Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 09-17-2025

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 09-17-2025
City: Somerville, MA
Date Published: 2025-09-24

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_06	Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the City of Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals for September 17th, 2025. It is 6 o'clock p.m. pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals will be concluded via remote participation. A video recording of these proceedings will be available on the city website meetings at somervillema.gov. I'd like to let you all know that this evening, our board members are Anne Brockleman, she's our vice chair, Brian Cook, he's going to be our acting clerk this evening, Sisia Daglian, and I'm Susan Fontano, your chair. For our staff, we're having Kit Lester and Madison Anthony. So without further ado, um, Mr. Clerk also, Mr. Cook, could you please, uh, open the, uh, get going on the agenda, please?
SPEAKER_04	Uh, yes, madam chair under general business. I move to approve the minutes for the August 20, 25 zoning board of appeals meeting.
SPEAKER_06	Seconded by Anne Brockleman. All in favor, please say aye. C.C. Daglian. Aye. Anne Brockleman. Aye. Brian Cook.
SPEAKER_05	Aye.
SPEAKER_06	And Susan Fontano, aye. Let the record show, all members voted in the affirmative. Carried. Thank you. Public hearings. First case, I'm going to let the clerk handle that. It's also going to be continued. Mr. Cook? The matter of 872 Broadway.
SPEAKER_04	We're going to continue that. It needs to be re-advertised, so do we continue it, or is there a motion to request re-advertising?
SPEAKER_07	This is Kit. So this was, I believe, formally continued at the last hearing. So for continuity, I think it might be best if we continue to October 1st. And it has been re-advertised.
SPEAKER_06	Sorry about that. I didn't mean to tell me that. The clerk doesn't have to make any motion at all.
SPEAKER_07	uh i think this was opened at the last hearing on august 20th and continued to this date certain so it might be best to continue to the next date certain of october 1st as well okay right um yeah it was continued to the 17th right so we should continue it yeah okay good yeah
SPEAKER_04	Okay, I move to approve the request to continue the case of 872 Broadway, ZP 25-000064 and ZP 25-000065 to be continued to the October 1, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
SPEAKER_06	Second. Thank you. Seconded by Anne Brockleman. All in favor, please vote in the affirmative. Cecilia Daglian. Aye. Anne Brockleman. Aye. Ryan Cook.
SPEAKER_05	Aye.
SPEAKER_06	Ryan Cook. Aye. Susan Fontano, aye. Let the record show, all members voted in the affirmative. So carried, thank you. Next on the agenda is 8 Melvin Street, which was continued from August 20th meeting. Is Mass and Anthony here with us tonight? And is the applicant ready to go?
SPEAKER_08	I'm here, Chair Fontano, and I see the applicant raising their hand to be permitted.
SPEAKER_06	Good evening.
SPEAKER_08	Good evening. How are you?
SPEAKER_06	Great, great.
SPEAKER_03	Good evening. Hi. Here we are. My name's Rob Passione. I'm from the architectural studio. And I believe the applicants may also be online right now, but I can certainly start and show you guys what we updated. So if I could share my screen. Okay, can everybody see that? So what we, scroll down real quick. So what we talked about is that we put together a plan that shows the dormer now reduced down to 11.7 inches. And this is basically the same exact dimension that we had was originally approved by the city of Somerville. And in our opinion, with this 11 foot dormer, it does meet the requirement for the dormer separation. And would obviously meet the width of that total ridge length added up with the existing dormer, which we have talked about last meeting. I think the last size dormer, we have met that as well. We took out a window here. As you can see, we did have three. Now we have two. So that actually is still a zoning variance violation with this dormer configuration. So we're over 36 inches of solid wall width. HAB-Jacques Juilland, What we did was we we basically slid this over we rotated the fridge to put it underneath the existing of the existing plane of the the roof, which will be rebuilt here. HAB-Jacques Juilland, You know full size fridge doesn't unfortunately fit under here, so we'd have to do either countertop fridge or a very small fridge to get the height to work. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And then we essentially slip the. the peninsula over and just create kind of a small alcove kitchen here. So from our perspective, we thought this kitchen was not ideal. It's just kind of a really tough space in here. Phil Kleisler , there's not much cabinetry, the reason we kept it as two windows was because we do have some upper cabinets over here. Phil Kleisler , which we want to do, at the very least, keep those just to give them some storage options, so we, you know we would. Phil Kleisler , Preferably try to stick with the previous selection, where we have a much, as you can see kind of comparing the two dormers with the the wider door at 341 you know, considering it would be a much larger kitchen. This is an affordable unit. So we want to try to, you know, at least provide a sort of full size functional kitchen that that could be used for this third floor. So while we did, we did, you know, update the kitchen layout and make the dormer smaller, we would like to petition to try to go back to what we had originally with the 13.
SPEAKER_02	This is the photo photo of the kitchen, please.
SPEAKER_03	Yeah, so, so what I what I also included in this. This application update is what we have existing now for dormers, because that was a request that came up last meeting. So this is the current configuration. So as you can see, we have the existing condition, the dormers are very close together. This is actually looking at the rear of the structure. So this is that living room area. This is the new dormer in question. So as you can tell, this was the roof pitch that we were dealing with, and it's quite steep, so that was the entire purpose of the dormer and one of the reasons why we had pushed the kitchen that had originally been designed on this side over to the other side. And then this is just an image of the front of the structure. Again, it's the same roof pitch that is on the back of the structure, so the gable runs all the way through. And then this is just an example of the... David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, of the existing kitchen right now, so what this is the window that we took out. David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, So basically where the new kitchen would come in, would be an 11 foot dormer would be roughly right here so that's approximately that line is with a 13 for one dormer selection. David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, it's it's more back here so that's kind of difference between the two and where we were showing in the 11 foot dormer you know the refrigerator and essentially going here. Rob Leibowitz, You know, up against this area, but then we have the roof pitch that's coming along with this and that's kind of where clips here, so the front is not the issue it's in the back was this refractor comes down pretty sharply so.
SPEAKER_02	Arun Rao, Rob Leibowitz, Rob there's another photo below this right that goes.
SPEAKER_03	Rob Leibowitz, yeah okay yeah yeah sure, so this is looking at the existing again the kitchen as it's built now again as it's currently shown so. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You know that 11 foot door would come in here, roughly, and then this would be cut back PB, Harmon Zuckerman, This countertop here. So you're kind of left with just sort of this little area here and these two windows would read me so PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So that's where we're at right now. And that kind of covers everything that we updated and again happy to PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You know, see what the board. I think some other changes and discuss the path.
Unknown Speaker	Oh,
SPEAKER_02	I just want to mention that this dormer is not showing on the front. It is not on the street side. As I'm sure you recognize, it's on the side in between the next house and ours. So visually, it's not even a problem. It's not going to... show up. This is the next building. It's very hard to see as is. It's not on the front side where people can see it.
SPEAKER_06	This picture you're showing now with the existing original dorm, what's that little window?
SPEAKER_03	Over here? Yes. That was the existing dormitory that's at the bathroom.
SPEAKER_06	Was that the window they had before?
SPEAKER_03	I'm not sure. I assume so. I don't know. Do you remember if that was the existing window or not?
SPEAKER_06	I don't think so.
SPEAKER_02	I'm not sure. Krishna should be on the waiting to get in. Whoever is admitting admitting panelists. Is Krishna on the line? He's my partner who dealt with this from the beginning. Can you upgrade him to a panelist? He can answer this question.
SPEAKER_01	Yes. Yes, I'm here. Good evening, everyone. I'm Chris. Yes, this Dharma previously existing, we didn't add this Dharma. The only Dharma we added was the one next to it.
SPEAKER_06	The window. The question I have is about the window.
SPEAKER_01	The window was pre-existing.
SPEAKER_06	That exact window?
SPEAKER_01	No, we changed the window.
SPEAKER_06	That's right. That's what I thought.
SPEAKER_03	Yeah, there's a new window and it's existing.
SPEAKER_06	You didn't understand that when I asked that question the first time? When I asked you? Never mind. So when I look at this here, right where that drain pipe is, are we cutting back that far or a little bit more to the left?
SPEAKER_03	HAB-Jacques Juilland. This dream up here, yes. HAB-Jacques Juilland.
SPEAKER_06	That a little bit more right to the middle of the.
SPEAKER_03	HAB-Jacques Juilland. About this is the 11 foot. HAB-Jacques Juilland. Seven inch dormer the 13 is right about. HAB-Jacques Juilland.
SPEAKER_06	All right, so the 11 inch is where we're going and that's that red one right by the drain pipe.
SPEAKER_03	HAB-Jacques Juilland.
SPEAKER_06	I shouldn't yeah yeah that's it okay. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, um. Do you have anything more to say before I open it to the public for their questions or comments?
SPEAKER_03	No, I think we're good.
SPEAKER_06	Okay. Kit, could you please help us and see if there's anybody that would like to have any questions with the new presentation?
SPEAKER_07	Chair Fontana, through you, there's no one else in the audience. Okay, great. So we're all set.
SPEAKER_06	JoAnne Hanrahan, yeah i'm going to leave that open for a little while and turn it over to the board. JoAnne Hanrahan, Good. JoAnne Hanrahan, Any. JoAnne Hanrahan, Questions for the gentleman.
SPEAKER_05	Mayor Mrakas, Madam chair.
SPEAKER_06	JoAnne Hanrahan, Yes. Hello?
SPEAKER_04	I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_06	Brian, can you hear me?
SPEAKER_04	Yes, yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought I heard Anne also speak, so I was deferring to her.
SPEAKER_06	Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Brian.
SPEAKER_04	Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you to Robert, I was a little confused about your presentation. Dave Kuntz, Asking for now the 11 foot seven width. Dave Kuntz, So we. Dave Kuntz, are back to the 13 and 13 one with.
SPEAKER_03	Dave Kuntz, Our preference is to stay with the 13 foot one because of the size of the kitchen that gets created by the 11 foot seven inch um you know, this is an affordable unit on a third floor and. Phil Kleisler, You know, from our perspective it's just a really tiny kitchen that we don't think meets what someone would expect to find in this neighborhood in this city. Phil Kleisler, So that was sort of our our thought process we did want to obviously show the 11 foot seven to illustrate why we thought it was going to be tough, and you know that. Phil Kleisler, The refrigerator is kind of maybe the worst part of it because it's tough to get it in there, but we know just overall we were just. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Sort of, you know, unfortunately, PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Trying to come up with a good way to make work or, you know, is this going to be a kitchen that is going to make sense for this apartment and PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You know, we just, we just were looking at the 13 foot one and it was just a considerably larger more useful kitchen. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And that, you know, signing it over even that one foot and a half really made a big difference in the quality of the kitchen so So again, just to reiterate, we really would prefer and would really like to stick with the 13-foot one. But again, obviously that's your guys' call, but that's where we're at with it.
SPEAKER_04	Well, no, I mean, you're the applicant. If you want that, you should apply for that. But if I may, Madam Chair, through you to Madison. Yes. If we go back to the 13-1, I believe that brings us back to two hardship variances. Am I remembering that correctly?
SPEAKER_08	Yes, that is correct.
SPEAKER_04	Okay, so essentially what we had at the last meeting on August 20th.
SPEAKER_08	Yep. Okay.
SPEAKER_06	So where's the change then on the windows and the size of the dormer on that side?
SPEAKER_03	So the 13-foot one, we keep those three windows. And then on the 11-foot 7 option, we take one of those windows out. So these two windows are the ones that are remaining. There was one here that would have to come out because we would bring the wall over far enough.
SPEAKER_06	So what are you asking for tonight? um tonight we would like let's let's we can't keep going on and on and on and on this whole thing was never approved so whether you want to have a nice low income moderate what are you saying this these dimensions were never approved this was found out afterwards unfortunately so that is never that is not what went to the planning board and was approved was to be like this that i just want to make sure you wanted to say i know you weren't on board then yeah yeah no now we found this grave violation and we're going forward from there and we've been trying to work with you and meet with you and tell you what we thought might be plausible yeah this to me is not plausible for 13th so i'm saying that right now but um when i'm going to listen to everybody else i thought tonight your presentation was going to be Marguerite McLaughlin, A smaller version with the two windows, I think that's what I thought from the reports that I was looking at. Marguerite McLaughlin, The drama face with was it says here, the analysis drama face with was reduced to 11.7 the maximum job blah blah blah blah blah that that's what I thought you were coming with tonight.
SPEAKER_03	Justin Delacruz, I don't think you misunderstood. That's what we're presenting to the Board. Justin Delacruz, And we're, I guess, asking your input Justin Delacruz, for us to say, Hey, we think this eleven foot seven dormers is what we drew up to present to you guys. We feel like it's not a sufficient kitchen for this apartment. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So we wanted to get your feedback if you know the 13 foot one is something that could potentially get approved if everyone on the board says no that's not we're not going to prove it. We don't think that's sufficient. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Then you know the 11 foot seven option.
SPEAKER_06	okay I can't see the hands which I don't really have to because I can't so I can't see Ian so anybody wants to speak up Brian are you go ahead Brian I didn't mean to cut you off you can finish up please no thank you madam chair I mean at this point the question of whether we can approve even one variance really falls on the question of the
SPEAKER_04	criteria in the ordinance and in the law and whether we can, with the cooperation of the applicant, find a reasonable identification of conditions that meet the criteria um i mean i think we've already discussed that the third criterion is probably okay um there's no detriment to the uh public good or the impact on the neighborhood That leaves us with criteria one and two and it's always the most difficult for the board, because of the way the language is written, to arrive at a meaningful satisfaction of that first criterion, which has to do with an unusual shape of a lot or unusual features of the structure that make it difficult to meet the zoning requirements in a particular case. um and that's been the sticking point from the very beginning and i think we've been trying to work with the applicants because they had three zoning three hardship variances they were seeking um to try to reduce the burden on them and on us trying to to determine whether the criteria can be met um I'm on the fence about it at this point so I'd like to hear other members of the board thank you thank you Brian um Anne Brockleman do you have something to say um yes manager first of all I
SPEAKER_00	uh i'd like to say i was not here on the previous meeting but i did watch the recording and the deliberation and i did send in the certification that i did watch the recording which allows me to be here today and comment on the case um thank you um and then one other just maybe tangential issue You keep saying affordable unit. I mean, that is a technical term, affordable unit. Are you just using the term loosely or this is an affordable unit? Because the other argument is market value. You need a market value unit. Are these terms being used?
SPEAKER_02	interchangeably and more casually or are you calling this an affordable unit no uh since i'll correct me if i'm wrong but this is an actual affordable unit um you know below market rate so yeah it will market for us it's not something we can sell on our own um okay it's an officially approved affordable unit i see thank you um
SPEAKER_00	It seemed pretty clear that the outcome of the last meeting, again, just reading the staff report and the recording that criteria one, the board found it hard to satisfy one and two with the reduced version. Are we still asking for which can you? Let's not muddy the waters with this option or that option because you already presented that option and you were asked to come back. It was not approved, so I don't find it productive to. Present two options and like it's a design review. I mean, obviously bigger is better, but that's not really why we're here today. So can you present? The most. Yes, but that is 11. HAB-Juliette Boone, For that option, which you came back with today, are you still asking for what variances, are you still asking for what complies and what doesn't comply and let's just go from there.
SPEAKER_03	HAB-Jacques Juilland, So with this option it's just the window of variance we would require because our dormer separation is now sufficient to zone.
SPEAKER_00	HAB-Juliette Boone, And the window variance is the location of the window or the.
SPEAKER_03	HAB-Jacques Juilland, it's the you can't have more than 36 inches of solid wall surface so.
SPEAKER_00	Linda Katz- If it were centered it would be it would comply, but it's not centered. Daniel Passamaneck- I know I believe it's still I think it's still. Linda Katz- It would still okay. Linda Katz- That would be the only thing.
SPEAKER_03	Daniel Passamaneck- That would be the. Linda Katz- The only variance.
SPEAKER_00	Linda Katz- Correct Okay, thank you.
SPEAKER_06	Thank you man.
SPEAKER_04	Uh, Madam chair, just to clarify, if I may.
SPEAKER_06	Yes. Yes, please. Mr. Cook.
SPEAKER_04	Um, according to the staff memo, um, just to respond to, to Anne's question as well, it's the dormer face with standard that is still, um, not the ordinance is still not being met with respect to the dormer face with standards. So that would be the hardship variance.
SPEAKER_06	Okay. JoAnne Hanrahan, In the number on that Brian is. JoAnne Hanrahan, They look at my papers here.
SPEAKER_04	Brian G McAdoo, I believe that's zp 25 dash 000048. Thank you.
SPEAKER_06	JoAnne Hanrahan, So that one's still outstanding and that's with the 11.7. JoAnne Hanrahan, Okay yeah i'm. JoAnne Hanrahan, bts. I can't see you miss. So do you have a question for the gentleman here tonight?
SPEAKER_08	I do. Well, if it's just the window, if it's just the one variance for the amount of window surface length relative to the length of the dormer, I'm inclined to support it. I'm not crazy about doing it because there's no real reason for it. know i think to create a yeah it's there and we're trying to create um minimize the damage the minimize the disruption and try to get this unit online i do have a question about the existing dormer um if the window was it looks like the window was reduced in size perhaps it was not previously a bathroom so i'm wondering if a new violation has been created and therefore an additional uh additional relief is needed um can uh the zoning madison do you want to weigh in on that so this was reviewed for isd with isd to make sure there was no additional compliance issues created from this change and isd didn't find any new issues so i'm assuming it's compliance assuming what uh that it is compliant in all aspects except for the one outstanding variance
SPEAKER_06	Thank you. So I thought the window was changed. And they said, yes, it has been now. Did you realize that? Did Inspectorial Services realize that on the bathroom window? It's now a bathroom. It wasn't a bathroom before.
SPEAKER_01	No, no, there was a bathroom before.
SPEAKER_06	And there had a regular mini window in it, right?
SPEAKER_01	That's right, there was a window, it was a broken window, we changed to a new window, that is the only thing changed, but that particular dorm was pre-existing.
SPEAKER_06	No, no, I understand the dorm is fine, but I thought the window had changed because I'm looking at the building and I know this window doesn't match any of the others. Normally for a bathroom window, even in my own home, up and down, it's It's the same style, you know, one over one or two over two with the one window and it's smaller so you have more privacy. That's why I cut this window shape. I knew the shape was off.
SPEAKER_01	Yeah, this is, this is the same size window that was existing previously, but we couldn't match it. So we, we, the size is same, but it's a, um, Casement window that we need to buy because previously it was a very old building. That particular window type was kind of a stained glass type window that we couldn't buy.
SPEAKER_06	Okay. Thank you. Where are we?
SPEAKER_00	Would Madam Chair, I can support the final proposed design without making them remove the two windows, put in larger windows so they can keep the windows that they have. The three windows? No, the two. I mean, that's drawn as shown. I mean, complying would mean removing those windows and putting in
SPEAKER_06	yeah larger windows right so they can still go so they'll still go with the two window look and the uh 11 inch 11 by seven size on the dormer right yes okay all right okay That's the pleasure of the board. I'll go with that. Does everybody want to make a motion?
SPEAKER_04	No. We just need to get language for defining on criterion one. Right. I mean, if you look on the street, plenty of other houses on the street have steep pitched roofs, so it's nothing about the structure. I mean, I don't think it's acceptable to say that, you know, there was an error by a previous contractor and design professional. No, we can't do that. That doesn't count. Dave Kuntz, So just. Dave Kuntz, ask my work colleagues if they have some creative notion of how to address criterion one.
SPEAKER_06	Karen Hollweg, rf. Karen Hollweg, CC right in in their past with their backgrounds. Karen Hollweg, How else could you justify this because, like. It's just, it's not the soil, it's not really the shape, the topography, you know, it's just not.
SPEAKER_08	I mean, perhaps we could say that it's an existing structure that's in this configuration and given that it's trying to create affordable housing. I know that's not a legitimate reason, the affordable housing part, but it kind of is an existing structure at this point, even though it doesn't have a CO. And I, yeah. I think to some extent we can also fall back on financial hardship of having to reconfigure the dormer and then not be able to fit in a kitchen hardly at all.
SPEAKER_04	That works for a Christian too. Yeah, that's right.
SPEAKER_08	I'm sorry. It doesn't affect the windows. It would affect some of the wall cabinets though.
SPEAKER_04	I think we can say that because it would create a financial hardship if we didn't grant the hardship variance because either the entire apartment would have to be torn out or would otherwise be not usable for even an affordable unit. But the first one, we can say it's the nature of the existing structure which limited the ability to create a functional third apartment or something to that effect. I mean, it's a discretionary thing. We have the discretion. We can say that as long as we're comfortable saying it.
SPEAKER_00	I'm OK with that. It's the unusual character of the existing structure.
SPEAKER_04	That limited the design for usable third apartment.
SPEAKER_08	I mean, it's not really unusual, but we could just say that.
SPEAKER_04	It's unusual enough. Well, it doesn't even have to be unusual. It's just the nature of the structure.
SPEAKER_08	Right. Yeah.
SPEAKER_04	It's the structure that is the source of the.
SPEAKER_08	The configuration of the roof, the existing roof. Yes. Makes it difficult to put a third unit.
SPEAKER_04	I mean, I'm satisfied with that. Maybe Madison helped us clean up the language in the, in the minutes as far as the motion is concerned. But I think we have on record that we think there is a way to articulate findings that meet criterion one and criterion two. And we've already concluded, I believe, that are in existing minutes that criterion three can be met. John Potter, there's no detriment to the public good or. John Potter, The nature of the requirements for the neighborhood residence zone.
SPEAKER_06	Karen Hollweg, Addison. uh yes brian asked you something that's your opinion um i'm sorry can you repeat the question i think it was i don't know if you can help up with the language for the yeah the uh criteria for one two and three for the for the uh motion um and brockleman excuse me yes
SPEAKER_00	of try i just want to clarify the i mean to me the unusual character of the existing structure is the the the dormer that has already been built not the fact that it's a third floor with a okay steep slope because that's very common you could easily put a smaller studio apartment in there you could put something in there all right but the found condition is a dormer that is too large and in violation. So to me, that's what's unusual. And if we were to literally enforce it, which meant also moving the windows, that would be a financial hardship. So we're still allowing a noncompliance by not shifting all the windows over or putting in larger windows, but just removing the third window. Does that make sense?
SPEAKER_04	But the new dormer is not an existing condition. Are you saying the old original?
SPEAKER_00	I'm calling what's built is an unusual existing condition that we have to deal with. So if we were to literally ask them to take everything out and start all over again, that would be a huge hardship.
SPEAKER_04	Understood.
SPEAKER_00	Including... the two windows that still not comply, but we, you know, out of understanding or trying to alleviate the financial hardship, this seemed like a good compromise to just remove the third window. Because if we start the project all over again, this would not, it would have to comply, period. But the ground condition is the one of noncompliance at the dormer that was built.
SPEAKER_05	I can support that.
SPEAKER_06	So is that where we're going? At the pleasure of the board?
SPEAKER_04	So just to repeat, so.
SPEAKER_06	Yes.
SPEAKER_04	Dave Kuntz, It is a condition of the structure as it exists now that requires the adjustment and and the. Dave Kuntz, Dora faith face with. Dave Kuntz, variants. Dave Kuntz, literal enforcement would impose a significant financial hardship. Dave Kuntz, On the applicant.
SPEAKER_06	yeah.
SPEAKER_04	And third criterion, granting of the hardship does not cause a detriment to the public good. Right. Or impact the requirements of the neighborhood residence zone.
SPEAKER_07	OK. Chair Fontano, this is Kit. Yes. Just a reminder that the public comment portion is still open.
SPEAKER_06	Thank you very much. Does anybody else have anything to add?
SPEAKER_07	If any member of the public wants to speak, I just ask that you raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes.
SPEAKER_06	Thank you, Kit. i do not see anyone with their hand raised great at this time i'd like to close the public portion of the uh this meeting of eight to eight a melvin street okay back to the board um i just want to say that you folks are in a hard spot tonight because we only have our four members for a quorum. And you've put us in a hard spot from the beginning when you allowed this to happen, Omar. And I'm so sorry that it played out the way it did because I don't believe all that we've been told. And i think that you're you guys are making out because i'm not a spoiler and i'm not going to have you rip the whole thing down because that's just not nice but i hope the message gets out to people who listen to these meetings uh zoom or you talk to your fellow friends or your contractors and tell them that this behavior as we go forward cannot be tolerated. It's a total disrespect to the city, to the board, and to other people at Playfair who don't put three windows. They suffer with two windows, but they make the window smaller or the cabinet smaller or the refrigerator smaller. I think from once you got approved that you were going to go with a third floor apartment, and I don't think that was ever Marguerite McLaughlin, Ever really figured out to be that, and if you the contractor that you ended up having that did this that thought he was being a nice guy and doing you a favor. Marguerite McLaughlin, You should have a chat with him and you should pass the word around that it's not right it's not fair it's unethical. Marguerite McLaughlin, i'm not going to be a spoiler tonight I feel I just had to say my piece i'm going to give you the vote. So it's going to carry and you go forward, but I'm not happy about it. So without further ado, I apologize for boring you folks with that, but that's how strong I am about this. I've been doing this a while, and I think I'm usually very fair and understanding, but I just feel we would just mistreated. So I'd like the, um, acting clerk tonight, Mr. Cook to make the motion.
SPEAKER_04	Yes, Madam Chair. I move to approve the hardship variance for ZP25-000048. for relief from the Somerville Zoning Ordinance dormer face width standards. For a dormer face width of 11 feet 7 inches, when the maximum allowed with the newly revised dimensions would be 8 foot 4 inches. And based on the hardship criteria findings as discussed and with the conditions set forth in the second supplemental staff memo dated September 11th, 2025.
SPEAKER_06	Thank you. May I have a second, please? I'll second it. Thank you, Cecilia. All in favor, please say aye. Ryan Cook?
SPEAKER_05	Aye.
SPEAKER_06	Ian Brockleman? Aye. Cecilia Daghlian? Aye. And Susan Fontano, aye. Let the record show the motion carried for 8 to 8A Melvin Street. Thank you.
SPEAKER_04	Thank you, Madam Chair.
SPEAKER_06	Yes, sir.
SPEAKER_04	I believe we need to clarify whether ZP 2500004749 need to be requested for withdrawal without prejudice or whether they're moot or some other condition since they were originally presented and opened as part of the public hearings.
SPEAKER_06	Right. I think, like you said, they could either go for it or withdraw, and we can approve that. Madison? Madison, is that where that leaves us?
SPEAKER_08	Yeah, I believe that would be the best protocol here is to withdraw the other two applications on the record. I mean, yeah.
SPEAKER_06	Right. so um the applicant would you like to do that you're going to withdraw the other two and go with what you have now i'll defer to rob our architect on this yeah yeah we'll we'll withdraw let's keep it oh for that rob yeah okay all right so could um brian could you make a motion
SPEAKER_04	Yes. I move to approve the request for the withdrawal without prejudice of ZP25-000047 and ZP25-000049. Second. 4947, seconded by Anne Brockleman.
SPEAKER_06	all in favor please as we go around say aye brian cook aye cecilia daglian aye and brockleman aye and susan fontano i let the record show that in the matter of zp2500047 and zp2500049 uh it was a pro applicants withdrawal without prejudice has been approved thank you am i all set mr cook yes ma'am okay yeah thanks Okay, you guys are all set. Thank you.
SPEAKER_02	Thank you so much. Thank you, the board. I really do appreciate it. But believe me, this has been very hard. I've had to hold the property for now more than a year since this violation was found, and it has caused enormous hardship, and I wouldn't want this on anyone. It was a genuine mistake, and I hope nobody else does something like this and has to get in front of the board defending something like this. I'm sorry about that.
SPEAKER_06	Thank you.
SPEAKER_02	Thank you.
SPEAKER_06	Okay. I can't get out of the screen, everybody. There we go. There we beautiful. Thank you. All right. Agenda. So is there any other business this evening? Did we cover everything that was on the agenda?
SPEAKER_05	Yes.
SPEAKER_06	Yes. Thank you, Kit. Okay. So, um, We have a motion then to adjourn.
SPEAKER_04	Yes, Madam Chair. I move to adjourn the September 17, 2025 meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals.
SPEAKER_06	Right. And we look forward to seeing everybody. It's October 1, right?
SPEAKER_05	Yes.
SPEAKER_06	Thank you. Someone seconded that? Yes. Yes. Thank you very much for the record, Anne Brockleman. As I go around, please cast your vote. Cece Adaglian. Aye. Brian Cook.
SPEAKER_05	Aye.
SPEAKER_06	Anne Brockleman. Aye. Ann Susan Fontano. Aye. Great. See you all October 1st. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Have a good night.
SPEAKER_04	You too. Good night.
SPEAKER_06	Bye.