CivicPulse

AI Generated Transcript

AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.
  • Meeting Title: Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 07-16-2025
  • City: Somerville, MA
  • Date Published: 2025-08-01
Back to all meetings
View Official Recording
View Summary

AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Time & Speaker Transcript

SPEAKER_19 		Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for July 16, 2025. It's 6.01 p.m. Joining us tonight, well, first of all, pursuant to our Chapter 2 of the Acts of the 2025, this meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals will be conducted via remote participation. A video recording of these proceedings will be available on the city website's meeting and events page or by emailing zoningboard at somerville.gov. Joining us tonight, we have a full board on hand. We have Anne Brockleman. She's our vice chair. We have Ann Fullerton. She'll be our acting clerk this evening. Zach Zaremba. And our two alternate members are Brian Cook and Sisia Daglian. And I'm Ursula Susan Fontano, your chair. We have a nice agenda tonight. So without further ado, we're going to ask the acting clerk to take care of some cleanup business first.

SPEAKER_02 		Yes, Madam Chair. So our first case is to open the hearing for 379 Somerville Avenue. We actually have three cases in front of us, or three variances in front of us for that case. We're going to open all of them and then continue them. Thank you. The three, the three variance cases are ZP25-000058, Brickstone Builders Corp. seeks relief from SCO 4.3.11.E for facade build-out requirements in the Mid-Rise 5 or MR5 district, which requires a hardship variance. The second variance is case ZP25-000059. Brickstone Builders Corp. seeks relief from SEO 4.3.8.b for the maximum front yard setback in the MR5 district, which requires a hardship variance. And the third case associated with this address is ZP25000060, Brickstone Builders Corp. seeks relief from SEO 4.3.8.b JoAnne Hanrahan, Point D for brown story fenestration requirements for primary facade composition in the Mr five district, which requires a hardship variance I moved to continue all three of these cases until the next zoning board meeting which if staff can remind me of the date. JoAnne Hanrahan, I guess six August six.

SPEAKER_19 		May I have a second, please, on the motion? Second. Seconded by Zach Zaremba. All in favor, as we go around, please say aye. Zach Zaremba?

SPEAKER_14 		Aye.

SPEAKER_19 		Anne Brockleman? Aye. Ann Fullerton?

SPEAKER_02 		Aye.

SPEAKER_19 		Brian Cook?

SPEAKER_09 		Aye.

SPEAKER_19 		And Sisia Daglian? Aye.

SPEAKER_02 		let the record show we had a full board this evening and all members were all voted in the affirmative thank you next so the next case that we are going to um open and it's also being continued i believe madam chair no it's going to be re-advertised okay are we opening it no okay No. Just noting for the record what the case is? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So the next case to be addressed is 14 McGrath Highway. There are two special permits attached to this case. They need to be re-advertised for corrected language. They are case numbers ZP25-000044 Liquor Junction is proposing to expand their alcohol sales business in a commercial business district, which will require a special permit under SCO 4.3.13. Second case number is ZP25-000063. Liquor Junction is proposing to increase the leaseable floor area of their business's use to more than 10,000 square feet.

SPEAKER_19 		the cv district requiring a special permit thank you uh let the record just show that after they're advertised we will post a new day for their hearing no votes necessary as this was not open tonight all right so then the next thing we have to go with is under general business please minutes do you want to do minutes madam chair or do you want to do generally i'd like to do minutes okay

SPEAKER_02 		um we have two sets of minutes to vote on tonight i move to approve uh the minutes as um completed for the zoning board of appeals dated june 4th 2025 and june 18th 2025. before we yeah get a second and go around the

SPEAKER_19 		uh for the vote was there any comments any corrections anybody had no seeing none they'll be presented as the clerk noticed and here we go may i have a second second second by ann brockelman ann brockelman aye ann fullerton aye brian cook aye zack zaremba aye Sisia daglian aye JoAnne Hanrahan, and Susan fontana why let the record show all Members voting in the affirmative wait now. JoAnne Hanrahan, This bulletin, we can go down to the clarendon hill project.

SPEAKER_02 		JoAnne Hanrahan, All right, Madam chair under other business, we have a 40 B change request to here for clarendon hill the case number is for be 2020 dash 001 dash are three.

SPEAKER_19 		And so who's here for the team for Clarendon Hill?

SPEAKER_03 		Chair Fontano, this is Kit. I've just promoted John Springfield. If anyone else is here as an applicant, I will promote them once they raise their hand.

SPEAKER_19 		Mr. Springfield.

SPEAKER_06 		Good evening, Madam Chair.

SPEAKER_19 		I can see you now. Now, what's your role? Who do you represent and what role?

SPEAKER_06 		I represent preservation of affordable housing POA as a senior project manager.

SPEAKER_19 		Beautiful. Thank you. Anybody else joining you tonight?

SPEAKER_06 		I do believe a couple.

SPEAKER_04 		Sorry for the background noise. Tim signing icon architecture.

SPEAKER_19 		Tim Sinan. Thank you, Tim. Okay.

SPEAKER_18 		I also thought I'd mention. Hi, nice to see everybody. I'm here as well. Architect for the project also. And if needed, I know that our landscape architect is available as well. Thank you.

SPEAKER_06 		Okay. I do have a couple of slides. I don't know if it's possible to share it. I think I just requested access, but I don't see a button yet.

SPEAKER_19 		Kit, can you take care of John Springfield, please?

SPEAKER_03 		Oh, here we go. Yeah. This is Kit. I think I sent over access.

SPEAKER_06 		Oh, I see it. Thank you so much. Okay. So I I know many members of the board are familiar with this project following the 2,024 Db. Comprehensive permit, and the approved and substantial changes in 2,022 and 2,023. But I know there's some new folks on the board. So just quick summary. This redevelopment replaces um existing obsolete state public housing at clarendon hill and west somerville with newly constructed permanently affordable housing adds new affordable and unrestricted apartments to create a mixed income community we are now excited to be close to completing the first phase which you can see here and are excited for residents to move in to their new homes in the fall this next slide CoB, Joe Taddeucci. : shows the location of this first phase and also shows the temporary condition that will exist for residents as phase two is under construction. Christopher McConkey- So the proposed modifications that we're submitting for consideration tonight, the first of which relates to the phasing since it is a multi phase project. Christopher McConkey- Originally, the site wide 40 be had contemplated a first phase, which included a market rate building that would that was. led by Red Gate Residential. That primarily market rate building has been delayed given market conditions. And the updated phasing proposes the two POA-led phases to be advanced first and the market rate building to be a part of a third phase. And this is really just intended to make sure that residents can receive their housing as quickly as possible and that the momentum is continued. um the other updates or modifications that we're requesting have come out of detailed conversations around the thoroughfare permit for this first phase stevenson amon way and as we've worked with city staff around that thoroughfare permit we've incorporated their detailed feedback and improvements on that thoroughfare design so the first of those thoroughfare updates are a modification of the wounder which is I think Dutch it's a fancy word for a crosswalk and enhanced wide crosswalk that prioritizes pedestrian access to the Central Park. That's shifted slightly, and the finished condition is being completed with phase 2 to make sure that doesn't get damaged, and it is part of that comprehensive park development. The next modification is a shift in the pedestrian crossings and a reduction in the crossing length at several points again incorporating staff feedback for those changes and the final modification relates to the location of street trees that have had to shift in relation to those first two changes as additional crosswalks have been added and other things have shifted slightly so the location of street trees and the location of some of the bicycle facilities has been adjusted accordingly and much more details in the staff memo that was submitted. So we appreciate the staff's close attention and support that's indicated in the memo and welcome any questions from the board.

SPEAKER_19 		I have a quick question. I understand the phases and I understand that some people have already been removed Donna Bainbridge- From where they were living in their someplace else when they come back were they supposed to come back in any special order.

SPEAKER_06 		That's a great question. So a number of folks are temporarily temporarily relocated off site. And when they come back, that order is based on a lottery that the residents participated in. And there's also priority for folks that have kids in schools have medical conditions. So there's a priority waitlist and then there's otherwise it's the lottery.

SPEAKER_19 		Okay, thank you. um is there uh this do you uh does anybody else want to say something right now or should i um like uh kendra or tim anybody else want to say anything right now because i want to make sure if there's somebody from the public here we let them speak but i want to give you folks a chance to fill us in on any changes right now.

SPEAKER_18 		I think John did a wonderful summary and also noting that the memo covers everything in more detail. Beautiful. Thank you, Kendra. Okay.

SPEAKER_19 		So Kit, can we see if there are people from the public that would like to ask us any questions if there's anybody out there this evening? And then we'll open it up to the board. this is kit uh I don't see anyone with their hand raised if you would like to speak raise your hand I'm not seeing anyone no okay all right so let's just uh open it up to the board we also I want to mention that we do have an app packet uh seeing that Kendra was speaking and Tim's here as well we have their memorandum also with our stuff So anybody on the board have any questions they want to ask or something they want the people here to be more complete with? Yes, Anne Brockleman, please.

SPEAKER_00 		Yes, just a bit more specificity. When you say slightly, shifted slightly, you know, on the scale of a project like this, is it 10 feet or is it 10 inches? Because that's what we're here to determine, right? If it's de minimis or not. And my drawings, when I open your memo, it's populating very slowly because there's so many layers. If you want to just, you can speak off the top of your head as well, your slideshow.

SPEAKER_04 		Tim signing with icon architecture. Yeah, we shifted it. I would say within 5 or so feet from where it was originally. We went through. A bunch of back and forth with the city of several staff to address all their comments and the winner, which is again, as John described at the. enlarged crosswalk pedestrian crossing had to shift, you know, a little bit here and there, but it didn't shift significantly, if you will. Right.

SPEAKER_00 		So by significantly, you mean not more than five feet? I would say about that. Yes. Yes. OK, that's that's fine. And then number three, trees and plantings trees at regular spacing. Thirty five to forty five feet apart. What do you mean you had to change from 35 to 45 or it's like within that.

SPEAKER_04 		Range it was with within that range, and you know we had like I said many conversations with the city staff piece off specifically about the tree locations. You know, in conjunction with crosswalks and other. elements that are part of the roadway utilities exactly uh so we were trying to coordinate all that um and you know in the memo that the staff memo it fully outlines the the number of caliper or the caliper of trees that were on site that were removed versus what are putting being put back in the new development so we're you know way above if you will the original amount of trees based on a caliper size than what was there originally

SPEAKER_00 		Okay, great. Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you, Ann. Anybody else have questions?

SPEAKER_10 		No?

SPEAKER_19 		Yes, I'm sorry. Brian Cook, please.

SPEAKER_10 		Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really a question for Steve, I think, or another staff person. The regulations for substantial versus insubstantial Steve, mostly apply to the unit size and number. And so the configuration of the buildings is largely what determines that. Am I understanding that correctly?

SPEAKER_17 		That's right. Change in building height or massing unit count or change in type of like housing tenure or building type are the primary categories of changes that would be deemed substantial.

SPEAKER_10 		OK, and if I may follow up, Madam Chair, so changes in landscape design, mobility access, those sorts of things aren't really covered. I'm just confused about how much the regulatory requirements for a 40B, adjustments to a 40B permit take into account those kinds of changes.

SPEAKER_17 		Right. I think those would be generally considered insubstantial. I mean, I think it'd be at the board's discretion to decide if in some they amounted to something substantial or worthy of a public hearing, but generally those are considered insubstantial.

SPEAKER_19 		okay thank you thank you brian thanks steve anybody else no well i think the report i think you guys were really staying on i could say at the staff by the way i didn't um JoAnne Hanrahan, I was remiss in that when I said pull the board was going to be here tonight that I didn't mention the staff personnel. JoAnne Hanrahan, They they're on this stuff they help us so much with these reports. JoAnne Hanrahan, You know it's kit luster Steve carry Madison Anthony lexi pain Sarah white, we have a new gentleman with us tonight alvaro he started to this week so. uh i want to say thank you to you guys because we know you work with you know the johns the kendras and everybody else and you keep the reports coming and give us the proper information so we can make fair intelligent and right decisions and go make sure everything's beautiful i travel this road every day twice a day going back and forth to work and i'm watching how it's progressing and growing it's it's really fascinating so uh I'm, I think we're, I think everybody's on the same page here tonight. I'm going to ask Sisia, we have Sisia to vote. And Brian, you're going to do the next case, please. And if no one has any other comments, are you folks ready to cast your vote? Substantial or insubstantial? Right? Steve?

SPEAKER_17 		Joenne McGerr, Ecology, Is that correct yeah you have to find it in substantial or insubstantial. Joenne McGerr, Ecology, And then also add to the motion to modify findings conditions of approval and one waiver from the. Joenne McGerr, Ecology, Original approval just as as as written in the staff memo.

SPEAKER_19 		Joenne McGerr, Ecology, And bulletin. Joenne McGerr, Ecology, Did you get that yes, Madam chair. Okay, thank you so much. Okay, so without further ado, we're going to close the public portion and mark that there's no comments. There was nobody here tonight. That's a good thing. I think sometimes everybody's been watching and they're happy with what's going on there. So acting clerk, would you please make a motion?

SPEAKER_02 		Yes, Madam Chair. I make a motion to that Susan Marvin, Case for zero be 2020 dash 001 dash are three Clarendon pill has in substantial changes and to approve that they are in substantial based on the fight the changes to the findings and conditions and waivers in the July 10 2025 zoning Board of Appeals staff menu memo.

SPEAKER_19 		Susan Marvin, Thank you. JoAnne Hanrahan, may have a second on the motion. JoAnne Hanrahan, Second. JoAnne Hanrahan, And brockelman second the motion as we go along, I have a CC a dead land. JoAnne Hanrahan, yay. JoAnne Hanrahan, yay zack's remember. JoAnne Hanrahan, And brockelman. JoAnne Hanrahan, Yes, and fullerton. JoAnne Hanrahan, Yes, and Susan fontana yes, let the record show. that all five voting members voted in the affirmative that it is unsubstantial and to go forward. Thank you. See you next time around.

SPEAKER_04 		Thank you all.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Now the next one, we have Steve for this as well.

SPEAKER_02 		and uh it's one what do we have 56 webster rav miss bulletin yes madam chair i actually 56 webster half was previously opened and being continued from may 4th thank you may 14th 2025. thank you would you like me to open uh

SPEAKER_19 		describe the case again or just move forward no that's okay i was just not paying attention here i just wanted to put you to work yeah so the next case up is 56 webster rav and we have our staff report for july the 9th and that was steve carey as well thank you steve so who's here from webster rav jennifer just jennifer little old jennifer's here tonight

SPEAKER_16 		Could just be me. I see Kathy here as well. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's good news for you. All right. Speak to us, please. Um, so we received the updated staff report prepared by Steve and with Kathy and Kathy and I and Steve have connected. And I believe that all parties are in agreement on the staff recommendation as updated, which would extend the special permit as requested to recognize the two years coming from the State Permit Extension Act. plus the exercise now of the first extension and then a further amendment as set forth in the recommendation providing for the possibility of two additional one-year extensions upon the conditions set forth in the recommendation and uh unless Kathy has a surprise for me we have no disputes okay um does everybody see your sheets there that layout because it's a little you got to pay attention a little bit

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, Here we are there's a lady of the hour, keep us honest. JoAnne Hanrahan, So does any. Catherine, did you have any comments you wanted to make to the board?

SPEAKER_15 		Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, just to add to what Jennifer said, we did also, in exchange for agreeing to grant the first extension now, because with all the additions that were there by the permit as written and the extension, it would have been only through July of 2029, and the applicant requested 5 years, so we agreed to that and to modify the conditions to allow for that 1st extension to be exercised. Now, in exchange for that, we are asking for reporting requirements and those we discussed them last time. Just reporting. There's also they've all we also asked the applicant and they did provide an updated timeline for moving the laundry and the reporting is tied to that letting us know where they are in that process and how things are going. at six-month intervals beginning. First report would be due the end of March 2026. Is that correct, Jennifer? I think I got that right. Right, yes. Other than that, but she's absolutely right. We talked, we looked at these things together, and we're all on the same page this time. So hope that makes it easier for you. Yep.

SPEAKER_19 		One quick question I have. Who disciplines that these checkpoints happen? Whose responsibility is that? JoAnne Hanrahan, Is it planning, is it you guys legal, you know who does that.

SPEAKER_15 		JoAnne Hanrahan, Well.

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, You know updates in the.

SPEAKER_15 		time but who is going to oversee that yes madam chair um the my understanding is if that would be a violation of a special permit if they don't um provide the report when it's due and i i don't want to speak out of term but i think it's isd that would enforce that i'm sure that's correct it would be it would be inspectional services Thanks, Steve. Yeah, and the way I put it in Madam chair, and my, at least, hopefully it says this, it's to be that it should be an agenda item. For the, so we kind of know that that should be there as a report. If it's not there, then we know, and we can, I would start by giving Jen a call. Okay.

SPEAKER_19 		Yeah, that's I just was wanting to hear how that's a very good question. Yeah. Yeah. All right great. Anybody on the board.

SPEAKER_10 		have uh any comments or questions for either of the ladies or Steve staff I do Brian please thank you madam chair um I guess this is through you to Jennifer um it just occurred to me that six months actually isn't very long between reporting points and I just Eric Helland, Because of the long horizon we're talking about you're you're comfortable with a six month period of reporting back on progress.

SPEAKER_16 		Carolyn Gallagher, Madam chair, if I may um. The answer is yes. Within the framework of, I suppose, reality. And this is something that Kathy and I did discuss where I specifically said that my client wants to be sure that the reporting requirements are not a gateway to a penalty if the report is nothing to see here, the economy is still upside down, everywhere we're looking is not a good idea. Kathy obviously can speak for herself, but had indicated that the requirement is what it is. It is to report where the progress is. We understand the timeline that's ahead of us. And while we have every expectation sort of in full transparency that nothing's going to look any different anytime soon, that the hope certainly is the longer out we get from today, that things are looking better all around for everyone. And that with a better economy and a better sort of just new clean slate, some point in time, hopefully everybody's coming out of this a winner. But that we did sort of have that question as well, understanding that at the very least for the first several reports starting in March of just next year, that we have no expectation that we're going to be coming forward with excellent life changing news off the bat.

SPEAKER_19 		Okay.

SPEAKER_09 		Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		Okay, Brian. I think it's also good to have these updates, intervals. It seems like close together, but sometimes we make them too far out there, things that do fall through the cracks because of life, because of what's going on. So I think that's still a good thing to have in place and keep everybody, you know, on their toes.

SPEAKER_15 		anybody else any comments and zach yeah no good so uh could we then have the uh clerk make sure i did i did have my hand up i guess you couldn't see no worries no worries i just wanted to make a quick comment i would hope that the report would be a little more specific than nothing's changed but you know that we looked in these areas, at these properties, a summary of activities that they've been doing. I agree that we can't expect the world to change and penalize them if it doesn't, but I would expect it to be somewhat substantive. But other than that, it is what it is, as Jen said. Thanks.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you. Yeah, it's good to have it on the record. All right, so that's Webster, Webster. JoAnne Hanrahan, So i'm. JoAnne Hanrahan, In bulletin we have a motion, please.

SPEAKER_02 		Ann Fletcher- Yes, Madam chair, I make a motion to approve the extension. Ann Fletcher- Of the special permit timeline and modifications to the conditions that are noted in the somerville zoning board of appeals staff memo data July 9 2025 including a. Caroline Miller, A timeline that has been submitted with those. Caroline Miller, Conditions.

SPEAKER_17 		TAB, Mark McIntyre, Right i'm sure sorry, if I may. TAB, Mark McIntyre, Please, I recommend just also, including in the motion that the board also make the findings that are recommended the staff memo this findings just relate to the tolling dates, just so we have that, on the record.

SPEAKER_02 		Caroline Miller, And we will. we should include the findings noted in the staff memo as well.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you. May we have a second? Second. Anne Brockleman, all in favor as we go around? We're going with Brian on this case. Brian Cook?

SPEAKER_09 		Yes, aye.

SPEAKER_19 		Zach Zaremba?

SPEAKER_09 		Yes.

SPEAKER_19 		Anne Brockleman? Yes. Ann Fullerton? Yes. Susan Tano yes let the record show that uh the matter of 56 Webster Avenue the case was uh approved 100 good luck everybody thank you very much thanks very much thanks for coming out you guys sure I'd be happy to be here good next yeah Webster Gilman Street

SPEAKER_02 		yes madam chair i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm doing a step on you that's going to be a new case i'd like to open uh 103 gilman street case number zp 25000043 the vec demasian it seeks relief from seo 14.1.5.c 11 Point B, to expand an existing non-conforming structure further into a rear setback, which requires a hardship variance.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you, Ann. I'm going to have Cecilia vote on this case. So, Gilman Street, who's here? Robert? Robert? Varian, is that how we say it?

SPEAKER_03 		Chair Fontana, this is Kit. Robert, you should have the ability to unmute and share your screen as needed.

SPEAKER_11 		Here we are.

SPEAKER_19 		Hello.

SPEAKER_11 		Hello. Thank you, Madam Chair. welcome so speak to us okay um this was a very unusual situation um the owner has a three-family unit um it was built uh turned the century um had existing uh egress stairs with rear porches uh um so uh he contacted me about repairing the stairs i went down there and found them the stairs not only the stairs but the porches themselves were in a very unsafe condition so i recommended to the owner that we replace the porches and the stairs simultaneously because of the conditions they were in um so subsequently he agreed and i went to prepare drawings for the reconstruction of the porches and the stairs only to discover that to make the the reconstructed stairs code compliant with the current codes um we had to make the width of the porch eight inches closer to the rear property setback. I approached the building commissioner because of the public safety concern, if we could get a waiver or any zoning. And he said, no, he wanted to stick with the policies at hand. And subsequently, we had to get a building property survey done and show the extension on the site plan for the additional 8 inches in width that would be needed to meet the code requirement. So the situation here is I don't know what options the board really has because it's a public safety issue. And they are in very bad repair. And this is, I discovered this last January. So we've been trying to get this done as soon as possible. The owner's anxious to get it done. I don't have any other design alternatives to offer the owner. with the configuration of the building and the situations there. So it is indeed a hardship and public safety concern. So we're asking for relief so that we can encroach closer to the rear property line approximately no more than eight inches. It's actually less than that, but on the conservative side, we're asking for eight inches. um so i don't know what else to i can offer the owner or the board uh as any alternative here so unfortunately if if we can't get relief from the board here um i don't know how to handle the public safety concern in the building um and that does put the tenants at risk so um okay um

SPEAKER_19 		So you've worked with Kit on this. And first off, I want to see, is there anybody in the public that wanted to speak? Kit, are there any neighbors or anything coming out for this?

SPEAKER_03 		Madam Chair, this is Kit. I do not see anyone with their hand raised. If you'd like to speak, just raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes. I do not see anyone.

SPEAKER_19 		Okay, we'll go forward. Open it up to the board. Does the board have some questions? Yes, Ann Fullerton.

SPEAKER_02 		Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Thurian, so in your report, it actually says 14 inches of additional width. So I just wanted to understand where the eight inches comes from, why those two numbers are being talked about differently.

SPEAKER_11 		I'm sorry, I'm confused with your question. I'm happy to answer it. I just not sure what we're discussing here.

SPEAKER_02 		Yeah. So you wrote a report about for the submission. Yes. And in point number seven of the report, it talks about requiring an additional 14 inches of additional width.

SPEAKER_11 		not eight um let me check my records here i'm sure what i submitted in the report is accurate um

SPEAKER_02 		Karen Hollweg, And KIP if you can lend any light to this that please chime in.

SPEAKER_11 		Kip, if you can lend any light to this that please chime in. Kip, i'm second here.

SPEAKER_03 		Karen Hollweg, yeah. Chair Fontana, this is Kit. I am just pulling up the plans for myself so I can give you accurate information.

SPEAKER_11 		I see on my drawings at different levels, the level one will require five and a half inches extension and width. Level two shows four inches. extension and level three five and a half um and uh it if you look at the architectural drawings that were prepared um we had a code restriction or conflict with the width of the stair opening that was existing And the dimension that we needed at the bottom of the landing in order to make the stairs work and comply it, we had to use the existing stairs at the bottom at the lowest level. And so now all stairs are that are being proposed are fully compliant. So if you look at my drawing A1, that information is shown on the upper left side of the sheet.

SPEAKER_02 		I see it.

SPEAKER_00 		No. Go ahead. Please. Maybe it's the same question, but ask a different way in terms of math. I wonder if there are two numbers. One is how much bigger than existing you need versus the number that is what's the relief, which is a number beyond what the setback allows. And usually the, you know, in terms of DBA, we'd like to understand the relief needed. Right. Right. So you have to subtract um i i couldn't understand the plot plan either because usually you should or even the staff report usually tells us that the setback is x inches and this is going to encroach by x inches therefore the relief is x inches um it's just a matter of um getting our documentation correct you know if we were to approve this okay um let me see if i have more and if staff understands that because i'm looking at the plot plan right so you're in red you're showing is that three feet from the property line 2.93 3.1 yes i would go by the plot plan so that's proposed and what is the setback acquired staff or anyone?

SPEAKER_03 		This is Kit. The setback required is 20 feet.

SPEAKER_11 		You're right.

SPEAKER_03 		Which is this property is an existing nonconformity.

SPEAKER_00 		Oh, I see. Okay. Sorry, we missed that. 20 feet. So even from the back of the building to the property line is that 6.2 plus 3.1? 6, 7, 8, 9. So you're asking for a further Joanne?s iPhone & exacerbating the non non compliance right that's right.

SPEAKER_11 		Joanne?s iPhone & And we're seeking relief up to eight inches. Joanne?s iPhone & Further encroaching on the nonconformity. Joanne?s iPhone & Further further yeah got it. Joanne?s iPhone & I believe we can do it in six, but I you know I knowing what happens in the field.

SPEAKER_00 		Joanne?s iPhone & And then, can I ask another question when. Once you're beyond three feet from the property line, because I see 2.9, is fire rating different, kicks in, or your porch is already, the lumber is already fire treated?

SPEAKER_11 		I believe that the... if it were an interior egress enclosed egress um that requirement would be needed um so um if necessary i don't um i don't know how um i mean i can include in the construction documents to have a protective fire rated material applied to the decking um and that certainly would be something the owner and i would be willing to do um but anyway i know i didn't do that in the permit drawings but yeah i'm i don't think i necessarily ask for more but i would ask you to check and this is not zoning this is

SPEAKER_00 		Barbara Bodine, Jr.

SPEAKER_11 		: State building code.

SPEAKER_00 		Barbara Bodine, Jr. : Yes. Barbara Bodine, Jr.

SPEAKER_11 		: Something I will. Barbara Bodine, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 		: I will not three feet from the property line. Barbara Bodine, Jr. : Whatever you need to do.

SPEAKER_11 		Barbara Bodine, Jr. : To comply.

SPEAKER_19 		Barbara Bodine, Jr. : I will certainly do. Barbara Bodine, Jr. : I have a question. Barbara Bodine, Jr. : On page two of a staff report. Barbara Bodine, Jr. : It says here the setback must be at least 20 feet from the rear property line. Barbara Bodine, Jr. : or at the end of the day, if this project goes forward what you want to do. how far back was the rear setback going to be um i uh because i'm trying to read the report maybe kit you can help me currently it's saying there is a three and two tenths foot rear setback yeah that's it three feet right that's what we're

SPEAKER_11 		yeah and right that's what you're talking about correct right it's very close to the property right now yes and then if the proposed porch is going it's going to be three feet to or to two feet nine instead of 20. honestly madam chair the surveyor didn't give us a reliable or a uh a um a precise location when we got the copy of his certified plot plan. But it's, we're in that three foot, two foot ten distance. So I, you know, I'm relying on what the surveyor provided me and we acted quickly to get something done. um but i can tell you um what from our own field measurements um we're looking in my drawings of asking for five and a half inches that i would need to increase the existing deck width so um to give you a precise dimension the survey information we have from the let me see if i have any more from the actual surveyor um madam chair this is kit thank you kit

SPEAKER_03 		um it looks like i'm looking at the plot plan right now that was um sent to you the board um and it looks like from what i see the rear setback um the proposed rear setback will range from 3.1 to 2.9 feet right Personally, I'm not sure if that is because the building is on a slight angle, but that's what I'm understanding.

SPEAKER_11 		Yeah, I agree with that.

SPEAKER_02 		Madam Chair. Yes. I actually disagree. It's only by micro inches, but on the surveyors plot plan, it says 6.2 feet and On the actual drawing set the framing plan is calling for six feet three inches so it's sort of in there, but I think you know we should be careful to say that it's going to be exactly what is on the plot plan because I don't think it'll end up being exactly that.

SPEAKER_13 		yeah.

SPEAKER_11 		Well, it could be um. When we did our field survey, we weren't anticipating a zoning issue at the time. So we didn't precisely locate the building on the lot at that time. We were just focusing on the rear decks. So it is the surveyor's plot plan that we have to rely on and conform with. So the... the original permit drawings that were prepared okay were prior to us being aware that we would uh have to go to zoning we assumed that we could have delivered the um we could have delivered the new work within what was existing previously so the architectural drawings were prepared prepared prior to the survey um and it was once we realized that we could not get a waiver on public safety on the zoning um that we engaged the surveyor so his uh survey information is the reliable source um on this project um excuse me excuse me sir brian cook

SPEAKER_10 		Thank you, Madam Chair. Although there's been a lot of confusion, I think what's clear is that the request for relief is meant to incorporate what's needed, even if the maximum provided in relief is not what they actually end up needing. So that's the point of the eight-inch further encroachment into the setback. is to give them a margin of error for completing the renovation of the stairs and decks so that they don't violate the setback any further than the building already does because it's a non-conforming rear setback for the existing structure. So rather than try to specify in the motion the exact dimensions that we have, if we give them a margin of error, which I believe is what the staff memo is proposing, even though the words are not there, then I think that obviates any need for the applicant to come back and say, whoops, we need a new or amended hardship variance because we've discovered that the measurements are off by whatever, a couple of inches. Yeah.

SPEAKER_13 		Yeah.

SPEAKER_11 		That's right. You're absolutely correct. That's what we're doing.

SPEAKER_02 		Bulletin. Yeah, I think we all agree that, you know, this is a case of relief needed. My concern is that because we're having a hard time actually determining something to attach the relief to, like nothing in the documentation we have so far identified is the thing we want to attach the relief to. My worry is that whoever is building could say, well, because you have an open door, how about we make it a little bigger and you can have a patio set out here. And because we're not... attaching the relief specifically for the egress code so um not on my watch i i can i appreciate that mr theron but we see all kinds we're going to see another case later tonight that has that kind of issue so it happens all the time um

SPEAKER_19 		well this project requires construction control anyway you know what mr ethereum could you be quiet for a couple of minutes while the board speaks if they have a question for you they're going to ask you okay um miss fullerton so my my suggestion is the thing that i feel most comfortable attaching the relief to is actually mr therian's drawings on his framing plan it has

SPEAKER_02 		the control set of maximum width he thinks that the porches need to be, which is six foot three. And, you know, whatever that encroachment is, is what it is. It's just, I feel most comfortable saying that if the porches conform to his construction framing plans as presented is reasonable. good so what do you suggest we write it the way it's going to be what we think of approving if we go that far yeah we make it a condition that that relief is based on the construction framing plans of i have to figure out which date it is but as submitted based on a certain date it was uh february

SPEAKER_03 		fourth oh February 21 25. it Madam chair just give me one second while I pull those up yeah yes the date on the plan submitted is February 21st 2025. beautiful and how do we go forward now from this here

SPEAKER_19 		Well, I think, I mean, this here is a, um, it's a hardship variance and we all know how severe those are, but this is non-conforming as it is. And it is their egress. So we've got to figure a way to see how we can make this work in as least painful as possible. So this setback, right. Good. Okay. So, as we're thinking of that, Ann's had her as in. Anybody else have a comment or question for Mr. Therrien? No? No suggestions how to help and get this done?

SPEAKER_11 		I thought Ann Fullerton's approach was an appropriate one that would be acceptable and workable. It's a little more restrictive than I had requested because I had wanted to have a tolerance of up to eight inches instead of the five and a half that's exactly shown there. So that would give us a little more confidence that It won't go any more than that, you know, and I will do everything I can to assure that the dimensions that I provided are achieved. Part of the question here is not so much achieving the construction dimension as it is the unknown as the property the building may not be perpendicular to the property line and that's uh that's high i feel the eight inches would certainly give us that confidence it what do you think of uh this here conversation that's going on this is your case

SPEAKER_03 		MADAME CHAIR, I DO AGREE WITH ANN FULLERTON. AND I DON'T, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT MY STAFF MEMO, I DON'T THINK I MEANT TO CONVEY THAT THERE SHOULD BE ANY TOLERANCE OR WIGGLE RIM BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE that is something that the ZBA necessarily should grant. So sorry for any confusion there. But I do think that my staff report is mostly based is based off of the architectural drawings. Right.

SPEAKER_19 		Okay. So is everybody what do we think about this? Is this JoAnne Hanrahan, we've got to get this house safe and if inspectional services is saying you know, this is their second egress, they have to have it, how can we. JoAnne Hanrahan, make this happen, I mean it's not conforming already like I said, and I don't want to you know give every everything away, because we have to have certain restrictions and we have to justify. JoAnne Hanrahan, The approval with the conditions and the three the criteria. that's required on a variance. So let's get going and talking and see what we can do to get this done. Yes, Ann Fullerton, then Brian, then Sisia. Ann Fullerton.

SPEAKER_02 		Madam Chair, Brian and Sisia can go ahead of me. I was just going to take a shot at the three conditions when we're ready.

SPEAKER_19 		Do you have something to say now? I thought I saw your hand going up.

SPEAKER_20 		Yeah. agree with tying a relief to the floor plans because that represents the minimum or the maximum size we should grant, which is sort of the minimal egress width required. Regardless of how much encroachment is made into the setback, which appears to be fairly minimal um and that way it'll be clear with isd what plans they should be looking at to when they review uh the building permit and that's what the eight inches well i wouldn't i just wouldn't phrase it that way at all i would just say this is you know it's like six foot whatever it is six foot three that's what you get off each building whether whatever it turns out to be and fullerton you get what she's saying on that

SPEAKER_19 		Janet Callahan- For the presenter. Good. Thank you. Janet Callahan- Brian cook, you had your hand up.

SPEAKER_10 		Brian Cook, I don't even have a vote on this, but I agree with exact CCS said exactly what I was going to say Brian Cook, The dimensions in the drawings, you don't have to state what the actual additional encroachment is it's going to be what it is. Brian Cook, And then clarify that that the conditions are met.

SPEAKER_19 		Okay. Anne Brockleman, yes, I'm sorry, Brian, go ahead.

SPEAKER_10 		I meant the findings for the three criteria permit.

SPEAKER_19 		Yes, thank you. Anne Brockleman, are you done saying what you have to say? Yeah, good. Zach, did you want to add anything or is everything okay? Fine? Okay. All right. So can I ask Ann to let's get together on this, everybody help out while we make the the checker wording and the criteria?

SPEAKER_02 		Madam Chair, Kit had her hand up.

SPEAKER_19 		I'm sorry, Kit. Go right ahead, please.

SPEAKER_03 		Madam Chair, I was just also going to suggest if you felt it necessary, you are able to continue this application so that the plot plan can be updated just so you can make sure that the survey and the architectural drawings are as accurate as possible. So then you don't need the eight inches or, you know, everything will be set.

SPEAKER_19 		But all right. Is the board just a moment, Mr. Tyrion? Is the board comfortable with having everything right in front of you where it's a hardship variance? JoAnne Hanrahan, And if there's no rush on the date for the legalities, we can wait. JoAnne Hanrahan, Till August said okay with everybody. JoAnne Hanrahan, And. JoAnne Hanrahan, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 		JoAnne Hanrahan, I would rather not wait.

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, You rather vote tonight.

SPEAKER_00 		JoAnne Hanrahan, So. JoAnne Hanrahan, When we're talking inches, so I think it's okay.

SPEAKER_02 		JoAnne Hanrahan, And life.

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 		JoAnne Hanrahan, And life safety.

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, yeah okay yeah you're right that's right. All right, so let's, Kit, thank you for the offer. And thank you so much. So let's get together here on our motion and the criteria.

SPEAKER_02 		So, Madam Chair, I propose for the three hardship criteria, the criteria number one, the special circumstances attached to soil condition, shape, typography, or unusual character. This is an existing non-conforming structure. It already violates the setback. The existing porches violate the setback. And the issue at hand is conforming to current life safety building code. uh for for criteria two literal enforcement of the provision um would create a hardship obviously life violating life safety is a hardship and uh number three desirable relief uh would could be granted without causing substantial detrimental substantial detriment to the public good this is a change that is going to be minor um in rebuilding the existing condition or rebuilding an egress condition and does not affect the public the pub yeah right good um everybody in agreement with those anybody want to add anything no okay i think those are perfect

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, And it, as you were reading it falls right in line also with these, you know the consideration of findings of the staff report, which is the more on target on that we're on the same page so. JoAnne Hanrahan, let's, I think I did not close the public portion of this. JoAnne Hanrahan, Public portion on 103 gilman street we're sure. JoAnne Hanrahan, there's nobody here from the neighborhood. JoAnne Hanrahan, kit.

SPEAKER_02 		i do not see anyone with their hand raised okay great okay so uh we'll close that portion and we'll open up to the board no open up to the clerk to make a motion thank you madam chair i make a motion to approve the hardship variance for 103 gilman street case number zp25-000043 based on the previously discussed findings um and special circumstances and with the consideration uh in special condition that the permit is being the hardship permits being granted associated with the architectural drawings dated 2 21 25 prepared by robert sarin architect JoAnne Hanrahan- Specifically plan a dash one where the porch depth is noted right.

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan- Great. JoAnne Hanrahan- and JoAnne Hanrahan- If you said this or not, adopting the criteria that we've discussed in detail on the report, thank you, may I please have a second.

SPEAKER_00 		JoAnne Hanrahan- Second.

SPEAKER_19 		seconded by ann brockelman all in favor for 103 gilman street hardship variance approval uh zach zaremba aye ann brockelman aye Sisia daglian aye ann fullerton aye and susan fontano aye let the record show that all uh voting Members, it was 100% approval. Good luck, Mr. Therrien.

SPEAKER_11 		I thank you. Thank you for giving us your word.

SPEAKER_19 		We're going to hold you to it.

SPEAKER_11 		I know. I know.

SPEAKER_19 		All right.

SPEAKER_11 		Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. All right.

SPEAKER_19 		Good luck and good night.

SPEAKER_11 		Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		All right. Bye. So next is Melvin Street.

SPEAKER_02 		Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		Next.

SPEAKER_02 		The next case is 8-8A Melvin Street. Under this address, we have three hardship variances to consider. I'm going to read them in order. Case number ZP25-000047. Sandy Thilkumar seeks relief of SEO section 3.1.13. um 2-2.c regarding total dormer with standards which requires a hardship variance the second case is zp25-000048 fundil humar seeks relief from a ceo section 3.1.13 dot l dot i Hilary Godwin. : That a regarding dormer face with standards which requires a hardship variance and the third case is zp 25 dash 000049 Sunday of tomorrow seeks relief from seo section 3.1 point one three point l point one point see regarding dormer separation standards which seeks rich requires a hardship variance.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you very much. That was a multiple for you. So whose case is this tonight? Is this Madison's or?

SPEAKER_20 		Chair Fontano, this is Madison speaking. Yes, it's mine.

SPEAKER_19 		Welcome.

SPEAKER_20 		Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		All right. Where are you? I don't see you. There you are. Thank you. So who's here tonight to speak about their case? Mr. Kumar?

SPEAKER_12 		Yes, I'm here. There you are.

SPEAKER_19 		I see you now. Thank you. So tell us what you're doing or what you did.

SPEAKER_12 		Well, madam, we bought this property back in 2019. with the hope plan to quickly convert from a two family to three family, convert it to condos and put it out on the market and sell it. But the project has gone on forever. And the third floor, we had to, you know, the only way the city would allow us to move forward is to make it an affordable unit, which we did. So all that is done. So in the third floor, in the meantime, in this long process, we have had contractors, you know, came and went to COVID and everything. And, you know, I had let somebody else handle the construction oversight for some time. And in that timeframe, what happened was from the kitchen in the third floor, which was supposed to be on one side It was determined on the fly that the contractor would put it on the other side, because it had a longer area to work with. And so they had done it and we didn't know about it as a, you know, I'm not a builder. I'm not a developer. I'm just a investor. So I didn't know about it. It went on and then there were several inspections along the way. Uh, but at the end, when we were trying to get certificate of occupancy, suddenly, uh, zoning board came up and said, oh, well, you're not compliant. This is Dahmer is not compliant. Um, so, uh, you know, we cannot give you a seal and after much conversation, uh, the zoning board kindly agreed to allow us to sell unit one, uh, but not the other two and assets apply for hardship variance. And that's what we have done. And that's why we are here.

SPEAKER_19 		And how did this affect the, uh, unit two?

SPEAKER_12 		Uh, unit two is not affected at all. Uh, it is ready to go, but, uh, we have not been able to sell it also because we don't have a CO and we have been, uh, waiting for a pass now, uh, since unit one was, uh, the CO was obtained in, uh, uh, September, October, I think last year, and we sold it in November, December. But now we have not obtained CO for Unit 2 either. Unit 2 has no problems, no dormant issues, nothing. But that has not been approved either. So we are on a holding pattern on that one.

SPEAKER_19 		And who was overseeing? You said somebody else started overseeing. Who was it, a different contractor?

SPEAKER_12 		Yeah, there was a second contractor, and he's also gone now. Because from his point of view, it is all done. He has taken his money because it was close to being finished. And it's been a heartache and pain for me for all these years holding this property, paying.

SPEAKER_19 		Well, you know what? It's a heartache and painful for us, too.

SPEAKER_12 		Yes.

SPEAKER_19 		Because we're tired of people coming up to the board. with no respect they're doing their thing because they want to build condos or apartments and everything else and you're hiring people from wherever or whatever and these contractors they know what they're doing and so we're getting tired of hearing that they're gone and you they have your money because it's not fair to other people in the city who play by the rules This is a shame that this is all built and it's wrong.

SPEAKER_12 		My most sincere apologies, madam. This is not the outcome I expected. I didn't know about this. And the contractor is nowhere to be found. I cannot get a hold of him. Also, the COVID was a very difficult time. Get people to work, people to do anything, to move things was a super difficult, challenging environment, as we all experienced.

SPEAKER_19 		Where do you live? What town do you live in?

SPEAKER_12 		I live in Nashua, New Hampshire. I used to live in Acton, Massachusetts, but I moved to Nashua, New Hampshire.

SPEAKER_19 		And where are these contractors from?

SPEAKER_12 		Contractors are from, some of them are from Chelsea and Everett. That's where they came from.

SPEAKER_19 		And did you not know you had to apply for permits or the contractors had to get permits from you for you for approval of the work?

SPEAKER_12 		Yes, definitely. We obtained all sorts of permits, ma'am. Everything, you know, whatever the city advised us to, we applied for permits. This one change, this one change from one side to the other was done without my knowledge, without, you know, so that's, and it's so unfortunate that this got done. But from the outside, other than the fact that both dormers are close to each other, there is no other, nothing you can see from the outside from the variance.

SPEAKER_19 		No, but it's also, you have to understand being in a butter, what it's like to have in that, yeah, having that hangover know you're about as properties i live with it here too i'm in the city and the houses are nice and tight and uh when they somebody adds on something you know it's just it's it's an invasion in your space it's an invasion in your windows it's a lot of different things so all of these come to play and we're we're listening to what you have to say and we're gonna talk about this all of us and see what we can do but i just i just really felt i had to say that because it's just not fair it's just not right and i'm tired of these contractors coming in and taking uh good homeowners and Somerville's money and taking off and doing the wrong thing and they pretend they're doing you a favor or you pretend that you don't know either that they went from one side to the other to make the kitchen bigger so um uh let's see we have i'm gonna have uh brian you're gonna vote on this case tonight and uh cca you still participate i like the participation of everybody here because we're all different minds at different positions um so is there uh anybody from the public here on the matter of eight and eight a melvin street

SPEAKER_12 		We have our architect, Robert Pachione on the call. He can speak.

SPEAKER_19 		They can chat in there. Thank you. Hello, Robert.

SPEAKER_08 		Hi, how's it going? Yeah, I'm just here. I was hired to kind of help these guys out with putting together documentation and everything. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

SPEAKER_19 		okay beautiful thank you for joining us yep um so uh who's on the staff who's this Madison's case yeah yeah right yeah Madison thank you and I'm sorry and uh Kit can you see if there's anybody from the public that wants to um speak on this any questions at all pro walk on we welcome them all

SPEAKER_03 		I do not see anyone with their hand raised. Once again, if you want to speak on this, just raise your hand.

SPEAKER_19 		Okay. And we'll leave this open for a few minutes while we ask our own questions and clarify things. Okay. So anybody on the board just have comments to make or some help? Yes. Zach, did you have your hand up?

SPEAKER_14 		Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Sure. I have a question. Is anybody living in these condos yet? and first floor is that the unit has been sold somebody's living there but second floor and third floor are empty waiting for a certificate of occupancy all right and just to make sure I'm following this correctly you feel that the contractor took liberties as to go beyond what was approved because they thought that that was a better approach to the construction and that you didn't notice us what you did Well, because i'm looking here, and like the minimum dormer separation, for example, it says 8 feet, and it's as built about 2 feet. I mean, that's I feel like visually to be able to tell if something's off by 6 feet. So I mean, I kind of understand where the chair is coming from a little bit. then it's a little bit hard to just see that you have somebody working on this for months and months and months and you as the owner are not really checking in to make sure it's conforming because that's your responsibility and i used to do the same thing where i would renovate houses and i was on top of them all the time because they screwed up all the time so um i'm not saying you're not telling the truth but it's hard if you've done this before to not see this sort of variation from the plans

SPEAKER_12 		Jack, you know, with all due respect to you, I'm a software engineer by training. I'm not a builder developer. And I got into real estate, you know, thought I will try my hand at, you know, buying properties, renovating them, flipping. So it was a learning process for me at that time. And the COVID situation did not make it easy for me to go and oversee these things. And, you know, it's been a very painful lesson for me that, you know, and I'm telling you the truth, honestly. It's been a very painful lesson for me to be able to have to hold this property for this long without being able to get any relief, without being able to sell and move on. This is not what I was expecting when I tried to get into this business.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you, Zach. Mr. Kumar and for the rest of the people listening and also the staff here, the reason I I started this talking with you tonight about this is that a lot, a lot of people are listening tonight. They find this very interesting. They might be thinking of doing projects in their own home or building something or there's contractors or what have you. And I just want people to understand the severity of how important it is to surround yourself with people who are professionals And also you have to do your own due diligence. You have to inspect what you expect. So I understand you've been compromised and I'm not saying no. I just really wanted people to listen and follow the zoning. They follow the planning boards. They like to listen. They find it very educational. It's like some will learn from your problem. You see what I'm saying? JoAnne Hanrahan, Like you said, who knew in the coven did everybody in you know i'm a business woman, I have businesses and it did me and so you know we all pay attention and we we did the best we could do. JoAnne Hanrahan, That was zach anybody else have comments they want to ask Mr kuma yes Brian cook, please.

SPEAKER_10 		Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm actually following up on Zach's point and question. So if I'm understanding the sequencing correctly, there was a decision to move the kitchen because of headroom necessity. So shifted to the other side, whatever exactly that meant, which meant either putting in dormers or redesigning dormers, it doesn't matter. That's where we have the problem. Whoever did the drawings on the dormers failed to attend to the zoning requirements for the dormers. And it would be good to know whether that was an architect who did that or whether it was a contractor who did it because that's the point at which we have the problem they get the construction is completed with that dormer design. And it's only then that we discover that they're not compliant with the zoning ordinance. But that means that somebody with a professional certifications making drawings and not paying attention to what the zoning requirements are for that particular part of the construction. And that's mystifying to me. It's one thing for an amateur developer to miss that, but for a professional not to attend to this, that's the more worrisome thing to me. Do we have any information from either through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Kumar, who did the drawings, original drawings for the dormers or who made the changes to the drawings to the dormers?

SPEAKER_19 		that resulted in them getting built not in compliance with the zoning court uh zoning ordinance well I think we have the an architect who's helping out a little bit tonight I don't think he's really been on board since the beginning but he might have some information era Miss Anthony might have some for us do either of you folks have an answer for Mr Cook's question

SPEAKER_08 		Yeah, so they hired to start the project and everything got approved a designer, which wasn't an architect. And that's where the original drawings came from. I came on the project actually when the contractor basically said, hey, we're going to build this dormer over here. So what it was was he said, we need framing plans. So I basically said, OK, well, here's a structural engineer. He'll do the framing plans. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And basically they suicide i'm not sure if the contractors submitted those to the city, but that's basically where. HAB-Jacques Juilland, He received the framing plans to build the door, so there were no real architectural plans necessarily for that they were just basically some structural dogs.

SPEAKER_19 		Right. Ms. Anthony?

SPEAKER_20 		So I would have to confirm, but my understanding with ISD, because they're the ones who review everything, but my understanding is that they were not submitted to the city, just the original set of plans. And then this was discovered, the zoning compliance issues with dormer were discovered during a site visit.

SPEAKER_08 		Yeah. So that's our suspicion too, that he never submitted them.

SPEAKER_19 		All right. All right, Brian. Ann Fullerton, your hand was up, please. Ann, did you have your hand up?

SPEAKER_02 		Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I think Anne Brockleman had hers up earlier, though.

SPEAKER_00 		Okay, sure. Just reading the narrative of the new architect, Robert, it looks... First of all, your plan section before and after is very helpful. Very clear report. Thank you. I wish they were the same scale. I think this elevations are a little smaller. I can't really draw lines from planning section.

SPEAKER_08 		Yeah, that's a Microsoft Word.

SPEAKER_00 		Okay. But it says here that on construction it was noted that there wasn't enough headroom and then it was widened. so i just wanted to add that there's there is one narrative here um that says that then so then it was widened but i don't know about permit drawings or anything like that um yeah so the original permit drawings had it on the opposite side of where the dormer is and there's uh there's no headroom over there so that's why the contractor

SPEAKER_08 		switched it and when he switched it he enlarged the dormer and that's when the zoning variance obviously was uh or that's when the zoning was why they wouldn't make the dormer wider sorry but the approved permit drawings have it in the same location it's just bigger right page two of your narrative versus page three Yeah. So the original drawings had a dormer there. It was a smaller dormer. And then what you're seeing is the as-built drawings. We went back and measured to see what was built.

SPEAKER_00 		Yes. I'm going back and forth between permanent and as-built for the two pages, which is very helpful. OK. I mean, I have some thoughts, but maybe let's everyone have a

SPEAKER_02 		chance to say okay what they want all right we'll let ann fullerton and then we'll come back to you man if you'd like ann fullerton thank you madam chair i i just fundamentally have a problem with the argument that the owner didn't know what was going on the project it's not like Day one, it was demoed, and day 12, it was sided and framed, and the windows weren't. It's actually a many months long project. There is rough plumbing, rough electric. So there was a point at which they decided the headroom wouldn't work. They wanted to move the kitchen. They're like, oh, we can have a bigger kitchen if we move it to the other side. Oh, we'll just make the dormer bigger. I understand that Mr. Pacone may not have been aware of the the detriment when helping them but I think that Mr Kumar saying somebody else was helping out and he didn't understand what was happening is just crazy to me because you have to plan for plumbing runs so early on So to be frank, I'm having a hard time swallowing this one. Yes, there is a financial problem. That's probably the only hardship part of the conditions that I can find cause for. The rest of the issues, I can't find any cause to support these hardship variances.

SPEAKER_19 		OK, thank you.

SPEAKER_00 		Cecilia or Ian Brockleman you have something you want to and yes go in Brockleman I guess my question to the new architect you're here to you know fix this is have you ex have you um explored what the minimum change that will be needed um to bring this any closer into compliance I essentially I don't think you need to rip the whole thing off I've kind of made some calcs myself but you can Since have you looked?

SPEAKER_08 		Yeah essentially we would we would go back to the original dormer design so you know push it over the uh the I don't know I think it's four feet or so uh back to that 11 foot seven to to get back to what was originally proven didn't need zoning. So it would involve ripping the kitchen or a portion of the kitchen out, obviously new reframing and whatnot. So we did discuss obviously what would be required to fix it.

SPEAKER_00 		I don't know if you have to do that much, actually. I mean, the original drawings don't push the envelope on zoning. It could be a bigger dormer. Right. The again, total cumulative staff report says 2110. Right now you have 6, 8 plus 9. That's original plan, so you're under. So the original drawing didn't really try to push that.

SPEAKER_08 		Yeah, I think the thing that's. HAB-Jacques Juilland- If I'm understanding correctly, the thing that's really pushing this to go over that part is the dormer separation.

SPEAKER_00 		HAB-Jacques Juilland- The Q. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Separation has to be 50% of the new dormer right so you have one third one third one third right so i've already made quick some quick calcs here. HAB-Jacques Juilland- So maybe you could take this back and consider it so if you keep that right hand edge of what's built. HAB-Jacques Juilland- yeah all the way to. the existing dormer, you have, let's say two feet plus 16, 18 feet, right? I'm making one 11, two feet. Do you see that the gap one 11, I'm going to round that to two feet plus 16 feet. That's 18 feet, 18 feet. The relationship is 50% of the massing has to be, the gap has to be 50%, right? So math that's six feet plus 12 feet, six feet gap. Plus 12 feet massing six feet is half of 12 feet 50% you're complying you keep the right edge that's what you need to that's what you need to bring the left hand dormer left side. Right of the existing the new built dormer in right and now I did a quick blue beam to scale that line if you strike a line down actually lands on the edge of your third window so maybe you lose that window or you say. board, can I have six inches so that you can keep the third window? That could be a hardship because you are trying to fix it. So I haven't really thought this through enough on how you can actually fix this with the least financial burden to the client. I mean, I don't doesn't feel like anyone here is going to approve this as of tonight. So what is the minimum you can do? financially for yourself, um, for the client to make the change. I don't, you know, and how that impacts the fridge, the refrigerator is not right at the edge. So it's further ends. Maybe that will clear the roof right in plan. You have the fridge there, but I don't think you need to like, Oh, rip up the kitchen, move it to the other side. I mean, I think you can creatively solve this. So that's, that's all I'm saying.

SPEAKER_19 		The way, can I insert something here? I'm following exactly what you're saying, Ian. And I'm looking at some pictures that are at a site here. I'm trying to see what real estates of the are. And I was looking at the different pictures. If I'm looking at what I think is the third floor kitchen, it doesn't affect the windows the way they look like they're going. It looks like, it's the window over a couch there's the a blue door a refrigerator in cabinets and a bar with the bar stool there's the window there and then there's another window is am i looking at the right thing robert do you know what i'm referring to is that the third floor uh i don't believe so what's the third floor kitchen look like it doesn't sound familiar i can bring up some photos if you guys look yeah bring up something yeah i'm based on um

SPEAKER_08 		robert's five five page narrative where he has plan elevation plan elevation together that's very helpful before and after uh i'm sharing my screen is it yeah that's it okay so here this is the other side let me try to bring this around so this is oh i see the uh the cabinets yeah this is the third person so these are those three windows Paul King, yeah so you know coming in here, obviously, we have to take all this out, so it would be a full kitchen removal, but it will be pretty significant work. Paul King, So.

SPEAKER_19 		Karen Hollweg, All right, so um what do we want to do, do we want to. Karen Hollweg, Have the client the applicant. JoAnne Hanrahan, go away tonight continue this have the architect work with. JoAnne Hanrahan, Mr kuma on what they might be able to come up with for a compromise. JoAnne Hanrahan, We looking to have this rectified as much as possible. JoAnne Hanrahan, You can clear your screen now. JoAnne Hanrahan, Thank you. JoAnne Hanrahan, Yes, Brian cook.

SPEAKER_10 		thank you madam chair I agree with uh member Brockleman we should uh give them a chance to think this through more yes there's going to be a financial impact they don't have to rip out the dormers entirely make the best uh effort you can to come as close as you can to compliance with the zoning requirements and then come back to us that's generally what we've done we've tried to work with developers and architects and said you know this didn't it's not working out you're not going to get the hardship variances approved at this point but working with us more it gives us a sense that you're taking this seriously and you're listening to us and we're trying to be fair to the community as a whole as well as to you and the other professionals involved. So I would support proposing, well, the applicant has to request a continuous, but I would support that if that's the way we go.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you, Brian. So Madison, you understand where we're coming from?

SPEAKER_20 		yep um you have a comment uh i think no comment i guess that's a good way to go forward fine with me yeah um i do know that we have to continue to a date certain for open applications is that correct yes um usually we say you know so our next meeting is august 6th um I don't know what else is on that agenda kit are you here um do we go forward and say we go to August 6 or can they request to go another week out more another meeting out yeah I would I would suggest not the August 6 because I do know that ISD has to review everything too and then another memo has to be written and I don't think that's a realistic turnaround time being fully transparent Yeah. I'm sorry to interrupt.

SPEAKER_13 		What's the next?

SPEAKER_09 		The next one.

SPEAKER_19 		August 20th. So can we tentatively go with something like that? Does the Mr. Kumar and Robert, is it Pacchione?

SPEAKER_05 		Pacchione.

SPEAKER_19 		Pacchione. Does that seem like it might work for you guys to get your heads together? yeah it's it's fine with me i sent those that work for you yes yes good okay so uh you um have to request the continuance mr kumar you have to say we'd like to have a continuance and yeah we would like to have a continuance beautiful And so the point is, Madison, Johan.

SPEAKER_20 		To let the applicant know that we need any plans submitted a minimum of two weeks before the hearing so that ISD can review it.

SPEAKER_08 		Mm-hmm. Would you tell me what that date would be?

SPEAKER_20 		Be two weeks before August 20th. I think that's August 6th.

SPEAKER_19 		Yes, it is. August 6th is two weeks before the 20th. Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 		Okay.

SPEAKER_19 		Thanks. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, uh, I'd like to have, uh, unless, first of all, I want to, uh, close the public portion kit. Did anybody show up for, uh, eight and eight, eight Melvin street. i do not see anyone with their hand raised okay so we're going to close the public portion of that and uh move to the board that we're all on the same page and we're going to have ian fullerton our acting clerk tonight make the motion is everybody okay yes and i believe i said brian you work in this you're voting this one correct good okay miss fullerton do your thing

SPEAKER_02 		madam clerk i move to continue the case of eight dash eight a melvin street for three different case numbers zp twenty five zero zero zero zero four seven cp twenty five zero zero zero zero four eight cp twenty five zero zero zero zero four nine to august 20th

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you very much. Second. Seconded by Ann. All in favor, please say aye. Brian Cook.

SPEAKER_09 		Aye.

SPEAKER_19 		Zach Zaremba.

SPEAKER_09 		Aye.

SPEAKER_19 		Ann Fullerton. Aye. Anne Brockleman. Aye. And Susan Fontana Lai. Let the record show all voting members in the positive to continue till August 20th, 2025. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Kumar. Thank you, Mr. Paczioni.

SPEAKER_08 		Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		And we'll see you on the 20th. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you, Madison. And if anything comes up, you let Kit know, all right? Good, thank you.

SPEAKER_10 		Madam Chair.

SPEAKER_19 		Yes, Brian Cook.

SPEAKER_10 		We have a short break.

SPEAKER_19 		I'd love one. Thank you for suggesting it. So can we have a, Brian makes the motion for a break. All in favor, say aye. Anne Brockleman, Ann Fullerton, Sisia Daglian, Brian Cook, Zach Zaremba, and Susan Bontano. I'll say aye. Aye. Aye. Back in like 10 minutes.

SPEAKER_09 		OK. Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 		you

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, Hello staff. JoAnne Hanrahan, hey gang welcome back. JoAnne Hanrahan, Who has okay let's. JoAnne Hanrahan, i'd like to add 755 call the meeting back in order. JoAnne Hanrahan, All the Members are here. JoAnne Hanrahan, And brockleman and fullerton zack's remember CC a deadly and. Brian Cook and Susan Fontano. And I see we have Madison Anthony. Do you have Pearl Street, Madison? Yep. This one's also mine. Oh, good. Good. This one's quite different. All right. So is Kit still around? Can we start back? Okay. Okay. We're back in action. The next case... Madam Clerk, new case.

SPEAKER_02 		Madam Chair, I'd like to open 181 Pearl Street. Case number ZP25-000057, 181 Pearl Street LLC seeks relief from SEO section 10.3.6.A.I regarding landscape buffer requirements, which requires a hardship variance.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you very much. And who's here? Pablo, welcome.

SPEAKER_01 		Good evening, Madam Chair and Board. Madison, if you could also promote Paul Miller, who's the architect, if you haven't already, and also allow him to share his screen, if you don't mind.

SPEAKER_07 		Good evening, everyone.

SPEAKER_19 		Mr. Miller.

SPEAKER_07 		Hello. Good to see everybody again.

SPEAKER_19 		Same here. So what are you going to show us some pretty flowers?

SPEAKER_01 		I'm going to. I know it's been a long evening for all of you, so I don't want to take up too much time, but I'd like to just quickly set a little context for the public. My name is Pablo Picker. I'm the owner of 181 Pearl Street, most of the developer. uh with me is paul miller as the architect on the project um just going back we've started this a couple years ago looking to build three units at the site it's been a very challenging site um but we are feeling like we're on the on the home stretch here uh we have received three hardship variances from this board we are here tonight seeking a fourth uh this came out in the end uh the end of site plan approval application review from PSOF regarding the landscape buffers. Paul's going to speak a little bit about it, and we will follow the board's lead as to how much you'd like for us to speak to it. But essentially it's a little quirky kind of situation where uh surface parking is not allowed within the landscape buffer our neighbor at four dana street from the beginning we we actually realized after the purchase of the property that part of his driveway was in our parcel rather than pursuing that road we this is two years ago now we've met with him um we're very clear that we were intent on designing something not only to not mess with his driveway, but also just work within the context of our neighborhood. And so that's what we've achieved. But we have hit this snag because surface parking cannot be within that buffer. And of course, part of his driveway is within our lot. So we are seeking a variance for that. and we look forward to the conversation with the board I will just note that the owner of for Dana also submitted a letter of support that hopefully the board received I'll let Paul quickly speak and show the site plan so the board gets a sense in the public and then if the board wishes we can read our answers to the criteria into record thank you great thank you thanks Pablo is it okay if I share my screen now please do

SPEAKER_07 		Okay, here we go. Okay, so on the right here, I have our site plan open the proposed site plan showing the proposed three story building with three residential units, I think you all are familiar with this project from our previous meetings. There are 10-foot setbacks from the two side lot lines abutting the neighbors at 185 Pearl Street and at 4 Dana Street. And the driveway here we've highlighted in yellow just to make it clear where that sits relative to our parcel and proposed project. So as Pablo stated, the driveway is encroaching on the 181 Pearl Street property by about three feet, six inches. And from the beginning of the design process, Pablo gave the direction that he wanted the neighbor to be able to keep their driveway and that we would design around it. So we sort of set our project boundary along the east-west running line of their driveway, as you can see here. And we were very intentional about creating a buffer between our project or between our building and the neighboring parcels and went through you know careful site design process with our landscape architect ground inc and through consultation with the urban design commission and city planning staff to create in the side lot lines it's an entirely permeable paved or planted area John Potter, And i'm also happy to sort of read through our responses to the three criteria that are required if if it pleases the board, or I can turn it over here for questions.

SPEAKER_19 		Karen Hollweg, No, so what one second here i'm looking at. Karen Hollweg, It is Dana street that the you're sharing the driveway with right Dane street.

SPEAKER_07 		John Potter, Correct for dentistry.

SPEAKER_19 		Karen Hollweg, Right and that's i'm looking at this here it's the permeable pavers what's going on. Karen Hollweg, yeah so you're going to do that do you do your presentation we're not rushing out of here tonight you both commented on that we want you to do your presentation go ahead. Karen Hollweg, Everything looks.

SPEAKER_07 		Okay um why don't I pull up the landscape plan as well. yeah see.

SPEAKER_19 		Right.

SPEAKER_07 		So thank you. So what we have proposed are planters that run along Pearl Street and Dana Street that would be full of native species that attract pollinators and an attractive buffer along the street that we see as a neighborhood asset. We designed a bench on the Pearl Street side to tie into the stoop culture of Somerville. We've wrapped the planter into the site for our side entrance into the lobby. And then these brown pavers that you're seeing here are all permeable in the window well, which provides light to the bedrooms that are in the lower level that will be stabilized gravel, also permeable. So as I said before, the whole both side yards are are completely permeable. And in the case of the the side yard shared with pearls, the 185 Pearl Street neighbor, there's also plantings there. So we feel that we've designed a kind of buffer, a landscape buffer, although it does not Christopher McConkey, meet the last requirement of the in particular of the the landscape buffer zoning ordinance which states that you cannot have parking. Christopher McConkey, In your landscape buffer and so allowing the neighbor at for data street to keep their parking space violates that. Christopher McConkey, That point of the zoning ordinance and I just would like to quickly read through our responses to the criteria, because I think that. um that is what we're obligated to to show in order to to receive a hardship variance from this board is that we meet these three criteria and I think that we've clearly set out in this narrative um uh how we're meeting those so if you all bear with me I'll just quickly read through this so as it relates to point a special circumstances exist relating to the parcel um As we just stated, the neighboring driveway at Fort Dana Street is using part of the property at 181 Pearl Street as a driveway. The driveway encroachment is 3 feet 6 inches wide along the entire northern lot line. Additionally, 181 Pearl Street is a small corner MR3 parcel at 2,024 square feet is less than one-third the size of an average MR3 parcel. It is abutted on each side by NR parcels. A 10-foot side setback is required per SCO for any building in the MR3 district, one to the butts NR. A 12-foot curb setback is required at the primary and secondary fronts of the building. And these proportionally large, keyword being proportionally here to this small site, proportionally large setbacks on all four sides leave a very small developable area. those are the special circumstances point b literal enforcement of the provision of this ordinance for the district with the subject land or structures located would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise the proposed project allows the neighbor to keep their driveway as a gesture of goodwill seo section 10.3.6.b.8 prohibits surface parking within the landscape buffer literal enforcement of the ordinance would require taking the neighboring property's driveway back into the possession of 181 pearl street this is likely to create a legal battle which would be a financial hardship and would also create a contentious relationship with the neighbor another hardship and as pablo said he was clear from the beginning that he does not want that kind of contentious relationship uh point c desirable relief could be granted without causing substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of a specific district in this ordinance granting relief on the landscape buffers does not cause detriment to the public good the proposed landscape design including plantings and the perimeter brick wall that runs along the west and north lot lines has been thoughtfully designed to provide screening via visual amenity and meet the requirements of the green score John Potter, and to provide a buffer between the site and the abutting neighbors neighbors we believe this design meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and the specific goals of the Mr three district.

SPEAKER_19 		Karen Grove- Thank you.

SPEAKER_07 		Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		Karen Grove- Okay. Karen Grove- Now, is there anyone here from the public that would have any questions or comments for the gentleman here this evening.

SPEAKER_03 		Tara Fontano, this is Kit. There is one attendee, but they do not have their hand up. If you'd like to speak, just put your hand up. No hand is beat. Oh, never mind. I'm going to Madison. Could you pull up the timer and we'll give Dinesh two minutes to speak. Who is this going to speak? You should be unmuted and able to speak if you could just introduce yourself.

SPEAKER_05 		Hi, my name is Dinesh and I'm the owner of 4 Dana Street. I'm also calling to support the 181 Pearl Street architect uh paul miller and pablo picker in his generosity in sharing this uh granting us the usage of the driveway we've had the use of driving since the 90s for 31 years and to remove the ability to use it would cause us detrimental um financial burden because one my my family uses it um and we won't be able to getting more permits as the city does not provide any parking permits second we have sought out legal counsel on this and they said we have We are within our rights to contest this. And third, I just think that, you know, it's supposed to be a sustainable project, and this is just going to not make it sustainable. And being a resident here for so long, I really would like to see this move forward as opposed to sort of making this a difficult process. I understand the legal boundaries of this, and I would really implore you guys to consider granting us this hardship. Thank you.

SPEAKER_19 		Well, thank you for coming out. Thank you. JoAnne Hanrahan, You know, to me that's a plus that the. JoAnne Hanrahan, I hope i'm not speaking out of turn, but I think it's a good start when the neighbors and the developers are coming together to make something Nice, and I thank the neighbor for that, and I thank you guys for working with them Pablo. um that's been a real I've said this before the other meetings it's been a real eyesore for a lot of years and uh so this is going to be nice for the neighborhood and all the people that live down the streets a lot of residential there I mean the gas stations across the street but then you got McGrath Highway in the front there but um you protected all that with the way you get into the building jazz so a lot of thoughts been given to this and I appreciate it I have a question um did you guys get a landscape architect um to plan out like these kind of flowers and stuff i know a lot of them are perennials and are they going to be able to tolerate that mcgrath highway traffic yeah so we worked with i think it's lovely And I just hope when you go forward that whoever picks out the flowers and stuff that go in there can really take the heat and the velocity of the wind and everything that goes by there.

SPEAKER_07 		Yep. So we did work with Ground Inc. as the landscape architect, and these species are submitted as part of the green score. And so this is what will be planted.

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan, Great i'm happy i'm i'm excited about it, I hope you know we can go forward on this anybody on the board have any comments for the guys for Pablo off of all. JoAnne Hanrahan, I can't see anybody's hands, I could you clear your board now and give me back this. JoAnne Hanrahan, Thank you. JoAnne Hanrahan, Brian cook.

SPEAKER_10 		thank you Madam chair I just want to note that in the renderings the Dana Street view gives you a real sense of what it'll look like I think it's fine I I mean yes it's not a landscape buffer but it's a relatively pleasant divider and since the neighbor is happy with it and presumably provides enough privacy for the back of the new construction. I don't see any reason to oppose this. And I think the criteria both submitted by the applicant and in the staff memo, sorry, the findings for the three criteria are quite satisfactory.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you, Brian. Anyone else? You're all okay with this? Yes? Okay. Madam Clerk, could we please have a motion?

SPEAKER_02 		Absolutely, Madam Chair. Make a motion to approve the hardship variance for 181 Pearl Street, KCP 25-000057. Considering the findings discussed in our meeting, shared in the applicant report and the staff memo dated July 10th, 2025.

SPEAKER_19 		Thank you. May I have a second on the motion? Second. Anne Brockleman, second. All in favor as we go around. Let's see. Zach Zaremba?

SPEAKER_14 		Aye.

SPEAKER_19 		Anne Brockleman? Aye. Ann Fullerton? Aye. Sisia Daglian? Aye. Susan Funtano, I. Susan Funtano, Let the record show all members vote in the affirmative. Good luck, guys. We'll be watching out for you.

SPEAKER_01 		Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Board. Have a great night. Good night. Bye.

SPEAKER_19 		Susan Funtano, Okay. Um, let's see. Susan Funtano, That was that. That was that. Uh, is there any other business tonight that anybody wanted to discuss? JoAnne Hanrahan, No, I want to especially thank all staff that everybody, maybe we had a good mix up tonight everybody kind of came out kit and Steve and Madison and we didn't have to bother Sarah white hi Sarah wherever you are and welcome and Alvaro and lexi. And all our gang, thank you to our alternates. And thank you to our acting clerk. Excellent job. Excellent job. You guys, you two Ians, Ian with an E and Ian without, going to be fighting for this. And Brian, you know, nobody wanted it. Now tonight we had everybody wanted it. So this is a good thing. I'm happy. So- Who's doing next time? I don't know. Who's going to want to speak up tonight while we're all here?

SPEAKER_13 		I can do it.

SPEAKER_19 		JoAnne Hanrahan- You can do it Oh, what did you hear it's only one or two cases in August coming up see how she spoke up CCA. JoAnne Hanrahan- I know there is this it's always a pleasure working with you guys. JoAnne Hanrahan- August six. JoAnne Hanrahan- lightning to show the city proud, so thank you enjoy this warm weather stay cool and we'll see you on yes in full attend. don't forget to adjourn i know see she gets me all the time i see that finger going up and i'm in trouble uh so without further ado i'd like to have a motion to adjourn the meeting madam chair i make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals meeting for oh goodness july 16th JoAnne Hanrahan, Thank you, we have a second. JoAnne Hanrahan, Second second if CC a dangling she beat you to the punch and as we go around, please say I am rockman. JoAnne Hanrahan, I Ryan cook. JoAnne Hanrahan, I zaps to remember. JoAnne Hanrahan, And fullerton. JoAnne Hanrahan, I see a dangling I. JoAnne Hanrahan, Let the record show we're all in favor of a journey thanks guys take care good night everybody. JoAnne Hanrahan, bye bye.

Back to top