2026-09-24 - Board of Zoning Appeal

02:09All right. Good evening everyone. Uh,

02:11welcome to the September 24th, 2026

02:14meeting of the Cambridge Board of Zoning

02:16Appeal. My name is Stephen Ing and I am

02:19the chair. Pursuant to chapter two of

02:21the acts of 2023 adopted by

02:24Massachusetts General Court and approved

02:26by the governor, the city is authorized

02:28to use remote participation at meetings

02:31of the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal.

02:34This meeting is being video and audio

02:37recorded and is broadcast on cable

02:40television channel 22 within Cambridge.

02:43There will also be a transcript of the

02:45proceedings. All board members,

02:47applicants, and members of the public

02:49will state their name before speaking.

02:51All votes will be taken by roll call.

02:54Members of the public will be kept on

02:56mute until it is time for public

02:58comment. I will give instructions for

03:00public comment at that time and you can

03:02also find instructions on the city's web

03:05page for remote BA meetings. Generally,

03:08you will have up to three minutes to

03:11speak.

03:13I'll I'll start by asking staff to take

03:16board members attendance for our 6 pm

03:18continuences agenda item and verify that

03:21all members are audible.

03:23Virginia Keysler.

03:26>> Virginia Keysler, present.

03:28>> Daniel Legado.

03:29>> Daniel Galgo, present.

03:31>> Miranda Cecil.

03:34>> Miranda Cecil present.

03:36>> Wendy Lyserson.

03:37>> Wendy Lyserson, present.

03:39>> Uh, Stephen

03:40>> and Stephvening present. Thank you,

03:43Olivia. Uh, first order of business, um,

03:46on continued cases agenda, case number

03:49BZA 273148.

03:53uh 47

03:55Granite Street. Uh owners Luke and Judy

03:59Mitchell seeking a six-month extension

04:01request uh with based on an original

04:05hearing date of 7:25 2024 and decision

04:09filed September 30th, 2024.

04:15Luke and Judy, you on on the call?

04:20No.

04:21Okay. Um, so

04:25let's

04:32in the file we received an email from

04:35um,

04:37uh, Paula Kikis

04:40uh,

04:42to Olivia regarding or Maria regarding

04:44the request. Um

04:50and just seeking um scope currently

04:54being proposed.

05:01So they're in the process of trying to

05:03get through uh the building permit

05:05process. Correct. And um I think they're

05:08just nearing that expiration time. Um,

05:12so I don't know if the board has any

05:14questions regarding uh pro uh pro

05:17providing an extension.

05:21Hearing none, um, I'll just make a

05:24motion. Uh I move to extend the

05:28expiration date of

05:30September 30th, 2024

05:34uh of the decision for approval to and

05:37it's what 6 months

05:39to

05:43March 30th, 2027.

05:48And a voice vote by the board members,

05:51please. Uh Wendy Lysen. Wendy Lyserson

05:54in favor.

05:55>> Thank you. Virginia Keiesler.

05:57>> Virginia Keiesler in favor.

06:00>> Thank you. Uh Daniel Hidalago.

06:05>> Could you repeat that again? Daniel.

06:07>> Sorry. Daniel in favor.

06:08>> Thanks. Uh Miranda Cecil.

06:12>> Miranda Cecil in favor.

06:14>> Thank you. And Stephening in favor. So

06:17the motion to extend passes. And uh

06:20we'll you'll Olivia you'll notify the

06:22the app appellant. All right. Um I

06:26believe the agenda was just six o'clock

06:28for the next item. So next item up on

06:32our

06:33uh continued cases. Uh it was um a un

06:40the presentation was not heard at the

06:43last uh meeting and it's continued to

06:46this evening which is uh 127 Mount

06:50Auburn

06:52Street

06:54um petitioner 17tory LLC in care of

06:58Patrick W. Barrett III uh and

07:02description. Uh the propo project 127

07:05Mount Auburn, 17 story street has

07:08received a certificate of

07:10appropriateness from CHC. However, we

07:12are proposed to reduce the front setback

07:16um to 4 feet on Mount Auburn and Story

07:19Street, which would allow us to increase

07:21the sideyard setback and move building

07:23away from the residential neighborhood.

07:25Uh they also proposed to increase the

07:27commercial side setback on the first,

07:29second, third floor of the building to

07:32normalize the footprint of the allowed

07:34hotel use in the building increasing

07:37building efficiency and adding

07:39additional residential square footage

07:42seeking um uh citing article 5.0

07:465.31 table of dimensional requirements

07:48and also uh section 10.30

07:52uh seeking of variance. Mr. Barrett, are

07:56you of online?

07:59>> Mr. Chair, I am here. Um, uh, a couple

08:02things of note. We are seeking a

08:05variance to move the building.

08:11Button just popped up here and I can't

08:17participant has requested captions to be

08:19enabled for this webinar.

08:23>> Olivia can

08:25Can it It's not asking me. It's just on

08:28your screen.

08:29>> Yeah, I don't know

08:31>> how to get rid of that.

08:33>> I will. It is next door. I will get it.

08:37>> Appreciate it. But um Can you hear me?

08:39>> Yeah, we can hear you and see you.

08:41>> Okay, I'll I'll continue with this

08:43little screen. Um

08:46we um we're coming to you um with a

08:49project that we have been spending a

08:51great deal of time on and um we are

08:54asking for the um the variance to move

08:58the building into the residential

09:00setback and we're trying to get sort of

09:01a maximum

09:04um uh result in terms of I think right

09:07now we're showing about 5.6 feet from

09:10Mount Auburn Street and we're getting

09:11close to 0.2 two or zero on Story

09:13Street. Um with the intent of moving the

09:16entire building further away from the

09:19residential neighborhood. Um

09:22the um we're also looking to normal what

09:26I refer to as normalizing the commercial

09:28setback because it is the H+ L um

09:33formulaic setback that would have

09:35required um in preliminary

09:39design review a very significant cantal

09:42lever over residential floors. So our

09:44solution was to build the residential

09:47around the commercial setback. Um which

09:50thank you whoever did that. Um

09:54but um which we spent uh a few months

09:58with the Cambridge Historical

10:00Commission. We did get a certificate of

10:01appropriateness

10:03and in those meetings um which there

10:05were several with neighbors as well as

10:07uh you know stakeholders um there was

10:11concern about the fact that the multif

10:15family housing zoning allowed for a

10:16five- foot setback from the residential

10:19piece. Now, this lot is a five-sided

10:22corner lot. Um, and

10:25um, it has a lot going on with it. It's

10:28a C2 zone. Um, it also has a very small

10:32sliver of C1 in the back, which our

10:34property is not touching. Um, our our

10:37development plan is not touching. Um and

10:42we're trying to create sort of a vi

10:44viable project on the site. Um it does

10:47allow for hotel use um which is unusual

10:51um because it's more than 50% within the

10:54Harvard Square overlay.

10:56all those things put together, we came

10:58up with this plan and um as part of our

11:01approval process, I did know promise the

11:04neighbors as well as Charlie Sullivan

11:06that I would work with CDD to try to

11:08come up with a solution to increase the

11:10setback in back um and to try to

11:13alleviate some of the pressure of the

11:14building because it is a tall building.

11:16Um, and you know, we're sort of being

11:19squished on the lot because we have a

11:21Harriet Jacobs house. Um, and that we

11:24have to preserve and to is currently in

11:27the process of being landmark. And

11:29again, we're trying to create this

11:30viable project behind it and connect it

11:32and restore this corner. Um,

11:36up until the middle of July, I had no

11:38real solution for this. I've been

11:40talking with CDD and I I have another

11:42corner lot case this evening that also

11:44deals with some similar issues. But

11:46corner lots do not get the benefit of

11:47the contextual setback. A C2 zone is

11:50also not a zone where the multif family

11:53housing zoning was truly implemented in

11:56terms of contemplating mixed use which

11:58is why we have two different setbacks

11:59for uh two different use categories.

12:02Um but then as you guys well know um the

12:06state legislature changed the um what it

12:10means to get a variance. Um I provided a

12:12memo to the board sort of outlining what

12:14I thought were some of the more

12:15pertinent issues. I think in the old

12:18standard I would have brought uh maybe a

12:20furlong the zoning board of appeals of

12:22Salem type case citing uh site safety

12:25features. Um, I think that

12:28there's a couple of, um,

12:31larger issues that are being addressed

12:33by moving the building forward, not just

12:34to the benefit of the neighbors. There

12:36are several honeyloust trees that are

12:38about 50 to 60 feet in height behind the

12:41lot. There's also a two inexplicably

12:45tall 80 foot pine trees behind the lot

12:48as well that in the previous design, the

12:50one that's been granted a certificate of

12:52appropriateness, we'd be about 5 feet to

12:54six feet away from 8 feet away in the

12:56worst case scenario. A lot of the cases

12:58that are being, you know, sort of

13:00causing some aida amongst the neighbors

13:02and residents in Cambridge dealing with

13:05um very tight setbacks is because of

13:08this five- foot uh requirement. We are

13:11think a little bit uh in a different

13:13scenario where we have the opportunity

13:15to move the building further away,

13:17alleviating the pressure on the trees,

13:19alleviating

13:20um the pressure on the neighborhood. Um

13:23and I do believe that we do meet I I

13:26would actually make the argument we met

13:27the old standard, but I think we meet I

13:29certainly think we meet the balancing

13:30test of the new practical difficulty

13:32standard. And the practical difficulty

13:34sort of uh the practical difficulty

13:37being in

13:39we are a corner lot five-sided. We have

13:42uh the Harry Jacobs house that we have

13:44to preserve and to maintain and restore.

13:47Um which is really pushing the property

13:49further into the lot area. Had the Harry

13:51Jacobs house not been present on this

13:52lot, we would certainly not be in the

13:54position that we are. And further, we do

13:56have um the reason why I actually

13:59brought up furlong is because we have we

14:00do have a plan that we are zoning

14:03compliant. And what we're trying to do

14:05is to move the building um in a way that

14:08I think that the legislature intended

14:11for this new variant standard to work to

14:13allow the BCA to balance the needs of

14:16the neighbors, the public realm. I also

14:18included in um uh I sent it to Maria

14:21Lake because we took a long time to run

14:22to them some shots of u story street uh

14:27which I can bring up on my screen to

14:28show to show folks if uh if it's

14:30necessary because there was some concern

14:31raised about public realm. Um but we

14:34actually think that this is a a much

14:35better result not only for the neighbors

14:38but um for the public realm that is

14:41facing in the back of the area and as

14:43well as in the front. Story Street is a

14:45narrow width street. It has a narrow

14:47sidewalk about five feet. Mount Auburn

14:50is a little bit more blessed, but it is

14:52also somewhat tight and the existing

14:54structures go to about zero right now.

14:57Um 127 Mount Auburn has a stairwell that

14:59touches the sidewalk. Uh very similar to

15:01how we imagine the Harry Jacobs will

15:03look uh when it's moved to that lot site

15:06further down. Um the um Story Street

15:11residence has a sort of a strange

15:14underground vestibule that touches the

15:17street. There's a stairwell going down,

15:19but it's a nice big sort of hole at at

15:21the at the street corner. And our plan

15:24is to move the building

15:26on the story street side to as close to

15:29zero as we can to increase the setback

15:31um on the Hilliard Street line to about

15:3313 feet. eight inches. Um and on the

15:38Mount Auburn Street, we are still

15:40constrained by the Harry Jacobs house,

15:42but um we're working with historic right

15:44now to see how we can adjust the Harry

15:47Jacobs building to maybe inch a little

15:48bit uh further away uh closer actually

15:51and um and working with them to

15:56adjust some ADA compliancy regulation

15:58issues. And the reason why we're here

15:59and I do apologize this is somewhat

16:01unusual. um we have been through some

16:04significant process um and we still have

16:07a ways to go but I can't fully design

16:10the building without knowing whether or

16:11not we can building into the setback. Um

16:14without that piece of the puzzle it

16:16really becomes

16:18um next to impossible to design the

16:20building. Um, and I do believe that

16:23um, for the reasons I've already stated

16:26that we do meet the standard and I'm

16:29happy to um, pop up on the screen if

16:32that's helps visually to sort of get an

16:34idea of what we're talking about on the

16:36story street side in Mount Auburn. Um, I

16:39wasn't sure how much the materials the

16:40board has already gone through. was

16:42quite a bit and I didn't want to extend

16:44the meeting, you know, into extra days

16:46because we have I think it's a 60page

16:49presentation for the historical piece

16:51alone. Um, but I think

16:55that in a nutshell encapsulates what

16:58we're trying to do. Um, I'm happy to

17:01answer questions about it, but I think

17:03the most important sheet that I provided

17:05you was sort of the propo the the

17:07approved setback and the proposed

17:09setback. And there's there's, you know,

17:13a host of reasoning why. Um, thank you,

17:15Olivia.

17:18[clears throat] Um, that shows you u

17:20that's a new rendering that's part of

17:21our uh trying to address the um the

17:25needs of

17:27uh the planning requirements of the

17:30planning board have looked at this and

17:31they were asking for some shots on uh

17:34Story Street. This is how we imagined

17:35the building would set. Um, and this

17:38sort of gives you a um better uh sort of

17:43vantage point. Olivia, do you have the

17:44one that's the um

17:47Yes. Uh the one Yeah. That gives you an

17:50existing and shows you what the street

17:51currently looks like um and how we

17:54imagine the building sitting on Story

17:55Street, which sort of the biggest

17:56concern raised by um the planning board

18:00in our discussion with them the other

18:02day. It also shows the building across

18:04the street, which is also at a zero lot

18:05line. D Street really is at zero. Um,

18:09and while that is a tight condition, um,

18:12I do believe that as you go further

18:14down, um, into our development, it does

18:17break. And not only does this movement

18:22allow us to, if you move the building

18:24further away from the residences, it

18:26also allows us to lower the height of

18:28the proposed hotel. We were at six

18:29stories before, now we're at three.

18:31We're fully behind the Harry Jacobs

18:33building. We're not adding any more keys

18:35to the hotel. We don't get more hotel

18:36square footage. We're actually

18:37constrained by F, but we do get

18:40efficiency in the building that didn't

18:42exist before. So, that allows for the

18:45expansion of u more residential uses.

18:48This will be one of the first new

18:50residential buildings built in Harvard

18:51Square that comes with that actually

18:53will have inclusionary units. It may be

18:55the first inclusionary project in

18:56Harvard Square. Um, and I think that

18:59should carry a little bit of weight in

19:01terms of when we're talking about the

19:02public good. Um, not to mention the

19:04Harry Jacobs House, but we really are,

19:07this this whole plan really came about

19:10towards the end of the summer. Um, and

19:13my client was sort of gracious enough to

19:14allow me to attempt this because I

19:16thought with the new standard, it seemed

19:19much more clear to me how we could meet

19:21that standard. Um, I do think in the old

19:24standard we still do meet the standard,

19:26but again, um, I think it would be a

19:29little bit more of a difficult climb

19:31with a zoning compliant project. Um,

19:37I can pull up Olivia, do you have that?

19:39I'm not sure how this is is working, but

19:40do you want me to pull up my slide for

19:42the presentation and I can show the

19:44setback or is that

19:47not not sure?

19:49>> Yeah, this is Olivia. Yeah, you could do

19:51that.

19:57>> All right, I'm not going to go through

19:59my entire presentation because I think

20:00we would all fall asleep. Um, but I will

20:05get to the sort of the the meat and

20:07potatoes of what we're asking. Um,

20:21Okay.

20:23So, this is the existing

20:25setbacks as approved and zoning

20:27compliant. Um, and this is the position

20:32of the building um with the variance

20:34that we're

20:36to get an idea of what we're talking

20:38about. Um,

20:40the uh Can you see my cursor?

20:44>> Yes. Um, so the trees that I'm talking

20:46about are here, here, here, and here.

20:51Um, in the previous condition were, you

20:53know, pretty tight against that side. We

20:55also had some balconies

20:58um for the residential piece of this,

21:00but by allowing us to go up with the

21:02commercial on the first three floors, we

21:04eliminate all balconies on that side.

21:06There is no there is no further

21:07encroachment until you get to the fourth

21:08floor. Um, and you got the full 13.8 8

21:13at that back location. You also get oops

21:17um an additional

21:19uh increased setback on the Mount Auburn

21:21side which would allow for us now to

21:24locate our transformer on this side of

21:26the building and create a significant

21:28amount of green space all behind here

21:30which will add privacy for both the

21:32residences and the hotel. Um the hotel

21:35the lower floors does not have operable

21:36windows. Um it's a completely different

21:39scenario and I think uh in terms of

21:42programming the building a much better

21:44program for the neighbors and for um the

21:47my my client um and also point out that

21:50the treatment of the Harry Jacobs house

21:52itself um gets considerably better when

21:54we move the building this way. Right now

21:56we are extremely tight. There's a um

22:00there's ramping systems that we have to

22:02use to get to the appropriate grade. We

22:05moved the building more like sliding

22:07around the lot and now we have a

22:09normalized courtyard. The Harry Chico's

22:12house is a little bit closer to the

22:13curb. We have a nice space here to

22:15program with greenery and for um for

22:20outdoor seating perhaps, but um I think

22:24this is a much better program that the

22:27zoning just doesn't allow for at this

22:29moment. And I'd also point out that as

22:31of two days ago with the multif family

22:33housing zoning discussion, this is

22:35exactly what they're contemplating as

22:37part of the larger group of changes um

22:39to at least allow for you know a sum of

22:43approach that would get us to um what

22:46we're talking about here without having

22:47to go through a a relief process. Um,

22:51we're coming before you right now

22:52because I just need I need to understand

22:54what we have to work with because this

22:56affects everything uh in terms of how

22:58the building is designed including

23:00zoning and green factor um uh and other

23:04elements of the build other elements of

23:06the design that we'd otherwise have an

23:07answer for. But for this issue,

23:11um, I think I'm going to leave it there

23:12because I think I don't want to make it

23:14unnecessarily complicated what our ask

23:16is, but I do I am happy to get into the

23:19new standard. I'm happy to explain

23:22really anything about the history of

23:23this project and um, I'll leave it at

23:26that.

23:30>> Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Um, any

23:32questions from fellow board members?

23:40This is Daniel Yolgo. Can I can I just

23:42ask um I I know it sounds like not

23:44everything is settled. So So that's

23:46fine, but I just curious because some

23:48some of the numbers were different in

23:49different parts of the application just

23:50in terms of like the number of housing

23:52units and uh contemplated for for this

23:55project.

23:56>> So a number of housing units um in a

23:59original presentation to the historical

24:01commission who doesn't really their

24:03jurisdiction is not inside the building.

24:05We showed about 50 units. Um, this new

24:08configuration would allow us to get to

24:10about 60.

24:11>> Okay, great. Thank you.

24:15>> Uh, this is Miranda Cecil. I was

24:17wondering, you mentioned at some point

24:19that, and I I'm not entirely sure how

24:23how relevant this will end up being to

24:25what we're evaluating here today, but I

24:26wanted to ask anyway. Um, you mentioned

24:29that the residential space would not be

24:32coming above the hotel. Is that

24:35accurate? It looked like some of the

24:36renderings might have it be taller.

24:40>> The residential space is above the

24:41hotel.

24:43>> So what I'm saying

24:44>> so the the we want to put the hotel on

24:48the first three floors um within be

24:51considered the footprint of the building

24:53which includes the residential setback

24:55and we want to build so the hotel the

24:57hotel will be three floors. The

24:58residential floors will be 4 through

25:00eight.

25:03Okay.

25:05So, per perhaps there's a disconnect.

25:07So, is the

25:11um is the historic home shorter than the

25:15>> the building?

25:18>> Okay.

25:20>> So, the residential Okay. The Harry

25:22Jacobs house itself is not going to be a

25:24residential use. Part of

25:27>> um the charge of the historical

25:30commission. This is an old older

25:31rendering by the way. This is the

25:32approved historic piece. Um, part of the

25:36charge in the historical commission was

25:37to make the Harry Jacobs a public use.

25:40Um, there are not many options with

25:42that. So, we thought that the Harry

25:44Jacobs as the entry point to the hotel

25:47might be the best solution.

25:48>> We're putting hotel rooms within the

25:50Harry Jacobs House, but that also

25:52creates a difficulty for us, which is

25:53why I mentioned furlong. Uh, simply

25:55because we have a woodframe building

25:57next to a steel building. I got to keep

25:5910 feet away from it in order to have

26:01any window penetrations around it. So,

26:04um, the Harry J I can't close up the

26:07windows of the Harry Jacobs house. That

26:08would be wildly inappropriate. Um, and

26:10we also don't want to have building that

26:12on the third floor or fourth floor

26:14registers as just being a flat wall. Um,

26:17so our solution was our solution

26:20requires to keep that distance between

26:22the two. Um, but the Harry Jacobs House

26:24will be rooms on the second and uh third

26:26floor uh connecting to the back of the

26:28hotel for ADA compliance.

26:31>> I see. Okay. I think I just

26:34misunderstood something that you were

26:35saying here because that that completely

26:37makes sense. Um, thank you.

26:39>> Welcome.

26:41>> So, how many how many uh keys

26:45are being proposed in this project for

26:48the hotel?

26:49>> The original was 67. I think we're down

26:51to 65 now.

26:5365 hotel and then 60

26:57residential units.

26:58>> Yes sir.

27:00>> And are the residential and hotels

27:03combined

27:06in terms of access and so on? I mean do

27:08you have floor plans to show us?

27:11>> We have

27:14something like a floor plan. Um we have

27:16our um know based on the original design

27:19we did contemplate a separate entry

27:21point for the residences and for the

27:23hotel. The Harry Jacobs house because of

27:25the grade that it's at is going to

27:26require ramping. Um we are looking at an

27:29entry point at this location for the

27:32residences and at this point for the

27:35hotel. Um that will not be much altered

27:39or new design. They will be separated in

27:40terms of entry points. Um but with the

27:44movement of the building to the new loca

27:46to the new location that does change a

27:48little bit in terms of how we'll ex

27:50exactly address that. Um it does get a

27:53little bit um

27:57>> see you're showing quite a few different

28:00configurations here. I I'm very confused

28:03and I'm not gonna approve anything

28:06without knowing we've got something

28:09locked in that we're we know is what

28:12you're proposing. So if there's any

28:14ambiguity that's going to cause problems

28:18at least for myself.

28:20>> Okay.

28:22So if you have common entrance for the

28:26hotel and the residence, so they both

28:28come in, they access the elevator

28:31together, guests and and permanent

28:33residents. Is it condos or rental?

28:36>> Uh condos.

28:37>> So okay. So it sounds like it's kind of

28:40a standard uh luxury hotel setup where

28:43you've got uh condominiums. they get

28:45served by the hotel operator and uh and

28:49then guests can come and stay in the

28:51hotel section. Correct.

28:54>> Right.

28:56>> Okay. So, it's common shared. Um

29:00I guess some of my questions were also

29:03regarding the site plan um for a

29:06commercial hospitality

29:09project this size. I I just don't see

29:12any

29:14service or place for a dumpster. I

29:16thought maybe that alley onto off of

29:19Mount Auburn was where you're But you

29:21have a transformer coming in on that

29:23side.

29:24>> So loading and trash are served on Story

29:27Street.

29:33>> Is there like a I I'm look trying to

29:36find a floor plan here.

29:42This is Wendy Lyserson. Can you show us

29:43which tell us which document to look at?

29:47>> Um, we have the four plans that were

29:49presented as part of the historical

29:52presentation. Um, that include um

29:58um on slide

30:00on the slide that I'm showing now

30:02location for loading and for trash.

30:06>> Ah, okay. I see that.

30:19So if we're combining

30:23it, it's essentially kind of a the

30:27residences and the hotels are combined

30:29and being served by the hotel operator.

30:33Can you are you classifying the

30:35residential above as as

30:39residential units or is that basically

30:41should be considered commercial?

30:44>> No, they're they will be residential

30:46units. They will have no uh connection

30:48with the hotel other than the fact that

30:50they're in the same building. They won't

30:51be operated by the same operator. It

30:53won't be managed by the same company. Um

30:55they'll be for individual ownership.

30:57They will not be part of the hotel

30:59programming at all.

31:02The intent is to have them be standalone

31:04to sell the condos and uh to have a

31:07hotel operator, preferably a local one,

31:09to operate the small sort of boutique

31:12hotel operation.

31:17>> Okay. Um Okay. Thank you.

31:20>> You're welcome.

31:25>> This is Wendy Lys. I had a couple

31:27questions and um again it goes back to

31:30like the confusion of which plan and the

31:33detail level of the plan um here. So in

31:37looking at the um what was presented

31:42uh over a year ago now to the Cambridge

31:44Historical Commission.

31:46>> Yeah. Um, so in that

31:50project narrative, it says that the

31:53Harriet Jacobs House will serve as the

31:55hotel lobby. Is that correct?

31:57>> That's correct.

31:58>> Okay. And that's going to connect to a

32:00small cafe.

32:02>> Correct.

32:03>> And then will that house uh be connected

32:07to the first three stories of the new

32:10building?

32:12>> Correct. Yes.

32:13>> Okay. And so, um, I assume that even

32:18though you are providing a separate

32:20entrance to the residences,

32:23they could conceivably walk in off of

32:25Mount Auburn through the hotel and up to

32:27their residences. Correct.

32:30>> They could walk in the hotel through the

32:32lobby. Um, they'd have to go through the

32:34courtyard to go through a separate door

32:36to get to their elevator to go to the

32:38residences. So they can't if you're on

32:41the third floor of the hotel, you can't

32:42access the residences. Is that what

32:44you're saying?

32:44>> Right. Correct.

32:46>> Okay. So, um then

32:49I also wanted to get some clarification

32:52on the dimensions

32:55>> um because um

32:59I'm not sure how we grant a variance

33:01when we're uncertain what dimensional

33:03standards apply. And so, um, I'd like to

33:07get some have some discussion on that if

33:10you don't mind.

33:11>> Sure. Um,

33:12>> yeah.

33:14Part of the part of the issue that I'm

33:16that we're having with that, we

33:17presented the

33:20um the historical commission with a

33:23diagram that showed um the dimensional

33:26elements which is part of our submission

33:28um for the hotel as built um which

33:33because it's a five-sided lot, the H+ 5

33:36H+ L+ 5 dimensional requirements tucks

33:39the building in varying varying

33:41directions and varying feet on the Mount

33:43Auburn side, which would be this this

33:46side. It was about 34 feet.

33:48>> I'm sorry, which side? Um

33:51>> I call I'm calling it the Mount Auburn

33:52side, but it's the side that abuts Mount

33:54Auburn. Um

33:58um this side would have been about 34

33:59feet. This the Hillyard Street would

34:02have been about uh 24 to 26 feet.

34:05>> Hold on just one second. Sorry if I know

34:07you know this by heart probably, but I

34:09just want to make sure

34:10>> myself and the members of the public are

34:12following. So you're saying that on the

34:14Mount Auburn side you're saying it's 34

34:16feet

34:18>> correct

34:19for the commercial setback.

34:21>> When you say commercial setback can you

34:24please explain what you mean by

34:26commercial setback because that's not

34:27defined in the ordinance.

34:30>> Yeah. Well, unfortunately, when the

34:33multif family housing zoning was passed,

34:35they altered the residential setbacks

34:37for all residential zones, but they did

34:39not do the same for residential zones

34:42that also allowed for commercial uses.

34:44>> So, the commercial the commercial

34:45setback remains the formulaic setback

34:47while the residential setback was pushed

34:49to 5T.

34:52>> Well, so which side of the building is

34:56the commercial setback? the the um one

34:59to the left of the hotel facing Mount

35:01Auburn Street. Is that what you're

35:02saying?

35:03>> Correct. This is where it gets a little

35:04bit on the confusing side. So, I'll show

35:06the hotel as originally designed.

35:09The Mount Auburn Street give us a 34 set

35:12foot setback from this point to this

35:14point.

35:16The Hillier Street requirement given

35:18that the height of the hotel was at six

35:20stories and

35:22um

35:24slightly changed in width was about 26

35:28ft from this location to this location.

35:32On the um story street elevation, the

35:35setback was required to be about another

35:39uh 26 to 28 ft depending on how we how

35:43we looked at the floors. But the idea

35:45was that this this red zone represented

35:49where the commercial setback required

35:51the hotel to be built if it was to be

35:53built standalone.

35:56The remaining portions of the building

35:58which are residential

36:01are allowed to go to this 5 foot 5ft

36:04setback and 10 ft on on the corner in

36:06the front.

36:08We increased the back step back on the

36:10Hillyard side by three feet during our

36:12presentation to the historical

36:14commission as sort of a

36:17nod to the neighbors on Hillyard Street

36:19who had a real issue with this building

36:21being built. Um, and we're trying to

36:23give them some more space and sort of an

36:25indicator that in the future we would

36:27try to look for solutions to give them

36:29more space.

36:32So, I do appreciate that you're trying

36:33to accommodate the neighbors that um is

36:36part of the new and old standard. Um

36:40but, uh I wanted to ask you about how

36:43you're getting to that setback

36:46dimension.

36:47Um putting aside for a second what

36:49you're calling commercial versus

36:51non-commercial uh setbacks. um because

36:55there was some question in the file

36:57about what the permissible height is for

37:00this building.

37:01>> So the the question about the

37:03permissible height um came from a

37:05neighbor on the Hillyard Street side and

37:08because there's two height differentials

37:10for the Harvard Square overlay. There's

37:13a 60ft height limitation per commercial

37:15which is why the hotel we showed it

37:17being six floors and there's a there was

37:20an 80 foot height limitation for

37:22residential that got changed in 2025 to

37:2685 ft which is what the allowable C2

37:28zone is the it's now the greater of um

37:32so the residential height is 85 ft the

37:34commercial height is 60 feet um what

37:37we're showing in our new plan is the

37:40hotel being on the first three floors

37:42and the residential going up the

37:43remainder of the height. Um the height

37:46in in the harvest square overlay can be

37:48augmented by special permit. Um but it

37:51only allows for the commercial to go to

37:5380 ft and then there's the differential

37:55and we we had no intention of doing that

37:57because we are also constrained by F on

38:00the commercial side to 1.75.

38:03>> So I'm going to stop you for just one

38:05second. So um so the Harvard Square

38:08overlay

38:10>> in section or article 20 section 54.2 to

38:15discusses building height limitations in

38:17Harvard Square overlay and it says that

38:20the the maximum height is 60 but then

38:24there's of course additional language to

38:26discuss um and it says um you know that

38:32if the base zoning district has a more

38:36restrictive height limitation

38:38for non-residential uses the more

38:41restrictive shall apply.

38:43Right.

38:44>> Where the base zoning district

38:46establishes a more permissive height

38:47limitation for residences,

38:50then the more permissive shall apply. So

38:52I think what you're saying is that

38:54because there's residential use in this

38:57building, you're saying the more

38:58permissive

39:00of the base zoning district should apply

39:02to the height. Is that what you're

39:04saying?

39:04>> What I'm saying is that there are two

39:06applications of height in this building.

39:08that the commercial portion of the

39:09building is limited to 60 feet and that

39:13the residential portion is limited to 85

39:15feet and that if we were to build a

39:17mixeduse building, we would take the

39:20residential height or the residential

39:22piece as the limitation and the

39:24commercial height as the limitation for

39:26the commercial piece.

39:27>> But if it's a mixeduse building, then it

39:30would be subject to the commercial

39:32height restrict limitations in a base

39:36zoning district. Correct.

39:39I believe the Harvard Square overlay

39:41overrides that.

39:43>> No. Um, so what Harvard Square Overlay

39:46is saying, as I read it, anyway, I'm

39:49open to, you know, discussion here. As I

39:52read it, is that the Harvard Square

39:55Overlay District sets the height limit,

39:57the maximum height limit of buildings in

39:59the Harvard Square Overlay District is

40:01governed by section 20542.

40:06Section 20542

40:08number one says as of right height

40:10limitations the maximum height of any

40:12building shall be 60 feet. Now if you go

40:15back to the first paragraph of that

40:18article it then goes on to say where you

40:22have a nonresidential use.

40:25If the base zoning district establishes

40:28a more restrictive height limitation

40:31that applies. So, if the base zoning

40:34district establishes a more restrictive

40:36height limitation for non-residential

40:39uses, which means that it would be less

40:41than 60 ft to be more restrictive, then

40:44that would apply. Where the base zoning

40:46district establishes a more permissive

40:48height limitation for residences as

40:51listed in section 4.31 A throughJ, the

40:55more permissive shall apply. However,

40:58when you have a mixeduse building, it is

41:02subject to the non-residential use

41:05height limitation.

41:07So, you do not qualify for a more

41:09permissive height limitation.

41:13So, that means that the height

41:15limitation in Harvard Square overlay

41:16district is 60 ft

41:19unless you go to the planning board for

41:21a special permit under sub paragraph two

41:23of that section.

41:31I had been over this with ISD several

41:34times um as well as with the city of

41:36Cambridge. It was my understanding that

41:38we can go to 85 ft for the residential

41:41piece and we were limited on the

41:42commercial piece. If what you're saying

41:44is that we are now subject to a 60oot

41:47height limitation, then we don't need a

41:49variance to move the building at all. We

41:51can eliminate the hotel use be all

41:53residential building and go to 85 ft.

41:55Well,

41:57>> um I can't speculate on what's not

41:59before me right now, but I would say

42:01that the reading of the other the

42:04alternative reading that you suggest

42:06would make the sub paragraph 2 be um

42:12>> you know,

42:14so if you're looking at article 20

42:17>> y

42:18>> 54.2 two, building height limitations in

42:22the Harvard Square Overlay district.

42:25You'll see that there are two

42:26paragraphs, one numbered one and one

42:28numbered two. The second paragraph says

42:31there there's a special permit for

42:33additional height. Says if you want to

42:36increase the height to 80 ft, you need a

42:38special permit from the planning board.

42:40I don't know how you can make sense of

42:42that paragraph in this section if you're

42:45saying as of right you get to go beyond

42:4860 ft. That doesn't

42:50>> the first paragraph

42:52>> the first paragraph states that where

42:54the Bay zoning district establish the

42:56more permissive height residences listed

42:58A through J the more permissive shall

43:00apply

43:00>> but you have a mixeduse building you

43:02don't have a residential building

43:04>> when you provide a dim form for the city

43:06of Kim you provide the base height for

43:07the residential and the base height for

43:09the commercial is treated as two

43:10different things

43:11>> historically historically it's always

43:14been measured for that

43:16>> um set back equation that I gave you

43:19that they never look at the full height

43:21of the building. They use the

43:22residential port the commercial portion

43:24of the building to determine that

43:25formula setback. So, I don't know how

43:28you can reconcile what you're saying

43:31that because this building now has mixed

43:33use, which I don't see.

43:36I just don't I don't see that. They're

43:38saying now because of that mixed use,

43:41that that different use in that building

43:42that now the building can't achieve the

43:45the height for the residential piece of

43:46the building, which it clearly says it

43:47can.

43:50Well, I think perhaps we'll put this on

43:53the table. If we need to refer this to

43:55the city's law department for review, we

43:57can do that. But I would call your

43:59attention also to article 523.3

44:03sub paragraph C in terms of how mixeduse

44:07buildings and height uh calculations are

44:10done. But I think I'm going to table

44:12that now because um this may need the

44:16city solicitor weigh in.

44:23Did you have any other questions, Wendy?

44:26>> Um, I'd like to hear from any of the

44:28other board members before I

44:35>> any other questions.

44:36>> I just

44:37>> Yep.

44:39We don't have any additional questions,

44:41but I agree with Wendy's interpretation,

44:43and I think if we have a question about

44:44this, it might make sense to continue

44:47um until the board can get more

44:50information from the city solicitor's

44:51office.

44:54>> I do have other questions about the

44:56variance standard, but I don't know if

44:57you want me to hold that if we're going

44:59to continue it.

45:02I defer to the chair on this matter.

45:07Do you want to take a reading of the

45:08board's position?

45:11>> Uh yeah, we can check with the board

45:14here. Um

45:17what's uh the favor of the group? Do we

45:20want to just continue with the

45:22discussion and then uh essentially I

45:25think we would require a continuous

45:28continuence to seek out uh guidance from

45:31uh city council but

45:35We could also hear from any members of

45:37the public here so that we would know

45:38how to weigh the benefits as required.

45:49Uh I think I've already made my position

45:51clear, but I think it might make sense

45:53to

45:56hear from members of the public, but

45:57then also continue the hearing as it

45:59relates to our questions subject to

46:01getting city solicitors input.

46:05Um, this I mean this is Daniel Dalgo.

46:08I'm I mean I'm fine continuing, but I'm

46:11a little puzzled that why like I I would

46:13assume this would have been flagged

46:14earlier by ISD or or someone. Um, so

46:17that's just I'm interested in that. Um,

46:20one question I is I mean we can hear the

46:22public so if the

46:24>> Can I can I please just weigh in on this

46:26on the side issue really quickly because

46:28a lot because you you threw 5.2 23.3 at

46:32me and I've already gone through this

46:34issue in the memo to Olivia as well as

46:37to CD uh 5.23.C.

46:41Um you know you'll paraphrase some of it

46:45but you know in a mixeduse building

46:46containing both residential

46:48uh and non-residential uses blah blah

46:51blah portions of the building devoted to

46:53residential uses may exceed the

46:54non-residential height limitation

46:57so but not exceed the the residential

46:59height limit. So in a mixeduse building,

47:02the residential height is allowed to go

47:04above the commercial height. That is

47:07what a mixeduse building is. So it is

47:10not constrained by the Harvard Square

47:12overlay cap is 60 ft for commercial

47:14uses. The building doesn't become

47:15magically commercial. The commercial

47:18section of the building is commercial

47:19and the residential section of the

47:21building is dealt with the residential

47:22height limitation which is 85 ft.

47:25We'll have to agree to disagree pending

47:28input from the city solicitor for now.

47:30I'm prepared to be wrong, but I want the

47:32city solicitor to be the decider.

47:42>> Okay. Um I think Go ahead.

47:45>> I was going to say this is Virginia. I

47:46think Wendy, if you do have any other

47:48questions, it seems like we should get

47:50all our questions out now so that

47:52there's not like another threshold

47:54question that comes up in the next

47:56meeting and we're continuing it again.

47:58Uh, so

48:01>> yeah,

48:02>> sure. Um, I did have a question. Um,

48:06because this is now we now have the

48:08benefit of having three submissions from

48:12different

48:14well-known attorneys in the local area

48:16about how to construe the new variant

48:19standard and they're not all the same.

48:23Um, so I would like to make sure that or

48:28to hear feedback about how we're

48:30applying this new variant standard.

48:34The way I read your memo, which I thank

48:36you for. Um

48:39on your second page of your submission

48:43that's um the header says from your law

48:47office says 70 17 story street variance

48:50practical difficulty memorandum and it

48:52should be in the public files for anyone

48:54who would like to look.

48:57But on the second page you've cited the

49:00new 40A section 10. And then you go on

49:03to say below that

49:05um structurally

49:08um the rewritten statute imposes one

49:11mandatory finding a practical difficulty

49:14and one mandatory balancing test and you

49:18cite the language from the section and

49:20then you talk about the four enumerated

49:23factors that are optional.

49:26But my question to you is um because

49:29this is your argument about how to

49:32interpret the new standard differs from

49:34both of the other attorneys argument.

49:37And in the language of section 10, the

49:39new language, it says in making its

49:43determination, the determination of what

49:45would result in a practical difficulty,

49:48the permit granting authority engages in

49:51this weighing

49:53um balancing test that you've interrupt

50:07Um, and I think this is this is not new

50:11laws often have different reads. This is

50:14why they usually end up in court cases

50:16for us to be told how to read them. So,

50:20it's uh no reflection on you know um how

50:25you've tried to help us to understand

50:27this. But um I think that

50:32the practical difficulty cannot be

50:35defined by the impact of applying the

50:39strict the the zoning law or the

50:42building code or the ADA laws or the

50:46fire codes. The practical difficulty

50:49based on the language in the statute

50:52says that is to be determined through

50:55this process of weighing the benefits to

50:58the applicant and the benefits to the

51:01public interest

51:02including the interest in supporting the

51:04production of housing against the

51:06detriment to the public health safety

51:08and welfare of the neighborhood.

51:11And as part of this, I'm thinking we may

51:14also consider these four additional

51:16questions that are enumerated in there.

51:18So, I'd like to get your feedback on

51:20that because um as I said, all three

51:23very well-qualified attorneys have

51:25presented a slightly different

51:28read of the standard.

51:31So, do you have any comments to help us

51:33navigate that?

51:36So this is why I mentioned um furlong at

51:40the onset of my um presentation.

51:44Um I do believe that where the balancing

51:48test lies is in the public interest and

51:51sa safety is also included as part of

51:53that. Um

51:56the um the production of housing is

52:00clearly something that we're we're we're

52:02trying to achieve in this project.

52:05But the the balancing test, I see this

52:10standard as being something very similar

52:11to what the

52:14BCA has been doing for a very long time.

52:16It has now just simply been codified. Um

52:19the public health safety and welfare um

52:22has always been the the language of a

52:24special permit as well as a variance. Um

52:27but it gives you the ability and in

52:29great wide latitude to look at the net

52:32benefits of what the variance will grant

52:35me as the appalance or my client as well

52:38as what benefits given to the

52:40neighborhood that I cite uh fire code um

52:44that I cite um I think fire code was the

52:47big one as well as some efficiencies

52:49granted in the building looking to

52:51connect those issues of fire safety as

52:54being certainly something in that's of

52:56interest to the public welfare. Um that

53:00um the difficulty of designing a

53:02building that has mixed uses on every

53:04floor versus mixed uses on stacking

53:07floors, which is just a practical and

53:09more practical and better way to build a

53:12building. That the Harriet Jacobs House

53:14itself presents a challenge on this lot

53:17that doesn't exist on any other lot. um

53:20in that it needs to be preserved which

53:22is traditionally historical properties

53:23have not been something you can lever a

53:26a variance or uh a variance on at least

53:29um but you know certainly we we we've

53:32tried I think the the standard as I see

53:36it um

53:40looks at these things holistically um so

53:44I included um you know the fire code

53:48which you don't normally consider

53:49considered to be part of your calculus

53:51in determining a variance because there

53:55actually is case law that looks at

53:57safety in particular as being to the

54:01benefit of the public welfare. Um you

54:04know again I go back to furlong but you

54:07know this is where you had a 25-sided

54:10lot and the variance allowed for a

54:13better condition for the public. The

54:15better condition for the public I'm

54:16citing as well is the movement away from

54:18very large deeply rooted trees. The more

54:21we can preserve those root structures,

54:23the better off the neighborhood's going

54:25to be and the public realm is going to

54:26be. So my understanding of the standard

54:30as I I did get the um the training that

54:33you all received in terms of what the

54:35solicitor gave everyone um that that

54:39balancing test can look at those kinds

54:40of issues and that you're able to to

54:44weigh whether or not this is a better

54:46development scheme with the variance

54:48than it would be without. Um, you know,

54:50part of the complexity of this

54:52particular project is we have a project

54:54that we can build. Well, you know,

54:58we can disagree on the implications of

55:015.23.3C,

55:04but we have a building we can build that

55:06that's extremely close to the lot line

55:08of the neighbors that I don't believe is

55:10in anyone's best interest that we build

55:12it this way. And for all the reasons I

55:15cited in my memo, I think that that

55:17gives you at least a roadmap to seeing

55:20how we do meet the standard. I don't

55:22think it's the

55:24um is cut and dry and I don't know what

55:26those other attorneys drafted for you,

55:28but I do think that how we've presented

55:30this, we do meet the standard. It's not

55:33just the fire code as it relates to us.

55:35It's the fire codes relates to all those

55:37around us. It's not just the proxy. It's

55:39not just the tree root system itself.

55:41It's how we are able to design the

55:43building in a way that's safer for those

55:45abutters as well as um preserving trees

55:48for the public realm. So I don't I just

55:51I I see these things all being

55:53interconnected. I don't think that

55:54you're procluded from looking at any of

55:56these things based on how the standard

55:58is written.

55:59>> Thank you for that. Um I I do understand

56:01what you're saying. I think I think what

56:03I'm should have pointed out I think is

56:06that um in your memo you start by decid

56:11determining what is the practical

56:13difficulty and then going into the

56:15balancing test and I think my my

56:18understanding or what I saw in some

56:21other variations of how we should

56:24interpret this is that you engage in the

56:27balancing test. So in other words, first

56:29identify what's the benefit to you. The

56:31benefit to you, you said, you know, you

56:33gave us a number of things. And then you

56:35identify the benefit to the public

56:37interest. Again, you've identified a

56:39number of things. And you also identify

56:42the detriment to the public health

56:45welfare and safety of the neighborhood,

56:47however that neighborhood is defined.

56:49And then at the end of that, you may

56:52also ask these four additional

56:54questions.

56:56And by going through that analytic

56:59process, that's how you make the

57:01determination of what is a practical

57:03difficulty. You don't start by saying

57:05there's a practical difficulty. That's

57:07that's what I'm asking. U you know um or

57:11that's what I'm seeing. Yeah.

57:13>> The word may is is operable there. So I

57:15don't think the you have to consider any

57:17of those things.

57:18>> That's correct. I agree with you on

57:19that. Yes. But I'm just saying that if

57:22you want to consider those things, then

57:23it would be

57:24>> part of this um determination of what's

57:27a practical difficulty. Is that how you

57:29read it?

57:30>> Yes.

57:30>> Okay. Thank you.

57:36Any other questions?

57:39>> You all said, Wendy,

57:40>> for now.

57:41>> For [laughter] now. Okay. Thank you. Um,

57:44if there's no other comments or

57:46questions from fellow board members,

57:48I'll move to uh public comment. And I

57:52think and I propose um that after we

57:55hear back from the public, we'll also

57:57summarize uh any written correspondence

58:00that uh we I'll make a motion to

58:03continue uh so that we seek out uh

58:06guidance and interpretation from uh t

58:09city council. So, we'll hold off on um

58:13board deliberation

58:14>> city solicitor. Sorry, just

58:17>> Okay.

58:18>> Sorry.

58:20Uh so, uh checking um opening up for

58:24public comments. Any members of the

58:26public who wish to speak should now

58:28click the icon at the bottom of your

58:30Zoom screen that says raise hand. If

58:33you're calling in by phone, you can

58:35raise your hand by pressing star9 and

58:37unmute or mute by pressing star six.

58:40I'll now ask staff to unmute the

58:42speakers one at a time. You should begin

58:45by saying your name and address and

58:47staff will confirm that we can hear you.

58:50After that, we will have up you'll have

58:52to up to three minutes to speak before I

58:55ask you to wrap up.

58:58>> Suzanne Blair.

59:03Thank you very much. Um, I live at

59:05[clears throat] Five Fuller Place, which

59:07is near um it's it's right right in this

59:11neighborhood right off of Hillyard. And

59:14I'm also president of the Harvard Square

59:15Neighborhood Association and by

59:17profession an art and architectural

59:20historian who also does writing on

59:22cities. Um, the Harvard Square

59:25Neighborhood Association has decided to

59:28oppose the current plan for a number of

59:30reasons and I want to address it here.

59:32I've been at many of these meetings.

59:34Originally, this was presented to us as

59:36a luxury hotel. Some somewhat we were

59:40hoping like the Veritus Hotel. Um, from

59:43the outset, it was known through the

59:46historical commission and other ways

59:47that the Harriet Jacobs House really

59:49must be preserved. And we've got great

59:52examples of this kind of thing whether

59:55it's Frost Terrace or in other uh manner

59:59just the moving of a house like this

1:00:00would be a great expense and they knew

1:00:02this going into it. Um the other thing

1:00:06that I think that we need to address in

1:00:08terms of public good etc is that between

1:00:12this house and 127 Mount Auburn we will

1:00:17be losing in let's say 127 Mount Auburn

1:00:20about 35 rooms that are now local

1:00:23businesses um but they could also have

1:00:26been any historically were residences.

1:00:29Um, we could think about the same thing

1:00:31with the Harriet Jacobs House, which

1:00:32historically was residences and now, um,

1:00:35most recently local businesses. There

1:00:37were three on the the sort of basement

1:00:40area as you enter through Mount Auburn

1:00:42Street. Um, I and others have also been

1:00:46concerned about the very different

1:00:47configurations that that have been put

1:00:50forward. One issue that that I hadn't

1:00:52heard here, but I came in late to the

1:00:54meeting is that there's a trough um that

1:00:57runs down the back of Mount Alurn Street

1:01:00or the homes behind Mount Auburn Street

1:01:02for flooding. And what is going to be

1:01:04the impact of a deep cement well uh or

1:01:09wall rather on the flooding that that

1:01:12may cause to these areas both to the

1:01:14trees and to other concerns. The other

1:01:17issue with this and I I would you know I

1:01:20I support hotels. I support local

1:01:22businesses. I support residential. I'm a

1:01:25strong proponent of of bold great new

1:01:28design and historic preservation. But

1:01:31another major concern of mine is and and

1:01:34you alluded to this. This is a massive

1:01:36structure with a lot of residences and

1:01:38hotel rooms and it's supposedly

1:01:40separate, but we have one place for the

1:01:44um interior for the delivery and the the

1:01:47taking out of trash, etc., etc. on Story

1:01:50Street. That's a very narrow street and

1:01:52it's a critical street for all of the

1:01:54businesses in Harvard Square and anybody

1:01:56getting into our neighborhood because

1:01:58people it's a oneway going down off

1:02:00Brattle and if we've got large trucks

1:02:03trying to back into that area and trying

1:02:06to get out it's going to be it's a very

1:02:09tight space and and there doesn't seem

1:02:11to be room in that for a separate space

1:02:13for both the residences on the one hand

1:02:16and the hotel on the other. So I'm

1:02:19delighted that you are asking for a

1:02:22continuence and I hope that the among

1:02:25the other considerations including

1:02:27height will be the question of the loss

1:02:31of these other residences potentially

1:02:34and local businesses because we really

1:02:36need more affordable not only housing

1:02:40but also more affordable places for

1:02:42people to carry out their business in

1:02:44Harvard Square. Thank you so much.

1:02:46>> Thank you Miss Blair.

1:02:49Anita Patterson.

1:02:54>> Yeah, this is Anita Patterson, but I'm

1:02:56my husband, Orlando Patterson, is here,

1:02:58too.

1:02:59>> Yeah, I'm Orlando Patterson. We are at

1:03:0214 Hillad Street.

1:03:03>> We're Butters.

1:03:04>> Um, we're Abutters, one of the five

1:03:06Abutters.

1:03:08And um let me say first that um we've

1:03:12been in long discussions um uh with the

1:03:16developers of this project and um um

1:03:22we voice our support for the granting of

1:03:26um these variances tonight and this

1:03:28comes at the end of um long discussions.

1:03:32Let me just say first of all, you I'm a

1:03:35strong believer in the um position that

1:03:40the we should not make the perfect the

1:03:43enemy of the good. Um I think um we've

1:03:49the the five of us who are the mutters

1:03:54have um faced what we think is a

1:03:57nightmare of having a building only five

1:04:00feet from us.

1:04:02Um the developers have um come up with

1:04:06an alternative proposal which brings it

1:04:09all the way down to over almost 14 ft

1:04:13and for that reason we um we strongly

1:04:16support um granting of these variances.

1:04:21Um, we should also note that this

1:04:23version of the project receives support

1:04:25from the Cambridge Historical

1:04:27Commission, from Charlie Sullivan, and

1:04:30from the Harvard Square Advisory

1:04:32Council. It's not perfect by any means,

1:04:35but we think it's the best possible uh

1:04:38compromise. Uh, and it certainly will

1:04:41make life um a lot better um for us if

1:04:46this building is to be built at all.

1:04:52Mr. and Mrs. Patterson, thank you very

1:04:54much.

1:04:55>> Thank you.

1:04:57>> Christopher Macken.

1:05:02>> Uh, this is Christopher Macken. I am

1:05:05resident of 48 JFK Street in Cambridge

1:05:09and a tenant um at 17 Story Street since

1:05:132011. I'm also the vice president of the

1:05:16Harry Jacobs Legacy Committee, a 501c3

1:05:20nonprofit that hopes to be able to tell

1:05:22the story of the escape slave and author

1:05:27Harriet Jacobs when this building is

1:05:29built. Uh the project, as I understand

1:05:32it, has obtained a certificate of

1:05:35appropriateness from the city. That

1:05:37means it's going to proceed. The

1:05:39question is whether a plan can give

1:05:42greater relief to the abutters. Um and

1:05:45this variance which I believe is how

1:05:48this conversation is is contained or

1:05:51this meeting is about the variance. This

1:05:53not about the project in general but

1:05:55about the variance. This variance uh

1:05:57gives that relief to the abutters and

1:06:00also saves trees that are beautiful

1:06:04trees on this on this site. The Harriet

1:06:07Jacobs Legacy Committee um advocates for

1:06:10a project that includes public access to

1:06:13these buildings in order to be able to

1:06:15bring people in to tell the Harriet

1:06:17Jacobs story. A hotel use allows for

1:06:22public access. Uh if this was just a

1:06:25residential project, that would be much

1:06:28much more limited. Um the amended plan

1:06:32not only the variance before you not

1:06:34only helps the neighbors it strengthens

1:06:37the case for a hotel uh component. It

1:06:41appears if I am heard the discussion

1:06:44correctly that there's some perhaps

1:06:47difference of opinion that hopefully

1:06:48could be ironed out about a mixeduse

1:06:51project versus a commercial project. Uh

1:06:55this to me sounds like a mixeduse

1:06:58project and a mixeduse project is

1:07:00exactly what is needed. Uh this it would

1:07:03be wonderful to have more housing in

1:07:05Harvard Square, to have affordable

1:07:06housing in Harvard Square and to have

1:07:09access to a public building where people

1:07:11can learn this story. Thank you.

1:07:16>> Thank you, Mr. Min.

1:07:18>> Donar.

1:07:24Thank you. Can you hear?

1:07:26>> Yes, sir.

1:07:28>> Good. Uh, my name is Donald Wear. Uh, my

1:07:30wife Susan and I live at 16 Hillyard

1:07:33Street. So, we too are abutters of the

1:07:35proposed development. We moved here in

1:07:381980 and never left. And so, as you can

1:07:40see, we're very committed to the

1:07:42neighborhood. Um,

1:07:45the members raised some technical

1:07:48questions about whether the height limit

1:07:50should be 85 feet or 60 feet. I'll just

1:07:53say as a neighbor living in a

1:07:55three-story building um who under

1:08:00whatever height it is, we're going to

1:08:01lose a lot of sun. And so we've been

1:08:04very focused, very focused

1:08:06[clears throat] on the setback because

1:08:09uh even if we could persuade you that

1:08:11the limit was 60 feet, it's still very

1:08:14very tall. And so the setback is very

1:08:16important to us. And our understanding

1:08:19is that what's really before the BCA

1:08:21tonight is the setbacks and particularly

1:08:23the setback uh the Story Street setback

1:08:26because only by granting that variance

1:08:28can you allow the developer to then move

1:08:31the building further away from us. Um I

1:08:34just like to add a couple of of um I'd

1:08:36like to quote a couple of things u

1:08:39reports to give you some historical

1:08:41context on Story Street. I just thought

1:08:43this would be helpful. The Cambridge

1:08:45Historical Commission studied this in

1:08:471980 and wrote that quote, "Story Street

1:08:50is a transition point from the mixeduse

1:08:52character of Harvard Square to the

1:08:54primarily residential nature of the

1:08:56half-crowned conservation district which

1:08:59is Hillyard Street. I also want to note

1:09:01that 17tory street is is in the overlay

1:09:04district as as the members are aware.

1:09:06When the city adopted the overlay, it

1:09:08described in section 20.52 of the

1:09:11ordinance that one of the purposes was

1:09:13the need to mitigate the functional

1:09:15impacts of new development on

1:09:18residential neighborhoods. Putting these

1:09:20together, um, it makes good sense to

1:09:23grant a variance that allows the

1:09:25developer to push the hotel up against

1:09:28Story Street because by doing so, she

1:09:30can increase the setback from our

1:09:32Hillyard Street houses and allow for

1:09:34that transition from Harvard Square to

1:09:37the neighborhood that the city intended.

1:09:39So, we support the petition that is

1:09:42before the BCA tonight, which is to

1:09:46permit the uh variance to um uh uh to to

1:09:51zero out the um the setback on on Story

1:09:55Street and we suggest that doing so will

1:09:57carry out help carry out the twin

1:09:59objectives of the Cambridge Historical

1:10:01Commission and the overlay. Thank you.

1:10:05>> Thank you, Mr. Wear. Nicole Bryant.

1:10:11>> Good evening. My name is Nicole Bryant

1:10:14and I too am in a butter this time at 18

1:10:17Hillyard Street and I join in my

1:10:19neighbors um to support um the granting

1:10:23of this variance as regards this setback

1:10:26of this project. As you can imagine,

1:10:29many of us have been on a journey over

1:10:31these past couple of years since

1:10:33learning um about this project. And um I

1:10:36think it is fair to say that we have

1:10:37come a long way to be offering our

1:10:39support of this variance. Um tonight uh

1:10:45I have spent a lot of time thinking

1:10:47about what it would be like um looking

1:10:49at this building from my kitchen from my

1:10:51daughter's bedroom. Um but I will also

1:10:53offer another perspective because almost

1:10:55every morning you can find me at the

1:10:58corner of Mount Auburn and Story Street

1:10:59waiting for a Cambridge school bus with

1:11:02my family. And so I see this corner um

1:11:05in my blurry uh morning moments and I

1:11:08would like to just offer that the

1:11:10setback that is being proposed by moving

1:11:12the building closer to Story Street is

1:11:14pretty much identical to the one on the

1:11:16other side of the street at the post

1:11:18office where I'm standing every morning.

1:11:20It would seem then completely in keeping

1:11:22with the rest of the street to have this

1:11:25building um closer that way and

1:11:27obviously offer a lot of great relief um

1:11:30on the backside as well as green space

1:11:32and preservation of these trees which

1:11:34are so so important to all of us in

1:11:37preserving the residential aspect of

1:11:39this neighborhood. So I am here to offer

1:11:42my support. It would be wonderful to

1:11:44have um this public space with the

1:11:47hotel, the public space with the cafe

1:11:49that is planned and selfishly at 7:15 in

1:11:52the morning. I would love to have a

1:11:53latte as I'm out there waiting for the

1:11:55yellow school bus every morning. Thank

1:11:57you very much.

1:11:58>> Thank you, Miss Bryant.

1:12:02>> Noah Nathan.

1:12:07>> Hello. Um this is Noah Nathan. I live at

1:12:0912 Hillyard Street, also directly behind

1:12:11um this site. Can you hear me?

1:12:13>> Yes, sir.

1:12:14>> Great. So, I just wanted to echo what my

1:12:16neighbor uh Don Wear recently said,

1:12:18which is I think as I understand that

1:12:19the main issue before you tonight is not

1:12:21the question of height, but it's about

1:12:22the setbacks. And so, I want to focus my

1:12:25comments on the setbacks. And so, you

1:12:26know, contrary to the statement of the

1:12:28Harvard Square Neighborhood Association,

1:12:29I want to be clear that the abuters who

1:12:31live directly next to this property

1:12:33support the variance that's being

1:12:34requested tonight um because we think

1:12:37this meaningfully improves conditions

1:12:38for the neighborhood. And I also want to

1:12:40echo my neighbor Nicole Brian's comments

1:12:42just now that as someone who walks past

1:12:44um the site almost every day, I just

1:12:47want to stress that a zero foot setback

1:12:48on Story Street really doesn't seem like

1:12:50a problem in terms of public use. Many

1:12:52of the surrounding buildings on Story

1:12:53Street already have these same

1:12:55non-conforming zero feet setbacks. The

1:12:58post office building directly across the

1:12:59street from the site has a zero foot

1:13:01setback and a bus stop for the 71 and 73

1:13:03bus that gathers a lot of people on that

1:13:05sidewalk every day. And in my

1:13:06experience, it doesn't pose any issue

1:13:08for walking by that stretch of sidewalk.

1:13:10So, I think this is something that's not

1:13:12going to really impose a cost on the

1:13:13public to pull this building forward,

1:13:15but is going to meaningfully improve uh

1:13:17conditions for the people who have to

1:13:18live next to this building. And for that

1:13:20reason, we really hope that you're able

1:13:21to support um this variance petition.

1:13:23Thank you so much.

1:13:24>> Thank you, Mr. Nathan.

1:13:27>> Marley Mayer.

1:13:32>> Hi, Maril Meer. 10 Dana Street. Um, I am

1:13:35a member of the Harvard Square

1:13:37Neighborhood Association and also the

1:13:39Harriet Jacobs Legacy uh committee. Um,

1:13:44but I'm speaking for myself um tonight I

1:13:47have um just a couple of questions and

1:13:50I'm sure that if I stray off the

1:13:52reservation as not being um uh pertinent

1:13:56um I you will tell me. So I had a a

1:13:59couple of uh um questions. what was

1:14:03floated about the height even though

1:14:05even though we're talking about setback

1:14:07um I would like to know whether the

1:14:09height is 80 80 feet or 85 feet because

1:14:13both had float floated around in the

1:14:15discussion of what a residential

1:14:19um uh portion would be and number two um

1:14:24if a if a hotel is is commercial and the

1:14:28residential is uh a a separate a

1:14:32separate um

1:14:34uh

1:14:36um rules or whatever um and they they

1:14:40don't match. But if you put them

1:14:41together, one on top of the other, um

1:14:44that's where I get confused because um

1:14:47what has priority um and it says um

1:14:52technically the residential

1:14:55the the the greater the greater uh

1:14:58height u would prevail, but um and I'm

1:15:02glad you're you're having um um law

1:15:06department look into that. And um just a

1:15:09um a smaller design question even though

1:15:12um that again it may not be your purview

1:15:15is pulling pulling this um whole mass

1:15:18forward to Mount Auburn and um Story

1:15:22Street. Uh Patrick, what does that do to

1:15:24your cafe? I mean before you had, you

1:15:28know, a a plaza out front and all that

1:15:31kind of stuff. Um, and so you're just

1:15:35you're just pulling it um forward as a

1:15:37um commercial business, small business.

1:15:41Um, and I still have an issue with the

1:15:43way the windows are. Um, just they don't

1:15:46they don't fit with the rest of the um

1:15:50things. But anyway, that's not your

1:15:51perview either. Um, I really appreciate

1:15:54the fact that um you're you're giving

1:15:56the neighbors more space behind and I

1:15:59think that would uh that's going to

1:16:00really work well and also uh pulling the

1:16:04Harriet Jacobs house forward also give

1:16:07it more more prominence on that corner

1:16:10so um it can be more visible from

1:16:13various different um streetscapes. So

1:16:16thank you.

1:16:19>> Thank you Miss Meyer.

1:16:25Um the chair, this is Wendy Lyserson.

1:16:27The chair was just uh asking me just to

1:16:30quickly comment on those questions, all

1:16:32of which I think are good and which I

1:16:33share. Um the reason for the difference

1:16:37in the 80t versus 85 ft number though uh

1:16:41comes from one refers the 85- ft number

1:16:44refers to the base zoning district if it

1:16:47was not covered by the Harvard square

1:16:49overlay and the 80 foot uh figure comes

1:16:53from the section in the zoning ordinance

1:16:56regarding the Harvard square overlay and

1:16:59again if you want to look at that that

1:17:01is article 20.54

1:17:034.2 and then you'll see that there are

1:17:06two enumerated paragraphs in that

1:17:08section and the second paragraph um

1:17:12talks about getting a special permit for

1:17:14additional height up to 80 ft. Um and

1:17:18then I also just wanted to clarify that

1:17:21um height is a variable that is used to

1:17:25calculate the appropriate setback. And

1:17:28so that is why height is relevant to a

1:17:31variance for setbacks because you have

1:17:34to know the height in order to come up

1:17:36to what is the var setback that you're

1:17:40being asked to uh get zoning relief

1:17:43from. And I also uh just while I have

1:17:46the floor, I guess would say that my

1:17:49questions are meant to have clarity on

1:17:53the law and on what we as a board can

1:17:56decide. It's not a comment on whether I

1:17:59believe um the ideas proposed are good

1:18:04or bad. That is not what this is about.

1:18:07Thank you.

1:18:08>> Thank you, Wendy.

1:18:11Ronald Hifitz.

1:18:17>> Hi.

1:18:17>> Hi.

1:18:17>> Can you hear me?

1:18:26>> Um, my wife Katherine and I live at 20

1:18:29Hillyard Street and uh

1:18:32uh thank you very much for all of this

1:18:35conversation. Um, we agree with our

1:18:38we're one of the we're the fifth of the

1:18:40butters. Uh and we uh we agree with what

1:18:44all of our neighbors have said that this

1:18:46is right now um the the best of uh of

1:18:50what the options appear to be. Um, we

1:18:53have been told that uh if if the um

1:18:59uh if the uh

1:19:03um if the

1:19:07uh building is not approved at this

1:19:09height that they would simply turn it

1:19:12into a fully residential property in

1:19:15order to be able to keep it at this

1:19:16height. I don't um and assuming that

1:19:19that's the case uh I think it would be

1:19:23very upsetting if uh if the the decision

1:19:27of this board forced them to convert

1:19:30this

1:19:31mixeduse building to a fully residential

1:19:33building so that they could then um

1:19:36build a 85 ft building with a 5-ft set

1:19:38by without needing any variances at all.

1:19:42That would be the, you know, uh, uh, a

1:19:45worst case than the current situation in

1:19:48which we still have an 85 foot building.

1:19:50It isn't clear that the trees will

1:19:52survive even if the roots aren't damaged

1:19:55with the minimum of sunlight that it's

1:19:57going to be reached. But nevertheless,

1:19:59it increases the odds and it makes it

1:20:02much more livable for there to be green

1:20:04space, 13 and a half, 13 almost 14 feet

1:20:07of green space in back of us instead of

1:20:09five feet. So, you know, if if this

1:20:12board is going to make decisions that

1:20:14are going to push the developer to build

1:20:17a fully residential 85 ft tower 5T from

1:20:20us, that would be uh a pretty terrible

1:20:23outcome. Um, thank you very much.

1:20:26>> Thank you, Mr. Hest.

1:20:31>> Okay. hearing. Uh I think we've allowed

1:20:35all public speaking um to have uh their

1:20:40turn. Um, so running through uh

1:20:44correspondence.

1:20:45Um, we have an email from

1:20:49Miss Jill Jillson uh at the Harvard

1:20:53Square uh business association. um

1:20:58in favor of sharing a letter of support

1:21:01for the var variance petition um citing

1:21:05uh the restoration of the Harriet Jacobs

1:21:08House um

1:21:11and uh the added vibrancy of having a

1:21:14hotel in another hotel in Harvard Square

1:21:18as well as uh the addition of new

1:21:20housing. Um and

1:21:24uh project has

1:21:26The applicant has conducted extensive

1:21:28community outreach including meetings

1:21:30with neighbors and abutters and has

1:21:32worked to incorporate their feedback.

1:21:34The project has already received a

1:21:36certificate of appropriateness from the

1:21:38Cambridge Historical Commission

1:21:40confirming that its design is

1:21:41appropriate for its historic setting. Uh

1:21:44for these reasons, uh Jill Denise uh

1:21:48requests the board to grant uh the

1:21:50variance and uh thanks for our

1:21:53consideration. also received um

1:21:57uh a le a letter or email from Nicola

1:22:00Williams um attaching a memo from the

1:22:05Harriet Jacobs Legacy um as cited by uh

1:22:13uh just going through my notes here.

1:22:23Um from Mr. Jamaican. Um the memo cites

1:22:26uh

1:22:28support for uh the application

1:22:31um and uh from the board of directors uh

1:22:35of the Harriet Jacobs Legacy Committee.

1:22:37Um

1:22:39they believe that this is this plan

1:22:41responds both to the important concerns

1:22:43expressed by abuing neighbors as well as

1:22:45to the public interest. We therefore

1:22:47believe the request should be granted.

1:22:50Um and so that was thank you for sending

1:22:52that in. Uh a memo from the uh planning

1:22:56board to the board of zoning appeals. Um

1:23:00it was issued uh September 23rd. Uh they

1:23:03were citing uh they the planning board

1:23:06has discussed the proposal and voted to

1:23:09forward the following comments. Um as

1:23:12explained in the CDD memo uh the project

1:23:15will be subject to planning board review

1:23:18uh more as a advisory consultation uh

1:23:22where board members can make uh

1:23:24non-binding comments of the design. Um

1:23:27it has not conducted its full review at

1:23:29this time but I'm sure that'll get

1:23:31scheduled in the near future. Um,

1:23:34planning board members generally

1:23:35recognize the benefit of granting

1:23:37setback relief to move the building

1:23:39envelope further away from adjacent

1:23:41residential properties and mature trees.

1:23:44Uh, particularly on Mount Auburn Street,

1:23:47this shift towards the edge street edge

1:23:49is a favorable tradeoff for the overall

1:23:52site planning. Um, board members felt

1:23:55that a closer street wall was

1:23:57appropriate for activating the hotel

1:23:59frontage along an already wide public

1:24:02sidewalk that is approximately 10 to 12

1:24:04feet. Um, they did concern express some

1:24:07concerns of the proposed proximity of

1:24:11the project to Story Street given the

1:24:13narrow 5-ft existing sidewalk.

1:24:17Um but they since their review is not is

1:24:20has not really been completed they have

1:24:22not provided a specific recommendation

1:24:25but advises the BCA to ensure this

1:24:28condition is thoughtfully considered.

1:24:33Um, we also received a memo from C uh C,

1:24:38no, that's uh part of the planning board

1:24:41letter. Um, Harvard Square Advisory

1:24:44Committee dated September 16th. Uh, uh,

1:24:48the the Harvard Square Advisory

1:24:50Committee uh voted in support of the

1:24:52current application. Um,

1:24:59let's see.

1:25:02Uh

1:25:11just trying to summarize here. Um they

1:25:15recommend approval of the requested

1:25:17variance uh for 127 Mount Auburn Street

1:25:21uh 17 Story Street conditioned on

1:25:23continued dialogue with the Butters for

1:25:25improved design outcomes.

1:25:28Um and the vote was passed uh four to

1:25:32one vote um four in favor one abstain

1:25:36abstension vote of among voting

1:25:39committee members. Um jumping ahead

1:25:46and we did receive uh a letter from the

1:25:49Harvard Square Neighborhood Association

1:25:51September 16, 2026.

1:25:54Um key takeaways uh they they commented

1:25:58current approval record is not

1:26:00sufficiently clear. Um they would like

1:26:04uh kind of a synopsis or history of of

1:26:09the project development over time. Um

1:26:12preser second preservation and

1:26:14relocation of the Harriet Jacob house

1:26:16was a known project requirement not an

1:26:19unexpected hardship. Um, number three,

1:26:24Story Street is narrow and one way. Uh,

1:26:27the proposed 250 foot loading area

1:26:30should be tested uh for trucks making

1:26:3390° turns uh and 100% interior loading.

1:26:38Um and uh item four uh regarding the

1:26:43C1C2 boundary uh questioning um height

1:26:47calculations uh that need to be resolved

1:26:51uh citing the Harvard Square overlay may

1:26:54allow up to 80 ft by planning board

1:26:56special permit. The applicant should

1:26:58show how the boundary eight level

1:27:01mixeduse plan and grade calculations

1:27:03apply. Uh five, item five, proposal must

1:27:08distinguish permanent housing from hotel

1:27:10and transient use. Um and they are

1:27:15asking for uh additional information on

1:27:18condominium rental model um

1:27:24regarding the housing.

1:27:26And um that's pretty much um their

1:27:32concerns listed.

1:27:34Um, and I believe that was it for um

1:27:38written correspondence.

1:27:42So, um, Mr. Barrett, uh, we we I'll make

1:27:46a motion for continuence. Um, and I

1:27:50guess Olivia, do you have available

1:27:53dates for us?

1:27:54>> Excuse me, Mr. Chair. May I just ask

1:27:57something if we are going to continue

1:27:59this because I I do hear loud and clear

1:28:01the neighborhood uh the members of the

1:28:03public here who are desirous of uh some

1:28:07change to the setbacks but I also heard

1:28:10or read in the file some request for

1:28:14clarity of the plans to be reviewed by

1:28:16the public. So I do wonder um the other

1:28:19variable that is needed to calculate

1:28:22height is the length of the building.

1:28:26And um when I was reviewing the plans

1:28:29that had been submitted, it was unclear

1:28:33uh which side of the you know where that

1:28:37length was derived from. So I just

1:28:39wonder if the petitioner could do

1:28:41something simple. I'm not asking for

1:28:44stamped drawings or anything, but simple

1:28:46where they um submit something as part

1:28:50of the continued package that clearly

1:28:53marks what they're referring to as the

1:28:55commercial setback, the lengths of the

1:28:58building sides that are relative to the

1:29:01setback calculation,

1:29:04the number of residential units that

1:29:07will be um separate from the hotel rooms

1:29:11because we also saw that in the file.

1:29:15Um, and clearly marking which parts of

1:29:19both the old the historic building and

1:29:23which parts of the new building will be

1:29:25hotel versus residential?

1:29:28Um, and was there anything else that you

1:29:31heard from members of the public that

1:29:33would help them to review the

1:29:35>> No, I think in the in uh the

1:29:36correspondence there was some requests

1:29:38for just uh

1:29:41more committed information for us to

1:29:43review for the record. And I I think Mr.

1:29:45Barrett, that's that's a fair request

1:29:47because when we make a motion, I have to

1:29:51cite a set of documents that we're going

1:29:53to base, you know, the approval off of.

1:29:56And of course it will have the setbacks,

1:29:58but it I think having a configuration

1:30:00for the building and something that's

1:30:02officially set uh for us to approve is

1:30:07going to help go a long way for that.

1:30:11>> Thank you.

1:30:18>> Yeah.

1:30:18>> Would you like me to weigh in on any of

1:30:20that or should I?

1:30:21>> Yeah. Um just I think that request uh

1:30:24will help us with the motion and so on.

1:30:26>> Yeah, I understand everything that

1:30:28you're looking for and I've been here

1:30:29before. I do understand the requirements

1:30:31of a variance and what you guys are

1:30:33typically used to seeing and I do

1:30:34apologize that this project is in flux,

1:30:37but there's no other legal mechanism to

1:30:40address the setback. What I'm confused

1:30:43by and I and I think we're leaning

1:30:45towards not continuing um is on the

1:30:48issue of height and we've established

1:30:50that with ISD multiple times. I've

1:30:52written several memos on the subject. Um

1:30:55we're not going to be uh subject to

1:30:58further discussion on that in terms of

1:31:01going through a law review. Um and that

1:31:05also causes further delay. We have a

1:31:07project that we can move forward on that

1:31:08doesn't require us to be here. We did

1:31:11this primarily as a gesture to move the

1:31:14building to address concerns of the

1:31:16neighbors and this is the only legal

1:31:18mechanism I have. Um so I'm not asking

1:31:21you guys to

1:31:23I think I understand the complication

1:31:25and frustration that people are having

1:31:27with this. Um and to be frank I don't

1:31:29know what I was expecting for this

1:31:31evening for this project because I know

1:31:32we're not fully baked in knowing counts

1:31:35and hotel room counts. They'll be

1:31:37forthcoming. Um, but the level of

1:31:39commitment for a project this size to do

1:31:41all those things, once we're once we've

1:31:43done that, the site is we're cited.

1:31:46We're not going to move the building.

1:31:48Um, so I've consulted with my client and

1:31:52I think um

1:31:56uh the best course of action for my

1:31:58client is not to continue. Um, we'll

1:32:00withdraw and um we'll just continue on

1:32:03with the Bite residential project um and

1:32:06move on from there. But thank you.

1:32:12>> Excuse me. This is Wendy Lyserson. I

1:32:14just wanted to say for the record, I

1:32:16don't think that when a legal decision

1:32:19is being asked to be made that it is

1:32:22unusual to ask for the record to show

1:32:25what the actual criteria and figures

1:32:28are. I'm sorry that your client feels

1:32:31that way because I think you are

1:32:32disappointing

1:32:34um most of the neighbors and you've

1:32:36already put this much effort into it and

1:32:38it would be sad to see you withdraw this

1:32:41way.

1:32:42>> We're not we're not talking about the

1:32:43setback and the height. We're not we're

1:32:45not talking about the calculations of

1:32:46the setbacks. Those are actually largely

1:32:48irrelevant. Um because if you're talking

1:32:51about the height and width of the

1:32:52building to determine the setbacks,

1:32:54we're asking to be able to use the

1:32:56residential setbacks. So whatever

1:32:58calculation we come up with, whatever

1:33:00we're asking for in terms of relief, we

1:33:02can provide I'm happy to provide that

1:33:03calculation to show you what it would

1:33:05have been at the new configuration.

1:33:07We've already showed the city what it

1:33:09has been, what it would be with our

1:33:11current configuration. Our current

1:33:13>> it needs to be a matter of the record

1:33:14that we're reviewing and it is not as

1:33:16you've conceded. So thank you.

1:33:19>> Oh, thank you. Okay.

1:33:40All right. So, um the proponent has

1:33:44appellent has uh requested to withdraw

1:33:46the application. Um I believe that it's

1:33:49a discussion for the board to um decide

1:33:54whether to make that motion and make it

1:33:56happen. I guess our other option would

1:33:58be to

1:34:01deliberate on what we have or you know

1:34:04depending on the board's favor uh to

1:34:06make a decision or uh approve the

1:34:09withdrawal. Right. So any comments from

1:34:12fellow board members?

1:34:16>> This is Daniel Dogo. Well, I you know, I

1:34:18understand the legal complexities here,

1:34:20but I I guess I'm willing to trust ISD,

1:34:24etc. Um, you know, uh, consider all

1:34:28these issues. And so, I I'm actually

1:34:30perfectly fine moving forward on a vote

1:34:32and I I would support this, uh, given

1:34:35what we heard from the neighbors and and

1:34:37the complexity of this project. But, um,

1:34:38but but I understand that's not the what

1:34:42what the rest of the board would be

1:34:43interested in.

1:34:47This is Wendy Lerson. I'm also trying to

1:34:50think about is there any remedy here?

1:34:53And my question is, is the petitioner

1:34:57able to state clearly for the record

1:35:00what the dimensions are that you are

1:35:03seeking? And then we can amongst

1:35:06ourselves decide whether we believe that

1:35:09those dimensions

1:35:11are

1:35:13do satisfy the legal question.

1:35:16Which actually I do want to call

1:35:18attention to the fact that the

1:35:19petitioner himself raised the fact that

1:35:22mixeduse development was not

1:35:24specifically contemplated in this new um

1:35:28zoning and therefore this is what's

1:35:30partly causing the problem.

1:35:33>> And and I I cited that because we're we

1:35:36have an issue where we have two setback

1:35:39configurations. Um we have a residential

1:35:42setback and a commercial setback. So um

1:35:45what we're asking for

1:35:48is dimensionally is very clear on the

1:35:50table on the the chart that we gave you

1:35:53um that shows the existing uh conforming

1:35:55approved side setbacks but um but not

1:35:59the

1:36:00um well the side setbacks I guess that's

1:36:03all we're talking about front and side

1:36:05and what we can what we want to move the

1:36:06building to which is the 510 on Mount

1:36:09Auburn the 10 foot6 at the in between

1:36:12the two buildings of Mount Auburn

1:36:1413.8 behind Hilliard, 5T next to 15th

1:36:18story. Um, and

1:36:21we're at zero um on on that stretch of

1:36:24story street uh for the first half of

1:36:26the building. Um, those are the

1:36:29dimensions that we're asking for. Um,

1:36:34I'm not sure I can be any more clear. I

1:36:36think what I think, and please correct

1:36:38me if I'm wrong, is I'm not trying to be

1:36:40combative. What you're I think what you

1:36:42were asking for before was what would

1:36:44the dimensions be if we had to conform

1:36:47to the commercial setback for the hotel.

1:36:50Is that correct?

1:36:52>> No. Um my question was simply because

1:36:55you are invoking two different setback

1:36:58um formulas here or rules you know for

1:37:02calculating the dimensional standards.

1:37:05All I'm asking for is a clear statement

1:37:09that's legally supported. Um, and

1:37:12unfortunately because of the mixed use

1:37:14issue, it's which you reference, it is a

1:37:18matter that has not been well

1:37:21written, shall we say. Um, so I'm simply

1:37:25asking for that data, that evidence to

1:37:30be on the record of this decision

1:37:32because recall also that you are not the

1:37:36whether I like your proposal or not,

1:37:38whether the neighbors like your proposal

1:37:39or not, there's also a precedent here

1:37:41that we're setting and I want to make

1:37:42sure that we in today's local

1:37:46environment are using the right

1:37:48dimensions and the right calculations.

1:37:50So, um,

1:37:52>> we're asking for the dimensions shown on

1:37:55>> and there was some confusion about that

1:37:57and from some of the people who looked.

1:37:59Yes, you may talk. Sorry.

1:38:01>> We we're asking for the dimensions that

1:38:03we show on the table that shows the

1:38:04before and after of the setback.

1:38:06>> Um, I just cited what those numbers are.

1:38:10That's what we're asking for. And as far

1:38:11as precedent goes, um, the city is

1:38:14already looking to fix this issue. We're

1:38:16ahead of the curve on that this um the I

1:38:20actually have another case this evening,

1:38:21so you're going to see me again. I'm

1:38:22sorry. Um that's another corner lot. Um

1:38:26dealing with a much smaller site, but

1:38:28similar issues. Um this

1:38:32um comports very well with urban design

1:38:35guidelines and everything else that

1:38:36we're told we should be looking at in

1:38:39terms of how we develop a site. But from

1:38:41a a numerical standard, what we're

1:38:43asking for is 10 foot six

1:38:46on the side, 5 foot 10 on the Mount

1:38:48Auburn side, zero on the Story Street

1:38:50side, 5T on the abuing uh 15 story

1:38:55street property line, and 13.8

1:38:58for the Hillyard line. Those are that's

1:39:00what we're asking for for the building.

1:39:02So, uh, I'm sorry, uh, attorney, uh,

1:39:05Barrett, to interrupt you, but

1:39:13here's the thing. I would love to,

1:39:15please, the neighbors. I would love to

1:39:17not continue this case. And, um, I'm

1:39:20feeling, frankly, a little bullied by

1:39:22the fact that you're saying we're going

1:39:23to withdraw it and just do what we want

1:39:25to do when you've already come to an

1:39:27agreement that pleases the neighbors.

1:39:30We'll will make a nice development

1:39:32project in Harvard Square simply because

1:39:35I'm asking for clarity on the law

1:39:37>> and that doesn't seem right to me and um

1:39:41>> and and I [clears throat] understand

1:39:42that you just told me your numbers, but

1:39:45I recall now that the issue is were

1:39:48those numbers properly calculated and

1:39:50that's what I'm asking for clarity from

1:39:51from the legal department. We're willing

1:39:53to put you on the calendar as soon as

1:39:55possible. You've had this property for a

1:39:58long time

1:39:58>> calculation to be done. Well,

1:40:01>> I'm sorry.

1:40:02>> There's no

1:40:02>> there's no calculation that's required.

1:40:04We are we are asking to use the

1:40:06residential setbacks as as they are to

1:40:10have the commercial setback mirror the

1:40:12residential setback. There is no

1:40:14calculation. So that's where I'm

1:40:16confused.

1:40:17>> I'm not trying I'm not trying to bully

1:40:19you, but we

1:40:20>> I know I understand you're frustrated. I

1:40:22do.

1:40:23>> This option came to us at a very sort of

1:40:25last minute. We had no no intention of

1:40:27even doing this because there's no legal

1:40:29way to do it. Um, but you're telling me

1:40:31you want the calculations for the

1:40:33setbacks when I'm confused because there

1:40:35is no calculation. The required setback

1:40:38on this lot for residential use would be

1:40:4010 feet on the and five feet on the

1:40:42sides.

1:40:43>> Like you, I have also consulted ISD

1:40:45staff. So, I'm not just bringing this

1:40:47out of the blue either. And so, I

1:40:49wouldn't I trust the ISD staff as well.

1:40:52And if there's any confusion, then

1:40:55that's where we have to go to law. Mr.

1:40:57Stop talking. I think I think if board

1:41:00members need additional clarification,

1:41:03it's not an indication, I don't think,

1:41:05of you know, denial or not in favor, but

1:41:08we I think we have to do our due

1:41:10diligence to make sure that uh we feel

1:41:14it's we're doing all the right things to

1:41:17get to a decision for you and your and

1:41:19your your uh client. So, if we're trying

1:41:24to get um and I appreciate all the work

1:41:27and I see the the public support and

1:41:30especially the abutters. So, you know, I

1:41:32think it's better to allow this board to

1:41:36do the our job to make sure we've got

1:41:40the right info and and just kind of, you

1:41:43know, take it to that next step.

1:41:49>> Okay, Mr. Chair, you win.

1:41:52Thank you, sir. Um, and is

1:41:57so I'm gonna make and we we'll catch up

1:42:00with you on the the uh next application

1:42:02coming up. But um yeah, so let me make a

1:42:07motion to continue

1:42:09uh to continue the matter of BZA case

1:42:131225403

1:42:16uh for 127 Mount Auburn Street to the

1:42:19what's our next

1:42:21>> next one is October 15th

1:42:23>> October 15th uh hearing. Is that work

1:42:25for you, Mr. Barrett?

1:42:27>> I'm sorry. The date is October 15th.

1:42:29>> Yes.

1:42:31>> Perfect. Thank you.

1:42:32>> All right. uh to the October 15, 2026

1:42:35hearing on the condition that the

1:42:37petitioner change the posting sign to

1:42:38reflect the new date and the new new

1:42:41time of 6 pm. Also that the petitioner

1:42:44sign a waiver to the statutory

1:42:46requirements of the hearing. This waiver

1:42:48can be obtained from Maria Pacheo or

1:42:51Olivia Retay at the inspectional

1:42:53services department. I ask that the

1:42:55petitioner sign the waiver and return it

1:42:58to the inspectional services department

1:43:00by a week before this coming Monday.

1:43:02Failure to do so will de facto cause

1:43:05this board to give an adverse ruling on

1:43:07the case. Uh also if there are any new

1:43:10submitts, changes to the drawings,

1:43:11dimensional forms, or any supporting

1:43:14statements that those be in the file by

1:43:165:00 p.m. on the Monday prior to the

1:43:19continued meeting date. on the motion to

1:43:22continue.

1:43:25>> Oh. Um, can uh before I close the

1:43:28motion, can uh other members uh make the

1:43:31October 15th hearing?

1:43:35>> Yes, Virginia.

1:43:37>> Thank you, Virginia.

1:43:41>> Yes, Miranda Cecil.

1:43:45>> And thank you, Dan and Miranda. So,

1:43:47>> and Wendy. Yes.

1:43:48>> Thanks, Wendy. Uh on the motion to

1:43:50continue this matter until October 15th.

1:43:54Uh Wendy Lyserson, voice vote, please.

1:43:58>> In favor. Thank you.

1:44:00>> Uh Dan Hidalgo

1:44:03in favor.

1:44:04>> Virginia Keiesler.

1:44:05>> Virginia Keysler in favor.

1:44:07>> And Miranda Cecil.

1:44:11>> Miranda Cecil in favor.

1:44:12>> And Stephvening in favor. Okay. Thank

1:44:14you very much. Thank you.

1:44:21All right. Our next

1:44:24our next case for uh 615 was 86 Sharappa

1:44:29Street.

1:44:31Um

1:44:33uh Arez Yoli, uh seeking a special

1:44:36permit to replace an existing

1:44:38nonconforming side landing and stair

1:44:41that increases length of structure but

1:44:44maintains existing width that sits in

1:44:47the side setback uh citing articles 5.31

1:44:52table of dimensional requirements uh

1:44:56article 8.22.2d

1:44:582.D non-conforming structure and article

1:45:02uh 10 section.40

1:45:05special permit. Um Mr. Yoi Yo Ellie, are

1:45:10you available?

1:45:12>> Yes. Hi.

1:45:14>> Hello.

1:45:16>> Thanks for hearing the case.

1:45:21>> Okay. Tell us about uh your special

1:45:24permit request.

1:45:26>> Sure. Let me cave you up by saying I'm

1:45:29just a homeowner who doesn't have much

1:45:32experience doing this.

1:45:34>> Okay.

1:45:34>> Um I'm not developing any hotels. Um I

1:45:39own a very small house in East

1:45:41Cambridge. Uh the entire house sits on a

1:45:4320 foot by 30 foot lot. Um it was

1:45:47probably the carriage house to one of

1:45:48the houses around the corner 150 years

1:45:51ago. Um and was carved out. The uh house

1:45:55sits on most of the lot. The house has

1:46:00three points of egress. The front door,

1:46:03uh door from the basement, which is not

1:46:05um a compliant uh form of egress, and

1:46:08the rear um door from the kitchen, which

1:46:13is the um

1:46:16uh point of egress that we're discussing

1:46:18today. It has a landing that was uh

1:46:20probably built in 2013.

1:46:23Uh it's falling apart. It has been

1:46:26falling apart for months. I've been

1:46:27trying to get this permit for months so

1:46:28that I could fix it and make it safe. Um

1:46:31and uh I am asking to change the

1:46:35dimensions of this a little bit. Um I

1:46:38would like to extend the landing itself

1:46:40so that it clears the window that is

1:46:42underneath it. You can't see that window

1:46:44from the photos that you are looking at

1:46:46right now, but there is a window like it

1:46:49uh which is the one that you see uh

1:46:51behind the stairs. There's a second one.

1:46:54>> Um, if you want, I'll get up and show it

1:46:56to you because I'm sitting in the

1:46:57basement, which is where it's at. Um,

1:46:59and that window is blocked by the

1:47:02landing. And so, if we extend the

1:47:04landing by a few inches, um, and

1:47:09adjust the height of it and so that we

1:47:11don't have to extend the full run of

1:47:13stairs. We can actually cut a stair um,

1:47:15and stay with all very close to the

1:47:17existing dimensions. Then I can put in a

1:47:20glass floor over that window and uh get

1:47:23it some light. Um so the project sort of

1:47:26designed to make the minimal changes to

1:47:28the existing structure but allow for

1:47:30that. Uh and that's what I'm asking for

1:47:32uh permission to do. What what can I

1:47:35answer that would be helpful to you guys

1:47:36since I I don't actually know if

1:47:37anything I said was helpful. Well, I

1:47:39think I think you now I now understand

1:47:42the glass uh det material product info

1:47:46you gave in in your application. So I I

1:47:49can see why you could get daylight down

1:47:51into um that particular window. So that

1:47:55helps me quite a bit. Um thank you for

1:47:59the presentation. Um uh any questions

1:48:02from fellow board members?

1:48:04>> This is Wendy Lyserson. I have no

1:48:07questions. you'll be glad to hear.

1:48:11[clears throat]

1:48:18>> Uh any any other board members,

1:48:20comments, questions?

1:48:29Hearing none, um I'll uh move to public

1:48:34comment. Um, in the file we have one

1:48:38email uh from Abigail Lewis Bowen. Uh,

1:48:43and she writes, "We are writing today in

1:48:45support of the petition by Arez Yoli,

1:48:51uh, at 86 Jerappa Street. Uh, we live at

1:48:5380 Thornike Street and our backyard

1:48:55directly abuts the rear of the property.

1:48:58Concerned. We have no concerns regarding

1:49:00this petition and support the

1:49:02petitioner's request for the special

1:49:05permit which makes the side landing and

1:49:08stair more usable while having

1:49:10negligible impact on any surrounding

1:49:12properties. Kind regards uh the al uh

1:49:16Abigail and Alistister Lewis Bowen.

1:49:18Thank you uh for that. Um, and I'll also

1:49:23uh check uh any members of the public

1:49:26who wish to speak should now click the

1:49:28icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen

1:49:30that says raise hand. If you're calling

1:49:33in by phone, you can raise your hand by

1:49:34pressing star9 and unmute or mute by

1:49:37pressing star six. I'll now ask staff to

1:49:40unmute the speakers one at a time. You

1:49:42should begin by saying your name and

1:49:44address and staff will confirm that we

1:49:46can hear you. After that, you will have

1:49:48up to two minutes to speak before I ask

1:49:51you to wrap up.

1:49:56Nope. So, there's no one um online for

1:49:59public speaking. So, um

1:50:02closing public comment, moving to uh

1:50:05deliberations. Um if are there any

1:50:08comments from the board or are you ready

1:50:10to entertain a motion?

1:50:15>> Ready for a motion.

1:50:17Thank you. So, uh, the chair makes a

1:50:19motion to grant a special permit from

1:50:21the requirements of the ordinance under

1:50:23sections, uh, 5.31,

1:50:27uh, sections 8.22.2.D,

1:50:30a non-conforming structure, and sections

1:50:3210.40 for a special permit. uh respon uh

1:50:37reviewing responses uh for supporting

1:50:40statement for a special permit that a it

1:50:43appears the requirements of this

1:50:44ordinance cannot or will not be met. Um

1:50:47the proposed replacement extended

1:50:49landing does not create any new

1:50:51dimensional nonconformity.

1:50:54Um a proposed structure has identical

1:50:57footprint height and location to the

1:50:59existing pre-existing non-conforming

1:51:01structure at the northeast corner of the

1:51:03lot. Uh item B, traffic generated or

1:51:06patterns of access of egress could cause

1:51:09congestion hazard or substantial change.

1:51:11Uh the pro proposed replacement landing

1:51:14is a private residential access and will

1:51:17not um generate uh traffic or alter

1:51:22patterns or of access or egress to or

1:51:25from the public way. Um item C, the

1:51:28continued operation of or the

1:51:30development of the adjacent uses as

1:51:33permitted in the zoning ordinance would

1:51:35be adversely affected. Um and the

1:51:38replacing the instru existing structure

1:51:41uh in in kind same location, footprint

1:51:44and height will not impact um

1:51:49or create an adverse uh condition. Uh

1:51:52item D, nuisance or hazard would be

1:51:54created to detriment of health, safety

1:51:57or welfare of the occupant and it will

1:52:00not and for other reasons the proposed

1:52:02use would impair the integrity of the

1:52:04district or adjoining districts and uh

1:52:07we find that it will not. So based on

1:52:10that finding they meet uh the criteria

1:52:13in the section 10.40 40 for a special

1:52:15permit and further that we incorporate

1:52:18supporting statements and dimensional

1:52:20forms submitted as part of the

1:52:21application on a voice vote please.

1:52:24Board members Wendy Lyserson.

1:52:26>> Wendy Lyserson in favor.

1:52:28>> Thank you. Virginia Keiesler.

1:52:31>> Virginia Keiesler in favor.

1:52:33>> Thank you. Virginia Daniel Halgo.

1:52:35>> Daniel.

1:52:37>> Thank you. Miranda Cecil.

1:52:40>> Miranda Cecil in favor.

1:52:42>> Thank you. And Stephvening in favor. So

1:52:44vote is 50 in favor. And the special

1:52:48permit is granted.

1:52:52>> Thanks guys. Have a good night. Thank

1:52:54you. You too.

1:52:55>> You too.

1:52:57Next up is uh case number uh BZA1225403

1:53:05um 200 Auburn Street uh care of Adam

1:53:08Dash uh seeking a variance for new

1:53:11construction of a residential structure

1:53:14pre-existing non-conforming minimal

1:53:16front yard setback uh requiring relief

1:53:19are citing our section articles 5.31

1:53:24table of dimensional requirements ments

1:53:27uh section 8.22.3

1:53:29non-conforming structure and section

1:53:3210.3 for variance. Um

1:53:37>> Mr. Dash,

1:53:39>> Mr. Chair, [clears throat] good evening.

1:53:41>> Good evening.

1:53:41>> Attorney Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street in

1:53:43Somerville, representing the petitioner,

1:53:46200 Auburn Street LLC. Uh with us is

1:53:49Jeremy Henry of the petitioner, uh Clay

1:53:52Bero, uh the builder, and Tatiana, the

1:53:55architect, should we need them.

1:53:57Hopefully, we will not. Um petitioner

1:53:59seeks a variance for non-conforming

1:54:01minimum front yard setback as you stated

1:54:03in the resident C1 zoning district. This

1:54:06is a very odd situation because we are

1:54:08seeking a variance to keep the building

1:54:11as it is with regard to that front yard

1:54:13setback for which we are seeking a

1:54:14variance. I had not seen this happen

1:54:17much in the past,

1:54:18>> but allow me to tell a little bit of a

1:54:20story here. I apologize if it may go on

1:54:21a little bit, but

1:54:23>> the need for this relief um comes out of

1:54:25an unforeseen issue which arose during

1:54:27construction of this project which was

1:54:29approved by Wright. The petitioner

1:54:31obtained a byite building permit to

1:54:33alter the existing 4-unit residential

1:54:35structure. During construction, it was

1:54:38found that the existing framing was

1:54:40rotted. So, it was removed and replaced

1:54:42in the same location to remediate a

1:54:44dangerous situation. And you have a

1:54:46letter from Anderson Pacheo of Alpha

1:54:48Carpentry, uh, who was doing that work

1:54:51and cooperates this. The city then said

1:54:53that since the framing had been

1:54:55replaced, even though it was in the

1:54:57exact same place, that the project now

1:54:59constitutes new construction and the

1:55:02previously grandfathered pre-existing

1:55:04front yard setback now requires a

1:55:06variance even though it's staying

1:55:08exactly the same place. So, keep in mind

1:55:11the front yard setback's not changing.

1:55:14It's pre-existing. It's only because the

1:55:16existing framing was found to be rotted

1:55:18and not feasible to retain that the need

1:55:20for the front yard variance arose.

1:55:23There's practical difficulty to the

1:55:24petitioner related to the layout and

1:55:26location of this pre-existing structure.

1:55:28Had the structure not been in a

1:55:31situation with the pre-existing front

1:55:32yard setback nonconformity, then

1:55:35replacing the rotted framing would not

1:55:36have triggered any need for variance

1:55:38whatsoever. Um strict enforcement would

1:55:41require the petitioner to demolish

1:55:43and/or move the struct the building from

1:55:46its pre-existing location which would be

1:55:48a substantial hardship and impractically

1:55:51difficult especially with work under the

1:55:54byite per building permit being partly

1:55:56done.

1:55:57There's no other way to achieve the

1:55:59result here without this variance

1:56:00because the rotted framing had to be

1:56:02replaced for safety reasons and that

1:56:04would create the need for this variance.

1:56:06Uh the petitioner is only seeking to

1:56:08keep that existing front yard setback

1:56:10the same as it's always been and the

1:56:12same as it was for the byite building

1:56:14permit. The variance will allow the

1:56:16existing streetscape to be retained. Uh

1:56:18there's no new residential units being

1:56:20proposed. The relief sought is for the

1:56:23six-foot pre-existing front setback

1:56:25where 10 ft is required. However, as you

1:56:28can see in the plans we filed, the

1:56:30average front setback of the houses on

1:56:31either side is only 6' 10 in. So the

1:56:35relief sought would keep things

1:56:37basically the same kind of a context and

1:56:40keep everything contextually

1:56:41appropriate. The practical difficulty

1:56:44was not self-created. A petitioner had

1:56:46no idea the framing was rotted and and

1:56:49we and would end up stuck in the same

1:56:51situation whether they'd actually

1:56:52replace that framing or come to you

1:56:54first. It really doesn't matter. The

1:56:56situation would have been the same. Um

1:56:59there was no feasible alternative and

1:57:01petitioner you know as I said would be

1:57:03here anyway and I I hope that they don't

1:57:05end up penalized for remediating an

1:57:07unsafe situation. Um you have a letter

1:57:10of support from the Cambridge Zen Center

1:57:12directly across the street from and

1:57:13adjacent to the property at issue.

1:57:16>> Um please note that the original

1:57:17dimensional table just for the record

1:57:19that was filed with this petition was

1:57:21later revised but the revision had

1:57:23nothing to do with the front yard

1:57:24setback. It was had to do with issues

1:57:27that came out of the Mass Architectural

1:57:28Access Board for other other things why

1:57:31we had to file an amendment. But the

1:57:32front yard setback issue we're here

1:57:34tonight is not related to that. So the

1:57:37petitioner requests that the board grant

1:57:39the variance for the minimum front yard

1:57:41setback even though the front yard

1:57:42setback is not changing from what it

1:57:44was. So there is the odd situation I

1:57:47have for you this evening. Thank you.

1:57:48>> Thank you so much. Um I think it's

1:57:51pretty straightforward uh uh situation

1:57:54here. Um any questions from fellow board

1:57:58members?

1:58:01>> This is Wendy Lyserson. I also don't

1:58:04have questions. Just seeking

1:58:05confirmation of the analysis that under

1:58:07the new variants. So the benefits to the

1:58:09petitioner is to allow the existing

1:58:11structure to stay exactly the same

1:58:13without costly and frankly uh seemingly

1:58:16impossible alternatives. Uh the benefits

1:58:19to the public interest is to maintain

1:58:21the neighborhood streetscape as is and

1:58:23not disrupt it.

1:58:25there uh seems to have been no detriment

1:58:28articulated

1:58:29um to the public health, safety and

1:58:31welfare um of the neighborhood. And I

1:58:36have not found one, but perhaps others

1:58:38will chime in on this. And then the four

1:58:43additional factors that we may consider

1:58:46per the new law are, as attorney Dash

1:58:50just articulated, so I won't repeat

1:58:53them. And having

1:58:57gone through that analysis, I agree that

1:59:00um there's a practical difficulty here

1:59:04that um supports a variance in this

1:59:06case.

1:59:07>> All right. Thank you, Wendy. Um any

1:59:09other comments from fellow board

1:59:11members?

1:59:14Uh we'll move to uh public comment. Um

1:59:18we did as mentioned uh by Mr. dash uh an

1:59:22email from the Cambridge Zen Center in

1:59:24support and um so that was it there and

1:59:30so we'll check for any public comment

1:59:33online. Any members of the public who

1:59:35wish to speak should now click on the

1:59:37icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen

1:59:39that says raise hand. If you're calling

1:59:41in by phone, you can raise your hand by

1:59:44pressing star9 and unmute or mute by

1:59:46pressing star six. I'll now ask staff to

1:59:49unmute the speakers one at a time. You

1:59:52should begin by saying your name and

1:59:53address and staff will confirm that we

1:59:55can hear you. After that, you will have

1:59:58up to two minutes to speak before I ask

2:00:00you to wrap up.

2:00:03Anyone online?

2:00:06>> All right. Seeing no one uh needing to

2:00:10speak, uh we'll close public comment and

2:00:12move to deliberations.

2:00:15Um any comments,

2:00:19questions from fellow board members? Um

2:00:24I will move into uh a motion. Um

2:00:29the chair makes a motion to grant relief

2:00:31from the requirements of the ordinance

2:00:33under sections 5.31 table of dimensional

2:00:36requirements, sections 8.22.3 22.3

2:00:40non-conforming structure and section

2:00:4210.3

2:00:43uh for variance. Uh

2:00:48reviewing um standards uh for granting

2:00:52of variance uh permanent authority

2:00:54specifically finds that a strict

2:00:56enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw

2:00:58would result in a practical difficulty

2:01:00in making the determination. The permit

2:01:04granting authority shall weigh the

2:01:06benefits to the appellant or petitioner

2:01:10and to the public interest including the

2:01:12interest in supporting the production of

2:01:14housing against the detriment to the

2:01:17public health, safety and welfare of the

2:01:20neighborhoods and may also consider one

2:01:23whether the practical difficulty relates

2:01:26to soil condition, shapes or topography

2:01:28of such land or structures. Um

2:01:36the layout and location of the existing

2:01:38structure within the front setback

2:01:40creates the practical difficulty had the

2:01:42existing structure had not been

2:01:44pre-existing nonconforming front yard

2:01:48setback then replacing the framing would

2:01:50not have created the need for variance.

2:01:52Uh item two, whether the strict

2:01:55enforcement would impose a financial

2:01:57hardship on the appellant or peti

2:01:59petitioner. Uh project was approved by

2:02:02Wright and given a building permit to

2:02:04alter existing structure. Uh during

2:02:06construction, it was found the existing

2:02:08framing was rotted. Uh so it was removed

2:02:12and replaced in same location. um to

2:02:17repair that damage. Uh the city required

2:02:20uh since the framing was replaced even

2:02:23though it was in the same place, the

2:02:24framing constituted new construction. As

2:02:27such, the pre-existing non-conforming

2:02:29minimum front yard setback now required

2:02:32a variance even though the building was

2:02:34going to be in the same place as before.

2:02:37uh having to tear down move the building

2:02:39from where it had been for a very long

2:02:41time only to do only due to the

2:02:44replacement of rotted framing would be a

2:02:48substantial hardship to the applicant.

2:02:50Uh item three uh whether the benefit

2:02:53sought by the appellant or petitioner

2:02:55can be achieved by some other method

2:02:57feasible uh for the appellant or

2:02:59petitioner to achieve. Um

2:03:04the replaced uh replacing the stair uh

2:03:07due to rotted framing was what triggered

2:03:09the variance. Um trying to shift the

2:03:14building uh would

2:03:22would be an uh would not be the best uh

2:03:25method feasible uh to meet this. Uh and

2:03:28item four, whether the practical

2:03:30difficulty was self-created [snorts]

2:03:32and it was it was not it was a

2:03:35pre-existing condition for the existing

2:03:38stair uh and um

2:03:41applicant should not be penalized for

2:03:43remediating the dangerous situation. Uh

2:03:47so based on that finding uh the

2:03:50applicant meets the criteria under 10.34

2:03:53variance on the condition that the work

2:03:56proposed conform to the drawings uh to

2:03:59the drawing set

2:04:01um

2:04:04entitled 200 Auburn Street house

2:04:06renovation by TC Studio dated August 15,

2:04:102026. and further that we incorporate

2:04:12the supporting statements and

2:04:14dimensional forms submitted as part of

2:04:17the application on a voice vote please.

2:04:19Board members Wendy Lyserson

2:04:21>> Wendy Lyserson in favor.

2:04:23>> Thank you Virginia.

2:04:25>> Virginia Keiesler in favor.

2:04:27>> Thank you Virginia. Daniel Halago.

2:04:29>> Daniel Halago in favor.

2:04:30>> Thank you Daniel Miranda Cecil.

2:04:34>> Miranda Cecil in favor.

2:04:36>> Thank you. And Stephvening in favor.

2:04:38Vote is 50 in favor and the variance is

2:04:41granted. Uh thank you

2:04:44Mr. Dash.

2:04:47>> Uh thank you Mr. chair, members of the

2:04:49board, have a good evening.

2:04:50>> All right. Good night.

2:04:51>> Good night.

2:04:55>> All right. Uh, final

2:04:58application. Oh, this is 86. I'm sorry.

2:05:05And final application for this evening

2:05:08is case number BZA 121885.

2:05:15Uh, one Myrtle A. uh owners Fan Wang and

2:05:19Mark Wagner in care of uh Patrick W.

2:05:22Barrett III uh seeking a special permit

2:05:25for pre-existing non-conforming two

2:05:28family on a three street facing corner

2:05:31lot adding one additional floor

2:05:34following the footprint of the lot to

2:05:36add one additional unit of housing um

2:05:40citing uh section 5.31 table of

2:05:43dimensional requirements section

2:05:458.22.2.6

2:05:46C non-conforming structure and section

2:05:5010.4

2:05:51uh for a special permit. Uh Mr. Barrett.

2:06:03Hello again.

2:06:04>> Hello.

2:06:05>> Um so [clears throat]

2:06:07I'm I'm coming before you with a another

2:06:09corner lot and a special permit request.

2:06:11Um

2:06:13this project has had sort of a winding

2:06:15history. Um it came to me um a few

2:06:19months ago. It had already been through

2:06:21it is it is in the Mid Cambridge

2:06:23Conservation District. It had gone

2:06:24through an advisory review. Um the owner

2:06:28had proceeded on several building

2:06:30permits and the project had stalled

2:06:32somewhat. We included some photos of the

2:06:34existing site. You can see that it is

2:06:37uh in a state of mid construction.

2:06:40[clears throat] Um this case comes

2:06:42before you um as a special permit, not a

2:06:45variance. Um and cannot meet uh the the

2:06:51requirements of the ordinance and

2:06:53primarily because of the inability of

2:06:56corner lots to use uh the contextual

2:06:59setback. um in what the issue is and I

2:07:03think it's better illustrated um I'm

2:07:05going to share my screen again in terms

2:07:06of

2:07:08um what I'm talking about uh

2:07:18the here's here's the lot as it sits the

2:07:22none of this is changing the um setbacks

2:07:26everything remains the same but it is a

2:07:28three-facing lot uh three street facing

2:07:31lot and it does present itself with um

2:07:34you know natural difficulties um in in

2:07:37terms of its construction. This is how

2:07:38the building currently is in in play. It

2:07:42does have a building permit. It is

2:07:43proceeding on that building permit. Um,

2:07:46but the developer and owner who's with

2:07:48me tonight felt as though that the

2:07:50design itself is really being driven by

2:07:52zoning and not by what we would consider

2:07:55to be practical building design and

2:07:57urban planning uh methodology. Um, and

2:08:00the reason that we're here for you

2:08:03tonight is because here before you

2:08:04tonight is because the project as

2:08:07designed would be required to set back

2:08:09on the upper floors um to conform with

2:08:12the setback requirements where the

2:08:13existing structure would not. That

2:08:15really only exists at the uh for corner

2:08:19lots. This is exactly like 351 Cardinal

2:08:22Manderos which I brought to you I think

2:08:24almost exact same time last year. Um

2:08:28well, corner lots are fall is for corner

2:08:30lots. Um but um that is sort of what

2:08:37we're looking at in terms of the same

2:08:41same difficulty, same um

2:08:45uh

2:08:47practical abuing of the uh the

2:08:49ordinance. And I think, you know, the

2:08:50production of housing being paramount in

2:08:52the city of Cambridge, this allows for

2:08:54us to get to a more uniform looking

2:08:57building that conforms better with what

2:08:59surrounds it. Um, this is a side by side

2:09:02that I had the architect put together to

2:09:04show you sort of where we were, the

2:09:07existing house, what's been approved,

2:09:09and what we're currently building and

2:09:11what we'd like to build. And I think

2:09:12this is the best way I can illustrate

2:09:14the

2:09:17um maybe the imperfections of some of

2:09:20the results in the multif family housing

2:09:22zoning which um as I stated an hour and

2:09:25a half ago um you know in about maybe

2:09:27six or seven months this might actually

2:09:29be a mood issue anyway.

2:09:30>> Um but here but here we are. Um, and I

2:09:34think the developer who, you know, I

2:09:36think you have a few letters in

2:09:38opposition tonight and I we recognize

2:09:40that we also will have to go back before

2:09:42the Mid Cambridge Conservation District

2:09:45uh next month for uh some final review.

2:09:48Um, I think there's been agitation in

2:09:51terms of what we're building, how long

2:09:53it's taken to build. Um, you saw the

2:09:55condition of the site and I think I, you

2:09:56know, can sympathize with neighbors

2:09:58understanding why that might be

2:10:00problematic. But, you know, we're here

2:10:01tonight to try to get this project on

2:10:04the right track. Since my involvement,

2:10:06the building permits have been reduced

2:10:08from five to one. Um, and we are getting

2:10:11it sort of properly aligned in a

2:10:14regulatory fashion to um to proceed on

2:10:18on some development. I think what the

2:10:20developer owner is saying is that I

2:10:22think that in general it makes much more

2:10:24sense to design the building in a much

2:10:27more conforming knowledesque

2:10:30style than the um you pardon the

2:10:33expression layered wedding cake design

2:10:36that you see before you. Um here's some

2:10:40different angles of what we're talking

2:10:42about in terms of elevations uh approved

2:10:45and what we would uh like to build. This

2:10:48is the approved building. This is um the

2:10:52u the building we'd like to build. And I

2:10:55want to highlight that we are in the Mid

2:10:56Cambridge Conservation District. And

2:10:58while typically we would be under their

2:11:01jurisdiction for the advisory um

2:11:04building, we are approve we are we don't

2:11:06need approval to build this [music] for

2:11:08the Mid Cambridge Conservation District.

2:11:10We can proceed with design. Um, I think

2:11:13that's important because I think in

2:11:14general what our my client is trying to

2:11:17do is is a much better result in terms

2:11:19of uniformity with what's in the

2:11:21neighborhood. Um, here's another sort of

2:11:25example of that uh wedding cake setup.

2:11:29And um

2:11:32we could go through other elements of

2:11:34the plan, but I think at the heart of

2:11:35this case in particular is it's really a

2:11:37mirror image of what we looked at at 3

2:11:40uh 51 Carlas is trying to address this

2:11:43corner lot issue in a way that makes a

2:11:46little bit of design and development

2:11:47sense. It's certainly much more

2:11:48difficult to build a building this way.

2:11:50It doesn't this middle design doesn't

2:11:52really conform to anything that's in the

2:11:54neighborhood. and the, you know, the

2:11:57fourstory building does add an

2:11:59additional unit and does look a lot more

2:12:01like a building you you'd expect to see

2:12:03in this neighborhood. Um, you know,

2:12:05height is an issue. This was the same

2:12:07issue that came up in the Carlo Madero's

2:12:09case, but that's also a reflection of

2:12:12the the the new world we live in in

2:12:14terms of the multif family housing zone.

2:12:16We're four stories by right. It does

2:12:18require a little more involvement moving

2:12:20in terms of meetings, but but for the

2:12:23fact that this is in the Mid Cambridge

2:12:25Conservation District, you know, there

2:12:26wouldn't really be much more any more

2:12:28layers of review, but we will be going

2:12:30back to them. We have some requirements

2:12:32from them in terms of

2:12:34uh they wanted to see where the BCA

2:12:36stood on this um and uh some exterior uh

2:12:43details, etc. that they they normally

2:12:45take a look at. Um, we did provide some

2:12:52of the study. I think I think that's the

2:12:54end of that u presentation from the

2:12:56architect. The architect is with me

2:12:57tonight um Alpa um from Pesco Architects

2:13:01if there are questions of an

2:13:02architectural nature. I think um we did

2:13:05try to show what it looks like in in the

2:13:07in the natural setting as best we could.

2:13:10um which is a city which is a street

2:13:12line by triple deckers as well as two

2:13:15families along Magnolia that are you

2:13:17know 25 to 30 ft tall. Um that is in a

2:13:21nutshell what this case is. Um and I'm

2:13:24happy to take questions.

2:13:28Thank you Mr. Barrett. Um any questions

2:13:32from fellow board members?

2:13:41I think my only comment, Mr. Barrett, is

2:13:44if you could because the plans I have in

2:13:47the file don't really show that fourth

2:13:50floor plan. Um,

2:13:54or

2:13:57because it's it's a four unit structure,

2:14:02correct?

2:14:03>> It'll be a three-unit structure.

2:14:04>> Three units. Okay. So yeah and then uh

2:14:08the third to fourth floor is that third

2:14:11unit kind of two floors. Okay then we do

2:14:14we got the right drawings then

2:14:16>> um

2:14:22all right um any other comments from

2:14:25board members?

2:14:33>> Mr. Chair, you can just notate the

2:14:35supporting statement to correct the

2:14:37number of units. Is that correct?

2:14:39>> Yeah, that's I was a little

2:14:42So

2:14:42>> the supporting statement says four

2:14:44units,

2:14:54three units. Okay. Yep, we got that.

2:14:57Thanks. Uh

2:15:01since uh no comments for um questions

2:15:04from fellow board members, we'll move to

2:15:08um public comment. So we'll Oh, do we

2:15:10have some folks online? Okay, so we'll

2:15:12go to that first. Uh any members of the

2:15:15public who wish to speak should now

2:15:18click the icon at the bottom of your

2:15:19Zoom screen that says raise hand. If

2:15:22you're calling in by phone, you can

2:15:23raise your hand by pressing star9 and

2:15:26unmute or mute by pressing star six.

2:15:28I'll now ask staff to unmute the

2:15:30speakers one at a time. You should uh

2:15:34begin by saying your name and address

2:15:35and staff will confirm that we can hear

2:15:37you. After that, you will have up to

2:15:40three minutes to speak before I ask you

2:15:42to wrap up.

2:15:44>> Tia Chapman.

2:15:50>> Hello. U Mr. Chair and board members, I

2:15:53didn't hear about the three minute time

2:15:55limit with the other uh items on the

2:15:57agenda. Was that also the case and I

2:15:59just didn't hear it?

2:16:01>> Yes, we we try to keep it to three

2:16:03minutes. Um I think a few of the

2:16:05speakers on an earlier application spoke

2:16:08they went over a little bit, but uh you

2:16:11know, we

2:16:12>> okay,

2:16:12>> pretty flexible.

2:16:13>> I know uh from prior experience that

2:16:15attorney Barrett keeps track of time, so

2:16:18I'm already nervous.

2:16:20home.

2:16:21>> So, um we I think had some confusion

2:16:26first of all um in our neighborhood

2:16:29because just two weeks ago we all had a

2:16:32hearing on September 9th. Um, and so I

2:16:36think some people were feeling like they

2:16:38had already voiced their opposition then

2:16:42at that meeting which I think was before

2:16:43the historical commission and um we

2:16:47aren't represented by we don't have an

2:16:50attorney Barrett and um

2:16:53we I think we're feeling uh confused and

2:16:57then also at that same historical

2:16:59commission hearing uh attorney Barrett

2:17:02said that if we didn't uh if I

2:17:04understood correctly if we didn't go

2:17:06along with the historic proposition that

2:17:08this new proposal that was made on

2:17:10September 9th different from this that

2:17:13he already they already had by right to

2:17:15make this thing he described as the

2:17:17wedding cake. So we would get the

2:17:19wedding cake if we didn't go with this

2:17:22new his new proposal which I is I guess

2:17:26are now at the historic commission which

2:17:28is a different one which I'm confused. I

2:17:30don't know if that's I don't know what I

2:17:33think we're all feeling pretty confused.

2:17:36And so this is the wedding cake. And I

2:17:39don't I I don't I think what we lack, if

2:17:43you look at the yellow map with the

2:17:45yellow uh buildings in yellow, you can

2:17:48see how dense we are. We lack open

2:17:50spaces and our back windows. We already

2:17:53look out on Clabard. Um and we've been

2:17:55able to live with that. We stand cheek

2:17:57to gel with line street and on the other

2:18:00this uh is a corner on two streets. I

2:18:02heard attorney Barrett say three

2:18:03streets. It's just two streets and our

2:18:05one open space is at this corner where

2:18:08we see the sky things open up. We're a

2:18:10small street with only twotory. He keeps

2:18:13showing Magnolia, but you can see on

2:18:15Myrtle, we're very small twotory, very

2:18:19tiny one-way street. And

2:18:23uh this is uh the way I'm in favor of

2:18:26the wedding cake, and I know a lot of my

2:18:28neighbors are. It lets in the sun. This

2:18:30is going to block the open space. We

2:18:32already this property, one myrtle is

2:18:35takes up all the land virtually on its

2:18:38lot. It's already taking up all the

2:18:39land, but above it you have open space.

2:18:42Um, so that's been really important for

2:18:45this whole neighborhood that we have

2:18:46that area where things finally open up

2:18:49and the setbacks are a vital way to

2:18:51preserve what little open space we have.

2:18:53You can see how dense our corner of the

2:18:55city is. If you look at those yellow

2:18:57buildings on line and on Myrtle and on

2:19:00Roberts. Um, and so on a small site like

2:19:04this, which as I said takes up its

2:19:06entire uh, lot almost like the gentleman

2:19:09who was talking about extending his

2:19:11stairs, it takes up already all of its

2:19:14lot. And on a small site like this, even

2:19:16a few feet make a huge difference. Which

2:19:18is why even though it had a preservation

2:19:20award, I'm in favor of the wedding cake

2:19:22because it gives us our neighborhood. It

2:19:24gives us light. It's more in scale. Even

2:19:27if it's a wedding cake, it's more in

2:19:28scale with our small buildings on one

2:19:30Myrtle, I mean on Myrtle A. Um, and

2:19:33granting this permit would also damage

2:19:35our climate resiliency because despite

2:19:38the drawings because it sits and takes

2:19:40up its whole lot, there's very little

2:19:42space for landscaping. And if you've got

2:19:44these three units, well, these residents

2:19:46are going to need space for their if you

2:19:48could finish up.

2:19:49>> Recycling. I'm finishing up. Thanks. The

2:19:51the recycling bins and things. Where are

2:19:53those in the drawings? They have to have

2:19:55recycling, trash, compost. Three sets of

2:19:57those are going to barely fit. And I how

2:19:59are you going to be able to have the uh

2:20:01landscaping there? Um and then the

2:20:06um I feel as though uh we hear this word

2:20:08normalizing. He's going to normalize the

2:20:10building. Well, the original option

2:20:12they've already dug out the basement was

2:20:14to have this dormers and keep the roof

2:20:17line and still be able to increase to

2:20:19three units. Why have a fourth floor?

2:20:22The three units. They've got the

2:20:23basement. You can add dormers to the

2:20:25third floor. I I guess I I really

2:20:28strongly oppose something like this

2:20:30because

2:20:31four minutes profit and I think it's our

2:20:34job to think about what's good for the

2:20:36city, not what's just good for profit.

2:20:39>> Sorry for going over Thank you, Miss

2:20:42Chapman.

2:20:43>> Thank you for your time.

2:20:46>> Alberto Paratti.

2:20:51>> Yes. Hi. Thank you. Um uh thank you for

2:20:54thank you for giving us the opportunity

2:20:56to speak about this project. Um Alberto

2:20:59I live at six Myrtle Avenue so right

2:21:01across from right across from the

2:21:03property. Um I um actually to follow up

2:21:07it's a good segue on what Miss Chapman

2:21:09was just saying. There was a previous a

2:21:12previous project that didn't that didn't

2:21:14show up in the comparison that Barrett

2:21:17was u was showing. I don't know if you

2:21:19could scroll to page 24, 23, 24, and 25

2:21:25of um what you have right now.

2:21:29I guess maybe you have a different set

2:21:31of drawings than the ones that were

2:21:33posted in the city. It's the drawings

2:21:36that the original drawings from ABC

2:21:39design. So A21, A22, A23,

2:21:43which is exactly what Miss Chapman was

2:21:45talking about the the house that the

2:21:48propo the original proposal that was

2:21:52much more much more in um in keeping

2:21:55with with what Merl Avenue looks like um

2:21:59which is not the three decaries um that

2:22:03are on that are on Magnolia.

2:22:06Yeah, thank you. It's pages 23 24 25.

2:22:16>> This is Olivia T. Can I get the um the

2:22:19document page numbers again?

2:22:22>> 23, 24, and 25.

2:22:24>> They're drawings 821, 822.

2:22:27>> Okay.

2:22:28>> This is from the version that I

2:22:30downloaded from the the version

2:22:32availability from the city's website.

2:22:38Oh, way in the back.

2:22:41>> There you go.

2:22:42>> I got it.

2:22:42>> Yeah.

2:22:44>> All right. So, this was the original

2:22:45project u for this uh for this site uh

2:22:49way back I don't even remember at this

2:22:51point. Um back when the story was we're

2:22:54a family, we're moving in. We want to be

2:22:56part of this neighborhood. Um we're

2:22:58going to do this this work. And I think

2:23:00that this did not pass historical.

2:23:03Historical had a saying in projects back

2:23:06then. Didn't pass historical I believe

2:23:08was because of the raising of the roof

2:23:11line. Um and then when the and I believe

2:23:15that in coincidence with the with the

2:23:17zoning changes then that this became the

2:23:20wedding cake and now it's becoming the

2:23:22highrise that's uh that's being proposed

2:23:25right now. Right. So we are all in

2:23:27Cambridge. We're all uh for uh for more

2:23:31more housing, more affordable housing uh

2:23:33despite the fact that we're what the

2:23:35fourth or fifth densest uh city in

2:23:38America. But we also would love to to

2:23:42keep Cambridge what it is. Keep uh keep

2:23:46the keep it as a as a city that I would

2:23:50like my kids to come back when they're

2:23:53when they're adults when they're working

2:23:55or studying somewhere and feel that they

2:23:57belong and that they recognize their

2:23:58hometown as as the place the place where

2:24:01we grew up. We brought our kids home

2:24:03from Ker Hospital. They grew up playing

2:24:06at that intersection, every intersection

2:24:09in front of of one metro with all the

2:24:11other kids on my Avenue with the kids on

2:24:14Magnolia because this is a it's a family

2:24:16neighborhood. It's people who want to be

2:24:20who want to be Mr. Cambridge.

2:24:23>> I will. It's not a one we don't want

2:24:25Cambridge to become a one or two years

2:24:28residence while I'm working my tech job

2:24:32um and then I move away. So I oppose the

2:24:36project. I would like it to go back to

2:24:38the original project which was much more

2:24:41uh much more in keeping with what the

2:24:43street looks like.

2:24:44>> Thank you Mr. F.

2:24:45>> The wedding cake the wedding cake at

2:24:47least give us lets us keep some light.

2:24:50>> Thank you. Thank you for your time.

2:24:55>> That was it. Okay. Uh that was it for

2:24:57public comment online. Uh just running

2:25:00through the ledger here. uh

2:25:02correspondence, an email or letter from

2:25:07uh well quite a letter uh Mr. Oie Porat

2:25:12uh 24 Myrtle Avenue. Um

2:25:16he is against the application um citing

2:25:21uh establish one project, one unit count

2:25:24and a documented lawful baseline. Um

2:25:28just citing documentation

2:25:31um require corrected uh current survey

2:25:35and corrected dimensional information.

2:25:38Um

2:25:39also citing uh der determine actual

2:25:42total height and legal treatment of the

2:25:44head house. uh followed by uh comments

2:25:48regarding supply bicycle parking and rec

2:25:51reconcile the automobile site plans

2:25:55resolving basement flood resilience

2:25:57issues. uh demonstrate lawful open space

2:26:00accounting and coordinate building facil

2:26:03feasibility require dimension site

2:26:05accommodation exhibit. Uh and um

2:26:12I think uh a little more uh criticism of

2:26:16uh documentation

2:26:18uh and

2:26:21that um another um well Tia Miss Chapman

2:26:25uh wrote uh an email but we've heard her

2:26:28public comment today. um

2:26:32uh several uh emails from Miss Chapman

2:26:36and um uh including several photographs

2:26:39of kids uh playing in the neighborhood.

2:26:41Uh I believe that was it for uh

2:26:45correspondence. So we'll close uh public

2:26:49comment and uh move into deliberation.

2:26:52Uh any comments or thoughts from fellow

2:26:55board members?

2:27:00This is Wendy Lyserson.

2:27:04Um,

2:27:06I am profoundly disappointed um by what

2:27:09I've heard here tonight. I'm just going

2:27:12to say that um to hear that the

2:27:15neighbors in good faith

2:27:18evaluated a plan set as recently as

2:27:21September 9th that they're not seeing

2:27:23here and that though

2:27:27this is hearsay um but they have

2:27:30represented that they feel bullied as

2:27:33well as um to have been threatened by

2:27:36the developer that if you don't like

2:27:38what I want to push through the zoning

2:27:40forward. I will construct something that

2:27:43I think is not visually appealing that I

2:27:47will call a wedding cake.

2:27:49I think that if this is the pattern

2:27:53with which developers in the city are

2:27:55going to engage in what is supposed to

2:27:57be a good faith public discussion with

2:28:01the neighbors,

2:28:03I would not be surprised to see if the

2:28:05city council or voters

2:28:07decide that they don't want to continue

2:28:10to be development friendly in this way.

2:28:13Um I would like you to think about as

2:28:17the earlier case

2:28:19you also said take it or leave it

2:28:21basically to this board and I would be

2:28:26very disappointed to hear of future

2:28:28instances of that same pattern of a lack

2:28:30of good faith engagement with the

2:28:32neighbors.

2:28:34And I would encourage developers of all

2:28:36sorts to think about their legacy in the

2:28:39architecture that they are building. And

2:28:42that if they're going to say take it or

2:28:44leave it, I'll build something ugly if

2:28:45you don't like what I want so that I can

2:28:47get more profit. That's not a very good

2:28:49legacy to leave behind in this world in

2:28:52my opinion.

2:28:54Um, with regard to the legal criteria,

2:28:58I think that the neighbors have clearly

2:29:00said that this uh, special permit

2:29:03request would fail the second criteria

2:29:07that there would be an adverse impact

2:29:10on the neighborhood.

2:29:13Thank you.

2:29:15Or actually, I guess it would be the

2:29:17third criteria. Thank you.

2:29:21Any

2:29:24other comments, thoughts from fellow

2:29:26board members?

2:29:34A little participation would be good.

2:29:37Hello.

2:29:40Uh I am very familiar with this street

2:29:44and um just as a a person who lives in

2:29:48Cambridge. Um and

2:29:52I tend to agree with the abutters that

2:29:55while maybe triple deckers are common in

2:29:58this neighborhood, I don't think um

2:30:02necessarily triple deckers of this scale

2:30:05are. Um,

2:30:08and I think the

2:30:12the wedding cake, uh, for what it's

2:30:14worth, doesn't seem

2:30:16that unattractive to me. Um, but I do

2:30:20also recognize attorney Barrett's note

2:30:22that the city has made housing a

2:30:24priority. And if this is truly the way

2:30:26that

2:30:28um, we can make sure that there are

2:30:30three units versus two, then that's

2:30:33worth uh, worth considering as well. So,

2:30:37I think that gives us a lot to think

2:30:39about.

2:30:44>> Thank you, Miranda.

2:30:47Yeah, this is Daniel Delgo. Yeah, I'm

2:30:49torn on this one. Um I Yeah, I want

2:30:53better engagement with the neighbors. On

2:30:54the other hand, um yeah, I I see the

2:30:57need for housing, special permit. I

2:30:59don't see I know the neighborhood very

2:31:03uh pretty well. And uh

2:31:06I don't I don't see the proposed plan so

2:31:08out of keeping um with what's around

2:31:11there.

2:31:13But yeah, I I I I

2:31:16guess I I'm I'm kind of a little bit

2:31:18troubled about the the timeline, but

2:31:22but I'm otherwise disposed to it.

2:31:26>> Uh this is Virginia. Um, I

2:31:30would say I hold a similar view to

2:31:32Daniel where I'm not as opposed to the

2:31:36design or how it fits within the context

2:31:39of the neighborhood per se, but agreed

2:31:42regarding engagement with the neighbors

2:31:44and um wanting there to be a

2:31:49good and thoughtful process.

2:31:56>> Okay. Thank you, Virginia.

2:32:01Um, yeah. And I I also I I think and I

2:32:04know the zoning changes in in Cambridge

2:32:06have have really changed a lot of uh

2:32:10what you're seeing in neighborhoods

2:32:12getting built these days, but uh

2:32:15um I

2:32:21I think in terms of this particular corn

2:32:24a lot, it's something we should um

2:32:27you know

2:32:30see what works. uh for the neighbors

2:32:33while you're trying to uh maximize and

2:32:36and meet those needs uh that are listed

2:32:40by the city. Um

2:32:46>> Mr. Chair, this is Wendy Lyserson again.

2:32:48Um if we just simply adhere to the

2:32:50special permit criteria

2:32:53um first of all um

2:32:57whether the requirements of the

2:32:58ordinance cannot be met due to the size

2:33:00and shape of the lot. What would your

2:33:03your opinion be on that please fellow

2:33:05board members? We'll just go through the

2:33:07criteria.

2:33:11H

2:33:14>> I think that the requirements of the

2:33:16ordinance could be met um based on the

2:33:19size and shape of the lot because we've

2:33:21seen several proposals in which they

2:33:23were met.

2:33:28>> Okay. Um criteria. The second criteria

2:33:32is whether traffic generated or patterns

2:33:34of access or egress

2:33:37would not cause congestion or

2:33:38substantial change and established

2:33:40neighborhood character.

2:33:42Any comments from the board?

2:33:48I mean I I for me personally I I I don't

2:33:50I'm not um a problem. You know this is a

2:33:53dense neighborhood. is,

2:33:56you know, it's I'm sure a lot of people

2:33:57are taking public transit, biking, etc.

2:34:00as well. So, I don't know. I just don't

2:34:02see that as a as as an issue here

2:34:03personally.

2:34:05>> Anyone else?

2:34:07>> And I don't think that there's a the is

2:34:11an issue on that point.

2:34:14>> Okay. And I would just uh remind the

2:34:16board as we're looking at the supporting

2:34:18statement that both the original design

2:34:22which was more acceptable to the

2:34:24neighbors was three units and this uh

2:34:28new proposal is also three units. So

2:34:30there's no change in the housing stock

2:34:32from this proposal. um criteria. The

2:34:35third criteria, the continued operation

2:34:37of or the development of adjacent uses

2:34:40as permitted in the zoning ordinance

2:34:42would not be adversely affected by the

2:34:45nature of the proposed use for the

2:34:46following reasons. We've in my opinion

2:34:49heard from the public saying that the

2:34:52continued operation of adjacent uses

2:34:54would be adversely affected due to the

2:34:57lack of sunlight and other green space

2:35:00issues and circulation that was cited.

2:35:03Other members of the board, do you have

2:35:04an opinion?

2:35:12>> I tend to agree with what you've said

2:35:14there, Wendy. I think we've heard that

2:35:16um

2:35:18that there would be an adverse impact.

2:35:22Anyone else?

2:35:25>> I'd agree with that.

2:35:28The fourth criteria, nuisance or hazard

2:35:31would not be created to the detriment of

2:35:32the health, safety, and or welfare of

2:35:34the occupant of the proposed use or the

2:35:36citizens of the city. Does anyone have a

2:35:38comment on that one?

2:35:45>> I don't think that this would create a

2:35:47nuisance or a hazard based on what we've

2:35:48heard.

2:35:51>> Okay. The final criteria u for other

2:35:54reasons the proposed use would not

2:35:56impair the integrity of the district or

2:35:58adjoining district or otherwise dergate

2:36:00from the intent or purpose of this

2:36:01ordinance.

2:36:04Um so my opinion is um the paragraph

2:36:07here is talking about um housing. I know

2:36:12that Cambridge is encouraging increase

2:36:14in housing stock meaning the number of

2:36:17dwelling units available. This will not

2:36:18change the number of dwelling units

2:36:20available.

2:36:22And because two out of the five criteria

2:36:25that we are supposed to um evaluate um

2:36:29have not been met, I would deny the

2:36:31special permit. That's my opinion. Any

2:36:34members of the board want to comment on

2:36:36that final criteria and where they're

2:36:38leaning.

2:36:42>> So your side

2:36:43>> I also am leaning in favor.

2:36:46>> It's what? I'm sorry. I think

2:36:49I am also leaning I that was confusing

2:36:52language to use. I'm leaning towards

2:36:54denial um because this doesn't change

2:36:58the number of housing units. So, while I

2:37:00think that that is a compelling um idea,

2:37:03typically in a special permit scenario,

2:37:05if we're not getting any additional

2:37:07units and the neighbors are also

2:37:10um opposed to this configuration,

2:37:14whereas they wouldn't be opposed to a

2:37:15different configuration,

2:37:17I don't find it compelling that the city

2:37:19has prioritized housing.

2:37:27>> All right. So you're we're citing um

2:37:30section A and C

2:37:33um

2:37:36not meeting the criteria.

2:37:39>> That's my understanding, Mr. Chair.

2:37:41>> Okay.

2:37:44So um

2:37:48I I'd like to add we are actually

2:37:51increasing one unit. It is currently a

2:37:53two unit house and we are increasing it

2:37:57to three unit

2:38:00>> and the original proposal also created

2:38:03three units. Correct.

2:38:05>> No, the original proposal was a two

2:38:08unit. The approved building permit is a

2:38:11two unit only.

2:38:13>> And the wedding cake, will that be two

2:38:15or three units?

2:38:17>> Two units.

2:38:19Well, I still don't think that you've

2:38:20gotten over the fact that the neighbors

2:38:22are adversely affected. So, if you fail

2:38:25one criteria, that's enough.

2:38:27>> Completely object to this entire

2:38:29proceeding. The the approach from Miss

2:38:32Commissioner Lester has been nothing but

2:38:34insulting throughout my first process

2:38:36and now this. You've taken the word from

2:38:39neighbors at face value and you've

2:38:40thrown it back at us as if we've

2:38:42actually done something wrong. We

2:38:44haven't threatened anybody. We have a

2:38:46building permit. We're trying to make

2:38:48the condition better on the site. We

2:38:50have a two-unit project that has a

2:38:52building permit that's as of right.

2:38:55We're trying to add a third unit and and

2:38:57we're presenting a project that would

2:38:59otherwise be zoning compliant but for a

2:39:01setback. And I'm astounded by the

2:39:05approach of this board and their

2:39:08approach of me talking about legacy of

2:39:10developers.

2:39:11Is is is the intent of this board to

2:39:13make every case that comes before you

2:39:15rip for appeal?

2:39:17>> I'm asking with all due respect to you,

2:39:19Mr. Barrett,

2:39:22>> I'm I'm Please, you've asked you you've

2:39:24made your comment. I'd like to respond

2:39:26to you. I have nothing personal against

2:39:28you or this developer, but your um

2:39:32behavior with regarding the first case

2:39:35um made me frankly

2:39:38find it plausible to believe the

2:39:40experience of the neighbors

2:39:42uh who testified in this case. Now, I

2:39:45also said that it was hearsay, meaning I

2:39:47don't know whether it was true or not,

2:39:50but in every case of the zoning board,

2:39:53we listen to the neighbors and we weigh

2:39:55what the neighbors say. we don't go

2:39:57independently factf finding.

2:39:59Several neighbors said that they were

2:40:01adversely affected and I will seed the

2:40:03floor to the chair. Thank you Wendy. Um

2:40:06and Mr. Barrett the public comment is

2:40:10how we communicate with the neighbors in

2:40:14wherever an application is similar to

2:40:16the earlier application. Um and those

2:40:20were very compelling statements. So I

2:40:22mean in every case it depends on how the

2:40:26board sees uh other you know our fellow

2:40:29Cambridge well fellow residents uh and

2:40:34their opinions about it and we do filter

2:40:37that through. So I think when when our

2:40:39board uh feels uh they see um the issues

2:40:45that are being brought brought to light

2:40:47I that that is the purview of our review

2:40:50of this application. I

2:40:52>> I'm I'm well aware of how that process

2:40:54works and I've been doing this for a

2:40:55very long time. I know that interaction

2:40:57with the neighbors is paramount. I know

2:40:58that their opinions matter deeply. I

2:41:01also know that this process is always

2:41:03somewhat contentious. You just had a

2:41:04case with me about an hour ago where

2:41:06people on Hillard Street unanimously

2:41:09approve what we were doing. It shows we

2:41:10know how to do outreach. At least I know

2:41:12how to do it. In terms of this

2:41:13particular project, you've had two

2:41:15people speak against it. You've had, I

2:41:16think, one letter from one other person

2:41:18uh who's also a developer around the

2:41:20corner who just developed a project very

2:41:21similar to this one. Um at 351 Carlo

2:41:25Maderos, you had one person in in

2:41:26opposition. You approved that case. What

2:41:29I heard tonight though was not about

2:41:30this property was about me personally.

2:41:33Um, I heard I heard I heard something

2:41:36about legacy, which I'm not sure legacy

2:41:37of developers, legacy of MI, what that

2:41:39really means. I've heard that before.

2:41:40Um, and we have not brought something

2:41:42that is deeply contentious. This is a

2:41:44four story fourtory project and a

2:41:47predominantly threetory district. The

2:41:49zoning itself is in the in the project

2:41:51is going to be four stories no matter

2:41:52what we do. Now, we could introduce

2:41:54front decks to the building to maybe set

2:41:56it back a little bit if that's more

2:41:57palatable to the neighbors. I'm happy to

2:41:59take a look at a redesign of that. but

2:42:01to flatly deny a special permit simply

2:42:03because two neighbors showed up and said

2:42:04we're blocking their sunlight. This

2:42:06isn't uh uh Manchester by the Bay where

2:42:09we expect to have a view of the ocean.

2:42:11>> Mr. Barrett, you have the right to

2:42:13continue if you would like to.

2:42:14>> Please.

2:42:15>> Yeah, I I'm I'm just I'm trying to

2:42:17figure out and and Miss Lyster, I I have

2:42:20to say I I I'm probably going to file a

2:42:24complaint, [music] but I don't

2:42:26understand the personal issue. Um, but

2:42:28what I do understand is in the previous

2:42:30case, uh, there was a misstatement of

2:42:32law and we'll bring that up later down

2:42:35the road, but we had also vetted this

2:42:37process through ISD multiple times. So,

2:42:39either there's an a miscommunication

2:42:41between this board and ISD and what's

2:42:43zoning compliant or we have to figure

2:42:45out what that is. For this particular

2:42:47case, we are zoning compliant but for

2:42:49the setback issue and we are willing to

2:42:53work with the neighbors. we're willing

2:42:55to make changes if we if necessary, but

2:42:59a flatout denial of a special permit

2:43:01based on what we heard tonight is in my

2:43:04opinion, I've never I've never I've

2:43:05never seen the board do that. Um, and I

2:43:07I understand that, you know, some

2:43:09neighbors are upset, but to say that

2:43:11we're blocking out the sun, to say that

2:43:13we're creating an unsafe condition and

2:43:16and to accept those things without

2:43:18having seen any real valid proof, I'm

2:43:20kind of I'm curious as to why the

2:43:21board's so willing to accept that that

2:43:24testimony and not look at our design,

2:43:27our our shadow study, and look at the

2:43:30project as a whole and say largely that

2:43:32we're adding housing, which is something

2:43:34that is a goal. We are doing it in a way

2:43:36that is largely conforming with the

2:43:37neighborhood and we have open space on

2:43:40the site that's been brought up, but you

2:43:42can clearly see our open space plan. We

2:43:44have a very tiny lot. So, I'm not

2:43:46hearing that this is a bad project

2:43:48necessarily. I'm hearing that there's

2:43:49maybe some other issue and I I think

2:43:51that that's what I have an issue with.

2:43:56>> So, what I think and miss Mr. Barrett,

2:44:00please understand we're we're giving

2:44:02you, you know, the opportunity to

2:44:05deliberate with us in this case, you

2:44:07know, and um but I think that's the way

2:44:10our board it we we're going to make our

2:44:14decision. I mean, I'll make a motion

2:44:16that is in the affirmative

2:44:18and um that's up to board members to

2:44:22make a vote on what they believe is the

2:44:25right thing to do.

2:44:27>> Understood. I appreciate you allowing me

2:44:30a voice.

2:44:30>> Yeah. No, and I I mean I don't want to

2:44:32Yeah. No, it's not my intent to exclude

2:44:35people in the conversation. So, you

2:44:37know, I think uh I think um I mean

2:44:41that's what our next steps will be. So,

2:44:43um the chair

2:44:46uh will make a motion uh to grant a

2:44:49special permit from the requirements of

2:44:51the ordinance under sections uh 5.31,

2:44:558.22.2.

2:44:57C and 10.40

2:45:00special permit and um reviewing um

2:45:04responses uh for the supporting

2:45:08statement for the special permit that um

2:45:11a it appears the requirements of this

2:45:14ordinance cannot or will not be met. Um

2:45:20the requirements of the ordinance uh

2:45:23cannot be met due to the size and shape

2:45:25of the lot. Uh item B uh traffic

2:45:28generated or patterns of access or

2:45:31egress should it cause congestion,

2:45:33hazard or substantial change. Uh

2:45:35existing use is a two family home in a

2:45:38predominantly multif family district

2:45:40where cost composition is larger three

2:45:43units. Uh proposed uh use and increase

2:45:47to three unit uh well it's um

2:45:49maintaining three units and will not

2:45:52pose a substantial change to the

2:45:54existing built environment. It's an

2:45:56increase to three units.

2:45:58>> It's what? I'm sorry. Increase

2:45:59>> an increase. Increase to three units.

2:46:03>> Two three units. Okay. Increase to three

2:46:05units will not pose a substantial change

2:46:07to the existing built environment. Um

2:46:10item C, the continued operation of or

2:46:13the development of the adjacent uses as

2:46:15permitted in the zoning ordinance would

2:46:17be adversely affected. Uh the adjacent

2:46:20uses are the same use category as

2:46:22proposed and would be uniform and

2:46:24harmonious. uh dn nuisance or hazard

2:46:27would be created to the detriment of the

2:46:29health, safety or welfare of the

2:46:32occupant. Uh the proposed addition and

2:46:34renovation of the existing structure

2:46:37will bring the entire site up to

2:46:38Cambridge's rigorous code standards and

2:46:41clean up a site that has been run down

2:46:44through passage of time, creating a

2:46:45vibrant point to an otherwise awkward

2:46:48lot configuration. and e uh for other

2:46:51reasons. Uh the proposed use would

2:46:56impair the integrity of the district or

2:46:58adjoining districts. Uh Cambridge has

2:47:00committed itself to a building and

2:47:02housing and the rules rule changes that

2:47:05permit the expansion of existing two

2:47:07family structures are proof. This is

2:47:10exactly the type of development

2:47:11anticipated by the city of Cambridge and

2:47:14encouraged which is most recently cited

2:47:17in neighborhood and long-term planning

2:47:19presentations given on June 25th. Um and

2:47:23so by that finding they meet the

2:47:25criteria under sections 10.40 for

2:47:28special permit and further we

2:47:30incorporate the supporting statements

2:47:32and dimensional forms submitted as part

2:47:35of the application. And so on a voice

2:47:38vote, please, board members, uh, Wendy

2:47:41Lyserson.

2:47:42>> Mr. Chair, I think it's appropriate for

2:47:44me to recuse myself from this vote, uh,

2:47:48because, uh, the petitioners council

2:47:51believes that I cannot be objective. So,

2:47:54I will do that and allow my fellow board

2:47:55members.

2:47:55>> Understood. Thank you, Miss Lysen. Um,

2:47:58Virginia Keiesler.

2:48:01>> Virginia Keiesler in favor.

2:48:03Daniel Hadaga.

2:48:15>> Sorry about that. Daniel in favor.

2:48:17>> Uh, Miranda Cecil.

2:48:22>> Miranda Cecil opposed.

2:48:27>> And Stephen Ing uh opposed.

2:48:31So that's uh two opposed and two in

2:48:35favor, two opposed. Uh so is that the

2:48:39right count for

2:48:43>> Okay. the special permit is denied and

2:48:47um so I'll also move that

2:48:51um I have to cite the reasons right for

2:48:56um

2:48:59uh so the denial is based upon um item A

2:49:05that uh the requirements of this

2:49:09ordinance

2:49:11could be met uh due to size and shape of

2:49:16the lot

2:49:20as well as

2:49:22uh section C the continued operation of

2:49:31right development of the adjacent uses

2:49:34as permitted in the zoning ordinance

2:49:35would be adversely affected. Um and

2:49:43We would be ad this project would

2:49:45adversely affect uh the neighborhood um

2:49:48in through a variety of environmental

2:49:51condition impacts such as sunlight and

2:49:58an open space.

2:50:01So and then I just asked for the board

2:50:05to approve that. Right.

2:50:07>> Okay. So based on those criteria, uh I

2:50:11asked the board to uh approve

2:50:16uh

2:50:19those reasons for denial. So by a voice

2:50:22vote uh with Wendy Lyserson uh recusing

2:50:25herself uh Virginia Keysler.

2:50:30>> Uh I'm sorry. So So although I voted in

2:50:32favor, I'm just voting now on approving

2:50:35our the

2:50:36>> the reasons. Yeah.

2:50:37>> Okay. Um, uh, yes, in in favor.

2:50:41>> Thank you. Uh, Daniel Hago.

2:50:43>> Daniel Halgo in favor.

2:50:45>> Thank you. Uh, Miranda Cecil.

2:50:49>> Miranda Cecil in favor.

2:50:51>> And Stephen Ing in favor. So

2:50:58that closes our

2:51:00uh agenda for this evening.

2:51:03>> Thank you.

2:51:04>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.