Okay, we about ready. >> Good evening. The meeting of the board of adjustment for the Burough of Somerville for February 4th, 2026 will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meeting act has been that on
January 21st a copy of the notice specifying the daytime and location was posted on the Bolton board outside of Burough Hall, given to the clerk administrator, mailed fax or emailed to the carrier news and placed on the burough website. If any member of this body believes that this meeting is being
held in violation of the open public meeting act, please state your views at this time. These proceedings are of judicial nature. Only those items on the agenda can be addressed by the uh by the board. Only questions and comments
related to the agenda items and proper judicial decorum will be maintained. >> Next item. Roll call, please. >> Speak here. >> I don't know. better than me. I've tried.
>> There we go. Thank you, Ed. >> Chairman Aadair >> here. >> Ed Allat >> here. >> Robera Carpin is excused this evening. >> Morgan McGlaughlin >> here. >> Rich O'Neal >> here. >> Brian Viddimky >> here. >> John Flores >> here. >> Eric Alvarez
>> here. >> And Steuart Daniels is conflicted out this evening. >> Okay. All right. Next item, pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of America and to the republic for it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Minutes. So we have the minutes of January 21st, 2026. I need a motion for that.
>> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please. >> Chairman order, >> abstain. >> Thank you. Ed Alllet, >> yes. >> Morgan McLaclin, >> yes. >> Rich O'Neal, >> yes. >> Brian Vidimsky, >> yes. >> John Flores, >> yes.
>> And Eric Alver, >> uh, yes. >> Okay, we have two resolutions. We have number five is resolutions 2025008Z Princeton Canal 281 East Main Street
Block 39 lot 2. Uh the non-eligible was Robera uh Carponets Stewart Daniels and Eric Alvarez. >> Someone like to move it. >> I'll move it. >> Second. >> Move the second. Roll call, please. >> Chairman order. >> Yes. >> Ed Allat.
>> Yes. >> Morgan Mclofflin. >> Yes. >> Rich O'Neal. Yes. >> Brian Vidimsky. >> Yes. >> And John Flores. >> Yes. >> The uh second resolution >> needs to be uh carried to next meeting
because the applicant's attorney had some concerns were raised late this evening. So we need to sort that out. So uh the board carry that to the next meeting. Malization of that resolution. >> Sure. >> We're okay and everything. Time schedules all.
>> Oh yeah. We shouldn't be a problem at all. I'm just saying he had some concerns, not rush it, just to make sure >> Yep. >> we get the everybody's on the same page on that resolution. >> Yep. Okay. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cole. >> We have to vote on it.
>> Item number six would be the application hearing 2025009Z Princeton Canal LLC 69 West End Avenue, block 129, lot 6.01. Okay.
Good evening. >> Uh, good evening members of the board. Uh, my name is Mike O'Rnik. I'm an attorney at Savo Shaw Law Firm here on behalf of the applicant Prince and Canal LLC in connection with the block 129 lots 26.01 application. Um we're here
tonight for uh the second night for a use variance flu area ratio and bulk variance major site plan approval to convert an existing professional office building into a sixunit multif family dwelling. This application was subject
to public hearing on October 15, 2025 where the b uh board heard testimony from the civil engineer, architect, traffic engineer, and HVAC engineer. After receiving feedback from the board, there was essentially two main comments.
One was uh a request to eliminate the basement apartment apartments that were proposed and the other one was to take a look at some of the square footages. After receiving this feedback, the applicant revised the floor plan uh that proposes removing the two units from the
basement. in the basement. Um what we're proposing now is originally was um again the apartments and now we're looking to make six storage rooms for the tenants, a common
recreation room with a half a bath, a mechanical room and additional storage area. The storage areas um are two of them are 103 square feet and then the other units are 73 square feet. good
size storage unit um for the tenants. This application we also looked at the site plan related to the square footage and we are proposing to enclose the porch to add some living space to apartment number one. The parking lot is
being uh shifted more towards Cayman and we've added a van accessible parking stall. The existing two-car garage will be converted into the two-bedroom apartment. And the two-story addition is proposed to connect the two-car garage
and the main existing structure. The two-story addition conversion of the two-car garage and finishing off the porch adds 1,193 ft of living space to the building. Subject property is located, of course, at the corner, west end, and Cayman in
the burrow's professional office zone. contains an older professional office building and a 12 p uh stall parking lot. Parking demand is compliant with the burough land use ordinance uh with the existing uh on-site parking. Um and then
again we're we after comments where there's a little bit of a shift of the parking lot towards Cayman. We're adding that additional van accessible space that's being proposed. As far as relief, um this is a D1 use variance. Um whereas
only professional office uh and two family dwellings um professional office with apartments are permitted uses in the P zone. We have an F D4 F variance. 25% is allowed, 29.45 is existing and
35.6 is proposed. There's a variance for the sideyard. Uh 8 foot and 20 foot is required and we're at five 5.5 ft and 255. And then the improvement coverage 50% is required 59% is exist 59.5% is existing
and 66.43% as proposed. Um all of the variances waivers etc are detailed in the engineering and planning reports by prepared by Mr. Cole on uh October 10th
and January 29th 2026. So tonight we have some brief testimony from Ted Bayer from his firm. He's our civil engineer. Just regarding some of the issues that we hashed out, I think at several TRC meetings as well as the last hearing related to storm water management and
the noise generated from the emergency generator and the HVAC equipment. That was the focus on some of the details in Mr. Cole's report. We also have Afra Ragab, our architect. uh he's going to go over the changes to the basement as
well as the additional square footage related to enclosing the porch and some of the floor plan changes that are proposed. And then we have Beth Mcmanis from Kyle Mcmanis who is our professional planner uh to review the proofs necessary for granting of the variance relief. So unless there's any
questions I would ask our engineer to be sworn in and continue his testimony as to the revisions to the site plan. >> Um Mr. You talked about the I thought we increased the F and the PR zone. >> We did. It's still over. It was a typo
in the plan, but it's still 36. So, you're right, chairman. It's should be 30% as reflected in 281, but it's still over. >> You previously been sworn, sir. So, I'll just I believe at the previous hearing.
That's >> correct. So, I just want to remind you that you remain under oath. >> Understand? Mr. Granic, your witness, sir. >> Mr. Bayer, um, could you just kind of summarize some of the changes that were made since the last meeting?
>> Okay. What we've done is modify the parking lot a little bit to eliminate one of the ADA spaces, eliminate the make ready spaces. Uh, that resulted in the parking lot being shifted to the south towards Cayman.
That was one thing. We've also added handicap accessibility ramps to I'm going to refer to my plans here. >> Is this a new plan or is this revi a revised plan or is this the existing plan? >> This is a plan that was revised through
December 17th, 2025. So, it was the original plan with some revisions and it's been noted and they've been submitted. >> All right. Have we marked that as an exhibit or if you've already if you have previously it is >> it's new. Yeah. >> Let's let's mark it as an exhibit
please. >> A >> I just want us to touch all the bases and A5 consists of three sheets. The title is preliminary and final site plan. Uh sheet one is the
utilities and landscaping plan. Sheet two is the lighting plan and sheet three is a traffic circulation plan and some construction details. So what we've done uh is in order to provide accessible route
from the ADA parking space which is the one immediately south of the building uh we proposed an ADA access ramp and one of them actually two of them one will run parallel with the driveway to the front of the building a couple of uh
landings so that the uh accessibility of the wheelchairs can turn and into the front entrance. The other one uh also uh starts by the ADA spot and runs to the entrance to the uh rear rear apartments and they are compliant with the uh
requirements of the ADA. Again, the parking lot has shifted south a little bit towards Cayman Place. Uh we've added some spot elevations to confirm in accordance with Mr. props uh request that storm water runoff from
these parking spaces to the rear will get into the existing trench frame. So, we provided that uh we've uh changed the landscaping. We've changed the uh the the dumpster location and the dumpster enclosure uh to comply with Mr.
Cole's request. We've uh the hours of the trash will be between 7:00 a.m. and and uh 9:00 p.m. so that we won't disturb the neighbors. One one thing we're talking about is the need for a make ready space. And
apparently the new the new code there was an FAQ issued near the first of the year. And if you're not changing the number of parking spaces, the FAQ says that you're not required to have an have a make ready space. So we not we got rid of the make the make ready spaces that we had shown previously. So, that's a
that's a change. Mr. Cole requested some other uh some other clarifications and uh and notes to be added to the plan. For example, the one the shade tree out front along West End, we have proposed a an amber maple. We're proposing uh we'll change that to
a eastern red bud, something that's more uh appropriate. And um that's basically it. We we haven't made a lot of changes in our end. satisfied. Mike, >> I only the question is the sidewalk. I
had a comment. I don't know if it's civil or the architect. The sidewalk from the building to West End, the connection, >> right? Uh >> that's where I was going to be honest with you. >> Yeah. From from an engineering standpoint, I I can add a sidewalk uh
from the landing at the northeast corner of the building >> parallel right next to this to the driveway out to the sidewalk on West End Avenue. >> It would be a three 3% much less than 5% which would make it a ramp. So we can add that if the board would like that. That's that's
from an engineering standpoint. I don't have a problem doing that and comply. >> And just so the board knows that landing allows the sidewalk 88 all the way around the building. So all the all the tenants could get access. >> They could access from West End if they were coming in that way.
>> Sidewalk all the way to West End for >> connection. Correct. Anybody from the board have any questions on the testimony given by Mr. Bayer? >> I was just going to mention the sidewalk. We're going to make that a
condition. >> Anyone from the audience have any questions of the testimony just given by Mr. Bayer? >> I just wanted some clarification. The the parking spaces I think I mentioned it may not go in the furthest ones. the
pushing of 20 feet towards Cayman. Uh the back the this would be the north section. North. Let me think about that. >> North is towards the top of my plan. >> I'm sorry. It's the southern area of the parking lot. Uh are you catching that runoff from the spaces into that trench
drain? I >> Yes, from the spaces we are. We have uh we have spot shots on there and they'll get into the trench drain. >> Great. >> Anyone else? So, we're expanding the parking lot and we're eliminating the
garage. We're including the garage another unit. >> The garage is now a unit. Yes, we're not expanding the parking spot. The parking lot with the same number of spaces. >> We're Yes, we are. We're sliding it to the south. And the reason for that is to
accommodate the ADA ramps. One of them which goes to the unit just in front of where the garage is now. The other one extends all the way to the front of the building. >> If it was four units instead of six units, would the ADA still apply? >> I believe we would still need one ADA
space. >> And yes, >> my other question is, was there any thought? We talked about this before. Most of the applications that have been in front of us have cut access off. >> I think we talked about the last time.
And the issue is our driveway width. in the front does not allow sufficient width for vehicles to pass one way or the other. Again, also the uh the trash access the we have shown a route of the
of the trash truck and the trash truck cannot get in and out through the same thing. So that's why we're continuing on through. He'll he'll exit out the Cayman. Anybody else? >> Yeah, I've got a question. The the
southern part of the parking lot, you're really encroaching on the residents on Canon Place. Is there any screening? And I'm looking at the headlights going out. I'm just wondering if that could be done better. We've proposed uh that the existing
trees that are there on the west side of the parking lot uh five of them, six I'm sorry, or seven of them will remain. Uh on the east side, there's a storm sewer pipe that runs from our trench drain to a catch basin on Cayman. uh if we were
to plant something in there that the roots would probably interfere with that. But I believe our traffic engineer testified the last time about the uh the headlight flare. >> He may well have but I'm still wondering about it.
One of the problems that you notic instead of six units, how many parking spots could you eliminate? >> I'd have to look at that. I I hadn't considered at this point >> four four it was on the architect's plan. So
yeah, it's about four. And back on Rich's comment, the only way of really screening the houses across the street and this was only done once I'm aware of is there was landscaping done in the buffer next to the sidewalk cross came in to try to screen the house
from the glare. that was done on the planning board did that for 50 the foundry because they had the same issue on Fair View but that was a 110 unit building just we had the same issue came up you're going to get glare under the residential houses how do you do that
because you have to have sight lines so the only way to do it and the planning board put a condition about putting landscaping to try to soften up the any glare on the adjoining properties that's I don't house you would do it because
you have to have the sightelines. >> I know we're not in discussion phase but cam place is like an island now. It's getting compressed from all sides and I'm just not wait a wait
a question about the basement. Um is there any accessibility to the basement? >> That's a question that the architect could answer. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Is the generator sizing is that the architect?
>> Yes, the architect generator size. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. >> Um, our next witness is Ashra Ragab from his firm here in Somerville. Good evening. >> Yes, I am.
>> Go ahead. Just can you just explain um the removal of the units and on the lower level and and what's planned for the basement and then go through the floor plan changes for the second and first levels? So uh we uh have made quite a few
revisions based on the comments uh of from the board uh on the previous hearing. Uh more importantly the basement uh the two residential units were eliminated and uh we replaced them with six storage units
that are assigned for the unit for the apartments. So there are six apartments and six storage units. Uh we labeled each storage unit uh for unit one for unit two for unit three for unit 4. Uh
the two large apartments uh the two bedrooms, the ones in the front and the one that occupies the current garage. Uh they get a bigger storage space uh 103 square foot. And the four one-bedroom
apartments uh each get a storage space uh 73 square ft. Uh and then the rest of the basement we created just an amenity room uh for a party hall with half a with a toilet, half a bathroom, powder
room. Uh and that's uh all the uh the changes we did in the basement. Currently, the basement is not accessible. Uh, it doesn't have a ramp that goes down. Uh, it's well below the
ground. So, I don't think a ramp would I don't think we have any room for a ramp that goes all the way down uh to the basement. Uh, the only uh thing we can do if the board would like us to uh
is to go back to the wheelchair lift, which which we had our fun with before. Uh short of that where there is no access uh handicap access to the basement. Uh no uh the first floor uh we are
proposing uh a front addition uh taking over the what was an open porch. uh enclosing it and uh putting a second floor above it and then shifting the front apartment
down to enlarge the four one-bedroom apartments. Uh the front apartment is a pretty good size. It's 998 square ft without any addition. That was the case from before. Uh it's a two-story apartment. Uh
first floor is accessible and then there's a stair up to the second floor. Uh but the units the four units uh two in the first floor, two in the second floor, typical units left and right were
each got enlarged by about 100 square ft. Uh so it went from uh lower 600s to lower 700s. Uh and with the addition of the storage space in the basement,
we are around the number that was proposed for the redevelopment zone, the 800 foot for one-bedroom apartment. Uh the back apartment uh that occupies the current garage, there's no change there.
It's still a two-bedroom, two-story. First floor is accessible on grade and the second floor is accessed with a staircase. And uh that's about it. Uh we are proposing ramps. Uh
there's going to be quite a long ramp around 60 foot ramp that goes up to the first floor. It starts in the parking lot, goes around uh the driveway and then uh ends in the uh landing uh above
the steps that goes up uh from grade uh to enter the building. Uh so it provides accessibility for the first floor uh from the parking. Uh the second ramp we're proposing is you would have to go on a walkway uh al along the building
all the way down and then take a ramp up around the corner into the front apartment. So the first floor of the front apartment is also accessible. Um we uh also had some issues with the condensers and the generator in terms of
noise. Uh, we originally had the condensers along the this the northwest side of the building uh next to the neighbors. We had six condensers here and we also had the
generator uh right here on the lawn and all of them were a little too close to the property line. So we couldn't get uh the sound reduction down to the 50 decel that's required by the sound ordinance.
So, we're proposed to move them uh to the opposite side of the building along uh the driveway where they are at least uh close to 18 18'7 for the bottom four
uh 27 foot for the top two and the generator is also 276 from the property line. And with the sound reduction calculation, we were able to uh have the 50 less than 50
decibel crossing over to the neighbor at any time. So we are in compliance with the sound ordinance of uh Somerville. Uh I believe these are all the changes uh we made. We added the the EV spot and
then uh because we had the eight units and then we removed it again uh when we dropped it to six units. So the parking now is the same number 14 spots. >> Any questions from the board to Mr. Roger?
>> I have one question. So for the basement now, would you consider that an S like storage area. So, it's like a mixeduse building. Now, >> it's an accessories use. So, it's an accessory for the apartments. It's not as a it's not meant as a an independent
use of storage. So, it's just additional space for the units >> because I know you're getting like a 13R sprinkler system, but basement better might be better served with a 13 system. >> We could do a 13 system. I don't the building is full is being fully
sprinklered. So, you know, we can do it either way. It's no problem. >> Those storage units end up being packed. >> Yes. >> You think? >> Yes, we will. >> Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Ro's testimony.
>> What's the ceiling he? >> I believe it's close to 8 foot. Yeah, there is a lower uh there's an area of lower height that we're keeping uh >> 82. >> Yeah,
it's uh 8 foot here and it's 6'7 in in this area here where we have the storage rooms. So, uh, those, uh, four smaller storage rooms are going to have, uh, less ceiling
height, 6'7. They're going to be raised up, uh, because this this is where the 8ft area is. This area here is 6'7. >> The the front of the building has the mechanical, the electrical meters, and
some of the HVAC's in the basement. It has a separate access from the driveway. >> Yes. >> There's also a storage area indicated. Is that storage owner for the benefit of the owner, not the tenants or >> it's the owner? Yeah. >> Okay. The owner. So, it's not going to be rented out to a third party or
outside the tenants. >> No. >> Okay. Uh and also the is this forced air the heating system because there's furnaces shown but not six. So, um I was it was one of my questions. Is this all forced air?
>> Most likely it's going to be a forced air system. Yeah. Heating and cooling. >> Okay. So, the the furnaces will be in that basement area, right? Gotcha. >> Okay. Question more from um my not um my ignorance as much as anything. So,
the the the garage unit and the front unit, they're labeled as accessible, but um someone in a wheelchair can't get to the bedrooms. >> Yeah, they are. I mean, we've had this back and forth with Mr. Cole. They are what's called the type A apartments.
Okay. So, the they're only required to have the grade level accessible. Uh otherwise, we would have to put an elevator in each one of them. Uh so uh they are semi-accessible. The first floor, the kitchen, the bathroom are
accessible. All the hallways, the doors have all the clearances, but the second floor is not accessible. >> Okay. >> Right. The the first ground floor has the accessibility and the bathrooms are adaptable. So you show that circle they're adaptable on the plan.
>> Okay. So is it required that they have to have access to the apartment >> on the ground floor >> on the ground floor and the ground floors have to be adaptable which you see that circle in the bathrooms and the lower kitchen height so that someone
with a wheelchair could use these. I think the kitchen countertops is lowered I think two inches. Is that correct? >> I think it's bottom line is they can't sleep there. That's correct. >> Well,
the second the the units on the second floor are exempt from uh yes from being accessible. It's a UCCc it's a UCCC requirement but just to because it's it become a hardship if the second floor needs to be
accessible that means each one of these units will have to have an elevator inside and the space is I mean budget and space is very restrictive when it comes to that but you know somebody can sleep on the couch though.
Now the generator sizing are you going are you going to address the sizing of the generator? What's when we have should we have power outage? What exactly is proposed to be energized? >> We have contacted uh uh electric engineers about the generator. We had
two people propose different models. We picked one of the two and uh both said that the this generator that we picked is sufficient to cover all circuitry. So the full panel would be covered by this generator. >> Well, that's fantastic. So that you
going providing power for everything? >> Everything >> with the exception of maybe AC. I don't know if it throwing it out there. The AC is a big load, >> but it was sized for the full size. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else have any questions?
Anyone from the audience have any questions of the testimony? Mr. Ra, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, our final witness is Elizabeth Mcmanis from Kyle Mcmanis Associates.
>> She's our professional planner. She has not testified >> for this application. Uh would you please um you saw he said the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth so help you God. >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.
>> Sure. It's Beth McManus. M us >> Good evening. M Miss McManus. Welcome. >> Thank you >> Beth. Um could you just give the board a little bit of your background? >> Miss Mcnis is known to our board. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman.
>> Pass the mic down to All right. >> All right, folks. Thank you very much. So, we've got a couple variances for me to address. I'm going to start with the D1 variance. And just as a reminder, even though we do, of course, need the use variance, I want to be real clear, this is not about uh requesting
permission for placing a residential use where there are no residential uses permitted or no residential uses permitted on the first floor. The PO district permits single family homes and two family homes and we're of course proposing a total of six units in this building but typical use variances are
about introducing a wholly different use to the area and here I think it's a bit more nuanced as we're just looking for additional of these permitted uses the six family home. So um notwithstanding typical for uh D1 variance I want to
start with the uh the proofs regarding particular suitability uh here uh I think we have a unique area that lends itself to the multif family housing so specifically we have a mix of uses in this area sure it's a mix of uh office
and and residential but I think more specifically what we have in this particular area of office buildings immediately surrounding our site uh across the street across West End as well as to the west of the property and then to the
east of the property we actually have some residential uses. Uh immediately to the east we have a multif family use and then we have uh some single family and of course further down at the intersection with mountain avenue we have the senior citizenville uh senior
housing development there uh multi-story multif family senior uses. So we really truly are in an area with uh complimentary uses and similar uses with the the multif family both adjacent as well as at the Somerville uh senior
center and then the variety of of office uses and uh you can see that as you drive in the area but I think also contributing to the character of the area that supports the particular suitability is the fact that majority of
buildings including the one that we're working on today. It uh consists of larger single family homes that have been converted to other uses. So, the majority are large uh oftentimes really beautiful and historic single family
homes that have been outfit for for office uses or in some cases uh such as our neighbor and and hopefully our property uh outfit for uh uh for a handful of uh of homes uh for multif family housing. So in addition to this
mixed character that is consistent with our multif family use uh the area is also in a grow great location for accommodating additional density. So I say that because we're close to the downtown. We're about a thousand feet
from downtown and we're just under a mile to the train station about 0.9 uh miles. So, we're within walking distance of everything great about s most of the great things about Somerville, your downtown, your train station, all the restaurants, and frankly, a lot of jobs
as well. Um, in addition though, I think our our lot in particular is relevant for this question, too. So, we have uh a minimum lot area required in the district of 10,000 square feet, but we are uh significantly larger than that at
16,250 square feet. and that additional area uh helps accommodate the the additional units that we're seeking approval for. In addition, this larger property as well as the existing improvements on the site like the uh existing parking area
means that we can accommodate the parking for our residents without creating significant new impervious cover. Yes, of course we need uh we do need to accommodate a bit of an expansion and I'll give some testimony that about that, but the majority of that exists on the property and we can
reuse it for this purpose. Um and then uh lastly which I think is really important for uh for accommodating the use and also maintaining this character. Uh I think that this is an example of hidden density in the sense that all of uh the residences and and the changes to
the property are really accommodated uh to the rear of the site. We've got the ability to do the additions uh to the rear of the property. The parking is located to the rear property and so we're able to maintain that front yard and that existing character that exists along West End.
In addition to particular suitability, there are a couple of purposes of the municipal land use law that are relevant. First one is purpose A, which is to promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. And I cite that yes because I think the site is particularly suited, but also because
this application is one of many strategies that are going to help Somerville, Somerset County, and New Jersey uh provide uh or better address the housing needs in the state. And I think that's really relevant for Somerville uh in particular since you've
got about 60% of your renter households in the burrow are small households, just one or two people and lend themselves to smaller units like apartments. Uh and then we've got uh about 73% of your households have no children. Uh so a
little more than 70% in the in the burrow have no children. So again, these types of households are well suited for the the smaller apartments that are being proposed here. In addition, I I would site purposes E and G with E being
the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities. G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses such as uh residential. And I cite
these two because again I think the uh here in Somerville or in this particular location in Somerville. Bless you. Lends itself to the use. Uh this is a great location for adding additional folks because we're within walking distance to both the downtown as well as
the train station. uh and we're able to accommodate these additional uses on the site in a way uh we're making we're demonstrating the sufficient space on the property uh in the sense that we're able to accommodate the additional density uh really in a way that I think
about with hidden density in the sense that the building is not getting larger in a way that's uh evident from uh from the street we're not going uh well from west end we're not going up in height we're not going out we're not encroaching on the front yard setback back instead everything is contained
within the building or towards the rear where our building additions are located. Um and so for so for your D1 variants I think that's our purposes and our particular suitability. The next I'd like to address is our D4 variance our F
variance. And so our uh our variance relief is from the 25% that's currently that's permitted in the area. We already exceed that at a little more than 29% and we're going up proposed to go to 35.6%.
And so the standard for D4 is not the purpose of the municipal land use law but generally how can the F be accommodated on the property? And I think here it's pretty easily accommodated quite honestly. Um, and that is because the uh additional floor
area is almost entirely hidden from West End Avenue with the exception of the enclosure of the of the porch. But of course, while that while that adds interior floor area, it doesn't expand the building footprint itself. It doesn't change the front yard setback or
the rear yard setbacks. Instead, that additional uh building footprint is all towards towards the rear of the property. And that's really a rather small addition since uh most of the new living space is contained within that twocar garage that's going to be converted as well as within the porch.
And so most of that new floor area is not evident from from the primary street frontage of West End Avenue. Um, in addition, uh, as you, uh, as, uh, as you drive or walk down West End Avenue,
there are, one of the things that's, I think, very obvious is that this area is host to a significant number of very large buildings. Um, not excessively large, but as I described earlier, uh, larger single family homes that are, uh,
often, uh, historic and and really quite beautiful. Uh, and so our building size is not going to first it won't appear significantly larger from the street because we're really just talking about enclosing the porch is what's visible but it's not going to appear out of character. It will appear to be largely
the same size today uh or uh with the approval as it does today. Um and again we're really only talking about just under uh 1,200 square feet 1,193 square feet. Another way to think about how this floor area can be accommodated is
the fact that we can uh easily park it. We can provide compliant parking using the majority of it is the existing parking area at the rear. And then lastly, in terms of additional intensity, our traffic impact is is actually going to go down compared to
the existing office use. Our traffic uh traffic report that was submitted actually showed a reduction in AM P uh am PM and Saturday peak hour traffic. And it's it's not huge numbers. It's a it's a total of four less trips in the
morning, five less trips in the evening, and and one less trip on Saturday. But I think every little bit helps uh on some of these streets. And so for for those reasons, the the parking, the ability to accommodate the the floor area, uh the lack of traffic,
actually the reduction in traffic, I think the board can find that the site can easily accommodated accommodate the additional uh 1193 square feet. In terms of the the negative criteria for the D4 variants only uh in particular the uh
any substantial detriment to the zone plan. I want to address the the typical and the primary purpose for F regulation and that is really to uh to regulate the impacts of building area. So the those traffic perhaps other measures of
intensity um and again so we have actually a reduction in the traffic on this property. Uh F is of al also often regulated to uh uh to address the building size to make sure that you don't have buildings that are really just outsized for the property. And
again here I think that we're not creating a substantial detriment because the majority of that floor area is going to be hidden from the street and will really be unknown by those that are passing by. Our next couple variances are C1 variances and this is for our uh these
are existing condition variances. uh parking space locations that we have front yard parking technically along Cayman Avenue. Uh and then we have an undersized parking setback of uh four feet as compared to 5t from the property line. And then we also have a 5.5 foot
setback for the building where 8 feet is required. I think all of these can easily be addressed as part of C1 criteria with the exceptional situation being that these improvements exist. In order to be compliant, we would have to remove a portion of the building and
remove a portion of the parking uh on the property that exists today and and is proposed would be used for any uh permitted use and is proposed to be used for our proposal for our proposed residences. And so then the last couple variances I'd like to address are the C2 variances
and the first one being for the maximum improvement coverage permitted is 50%. Today we are at 59.5% and we're proposing to go to 66.43%. And then the second variance is for a
fence height in the front yard. We're looking for six feet along uh the front of Cayman Place, although it's actually along the uh eastern sideyard, but within the front yard of front yard setback of that street for the for the
fence variance for the four feet versus uh six feet. the two additional feet. Uh I think the board confined in favor of that based on purpose I which is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques. And I say that because uh this fence
which is proposed will provide screening of the existing parking area reducing the the impacts and headlight glare for the adjacent property. For the improvement cover, I would urge the board to think again about purpose A which is to uh promote the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare as well as purpose G which is to provide sufficient space, appropriate locations for all for uses such as residential etc. Uh I cite these two because the additional impervious cover is related
to a couple of uh of unique improvements in the sense that it's for our ADA walkway for the provision of our dumpster and mechanical equipment on the property. all of these proposed um accessory structures. First, they're
necessary to accommodate almost any uh any permitted use on the property or uh if not necessary, but certainly helpful to accommodate any use. Dumpsters are are typical for non-residential uses. I can imagine uh a permitted office use uh that could occupy this property needing
a dumpster. Uh the same thing for an ADA walkway to make sure that folks can more easily access the building and upgraded mechanical equipment for uh perhaps for for safety but also for for comfort on the property. And so these are while our
improvements are are obviously in in support or in service of our proposed multif family use, they really are uh necessary to upgrade the property uh to make it uh to give it improved health and safety particularly in terms of the ADA walkway and and in part the dumpster
as well and to just accommodate this residential use uh in a way that is uh that is appropriate given the the area and have less impact on uh on the adjacent uses. And I'm thinking largely in terms of the the dumpster on the
property as well to make sure that all the waste is contained in one location. Uh and so for those reasons, I think the board can find in favor of those two variances. For the the negative criteria for the intent of the impervious cover,
I do want to address that quickly. uh the intent is typically to limit environmental impact and then to also address aesthetics. In terms of environmental impact, we're proposing to meet the storm water management so much uh or with an example being that we're going to capture runoff from the parking area uh towards the rear of the
property. And so we are proposing to mitigate this impervious cover on the property. And in terms of aesthetics, again, all of this uh all of these changes are located beyond the front yard setback of West End and will have little limited visual impact on the
area. Uh we do also have a couple of exceptions where we need relief for the dumpster. Uh but I think that was actually done at the request of the board and and just will really help us be a better neighbor to our uh to our adjacent uses. Um, and we're also
looking for uh relief for not having a sidewalk along Cayman Avenue. That's an existing condition. And to be honest, it helps us keep the impervious cover down. So, in terms of uh negative criteria for the application as a whole, as well as
specifically for the D1 variance, uh the first prong I'm going to address is whether there's any substantial detriment to the public good. And certainly I would say no in the sense that we're not disrupting the character of this area. We're largely we're retaining the existing building. We're
largely retaining the character of the building just enclosing the porch and and also frankly giving some um some upgrades to the appearance of the building. We're going to modernize it with modern materials and and really just bring it up to uh up to standard so it has a
more positive contribution to the streetscape and to the character of the area. We're able to all of this uh with in a way that has very minimal visibility to uh to West End Avenue as well as to Cayman Place. We do have uh
those existing uh trees and shrubs in the rear. Um we're also proposing to further improve the property through additional trees along the front yard which will just frankly help the aesthetics of the site as well as the street as a whole. We're also proposing
some shrubbery to the rear of the building as well as along the property line to help screen that parking. Um, and as I said, we're also proposing some storm water management mitigation. So, in terms of that public impact, we're able to accommodate the property, uh,
accommodate the parking, and we're going to improve the appearance of the building such that I think the I think this will be an overall benefit to the area. I also don't see any substantial detriment to the zone plan. In fact, I see a handful of policies that are supportive of it. You have a 2019 uh
master plan policy to encourage attractive site appearance, consistency, and good design. I think we're furthering that through our building improvements. You also in your 2025 housing plan have a housing diversity goal on page 31 that's relevant and that
is to promote varied housing options for all income levels including rentals, starter homes, senior housing, microtiny homes, market rate, short-term transitional incubator housing and affordable units. And so our six proposed units here will certainly
further further that goal in my mind. No question. There are additional housing goals in your 2019 master plan such as providing for a range of housing types to meet varied residents population needs. Certainly, we're supporting that.
And we're lo and also to locate housing and selected locations within and around the central business district to stimulate business and retail activity beyond traditional work hours. As I said, we're about a thousand feet from your downtown. So we'll certainly uh be
adding folks to uh that are going to be within walking distance and convenient distance to shopping and activities in the downtown. And so then the last question is uh the Medici test and the reconciliation of the variances. And for that I would say there are two factors
here. Uh the first being we've got a unique situation on our particular property in the sense that we're able to utilize the existing building with minor additions. were able to utilize the existing parking area again with minor additions. And so we have a property
here that is uh that is particularly suited but also really essentially designed to accommodate a multif family use. And then the second factor I would suggest is that in general there's a there's a changing market a foot which
is less demand for office space, more demand demand for housing and for multif family housing. um that in 2019, the last time your master plan was uh was updated, this trend wasn't fully in
place like like we see today. And so I think the board can consider those two factors for finding that the variances can be reconciled. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Anybody from the board have any questions on this? >> Just one. There appears to be a fence
along the easterly border. Mhm. >> Should there be one at the parking lot on the westy side? >> So, what I would uh what I while the parking spaces are configured in a similar way, I think the distinction here is that we have a residential use
to the east side, that's our uh our multif family neighbor, but to the uh to the west is an office use. And so, while the parking configuration is the same, the the impact I think will be very different. I I frankly worry a lot less about those office tenants uh dealing
with headlights as they may be coming and going as I do the the multif family folks that might be uh perhaps going to their cars but also uh otherwise enjoying the rear of the property. >> I wasn't really concerned about the office. I was concerned about the neighbors on canon place. >> Oh, I'm sorry. You mean to the to just
to the rear of the property? >> The rear of the property at the angle puts headlights. I I I realize to be a less intense user. appears to be. I'm just as from a planning standpoint, would you rather see a fence just just along that back park parking lot?
>> I mean, if I if I had a a choice, perhaps I might advocate for some fencing to be removed from the from the sideyard to the rear yard just to to try to screen the parking uh excuse me, the headlights uh from from those parked cars, the residences across across
Cayman. >> It appears that the rear yard looking straight back would be less intense than the car is parking at an angle heading heading from the southwest. I'm just asking from a planning standpoint. Would that make sense?
>> Yeah, I do I do think it would make sense. I >> framing up the question. >> Anybody else on the board? >> You mentioned the parking through Saturday. that on Saturday there is one less unit
>> uh one yeah one less trip total so it's uh one less trip in no change going out and so the the net result of the Saturday peak hours one less trip >> office Monday
who's in an office >> well sometimes I am unfortunately amum It is. >> Yeah. But I think uh but there are a variety of offices that are permitted in the district. For example, you can have medical offices. They often have
Saturday hours. Um real estate offices sometimes uh office uses that provide services to like direct services to to regular customers, if that's the right way to describe it. I'm thinking of insurance, medical, real estate. They they typically have uh Saturday office.
It's it's the um the more professional trades like mostly planners, usually planners, but architects, engineers, these folks, attorneys hopefully are not working uh on Saturday. >> How about how come in that traffic Sunday was not?
>> Uh I think that that's uh well that's typical. Um, I guess because it has lower traffic levels, but I think I'm a little out of my elements as to why they don't typically include Sundays, if I'm honest. >> Common sense that Sunday residential six units, you're going to have people live
there. >> That may well be the case. There might be a difference on Sunday. I I I'm a little uh out of my area of expertise to to try to guess what that traffic impact, what that traffic change may be on a Sunday. by this conversion
to six units. Does this qualify for affordable housing requirement? >> No, it's not. Uh this this application was deemed complete at a time when there's no uh there's no set aside ordinance required. >> We're going to have to drill down that
because it was not submitted prior to submitting element fair share plan. But I don't think there's an there's an ordinance in place requiring mandatory set aside ordinance in place. >> Uh the development fee, we have to look at that. This definitely the the fair
share plan was submitted to the DCA by the end of June. So the plan was submitted and the regulations require allow the bureau to put the implementing ordinances uh zoning whatever in place by March of
this year. So what she's mentioning is whether or not the uh in this case we have a development fee ordinance that covers applications that don't trigger a fair share obligation. Uh when you if you trigger a fair share like these are
for sale I mean for rental 15% obligation is the fair share if it triggers one unit of obligation. So what she's pointing out is the uh inclusionary ordinance I think was in in October, but it was in the fair share
plan. So, that would have to be drilled down on. >> I will say that um I I think your development fee ordinance is in place. Is that correct? >> They're both in place. >> Yeah, we may owe a we may owe a development fee. Uh >> the development fee definitely predates
the application. >> And so, the the housing element submitt predates the application. what you're bringing up. Does every ordinance, including the overlay ordinance, predate the application? And I agree, not every ordinance does because the statute
allows until March, as you know, of this year to get all the ordinances did is you submit a draft to get the blessing from DCA and to deal with any challenges before you adopted them. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the plan was up. I know for a
fact the development fee which covers the non when you have less than the trigger was in place before the application. I I don't know if the inclusionary which is covers more than five units of the 20% was in place but it was definitely to the state in draft
form >> and I think that uh until the until the ordinance is in place it can't be enforced. I mean, I appreciate that we're here looking for for variance approval, but it's not applicable yet. But in terms of our contribution towards
housing, uh if the development fee ordinance was in place prior to uh are being de deemed complete, we'll certainly pay a development fee. And that means that the bureau will have funds that you can use for housing administration, housing construction as you see fit. But from a overall housing
policy, not not your affordable housing compliance, but our six units will help further advance housing issues here in the burrow by provide advancing supply and putting putting it close to your downtown. >> Excuse me. It is a large 10,000t.
This is >> correct. >> It's a big lot. on the 25% and we're existing the building now is 29 but we're going to go to 356
>> correct >> on the maximum improvement allowed% what's existing right now >> we are currently at 59.5% Anyone else have any questions? Anyone from the audience have any
questions of the testimony just given? Anyone have anyone from the audience have any comments? Thank you, >> Mr. Rodney. >> Just tying into one thing that Beth said at the end, I mean, we we see a
tremendous amount, and I think I started with this, a tremendous amount of market demand for housing. I mean, a lot of these old uh mansions were turned into office just like we had for many, many years in North Bridge, and what you're
seeing is a much higher demand for uh new modern construction for for residential. Um, and I can tell you, and I'm sure you're you've had a bunch of these before you, and I can tell you that there's a bunch more in queue. I think this is really aligning with the
market um for this part of town. So, we would ask that uh that this application be considered um a responsible reuse of what I think is, if you look at some of the pictures, kind of an outdated 70s, early 80s
office space. And uh it's going to be modernized. It's going to be brand new construction. Um, and just I had the opportunity to to listen to the Otto and read the Otto report and I really think that this advances uh some of the
economic vi vitality um goals uh set forth in that report and especially providing smaller, less expensive one to two-bedroom options for what's primarily been a young professional under 25 and millennial
demographic that has moved into the burrow and as Beth mentioned um you know there's a huge portion of this town that is just a consists of one to two family um one to two people in each family and these and these units I think will
provide an an option a good option for getting those walking wallets uh within uh you know proximity to sustain um Somerville's retail sector. So, I'd ask that you approve the bulk and use
variances. Um, and uh hopefully we provided proofs necessary to approve this application. >> Mike, do you want to go over the engineering report? There's some items are there. Is this a wheel comply? For example, the dumpster enclosure. There was a recommendation to go to masonary.
Is that I we didn't discuss this. >> Uh there was a comment about granite block curbing since you're taking it all out to match the granite block. I'm just throwing if it's all will comply, we don't have to go through all this. I just didn't know if there's anything. >> There's nothing that we identified that
will not be complied with with your recommendations. >> And there I had some comments on the color of the facade. The facade's going to match the existing colors. This is the cedar shake. The question is what is the it's a used variant. So, I
don't want to get caught in the situation that the colors or something has changed that not the board didn't talk about it or see it. Uh, I thought the colors were going to match what the existing cedar shake color was. Is that not the case?
>> I will. >> Here. Can you grab the mic? >> Yes. And we have not changed them. Uh, so these are still going to be the proposed colors. uh for the building. >> That's what you filed with the
application. >> No, we don't have that with the application. >> Oh, no. I thought we >> That's an exhibit, but it's not an application. Those photos are not in this the file. >> It was part of the October hearing. >> It's exhibit, but I'm saying it's not We don't I agree it's an exhibit. We don't
have the color renderings in the file. >> All right. No, that's fine. >> That's what I'm saying. Exhibits are great, but >> it's been part of the record. So the addition will be matching the colors for that facade. >> We are residing the whole building, >> right?
>> Uh the addition with the existing and uh re- roofing. So there will be new material all around. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So that exhibit staying with the burrow now. Is that what we're doing? >> Yes. Sure. Yes. No problem. Okay. >> They should remain with us.
We marked those at the meeting in the October meeting, did we not? Yeah, that's what I'm my recollection is. >> I I just don't think the burrow I >> They're not in the not in the office. I don't think those exhibits were in the burrow's office from October. >> We'll send you electronic copies as
well. >> All right. That would be fine. Thank you, Mr. Arranic. Anybody from the audience have any comments on the application for the testimony given? >> Anybody from the board have any
comments? >> I've got a couple comments or andor questions. We talked about the sidewalk. That's a condition to the front. We discussed it, but I didn't hear anybody say, "Yeah, >> I thought he did." Well, maybe I'm getting scenile, but we're going to get
that sidewalk to the front. >> That was It's a code issue. I think it should be connect. My opinion, yes, it should be a sidewalk connecting an apartment building to the to the front sidewalk right on the street. Yeah. >> Correct. >> I just want to make sure that we get that in there. >> I thought we had addressed that.
>> I was >> I believe that is a condition. Yes. >> Okay. And then the other thing >> just just for the record that may slightly increase the impervious, >> right? >> Okay. just willing to deal with that, >> but it might prevent somebody from getting run over, too. So, we'll we'll
go with it. >> The other thing is a fence on the the east side or the west side. Are are we or not going to is there going to be a fence or is there not going to be a fence on the parking lot >> on the rear west side? >> I think the testimony was it interferes
with the storm sewers, but if you know, and that was for discussion about ve a vegetative buffer. >> Yeah. But if the board wants a, you know, a section of >> fence there, that's fine. >> Fence or buffer of some sort so the headlights aren't looking in people's
yards. >> Yeah, I think so, too. I think pipes on the other side. >> Okay. >> So, there will be a fence or I'm just >> There will We will have a fence. Is there a particular type or style?
>> Guess cedar. >> Okay. I'm I'm just >> matches the rest of the >> facade. >> All right. Thank you. >> Anybody else on the board have any comments? >> Go. >> I like the idea
of the storage unit. The issue that I do have is the intensity of the six units. two garage turning it into parking >> 10 >> we're increasing that again we're
increasing the maximum coverage there anybody else on the hearing none. >> Well, >> okay, good. >> Waiting to see her. >> Well, I'm uncomfortable with the density. I like the concept, but I'm I am uncomfortable with the density, and I
think Morgan hit the nail right on the head. Without the garage, you bring the parking lot away from Cam Place, make a little bit more space, and I think it might be a better plan. thing. I don't think they get the ramp in there. I think I think the ramp is
what's going to keep those spaces where they're at. >> They'll keep it, >> right? But that number of spaces would decreased by four, >> right? But it's still going to push it back, >> right? But you the lower for eliminated. So you would be back probably to the same location where it is.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I understand where you're coming from, Morgan. I I agree. I think it's a neat idea to turn this um into apartments. I think it's much very much needed in the burrow. Um but I think
you know if we provide these variances in terms of improved coverage every time we get to a situation where a big storm comes and we've nickeled and dimed ourselves into a into a pickle um
in a lot of ways. So, I'm on the fence, to be honest with you. I think it's a really neat um I appreciate the the changes that were made, but I'm I'm on the fence. >> I I think it's uh it's an interesting idea. I think it's
uh good use for the most part. Um the intensity does come into play, particularly with the exit onto Cayman, which is a no outlet street. Um, it's a it's a tough one. Um,
but I do think that one of the things that is is important here is that whether it's four or six units, uh, I think we're going to have an issue with somebody getting in to pick up the trash
um, from the front. So, >> uh, I'm not sure that a reduction in from six to four will will do much. I'm not saying that it needs to be, but >> Question for you, Mike. When does private collection default to municipal
collection as opposed to a dumpster? What What's the numbers? >> There really isn't one. >> Okay. Subjective. >> The condo act basically says, and Kevin has educated me more than once on the redevelopment zones. This isn't the
redevelopment zone, but uh the bur has to either provide for trash enclosure or reimburse the property owner. Is that correct, Kevin? >> For >> Yes. >> Sorry. Under the municipal services. >> I'm ask Kevin because uh I got
I got marching orders. When you're dealing with the redevelopment area there, the rules are different. So, I add different rules in there because the bureau is not responsible to do the trash pickup in redevelopment area. Is that correct, Kevin? >> Yeah. Yeah. because they don't pay full
taxation. So, they're not considered a qualified community in a in a redevelopment. That's an argument to be made. It's never been made against us, but but we don't provide >> uh we don't afford the municipal services act to redevelopment, but this is not one of them.
>> This is not a redevelopment area, right? I'm just saying >> municipality does reimburse other um non redevelopment uh projects in this burrow annually. on typical two family, three family, it's curbside pickup. >> Yeah. >> You drag them up to the street like
anyone else does. >> To answer your question, Rich, you barely answer. >> Well, the answer is the burough is responsible because it's not in the redevelopment area. Typically, >> okay, >> it's curbside pickup. But when you start looking at these numbers, a dumpster
can't usually is used because of the issue of dragging six, eight, 10 units. >> I get it. I just have to understand, >> right? >> Okay. Would someone like to move for uh to close the public portion of this application?
>> Second. >> Move. Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Board. What's your pleasure? >> Uh, before you do that, chairman, I just want to mark on the record that Brian Vidimsky um left prior to the hearing. >> Right.
>> Right. Because I I know Steuart Daniels had a conflict, but so did Brian on this uh particular application. board talked about its like the application. >> I move that we deny the application as presented
motion. Someone like to second it. >> I'll second it >> before before you vote >> move and second any further discussion. >> Can we take an adjournment momentarily? >> Certainly. >> You can take a brief Yes, certainly. >> Yeah, why don't we do that for
>> We can take a brief recess. >> Yeah, let's do that record. Um, so what we'll do is we are we are still uh going live. So you will need to shut off your microphones and we'll um
move the camera so that nothing's on camera. However, the YouTube is still going to run live. Okay, we're ready to resume. Mr. We're going to violate protocol and let you say what you want to say. >> Sure. >> Before he does, I I will withdraw my
motion. >> So, yeah, I we hear you guys. Um, and we're just had a discussion about that garage and and maybe it makes sense to eliminate it. Maybe it makes sense to tear that garage down alto together if it's not going to be utilized. Um, but I
think we need to request an adjournment to look at some alternative design changes to both reduce the impervious and to reduce the density with the unit count. And then that'll eliminate our COA issue if we get down to five. So um
I think the the intent here is to redesign the project uh to do either leave the garage as storage or eliminate it alto together reduce some of the uh impervious surface or the parking area by you know we always it's always a balance right we want parking because we
know the parking's been an issue in town um so we would request an endermanment to >> uh revise the plans with related to the comments received by the board >> Mr. Okay, I'm sorry, please. >> Mr. O'Ring, if you're going to request
additional time, I just want to ask the usual uh >> will you grant an extension? >> Sure. Of course. >> Okay. >> Hey, Morgan, you're looking for the removal of the garage totally. >> So we don't they don't come back to the
garage doing something else. >> One of the things that the town is missing is covered. >> Okay. are very valuable and a lot of people are looking for that. >> Yeah, it we it conflicts with the
handicap ramp currently, but we're going to have to take a look at the design. >> Rethink it. Yeah. >> Well, you went to school for that, right? >> Don't mind him. He's old. >> Yes, we do. >> We're going to carry this.
>> We need We'll need a waiver of the time to act. >> And >> of course, >> I know. No, I know. I just want to make sure that it's on the record. So, you'll provide a letter and uh do the appropriate take the appropriate action. Certainly. We just ask that. >> Let's have a situation where we're
talking about it. Had too many of those where we're talking about a default approval. >> Mike, make it for like six months. I don't want the drama of >> Okay. I would just say that >> not again. >> I've noticed this application three times. So, could we just carry it to a date certain and if it's not ready,
carry it again? >> Because I've >> Yeah, we we >> do we do we don't have a date, do we? >> I know. we can put an you know a place marker and then if it's not that night you can adjurnn it to you know another date. >> Well, it's going to be a minimum of two months out. >> So
>> yeah, >> you you you will need to notice again I think realistically >> uh if we're going to be that if we're going to be that many months out um which makes sense. I mean one way or another um it it it's good for both sides. You got to tell my secretary then
that she has >> I know I No, I I understand. >> I understand. I I I mean no trouble, but I mean, you know, I'm trying to >> be careful here. >> No problem. Thank you guys. Appreciate your time. >> So, we will be carrying this application
for an undetermined amount of time about six months at least. >> Okay. >> Journed without date. >> Okay. Is there any other business to come before the board? Yes, there is. Um I spoke with Mr. Saluca last week. Um
Stu had asked about the um placard saying this this vehicle's on official business for the Bur of Somerville. When you're out making a an on-site inspection, so if you could get your uh model number and your license plate number to Mr. Saluca, you can get that
to u get the placards to to the board members. That apply to bicycles. >> Yeah. My grandchild any vehicle, any pedal cycle or anything. Actually, the law does apply
to that. >> The other thing is somebody >> that door needs to stay open. I don't know if it was Cliff or Kevin gave us a thing uh basically a a primer on how to conduct an on-site inspection. Kevin's
looking for it now for we talked about it last week and once we do that you'll have you'll have your walking papers on how to conduct an on-site inspection >> because I know I've done a couple and one thing I can tell you don't really uh
engage in communication with the neighbors >> because it could be held against you >> and that's about all I have >> two questions. Yes. >> Mike, can you fill us in on 121 South Bridge? Thank you.
>> You're welcome. Uh 122 South Bridge, 121, sorry, South Bridge. The board uh it was called the Fattos application. The board approved it in 18. There was uh no activity for over five years. He
came back to the board in May of last year, said that because of COVID and other reasons, he didn't get around to it. He was asking for approval. uh the neighbors came out about uh holes in the roof and uh property maintenance issues.
He uh he said that uh the board approved it pimilarly only because of the unknowns on the uh condition of the building. The architect gave testimony saying this is the intent but we need to go out there. He talked about the cost
2x4s going from $2 to $8. >> I remember that. and he we left it a preliminary approval so that they could do all their due diligence and the board could look at a final product. Uh subsequent to that preliminary approval, I'm going to say it was May of last
year, the the applicant sold the property. So, we had a and there was just a meeting today with the new owners who were not aware any of the approvals at all. uh they thought they could just go to get a shovel ready. Essentially,
they can go and they actually applied for zoning permits and get construction permits. And we just met with them today with the same architect to go over the resolution of approval and all the steps that are required before the board goes
back to final. And there was the discussion today. Uh as many of you know, the first floor has fallen into the basement literally. Oh my goodness. >> Okay, there's holes. The building hasn't been occupied at least since 10 or 8. How many? Thank you for bringing this
up. >> Thank you. >> Drive by twice. >> So today's I threw out is it better to tear it down and rebuild it as opposed to trying to rebuild when it's all mold
and it's nothing there. Uh the architect, similar to the testimony given in May, said he's reaching out to the fire marshal to get inspection to get into the building so he can get approval to go
into this unsafe structure to he can do his analysis on whether the building should be torn down and rebuilt. I reiterated that his testimony was that way and if he's going to redo it and meet the dimensions and the aesthetics
the board had seen that come up with a plan, a concept. I'm not going to say it's not a concept application. It's a concept saying we don't think that it's viable to redo this as opposed to a new structure. I
said I would pass it out to the board to see if this meets the intent of the preliminary approval. Same square footage, same everything, just a new structure as opposed to trying to rehab something that's so far gone. So, he is going to look into that and get back get
back to the board essentially. >> We've done that before, but remember that corner of Cliff and Ross, there was a house right on the southwest corner, >> right? and that was they're going to save one brick so they didn't need to carry us. >> Now I it's hard to give the architect a
hard time because he was just not authorized. >> So it's not like he was sitting on his hands. He just was never authorized the doing of the work that he the testimony that the board saw. So I'm I thank the board for preliminary approval because
now we can see what's going to happen. The board anticipated that this might change because when you're dealing with a dilapidated structure that you haven't got in what you heard might not be what actually needs to be done and that was the reason for the final approval. So
the board actually saw what was going to come out of all the due diligence. >> How surprised was the new interference? >> Um it wasn't a pleasant conversation. It wasn't pleasant because I took the approach. I went through all the soft
cost, the connection fees, everything this port knows. And I said, you have the soft cost and then you have the construction cost. You have to construct the parking lot and the storm water. I said, before you're proceeding forward, maybe you have the budget for all this.
I'd hate to see you go and get a final approval and not never proceed forward. I said the the board, the burrow wants the property put back. It makes no doesn't do anything productive to get approval to sit around for three more million years because it's not
financially viable. >> Right? >> I said it's not no one wants to see this property sit there forever. I went over and discussed how the neighbors came out about the property maintenance and buzzards and it's and I yeah I said to
them that the board of adjustment does not have enforcement. That's the property maintenance side. And I said, "The burrow is working with you because you have an approval, but yet you you're looking at the the property you could
argue is a public safety issue. >> Fence it up, do all this stuff, but the point has always been, and this board echoes it, why spend all this money just to tear it down? Just get on with it." So I I really the position that the bureau I think has been very lenient
about allowing this because the the charge was they're going to be fixing it moving forward in a timely fashion as everyone heard the testimony was. So um right now it's basically I don't know where it is. The architect
brought the new applicant in. Thank you Ed. This is a this is this is this needs to be discussed thoroughly. Um, and I don't know what's going to happen, but the zoning officer was there and I said, "The residents are not happy. At some point, this becomes a property
>> maintenance violation. At some point, someone's going to say this is a public hazard >> because it becomes a dangerous condition. >> Okay. So, >> a liability issue. >> Some of the two trees were taken down for what I can gather, rich, and nothing else was done.
>> So, I have frustration because This board has seen the application twice and we appear to be in no man's land uh with a building that's dilapidated sitting there that some would argue it's an attractive nuisance.
>> We call the granit too. >> So uh I expect that we're going to see some activity. Uh if we don't see any activity at some point uh it's a property maintenance issue. What's the second? >> Uh 200 204 East Main.
>> 200 204 East South. >> Thank you. That is the Deutsch approval that this board approved number of years ago for an 8 unit apartment. Oh, Ed Brownston, >> it's wonderful. Um
we haven't had any a developer has come in. >> 12. >> I thought it was 12. >> I think it's 12. I think it's 12, too. I think you're right. I think it's 12. This is the surface parking lot. We're going to consolidate the two housing. This is the one that's the old drive-thru bank that's going to be
demolish. One with the corner lot consolidation. Uh the developer came in and we're slowly getting going through compliance being it's not ready yet. They haven't paid the connection fees. They're working towards it. It's at some point
if we get in that gray area about the approvals for two years. It's been a lot of two years, but typically the policy has been if they're working towards it, we don't raise the issue as long as they're working towards it to try to get
a shovel on the ground. And so, um, >> there's a dumpster out there, >> working towards it. >> Working towards it. Um, >> is Deutsch going to do it himself or did he sell it?
for I know the he has a developer who's doing the construction for him. I don't know the relationship. >> Yes, that's correct. Uh Dominic Russo has been in on behalf of he's indicated that he's going to be doing the physical
construction. So the bottom line is that thank you. This is great. uh at some point I I'm hopeful that we get movement because the board approved this and I think the board felt very favorably about this, the aesthetics, the location,
everything. Uh but at some point you might you might have to come back for an extension of time to act on this. Uh because in this eclipse goes back if you're working towards it, you have two hour two two years. But if you're getting held up or you're submitting
things every four months or >> if it's a regulatory >> question comes are you you're working towards it. So >> right >> what else do we have on the agenda >> 106 >> um we have the next one that we have the PSNG site which is on Hamilton Street.
This is the old uh raised body shop that was demolished. It was >> uh the formal coal gasification plant. So there's big clarifiers. In the old days, you would take coal and anorobic condition, heat it up, and you would create natural gas. That's what fired the town up. Every town had its own
power plant. Sville is no exception, and that was the coal gasification plant. Uh PS&G is proposing to cap it and some other things. And um the board's going to hear that application. And we have the application across the street which
is the NAN from Burough Hall which is the 75,000 square foot climate control storage uh facility that is on for the next meeting. So repeat >> the next meeting we're going to have.
Yes. That climate control storage facility coming in for use varants F everything height everything >> everything >> they want to demolish the Ray Hughes which you're going to hear all that but that's coming up. Uh we have the same
applicant developer proposing a 85,000 square foot self storage at the former location of the diner on route 206 79206 which is next to Dunkin Donuts. It's the old diner pad that the B board saw a car
wash here many years three or four maybe five years ago >> that uh the board did not view that favorably. So, it's been sitting for four or five years. They're proposing a same similar climate control at 85. They're raising everything out of the flood planes, keeping the footprint
down, but it hasn't been deemed complete. So, that that's that's sitting there. >> How tall is that going to be? That's on That's not a big lot. >> It's It's from what I I haven't done a technical review, Rich, but it's at least five stories. Like I say, it's got a glove.
>> It's five stories and they're going up because as you said, they can't go out flood plane. They have to keep the footprints similar so they're not displacing D rules. So they're hot to trot saying that I expect that to be deemed complete within a week. So that's
going to be put on the agenda. And there's a couple of residential applications. So I think we're going to be looking at two meetings probably through April. >> April at least. April and that's not assuming that any of these other applications just mentioned
don't ask for continuances you know which who knows and then this application we just heard whenever that comes back I don't know um >> might be during the summer >> I'm concerned about the time to act so that's why I said the six months we're
going to have to keep an eye on that >> uh because it's out there nothing we can do about it but we do have a deadline from the time to act, >> right? >> From whenever >> Orodnik, Michael Rodnick submits it. >> Who is watching that clock right now? >> I'm going to have to.
>> Cliff's going to have to. We're going to have to. >> We're all going to have to. >> We're going to have to I'm paranoid about that stuff right now. >> Yeah. >> It gets you in trouble in a hurry. >> Absolutely. >> That's why That's why I said to Mr. O'Neic, six months because I three months before you know it's a blink of
an eye. >> Yeah. and we're up against a clock deadline and then >> some of the conversations get very dicey at that point, right? >> There's no need for that. >> I haven't heard anything more about Bell Avenue. I haven't heard much more about Bell Avenue. >> Well, that's probably going to the
planning board. >> No, no, that's what I figured. I I I think maybe for us >> Bell Avenue is over. >> We have a motion on the floor to adjurnn. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Thank you.
>> Kevin wants to go. >> Kevin's wearing 27. >> I heard that motion, >> Michael.