test 1212. >> Good evening. Welcome to the River Zoning Board of Appeals. If we could rise and salute the flag, please >> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call of the members. Mr. Lemina >> here. Mr. Lopes >> here. Mr. O'Brien is absent. Mr. Pelton >> here. here. Alternate member Miss Pratt >> here and chairman Tucker
>> here. >> Here quorum is present. First item on tonight's agenda was continued from the meeting of February 25th. It's application A2604 Zapage Development LLC 78 Mil Street Middleton requesting variances from the
ZBA to enable the appellant to construct two townhouse dwellings at 661 Washington A. >> Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. Good evening >> members of the board of appeals. James Cipleta 5 Fremont Street in Winth on behalf of Mr. Zapage who is here. Um
this is u a proposal for or town houses on a lot that is 9410 square ft u and contains one building that had suffered a total loss during a fire. So Mr. Sage
has plans to put the town houses there at uh at the location and replace that uh two family house with the with the uh townhouse um uh setup. Um there are three areas of
relief that are required. One is for um variance from the minimum lot area of 10,000 square ft. So, we're only um very shy of that. We're 9,410. It's a very it's a generous lot on its
own. Uh the rear yard setback of of 20 ft. Um that does that setback does not offend um substantially against the neighborhood in in the rear of that. And that's that rear yard setback that's noted on on the plan. The third one is
with respect to the driveway that shall not be within 20 ft of a point of curvature of an intersection. Um we we understand there is driveway there now and we understand that the city engineer is taking a look at this. We have an engineer as well and so what would would
do if there was um it was the wisdom of the board of appeals to grant the grant the relief. Uh we would hire a safety engineer make sure that it was designed appropriately. make sure that cars that are entering or exiting the driveways
there uh near the curve in the street uh could do so um safely. Uh as with all projects um that get relief from the board, uh we'd have to go back anyway to make sure that we tie up all of the safety and the health and um other
regulations. go back to the uh site plan review people and they would tell us how we could engineer that better if they felt that it was not um uh substantially improved from um it its current um
situation. uh the we do understand uh that there's a reason for that ordinance but there is also a a remedy for that and with good engineering and good planning um the site plan review I'm I am confident and would be happy uh with
that if there are any questions regarding the zoning I'm happy to uh answer them if there is anything with regard to the building and the materials as well Mr. Mr. Zap is here to answer those. >> Thank you. Seeing that this is a public
hearing, I will open it up and ask for proponents. Anyone in favor? From our last meeting, if we could read in to the record the letter from Sereno, >> the proponent from the previous meeting
was Jean Serino, 54 Carlson A. I submit this letter as the former property owner of 661 Washington A along with my late husband Richard. I have seen the proposal and on its face it looks to be a good use of the land and I feel it will fit the neighborhood nicely. I've also seen some of the applicants other
projects and feel they complement the neighborhoods. So in this respect I'm a proponent of the project. However, there's one aspect of the proposal I feel a responsibility to address and that's the proposed new driveway in Washington A. I've seen traffic increase over the 30 years I've lived at this address. The intersection of Washington
A and Malden Street has had its share of accidents to the point where stop signs and a blinking red light have been added to both directions of Washington Avenue traffic to go along with the stop signs for Malden Street drivers entering Washington A. Guardrails have also been added in front of two Washington A
properties, including the project's direct to butter. Cars have jumped the intersection island and caused property damage, including to my own yard. Taking my firsthand experiences into account, the proposed new driveway on the Washington A side of the property should be given more thought from a safety
standpoint. Not every car from Malden comes to a Malden Street comes to a full stop at their stop sign before accelerating onto Washington A. And in my opinion, anyone entering or exiting that new driveway is at serious risk of an accident. I understand that since I
no longer live there, it ought to be the will of the direct and indirect abutters of the property and the city council to decide what's best for the neighborhood. It's my wish that the proposed project works for everyone. Jean Serino, 54, Carlson A. >> Thank you. Are there any other
proponents? >> Press the microphone button once and it will turn red up on top. >> Nope, it turns red. So let she'll take care of you. >> Okay. >> There you go. >> Hi everyone. My name is Baris Burke. I'm
a longtime resident of Reier and a business owner. And uh the project Mr. Zapage is prop. >> You have to have your address, please. >> My address is resident address 590 Reier Beach Boulevard. My business is United
Brokers of Rivier and the address is 283 Kushmanav. >> Thank you. >> I saw the pro proposed project I support because the currently the building is an eyesore and not only he will be that
area but also adds value to the neighborhood and I saw his past projects. I support him 100%. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents? Seeing any hearing none, I'll close that
side of the hearing. Any opponents? >> Good evening. >> Good afternoon everyone. Jim McCar 193 Cres Ward One City Councelor. Um we haven't seen an updated plan on how he's going to do these driveways. Uh, one of the driveways is going to be within the
20 ft zone of the curve of it curvature of the Washington A um um uh uh corner. This corner is one of the busiest intersections in RA without a street light and this builder wants to put a uh
uh a driveway close to the uh corner of that intersection. Uh the petitioner that just came up uh in front of it that was far this even stated that this is a very dangerous intersection where these town houses are going to be built on. Uh
I looked at the property several times. There's a telephone pole that's going to be away. There's also a fire hydrant down in that uh close to one of the uh proposed driveways. I wonder if the developer is going to move that. But uh I don't think this is a very good
project for the area. Um, I think two one townhouse for that would be fine. Um, it's just the driveways are going to encroach onto that 20 foot uh radius uh intersection. Thank you. >> When you council just when you say
updated plan, the plan's been on file. So there's no updated plan. The plan on file clearly states >> they came in front of the council with a plan and we had looked at it and the council was against this because of the driveways. >> Okay. But the plan that's presented to us is the plan
>> is the plan that's on file right now. Okay. All right. >> The one that was filed months ago is the plan that's on file. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Tucker. >> Good evening, Council Lodge. Michelle Kelly. Um I just I want to say I'm not
totally against this project. I generally am in favor of town houses and single family homes. Um so I like to try to support those proposals. However, um the concern I have, I'm going to echo what council mccurio said, is in fact the driveway. We know that even the
proponent in her lettera mentioned the unsafe driveway. Um like as council mccurio said, this is one of the busiest intersections in Rivier. I'm afraid that if um the plan right now, as it as it is proposed, if it were to be approved, it
would create uh traffic nuisance more so than what's there right now. that would lead to other maybe traffic changes, uh a street light, things that the neighborhood is going to have to deal with as a result of this project. So, I did uh being no expert, I just know that
this is um not allowed and would need a variance because of it being within the 20 ft. Um I did reach out to Nick, Mr. Nick Rystrom, our city engineer, and he did give me his expert opinion and I quote, "This would create a very unsafe
condition." So, um I would like this to be something redesigned. If we could keep the driveways on Malden Street, maybe create a shared driveway. Um I know they're squeezing in the four units that really the lot should accommodate three. I I don't really have a problem
with that, but I do have a problem with the driveway. So, I'm asking you to please have the applicant go back to the drawing board and see if they can come up with a different solution. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents? Anyone opposed?
Seeing here, not I'll close that side of the hearing. Any members wish to speak? >> I had a question, but uh the councelor kind of addressed it about the safety engineer. Yes, >> you guys are going to hire a plan.
>> Yes, we've u Mario has been in touch with uh with some people because we learned recently of the city engineers concern. We also uh heard some concerns from the uh city council. So, a couple of the things that have been floated and we'd have to make sure that it's the
right solution or part of the right solution is to install some ballards around um you the appropriate areas uh on the property and not on the city, not in the city land so that we don't interfere with any traffic or pedestrian. One thing I I would like to
maybe clarify um and my longtime friend uh councelor Mccurio indicated that the city council was against it. A couple of city councilors said that they had raised some concerns about it. In fact, the ward counselor said that he was in
favor of it. So, we need to be back before the uh zoning subcommittee of the uh city council because we've already had our initial uh public hearing and then we'll have to make uh make further cases there and then they will make their recommendations back to the full
council as you know and they'll vote. But um you know as anything else these things u [clears throat] become sort of evolving plans not that we're going to change anything materially but anything that needs to be installed it's either life safety and u those types of issues
needs to be addressed those those will be done and probably conditioned by the city council because we are asking for special permit. >> Right. So is this going to go back to the city council back to zoning? >> Yes. the recommendations from the safety engineer.
>> Um the city's safety engineer or our safety engineer? >> No, your safe >> um if if they're done by that time. And what what happened is that because of the cancellation of the of the hearing uh due to the the blizzard, we actually
ended up doing backend first. So we ordinarily would be and in fact we're mandated to be before the board of appeals before we're at the city council but because there was a cancellation of a hearing we then ended up at the uh [snorts] at the city council first and
also I think that last month um there was not a full board so we opted to uh take advantage of making our case to the full board. So, the full council has heard our our uh presentation. They have referred it to the um zoning
subcommittee for their recommendations and then the council um will do what they do. But we need to um clear the ZBA first before we can get a vote. So, right now we're hanging fire. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Any other members?
>> Yes. [clears throat] So uh there is a concern. >> Oh yeah, there is a concern from the two counselors. There any chance you guys can go back to the drawing board and work with them? I'm sure we will and I'm sure that it's
going to be more than the two counselors because the zoning subcommittee um tends this uh session to be fairly active in in proactive in um asking uh for things to be firmed up um and so that some of
the concerns could be allayed. Uh so yeah, we're happy to work with the counselors. Um we've already been in contact even before filing the application uh with the ward counselor and worked with him as well. But uh yeah, I think that's going to be a
necessity indeed. >> Any other members? >> Sure. >> I'd like to uh rebuttal with uh Mr. Simple. With all due respect, Mr. Petta, the majority of the council was against this project. There were people that
were for the project. So I want to just clarify that matter with you. Thank you. >> It >> I just have a question. I just have a question for the board in terms of procedurally. If you go ahead and grant this variance, what what would we have
in terms of leverage to go for them to go back to the drawing board and do anything? If you grant the variance for them to be inside that 20 ft, >> you have to vote that it's allowed. They It's not a matter of right. It has to be a special premise. >> If you guys already grant the variance,
it kind of gives them well the ZBA said this was okay. So that kind of gives it a disadvantage. >> So if anything, hold off until we do vote on it. Well, you can't vote on it first. It comes in front of the ZBA to go in front of the council from what I'm understanding. But it was wrong.
>> Okay. All right. But I just it the council did not vote on it. They had to put it in subcommittee because the ZBA didn't take action. >> I I would ask that this be on hold until the discussions with the council take place to try to reconfigure this
driveway. >> Thank you. >> We didn't have the opportunity to Can Ashley, can you please speak on this? For procedural events, >> the city council cannot take a vote on the application until if variances are granted. The city council is voting on
the use, not the zoning variances that are being requested. >> That's the way it is, Mr. Tucker. >> Well, it's not that's not Mr. Tucker's way it is. It's the way that the it's set up. It's unfortunate we can't
>> that we can't make a change to that. >> Is there any other questions for me? >> Yeah, I got a question. Um, can this be tabled until we see the safety report from the engineers? >> The council is this board. We can offer
a we can make a motion to continue and you can continue it if you wish or you can make a motion to vote on it. It would always be a motion in favor and then you'd have to decide if you're not voting in favor. But it's you can make a
motion to continue, but that's that's a board's privilege. >> What's the wish of the C on the board? I think I think there's confusion on >> if we vote on it today, >> does it go back to the council?
>> Here's the just so to make it clear for us. We're not we're not part of the council. So to make it very clear for us, if we vote on this and it's approved, the the variances are set forth the
they it would go in front of site plan review, but the the driveway would be within the 17 1/2 ft from the corner, not 20. That would be a part of this variance and approved. >> Right. That's that if a tree has to be
taken down, that's a whole other issue with the now it's the city engineer who's a tree warden. They'll make a decision for that. If a hydrant has to be moved, that's DPW. That would be >> so the safety engineer that you guys are hiring
to oversee the issues of dangers to the driveway, whatever. >> That would come after. >> Yes. >> Okay. and and hopefully we would have I mean we're probably going to have a lot of input from the uh zoning subcommittee and as the chair and the clerk has
indicated >> um the full city council gets to vote on whether or not the project as a whole is going to go forward or not. Um >> so even if we voted on it today >> yes >> there's still issues that you guys would have to work out >> concerning the safety with the
engineers. They already raised it at uh the public hearing, so I'm sure I'm going to hear about it at the subcommittee. >> Okay, got it. >> For a point of clarification, the ZBA votes on this tonight
and it's accepted or voted as an affirmative. The variance for driveways, the every variance is approved. It doesn't change after we make a decision. They can't make a change. the the site
plan review can maybe say where to put a tree, take a tree down, but the the variances that are being requested are voted on and that's it. >> But then take recommendations from the safety engineer, >> but it's a recommendation. It's they are
approving the plot plan the way it is. That's fine. We don't get involved in the city council because the city council is only >> approving a change in from the their change of use. >> Can I go ahead?
>> The city council is approving the use under the city's zoning. A special permit from the city council is required for a townhouse use in the RB district. >> No. in the city council can issue special
permits with conditions. >> Okay. >> Okay. I got it. >> I just want to clarify. >> Allow one more. Yeah. Go ahead. >> So, the city council is going to be voting on the use of a townhouse in an RB district. That's it. If you guys
approve these variances, we are now voting on a project with those variances that you approved. It is going to be very difficult to try to go back and say do this differently. Well, why should we? The ZBA already approved the variance for that driveway. So, we'd
either have to deny the project completely because we don't like this one variance that was approved. That's it. Thank you. What's the will of the board? Motion to approve. >> There's a motion to approve. >> There's a motion to approve. Ask for a
roll call, please. With the conditions. >> With the >> If the zoning board of appeals approves the application, the variances, the following conditions will apply. One, if the rights authorized by this variance are not exercised within one year of the date of the grant of this variance, the
right shall lapse. This variance shall not be valid until the appellent has recorded this variance in planned in the Suffach County Registry of Deeds and submits document recording numbers and dates to the city clerk and building inspector of the city of River. And the appellant must receive site plan review approval prior to
applying for a building permit. Shall the zoning board of appeals grant the relief requested subject to those conditions? Mr. Lemma? >> Yes. Yes. Mr. Lopes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. O'Brien is absent. >> Mr. Pelton. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Miss Pratt, alternate member. >> Yes. And Chairman Tucker? >> No. >> No. The variance has been granted subject to those conditions. >> [applause] >> Next application is A2607 which was continued from the February 25th
meeting. Broadway 700 LLC 1040 to 1048 Northshore Road River Mass requesting variances to enable the appellant to construct a 20 unit apartment building at 700 Broadway. Yes, please. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good
evening, members of the board for the record attorney Brian Mcra on behalf of the applicant Broadway 700 LLC. Jamie Russo is a who was a principal of that entity is with me uh this evening. Uh by way of uh summary and of reminder from last month's meeting, uh the applicant
Broadway 700 LLC is seeking approval to redevelop 700 Broadway with a residential apartment building, [snorts] replacing an obsolete structure with a modern code compliant energy efficient development. As previously presented, the requested variances are necess
necessitated by the property's unique irregular shape, sloping topography, which creates practical difficulties in complying with the dimensional requirements. It would otherwise preclude a reasonable and beneficial use of the site. The proposed project is
appropriately located along Broadway, a primary corridor in the city of River and is consistent, very consistent with the surrounding neighborhood while advancing the city's planning's goals of including promoting housing, walkability, and economic activity.
Uh, with respect to parking concerns that were raised uh at the last uh hearing and that's the reason it was continued to this evening. Um we um uh the applicant has made uh good faith effort to engage directly with neighbors without uh success in doing so. Uh we
did however have the pleasure this evening of meeting one of the neighbors and exchange contact information. We're committed to uh continue to talk with them. Um in any event and I think importantly if the requested relief is granted um my client remains committed
to working with the neighbors to address parking concerns in the area to the extent feasible. including providing and paying for resources that might be needed such as survey work and trying to develop strategies to enhance enhance parking opportunities uh in that area.
He's very committed to doing that and we expressed that to um one of the neighbors tonight. Um, the other thing I think it's important to note is as it relates to concerns pertaining to the parking, in the event the board grants the requested relief uh
this evening, the applicant, as he always is, is amendable to the board's uh standard condition uh that the property would not be eligible to participate in the city's um Rever's residential or visitor on street parking permit program. U Mr. Russo is very
diligent with all of his properties and enforces that vigorously uh to make sure that uh he does not rent to people with cars uh that would have a cause problems in the area. Um so we're cognizant of that and committed to that. Um and this
restriction would obviously help um ensure that the project has a minimal impact uh to on street parking availability uh in the neighborhood. Uh for this reasons, the applicant respectfully um reiterates its request for that the board grant the request of
variances and approve the project. Happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing that it's a public hearing, I'll ask if there's any proponents. Anyone in favor? Seeing it here and then I'll close that side of the hearing. Any opponents?
Anyone opposed? If you already spoke last month at the meeting, you're already on record. So, you do not have to get back up if you spoke last month because it's already recorded on record. If you didn't speak, you're welcome to get up to the microphone.
The microphone's on. You just have to state your name and address for the record and then speak. >> Hello, my name is Masha Kurabus. I live at 350 Rivia Beach Boulevard and I am thinking about the parking impact that we've already discussed and
the pro the um builders have said that they're um restricting the um rentals of the units to people who don't own cars. So, I was thinking that the um person signing the
lease does not own a car, but do the other people in the household have cars? Also, >> I'm going to cut you off for that just because if they have it and they're living at that address, they cannot get it doesn't go by the lease holder. It
goes by the property. So, nobody can come there and get a parking permit or a guest pass. >> I understand. >> Just so that you're clear on it. Just so I'm clear on that. because other people can try to do that. You know, oh my someone else is living there. >> I understand >> the car's registered in you have to
register it in rea after 30 days. >> So they know all of the people that are living in the unit. >> Yes, exactly. The address is is >> okay. So that does >> you can't get it for anything. >> That does speak to the parking. I'm um also considering the impact of the
congestion. the people that live in those units. Yes, they may not own cars or maybe few very few of them own cars, but they have to get around. I know you're touting um walkability of the um
area, but you won't be able to walk to Market Basket and back with your groceries. You won't be able to walk to re to u stop and shop in Revier and come back with your groceries. So, they're going to have to have Ubers or family members pick them up. That's going to
add probably just as much congestion as people owning cars who live in that building. Coincidentally, I used to live at 700 Broadway. Now they're calling it an obsolete [laughter] building, but it's a little house.
Maybe five people can live there comfortably. a 20 unit um building would probably reduce the amount of trees and grass in that area to none. And I'm thinking maybe
the um building would not be a suitable um addition because it doesn't really look like any other buildings in the area. There are a lot of still residential um uh lots in the
neighborhood, including my sister. Now, I go back and forth to see her or pick her up, and I look up at 700 Broadway while I'm waiting on the a traffic that's sometimes moving at a glacial pace at uh between the Kushman of Molden
Street and Rever Street intersections. And I can't imagine adding any more congestion to that area, that neighborhood. >> Okay. Thank you. There. Anyone else? >> I spoke last time.
>> You already on record. If you spoke, it's already on record. >> Okay. I'm not. >> Hi. >> My name is Colleen Russo, 12 Malden Street, Apartment One, Review, Mass. Um, okay. So,
the owner of the house from three years ago that we're talking about, not the most recent owner, sold it last year to the investor or company, told me that he wanted to convert his house into a two family home and that [snorts] he would apply for a permit at city hall. He also
mentioned that if the permit was not approved, he would sell the property and he did because according to him, the permit was denied. This caught my attention because a rever resident was not allowed to convert their home into a two family property. And now the city is
considering evaluating a request to build a property I mean to build a 20 unit apartment building in the same neighborhood which would definitely have a great negative impact rather than a positive or economic one. I do not have anything
in writing to confirm this conversation which took place about three years ago. I strongly urge the city not to approve the construction of a 20 unit building here. [snorts] This neighborhood's primary residential designed for family living, privacy, and community harmony.
Approving [snorts] such a large building would negatively affect traffic and congestion create safety risk for children, increase parking shortages, overwhelm already overpop populated schools, and reduce all overall quality of life.
>> [snorts] >> It would also be out of scale with surrounding homes, putting family oriented properties at a disadvantage. [snorts] Exist existing streets, parking, and utilities were not designed to handle this level of density, which could lead to a long-term infrastructure
problems. Additionally, approval could set a precedent for future developments that conflict with the residential nature of the area. [snorts] Environmental concerns such such as increased runoff, flooding, and strain on local water systems are also significant. Excuse me.
[snorts and sighs] As residents and taxpayers of River, we respectfully request that our concerns be taken seriously and that approval be denied for a building of this size. We have nothing against the investor and recognize his right to apply for a permit, but there are many other
properties in Ree that are not that are more suitable for this type of development locations that would not interfere with family life or community growth. He has already been approved to build in other areas that are more appropriate. [snorts] We hope that our requests will
be conf consily considered. So I have 12 potential negative consequences if this 20 unit building is approved. One, loss of privacy for existing. >> You have just 30 seconds and then loss
of privacy for existing residents. Decreased property values and may hard make it hard to sell. Safety concerns for families with young children. Unclearan number of bedrooms in the new building. Increased traffic and congestion and potential overcrowding in the building. Traffic and congestion,
difficulty entering and exiting our driveways, insufficient parking for both residents and visitors, especially during winter or peak hours, flooding, drainage issues, negative impact, quality life, straining on the population, increased [snorts] garbage and waste management,
possible conflicts with existing commercial residential spacing if the building includes mixed uses, additional pressure on traffic lights and local street infrastructure. [snorts] Um and just just I took a video today by only doing it that congestion in that area is
awful. And that was just at quarter 3 after school and even >> Okay, I'm sorry you reached your time frame, but thank you for your thank you for your testimony. >> Are there any other opponents? Anyone else wish to speak?
I just want to say how was the general convention. something that was contract. >> Okay, you can take that up after because since it's a public hearing I have to keep this going. Are there any other opponents? Seeing here not I'll close
that side of the hearing. Any members wish to speak? >> What is the will of the board? Okay. >> No, I was just making sure that the uh developer were meeting with some other folks and to the last I remember the
gentleman here uh concerned about his parking and what time he comes home and when he has to leave. So, it sounds to me that Jamie had discussed some um something with him. But I wanted to ask uh the builder if I could uh in regards
to what was discussed. Thank you, members of the board. [clears throat] Jamie Russo, uh, Broadway 700 LLC, 1040 Northshore Road, Reier, Massachusetts. Um, I [clears throat] spoke to the gentleman at, uh, 698, uh, Broadway, who was our director, butter, um, whether something
got lost in the mail or not. Um, we sent him, originally had sent him letters to to buy his property. Um, and that wasn't responded to, um, uh, as well. Um, spoke to Tai. I'm not sure of Tai's last name. Um, many of you know me. Many in this community know me. When I say we're
going to meet and and and do what we need to do to try to help this gentleman get some off streetet parking. I've had conversations with the city already. Um we're committed to do that. Um anything that we can do or we say that we're going to do, I mean there's 30 years of history in this community of of of us
doing what we say we're going to do. So if any board members have any questions, I'd be happy to answer um relative to the project. So will >> motion to approve. >> A motion to approve and ask for a roll call without standing conditions.
>> If the variance is awarded, the following conditions will apply. If the rights authorized by this variance are not exercised within one year of the date of the grant of this variance, the right shall lapse. This variance shall not be valid until the appellant has recorded this variance and plan in the SEA county registry of deeds and submits document recording numbers and dates to
the city clerk and building inspector of the city of Rivier. The appellent must receive site plan review approval prior to applying for a building permit and the property shall not be eligible for participation in the city of Rivier's residential and visitor on street permit parking program. Shall the zoning board
of appeals grant the relief requested subject to those conditions? Mr. Leina, >> yes. >> Yes. Mr. Lopes. >> Yes. Yes, Mr. O'Brien is absent. Mr. Pelton, >> yes, Miss Pratt, alternate member. >> Yes. And Chairman Tucker. >> No. >> No. The variance has been granted
subject to those conditions. >> Uh, next calendar item number didn't we already voted on, right? The 2610. I thought we voted on allowing it to come back in front of us. Correct. >> I just want to make that was a continued. All right.
>> If they both were continued, then we have to bring that up first. Beautiful. Okay. >> Okay. Could I just ask since we have to Okay. The next calendar, >> the next agenda item is as it relates to application A2610. Pursuant to Mass General Laws chapter 48
section 16, the ZBA will take a vote to make a determination whether specific and material changes have been made to the application for 18 to 22 Green Street. >> Mr. Chairman, good evening members of the board. Gil Ktogio one street review
representing the applicant development LLC. Um as uh indicated uh we are here before you uh after a successful uh application through the planning board in which we submitted um uh items that
indicated material changes to the previous application. Uh we uh detailed three um substantial material changes uh any one of which uh the planning board had indicated would have been sufficient enough to uh approve um the relication.
Um collectively uh we believe that uh it is a a substantial material change more than sufficient to to uh uh receive your uh grant um to go forward. Those changes are uh a an implementation of a roof
deck uh 1,000 square ft um that uh addresses the variance for open space. Uh it may eliminate the need for that variance altogether, but we'll leave that. Um it does uh greatly uh increase the open space. Uh it's located on the
roof. You can see it on the plan here. Uh we have also the second change is we've also moved the entire building back a further away from Green Street by an additional five feet. We know that there was concerns about um the width of the street and the the location of the
uh the property. Uh uh so we have moved the um location back. Uh and uh also we have reduced the number of units uh from 29 to 28. uh uh giving us a better ratio on parking, giving us less density um
and uh uh uh allowing us to also stage the floors above the parking. If you could see here all the way to the back. >> Okay. Just you're going to be doing more of a presentation, but we our first thing is to >> So those three are the the the changes that we submit
>> to determine if there was a um whether it's specific changes were made so that we can grant it. So what's how would we put this for? >> Yeah. As a question to the board.
So, I would ask if the board would vote would be in favor of the substantial changes for the application of 88 and 18 and 22 Green Street
>> and a roll call, please. >> Does the ZBA agree that specific and material changes have been made to the application for 18 to 22 Green Street? Mr. Leina? >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. Lopes? >> No. >> No. Mr. O'Brien is absent. Mr. Pelton,
>> no. >> No. Miss Pratt? >> No. And Chairman Tucker? >> Yes. >> Yes. The request fails that the board finds that specific material changes have not been made. >> Come on, guys. It was a little uh
>> really >> as So we do do we go on with the next thing or it it it overrules the the the next calendar item number. >> All right. Our next calendar item number is A26-11.
>> Opened up a little bit more a little bit deeper into everything. Just saying. Just saying. Just saying. Okay. Um, calendar number eight. >> Okay.
>> Next application is A2611 Parkways Owner LLC 235 Bear Hill Road, Sweet 300, Waltham, Mass. requesting a variance of Revised Ordinances section 172410 with respect to minimum frontage requirement of 150 ft within the TED
district to enable the appellant to consolidate parcels of land known as two Pratt Street, 12 Pratt Street, 16 Pratt Street and 418 River Beach Parkway and subdivide the land into two lots, lot one and lot two. On the newly created lot one, the appellent proposes to
construct a mixeduse development as duly approved by the river city council and lot two is to be preserved in an undeveloped state for separate use. >> Am I correct that even if the applicant is asking for a withdrawal? Will it's still
a public hearing? We have to open a public hearing or no >> advertis withdrawal was made after the first advertisement. >> Okay. So seeing that there was a um This was already
um advertised. I do have to if you want to step up to the microphone, state your name on the record. We do have to open the public hearing and >> uh Thank you. Good evening, chairman and members of the board. My name is Nancy O'Neal. I am an attorney located at 14 Proctor Avenue. I represent uh the
applicant in this matter, Parkway Homes Owner LLC. As set out in our letter of March 23rd, uh we would respectfully request to withdraw this matter without prejudice. Thank you. Seeing that it is a public hearing, I will ask if there's any proponents. Anyone in favor? Seeing in here, I'll
close that side of the hearing. Are there any opponents? Seeing in close that side of the hearing, there's a request to withdraw. Is [snorts] it without prejudice? Could I ask for a roll call, please? >> Shall the zoning board of appeals grant
the petitioner's request to withdraw the application without prejudice? Mr. Lemonina? >> Yes. Mr. Lopes? Yes. Mr. O'Brien is absent. Mr. Pelton, >> yes. >> Yes. Uh, Miss Prep. >> Yes. And Chairman Tucker. >> Yes. >> Yes. The applicant's request to withdraw
without prejudice has been granted. And last application on the agenda is a special permit A2612 Fabio Casco Garcia 5 Eastern appre Mass requesting a special permit from the ZBA pursuant to section 174040
to enable the appellent to alter and extend the pre-existing non-conforming two family structure by constructing a two-story rear yard addition to expand the living area of the two family structure and incorporate a dimensionally compliant accessory dwelling unit at 5 Eastern A.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening. My name is Matt Graves, uh, attorney at 14 Proctor Avenue. Um, and I represent the applicant in this matter, Mr. Fabio Kasco Garcia. He's the owner of 5 Eastern Avenue. Um, believe
architect is here, architect Eric Zachardson, in case you have any technical questions. Um, so first displayed here is the property in its current state. Uh, Victorian style home originally constructed in 1900. Uh, in need of repairs and improvements. The
applicant is proposing to add a small addition to the rear. The addition is marked in red here. um a small addition as well as a porch. Um this is going to expand the living space
of the primary living units and the existing halfstory attic uh will be converted into an ADU. Uh ADU units are of course allowed by Wright in the RB district where the property is located. Uh the base footprint of that addition is just 12 and a half by 14 and a half
feet uh for a total of 464 square feet over the two and a half floors. Uh and the porch is just 60 square ft. It's uh just under 12 ft x 5 ft. Um the interior addition itself meets all setback and other requirements
of the zoning code. However, the porch is going to be too close to the sideyard setback. The porch is going to be 1.2 2 ft just like uh the existing portion of the house. So that is what brings us here uh in search of a special permit to
allow these modifications to an existing non-conforming structure. Um, as noted in the applicant support letter of March 17, 2026, which I hereby incorporate by reference, uh, a special permit for the reconstruction extension or modification, may be granted on the
finding that the modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. This project easily meets that standard and exceeds it. Um, this project will be an overall improvement to the property and the
neighborhood. This is a 125 year old building. Uh will include new safety measures like an added stairwell. So there'll be two stairwells that get you all the way up to the third floor. Um the addition will blend nicely with the neighborhood and existing structures. Um and again as
noted earlier it's it that uh addition is really not going to be visible. It's going to be in the back of the building. It may be visible from one side through a parking lot. Uh but overall this is not going to change the character of the building or the neighborhood. Um you know where visible all it will do is
enhance the the image of the building. So uh there is no detriment to any of the neighbors or the neighborhood. Um so yeah in closing small addition to the rear of the building with an attached rear porch. requires a special permit
because we're modifying uh an existing non-conforming structure and that porch is still within the sideyard setback. Um, and our office spoke uh with board counselor Anthony Kogandro and he uh did not have any issues with the project.
So, I'm happy to take any questions you have. >> Seeing it as a public hearing, I have to open it up to proponents. Anyone in favor? Seeing here not I'll close that side of the hearing. Any opponents? Anyone opposed? Seeing here not I close that
side of hand. Any members wish to speak? I just do have a question as the plan comes to us. Um the plan of land really doesn't depict the
total outline. So the proposed addition that you're putting on there, it goes right to the lot line of the property in the back. >> So this portion here is so it's this square is the addition.
>> Okay. The red rectangle on the right is the porch. I can pull. >> Does that make more sense? Well, if you if you just I got to zoom in on that one there from the TV screen, but the red part is the porch that you're adding.
>> Just this this right part of the on the right, >> right, >> is the porch. >> So, you're staying in line with the home, but since you did that, >> and right next to it is the parking lot. Am I correct? The parking lot's right next to that. >> Yeah. So, that this addition would be back here. So, you'd be looking right
through the parking lot at it. Yeah. >> All right. that I just wanted to make that clear that we were >> deal since it wasn't depicted next to it with the trees or anything else. Okay. >> Any members wish to speak? >> That would >> Okay.
>> I was just going to ask. >> Okay. I would ask for a motion to approve without standing conditions. >> Uh if the special permit is awarded, the following conditions will be applied. If the rights of this special permit are not exercised within two years of the date of the grant of the special permit,
the right shall lapse. This special permit shall not be valid until the appellant has recorded this variance and plan on the SA county registry of deeds and submits document recording numbers and dates to the city clerk and building inspector of the city of Rivier and uh and the appellent must receive site
plan review approval prior to applying for a building permit. Shall the zoning board of appeals grant the um the relief requested in the special permit? Mr. Lemina, >> yes. Yes, Mr. Lopes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. O'Brien is absent. Miss uh Mr. Pelton. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Miss Pratt. >> Yes. And Chairman Tucker. >> Yes. >> Yes. The special permit has been granted. >> Thank you. >> Um Chairman Tucker, in reviewing, if we could just go back to the A
I'm sorry, the Green Street A2610. Just reviewing the law. It says that no appeal which has unfavorably and finally acted upon by the zoning board of appeals shall be acted favorably upon. So it
says that the ZBA can't act favorably upon it. So there should be some action by the zoning board of appeals for that particular application just not it just can't be a favorable action. That's how I'm reading it.
>> So we have to take up a 2610 for a v a vote >> I would think so. I would think so unless it unless it's left on the agenda and the zoning board of appeals receives uh legal opinion from the solicitor. >> Can we remain on the agenda to receive a
legal opinion? Having no further business, our next meeting will be >> April. >> April 29th. Uh, next meeting will be April 29th. >> Yes. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Thank you.