oh it should be a mom and pop drugstore versus a barber shop versus a whatever if the use is allowed as a retail use >> okay
>> that I mean that's you know that's the so but yet I appreciate that >> some retail retail uses have greater demands than other retail uses >> and and benefits. I mean I live in a neighborhood and I would have loved to
have you know I had a little >> we're not we're not talking about we're not talking about detriments we're talking about >> what the things that we need to look at which is for us it's parking >> that's the biggest thing you know it's not you know that you can get a better you know you can walk outside and get a
quart of milk that's not our issue our issue is parking and so So you can you can you know if we're arguing about a variance for example and you decide you want to put in a convenience store there then that fits perfectly well with one of the criterians of a convenience store in that it's it's more positive to the
area than not but that's not what you know but what's in front of us is is park is parking as it relates because since we have no I no other thing on which to judge this it's only parking that we can be looking at. I I I could
note that again it's it's 11 parking spaces. Realistically at at 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock or nine o'clock or whatever delivery you're going to probably have four spots. It's going to be owned and managed by Hector. He manages all them. >> Well, we're not signing this tonight. So, I think it's something we can think
about and you know, think about what we're saying and whether or not there's something that works. But should is if we don't have any other questions, I'm going to open up to the public. Okay. Again, this won't be the only opportunity Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this?
There being none, I'm not closing this. You have the opportunity next week, next month, December 12, 9th, here, the 11:18 at the planning board. >> Okay. Thank you, M. Everyone. I have I didn't think about it before, but have a happy Thanksgiving. >> Same. Oh, before I do that, wait, I just
want to we do have some letters. I just want to step back for a moment. I wanted to read these. I apologize. Uh, dear members of the zoning board, my name is Meline Garcia and I am the owner and resident of 157 Washington A and Chelsea. I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed
residential housing development at 123 Washington A being undertaken my by Mr. Hector Angel. Our communities experience a serious housing shortage and responsible development like Mr. Angel's project is essential to meeting the growing needs of Chelsea families. Excuse me. This proposal represents an
important step toward increasing the availability of housing in our city while also revitalizing our Washington Avenue neighborhood. As a nearby property owner, I believe this project will have a positive impact on our community by providing more housing opportunities and contributing to the continued growth and improvement of our
city. I fully support the approval of this project and encourage the board to allow it to move forward. Maline Garcia, owner and resident, 157 Washington Avenue. Um, dear members of the zoning board, my name is Tenary Garcia. I serve as a city
councelor as well as the resident and business owner in Chelsea. I'm writing to express my full support for Mr. Hector Angel's proposed expansion project located at 123125 Washington A, which would convert the existing building from one residential unit and one commercial unit into nine
residential units and two commercial units. As a neighbor, I believe this project represents a positive investment in our community. Increasing the number of residential units will help address the growing demand for housing in Chelsea while expanding the commercial space will create opportunities for small businesses to contribute to our
local economy. Mr. Angel has consistently demonstrated a commitment to improving the neighborhood and ensuring that his developments align with Chelsea's character and community goals. I am confident that this project will enhance the area both aesthetically and economically. Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully
urge the board to approve the project and allow this much needed development to move forward. Sincerely, Tenary Garcia. Dear members of the planning department, which will take this one, I am writing to express my support for the new development proposed by Mr. Hector Angel next door to my property located at 131
Washington A, Chelsea. While I recently rented my apartment, I I received over nine applications for prospective tenants. This clearly shows how strong the demand for housing is in Chelsea. Many applicants mentioned that they were especially interested in the apartment because of its convenient location,
particularly the bus line right in front of my property. I believe that the building more I I believe that building more housing along the bus line makes a great deal of sense and will help more families continue to live and stay in Chelsea. I ask the city to consider and support Mr. Angel's application for
additional housing development. Arturo Hernandez, 131 Washington Avenue. So, thank you. I just want to make sure that the I appreciate that. >> Thank you everyone. >> The next one in front of us was something we discussed last month.
>> Great. Thank you. Um and this um we we had talked about 157 Washington AB case 20229 which um which was requesting a modification of the approved special permit and variances the modifications for two additional two additional residential units on the third floor. We
agreed that it was major modification So, we asked for it to come back here and this is a public hearing. So, the people will have the opportunity to comment, but I'm going to open it. I'm going to now ask the petitioner to come forward and present. Poor Mr. Midland.
He had to stay there. He was first and last today. >> Yeah, John forgot to put me last for all three. >> Oh, so you're gonna have That one's not working. So, only the one next to Mr. Joe is working. So again, David Mland representing the
petitioner. Um, Maline keeps moving, but Maline Garcia, the manager of the petitioner, and David Choy, the architect. So, um, back in 20 22,
um, this board issued a decision allowing Miss Garcia to add, um, four residential units on the second floor above her real estate brokerage at 157 Washington Avenue. Uh, so that allowed
for three onebedrooms and one two-bedroom unit. Um, in the course of moving forward with the project, uh, Meline realized that in light of the local housing shortage, etc., she could provide two additional units in the
attic space above the second floor. So basically what happened is the way the building was designed um so this is the the modified version but there was a framed but empty attic space above the
four new units. So by adding just by adding dormers, no other changes to the building, no changes to the footprint, the height, anything else. She can put two additional units in. Um
so there would be one additional two-bedroom unit and one additional threebedroom unit. And um and that's basically it. So um it would create a couple of additional nonconformities.
One being requirement of additional parking. The original decision um there was a special permit for parking relief that was already issued and also open space because apparently she can't use the planters as open space. So there's
really no opportunity to add any open space to the lot. But there is I think John you said 400 square feet per unit. >> There was previously when there was roof decks there uh when there was a deck there. Um
>> right. >> So that deck that is uh shown on the rear was 400 ft. >> Okay. The deck is staying right. Damn it. Yeah. The deck is staying. So that's 400 square feet and you need I think you said 600 correct. And that's that's
basically it. But this would be efficient. Um it would be financially feasible and again it would also provide two goodsiz units hopefully not transent and as was stated in the previous case
because the property is next door right on the bus line. Highly desirable neighborhood. That whole neighborhood is beautiful. It's been rehabbed over the last probably 10 years or so with new
construction and uh it's very desirable. >> Any questions? >> Um can you remind us or either you um how many parking spaces were you previously approved? >> There are six. >> That's what we approved last time. >> Previously they needed 18. They had six
and we approved it. Now they need 22. They're not adding any additional spaces. So basically they're asking for relief for four additional parking spaces. So they we again we originally they had six. They've always had six. That's not changing. We have previously
allowed it even though they required 18 because of the setup and now they need because of the new units they need 22. >> So basically they're looking and that's why we wanted to have a conversation primarily because we wanted to make sure people were concerned about that because
because we'd already given substantial relief but did we feel you know did we feel comfortable giving additional relief and we wanted to hear we had we didn't have the opportunity to hear from anybody about it if we hadn't considered it a minor modification so does that your question
>> um it will if this is approved uh where would be the main interest to this uh new um apartments or it will be the same and >> nothing would change >> nothing will change >> nothing would change at all David can
there would just be another level of stairs going up. Correct. >> Right. Uh David Troy, architect. Um you know, originally when we came to the board, um there was um some concerns about a flat roof. And so we actually
for aesthetics we put a a hip roof system to make it look proportional and to to make it look appropriate to the city's fabric. Um so between then when it was approved and now um my client has
invested considerably into construction document and does have a building permit. Um I mean she's invested a lot into the architect engineering to get the permit but then realized with the economics of it the fact that there is a
bas basically a large un unus or not occupied attic space that was approved back then for aesthetic reasons. So we're we're not changing the roof line. We're not changing the stairs. We're not changing >> but you're adding dormers. just adding
dormers to to basically put natural light to place that would have been just an empty space because of the fact that we went back and forth with the planning board and created a design that was aesthetics but now we're trying to inject function into the aesthetics if
you will. So that's that's um no modification to anything no roof line just dormers. So there were three ch three three just to be clear there were three modifications and one probably the most um telling you the one that to me raised the biggest issue was the change
in park the number of parking spaces which we previously they reck they needed 18 we gave them six now they need 22 they're still looking for six the open space um I think previously was 400 requirement now it's a 600 requirement
because of the additional people so if they're asking for relief for that when they you know it wouldn't have really been it wasn't as big an issue before um because they're still going to have the 400 feet and then they also have the maximum density. So 12 units per acre was what
was required and now they have six basically size. So it's those those but the biggest I think in my opinion the biggest single one is the what am I correct and did I articulate that correctly? >> No. Okay. The biggest single one is the parking issue and that's why I think we
thought that it was idea to bring it back to be discussed as a mess because I think the open space is not as big a factor nor is the I mean the building is the building but those two units trigger those additional requirements.
So, but other than that, what we had proved before, you know, we we we approved, you know, um that the parking spaces, you know, were slightly in front in the front yard set back. We've done that. We we pre we agreed with that before. Um we we allowed them to be a
little closer in the lots near the side lot line. Last time we supposed to be 5T, we allowed it at one. Um the maximum yacht lot density last time again was 12 units and they proposed four. Now they're proposing six because of the two additional units. Um the exist increase
of an existing front yard non-conformity hasn't changed. They needed 10 ft. We said 3.9 was okay given the size of the building given the size of the setup. Increase of an existing sideyard setback. They needed 10. They have 3.6. And the sideyard and again the um rear
yard nonconformity was 20 to 16.1. Those are things that we we agreed when we looked at the variances last time. We felt we're okay, but now we have these one this one per this two special permits in this one additional variance that we have to consider.
>> Did I get that right? Okay. >> Yes. >> Um one last question. Um what would you say is the reason uh there haven't been done any construction since we approved this in 2022? You can introduce yourself just
introduce yourself and >> sorry. >> Good evening madam chair and esteemed board members Maline Garcia the owner of 157 Washington Avenue. So above the building above when I purchased the building there was an air encroachment
with cable wires and I had no idea that there were seven different companies that had cable wires here. So, I came before the board for an extension. Um, and that was really the main reason. It literally took me about a year and a half. Uh, I was able to have them
removed when I contacted emergency management here in Chelsea. The city of Chelsea actually helped and was able to have them removed. But that really and then of course uh as you may remember the rates back then were 3%.
having to wait this time which was not accounted for by me then rates went to what they are now so therefore it it created that issue and the delay thank you question >> yeah I mean just to clarify what Maline
didn't say is the miracle of miracles is she was able to get the utilities to actually >> I was actually about to say that how did that happen >> she moved they moved the telephone poll, which is just an impossible task. >> You decide to give them your first three
children. I mean, I guaranted a couple of grandchildren, but for the record, I also did pay for the poll. That was I couldn't believe it, but I paid for it. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm gonna open it up for the hearing, but first, I'm going to read a couple of letters of support or what
letters I think they're of support. I know the first one is um I'm writing in support of Miss Maline Garcia's proposal for additional residential units at 157 Washington A. As a longtime Chelsea resident, I believe this project would not only fit aesthetically into the
Kerry Square neighborhood, but also bring muchneeded two and three-bedroom units to our community. These types of apartments are in high demand and would offer housing options for families and individuals who want to stay in Chelsea. Although I couldn't attend the meeting due to work, I want to express my full support and urge the board to support
this proposal. Excuse me, Scott Benton, 10 Foresight Street. And this is another one. I am writing to express my full support for the zoning request submitted by my neighbor, Miss Maline Garcia, regarding her proposal to add six residential units above her
building located at 157 Washington A. As the property owner at 26 KRAV, I believe this project will significantly benefit our neighborhood. Not only does it address the growing need for additional housing in our area, but the proposed structure will also enhance the appearance and vitality of the Carry Avenue and Washington AD intersection, a
key corner in our community. Ms. Garcia has already demonstrated her commitment to thoughtful development with her previous approval for four units, and I trust that this expanded proposal will continue in the same spirit of responsible and aesthetically mindful growth. I urge the board to grant
approval for this project as it represents a positive step forward in addressing our housing our housing housing shortage while improving our neighborhood's character and infrastructure. Sincerely, Mark Ladino 26 carry out. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, if I may, there was also a third letter from the city manager for Mr. Maltiz. Um, unfortunately, I did not print it, but Matteline has that on her phone. >> She can bring it to the next meeting. Oh, no. Actually, today's we're not gonna go next meeting. Do you have it? >> Yes, I do.
>> Yeah. >> It's actually an email. >> You can wait. You can you can get up there and read it just if you'd like. >> I'll give you the honors. I can't get to the top of it. Man, >> it's your phone. You should read it. >> Yeah, exactly.
>> I'm a I'm a lot older and less >> the microphone. >> That's okay. Did you want me to also read the email that I sent to him requesting the >> read his read? >> Excellent. Um uh so basically I was requesting his support for this development and he said, "Thank you,
Meline. I support the project and I support your leadership and dedication to our community. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And I have the email. I can send it. >> Okay. Just for the record, at some point, please print that out and make sure that John has it. >> I sent it to your email, John, just like about 20 minutes ago. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you for the record. Um, okay. So, um, again, this is public part. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this matter? >> We know you better be in support. My name is Hector Angel. I'm owner of 123 Washington Street and other properties here in Chelsea. And I know
Maline, she's been working really hard to get this project done and it's going to look amazing in that corner. What she does, she does a lot for the community. She's a great landlord and she deserve the opportunity to get this uh project approved. >> Thank you.
Sorry. Did you want to say something? Hi. Uh, Luis Deada, former city councelor 103 Franklin have Chelsea Soldiers Home. Um, so I' I've known Meline for I won't give your age away, but 30 years at least. Anyway, uh, >> you just gave her age away,
>> huh? She's um, you know what, all the projects she's done, she's done a great job. uh she always uh takes special care and caution to come to city hall and make sure that she follows you know your desires what you see fit for the city as
far as improvement which is evident I mean you just drive around Broadway and Washington a's like wow Chelsea's looking like you know like what you guys are doing an amazing job and uh you know uh one of the big things that when I was
a city council here one of the things that I would always push was Christmas lights. And the reason I pushed for that was because I'm very big on the aesthetic look of things, you know, and it was it was one thing that would always bother me. I'm a lifelong Chelsea
guy. Um, and it always bothered me that you would come in from River or Everett where it was lit and you know what I'm talking about. And as you came into Chelsea, it was dark. What was, you know, and so, you know, Fidel's done a great job with improving the lights and
so did uh Tom and and so the city itself has a few entry points that are very key when you come into the city. If you're a stranger, you know, like any other city, there are there are spots that catch your attention. I think the building like that in Kerry Square, Kerry Square
is a very central location uh for the city and I think it's one of those spots just like in front of the police station. Those little spots catch people's eyes. Kate's Bagels looks great now that you come in and it's got that sign the way it has it and it really
improves not just the value of the city but the morale of the people, right? Because they they they people love their city and they want to see it improve. I think that building would make that area look great. You know, uh there's already other little convenience stores like the
thing that he's doing right across the street. There's a there's a a meat market and other little things. They figure out how to do the whole So, you guys have figured that out. You'll be figuring that. But I'm just saying I think that her project will definitely improve our city. >> Thank you.
>> Any other dropped her glasses? Be careful. Hi, good evening. Uh, Stephanie Rivas, 105 Broadway. I am here to show full support for Meline's two and three bedrooms. Um, born and raised in Chelsea, Chelsea native. I've seen the
high demand for two and three bedrooms. I've also personally known families who have had to leave Chelsea because they want to keep growing, right? And um as you know the audience is a lot now for one bedrooms for like single commuters
or like um young professionals. So I am in full support for it. I think it it is in high demand. Um I've known Meline for like eight years now and she does do a lot for the city. She does she has done her annual turkey drive. She's done um
donating back to school. Um she does a lot for the community. So I'm in full support for it. I do think it's in high demand. >> Anybody else? >> Sure. Come on. >> Hi, I'm Marilyn Garcia, 64 Hooper
Street. I'm Meline's sister. I've known her for a little bit longer than everybody here. >> It's so ob It's so obvious your sister, by the way. >> Just saying. um 100% in support of not only the project um being able to actually do projects that reflect the community and the community's need as
the architect was indicating it was an empty space. It's no longer going to be empty is what the community needs providing housing and units so that they can be utilized to its full potential and honestly also you know shying away from the the funeral home theme. Sorry,
Hector. You know, it's Washington A. Just shying away from that and going into the living people and folks of the community. That's what we want. We want to support the living. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, I'm going to close the public participation portion of this. Um, let's go through
the conditions. I'm going to go to the variance first. And the only thing that we're looking for for a variance for is the useful open space in this case. Okay. So um councelor 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. Again it's for useful open space is the only >> there's no room. >> You have you have a lot that is odd
shape and a building takes up much of that lot. >> Yeah. I mean that's >> Yeah. Is that >> that works? >> I mean, do we agree? I mean, >> I'm looking for the notes in the original decision which are still >> Yeah, that's But I mean, I think in this
case it's it's there's it's a limited lot. It's they've done some they've captured it in the way they can with the roof deck and there's really not a lot of options. If they actually want to build something on this space, they could meet the open space requirements if they if they also wanted to
as a space to which to have people live. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Joe, put your microphone up. >> Um, >> yes. >> A literal enforcement would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or applicant. I think you touched on this a
little bit just a moment ago. >> As I said, part of the the um hardship is financial in that the cost of building this open Not having it be usable at all is prohibitive at this point based on the
>> or if you built the open space then you wouldn't be able to make no sense to have >> interior. >> You couldn't have a house. >> If you had this open if you met the open space requirement then you really wouldn't have an insufficient living space. >> Right. >> So that would be I mean you couldn't
really that's pretty financially problematic. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. >> Well, as was discussed and as Mr. Angel
brought up also, this whole area is developing and the funeral homes, this is one of the two funeral home, one of the three funeral homes that was lined up there. And this is a tremendous positive development to the
neighborhood, creating very New residential housing >> and housing being the as stated the necessary something that's needed. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Excuse me. To thyroid relief may be granted without nullifying or
substantially dergating from the intent or purpose of this chapter >> and it fits perfectly into the district. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, let's walk through quickly through the special permits. Again, the special permit here is for parking
and for maximum density. So both of which both of which are exact. And so remember previously we we recognized that there was only space for six on here. 18 would have been required. We thought based on what we talked about
that that was relevant. Now it's up to 22. So we have to talk about it again. Um so the special so the social economic or community needs which are served by the proposal counselor. We never went through these before. We didn't go through the details on the on
the special on the special permit. >> Right. >> So the social >> well again the >> we did write it up in the decision. >> We wrote I'm just saying I don't Yeah. >> No, I didn't hear part of what you said. >> Social we were the social economic or community needs which are served by the proposal.
So the proposal seeks to establish now um six residential units and it meets the need for housing, a desperate need for housing for economic development and especially the development of this area
which is becoming a beautiful neighborhood mixed use with many mixeduse buildings and also for investment in the city's infrastructure. Yes, it is. Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Traffic flow and safety,
including parking and loading. >> Um, again, >> well, there's no new cars being added, so it's not adding to more parking, >> but it is adding to the requirement. >> Okay. >> But again, this this is an urban part of
the city. Not that Chelsea isn't entirely urban, but um it's in close proximity to public transportation. There are four bus routes and the Silver Line, all within walking distance. >> And the uh you tenants will not be able
to get sticker to park on the street. >> Yeah. No stickers to park on the street. You recognize that? Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Adequacy of utilities and other public services. I would say if anyone can get a
telephone pole moved that answers that question right there. But the utilities are more than adequate. Washington Avenue and Carry Square were rebuilt several years ago and uh there's um certainly enough infrastructure to
support the extra two units that would be built. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um neighborhood character and social structures. >> Um again mixed use with the office, the real estate office downstairs and the
spa downstairs from that. Um, also back when the original project was was done um this went before the historical commission and their um suggestions were incorporated into the design of the
building which is not changing at all. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Impacts on the natural environment including drainage. >> There shouldn't be any exacerbation of any issues in that area. I don't think
that that's really not an area where there's flooding or >> because you're not you're not changing the size of the building, just the shape a little bit. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. And potential fiscal impact including impacts on city services, tax
base, and employment. It'll provide some additional income to the petitioner. It'll defer some of the construction costs or at least make them more worthwhile and it will increase the tax base to the city. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Um John, what what are the thoughts of the planning board, planning department? >> Planning department is recommended uh is recommending approval uh with following conditions to extend the existing conditions on the permit. uh ad design
review and of course no one street parking stickers. >> Okay, you comfortable with those? Do I have a motion? >> Art I make I make a motion to accept uh case >> 2022
>> 202209 uh with standing conditions as as noted. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> no >> no. >> Okay. And let's go one by one. Okay. Arthur, >> yes. >> You go. >> No. >> Joe, >> yes. >> Marilyn, >> yes.
>> Janice, yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, do we have any other business? >> Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor? >> Okay.