2026-10-15 - Board of Zoning Appeal BZA Agenda

00:07All right. Good evening. Welcome to the

00:09October 15th, 2026 meeting of the

00:13Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal. My

00:15name is Stephen Eng and I am the chair.

00:18Pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of

00:202023 adopted by Massachusetts General

00:22Court and approved by the governor, the

00:25city is authorized to use remote

00:27participation at meetings of the

00:29Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal. This

00:31meeting is being video and audio

00:33recorded and is broadcast on cable

00:35television channel 22 within Cambridge.

00:38There will also be a transcript of the

00:40proceedings. All board members,

00:43applicants, and members of the public

00:45will state their name before speaking.

00:47All votes will be taken by roll call.

00:50Members of the public will be kept on

00:52mute until it is time for public

00:53comment. I will give instructions for

00:55public comment at that that time and you

00:58can also find instructions on the city's

01:01webpage for remote BZA meetings.

01:04Generally, you will have up to 3 minutes

01:06to speak.

01:08I'll start by asking staff to take board

01:10members attendance for our 6:00 p.m.

01:12continuance agenda items and verify that

01:15all members are audible.

01:20>> Miranda Cecil.

01:26Miranda Cecil here.

01:28Virginia Keesler.

01:30Virginia Keesler.

01:32Virginia Keesler present.

01:34Daniel Gallop.

01:35Daniel Gallop present.

01:37Wendy Liceson.

01:39Wendy Liceson present.

01:47Wendy Liceson present. And Stephen Eng.

01:49Stephen Eng present.

01:53All right. And we'll get Brendan on when

01:56he comes on after continuance. All

01:58right. So, first order of business this

02:00evening is on the continued case agenda

02:036:00 p.m. Case number BZA 1215768,

02:08which was originally scheduled for 7:16

02:112026 51 Stern Street, Mr. Robert

02:15Frankenheim.

02:18Mr. Frankenheim, are you online uh

02:22at this time?

02:29No?

02:30Okay, Mr. Frankenheim has requested

02:34uh

02:35that he withdraw his application.

02:39And so, um

02:44uh I'd like to uh make a motion to

02:47withdraw application

02:50um

02:51BZA 12157

02:5468

02:56uh

02:58without prejudice. And on a voice vote

03:02please

03:03uh Wendy.

03:05>> Wendy Leiserson in favor.

03:07>> Leiserson in favor.

03:09>> Virginia.

03:10>> Virginia

03:11>> Virginia.

03:12>> Virginia Keyser. Virginia Keyser in

03:14favor. Virginia Keyser in favor.

03:17>> Any reason why we're getting the

03:20Uh yeah, we're getting a little sound

03:21problems here. Yeah, we're getting a

03:22little sound problems here.

03:24>> [laughter]

03:27>> Uh Daniel.

03:29>> Daniel

03:29>> Daniel Vogel in favor.

03:30>> Daniel Vogel in favor.

03:34>> And uh

03:35Stephen

03:36>> And uh also in favor.

03:38>> Also in favor.

03:43>> So, the withdrawal

03:44>> So, the

03:45>> passes.

03:47passes.

03:50Hold on. Wait, we just got a little

03:51acoustic sound issue.

05:01Okay, let's see if we still get that up

05:04audio issue. I think we got it fixed.

05:06Okay, so uh the 51 Stern Street

05:09withdrawal motion passes

05:12uh and we move on to our next item on

05:15the continuance agenda, uh BZA 122-5403.

05:20Uh a

05:22uh the 127 Mount Auburn Street uh 17

05:25Story LLC uh seeking variance uh to

05:29reduce the front yard setbacks along

05:31Mount Auburn Street and Story Street.

05:35And we propose also a request to

05:37increase uh commercial side setbacks on

05:39first, second, third floor of the

05:41building uh to normalize footprint of

05:44allowed hotel use in the building

05:47um

05:48is uh

05:50Mr. Barrett uh online?

05:53>> Here, Mr. Chair.

05:54>> How are you?

05:56>> I am well. How are you?

05:57>> Good. We're good. Glad you could make

05:59it. Um

06:00so uh as we left off uh at our last

06:03hearing uh

06:04continuance um

06:07you know, we we had your presentation uh

06:10public comment uh we're kind of in that

06:13uh

06:14mode to move into deliberations, but

06:16wanted to check in to see if uh you had

06:18any

06:19updates on modifications.

06:22>> We got um a list of requested

06:24modifications or or clarifications on

06:26Friday, and I spent some time with with

06:28the heat team over the weekend.

06:30Um the holiday disrupted us a little

06:32bit, but we feel

06:34we can get uh a much more clear and

06:38concise presentation for the board to

06:40explain

06:41um visually and to answer some of the

06:43questions that were being asked, but

06:45we'd like to continue um to be able to

06:48do that and to bring it back to you in

06:50November

06:51um

06:52with those questions answered clearly.

06:55>> Okay, and that date is November

06:57>> it's

06:58this but November 19th.

07:01>> Yeah. Uh so checking with fellow board

07:04members uh right now is November 19th

07:08work for everyone? Uh Vir-

07:10Virginia?

07:13>> Me.

07:16>> Uh Daniel?

07:17>> Uh yes, that should work for me.

07:18>> Okay, Miranda, does a 19th uh work

07:21>> Does a 19th uh work?

07:23>> Yes.

07:24>> Okay. And Wendy, does that work for you?

07:27>> Yes, thank

07:27>> Okay, and it works for me as well.

07:31So now I just got to pull up my script

07:33for a continuance.

07:35>> [laughter]

07:46>> One moment.

08:56Uh so I'll make a motion

08:59um

09:00to continue the matter

09:02uh case number 1225403

09:07127 Mount Auburn Street 17 Story Street

09:11uh

09:13to the November 19th, 2026

09:18on the condition that the petitioner

09:19change the posting sign to reflect the

09:21new date of

09:23November 19th and the new time of 6:00

09:26p.m. Also, that the petitioner sign a

09:29waiver to the statutory requirements for

09:31the hearing. This waiver can be obtained

09:33from Maria Pacheco or Olivia Rutay at

09:37the Inspectional Services Department. I

09:40ask that the petitioner sign the waiver

09:42and return it to the Inspectional

09:44Services Department by a week from this

09:47coming Monday. Failure to do so will de

09:51facto cause this board to give an

09:53adverse ruling on the case. Also, that

09:55if there are any submittals, changes to

09:57the drawings, dimensional forms, or any

09:59supporting statements,

10:01that those be in the file by 5:00 p.m.

10:03on the Monday prior to the continued

10:06meeting meeting date. Uh on the motion

10:09to this matter until November 19th, uh

10:14voice vote, please. Uh Wendy

10:17Leichterson.

10:18>> Wendy Leichterson in favor.

10:19>> Thank you. Uh Miranda Cecil.

10:23>> Cecil.

10:24>> Miranda Cecil in favor.

10:26>> Uh Daniel Hidalgo. Uh Dan

10:28>> Daniel Hidalgo in favor.

10:30>> Uh Virginia Keysler.

10:32>> Virginia Keysler in favor.

10:33>> And Stephen Eng in favor, as well. So,

10:36thank you, Mr. Barrett. We'll see you in

10:38November.

10:39>> Yes, sir.

10:40>> Thanks.

10:43Okay, we've got 4 minutes before our

10:46next agenda item at 6:15. So, we will

10:51get com-

10:52>> We lose Miranda, but we gain Brendan.

10:55>> And yes, uh so, Miranda, I think you're

10:57free to enjoy your evening.

11:00Uh

11:01and uh we'll see you on the 19th, and

11:03we'll bring in uh Brendan Sullivan to

11:06join us for the 6:15. And Brendan, can

11:09you hear us? Are you Can you reply?

11:11>> I am uh

11:12present and audible.

11:13>> Yep, thank you so much. So, we'll see

11:15you in a couple of minutes.

14:39>> All right. Welcome back.

14:42Next up on our agenda uh

14:45is

14:47case number BZA

14:501230378

14:5390 Lexington Avenue.

14:57Um

14:58it is uh

15:00an appeal uh

15:02submitted by Wenzing Du

15:06Yaofeng Li, Peter Sturgis, Sacha

15:09Latterback uh

15:11and um

15:16represented by Dennis Murphy um to

15:19appeal

15:21uh

15:25the building permit uh issued for 90

15:29Lexington Ave. Do I have to kind of read

15:32the whole scripture or

15:34>> It's probably best.

15:34>> Okay, yeah, I should. An appeal under

15:37General Law sections 40A 8 and 15,

15:40sections 10.21 and the of the zoning

15:43ordinance from the decision of the

15:46Commissioner of Inspectional Services to

15:48issue building permit record number

15:501196760

15:53for 90 Lexington Avenue on August 21st,

15:562026. Petitioners are direct abutters.

15:59Petitioners request that the board annul

16:02the permit for non-compliance with the

16:04zoning ordinance on the grounds stated

16:06in the attached notice of appeal.

16:09Article 22

16:10section 22.90, the green factor

16:13standard, section 22.94.3,

16:17uh cool score, section 22.97B,

16:22implementation of green factor standard,

16:25article 6, section

16:286.106.1AD

16:31A and D, primary access access standards

16:34for bicycle parking, section 6.104.2,

16:38location of short-term bicycle

16:41uh 5.2

16:47uh parking, I'm sorry.

16:49Uh section 6.102.5,

16:51tip types of bicycle parking, article 5,

16:54section 5.22.1.5.22.4,

16:59uh A, article 2, open space, section

17:025.24,

17:075.24.1

17:09and 5.31, table of dimensional

17:12requirements, section 5.40, footnote 37,

17:16as well as article two

17:19lack of neighborhood notification

17:21article four section 4.21.

17:24H article two

17:28yards article 11

17:30article

17:31two

17:32inclusionary housing and article 10

17:35sections 10.2

17:37regarding appeals.

17:39Is there Mr. Murphy

17:44online?

17:48>> Yes, good evening, Mr. Chair.

17:50>> Good evening. [clears throat]

17:51Yeah.

17:52>> My name is Dennis Murphy. I'm an

17:54attorney at Hill Law in Boston and I

17:56represent the petitioners.

17:58I served in your role on my own zoning

18:01board for nearly a decade and I know

18:03it's not everyday that you see a

18:06building permit appeal like this one.

18:08>> Yeah.

18:09>> My clients made great efforts

18:13to try to resolve these issues directly

18:15with city staff and were unsuccessful

18:19and so that's what brings us here

18:21tonight.

18:22We have with us two experts and arborist

18:25John Coppinger and an engineer Larry

18:28Hayes and I ask if you could please

18:29promote them to panelists.

18:31>> Yeah.

18:31>> In case the board has questions for

18:34them, their reports were included in my

18:36submission.

18:38And to make a presentation, I realize

18:41that what I filed was voluminous,

18:44but I'm going to turn it over to our

18:46consultant Tom Pounds who is going to

18:48help you make sense of it all and and if

18:51you could please queue up the slide

18:53presentation that he submitted. And

18:55thank you very much.

18:56>> get that all set up for you, Mr. Murphy.

18:59I do ask that we make best efforts to

19:03stay focused on zoning [snorts]

19:05ordinance related items which is our

19:07purview

19:09and I'll let you know if we're going a

19:11little too astray, but uh I'll you know,

19:13just a request there to stay focused on

19:16what we can uh

19:18make decisions on.

19:20>> Yes, duly noted, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

19:21>> Thank you so much.

19:40>> Good evening. Can you hear me okay?

19:43>> Yes, we can, Mr. Pounds.

19:45>> Thank you.

19:48Good evening, all. My name is Tom

19:49Pounds. I live at 102 Lexington Avenue,

19:52and I've been working with the abutters

19:54uh on this

19:55plan reviews for this plan

19:58for this project over the past several

19:59months.

20:01Uh

20:01Olivia, can you advance the slides? I'll

20:03try to give you a

20:04heads-up as we go.

20:08Thank you.

20:10Um I don't know if you can go to the

20:11full-size screen uh for PowerPoint.

20:13Would that be possible?

20:24It'll be easier to see some of these

20:25slides. Fantastic. Thanks very much.

20:27So, this is a picture of 90 Lexington

20:29Avenue today. It's one of the famous 16

20:31sisters for those familiar with this

20:33street and the neighborhood. Next slide.

20:38This is the timeline of events that's

20:40happened over the last year or so. Uh in

20:42October of last year, this property was

20:45purchased by Avenue Capital Partners

20:47and their uh related construction

20:49company, Treadstone Construction, for

20:51$2.6 million.

20:53In the first quarter of this year, they

20:55got a permit to do interior demo, and

20:57they completed that demo.

21:00On January 30th, they filed an

21:02application for an addition

21:04uh under the the of Treadstone

21:05Construction.

21:08Uh

21:09in August, on the 21st, that permit was

21:11granted.

21:13Uh

21:14on the uh September 11th, uh we appealed

21:17our we filed our appeal or the the

21:20plaintiffs filed their appeal to BZA.

21:22And on the 15th of September, just 3

21:25weeks after the permit was granted, the

21:27property in the permit was flipped to

21:29Trio Design Build for $3.2 million.

21:32Next slide.

21:36We're here to ask the board to annul

21:38this permit on the 10 counts listed

21:40here.

21:41As you know, this is the table of

21:43contents of our detailed comprehensive

21:44memo in support of the appeal.

21:47My goal

21:48My goal and purpose today is to show you

21:51a number of the major zoning and code

21:53non-compliances by looking at the actual

21:55plans for the project.

21:58The memo contains far more detail and

22:00precision than I'll be able to provide

22:01here, and we hope you'll find some time

22:03to review that memo carefully. Next

22:05slide.

22:08So, this is the

22:10uh north elevation of the proposed

22:12project.

22:13Uh the plans call for 10 units overall,

22:16including two brand new basement units.

22:19Four units go in the original house on

22:20the left. Lexington Avenue is off the

22:22left-hand side of the screen here.

22:24And six uh fill the addition um that

22:28that fills the the current backyard.

22:30The ramp you see running along the

22:32building is a non-compliant access route

22:34to the bike storage It's set in the yard

22:36right along the property line. We're

22:38going to discuss this in some detail

22:39shortly.

22:40Next slide.

22:44The front facade of the original gambrel

22:46roof building, as it's drawn here, is

22:48little changed from what's there today.

22:51What's missing from this elevation, from

22:53[music] the architectural drawings, is a

22:55major new non-compliant obstruction that

22:58fills the front yard from the foundation

23:00to the sidewalk.

23:01It's an elevated storm water

23:03infiltration structure.

23:05The rear elevation on the right shows

23:07non-compliant window wells with guard

23:08rails all sitting in the yard. We'll

23:11come back to both of these items as

23:12well.

23:13Next slide.

23:16This site plan view shows the shows the

23:19addition on the left. The original

23:22building is on the right.

23:24And it that addition reaches within 5 ft

23:26of the property line on both sides and

23:28the rear.

23:29That maximizes the footprint allowed by

23:31the CCO

23:33uh

23:34under their minimum setbacks and with it

23:36the developer's saleable space and

23:37revenue.

23:38Now, we understand every developer has

23:40the right to start there and to try to

23:43show through permitting that the project

23:44complies with the ordinance and can keep

23:46that footprint.

23:48But nothing in the ordinance guarantees

23:50those minimum setbacks. If the plans

23:52can't meet every standard for an

23:54as-of-right permit, the setbacks and the

23:56design must be adjusted till they do.

23:59For better or worse, this is the process

24:01the city CED designed when it drafted

24:03the CCO.

24:05And over recent months, it's been

24:07telling anyone who will listen, city

24:09council, the public, city leadership,

24:10that few projects will be able to comply

24:13with that minimum 5-ft setback and still

24:16uh

24:17be within compliance.

24:18Some will, certainly that's why they set

24:20it at 5 ft, but they expect most will

24:22not.

24:23Here, the process has so far failed to

24:25rein in the design, but the

24:27non-compliant result we're going to show

24:29you here proves their point.

24:31Next slide.

24:35At 90 Lexington, as it turns out, that

24:37maximum building envelope creates two

24:39unsolvable problems.

24:41First, the yards are too small to hold

24:43what the ordinance and the codes

24:45require.

24:47Second, the roof of the addition is too

24:49large to drain on this site, which has

24:51both high ground water and impervious

24:53clay soil.

24:55So, we're going to talk about those two

24:57major themes.

24:59Let's start that's slide uh

25:02advance the slide.

25:04We're going to start with the yards in

25:05the site.

25:06And let's advance again.

25:10Everything on this list

25:12has to fit in the 5-ft side and rear

25:14yards and a 17-ft front yard.

25:21Next slide.

25:24How can you do that? Well,

25:28first you

25:30you have all of these plan sets to

25:31submit. Architectural, civil,

25:33stormwater, geotechnical, etc.

25:37You you

25:39develop drawings that are incomplete,

25:41misleading, and incompatible.

25:45You then deploy those drawings

25:46strategically to satisfy the needs of

25:48different departments.

25:50No reviewer seems to have compared all

25:52these drawings until we did.

25:55The architectural plan set fails to show

25:57lots of details in the yards that are

26:00essential to understand the code

26:01compliance.

26:03You have to look at the civil,

26:04landscape, and mechanical plans to

26:06understand what's really going on.

26:08And conflicts among those reveal

26:09additional issues.

26:11So, with that introduction, let's jump

26:13to the plans.

26:15Um and I'll I'll just say some of these

26:16slides are quite dense and I don't have

26:18the benefit of a cursor or a pointer to

26:20highlight what I'm talking about. So, if

26:22I lose you, please don't hesitate to

26:23speak up.

26:25Next slide.

26:28So, we're going to take a tour around

26:29the building and we're going to start in

26:31in the in the side yard on the north.

26:34At the top of this slide is the north

26:36yard as shown in the architectural

26:38permit plan set.

26:40And it shows

26:42uh

26:44uh well, that it shows

26:46um

26:47uh

26:48Excuse me, I let me I I me start this

26:50slide again. I apologize.

26:52Given the city's and the and the zoning

26:54commitment to encouraging and enabling

26:56bicycling, providing all the required

26:58infrastructure would seem like a high

27:00priority.

27:01Section 6.106.1

27:04of the CCO requires a primary access

27:06path to the bike storage room that's at

27:08least 5 ft wide and clear of

27:10obstructions.

27:12The architectural plans at the shown at

27:14the top here uh show a bike ramp

27:16completely filling that 5-ft setback,

27:19but not an inch more.

27:21Uh this is the sheet that this is the

27:23drawing that the commissioner references

27:25in his letter responding to our appeal.

27:28But that 5 ft is the distance from the

27:30building wall

27:31>> [clears throat]

27:31>> to the lot line.

27:32It's the minimum setback. It's not a

27:34clear access route.

27:37When you

27:38when they when they handed that space

27:40off to the civil designer,

27:43who actually governed the construction

27:45of the exterior yards,

27:48they added a fence and some space and a

27:51low retaining wall within that 5-ft

27:53space,

27:54um

27:55and a railing. If you look at the

27:56schematic walkway section down on the

27:59lower left,

28:00you'll you'll see that the remaining

28:02area for a bike ramp is only about 3 ft

28:056 in wide.

28:07Um and it's actually if you look a

28:10little further down the ramp in the in

28:12the circle with the 3 ft 3 ft next to

28:14it,

28:15that's a place where an egress well

28:17actually bumps into the ramp

28:19uh and it has a railing around it. So,

28:21that's that's actually a width of less

28:23than uh uh

28:25less than 3 ft, we believe.

28:28So, if you think about this, you know,

28:29cargo bikes and loaded e-bikes need the

28:32full 5-ft width provided for this access

28:34route to be functional, especially as

28:37they're trying to turn the

28:38uh

28:39the corner into the bike room at the top

28:41of the ramp.

28:43There's one more thing about this, which

28:44is that

28:46under 5.24 of the CC and O,

28:49this access route is only allowed in the

28:51setback

28:53if it's fully compliant with section 6.

28:57The commissioner's letter states this

28:58clearly. This too narrow access path

29:01means the whole placement of the ramp in

29:03the setback is non-compliant with the CC

29:06and O.

29:10Let's go to the next slide.

29:13In case there's any question at all

29:15about who governs the exterior uh

29:17construction, I think this letter should

29:19answer that.

29:21This is a letter

29:22to

29:23uh DPW from the civil engineer that

29:27states

29:28civil plans shall govern construction of

29:31all exterior site features and it's

29:33copied to the app the uh applicant.

29:38Uh

29:40next slide.

29:44There's one more reason that this access

29:46ramp can't be in the setback.

29:49With its required guardrail, the

29:51structure stands 7 ft 5 in tall at the

29:54entry to the bike storage room at where

29:56that red arrow is.

30:00Uh

30:015.2 5.24.1D

30:04allows bicycle structures storage

30:06structures in a yard,

30:08but if they're over 6 ft tall, they need

30:10to also meet the accessory building

30:12requirements under 4.21.

30:15This doesn't qualify as an accessory

30:17structure that can sit in the setback.

30:22Next slide.

30:25So, that's the that's the north yard.

30:27We're now going to walk around to the

30:28front of the building.

30:29>> No, we'll stop there.

30:30>> Uh this slide.

30:32I can't I can't They can't see me.

30:35>> Okay, I'm

30:35>> Hello.

30:37Okay. Uh so, moving to the front yard,

30:40uh

30:41on the left, we see the drawing from the

30:43architectural permit set.

30:45This drawing shows grass at grade in the

30:47front yard with some hardscape in front

30:49of the porch that really shows up on

30:51literally no other drawing.

30:55Uh, that

30:56according to that drawing the front of

30:58the building looks a lot like it does

30:59today.

31:01Looking on the right, we show the same

31:03area as presented on the civil plan set.

31:07This presents an entirely different

31:08picture.

31:10There's a retaining wall that extends

31:12from the foundation almost to the

31:13sidewalk. And that retaining wall

31:16surrounds a storm water retention

31:18chamber.

31:20Um,

31:21there's a kind of a misleading section

31:23drawing of this structure provided in

31:25the civil plans that labels the top of

31:26this chamber as at as being at finished

31:29grade.

31:30And since chambers like this are

31:31typically placed underground, a reviewer

31:34might think that this this whole

31:35structure is at ground level at first

31:37glance.

31:38But look at the drawing inside the red

31:41circle.

31:42What you see is that the top at

31:44elevation 57.8

31:47stands about 3 ft above the base of the

31:50walkway shown with the extension to that

31:52red circle at about 54.8.

31:56That comes out up up I'm about

31:59almost 6 ft tall and that comes about to

32:01my hip level.

32:03So this is a massive structure filling

32:05the front yard that's simply not shown

32:07in the architectural set.

32:09And and honestly as you'll see in a few

32:11minutes it seems it almost seems

32:13possible that the architect doesn't even

32:15know this structure is here.

32:19Next slide.

32:23This is this drawing that was missing

32:26from the applicant's plan set. This is a

32:28drawing of the actual front yard with

32:30the elevated storm water infiltration

32:33structure.

32:34Section 5.21 says every part of a

32:37required yard shall be open to the sky

32:38and unobstructed

32:40with nine exceptions.

32:42The only exception for water retention,

32:44which somebody could

32:46perhaps call this, uh which is paragraph

32:48I, applies only to lots in the flood

32:51plain overlay. This lot is not in the

32:53flood plain overlay.

32:55So, this structure is a major yard

32:57obstruction that's non-compliant with

32:59the zoning ordinance.

33:03Next slide.

33:07In addition to being an unallowed

33:09obstruction, the stormwater enclosure

33:10itself doesn't comply with the city's

33:12stormwater management standards, which

33:14follow MassDEP's.

33:17Those standards require an infiltration

33:18system to be 10 ft from the lot line, 10

33:21ft from the foundation, and 2 ft above

33:23seasonal groundwater level.

33:26This one is only 5 ft from the sidewalk.

33:29It's literally 0 ft from the fields from

33:32the original fieldstone foundation of

33:35the original building, and it's about

33:371.4 ft above high water level.

33:40So, from a zoning perspective, it's an

33:42unallowed obstruction, and according to

33:43stormwater standards, it simply doesn't

33:46fit in this yard.

33:48We're going to return to the

33:49hydrological deficiencies of this

33:50chamber a little bit later.

33:55Next slide.

33:58So again, let's return on the left to

34:00the architectural permit set. And what

34:02one thing that's difficult to read here,

34:04I apologize, but in that circle

34:06in that sort of dotted square inside the

34:08circle, it is is an arrow that indicates

34:11that's short-term bike parking.

34:13And it's shown on that architectural set

34:16at site grade elevation. Looks like it

34:18should fit there just fine.

34:20But what we know based on what we've

34:22just seen

34:23is that that site sits 3 ft above grade

34:26with no means of access.

34:30The cycle the bicycling section of the

34:32ordinance is very clear that that any

34:34bike parking can't require lifting

34:36bicycles over any steps or stairs, and

34:38certainly not up a 3-ft wall.

34:41So, that short-term

34:43bicycle parking is

34:46uh out of out of compliance with the

34:47ordinance. Next slide.

34:53Adding to the inappropriate uses of this

34:55elevated non-compliant stormwater

34:57chamber, we find it designated as

34:59private open space, which as you know is

35:01reserved for the use of occupants of the

35:03building.

35:05But, since there are no ramps or stairs

35:07to that

35:08surface, no one can reach it. It doesn't

35:10qualify as private open space.

35:13Once we take out this inaccessible 300

35:15sq ft, the project fails the private

35:17open space requirement under the

35:18ordinance.

35:19Perhaps you can see after these last two

35:21slides, putting these

35:24making these claims of the elevated

35:25structure, why we wonder if the

35:27architect is even aware it's there.

35:31Next slide.

35:36The

35:37the cool factor score

35:40layers one more use onto this precious

35:42space on top of the chamber.

35:45Base base designate that space as high

35:48planting and low planting areas.

35:51These areas require 12 to 8 in 18 in of

35:54planting soil under the cool score

35:55guidelines,

35:57but the section below the bottom left of

35:59the slide shows only 6 in of compacted

36:02fill and no planting soil.

36:04And these chambers aren't supposed to

36:06have anything with deep roots on them as

36:08they'll eventually grow through the

36:09geotextile protection.

36:11Without the points from the planting on

36:13top of the enclosure, the project fails

36:15the cool score.

36:18Finally, moving away from our

36:19overburdened non-compliant stormwater

36:21chamber, we find a single canopy tree

36:24planted in a narrow strip of soil that

36:25accounts for 55% of the cool factor

36:28score. It's in that blue circle at the

36:30on the top diagram.

36:32The commissioner's letter said that it's

36:34an a reasonable area and it's viable,

36:37but the city's quantified guidelines for

36:39canopy trees beyond subjective

36:40reasonableness. Specifically, 700 cubic

36:44feet of soil are required for trees of

36:46this size.

36:48Two certified arborists find this

36:50location falls far short of that

36:51standard.

36:53Um

36:54and your uh Mr. Coppenger is available

36:57and to answer questions if you have

36:59them.

37:01Uh

37:02the commissioner suggests that this

37:04could easily be fixed after

37:05construction.

37:07Note that canopy trees get double credit

37:10if they're within 20 feet of the street

37:12as this one is.

37:14As you can see the front yard is fully

37:16subscribed in the permitted plan with no

37:18location that could possibly provide no

37:20other location that could possibly

37:22provide 700 cubic cubic feet of soil.

37:25Moving more than 20 feet from the street

37:27would mean you'd need two canopy trees

37:29for the same credit and there's simply

37:31no extra room to fit those in narrow

37:34yards elsewhere.

37:36Section 5.225 requires the lot to

37:39satisfy the green factor cool score

37:40before issuance of a building permit.

37:43Without the canopy tree in the planting

37:45areas on the stormwater chamber,

37:46[clears throat] the project falls far

37:47short.

37:48The permitted plan doesn't meet this

37:50standard.

37:52Next slide.

37:57So, while the front yard has no room for

38:00a new canopy tree,

38:02the permitted plan is likely to cause

38:04immediate harm to an existing one as

38:06seen in these pictures.

38:09It's the the pictures are small, I

38:11apologize, but this is a

38:13a red oak

38:15that it is that borders Lexington

38:17Avenue.

38:18It's a protected public shade tree.

38:22The civil plans, a slice of the civil

38:24plans, are shown on the left. And that

38:26tree is represented inside that red

38:29circle. This tree has a 20-in trunk.

38:31It's shown in that in that diagram from

38:33the civil plans with a canopy of maybe 7

38:36ft.

38:37Uh they show the canopy not even

38:39reaching the property line, much less

38:41the house or the porch where it actually

38:43reaches.

38:45Uh Mr. Coppinger says that excavation

38:47should stay at least 21.75

38:50ft from the trunk.

38:52The stormwater chamber excavation

38:53reaches within a couple feet of the

38:55trunk.

38:56The applicant, you'll see at the bottom

38:58of the slide here, uh

39:00uh told DPW that the project was not

39:02planning any impacts to public or

39:04private trees. We can clearly see this

39:06is not the case, and the public tree

39:08would face grave harm from this plan.

39:14Next slide.

39:19So, turning to the south yard,

39:21we'll start at the top,

39:23the arc with the architectural plans.

39:25They show grass from front to back.

39:29The landscape plans, next down,

39:32bring refuse uh large refuse storage

39:35area uh sitting on pavers to an area

39:37along the original house,

39:39along with some significant landscape

39:41arc elements.

39:43And then moving to the third plans, the

39:45mechanical plans, they reveal 10 heat

39:47pump compressors in the south yard.

39:50Along the original building, those

39:52compressors interfere with the waste

39:54bins. They occupy the same space, making

39:56that space in

39:58unusable for its assigned purposes,

40:00waste storage.

40:02Along the addition, they overlap with

40:03the landscaping and window well, further

40:05compromising the green the the green

40:08green cool factor score.

40:10But an even bigger problem is the 10

40:12heat pump compressors aren't an allowed

40:14obstruction in a yard per the ordinance.

40:17Three and four-ton heat pump condensers

40:19with dense power control and refrigerant

40:21connections to the building set atop

40:2418-in stands on concrete pads filling

40:26half the setback hardly seem to qualify

40:29under 5.2.5.24.1A

40:33as the commissioner wants to suggest as

40:35similar objects to say a clothesline or

40:38an arbor growing

40:39against the wall.

40:42Next slide.

40:4910 heat pump compressors

40:51within a few feet of the fence will

40:53exceed the city's noise noise limits at

40:56the lot line for abutters.

40:58Period.

40:59Also, though it's not a strict code

41:01issue, they're going to cause quite a

41:03racket for the building's occupants on

41:05the first floor and basement. Imagine

41:07living inside six heat pump compressors.

41:12Uh

41:12there is perhaps a silver lining that

41:15since they're placed just a couple feet

41:16from the perimeter fence, which is about

41:18a third of the manufacturer's

41:20recommended clearance for running this

41:22many units side by side,

41:24it should actually be quite quiet on hot

41:26summer days because all the units will

41:28overheat and automatically shut down

41:31leaving nobody in this building with air

41:32conditioning.

41:34Next slide.

41:38So, turning the corner to our last yard,

41:40let's let's complete our walk around

41:42there.

41:43On the left, you see the the civil the

41:46the plan view from the civil plans

41:48showing the egress wells extending about

41:503 and 1/2 ft from the foundation, much

41:53larger than you see in the architectural

41:54plans.

41:56Paragraph 5.24.1H is the only place in

41:58the CZO that mentions window wells as an

42:01allowed yard obstruction,

42:05but only as features that provide flood

42:08resilience.

42:10This lot, again, is not in a flood zone.

42:13So, these and four of the other five

42:15window wells around the building violate

42:16the zoning zoning ordinance by being in

42:19the yards.

42:21There's one more interesting thing to

42:22note on the elevation drawing from the

42:23architectural plan set, and that's this

42:25note in the red circle on the right-hand

42:27side.

42:28They've added a note that specifies that

42:30the top of this well needs to be above

42:31the 1% LTFE, and they even include an

42:35elevation, which we're not aware of

42:38where they found.

42:39This site's not This site This site's

42:41not in a flood zone. There is no 1%

42:43LTFE. It's almost as if the architect

42:46knows that these wells would need to be

42:48considered flood resilient features to

42:50be there, and so they added some kind of

42:53flood-related language to them to create

42:55the false impression for somebody

42:56reviewing this

42:58uh that these wells are appropriate for

43:00code compliance.

43:03Next slide.

43:08So, with our with our building walk

43:10around complete, let's turn to some life

43:11safety issues.

43:13Section 8.12 of the zoning ordinance

43:15makes conformity with the state building

43:16code a requirement.

43:19The abutters hired a respected fire code

43:21consultant, Cosentini, a tech tech

43:23company,

43:24to review the plans for 90 Lexington.

43:27Their code review finds that there must

43:28be 36 in of clearance between each

43:31egress well and the lot line,

43:33and a 36-in unobstructed path from the

43:35well to the public street.

43:38They observe that the plans fail on both

43:40of these counts.

43:42Next slide.

43:47Here's a side elevation of the addition

43:49at the rear,

43:51showing the egress wells with guardrails

43:52extending from the building.

43:55You can see the guardrail stand about 1

43:57ft from the fence.

43:59So, think about that. It's 3 and 1/2 ft

44:01for the for the window wells with guard

44:03with rails. It's a 5-ft setback, and the

44:06fence is about 6 in wide.

44:09Code requires 36 in.

44:14Next slide.

44:18Picking up on Constantini's

44:20on

44:21Constantini's larger point about

44:23maintaining a clear 36-in wide path all

44:25the way to the street, it's useful to

44:27lay the civil landscape and mechanical

44:29plans side by side.

44:32Starting with the civil plans on the

44:33left and looking at the

44:36kind of upper right-hand corner of that,

44:39the first obstruction you meet coming

44:41out of the back of the property is the

44:424-ft tall wall at the end of the bike

44:45rack.

44:46Clearly not passable at anywhere down

44:48the the back side of the building.

44:52Working around the other side of the

44:54building, we can

44:56uh

44:57uh

44:59we we can look at the landscape plan

45:01where we run into 3-to-4-ft wide

45:03arborvitae arborvitae trees.

45:06We can look at the mechanical plans and

45:08see the interference of heat pumps. And

45:10we can move on to the overcrowded trash

45:12storage area to find that there's really

45:14no 36-in clear path in any part of the

45:17rear and side yard, and it's more

45:19typically 1 to 2 ft.

45:22Next slide.

45:29Sorry, next slide. Thank you.

45:32Uh

45:33So, one more life life safety the uh

45:35issue, uh there's one more instance of

45:37non-compliance with the state building

45:39code, and that's the second means of

45:40egress is not provided from the fourth

45:42story space in the original building.

45:45The plans show only one.

45:48We're including this as a yard issue

45:49because a second egress would likely

45:51need to be an exterior feature, and it's

45:53not clear where an escape would find its

45:55way to the ground and to an unobstructed

45:57path to the street in these already

45:59overcrowded yards.

46:02Next slide.

46:09So, finally in the yards,

46:12the red square you see above

46:15is the size

46:17of of the electrical transformer that

46:20you would need to run this all electric

46:22building.

46:24And the striped area around it

46:26is the required clearances around that

46:28transformer.

46:31A location for such a transformer with

46:33its required clearances is not shown

46:35anywhere on the plans, and there's

46:37simply no place on left on this site

46:40where it could possibly fit.

46:44Next slide.

46:49So, this is a summary of our walk around

46:51and and what we found. These red shaded

46:54areas indicate areas of code violations.

46:58Every yard has multiple zoning and code

47:00violations.

47:02The bike access ramp on the north, the

47:03storm water structure with its multiple

47:05multiple personalities in the front, the

47:07HVAC obstructions to the south and

47:09window wells in the rear and sides.

47:11There are obstructions all around, and

47:13two required items, second egress from

47:15the fourth story and the electrical

47:16transformer, still have no locations.

47:21So, that's the story with the yards.

47:25Next slide.

47:28We're now going to move on to storm

47:30water and ground water management, and

47:31Mr. Hayes, our civil engineer, is here

47:32to answer answer questions if needed.

47:35Next slide.

47:38So, let's go back to the storm water

47:39retention structure, which we looked at

47:41earlier. In addition to being an

47:42unallowed structure in the front yard,

47:44this system fails to meet most state and

47:45city storm water management standards

47:48and building code.

47:50Think of this chamber as a swimming pool

47:52with an open bottom designed to catch

47:53and hold storm water runoff until it can

47:55slowly seep out, replenishing the ground

47:57water on the site.

47:59These chambers are typically entirely

48:01below ground, so you don't even see

48:03them. And as we said earlier, they're

48:04typically set far away from property

48:06lines and buildings.

48:08This table presents the standards that

48:10govern the design of these chambers.

48:14Uh

48:15Here, this diagram at the top shows how

48:17the chamber is perched above the front

48:19yard and walkway, so it can sit above

48:21the high water level.

48:23Unfortunately, the high water level is

48:24so high, it's just 2 ft below grade,

48:27that the chamber chamber can't quite

48:29stretch high enough to meet the full

48:302-ft separation required by the

48:32standards. It sits only about 1.4 ft

48:34above seasonal high ground ground water,

48:36and so it won't drain as effectively.

48:39Next down in the table is soil type.

48:42This is important. The civil engineer

48:44did all their design and analysis based

48:46on silt loam soil, and that's pretty

48:48permeable. It drains at 0.27 in an hour.

48:53Everyone else looking at this site finds

48:55it to be silt clay, which is a third to

48:57a tenth as permeable.

49:00What this means is that your the chamber

49:01will drain slowly,

49:03and that that water

49:05can travel sideways along the clay layer

49:08to abutters' properties and the public

49:09sidewalk.

49:11This structure can change the entire

49:13hydrology of the site, and the designer

49:15failed to produce analysis that would

49:17try to characterize that, leaving

49:18significant risks of property damage.

49:21Next slide.

49:27Now, although the civil engineer

49:29used silt clay in their analysis,

49:33silt loam, excuse me. They used silt

49:35loam for their analysis.

49:37They wrote a letter to DPW where they

49:39said, "Our soil testing found extremely

49:41high ground water elevations on this

49:42property, likely above clay."

49:45This was after they'd done their

49:46borings. So, they were aware they're

49:48fully aware this is a this is clay soil.

49:51Next slide. [clears throat]

49:55Now,

49:57bear with me on this story but because

49:59it's important and it really should um

50:02make clear what the challenges and

50:04difficulties are with this with this

50:06storm water retention structure.

50:09Uh

50:10so

50:11this structure was originally designed

50:13to catch the storm water off just 700

50:15square feet of roof at the front of the

50:17original building.

50:19The rest of the flow was directed to a

50:20French drain system at the rear of the

50:23building.

50:25So, you can see 700 square feet in blue

50:26going to the front, 2355

50:29going to that series of French drains

50:32um in the back. It's pretty obvious just

50:34looking at this drawing that was

50:35presented on January 30th that this

50:37wasn't going to work. The drains in the

50:39back were set on the property line.

50:41They're actually set under a fence

50:44and in the narrow yards.

50:46It was evident from this from the start

50:48that more room room was needed in the

50:50rear to accommodate these drains.

50:54Next slide.

50:58In June,

51:00DPW seemed to realize the problem and

51:03they said they recommended an overflow

51:06from the rear to the Lexington Avenue

51:08drain. That's the infiltration chamber

51:10in the front.

51:12A few weeks later on July 7th,

51:15the developer the applicant's engineer

51:17wrote back to say that this idea was not

51:20hydrologically feasible and it would

51:21breach design constraints cuz the front

51:23chamber was already fully utilized and

51:26they kept the two system design.

51:29Two days later on July 9th, DPW got much

51:32more directive. They rejected the rear

51:34system entirely because it was too close

51:37to the foundation and the lot line.

51:40Uh it's actually farther from the

51:42foundation than the chamber in the

51:44front.

51:45But instead of asking an applicant to

51:46make it the rear system compliant, which

51:48would require a bigger yard, DPW

51:50approved a system that sends all the

51:52storm water to the front infiltration

51:54chamber.

51:56That evening, just a few hours later,

51:58the rear system was deleted and DPW's

52:00review was marked complete the next

52:02morning.

52:03Next slide.

52:08So,

52:10this front chamber remained the same

52:12through all this. It was not a large,

52:14but it now handles more than four times

52:16the roof area. So, where does all that

52:18additional water go?

52:19Well, it goes to the municipal drain,

52:21which at this location flows to the

52:23Charles River as a CSO, or combined

52:25sewer overflow.

52:26It went from over So, the original

52:28design, where it drained 700 square

52:30feet, would overflow only in a 100-year

52:33storm with 12 inches of rain.

52:36Now that it's handling this much water,

52:38it overflows into the Charles in just a

52:401-year storm with just an inch of rain

52:42over 24 hours.

52:46I'll just highlight a note that the the

52:49the the engineers didn't have much the

52:51civil engineers didn't have much time to

52:53turn around these plans, but they did

52:54have time to add an important sentence

52:56to their report. It's up in the upper

52:57right-hand in a box in the upper

52:58right-hand corner.

53:00They

53:02They this approach uh was developed

53:04based on conversations and collaborative

53:05efforts with the Cambridge DPW in

53:07response to the challenging subsoil

53:09conditions.

53:10What they're doing there is redirecting

53:12liability back to the city.

53:15When this project fails, they don't want

53:17any part of it, and that's what that

53:19sentence was added for.

53:21So, just a small editorial comment. The

53:24city has made big investments over the

53:26past decade just on Lexington Avenue to

53:28manage storm water with permeable street

53:30gutters and bioswale, among other

53:32measures.

53:33Last month, Cambridge City Council

53:34passed a unanimous policy order calling

53:36for virtual combined sewer overflow

53:38elimination, a potentially giant project

53:42with the goal of zero CSOs by 2050. We

53:44find it remarkable that DPW would take

53:46this step of creating a brand new

53:48permanent source of CSOs when it could

53:51have been avoided by other means.

53:55Next slide.

54:02Stormwater management systems need to

54:03also demonstrate that they reduce

54:05phosphorus runoff adequately, and this

54:07one fails to.

54:09Different levels of reduction are

54:10required depending on where the system

54:12drains. The green areas shown on this

54:14DPW map um

54:17uh

54:18uh it shows separate areas with

54:19separated sewer systems where only a 65%

54:22reduction is required. The yellow areas

54:24show areas where the sewer systems are

54:26still combined and so require 100%

54:27reduction.

54:29This report out of the civil engine This

54:32This uh

54:33uh map out of the civil engineers report

54:36points oddly to the location of the

54:38Eastern Bank on Huron Avenue in a green

54:41area to suggest their target should be

54:4365%.

54:46Um

54:47if you advance to the next slide

54:51looking a little bit more closely

54:55the location of this project is at the

54:57purple dot at 90 Lexington Avenue, and

55:00that's clearly in an area that needs

55:01100% phosphorus treatment.

55:05Using the correct reduction target and

55:06the re-engineered design that directs

55:08all the root stormwater through an under

55:10side retention chamber the system is

55:12non-compliant on total phosphorus

55:14removal.

55:17Next slide.

55:22Seeing all the problems with the

55:23stormwater and groundwater designs and

55:25concerned about effort the effects

55:26they'd have on their properties, the

55:27abutters hired Larry Hayes, a respected

55:30civil engineer familiar with this area.

55:32His review surfaced a wide range of

55:34issues, concerns, and violations, which

55:36he shared in two letters to DPW.

55:39Mr. Hayes is here with us today, and

55:40he's he will also be willing to answer

55:42uh questions.

55:44Um

55:46uh

55:49Do we do that now, or should we uh

55:51>> I think you can finish up.

55:52>> Yeah, why don't I complete, and then we

55:54can we can bring Larry in later.

55:56Uh

55:57Advance the slide, please.

56:01Uh we learned how Mr. Hayes' letters

56:03landed at DPW.

56:06Uh the assistant interior in- internal

56:08correspondence at DPW

56:10They say in a sort of exasperated tone

56:11that the neighbors and their engineer

56:13somehow got their hands on the revised

56:14plan and submitted an updated review

56:16level letter. I sent him a generic

56:18response to the email that included

56:21addressing the new letter.

56:23They went on to say, "The design doesn't

56:25meet the letter of the law for DEP

56:27standards, but doesn't have to, since

56:29it's not under their jurisdiction."

56:33Uh

56:36We believe that the city's own

56:38wastewater and stormwater management

56:39guidance, which reflect virtually all

56:41MassDEP standards, remain in full force

56:45from what we can tell, and should still

56:46apply to this project.

56:49Next slide.

56:55So, the permitted plans contradict not

56:57only our engineer's assessment, but also

56:59the applicant's own geotechnical

57:01engineer.

57:03There's a lot to see here, but I'll just

57:05mention this first point. He states a

57:08foundation drainage system is required

57:10for the per the Mass State Build-

57:12building code. None appears on any

57:15sheet. There are no drains or sumps

57:17shown in the drawings.

57:19Remarkably, given the proximity of the

57:21stormwater retention chamber to the

57:22building, and the high ground ground

57:24water, and the fact that this house is

57:25well-known from former owners to have a

57:27virtual river running through the

57:28basement.

57:29The The slab is specked in the

57:31structural set as designed for in

57:34capital letters no hydrostatic pressure

57:36in all caps.

57:39Now, the basement units will likely

57:40suffer the direct consequences of these

57:42failures, but all the occupants will

57:44suffer when the building's mechanical

57:46equipments in the basement are flooded.

57:51Next slide.

57:57So,

57:58with those physical items covered,

58:01physical and hydrological items covered,

58:02these last two items move into the more

58:05administrative realm. Next slide.

58:09But, note 37 requires notice and a

58:12neighborhood meeting for a building that

58:13exceeds three stories above grade and 35

58:17ft above grade.

58:19The addition is 36 ft 5 in, so that

58:21requirement is easily met.

58:24In the applicant's own civil plans,

58:26grade is shown at 55 and the first floor

58:30is 4.7 ft above that.

58:33That's more than the 4 ft that makes the

58:34basement count as a story above grade.

58:38So, by their plans, the addition is more

58:40than three stories and the second

58:42requirement for notification is met.

58:45The commissioner's letter incorrect

58:47incorrectly treats the ground line on

58:49the drawings as grade to say that the

58:51addition is only three stories and

58:53that's just by an inch.

58:55We believe this permit was issued with

58:56an incurable procedural defect in

58:58violation of the ordinance.

59:00Next slide.

59:05Here's why the project should trigger

59:07the inclusionary housing requirement.

59:10It's 10 new units because the interior

59:12of the original building has been

59:13completely demolished on a first permit

59:16with no units remaining

59:19as of granting as of the time of

59:20granting of the second permit. Every

59:22floor and unit in the existing building

59:24will become completely different in

59:25layout, access, etc.

59:28The gross floor area is about 11,690 sq

59:32ft, far over the 10,000 sq ft threshold.

59:35Finally, by performing a similar

59:37calculation as to the in the previous

59:38slide, the basement of the existing

59:40building is also a story above grade.

59:43So, with the above-grade basement and

59:45the fourth floor, the original building

59:47has five stories in a residence C1 area,

59:50which under footnote 2 requires

59:52inclusionary

59:53housing regardless of size.

59:57We find it remarkable that the

59:59commissioner seems intent on making the

1:00:01strongest case he can against

1:00:03inclusionary housing here, where we're

1:00:05showing a strong case can be made for

1:00:07it.

1:00:08Why is ISD fighting against the city's

1:00:10own priorities to create affordable

1:00:12housing?

1:00:15Since the permit application record has

1:00:17no CDD certification under 11.205, the

1:00:20application is incomplete and the permit

1:00:22was improperly granted.

1:00:25Next slide.

1:00:29Next slide.

1:00:34So, to sum up,

1:00:36virtually every failure we've seen

1:00:38traces back

1:00:39to this.

1:00:41This maximal footprint set on a modestly

1:00:43sized lot with high groundwater and poor

1:00:45drainage.

1:00:47The yards can't hold what the ordinance

1:00:49and codes require. The roof runoff and

1:00:52groundwater from the new building have

1:00:54no compliant place to drain.

1:00:57Next slide.

1:01:01The permit fails on all the 10 counts

1:01:04submitted by the by the appellants.

1:01:07Each of these is proven by reference to

1:01:09the applicant's own plans.

1:01:12We hope the board finds this table

1:01:14useful as a summary of the appeal.

1:01:18Next and last slide.

1:01:24This project is non-non-compliant on all

1:01:2610 counts, so it doesn't qualify for an

1:01:29as-of-right permit.

1:01:32We request for

1:01:33respectfully request that the board

1:01:35enforce the law and annul the permit.

1:01:40Given the scope

1:01:42the broad scope and compounding nature

1:01:44of these violations, seeking

1:01:46modifications to the current plans will

1:01:48be fruitless and time poorly spent.

1:01:52By requiring a complete rethink, meeting

1:01:54all procedural requirements, and

1:01:56coordinating across all design

1:01:58disciplines, we hope housing that's

1:02:01fully compliant with the ordinance and

1:02:02other codes and standards can be brought

1:02:04to this site in a way that takes

1:02:06advantage of its unique assets while

1:02:09recognizing its natural limitations.

1:02:13Thanks very much.

1:02:17>> Thank you, Mr. Pounds.

1:02:21Um,

1:02:22Mr. Murphy, do you have anyone else uh

1:02:24needing to present any information?

1:02:32>> I

1:02:33>> Yes, Mr. Murphy, we have

1:02:34>> uh with us our experts who are available

1:02:37for questions, and I was going to make a

1:02:39couple of

1:02:41slides.

1:02:43>> Okay. Uh so, I'll ask my fellow board

1:02:45members if there if anyone has uh any

1:02:49questions for uh

1:02:52the appellant?

1:02:57>> Uh this is Penna Sullivan. I do not. I'm

1:03:00still trying to absorb

1:03:02uh

1:03:041,019 pages of submittals uh last

1:03:08Tuesday afternoon and the the um

1:03:11preceding presentation.

1:03:13Um I do not have any questions that have

1:03:15come to mind right now.

1:03:17>> Okay, thank you.

1:03:21This This is Daniel Hidalgo. Can I just

1:03:22ask a more process question of just did

1:03:25the um owners receive these, you know,

1:03:28all this evidence and reports um

1:03:31with in some Like when did they receive

1:03:32that? I just be curious because

1:03:34you know, there's a lot to process there

1:03:35and so it seems like it'd be fair if if

1:03:38they had some ability to respond. Um

1:03:43>> Yeah, Mr. Hidalgo, I did serve

1:03:46uh a copy of what I filed last month on

1:03:50the attorneys and the record owners at

1:03:53the time.

1:03:54Um I was not retained until there was a

1:03:58building permit appeal and so I was not

1:04:01involved in the process where my clients

1:04:03were advocating with the city staff.

1:04:06Uh but those were all done in the public

1:04:09forum. So those were uh available, our

1:04:11peer review reports and requests to ISD

1:04:15and DPW. Those were all done very

1:04:17publicly.

1:04:20>> Okay, thank you.

1:04:22>> Sure.

1:04:27>> Uh just Brian Sullivan. I guess one

1:04:29question that does come to mind um

1:04:32to

1:04:33um

1:04:34Attorney Murphy, if you

1:04:36um

1:04:37was a lot of the information and and

1:04:39again contained in the previous

1:04:41presentation and also the Hayes

1:04:43associate

1:04:45um report, did they actually walk the

1:04:48site? Was any Was it done by instruments

1:04:50at all as far as grades and all that

1:04:53other stuff? Or how did they have Or did

1:04:55they have access to the site?

1:04:57Uh and or did they just go by the

1:04:59drawings that were submitted?

1:05:02>> Yeah, that's a great question, Mr.

1:05:03Sullivan. So uh

1:05:05I can let Larry speak for himself. I

1:05:07know he did conduct a site visit. I

1:05:09don't believe he did

1:05:11uh instrumentation. I do know that he

1:05:14personally observed

1:05:16uh sump pumps in my client's basements

1:05:19to check the you know, the groundwater

1:05:22levels which are quite quite high.

1:05:25I also believe that um

1:05:28uh most of what we're telling you is

1:05:32discerned from a careful review by a

1:05:36professional engineer of the applicant's

1:05:38own drawings and plans.

1:05:41But uh I'll I'll let Mr. Hayes speak for

1:05:43himself if he if he has uh something to

1:05:46add.

1:05:46>> access to the site at all, basically.

1:05:50>> No, no access to the site.

1:05:52>> Okay. All right.

1:05:54>> All site visits were

1:05:56conducted from adjacent properties

1:05:59and observed conditions in the uh the

1:06:01adjacent properties as outlined in my

1:06:03reports.

1:06:04>> Yeah, I can see

1:06:04>> And that that's

1:06:05fairly clearly stated.

1:06:07>> Yeah, so that you were referencing um

1:06:10a typical condition, basically. I think

1:06:12prevalent in the neighborhood.

1:06:14>> Correct. And just observing the plans

1:06:17and

1:06:19reports that were submitted

1:06:21>> Yeah.

1:06:22>> by the applicant.

1:06:23>> Yeah, all right.

1:06:26>> Including, by the way, the borings that

1:06:29were witnessed by DPW. So,

1:06:31our assessment of soils and groundwater

1:06:35is not an independent analysis. It's

1:06:37based on the applicant's own

1:06:38geotechnical engineer who publicly filed

1:06:41that information with the plans.

1:06:43>> Yeah, okay.

1:06:46>> It's also uh

1:06:47referenced uh existing boring data

1:06:50which is obtained right from Cambridge

1:06:54DPW.

1:06:56There's There's

1:06:58logs of test borings all throughout the

1:07:00city that are readily available online.

1:07:04And they

1:07:06from my

1:07:07professional opinion, match with what

1:07:10their own geotechnical engineer

1:07:12encountered on site.

1:07:16And again, that's referenced in my

1:07:18reports.

1:07:18>> Yeah.

1:07:25>> I I have nothing else at this moment.

1:07:26>> Okay.

1:07:27Thank you, Brendan. Anyone else?

1:07:30Wendy?

1:07:31>> Wendy Weiss, you're saying thank you. I

1:07:33just have um

1:07:34a couple of very specific questions.

1:07:36Like others I'm hearing on the board,

1:07:38there's a lot to digest here.

1:07:40Um

1:07:41my specific questions are one

1:07:45for the argument um that centers on the

1:07:49multiple uses in the proposed front yard

1:07:51that are either allegedly inconsistent

1:07:54or incompatible.

1:07:56Um could you remind me of the specific

1:07:59zoning ordinance provisions where you're

1:08:01saying that these are

1:08:04um

1:08:05not allowed because of

1:08:08that allegation. Thanks.

1:08:12>> Yeah, that's a great question and it

1:08:14actually depends on which yard.

1:08:17Uh so we we did walk around the building

1:08:19and we did do uh an analysis of each of

1:08:23the four sides of the building.

1:08:26And I'm I'm I'm happy to reiterate it.

1:08:28This is all in the memo that I

1:08:31submitted. Uh but I did cite in in

1:08:35detail the uh chapter and verse of each

1:08:38of the

1:08:39uh Cambridge zoning ordinance provisions

1:08:42that we claim are uh obstructed.

1:08:45Uh I'm sorry, violated by the plans that

1:08:48were approved under the permit.

1:08:50Um

1:08:50>> So, would you like to re- You just want

1:08:52to refer me back to your memo then for

1:08:54those specific provisions?

1:08:56>> Yeah, I think I think Mr. Pounds knows

1:08:58the sites. Uh I I wrote down some of

1:09:01them, but he is more um

1:09:04has greater facility, so let me turn it

1:09:07over to Tom and see if he can point you

1:09:09in the right direction.

1:09:10>> Thank you.

1:09:22>> Thomas is on mute.

1:09:26>> How about now?

1:09:29It's okay?

1:09:30>> Yep.

1:09:31>> Okay. So, Wendy, I think you were asking

1:09:33specifically about the front yard if I

1:09:35heard you correctly, and you were

1:09:37asking to be reminded about the specific

1:09:39issues with the the all the different

1:09:42uses of the top of this elevated

1:09:44chamber.

1:09:45Remember the

1:09:46the first is that did I hear you

1:09:48correctly?

1:09:49>> I think um

1:09:50I was just trying to make sure that in

1:09:53the memo, the fact that the same space

1:09:56can't be used for multiple purposes is

1:10:00outlined clearly in your memo, and I

1:10:01will go back and look at that after

1:10:04having seen your presentation. Is So, is

1:10:07that clearly outlined in the memo that's

1:10:09on file, you believe?

1:10:11>> Absolutely. Yeah. You'll find it in lot

1:10:14lots of detail.

1:10:15>> All right.

1:10:16>> Good.

1:10:16>> Thank you. I just wanted to make sure.

1:10:18Okay.

1:10:25>> Any other questions from fellow board

1:10:27members?

1:10:30Uh hearing none, um we can move into

1:10:34public comment.

1:10:36Um

1:10:37Any members?

1:10:38>> Excuse me, Mr. Gray.

1:10:39>> Go ahead.

1:10:40>> I'm sorry. I was only able to come off

1:10:42mute. Can you hear me?

1:10:43>> Yes, we can.

1:10:44>> Um

1:10:46Mike I have a question. So, related to

1:10:48the argument you're making around

1:10:50inclusionary housing, um

1:10:54do Do have

1:10:56uh like an example you could cite uh

1:10:59regarding

1:11:01like how

1:11:03this requirement has been considered in

1:11:05the past and whether

1:11:07uh just like supporting your argument

1:11:10that 10

1:11:11new new units are being created versus

1:11:13seven.

1:11:25>> Yeah, Virginia, that's that's that's an

1:11:26easy

1:11:27>> [clears throat]

1:11:29>> Yeah, let me see if I can take a stab at

1:11:30that question. You you asked for an

1:11:32example.

1:11:33Um

1:11:35you know, I I can't give you a Cambridge

1:11:37example. I think the

1:11:40common sense understanding is that

1:11:42you've had a demolition complete

1:11:45demolition of the interior of the

1:11:47existing building.

1:11:49And before any So, there are no existing

1:11:52units right now

1:11:53uh within the building. Nobody lives

1:11:55there. Nobody could live there. And now

1:11:58you have as permitted an extension of

1:12:01that building that will add more units

1:12:03including in the basement and the total

1:12:05number is 10.

1:12:07So, that's where we get to that and uh

1:12:11also our numbers based on

1:12:15stories and grade and elevation, that's

1:12:18all based on the applicant's own plans.

1:12:20That's That's uh

1:12:34Uh was that responsive to your question?

1:12:39>> Uh yes, thank you.

1:12:41>> Okay, thank you.

1:12:45>> Mr. Chair.

1:12:46Thank you.

1:12:48Uh this is Wendy Li representing and I

1:12:49had a one other specific question um

1:12:52with regard to the canopy tree, I

1:12:54believe you're in your presentation you

1:12:56said

1:12:57that the commissioner's statement that

1:13:01the space allotted was reasonable and

1:13:03viable or something like that. Um

1:13:05>> [laughter]

1:13:06>> was not the standard to apply. Can do

1:13:09are you referring to a specific

1:13:11provision in the zoning ordinance that

1:13:16goes to that point?

1:13:16>> Yes. So um if it's the tree that I'm

1:13:20thinking about where it accounts for

1:13:23over half of the cool factor score

1:13:26um

1:13:28we we had a provision that uh

1:13:32is at

1:13:34Let me just give you the correct site.

1:13:36It's 22.97B.

1:13:40And

1:13:41uh

1:13:42what I I think Tom showed you when we

1:13:44looked at the slides is what is depicted

1:13:48is a

1:13:50um very small canopy, but what actually

1:13:54is required is much larger.

1:13:57And

1:13:58uh

1:13:59it has to be decided

1:14:02at the building permit stage for the

1:14:04obvious reason that

1:14:07um

1:14:08until these conflicting uses in the same

1:14:12space are worked out

1:14:14uh you really can't wait until a

1:14:16certificate of occupancy when the slab

1:14:18is poured and the building is built. Uh

1:14:20it's just too late.

1:14:26>> Thank you.

1:14:28>> You're welcome.

1:14:29>> Uh Mr. Murphy, just going back to your

1:14:31previous response on the inclusion of

1:14:33the

1:14:35uh aspect. And and you stated that there

1:14:38were the three existing units were

1:14:40completely renovated. And as such nobody

1:14:42lives there now. So

1:14:45they are not units.

1:14:48I just agree with that because if you

1:14:49were to renovate your house,

1:14:53you're not living there,

1:14:54but its status does not go away.

1:14:57It is still

1:14:59it would be a single-family home. If you

1:15:01renovated a two- or three-family

1:15:04um building

1:15:06and there's nobody living there,

1:15:08um they uh can't live there during the

1:15:10construction, but its status

1:15:13as a

1:15:15um housing unit remains.

1:15:20So, I I

1:15:21I I'm I'm I'm

1:15:22I can't connect the dots on this one

1:15:25where you say that it's it's those units

1:15:28are not there.

1:15:30And I think that maybe the standard,

1:15:32from what I understand,

1:15:34is when does a

1:15:37unit's status disappear in a building if

1:15:40there were possibly more than 50% uh

1:15:44total renovation of a building,

1:15:47um in all its utilities, um

1:15:50and then

1:15:52that may lose its grandfathering because

1:15:55it would probably be non-compliant as

1:15:56far as the zoning ordinances concerned.

1:15:59But because you're renovating it

1:16:03and

1:16:05nobody lives there, it doesn't lose its

1:16:06status as a um

1:16:08habitable unit or a residential unit.

1:16:12>> No, you're right, Mr. Sullivan, and I

1:16:14agree it is a matter of interpretation.

1:16:17Um and I go back

1:16:19>> what is the

1:16:20usual in the course of business

1:16:22interpretation of the department. And I

1:16:26think that they have

1:16:28determined, and again, if it's

1:16:29interpretation,

1:16:31that it was a renovation of the three

1:16:33units, but it does not lose its status

1:16:36as a an existing livable unit, even

1:16:39though nobody lives there.

1:16:41>> Yeah, in article 2.000

1:16:44the inclusionary

1:16:47reference

1:16:49development is meant to include the

1:16:51construction of new buildings or

1:16:53additions.

1:16:55Now,

1:16:57the

1:16:58demolition interior is an addition of

1:17:01new units. They're not in the same

1:17:03place. It's a It's a It's a blank space.

1:17:08So, this is not something that

1:17:11I I I think it

1:17:12is a matter of interpretation

1:17:14and

1:17:17you know, I'm happy to provide more

1:17:18detail

1:17:20and it it is in my memo, but I'm happy

1:17:23to provide more detail on that specific

1:17:25question.

1:17:25>> All right. Well, let me let us both

1:17:27think about that then. Okay.

1:17:31>> If you like, I can provide more detail

1:17:33at the moment because I have a subject

1:17:35matter Okay.

1:17:37>> My head is bursting with all of this

1:17:38information. So, I don't Tony, I have

1:17:40anything else here?

1:17:41>> Okay, that's the final.

1:17:43>> Yeah, I just want to jump in to make one

1:17:45small comment to refer us back to the

1:17:48commissioner's letter where he has

1:17:50already given his standard. If you read

1:17:53his letter on page three, the existing

1:17:56units will not be rebuilt or

1:17:59substantially redeveloped.

1:18:02So, we believe the three non-existing

1:18:05units will be substantially redeveloped

1:18:09and therefore using commissioner's own

1:18:11letter's interpretation, we believe 10

1:18:14is the right unit count that triggers

1:18:16IHP.

1:18:17>> who's speaking?

1:18:20Can you identify yourself, please?

1:18:35Okay.

1:18:38Wendy, you want you had something that

1:18:41>> Um I just had a follow-up question Wendy

1:18:43Lasterson. So

1:18:45um

1:18:47I'm trying to get my head around this

1:18:48question too. So about the inclusionary

1:18:52zoning and what counts what. So

1:18:56if

1:18:58this building now like I understand the

1:19:01uh

1:19:02idea that if you're doing a gut

1:19:03renovation of a single-family home, it's

1:19:06still a single-family home and at the

1:19:08end of the day it's still going to be a

1:19:09single-family home. It doesn't lose its

1:19:12status as a single-family home while it

1:19:14is being renovated if that's what that

1:19:17point was. If I'm not understanding

1:19:19Brandon, you can come back and tell talk

1:19:21to me about that in a minute.

1:19:22Um

1:19:24but in this case

1:19:26um

1:19:27we're going from

1:19:29a

1:19:29uh

1:19:31What is it? A three units now or uh into

1:19:34a 10 units? Is it it's going to be all

1:19:37one building? Is that correct? By the

1:19:38end of the day it's not two separate

1:19:40buildings.

1:19:41Is that going to change its building

1:19:44classification?

1:19:46Is I mean is that is that a different

1:19:48scenario? Is there an argument there as

1:19:50to why it would not be analogous to the

1:19:54point that

1:19:55Brandon was saying?

1:19:57If if you could just speak to that

1:19:59question. Thank you.

1:20:00>> Sure. Thank you. Uh so first of all,

1:20:03there are two ways that you get there.

1:20:05One is the unit count, which is what

1:20:07we've been talking about and I agree

1:20:09that is

1:20:10a proposition that is subject to some

1:20:13interpretation because the CCO is not

1:20:16entirely

1:20:17uh detailed on this issue.

1:20:20Um but there's also the other way, which

1:20:24is under table 5.1 footnote two.

1:20:28And that is a building over four stories

1:20:31has to comply with 11.203,

1:20:35whether or not it exceeds the unit

1:20:37count. And so, in in our other

1:20:40alternative analysis

1:20:43of the the grade, it is a five-story

1:20:47building, and therefore would need to

1:20:49independently

1:20:51comply with inclusionary housing,

1:20:54regardless of how you count the units.

1:21:11>> Thank you. I'm still going to process

1:21:13that.

1:21:14>> [laughter]

1:21:15>> Thank you.

1:21:15>> Thanks, Wendy.

1:21:17Anything else?

1:21:19Fellow board members?

1:21:22Okay, I think it's time we uh move to uh

1:21:25public comment.

1:21:27Um

1:21:28any members of the public who wish to

1:21:30speak should now click the icon at the

1:21:33bottom of your Zoom screen that says

1:21:35raise hand. If you're calling in by

1:21:37phone, you can raise your hand by

1:21:39pressing star nine and unmute or mute by

1:21:42pressing star six.

1:21:44I'll now ask staff to unmute the

1:21:46speakers one at a time. You should begin

1:21:50by say- stating your name and address,

1:21:54and staff will confirm that we hear you.

1:21:57After that, you will have up to three

1:22:00minutes to speak, and we will notify you

1:22:03of that time period before I ask you to

1:22:06wrap up.

1:22:09>> Uh Mr. Chair, if I could interject, this

1:22:10is Brendan Sola.

1:22:11>> Brendan.

1:22:11>> Sure. If I could interject here, and

1:22:14asking for mercy upon us,

1:22:16um how many people have signed up to

1:22:18speak?

1:22:19>> What's your count?

1:22:22>> I'm just wondering if we that number

1:22:24three minutes is reasonable given the

1:22:27number.

1:22:28>> I we presently This is Olivia Tay. We

1:22:30presently have five people raising their

1:22:32hand, but we have

1:22:33>> All right. Okay. That's fine.

1:22:36>> Thank you, Brandon.

1:22:38>> Yep.

1:22:39>> Um

1:22:41Polly Cobb.

1:22:49>> Good evening. Can you hear me?

1:22:51>> Yes, we can.

1:22:52>> My name is Polly Cobb. I live on 140

1:22:56Lexington Avenue.

1:22:58I have been a long-time advocate for

1:23:00those with disabilities. Accessibility

1:23:03and inclusion is always my principal

1:23:05focus.

1:23:06Plans by the developer for 90 Lexington

1:23:08Avenue show serious life safety issues,

1:23:12not only for those who may have

1:23:14challenges, but even for the

1:23:16able-bodied. I urge the city and the

1:23:18developer to review these plans

1:23:20carefully and ensure 90 Lexington Avenue

1:23:23complies with all except of applicable

1:23:26laws.

1:23:27The 5-ft exterior yard

1:23:31along the south side of the building is

1:23:33particularly troublesome.

1:23:35The 10 dwelling units must have exterior

1:23:37space dedicated to heat pumps

1:23:40and refuse bins.

1:23:42Also planned for this space is the

1:23:44planting of one Apollo maple tree and

1:23:47six emerald arborvitae.

1:23:50People who successfully emerge onto this

1:23:52space will have to maneuver around the

1:23:54bins, the heat pumps, and the trees in

1:23:57the case of an emergency.

1:24:00For the basement unit one, bedroom two

1:24:03has accessible

1:24:04window wells on the north sides.

1:24:08Drawings show an escape route from

1:24:09bedroom one through north side window,

1:24:13but that actually opens beneath the

1:24:16bicycle ramp that is inaccessible, so

1:24:19therefore is and

1:24:21The living area of another window well

1:24:23on the south side

1:24:24um does provide exit assuming they can

1:24:27get to it.

1:24:29Unit two has two window wells in the

1:24:31living area on the south side and both

1:24:34bedrooms have two window wells on each

1:24:38on the west side.

1:24:40Anyone exiting from the bedroom would

1:24:42need to make their way south to toward

1:24:44Lexington past the trees, refuse bins,

1:24:47and heat pumps. They cannot exit to the

1:24:49north because the bicycle ramp blocks

1:24:52access

1:24:53access along the entire addition and

1:24:55part of the existing house.

1:24:57I'm not sure actually that the west

1:24:59exits are viable because they at present

1:25:02are surrounded by bars.

1:25:05Initially, I thought the bicycle ramp

1:25:08could double as a wheelchair ramp

1:25:10allowing the required accessible unit to

1:25:12access the buildings and egress from it.

1:25:15That ramp gives access, however, only to

1:25:18the bicycle storage and not to the

1:25:20living units.

1:25:22That is only accessible from the front

1:25:24stairs, so no group one units are in the

1:25:27building at all.

1:25:29I highlight, however, what you already

1:25:31know. Units three and four have a single

1:25:34entry exit point. The bedrooms of both

1:25:37apartments are on the south side of the

1:25:38building located seemingly as far as

1:25:41possible from the single exit door.

1:25:44The above-ground apartments on level two

1:25:46on the north side, units seven and 10,

1:25:49have their front door plus decks on the

1:25:51exterior of the building. However, units

1:25:54six and nine, what we used to call

1:25:56efficiency apartments,

1:25:57have only the front doors for egress.

1:26:01>> Please wrap up, Ms. Cobb.

1:26:03>> Um

1:26:05I'll give one more. Unit eight has

1:26:07access to the fourth level which serves

1:26:09as an office. There is no egress from

1:26:11there and

1:26:13um

1:26:14on the floor beneath you can get to an

1:26:16exterior deck.

1:26:18Um I've submitted this testimony

1:26:22um and so you should all have a copy of

1:26:24it and complete it.

1:26:25Thank you.

1:26:26>> Yes, thank you, Ms. Cobb. We have that

1:26:28on file.

1:26:30>> Steven Suda.

1:26:34>> How you doing? Steve Suda, co-owner of

1:26:36Avenue Capital Partners, the original

1:26:38company who got permitted 90 Lexington

1:26:40Avenue.

1:26:41Um I find it a little ironic on uh some

1:26:43of these points

1:26:45um specifically on the affordable

1:26:47because even if we take Mr. Murphy's

1:26:49interpretation

1:26:51that a gutted new a gutted building is

1:26:53no longer its original status, then

1:26:55technically we only built nine more

1:26:57units, which by code is acceptable. If

1:27:00we want to gut renovate a four-unit and

1:27:02by Mr. Murphy's

1:27:03assumptions,

1:27:05it becomes a single-family, then again,

1:27:06there's 10 units. We have the right to

1:27:07build nine more units per the code. Um

1:27:10secondly, garbage in the location of the

1:27:12garbage has nothing to do with zoning. A

1:27:14lot of these interpretations that Mr.

1:27:15Hayes has made,

1:27:16at the same time, what we're listening

1:27:18to is people saying that their engineer

1:27:22for a month or 2 months of research is

1:27:24much more equipped than our engineer

1:27:26who's worked on this for 10 months, and

1:27:28the DPW, and ISD, and zoning, and the

1:27:31legal department. So, I just don't

1:27:33understand how a lot of these points and

1:27:35we received notice of this 172-page

1:27:38document from Mr. Murphy within the past

1:27:4136 hours that we're supposed to just run

1:27:43through this whole thing. But I I I just

1:27:46I I

1:27:46I I just find it a little bit

1:27:47unacceptable that we're here.

1:27:49Quite frankly, it's kind of frustrating.

1:27:51I know I sold the project, but at the

1:27:52same time, we're listening for 45

1:27:54minutes for them to speak on every

1:27:55single point and we don't even get an

1:27:57opportunity to present.

1:27:58So, I I I I'm a little frustrated cuz

1:28:00it's kind of hard to go to that diatribe

1:28:03that they went on for almost an hour and

1:28:05then only have 3 minutes to kind of

1:28:06assess it and not have a legal team

1:28:08behind us for this,

1:28:09and also not have our architects to

1:28:11represent us.

1:28:12So, I I would like further us the

1:28:13ability

1:28:15to comment. And secondly, we have sent

1:28:16letters

1:28:17uh to the ZBA uh and to the ISD today

1:28:21about our responses on some of these.

1:28:22And a lot of these have nothing to do

1:28:23with zoning, a lot of the claims they're

1:28:24making.

1:28:25And I think there's another point.

1:28:27There's a lot of retaining walls in the

1:28:28front yard

1:28:29of properties in abutting streets. So,

1:28:32per Mr. Pounds' assumptions uh uh uh

1:28:34session, whatever the word is, I

1:28:36apologize, we should just go rip rip up

1:28:38everyone's retaining walls in the front

1:28:39yards. We can't use those if it's

1:28:40covered in grass and soil. So,

1:28:42at the same time, my last point I'm

1:28:44going to make, I apologize, my son's in

1:28:45the bath, I'm trying to make this as

1:28:46quick as possible.

1:28:48ISD held us up for almost an extra month

1:28:52to make sure their tees were crossed and

1:28:54their eyes were dotted on this project

1:28:55because it had so much scrutiny from the

1:28:57beginning. And lastly, the neighbor

1:28:59behind us about the tree issue, we

1:29:00responded to their demand letter back in

1:29:02July, and we never got a response. We

1:29:03never got a meeting, and we never got

1:29:05even able to have a discussion with them

1:29:07on how we could kind of remediate some

1:29:08of their issues. So,

1:29:10it's it's ironic that we're here, and no

1:29:12one ever had a discussion cuz we

1:29:13followed every letter of the law for the

1:29:14new zoning with ISD, and ISD and their

1:29:17legal department and zoning department

1:29:18can attest to that. Thank you for your

1:29:19time, Mr. Chairman and members of the

1:29:20board.

1:29:21>> Thank you, Mr. Suda.

1:29:23>> Fan Wang.

1:29:28>> Um

1:29:29Thank you. Good evening, uh Mr. Chair

1:29:31and member of the board. I'm a Cambridge

1:29:33homeowner, and I strongly support the

1:29:35abutter's appeal to allow the building

1:29:37permit for 17 Lexington Avenue.

1:29:41After hearing the appellants'

1:29:43compelling presentation, I'm deeply

1:29:46concerned about the numerous uh serious

1:29:48zoning and safety deficiencies they have

1:29:51identified.

1:29:53These are not the minor technical

1:29:54issues. They involve required setbacks,

1:29:58open space, bicycle access, storm water

1:30:01management, protected trees, and

1:30:04potentially dangerous emergency egress

1:30:06conditions.

1:30:07What concerns most is how ISD could have

1:30:11approved of this a permit. Well, so many

1:30:14significant compliances questions

1:30:16apparently remain unresolved.

1:30:19This raises serious concerns about the

1:30:22adequacy of ISD's review and condition

1:30:25with public works and other city

1:30:27departments.

1:30:29The responsibility to ensure code

1:30:31compliance should arrest of the city.

1:30:34Not with neighboring homeowners who must

1:30:37have spent considerable time and money

1:30:39uncovering potential violations with

1:30:42170-page documentation.

1:30:44I support Cambridge's effort to create

1:30:46more housing, but increased development

1:30:49must never come at the expense of a

1:30:51public safety, environmental protection,

1:30:54or enforcement of the law.

1:30:56I urge the board to independently

1:30:58examine the evidence and if the multiple

1:31:02serious zoning violations are

1:31:04substantiated,

1:31:06annul the building permit, please, and

1:31:08require proper owner property owner to

1:31:11make a proper corrections to their plans

1:31:14and refile a new building permit

1:31:16application.

1:31:17Thank you.

1:31:19>> Thank you.

1:31:20>> Sherry Davis.

1:31:25Can you Oh, I'm here. Can you hear me?

1:31:27>> Yes, we can.

1:31:28>> Okay, thank you. Um I'm Sherry Davis. I

1:31:31live at 8 Lexington Avenue and

1:31:35I'm here tonight because I wanted to

1:31:38express my support for the petitioner's

1:31:41request to annul the building permit

1:31:44at 90 Lexington Ave.

1:31:46Um the petitioners have identified

1:31:48multiple grounds for appeal, which each

1:31:52are sufficient um

1:31:55to support

1:31:56um their application

1:31:59and um they

1:32:01they provided this information to the

1:32:03Inspectional Services Division and did

1:32:06not receive adequate responses from

1:32:08them. I share the concerns about how

1:32:10this has happened. Um

1:32:13and I urge you to vote to annul this

1:32:15permit as it as has been demonstrated

1:32:17tonight. It clearly does not comply with

1:32:20numerous provisions of the zoning code

1:32:22and also presents significant life

1:32:24safety, storm water, and protected tree

1:32:27risks. Um, and in addition to the many

1:32:30areas of non-compliance with the zoning

1:32:32code, I think

1:32:34the

1:32:36the code itself fails to consider many

1:32:38other important elements like historic

1:32:40preservation, protection of trees,

1:32:42neighborhood compatibility, and

1:32:44protection of existing renters. I mean,

1:32:46this is a house This is a building that

1:32:48sits empty that had three rental units

1:32:50in it. Now, it sits empty. There's

1:32:51nothing there um, that anyone can live

1:32:54in. So, um

1:32:56it's just I fully support the abutters

1:32:59and urge you to vote to annul the

1:33:00building permit. Thank you.

1:33:03>> Thank you, Ms. Davis.

1:33:04>> Donald Lessard

1:33:17>> [snorts]

1:33:19>> Mr. Lessard, you there?

1:33:39We can't hear you, Mr. Lessard, if

1:33:40you're speaking.

1:33:43>> Sorry. Let me start again. My apologies.

1:33:45>> Oh, no, we got you now. Thank you.

1:33:47>> Uh, Cambridge resident. I lived on

1:33:49Lexington Avenue for 23 years.

1:33:52Uh, no longer there.

1:33:54But, I said be very brief. I support

1:33:56increased housing density, but I think

1:33:58the process needs to be very carefully

1:34:00managed and from what I'm hearing here

1:34:02and what I've seen,

1:34:03it seems like this process in the review

1:34:06was a bit piecemeal and not fully

1:34:07integrated.

1:34:09And I don't know whether that was due to

1:34:11staffing shortages or lack of

1:34:12coordination. I can imagine the

1:34:14department is overwhelmed with this new

1:34:15ordinance.

1:34:17But,

1:34:18if this is going to be done,

1:34:20right? The process has to be carried

1:34:23properly and from what I'm hearing in

1:34:24terms of a number of these defects, it

1:34:26sounds like the process was not

1:34:27complete. So, I would support uh

1:34:31annulling the the permit and carrying

1:34:34the process as it should be done.

1:34:38>> Thank you, Mr. Lesser.

1:34:40>> Uh Ilya's phone? Ilya's iPhone?

1:34:47>> Hi. Can you hear me?

1:34:49>> Yes, sir.

1:34:50>> Hi. I'm Mr. Chairman, members of the

1:34:52board. My name is Ilya Fiukes. I'm an

1:34:54attorney at Kurschner Fiukes and Hill,

1:34:56but I'm also one of the partners for

1:34:58Trio Development.

1:34:59We are the new owners of the property.

1:35:02Uh I'm hoping that you can afford me at

1:35:05least 5 minutes because

1:35:07uh

1:35:08as mentioned, I received an email of

1:35:10these hundred and something pages a

1:35:12couple of days ago and since our team

1:35:15was not the design team,

1:35:17uh

1:35:18we didn't have much time to go through

1:35:19it, but I have

1:35:21a three-page, which I will read very

1:35:24quickly, response that our architect

1:35:26reviewed

1:35:28uh according to the zoning uh guidelines

1:35:31and if you allow me, I'm just going to

1:35:33read as quickly as possible and it'll be

1:35:35three or four minutes.

1:35:42Hello.

1:35:43>> Yeah.

1:35:44Start reading.

1:35:45>> Okay.

1:35:46So, the permit should be upheld. The

1:35:48commissioner the commissioner issued it

1:35:50after a 7-month multi-department review

1:35:53ISD, CDD, DPW, and fire

1:35:57of an as-of-right project that meets

1:36:00every dimensional limit.

1:36:02Front yard 17 ft where the required is

1:36:0510 ft, side and rear yards 5 ft where

1:36:08the required is 5 ft, open space 46.8%

1:36:12required 30% and 9,259

1:36:16sq ft of gross floor area. Appellant's

1:36:20eight-page letter and 164-page

1:36:22memorandum largely concerns state

1:36:25building code, stormwater, and tree

1:36:27matters that this board does not decide

1:36:30and drafting coordination among

1:36:31consultant sheets that is cured by plan

1:36:34revision, not annulment. Where the

1:36:36appeal does raise zoning questions,

1:36:38inclusionary housing, yards, open space,

1:36:42bicycle parking,

1:36:43the ordinance's text and ISD written

1:36:46determination support department. The

1:36:48scope of the board's review under

1:36:50general law chapter 40A section 8 and

1:36:5215, the board decides whether the permit

1:36:55complies with the zoning ordinance.

1:36:58Building code, fire code, and egress

1:37:00questions are decided by the building

1:37:03official and fire department with appeal

1:37:05to the state building code.

1:37:07Stormwater and foundation drainage are

1:37:09under DPW stormwater review, which DPW

1:37:12completed on July 10th.

1:37:14Tree protection is under the tree

1:37:16protection ordinance administered by DPW

1:37:19and the city arborist.

1:37:22Section 8.12 does not enlarge the

1:37:25board's jurisdiction.

1:37:26Appellant cites 8.12 to convert every

1:37:30code

1:37:31and engineering disagreement into a

1:37:33zoning violation. Read that way, the BZA

1:37:37would become the appeal board for all

1:37:39building, fire, plumbing, and DPW

1:37:41decisions, which chapter 40A and chapter

1:37:45143 do not contemplate.

1:37:47Section 1.3

1:37:50purposes are not standards. Part two of

1:37:52the letter relies on the ordinances

1:37:54statement of purposes, light and air,

1:37:57overcrowding, drainage. Purposes are

1:37:59implemented through the ordinances

1:38:01specific dimensional and use standards.

1:38:06And as of right project that meets those

1:38:08standards cannot be denied on general

1:38:10purposes.

1:38:13May affirm the permit with conditions

1:38:15where useful.

1:38:16Plan coordination items are cured cured

1:38:20by an amended sheet. They do not require

1:38:23annulment and a restart.

1:38:25Responses to the un-zoning grounds,

1:38:27inclusionary housing.

1:38:29Article 11.200

1:38:32does not apply. An inclusionary housing

1:38:34project is a development that creates at

1:38:37least 10 dwelling units or 10,000 square

1:38:40feet of residential

1:38:42GFA.

1:38:43And development expressly includes

1:38:46increasing the number of dwelling units

1:38:49within an existing residential building.

1:38:51The test is what the project creates,

1:38:54not the post-construction total.

1:38:58The permit authorizes the renovation of

1:39:01an existing three-family structure and

1:39:04add seven units.

1:39:06Seven units are created. Interior

1:39:08demolition of existing units under a

1:39:10separate permit does not erase the

1:39:12existing three-family use.

1:39:14Floor area.

1:39:17Uh G014

1:39:20This refers to pages of the approved

1:39:24plan.

1:39:25Reports 9,259

1:39:27square feet of total GFA. Of which the

1:39:31addition is 4,955

1:39:34feet. Even counting the entire basement

1:39:37of 2,431

1:39:39as new GFA, the floor area created is at

1:39:43most 7,426,

1:39:45about 2,574

1:39:47square feet below the 10,000 square foot

1:39:51threshold.

1:39:52Condition floor area, which is on G015,

1:39:56is an energy code measure, not GFA under

1:39:59section 5.25.

1:40:01Five-story theory.

1:40:03Appellants' footnote argument depends on

1:40:06the basement being a story above grade.

1:40:09As I will later describe, it is fully

1:40:11below grade.

1:40:12Neighborhood notification, footnote 37.

1:40:16ISD determined in writing on June 22nd,

1:40:182026, that footnote 37 is not triggered.

1:40:22The existing building is an existing

1:40:25four-story

1:40:2641-foot,

1:40:281-inch structure, whose height is

1:40:30unchanged, and the proposed addition

1:40:33is three stories, or 36.5,

1:40:37with level one and 3 feet, 11 inches

1:40:40above grade. The footnote requires a

1:40:42building exceeding three stories. The

1:40:45new construction does not. Grade.

1:40:48Appellants' contrary count rests on

1:40:50their engineers' recalculation of mean

1:40:53grade, 54.77,

1:40:56from the survey spot elevation. Grade is

1:40:59the mean finished ground elevation,

1:41:01measured either around the entire

1:41:03perimeter of the building, or along any

1:41:05existing wall facing a public street,

1:41:08article 2. uh 000. The applicant may use

1:41:13the street wall method, and finished

1:41:15grade is set by the approved design, not

1:41:17by preconstruction spot elevations.

1:41:21Yards.

1:41:22The building meets every required

1:41:24setback. The item appellants list are

1:41:27featured

1:41:28uh are features the ordinance allows in

1:41:32yards. Window wells, steps, ramps, and

1:41:35elevated walkways

1:41:37are expressly permitted by section 5.

1:41:4024.1H

1:41:44not over 4 ft above grade within 12 ft

1:41:47of the foundation. Fences are permitted

1:41:50section 5.24.1A.

1:41:53Front yard storm water system. The

1:41:55Coltec infiltration chambers are

1:41:57subsurface.

1:41:59What sits above them is landscape soil

1:42:02and lawn surface.

1:42:03Open to the sky, held by low landscape

1:42:06retaining walls of about 2 to 3 ft.

1:42:10That is ground, not building or

1:42:12structure that obstructs the yard. Heat

1:42:14pump condenser.

1:42:15>> Uh hold on, Mr. Fuchs. Just just a

1:42:17moment. I just want to let everyone on

1:42:19the meeting know you did email this

1:42:22correspondence to us and I would have

1:42:24read it out loud, so

1:42:26uh that's why I'm allowing you to kind

1:42:28of continue. Okay, so

1:42:30>> I appreciate [clears throat] it.

1:42:31>> kind of try to

1:42:32condense it as you

1:42:33>> I'm almost done.

1:42:34>> Okay. All right.

1:42:35>> Heat pump condensers. The heat pump

1:42:37condensers will be wall mounted and Trio

1:42:40will file an amended mechanical sheet

1:42:42confirming the location. Refuse bins are

1:42:45portable containers stored at grade.

1:42:48It's not a structure. Transformer

1:42:50location and type are set by Eversource

1:42:53after the permit is issued. If a pad

1:42:56mount unit is required and that's a big

1:42:58if, it will be placed in compliance with

1:43:01section 5.24.1

1:43:03and the open space figures below which

1:43:06carry a surplus.

1:43:08Open space memo.

1:43:10Sheet G013 shows 2,478

1:43:14sq ft of open space or 46.8%

1:43:19against 1,589

1:43:21sq ft which is required. 1480 sq ft

1:43:25permeable

1:43:27of which 794 is required. And 988 sq ft

1:43:32of private, which 794 is required.

1:43:35Appellant's deductions assume impervious

1:43:37pads and enclosures that are not part of

1:43:40the design.

1:43:42Permeable. The surplus is 686. The side

1:43:45yard walk and refuse areas will be

1:43:48permeable pavers. Condensers are off the

1:43:51ground. Even Appellant's worst-case

1:43:53deductions are cured by these

1:43:55specifications.

1:43:58Let me fast forward to the bicycle

1:43:59discussion. The permit drawings

1:44:01dimension

1:44:03are 5 ft

1:44:05at both ends and label it bike path.

1:44:09Section 6.106 requires a route at least

1:44:135 ft in width. It does not require 5 ft

1:44:18clear between handrails and building

1:44:20codes routinely allow handrails to

1:44:23project into a required width. The

1:44:25long-term bicycle room itself is inside

1:44:28the building footprint, not outside.

1:44:31Short-term post and ring parking is

1:44:34provided

1:44:35at the front entry. If the board

1:44:37prefers, the spaces will be relocated at

1:44:40grade beside the front walkway by

1:44:42amended sheet. This is a sitting deep a

1:44:45siting detail, not grounds for an

1:44:47annulment. Green factor cool score. CDD

1:44:51reviewed the landscape architect's cool

1:44:53score of 1.12

1:44:55and cleared the project before issuing

1:44:58uh the permit. Appellant's arborist do

1:45:01not dispute the arithmetic. They dispute

1:45:04soil volumes and plant placement, which

1:45:06the cool score guidelines express as

1:45:08{quote} should criteria, and which are

1:45:11met by planting details, structural

1:45:14soil, soil cells, relocated shrubs.

1:45:19Non-zoning grounds and irrelevant

1:45:21matters. Life safety. Building code

1:45:24matters for the building official and

1:45:26fire department.

1:45:28On the merits, the existing level four

1:45:30is the upper level of a two-level

1:45:32dwelling unit.

1:45:34It is internal stair Its internal stair

1:45:38is exit access within the unit leading

1:45:41to the unit's lower level and the common

1:45:43exit stair as the code permits for

1:45:45multi-level dwelling units. Keep in mind

1:45:48that the unit on the fourth floor is a

1:45:50multi-level unit. That single stair

1:45:52condition is also existing. Basement

1:45:55egress

1:45:56uh wells will have hinged steel grates

1:45:59flush with grade as represented uh to

1:46:02ISD on August 12th, keeping the route to

1:46:04the street clear. Stormwater and

1:46:07groundwater. DPW reviewed and approved

1:46:10the design on July 10th and the city

1:46:12engineer has confirmed it as maximum

1:46:15extent practicable stormwater

1:46:17management. MassDEP stormwater standards

1:46:20apply to redevelopment

1:46:23only to the maximum extent practicable

1:46:26practicable. The infiltration system is

1:46:28entirely below grade. Foundation

1:46:31drainage and sump pump discharge points

1:46:34are construction details subject to DPW

1:46:38sign-off. Trees. The abutters trees on

1:46:41are there on are on their land. The work

1:46:44is temporary excavation

1:46:46support within Trio's lot. Trio will

1:46:49retain a certified arborist and follow

1:46:52root sensitive excavation at the shared

1:46:54line.

1:46:55I'm not even going to talk about uh the

1:46:57sales price being higher. It's

1:46:59irrelevant.

1:47:00Um here's the relief requested. The

1:47:04board should deny the appeal and and

1:47:06uphold the permit. In the alternative,

1:47:09the board should affirm the permit

1:47:11subject to following conditions which

1:47:12Trio would accept. Before excavation,

1:47:15file one coordinated site plan,

1:47:18architectural, civil, landscape, and

1:47:20mechanical showing all yard elements

1:47:23within a 5-ft clear bicycle route. Two,

1:47:26confirm the heat pump confirm the heat

1:47:28pump location wall-mounted or roof by

1:47:31amended mechanical sheet. Three, replace

1:47:34window well guard guardrails with hinged

1:47:37grade-level steel grates.

1:47:39Four, locate short-term bicycle parking

1:47:42to grade beside the front walk.

1:47:45Five, specify permeable pavers

1:47:48for the side yard walk and refuse area.

1:47:50Six, submit foundation drainage and sump

1:47:53discharge details for DPW approval.

1:47:57Seven, submit an arborist approved tree

1:47:59protection plan for the shared rear and

1:48:01north lines. And finally, hold a

1:48:04voluntary neighborhood meeting before

1:48:07construction begins. And by the way,

1:48:09when I found out of this appeal, I

1:48:12contacted the attorney for the

1:48:14appellants immediately and said, "Can we

1:48:17please meet? We would love to listen to

1:48:19any of their concerns and see how we can

1:48:21resolve them." We were met with

1:48:23crickets. So, we are new to Cambridge,

1:48:26but we are a

1:48:28high-standard development firm that's

1:48:30been in business for 9 years, who have

1:48:32built over 60 projects in the Newton,

1:48:34Brookline, Needham area, and we are not

1:48:37fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants

1:48:39developers. We look forward to working

1:48:41with the city and with the neighbors.

1:48:43Thank you very much for listening.

1:48:45>> Thank you, Mr. Fuchs.

1:48:46>> Burt Singer.

1:48:55>> Hello, I'm

1:48:57Can you hear me first?

1:48:58>> Yes, sir, we can.

1:49:00>> Fabulous. So, I'm calling in about

1:49:041230992

1:49:0814 Bowden Street. Is that what's going

1:49:12on right now?

1:49:13>> No, we're we're working on 90 Lexington,

1:49:16not 14 Bowden. That's coming up shortly.

1:49:19>> Okay. I will uh lower my hands so then.

1:49:23>> Okay. Thank you so much.

1:49:25>> Suzanne Blair.

1:49:30>> Thank you. Um

1:49:31I don't envy your job this evening,

1:49:34members of the BCA. Um

1:49:37I do think I'm just following up in part

1:49:41on Ilya Fuchs. I think that what we need

1:49:43here is a central plan. And what I'm

1:49:46hearing in all

1:49:49sorts of other projects in the city is

1:49:51that different plans are being given to

1:49:54different sort of sectors within the

1:49:55city.

1:49:56And so my, you know, larger question for

1:49:59all of this is is there not a final

1:50:00sign-off looking holistically at all the

1:50:03plans together? There were so many

1:50:05different things that were simply

1:50:07incongruent. The things that stood out

1:50:09for me on this is safety, getting in,

1:50:12getting out,

1:50:13firefighters being able to do it with

1:50:16all that's happening both with the

1:50:17neighbors in here, stormwater problem,

1:50:19if this is in fact going

1:50:22to the Charles, but also water in the

1:50:25basements of abutters if you've got a

1:50:27major cement

1:50:30foundation here that's going to displace

1:50:32water in that area. Certainly the sound

1:50:35from these transformers will be

1:50:37impactful and there're likely possible

1:50:40brownouts as well.

1:50:42On ISD being held up for a month or even

1:50:457 months, they are hugely overwhelmed.

1:50:47Just take a look at the Cambridge

1:50:48housing map. And what I'm hearing from

1:50:51some in other areas, not here, is that

1:50:54developers are writing their own

1:50:55permits. So I don't know really what to

1:50:58suggest to you about this, whether it's

1:51:00annulling the permit or seeking a

1:51:02continuance, but I would imagine that

1:51:04having one central plan in which all of

1:51:06these things are together.

1:51:08And so that you can evaluate it would

1:51:10really make good sense. Thank you.

1:51:12>> Thank you, Mrs. Blair.

1:51:14>> Justin Safe

1:51:27Next week

1:51:28I

1:51:29like to ask that you please uphold the

1:51:31well-reasoned and well-documented

1:51:33building permit decision of the building

1:51:35commissioner and deny this appeal.

1:51:38The goal of the Cambridge City Council

1:51:40in passing the multi-family housing

1:51:42ordinance was for this project and

1:51:44others like it to proceed by right.

1:51:46There's no question that this project is

1:51:50within the

1:51:51intent of that ordinance and uh

1:51:55for the zoning to be able to move

1:51:57forward by right.

1:51:59If you currently exist appeal

1:52:01building permit appeals and follow-on

1:52:03lawsuits will become routine for every

1:52:05single project along these lines in

1:52:07Cambridge.

1:52:08Please do not allow housing opponents to

1:52:10misuse this process just as we have seen

1:52:13the historic preservation process

1:52:15similarly abused including an initial

1:52:17attempt to do so

1:52:19by the very same people who are

1:52:20appealing this building permit. They

1:52:22aren't concerned about the building

1:52:23permit, they're concerned about blocking

1:52:26housing.

1:52:27Another project in Cambridge has stated

1:52:29publicly that it has $23,000 per week in

1:52:34carrying costs. It's a tremendous cost

1:52:37for these projects to have

1:52:39years months and months to years of

1:52:42delay from the

1:52:45inspection department process to further

1:52:48appeals sought here at now with building

1:52:51permit.

1:52:52I can say

1:52:54that I'm a huge fan of permanently

1:52:56affordable inclusionary housing. That

1:52:59said the city has purposely allowed

1:53:01projects to add info housing

1:53:04and do not have to add inclusionary

1:53:05where they preserve existing buildings

1:53:08and do not

1:53:10uh go over the new 10,000 square feet or

1:53:1410 units threshold. And there are many

1:53:18projects in Cambridge that are

1:53:21uh in the exact same situation.

1:53:24Uh so, if you

1:53:26uh

1:53:27you know, change the expectations here

1:53:31with this project, that's going to

1:53:33ripple throughout the city and result in

1:53:35uh a significant impact and the loss of,

1:53:39you know, numerous housing units in each

1:53:41of those projects.

1:53:43Uh because they're obviously not going

1:53:44to go over, they're going to stay under.

1:53:47>> Cambridge has a housing shortage. We

1:53:49must reject regressive attempts to

1:53:51preserve exclusionary neighborhoods that

1:53:53are segregated by race and class. 31% of

1:53:56childhood poverty in Massachusetts is

1:53:58caused by our housing shortage. I'll

1:54:01quote a recent Pew Center report.

1:54:04Housing shortages don't just drive up

1:54:05costs. They're regressive. Maintaining

1:54:07restrictive zoning that exacerbates the

1:54:09housing shortage pushes vulnerable

1:54:11tenants in a more precarious position by

1:54:14burdening them with steep rent

1:54:15increases. Allowing enough homes for

1:54:17everyone improves affordability overall,

1:54:20but the evidence shows it benefits

1:54:22low-income renters most.

1:54:25I hope you keep that in mind and that

1:54:27you deny this appeal. Thank you.

1:54:29>> Thank you.

1:54:29>> Thank you.

1:54:30>> Helen Walker.

1:54:37>> Can you hear me?

1:54:39>> Yes, we can.

1:54:40>> Can you hear me?

1:54:42Oh, thank you. Helen Walker, 43 Linnaean

1:54:44Street, uh retired architect.

1:54:48I think it's relevant background that

1:54:50CDD is currently working on

1:54:52clarifications to the multi-family

1:54:54housing zoning that it's going to

1:54:56deliver in 6 to 8 weeks.

1:54:59The reason for this

1:55:00is that CDD claims it is known for a

1:55:03long time that developers cannot build

1:55:05to the envelope allowed under the zoning

1:55:08because there are many other

1:55:09requirements to meet. These include

1:55:12school cool score, storm water, egress,

1:55:15and fire safety.

1:55:17Um

1:55:18you can see you can hear this

1:55:20presentation for September 16th housing

1:55:23and long-term planning where they spoke

1:55:25of these things.

1:55:26They're going to clarify

1:55:28that building to the actual zoning

1:55:31envelope will not be possible for all

1:55:33projects.

1:55:34We have just seen the most striking

1:55:36example of what CBD is talking about in

1:55:39the presentation you have seen this

1:55:41evening.

1:55:42Certainly the entire city council needs

1:55:45to see Mr. Pound's presentation.

1:55:49I suggest that you annul the permit, but

1:55:51in otherwise, please continue

1:55:55demand that the developer presents to

1:55:57you the extra documentation he was

1:56:00talking about, and that you will read

1:56:02the 10,019 1,019 pages and understand

1:56:07the detail in which

1:56:09the presentation of this evening has

1:56:11been put together. Thank you.

1:56:15>> Thank you.

1:56:16>> Phone number ending in 8311.

1:56:23>> Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley

1:56:26Street.

1:56:27I will try to be far more polite

1:56:30than

1:56:31um the builder of

1:56:34so many straw men. I was I was hoping

1:56:37that no one lit a match.

1:56:39Um

1:56:41I And it is very nice to follow Helen

1:56:44Walker who really knows what she's

1:56:46talking about, and I don't.

1:56:49But what I do know

1:56:51is that what I heard in this

1:56:54presentation

1:56:55was that the plans didn't show the same

1:56:59thing.

1:57:01And

1:57:03it seems to me

1:57:05that you cannot

1:57:07have a reasonable

1:57:08consideration

1:57:10of what

1:57:11whether something complies with zoning

1:57:14if you can't even tell what they're

1:57:15building.

1:57:17And that's why the exhaustive

1:57:21comparison of the different plans

1:57:24matters.

1:57:26So, I hope that you get enough time to

1:57:29think about this

1:57:31because this deserves that kind of

1:57:33thought. Thank you.

1:57:36>> Thank you.

1:57:37Diana and Frank

1:57:40Palito

1:57:45>> Yes, can you hear me?

1:57:46>> Yes, we can.

1:57:48>> Okay. This is Diana Palito and I have

1:57:51lived with my husband for over 50 years

1:57:54and I'm one 47 Lexington Avenue. I am

1:57:57here to support the petitioners and hope

1:58:01that you will grant the appeal and

1:58:03revoke the building permit. I'm going to

1:58:05take a different tact. As a Lexington

1:58:08Avenue resident, I'm going to zoom out

1:58:10and look at the safety and crowding

1:58:13issues that this particular

1:58:16uh building would impact. The proposed

1:58:20proposed site of this development is on

1:58:23Lexington as you know between Huron and

1:58:26Brattle. Lexington is a narrow two-way

1:58:28street with a firehouse. It also has a

1:58:32snow emergency street.

1:58:34During the Lexington Avenue block party

1:58:37on October 4th a neighbor asked the

1:58:39three firefighters at the station what

1:58:42they thought of the proposed development

1:58:44on the street which would add many more

1:58:46housing units and parked cars despite

1:58:49the emphasis in this hearing on bikes.

1:58:52The reaction was that it was extremely

1:58:54difficult driving fire trucks down the

1:58:56street, especially in the winter.

1:58:59Currently, a fire truck cannot go down

1:59:01the street if any car is coming in the

1:59:03opposite direction. The car needs to

1:59:06quickly find an open space and pull over

1:59:09to let the fire truck by.

1:59:11My husband and I have lived in this

1:59:13house three houses from the fire station

1:59:16for over 50 years and have witnessed

1:59:19this danger and crowding increase over

1:59:22time.

1:59:23What will the impact be on the fire

1:59:25department with 20 or more resident cars

1:59:29plus visitor cars and the many daily

1:59:33workers already busily at work in

1:59:35existing homes and apartments parked on

1:59:38the street?

1:59:39Why didn't the city departments

1:59:41communicate with the firehouse and the

1:59:44fire department before issuing a

1:59:46building permit that could have an

1:59:48effect on community safety, not just the

1:59:51building of a specific house renovation

1:59:55of specific house? Similarly, two cars

1:59:58traveling in opposite directions cannot

2:00:01pass by each other if there are cars

2:00:04parked on both sides of the street. One

2:00:06car needs to find an open space and pull

2:00:09over to let the other car by. This

2:00:12becomes impossible when it snows as

2:00:15things stand now, especially with two

2:00:17bump outs just recently built on our

2:00:20street as well. Thank you for your

2:00:23consideration.

2:00:25>> Thank you.

2:00:28Okay. Uh, so uh, that was it for folks

2:00:33uh, calling in. Uh, just reviewing

2:00:36correspondence we've received. Um, we've

2:00:39received emails and letters from um,

2:00:42Polly Exxon uh, Cobb uh, in favor of the

2:00:47appeal uh from she lives on Lexington

2:00:49Avenue. Robert O'Neill at 175

2:00:53Holworthy Street as well as Phyllis

2:00:55Simpkins 249 Huron Ave. Susan Blair

2:00:59we've heard from five Fuller Place.

2:01:01Jeffrey Landsbury

2:01:03uh Doug and Judy Weinstock at 88 Larch

2:01:06Street. Rachel Cobb 140 Lex. Lee Gilmore

2:01:10102 Lex. Uh Billy Bian at 29 Grozier

2:01:15Road. Yuan Wang at 31 Grozier Road and

2:01:18Dennis Murphy

2:01:20uh of course from Hillville Road left

2:01:22correspondence all in favor of the

2:01:25appeal.

2:01:26Um those against the appeal uh uh

2:01:30email from Itmar Turner Torring uh 139

2:01:34Oxford Street. Todd Chapin at 462

2:01:37Cambridge Street.

2:01:39And um we also have the memo from uh ISD

2:01:43Commissioner Peter McLaughlin uh that

2:01:46summarizes his explanations for uh

2:01:49justifying uh the building permit being

2:01:52issued as well as uh and we've heard

2:01:54from Mr. Fuchs uh from Kurzen, Fuchs,

2:01:57and Hill. And thank you Mr. Fuchs for

2:01:59reading uh your correspondence for me.

2:02:02Um

2:02:03So that closes our public comment and

2:02:06moves us into board deliberations.

2:02:10Um I guess what we can uh just start in

2:02:13here what uh what's on uh my fellow

2:02:16board members uh thoughts.

2:02:20>> Do you think can I can I ask you a

2:02:21process question? Just

2:02:22>> Sure.

2:02:23>> Uh just because you know we don't see

2:02:24very many of these. Yeah. Um is the

2:02:26threshold for sustaining the

2:02:29uh or to I guess accepting to to

2:02:31rejecting the the permit is that four

2:02:34votes? What's the I I just don't I don't

2:02:37recall what the threshold is.

2:02:39So I'm just I'm just curious so I have

2:02:40so I have an understanding.

2:02:41>> Um, Olivia just left the room.

2:02:45But, um, I'm assuming it's a typically,

2:02:48uh, you need four votes of five board

2:02:51member, you know, participation to

2:02:55to uphold a decision.

2:02:58>> Oh.

2:02:59I think

2:03:00>> Can I unmute you, Daniel?

2:03:02Sorry, for the permit to be overturned?

2:03:03Just

2:03:04what's the

2:03:07>> Uh, yeah. Well, if four members vote in

2:03:10favor of the appeal,

2:03:13I think that's that's the minimum.

2:03:16>> Got it. Got it. Thank you.

2:03:17>> Right.

2:03:24So, any, uh, any thoughts, comments from

2:03:26fellow board members?

2:03:28>> Well, this is one of the small things.

2:03:29Maybe I'll I'll jump in a little bit.

2:03:32Um,

2:03:33you know, being in the construction

2:03:36business and submitting numerous plans

2:03:40and permits over the years,

2:03:42um,

2:03:44all permits,

2:03:45uh, the normal procedure is for the

2:03:49building department inspectional

2:03:50services

2:03:52to review it and, based upon the

2:03:54documents that you submit,

2:03:57and

2:03:59on any project, an architect, if he's

2:04:02involved,

2:04:04will, obviously, do the drawings. They

2:04:05will check compliance with

2:04:08zoning. They also

2:04:10check compliance with structural, should

2:04:11we be taking walls down or whatever it

2:04:13may be.

2:04:15And so, consequently, they would return

2:04:17professionals, retain professionals,

2:04:20who have the expertise in whatever

2:04:22particular field,

2:04:23uh, that is in question or needs to

2:04:26present documentation.

2:04:30And I think in all the building

2:04:31departments, um,

2:04:33that I've had, I mean, Boston,

2:04:34Cambridge, the surrounding neighborhood,

2:04:36and so on and so forth.

2:04:38Um

2:04:39they're very good and very astute. It

2:04:42takes them a while

2:04:43to issue a permit after their review

2:04:45process.

2:04:47And they go upon the

2:04:49documents that are presented to them.

2:04:52Any architect

2:04:54will rely upon, again, subsequent

2:04:56engineers

2:04:58and they attest to the accuracy of those

2:05:01documents.

2:05:04It's not uncommon

2:05:06in the course of construction

2:05:08where there during inspection procedures

2:05:12that the inspector may pick up, oh, you

2:05:15know, you're doing something wrong here

2:05:16or this is not right. You go to the

2:05:18drawings and yeah, but you know, under

2:05:20the code it's, you know, you have and we

2:05:22change it.

2:05:23And you make changes as you go along.

2:05:26That doesn't necessarily It's not fatal

2:05:29to the outstanding permit and it's not

2:05:32grounds to all of a sudden stop and

2:05:35everything until you correct whatever it

2:05:37may be. You do it in the course of

2:05:40uh the work.

2:05:42And so I think that what is before us

2:05:44here is that the department, I have

2:05:45great respect for, I have association

2:05:48with them over many years, being on the

2:05:49board and also being on the other side

2:05:52of the counter,

2:05:53um have done due diligence on the

2:05:56documents that are presented.

2:05:59The owners of those documents, the

2:06:01owners of the property,

2:06:03basically the onus is on them that those

2:06:06documents that they have submitted and

2:06:10have received a permit for,

2:06:12um puts them in the position that they

2:06:16um they own it. And if it's not in

2:06:18compliance, should during the course of

2:06:20inspections, they have to correct it.

2:06:23But that doesn't mean that

2:06:26the entire permit

2:06:28um is um

2:06:30or that flaw is fatal to the permit and

2:06:33grounds for

2:06:35uh revoking the permit, um correct it,

2:06:38and they again they run the risk uh as

2:06:42presentation was that these are somewhat

2:06:45seasoned developers,

2:06:47um and that they run the risk of uh not

2:06:52if not having compliance with it all,

2:06:56um not getting a certificate of

2:06:57occupancy, and their investment

2:07:00is uh is at risk, and I don't think that

2:07:03they would do that.

2:07:05Um and so

2:07:07I lean on

2:07:11um

2:07:12not revoking

2:07:14the permit, not supporting the appeal,

2:07:18and that

2:07:21the if anything comes out of Attorney

2:07:24Murphy's um

2:07:27um

2:07:29presentation is it's an education, and I

2:07:32think that um you have educated

2:07:34everybody on some of the uh issues,

2:07:37whether they be zoning or code

2:07:39compliance, um and different um fire,

2:07:44public works, whatever it may be,

2:07:46and um use all of those documents as a

2:07:49guide uh potential issues, and that they

2:07:52need to be dealt with, but I don't think

2:07:56that

2:07:57the issues that he has raised, and again

2:08:00that there may be merit to it,

2:08:02I suspect some of it does have merit,

2:08:05needs to be addressed, but I think in

2:08:06the normal course

2:08:08of uh construction and in the normal

2:08:10course of inspections that the building

2:08:14department does, along with all the

2:08:17other departments that are involved,

2:08:19um so I would um

2:08:22I would lean on not accepting the uh the

2:08:25appeal and

2:08:27letting the permit

2:08:29stand. I also think that the submission

2:08:33that um Mr. Fuchs um

2:08:36uh

2:08:37presented today with um some

2:08:41um

2:08:42conditions at the very end

2:08:44is a good faith effort to addressing all

2:08:47of potential issues and also having a a

2:08:51neighborhood meeting. So, um

2:08:54those are my thoughts. So, I would not

2:08:56be in favor of um

2:08:58the cessation of the permit.

2:09:01>> Thank you, Brendan.

2:09:03Any other board members?

2:09:05>> This is Wendy Lycerson. I did look up um

2:09:10the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter

2:09:1340A Section 15 it to answer um board

2:09:17member Hidalgo's question. It does say

2:09:19that a concurring vote of four members

2:09:21of the board of a board consisting of

2:09:23five members is necessary to reverse any

2:09:26order or decision

2:09:28appealed, basically.

2:09:29>> Great. Thank you so much.

2:09:31>> Um I also just wanted to respond to

2:09:34Brendan just now.

2:09:36Um

2:09:40So, I

2:09:42am a staff member in a different city's

2:09:45inspectional services division and I

2:09:47have seen multiple

2:09:50uh plan sets permit uh submitted after

2:09:54the building permit has issued. So, I do

2:09:57understand and agree with Brendan that

2:09:59many

2:10:00um

2:10:01changes are made during the course of a

2:10:03project. Um

2:10:06So, I testify that I I have seen that,

2:10:08too. However, um my only consideration

2:10:13here is I agree with um a lot of what

2:10:16was said in terms of being careful to

2:10:18decide

2:10:20uh to remind ourselves of what the scope

2:10:22of our review is, which is we can only

2:10:24review

2:10:26the zoning ordinance issues. And a lot

2:10:29of what was said are building code

2:10:32issues or

2:10:33other code issues that we simply do not

2:10:36have the authority or expertise to

2:10:39review.

2:10:40And that is uh

2:10:43something the building commissioner does

2:10:44have the authority and expertise to

2:10:46review.

2:10:48Um

2:10:49but I do think I haven't had enough time

2:10:52to properly digest uh the thousand pages

2:10:56and responses

2:10:57to be certain of what is or is not a

2:11:00zoning issue that we need to review. So,

2:11:03that's

2:11:05how I'm feeling with a lot of

2:11:07the materials presented in in general.

2:11:11I lean towards

2:11:13um

2:11:14where Brandon's coming from with regard

2:11:16to understanding that plans do get

2:11:19revised,

2:11:21that the building code is not within our

2:11:23purview.

2:11:24Um it's just I'm not clear which of

2:11:26these issues that have been raised are

2:11:29actually zoning issues that we should be

2:11:32reviewing.

2:11:35>> Thank you, Wendy.

2:11:39>> This is Daniel D'Ippolito. Just um

2:11:42yeah, I I

2:11:43uh

2:11:44appreciate um the presentation. I

2:11:46thought it was very clear. It really

2:11:47helped me, you know,

2:11:49get a little more of a handle on

2:11:51on the materials that I was reviewing

2:11:53earlier this week. Um

2:11:56you know, I I I I agree with Wendy that

2:11:59I think to me most of the items under

2:12:01consideration clearly fall don't fall

2:12:03under our purview.

2:12:05Um the one that I was more, you know,

2:12:07interested in was the question about the

2:12:09um

2:12:11about the exclusionary zoning.

2:12:14Um but given Brandon's discussion, I

2:12:16sort of agree that, you know, even if

2:12:18it's in sort of this liminal state

2:12:19between

2:12:20being kind of remodeled or re- redone

2:12:22doesn't undo with previous status. And

2:12:25so, I'm convinced that that's not really

2:12:28um an issue. And then finally, um

2:12:32you know, I this is not the fault of the

2:12:34abutters because this is the process in

2:12:36the law and and so it's not a problem,

2:12:37but I really don't like this [laughter]

2:12:38that we can have this, you know, very

2:12:40comprehensive, very clear, very good

2:12:42presentation from the um the the the

2:12:45abutters but not

2:12:47you know, I think feel like have

2:12:48sufficient time and also hear the other

2:12:49side in a comprehensive full way. So, I

2:12:52I just don't I don't, you know, this is

2:12:53no one's fault, but I just don't love

2:12:55love the setup of this. Um so, but

2:12:57anyways, to to to to end just I would

2:12:59say I I I agree with Brendan basically

2:13:01that

2:13:02and I'm I'm leaning towards um

2:13:04uh you know, allowing the the permit to

2:13:06stand.

2:13:09>> Thank you, Daniel.

2:13:11Virginia?

2:13:13>> Hi.

2:13:14Uh this is Virginia.

2:13:16I agreed that it felt like a number of

2:13:18the points that were raised pertained to

2:13:21life safety, storm water, other items

2:13:24that aren't under our purview.

2:13:26I think a lot of the

2:13:28zoning points that were raised,

2:13:30including the inclusionary zoning point,

2:13:32but also a number of other points,

2:13:35the language was at the least like quite

2:13:37ambiguous as to how

2:13:40it should be interpreted and the

2:13:42argument that was being made wasn't to

2:13:44me strong enough

2:13:46uh that it drove me to believe that the

2:13:49permit should be

2:13:50um overturned by the zoning board. So,

2:13:53I'm uh I think aligned with my fellow

2:13:56board members in terms of

2:13:59uh leaning away from uh overturning the

2:14:01permit.

2:14:03>> Thank you, Virginia. And uh for myself,

2:14:06um I I'm leaning I also agree with

2:14:09Brendan

2:14:11um that the process

2:14:13and it's it's it's reinforced by Mr.

2:14:16McLaughlin, the Commissioner of ISD's

2:14:19letter that, you know, the it it

2:14:22this goes to a rigorous review.

2:14:25CDD

2:14:27DPW, fire department, and then finally

2:14:30ISD.

2:14:31And, um, fellow board members, you'll

2:14:34all agree we go through

2:14:36hearings where we hear uh, applications

2:14:39where they're complaining about all the

2:14:41work they have to do to comply with uh,

2:14:44everything that the city of Cambridge is

2:14:46requiring of them. So, I mean, my

2:14:49confidence is is with uh, ISD and our

2:14:53city's departments when they review an

2:14:55application. Um, and I I think as as Mr.

2:15:00McLaughlin sites in his letter that, you

2:15:02know,

2:15:03certificate of occupancy is a very high

2:15:05threshold to meet. And if you don't,

2:15:09you know, uh, comply with those

2:15:11requirements for each of the steps,

2:15:13um, you're going to be uh,

2:15:16have a lot of difficulty getting your

2:15:18occupancy permit. So, I think, um, as

2:15:22Brendan described, the process is your

2:15:24ownership, the owner's ownership of the

2:15:26process. And if if you're um, not

2:15:30staying on top of it, it could really

2:15:32uh, cause problems for you down the

2:15:34road, but it's not something I think our

2:15:37board should overturn

2:15:40or uh, accept this appeal.

2:15:43Um,

2:15:44I think we we uh, I have uh,

2:15:49confidence in the process, you know,

2:15:51that the continual review and

2:15:53adjustments to the project will

2:15:55eventually get you to um,

2:15:57you know, something that's meeting the

2:15:59zoning, uh, the density. I I I think uh,

2:16:02the inclusionary issue was is answered

2:16:05by our CDD and and and city departments.

2:16:09So,

2:16:10um yeah, I'm I'm not necessary I'm not

2:16:12in favor of uh the appeal myself.

2:16:19>> Wendy?

2:16:21>> I think um

2:16:23It's Wendy Lightsey for the record. I do

2:16:26I think we're all leaning the same way.

2:16:29Um however, I am concerned that

2:16:32um

2:16:33for myself that I don't think that I've

2:16:35had an adequate opportunity to digest a

2:16:38thousand pages and

2:16:41the 45-minute presentation.

2:16:44And um and I also agree with um board

2:16:47member Hidalgo's point of view that

2:16:50um

2:16:51while the

2:16:53uh

2:16:54permit holder was uh read the three-page

2:16:57letter into the record um and I found

2:17:00that um

2:17:03compelling, I'm

2:17:05just wondering if all of the board

2:17:06members feel it

2:17:08despite our leaning whether they are

2:17:10clear that there is no zoning issue that

2:17:14needs to be

2:17:15or condition that needs to be attached

2:17:18to upholding it as was proposed by the

2:17:21permit holder.

2:17:23So, that's my my question for the board.

2:17:30>> Sorry.

2:17:31Um

2:17:33I don't think the the it was gracious

2:17:36for uh the permit holder

2:17:38to kind of offer that, but he has a

2:17:40building permit.

2:17:42And it's approved through the city

2:17:44process. So,

2:17:46I mean, I think some of those items he

2:17:48may have to do

2:17:50throughout the process to comply with

2:17:53meeting those requirements. And um

2:17:57but uh

2:17:58I don't think we should hold him to

2:18:00that. He's he's in you know, he's

2:18:02they've done their due diligence, their

2:18:04work to get to get to where they are and

2:18:07I think uh

2:18:08you know, uh

2:18:11I don't think we need I don't see the

2:18:12need to include those conditions.

2:18:15I don't know what what are my fellow

2:18:16board members thinking.

2:18:23>> I get from from me I mean uh this is

2:18:24Daniel Dalgo. Uh you know, many of those

2:18:26seem quite sensible and as you say that

2:18:28I imagine many of them will have been in

2:18:30the course of of the the ongoing

2:18:32process. I guess the thing I'm always

2:18:33just a little bit cautious about

2:18:35imposing conditions is just knowing

2:18:37being cognizant that that also puts

2:18:38additional burdens then

2:18:40on on the staff to, you know, make sure

2:18:42that all those conditions are being met

2:18:43and so I would just if we do do anything

2:18:44like that, I would just want to make

2:18:45sure that, you know, we just

2:18:48think carefully that and that that

2:18:50actually like checking that these are

2:18:51met are, you know, is straightforward

2:18:53and not require a lot of uh you know,

2:18:56back and forth or or effort from the

2:18:58staff.

2:18:59>> Uh friend and fellow if we were to

2:19:01include those conditions at the end

2:19:04as a grounds for us

2:19:07um upholding the commissioner's decision

2:19:11and denying the appeal,

2:19:14what happens if those conditions are not

2:19:16met?

2:19:17>> What

2:19:17>> [laughter]

2:19:18>> What is What is the fallback? What is

2:19:20the

2:19:20>> Exactly.

2:19:22>> There is none. I mean, how can we how

2:19:24can that be policed in a sense? So, I

2:19:27would not I think it's a wonderful

2:19:28gesture. I think it's a very necessary

2:19:30gesture for their own peace of mind for

2:19:34um going forward. Um because they are

2:19:39welcome to Cambridge and uh it's not

2:19:41Newton and Brookline. It's uh we have an

2:19:44island unto ourselves

2:19:46and that um

2:19:49regardless of personal

2:19:52view on

2:19:54this particular project, I'm speaking

2:19:55for myself personally.

2:19:57And other projects that I see around the

2:20:01city

2:20:02from somebody from my perspective, I

2:20:04have progressed four blocks in my entire

2:20:06life.

2:20:07So, I've seen the city change

2:20:09dramatically.

2:20:11Regardless of that,

2:20:13um I think that um you know, again,

2:20:16welcome to Cambridge, but

2:20:18those conditions that you offered,

2:20:21I would encourage those to the um

2:20:25to the owner um and the developer. Um

2:20:28but I don't think that

2:20:30um I think it exceeds a little bit of

2:20:31our authority, and what is the end game

2:20:34there

2:20:35if um

2:20:36if they don't make meet them. So, I

2:20:37would just make a

2:20:40a semi suggestion.

2:20:42Mr. Chair, would be a a motion to uphold

2:20:45the appeal

2:20:48and ask request the commissioner to

2:20:52um resend uh revoke the permit

2:20:55uh uh based on, and then you'll have to

2:20:57fill in the blanks there.

2:20:59And then take that to a vote.

2:21:01And if

2:21:02the vote is does not receive the

2:21:05necessary

2:21:06four votes, then we would have to give

2:21:08our reasons

2:21:10why we voted the way we voted. So, that

2:21:12would be my

2:21:14two cents worth here.

2:21:17>> I agree, Brendan. Um sounds like I got

2:21:20to pull together a complicated motion

2:21:22here.

2:21:23Um

2:21:26Uh so, uh is there any other discussion

2:21:30needed, or I'll give it a shot.

2:21:32Uh the chair makes a motion to grant the

2:21:34appeal, and I will state in the positive

2:21:37uh motion to grant the appeal to annul

2:21:40the building permit record number

2:21:421196760

2:21:45for 90 Lexington Avenue for

2:21:48non-compliance with the zoning ordinance

2:21:50on the grounds stated in

2:21:53the attached notice of appeal, which is

2:21:55Article 22, Section 22.90,

2:21:59uh failure to meet uh the green factor

2:22:02standards in Section 2294.

2:22:053A, the cool score, 2297B,

2:22:09implementation of green factor

2:22:11standards, as well as Article 6, Section

2:22:146.106.

2:22:161 A and D,

2:22:19uh

2:22:20failure to comply with the primary

2:22:22access access standards for bicycle

2:22:25parking, Section 6.104.2,

2:22:28uh failure uh improper location of

2:22:31short-term bicycle parking, Section

2:22:346.102.5,

2:22:36uh types of bicycle parking, uh Article

2:22:405, Section 5.22.1

2:22:43and and 5.224A,

2:22:46um failure to comply with open space uh

2:22:50in Article 2, Section 5.24,

2:22:545.24.1

2:22:56and 5.31, table of dimensional

2:22:58requirements, um

2:23:02as well as Section 5.40,

2:23:04footnote 37, Article 2, uh requirements

2:23:08um

2:23:08for uh not meeting neighborhood

2:23:11notification,

2:23:12um

2:23:13next uh

2:23:15Article 4.0, 4.21H,

2:23:18Article 2, uh regarding yards, um

2:23:23uh Article 11, Article 2, uh

2:23:27in im-

2:23:29failure to provide uh correct or comply

2:23:32with inclusionary housing, and finally

2:23:35sec- Article 10, Section 10.20,

2:23:39uh

2:23:40appeal process,

2:23:42um

2:23:43and uh

2:23:45if if voted

2:23:48in fa- in favor of the appeal, we would

2:23:50direct uh the

2:23:53ISD commissioner to rescind the building

2:23:55permit as noted. Uh so, on a voice vote,

2:23:59please, uh Wendy Licciardone.

2:24:04>> This is Wendy Licciardone. I cannot vote

2:24:06in favor of the appeal based on

2:24:10uh

2:24:13my understanding of the project at this

2:24:14point and the review that has already

2:24:16occurred.

2:24:17>> Okay. Thank you. Uh Virginia?

2:24:27We can't hear you, Virginia.

2:24:37>> Uh sorry, can you hear me? This is

2:24:38>> Yes, we can hear you now.

2:24:40>> Yes. Uh Virginia Kiefer, uh sorry, so

2:24:43I'm voting in opposition, not to

2:24:47I I in opposition of the appeal.

2:24:50>> Okay.

2:24:50>> Is that

2:24:51Yeah.

2:24:52>> Yep, that's good. Uh

2:24:54Daniel Hidalgo?

2:24:56>> Daniel Hidalgo, I decline to vote in

2:24:58favor of the appeal.

2:25:00>> Understood. Uh Brendan Sullivan?

2:25:02>> I would um vote in

2:25:05um opposition to the motion.

2:25:08>> And

2:25:09>> I favor of the motion.

2:25:10>> Yes, and Stevening also voting not in

2:25:12favor of the appeal motion. So, the vote

2:25:16is 0-5 against. Uh the appeal is denied.

2:25:20Um

2:25:23and I guess uh Brendan, as you were

2:25:26saying, we need to kind of provide

2:25:28criteria for the reasons for

2:25:31>> In our decision, I would rely upon and

2:25:34that we agree with

2:25:36the

2:25:37um

2:25:39memorandum on the letter sent to the

2:25:41board by the commissioner dated October

2:25:4313th, 2000

2:25:4626 in reference to the appeal of the

2:25:48building permit issued for 90 Lexington

2:25:50Avenue

2:25:51and having read

2:25:54the commissioner's reply to

2:25:57the issues raised by the appellant

2:26:00that the board agrees with the

2:26:03commissioner's decisions

2:26:05on each one of those counts and as such

2:26:07accepts his letter

2:26:10as

2:26:12being

2:26:14valid

2:26:15or

2:26:17allowing the permission the permit to

2:26:19stand.

2:26:21>> Okay, thank you. I so moved.

2:26:23>> Please please clean that up. I mean that

2:26:25>> Yeah, yeah, we can clean that up, right

2:26:26Olivia? Okay. So, on a voice vote for uh

2:26:32that the criteria

2:26:34Wendy?

2:26:38>> Wendy Layserson um

2:26:41as I was trying to say that I'm voting

2:26:43not in favor of the appeal but for

2:26:46different reasons than

2:26:48partly relying on the letter of the

2:26:51commissioner and in part not.

2:26:53Thank you.

2:26:54>> Okay.

2:26:55Miss Kessler?

2:26:59>> Um Virginia Kessler from uh

2:27:02voting

2:27:04in support of our explanation. Is that

2:27:07>> Yes, yes.

2:27:08>> Yes, okay.

2:27:10Thank you.

2:27:13>> And that was in in favor or against?

2:27:17>> Uh

2:27:18in favor of the rationale being provided

2:27:21by the B B A for our vote in that

2:27:24position. That's that's

2:27:25>> Thank you.

2:27:27Daniel Hidalgo?

2:27:29>> Uh Daniel Hidalgo in favor of

2:27:31Brendan Sullivan's explanation.

2:27:33>> And Brendan?

2:27:35>> I would be in favor of the subsequent

2:27:37reason for

2:27:39the denial of the appeal.

2:27:41Reasons for the board denying the

2:27:43appeal.

2:27:44Yes. Accepting the mission's letter.

2:27:47>> And Stevening is also in favor of of

2:27:49that criteria stated. So, um

2:27:53I guess that closes this this

2:27:56item.

2:27:59Thanks, everybody. Um so, we're moving

2:28:01on to our next case, uh BZA 1229438,

2:28:07uh 131 Raymond Street.

2:28:10Um owners Taylor Sakolsky

2:28:14Living Trust, uh J. Glover Taylor and

2:28:17Laurie

2:28:18Sakolsky

2:28:19Sakolsky uh

2:28:22are representing the application for a

2:28:25special permit in closure of a

2:28:27pre-existing non-conforming front porch

2:28:30within yard front yard setback.

2:28:37Is someone online? Uh

2:28:38>> Yeah, sorry. I'm here.

2:28:40Hi, thank you. This is Glover Taylor.

2:28:43>> Thank you.

2:28:44>> My name's Glover Taylor and um I live at

2:28:47131 Raymond Street. I'm the owner of

2:28:50this

2:28:51uh two-story two-family um house that

2:28:54we've lived in for 34 years.

2:28:56And we're here because our front porch

2:28:59unit um requires extensive work, and we

2:29:02have a permit and are in the process of

2:29:04doing that work, but we would like

2:29:07a special permit to allow us to enclose

2:29:12only approximately 1/3 of the

2:29:14lower-level porch to create a mudroom in

2:29:17the entrance um to the unit.

2:29:21Um and

2:29:24you can see in the drawing that um

2:29:28on the front of the house on the lower

2:29:30level

2:29:31to the left

2:29:33Um you'll see Well, you'll see a door

2:29:35straight in front of you

2:29:36up the staircase to a door and over to

2:29:38the left is a

2:29:40what we envision as a closed area that

2:29:42would become a mudroom.

2:29:44It's about 60 square feet, which is

2:29:46about 1/3 of the size of the front

2:29:48porch. The rest would remain open.

2:29:51And the footprint of the porch

2:29:53and the elevation of the porch remains

2:29:55the same as the existing porch. So,

2:29:57there's no change in the footprint of

2:29:59the porch or the elevation.

2:30:03Um and uh we're requesting this because

2:30:06the existing front porch on this

2:30:09100-year-old house is 7 ft from the

2:30:12front property line and therefore does

2:30:16non-conforming with a 10-ft front

2:30:18setback

2:30:20um requirement.

2:30:26>> Okay. Is there Is there anything else

2:30:27you'd like to add to that or

2:30:30>> Uh all other conditions and zoning are

2:30:33met or over met. The The property is um

2:30:37That's a nice existing view. So, you can

2:30:40see

2:30:41uh where the stairs are going now is

2:30:43where the mudroom would be enclosed and

2:30:45the stairs will be moved to the middle

2:30:46section.

2:30:47>> Mhm.

2:30:48>> Um

2:30:49and

2:30:50uh as you can see it's on a large 5,000

2:30:53sq ft property. There's a lot of green

2:30:55space, what multiple times what's

2:30:57required and that will remain.

2:31:00Uh there's no expansion. Um our

2:31:03neighbors

2:31:05on Raymond Street adjacent on both sides

2:31:07at 125,

2:31:09127 Raymond Street, and 135 Raymond

2:31:12Street have all submitted letters of

2:31:14support that you have.

2:31:16And um

2:31:17and are in favor of this of allowing us

2:31:20to proceed and the construction

2:31:23is done consistent with the current

2:31:26um

2:31:28aesthetic structure of the building and

2:31:30will be consistent with the

2:31:31neighborhood. There are many houses in

2:31:33the neighborhood with similar mudrooms

2:31:36um at the entry.

2:31:40>> Looks great. Okay. Um any questions from

2:31:43fellow board members?

2:31:46>> Yeah, um Brendan Sullivan.

2:31:48Um

2:31:51in your pleadings it says um the

2:31:53proposed use will not impede the

2:31:54integrity of the district so on and so

2:31:56forth. The enclosed space will be

2:31:58private for use by the owners. The

2:31:59appearance will be consistent with some

2:32:01of the houses in the neighborhood.

2:32:03I drove up and down Walden Street,

2:32:05Raymond Street, all around to find a

2:32:07similar house with a

2:32:09um enclosure like that and couldn't find

2:32:12it. I mean, there were people who are

2:32:14enclosing or have enclosed

2:32:16um their porches on the second floor.

2:32:21But I um I said, "Hm, I I'm I'm looking

2:32:25I'm looking for something very similar.

2:32:27Uh could you put pull up Olivia the

2:32:29picture of what it's going to look like?

2:32:32The uh submittal there the um

2:32:36That's the existing

2:32:38um

2:32:40No, that's

2:32:44That's the existing, right?

2:32:45>> No, no, that's

2:32:46>> That's the That's the new.

2:32:47>> That's the new.

2:32:48>> But it but but it comes forward.

2:32:52>> I'm sorry, what?

2:32:53>> It It comes forward. That's right. So,

2:32:55that's Yeah, it it gets enclosed. Um

2:32:58anyhow, I'd be a little bit more

2:33:00amenable to it, but I'm not opposed to

2:33:02it because I think that

2:33:04um if I owned that house, I would

2:33:06probably want a separate entrance also.

2:33:08So.

2:33:10And I think that uh two reasons always

2:33:13um

2:33:14you know, privacy

2:33:16um and um

2:33:18it'll save energy. It'll It'll be, you

2:33:20know, easier. So, anyhow.

2:33:23Uh

2:33:24I'm okay with it.

2:33:25>> Great. Um

2:33:28Yeah, they need a mud room, Brad, and

2:33:30they're going to be having a great time

2:33:31in Raymond Park, and they don't want to

2:33:33bring the mud into the house, you know?

2:33:34>> that's that's a lot of mud out there.

2:33:37>> The park is going to be beautiful.

2:33:39>> Yes, it's almost

2:33:40>> Almost almost finished.

2:33:41>> Yes, coming along slowly, but it will

2:33:43get there. Um any other questions from

2:33:46fellow board members?

2:33:49>> This is Wendy Leichter. So, I think it

2:33:51might be a question more for Olivia, but

2:33:53just a clarification on the setback and

2:33:56the existing um

2:33:59question, which is

2:34:01where are we measuring from the landing

2:34:03of the porch or from like where the the

2:34:06plane where the front door is? What's

2:34:08the existing measurement between the

2:34:10two?

2:34:14I'm just trying to decide what's the

2:34:16existing nonconformity here.

2:34:18So, what's that dimension from the plane

2:34:20of the exterior wall of the house to the

2:34:23street?

2:34:27>> Okay, there we go. I hit that dimension

2:34:28sheet.

2:34:37>> So, if if the required ordinance uh

2:34:40requirements are 10 ft,

2:34:42I'm just but I'm just wondering, are the

2:34:45stairs and the porch, Olivia, are those

2:34:48allowed within the setback? Like that's

2:34:51that's not counting towards the setback.

2:34:53>> It is counting.

2:34:54>> It is counting. So, the seven the

2:34:56existing 7 ft is being measured

2:34:59from

2:35:01the

2:35:02uh

2:35:03plane of the building or from where the

2:35:04porch landing

2:35:06>> I would assume it's the porch.

2:35:08>> From the porch landing.

2:35:12>> Probably right here.

2:35:13>> Okay.

2:35:14And so, um

2:35:17and that that creates the existing

2:35:19nonconformity, correct? Okay.

2:35:22And so, does it doesn't so, it would not

2:35:24change that it's enclosed. That's what I

2:35:27wanted to know. Okay, thank you.

2:35:29>> Great. Uh any other questions from

2:35:32fellow board members?

2:35:36Uh hearing none, um we'll move to public

2:35:40comment. Um checking the file for

2:35:43correspondence, yes, as mentioned, uh we

2:35:46did receive letters of support from Ann

2:35:48Densmore at 125 Raymond, uh Adam and

2:35:53Broad and Emily Sillette Silley, I'm

2:35:56sorry if I mispronounce that, at 135

2:35:58Raymond and Leslie and David Bliss at

2:36:01127 Raymond

2:36:03Street. Um and

2:36:05anyone online for

2:36:10It's what?

2:36:11Yeah, sure. Uh any members of the public

2:36:14who wish to speak should now check click

2:36:16the icon at the bottom of your Zoom

2:36:18screen that says raise hand. If you're

2:36:20calling in by phone, you can raise your

2:36:22hand by pressing star nine and unmute or

2:36:24mute by pressing star six. I'll now ask

2:36:27staff to unmute the speakers one at a

2:36:29time. You should begin by saying your

2:36:31name and address and staff will confirm

2:36:34that we can hear you. After that, you

2:36:36will have to up to two minutes to speak

2:36:38before I ask you to wrap up.

2:36:45No.

2:36:46Seeing no one there, we'll close for

2:36:49we'll close public comment. Um is there

2:36:52any further discussion

2:36:54uh from board members or I'm happy to

2:36:57generate a motion.

2:37:00>> Ready for motion.

2:37:01>> Great, thank you. Uh the chair makes a

2:37:03motion to grant a special permit from

2:37:06the requirements of the ordinance under

2:37:07sections 5.31,

2:37:10uh table of dimensional requirements,

2:37:12sections 8.22.2.D,

2:37:16non-conforming structures, and section

2:37:1810.40

2:37:20for a special permit. Um, reviewing, um,

2:37:23the supporting statement for a special

2:37:25permit, uh, item A, it appears the

2:37:28requirements of this ordinance cannot or

2:37:30will not be met. Uh, response is the

2:37:33enclosed space on the first-floor porch

2:37:35will not extend beyond the current porch

2:37:38layout. The construction will match the

2:37:40current design and will be consistent

2:37:42with the appearance of other residences

2:37:44in the neighborhood. Uh, item B, traffic

2:37:47generated or patterns of access or

2:37:49egress would cause congestion, hazard,

2:37:51or substantial change. Um, patterns of

2:37:54access or egress will not change. No

2:37:56additional congestion will be caused.

2:37:59Item C, the continued operation of or

2:38:02the development of the adjacent uses as

2:38:04permitted in the zoning ordinance would

2:38:06be adversely affected. Uh, the proposed

2:38:09use will not change the current uses of

2:38:11this residential building and will not

2:38:13affect adjacent properties. Uh, item D,

2:38:17nuisance or hazard would be created to

2:38:19the detriment of the health, safety, or

2:38:21welfare of the occupant. Uh, the

2:38:23proposed change will not affect the ease

2:38:26of access, um, and, uh,

2:38:29not create, uh, a detriment to health,

2:38:32safety, or welfare of the act occupant.

2:38:35And lastly,

2:38:37and for other reasons, the proposed use

2:38:39will impair, uh, the integrity of the

2:38:42district or adjoining districts. Um,

2:38:45the enclosed space will be private for

2:38:47use by the owners. The appearance will

2:38:49be consistent with similar homes in the

2:38:51area. Um, and on the condition that the

2:38:55work proposed conform to the drawing set

2:38:57included in the application package,

2:39:00which includes the following documents,

2:39:02uh, drawing set entitled Taylor

2:39:04Residence Porch Renovation by Nick

2:39:06Portnoy Builders dated June 22nd, 2024.

2:39:11Um so,

2:39:13based on this finding, they this project

2:39:16meets the criteria on the sections 10.40

2:39:19for a special permit, and further that

2:39:21we incorporate the supporting statements

2:39:23and dimensional forms submitted as part

2:39:25of the application. On a voice vote,

2:39:27please uh board members, uh Wendy.

2:39:31>> Wendy Laceson in favor.

2:39:32>> Thank you. Uh Virginia.

2:39:36>> Virginia Kessler in favor.

2:39:37>> Thank you. Uh Daniel.

2:39:39>> Daniel Yalgo in favor.

2:39:41>> Thanks. Uh Brendan.

2:39:43>> Uh in favor of the motion.

2:39:45>> And Stevening in favor. Vote is 5-0 in

2:39:48favor, and the special permit is

2:39:50granted.

2:39:53>> Thank you for your consideration, and I

2:39:55want to say that it was quite

2:39:57educational to listen to the previous

2:39:59case. You guys have an incredibly

2:40:01difficult job, and I appreciate what

2:40:03you're doing.

2:40:05>> Thank you. Um and uh yes, good luck on

2:40:08um

2:40:09the addition.

2:40:11>> Thank you.

2:40:11>> Thanks.

2:40:16All right, next up is

2:40:19our uh is our 6:45 case. I guess we can

2:40:24start that. Um case number BZA 1230918,

2:40:30uh 3 Michael Way. Uh applicant name Shru

2:40:33Yi Kong. Uh seeking a variance, parking

2:40:36within front yard setback, dimensionally

2:40:39non-conforming parking spaces, proposed

2:40:41curb cut length greater than allowed,

2:40:44citing sections 5.31,

2:40:47uh table dimensional requirements,

2:40:49section 6.42, dimensions for off-street

2:40:53parking spaces, section .43.3.a,

2:40:57access for off-street parking

2:41:00facilities, and

2:41:016.44.1.c,

2:41:04layout of off-street parking facilities,

2:41:07and of course, uh

2:41:0810.30 for variance. Uh Mr. Kwong, are

2:41:12you available? Uh Kwong, I'm sorry. Are

2:41:14you available for presenting your

2:41:17application?

2:41:20>> Yeah. Yes. Yeah, we're

2:41:22we're you're available.

2:41:23>> Yes.

2:41:24>> Great.

2:41:27>> Uh do we start now?

2:41:28>> Yeah, go ahead.

2:41:30>> Yeah. So,

2:41:31uh we currently we live on in a house

2:41:34where our street is a no parking side on

2:41:38our street. And um

2:41:41with a lot of like recent

2:41:43redevelopment

2:41:45of uh

2:41:46units near our neighborhood,

2:41:49um it it add a lot of challenges to the

2:41:53the already very challenged parking

2:41:55situation,

2:41:56especially like on street cleaning days,

2:41:59and as well as uh very heavy snowstorm.

2:42:02So, we propose uh to add another two

2:42:06parking spot because a lot of our

2:42:08neighbors, as well as ourself, we have

2:42:10two cars.

2:42:11And we also have family members visiting

2:42:13very often. So, we uh and we have no

2:42:16trees at our front yard. So, we propose

2:42:19to have two additional parking space.

2:42:24>> Uh so, just uh to orient you a bit, so

2:42:26this street, Michael Way,

2:42:28uh it is uh

2:42:30it's part of a small neighborhood in

2:42:33Linden Park. Uh there are three streets

2:42:35in this neighborhood parallel to each

2:42:37other, Michael Way, and I think we may

2:42:38have a

2:42:39map of the surrounding area there.

2:42:41Michael Way, Cornelius Way, and James

2:42:43Way.

2:42:44Uh those are off of the main road, Car-

2:42:46uh Cardinal Medeiros, which is near One

2:42:48Kendall Square. Uh

2:42:50so, our house is near the end of Michael

2:42:53Way. So, if you go off to the to the

2:42:55right, to the east side there, there's

2:42:57one additional house adjoining ours,

2:42:59number one Michael Way.

2:43:00And then beyond that is is that uh

2:43:02Memorial Way, which you can see labeled

2:43:04there. Uh there's

2:43:07that is up again uh if you go further

2:43:08east from that, it's train tracks. So,

2:43:10there's really no through traffic.

2:43:12Uh

2:43:13so, our you know, proposed parking space

2:43:15wouldn't interfere with any other

2:43:17uh

2:43:18traffic in in the neighborhood or

2:43:19anything. As Joanne mentioned,

2:43:22uh

2:43:23our

2:43:24our side of the street is already no

2:43:26street parking, so we wouldn't be taking

2:43:29uh street parking away from anybody and

2:43:31you may be

2:43:32you know, leaving one extra parking

2:43:33space if we're parking our car off of

2:43:35the street.

2:43:36Uh

2:43:39the other uh issues about the the

2:43:41variance, um if you the way this this

2:43:44neighborhood was built,

2:43:46uh each of the parking each of the homes

2:43:49is about 50 to 60 I think 54 total homes

2:43:51in the neighborhood. Each one of them

2:43:53has a car parked in front.

2:43:55Uh the each of the driveways

2:43:57is uh already has a car parking parked

2:44:00within the offset.

2:44:02Uh so, if we

2:44:05you can just go right down the street,

2:44:06every car is, you know, parked right up

2:44:08against the sidewalk. So, we're

2:44:10proposing that

2:44:12uh

2:44:13we're asking requesting a variance from

2:44:15the offset simply because this you know,

2:44:17any new parking space we prefer to be

2:44:19consistent with the other parking spaces

2:44:20in the neighborhood, which are right

2:44:21right up against the sidewalk.

2:44:24Uh

2:44:27>> So, um you notice that I took two types

2:44:30of pictures. The one where one car is

2:44:32parked diagonally, it was it happened to

2:44:35be on a street cleaning days. So, I I I

2:44:38figured that it would be a good

2:44:39illustration to explain the situation

2:44:42because

2:44:43you know, not just myself, I think some

2:44:45of the neighbors as well, we would have

2:44:46to drive around the neighborhood,

2:44:48sometimes even

2:44:49over to the other side of the

2:44:51neighborhood to look for parking on

2:44:53street cleaning days. So,

2:44:56that's that's why we have to park one

2:44:58car diagonally on the front yard.

2:45:01And it also happened to be a trash day.

2:45:03So,

2:45:04it's a little

2:45:07It's there's a lot of thing going on in

2:45:09the picture. So, we figured that, you

2:45:10know, if we can have that extra parking

2:45:13space, it would really, you know,

2:45:16um make sense. And

2:45:18like what Justin has said, you know, a

2:45:20lot of the houses, not just in our

2:45:22neighborhood, but uh

2:45:24we noticed that throughout Cambridge,

2:45:27there's hardly any uh front setback

2:45:29enough front setback for cars to park so

2:45:32inwards from the sidewalk.

2:45:35Um so, we're seeking that bit of a

2:45:39variance here.

2:45:42>> And there is one other house in the

2:45:43neighborhood that we know of that has

2:45:45a second parking space in Cornelius 7

2:45:47Cornelius Way.

2:45:48That's 7B.

2:45:50You know, consistent with what

2:45:51>> Yeah, I think we saw that photo uh a

2:45:53little further down the block, right?

2:45:56But uh is it just your side of the Oh,

2:45:58I'm sorry. Are you uh Is that your

2:46:00presentation? I shouldn't have

2:46:01interrupted you.

2:46:05>> Uh I think that's basically

2:46:06>> No, yeah. That's basically it.

2:46:08>> Okay. So, is it is it uh to now go to

2:46:11questions from fellow board members? Uh

2:46:13is uh your side of the street always

2:46:16designated no parking?

2:46:18>> Yes. Yes.

2:46:19>> That's right.

2:46:20>> What is

2:46:21James Way, Cornelius, and Allen Street

2:46:24on the uh

2:46:26the the what left right side?

2:46:28>> The the odd-numbered side

2:46:29>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.

2:46:29>> The even-numbered side is the street

2:46:31parking.

2:46:31>> Yes.

2:46:31>> Ah, okay. Understood.

2:46:34So, right. That if if you do get the

2:46:35curb cut, you're not really

2:46:37in you know, disrupting any parking on

2:46:40your side.

2:46:41>> Yeah.

2:46:42>> Right. Any other questions from board

2:46:44members?

2:46:49>> Uh but it's all in my head and then

2:46:51>> Okay, thank you.

2:46:55Um let's see. Checking.

2:46:59I don't believe we had correspondence

2:47:01from anybody.

2:47:07Just checking the file.

2:47:17Nope, I don't believe so. So, uh we'll

2:47:18just open it up to uh public comment. Uh

2:47:21any members of the public who wish to

2:47:23speak should now click the icon at the

2:47:24bottom of your Zoom screen that says

2:47:26raise hand. If you're calling in by

2:47:28phone, you can raise your hand by

2:47:30pressing star nine and unmute or mute by

2:47:32pressing star six. I'll now ask staff to

2:47:35unmute the speakers at one at a time.

2:47:38You should begin by saying your name and

2:47:40address and staff will confirm that we

2:47:42can hear you. After that, you will have

2:47:45up to two to speak before I ask you to

2:47:47wrap up.

2:47:48Anyone out there, Olivia?

2:47:50>> Yeah.

2:47:51>> Uh Jim Gray.

2:47:55>> Mr. Gray.

2:47:57>> Okay, Jim Gray, two Michael Way.

2:48:01And you can hear me, yes?

2:48:02>> Yes, we can.

2:48:03>> Okay, great. Um yeah, I am calling in

2:48:06support um if for no other reason that

2:48:09it creates one more parking spot in the

2:48:11area where, you know, a lot of people

2:48:13are looking for parking off not only on

2:48:16street cleaning days. So, that's

2:48:18definitely a thumbs up for that alone.

2:48:20Um you know, the owners are have have

2:48:22done some nice renovations in the house.

2:48:24It looks beautiful. An additional thing

2:48:26that's not strictly speaking part of the

2:48:29zoning is they're going to put up little

2:48:30barriers so the garbage cans are hidden

2:48:32a little bit, which is what people do at

2:48:34this end of the street.

2:48:35>> Mhm.

2:48:35>> And then things like the pavers um being

2:48:38porous seems like a good thing. So, I I

2:48:40really can't think of any negative. I

2:48:42fully support it.

2:48:43>> Uh thank you, Mr. Gray.

2:48:49>> Uh just to add to that, um we are going

2:48:51to put permeable pavers

2:48:54to help with the drainage of the rain

2:48:58rainwater.

2:48:59>> Right.

2:49:00>> Yeah.

2:49:02>> Yeah, no, thank you for for doing that.

2:49:04Um

2:49:05uh let's see. Uh so, yeah, that was it

2:49:06for public comment. Um

2:49:09what's the board's favor? Uh happy to

2:49:11pull a motion together?

2:49:15All right, let's do it. Um

2:49:18the chair makes a motion to grant relief

2:49:20from the requirements of the ordinance

2:49:22under sections 5.31, table of dimension

2:49:25requirements, 6.42, dimensions of

2:49:27off-street parking spaces, section

2:49:306.43.3.A,

2:49:32access for off-street parking

2:49:34facilities, 6.44.1.C,

2:49:38layout of off-street parking facilities,

2:49:41and 10.30 for a variance. Um

2:49:45and uh

2:49:47reviewing the statement um

2:49:51uh

2:49:52what do they call that again? Well,

2:49:53reviewing the criteria for um

2:49:56the variance, one, whether the practical

2:49:58difficulty relates to soil condition,

2:50:00shape, or topography

2:50:02of such land or structures, and uh the

2:50:06subject parcel

2:50:08possesses a unique physical constraint.

2:50:10Its entire street frontage is designated

2:50:12a strict no parking zone by the city.

2:50:15Unlike typical residential lots where

2:50:17residents and visitors can utilize

2:50:19adjacent on-street spaces, the literal

2:50:23application of the zoning limitation

2:50:25deprives this property of any viable

2:50:28parking alternative. Restricting the

2:50:31existing driveway width creates a

2:50:32hardship tied directly to the property

2:50:34site configuration and frontage rules,

2:50:37rendering the pre-existing home

2:50:39functionally deficient relative to basic

2:50:42residential access standards.

2:50:44>> Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

2:50:45>> Yes.

2:50:45>> Um I just wondered if we had defined the

2:50:48new variants. Are we applying the new

2:50:50variant standard after the

2:50:52>> Yes, yes. It's the four criteria. Yeah.

2:50:54>> Determine that benefits and

2:50:58Okay.

2:50:58>> Yeah, it's kind of built into Yeah,

2:51:00yeah. So, whether the strict enforcement

2:51:02would um

2:51:05impose a financial hardship on the

2:51:07appellant or petitioner. Uh strictly

2:51:09enforcing a 10-ft setback requirement on

2:51:12this lot creates an artificial physical

2:51:14hardship. It would force the removal of

2:51:17his existing open green yard space to

2:51:19install 10 additional feet of

2:51:21unnecessary pavement purely to meet a

2:51:24dimensional threshold. Um

2:51:29Uh

2:51:29furthermore, all nearby pre-existing

2:51:33residential driveways already operate

2:51:35safely with zero front setback.

2:51:37Enforcing the setback rules here would

2:51:39alter the established physical character

2:51:42of the neighborhood, eliminate viable

2:51:44green area, and increase the site

2:51:46runoff. Um

2:51:48Number three, whether the benefits

2:51:50sought by the appellant or petitioner

2:51:52can be achieved by some other method. Um

2:51:55Transitioning vehicles off the public

2:51:58street into structured off-street

2:52:00spaces reduces congestion, improves

2:52:03emergency vehicle access, and reduces

2:52:06circling traffic on narrow residential

2:52:08streets.

2:52:10And um four, whether the practical

2:52:12difficulty was self-created.

2:52:14Um

2:52:16And uh

2:52:18we do not find that it was. Um and I

2:52:21think in terms of benefits to the

2:52:23community, it's it's about that whole

2:52:26access. Uh

2:52:28Um and uh

2:52:31easier flow throughout the street, less

2:52:32congestion, and so on.

2:52:35Um so, by this finding

2:52:37they meet the criteria under Section

2:52:3910.3 for a variance, and on the

2:52:41condition that the work proposed conform

2:52:43to the drawing set included in the

2:52:45application,

2:52:47which included uh proposed conditions

2:52:49plan, 3 Michael Way, Cambridge, MA,

2:52:52dated August 4th, 2026, by Boston

2:52:56Surveying Incorporated, and further that

2:52:59we incorporate the supporting statement

2:53:01and dimensional form submitted as part

2:53:03of the application. So, on a voice vote,

2:53:06please, board members, Wendy?

2:53:09>> Wendy Liersch I am not in favor.

2:53:11>> Okay. Virginia?

2:53:16>> Virginia Kieflar in favor.

2:53:18>> Daniel?

2:53:19>> Daniel Donahue in favor.

2:53:20>> Miranda? Oh, sorry. Brendan?

2:53:23>> Brendan uh

2:53:25reluctantly but in favor of the um of

2:53:28the motion to grant.

2:53:31>> Okay. Somewhat.

2:53:33Thank you, Brendan, and Stevening in

2:53:34favor. Uh the vote is four to one in

2:53:38favor, so the variance is granted.

2:53:45All right. Thank you.

2:53:47>> Okay.

2:53:48>> Oh, thank you very much.

2:53:49>> Thank you.

2:53:49>> Hope everybody can have dinner now.

2:53:52>> [laughter]

2:53:52>> Thanks.

2:53:54>> Thank you.

2:53:55Bye.

2:53:57>> Mr. Chair, could we maybe take just a

2:53:58stretch break?

2:53:59>> Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll uh thank you so

2:54:01much. Have a good night, and uh we'll

2:54:03take uh 5-minute break.

2:54:05Is that okay with everybody?

2:54:08>> Yep.

2:54:09>> See you back at 9:00.

2:56:24>> Mhm.

2:57:41>> Mhm.

2:59:09>> All right, welcome back. It's 9:00 p.m.

2:59:11and we're going to move on to our

2:59:14uh

2:59:15next application, 14 Bowden Street.

2:59:18Um

2:59:21Where's my agenda?

2:59:23Yeah.

2:59:24Uh case number BZ 1230992,

2:59:2914 Bowden Street, um application for

2:59:33Mary Morris in care of Adam Glassman,

2:59:36architect, seeking a special permit, uh

2:59:39removal of a pre-existing non-conforming

2:59:42carport, and reconstruction

2:59:45of slightly enlarged carport citing

2:59:48sections 5.31,

2:59:50table of dimensional requirements,

2:59:52section 8.22.2.D,

2:59:55non-conforming structure, and section

2:59:5810.40

2:59:59for a special permit.

3:00:01Mr. Glassman, are you uh available to

3:00:04present?

3:00:06>> I am. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair and

3:00:09members of the board. Thank you for

3:00:10having us tonight.

3:00:12Uh I'll give you a little bit of

3:00:14background before I present uh the plans

3:00:16for the new carport. Uh, I'm

3:00:18representing uh owner Mary Morris, who's

3:00:21lived in this house since 2020. She's an

3:00:24obstetrician and has been a practicing

3:00:27obstetrician for 30 years. She currently

3:00:29works at Beth Israel um Deaconess

3:00:32Hospital in Longwood.

3:00:34And one of the features of this home

3:00:37which uh made it very attractive to her

3:00:40when she purchased the home in 2020 uh

3:00:42was the existing carport.

3:00:45Um

3:00:47this case was

3:00:49originally brought to the board back in

3:00:512023. Mary was being uh

3:00:55not adequately represented by her

3:00:57contractor who did an inadequate job of

3:01:00presenting the case and the board

3:01:03um they wanted to re-roof the carport

3:01:06and the board seemed to be throwing some

3:01:08lifelines to him that he was unable to

3:01:10grasp. He neither asked for a

3:01:11continuance nor answered questions

3:01:13properly. So,

3:01:16her application at that time was denied.

3:01:19Um

3:01:20we're back now to uh remove the existing

3:01:23carport and to reconstruct it with a

3:01:25proper roof. One issue that came up in

3:01:272023 was the fact that this was built

3:01:30without a permit um and there was

3:01:32neighborhood opposition at that time. Um

3:01:36I did reach out again this time around

3:01:39to all of the opposers whom I could

3:01:40locate um

3:01:43asking for a chance to meet to review

3:01:45our plans, but we never heard back from

3:01:46any of them. Um but in fact, we did

3:01:48receive uh many letters of support from

3:01:51other abutters and other uh neighbors on

3:01:53the street.

3:01:54Uh so, the carport was originally

3:01:56constructed between um 2007 and 2011,

3:02:00which is shown on Google Street Views,

3:02:02which means the carport's more than 15

3:02:04years old. And according to

3:02:06Massachusetts uh General Law,

3:02:09uh Chapter 40,

3:02:11um

3:02:1240A, Section 7, any structure built

3:02:15without a permit in existence for 10

3:02:17years or longer without any um

3:02:20enforcement action taken against it is

3:02:23considered uh legally

3:02:25uh existing non-conforming, and I did

3:02:28review that with the zoning staff. So,

3:02:30we are here um

3:02:32to uh remove and reconstruct an existing

3:02:35non-conforming carport.

3:02:38Uh

3:02:39the reason for this is when after Mary

3:02:41installed um

3:02:43solar panels on her roof,

3:02:45the the snow loads coming down onto the

3:02:47existing carport plastic corrugated roof

3:02:50were too much for the corrugated roof to

3:02:52handle.

3:02:53Uh so, the over time they corrugated

3:02:56roof

3:02:57uh was was destroyed and removed, and

3:03:00the what made the carport so attractive

3:03:02for her is that she's often called to

3:03:03the hospital um all hours of hours of

3:03:05the day and night, and especially in the

3:03:07winter, she can't be called to the

3:03:09hospital and then shovel out her car,

3:03:12which she does right now because the

3:03:13carport um lost its corrugated roof.

3:03:17So, what we would like to do is um

3:03:20remove the existing structure,

3:03:22uh reconstruct it to nearly match um

3:03:25what is there now, although we would

3:03:27make it slightly more narrow so as not

3:03:29to have an overhang on the over the

3:03:32right side lot line, which this carport

3:03:34structure currently has. So, we would

3:03:36bring the carport uh further into uh

3:03:39compliance with the zoning code by uh

3:03:41reducing its width.

3:03:43Uh we'd make it slightly longer towards

3:03:46the back.

3:03:47Um

3:03:48but really its profile, its scale, its

3:03:51massing would remain unchanged. Now,

3:03:54Mary could as of right keep replacing

3:03:58the corrugate the the previous

3:04:00corrugated roof with a new corrugated

3:04:01roof, and she could do that over and

3:04:03over again, but it seems to make no

3:04:06sense to have Mary

3:04:07uh replacing her corrugated plastic roof

3:04:10every winter by right um when she could

3:04:14uh obtain relief

3:04:17um that would cause no adverse impacts

3:04:19to her neighborhood um by just

3:04:22rebuilding this with a a proper solid

3:04:24roof over it.

3:04:26Uh

3:04:27Hello you, could you share um the

3:04:28drawings?

3:04:32This is the uh existing house um the

3:04:36street view and you can see the carport

3:04:38on the lower right.

3:04:39And um you can see in uh in the the

3:04:42photos below um that it appears for the

3:04:45first time in two in um

3:04:48August of 2011.

3:04:53Uh another view um taken 2023.

3:04:57Uh you can see the existing carport um

3:04:59in Mary's car

3:05:00uh

3:05:03parked underneath it.

3:05:05Uh next slide, please.

3:05:10Next slide.

3:05:12Uh additional views um it's fairly low

3:05:16profile which would remain uh it covers

3:05:19the existing legal driveway.

3:05:23Um

3:05:25next slide. Again, another view, you can

3:05:27see the rafters

3:05:29um and the corrugated roof is no longer

3:05:31there. So, right now this carport serves

3:05:33no real purpose. Um

3:05:37Next slide, please.

3:05:38Uh just our site plan um

3:05:42you can see Yeah, what what's

3:05:46Sorry, uh

3:05:47Yeah, if you see in the lower right,

3:05:49there's a note that says existing chain

3:05:50link fence. To the left of that chain

3:05:52link fence is the property line and the

3:05:55current carport roof hangs at 6 in or so

3:05:59over that lot line and we will correct

3:06:02that with the proposed design.

3:06:05Next slide.

3:06:06Compare and contrast on the left of is

3:06:09the existing carport

3:06:12roof plan and on the right is the

3:06:14proposed

3:06:15roof plan where we make it a little

3:06:18longer just to engage the masonry

3:06:20chimney

3:06:21and give her a little bit more

3:06:23protection as she comes into the carport

3:06:25from the side yard.

3:06:28The existing width off the right side of

3:06:32the house to the right side of the

3:06:34carport is 9 ft 10 in.

3:06:36We'll be reducing that to 9 ft 6 in. The

3:06:40roof

3:06:41plan on the far right shows that the

3:06:45roof will have a drain to pitch towards

3:06:47the rear only. All storm water runoff

3:06:51and snow melt runoff will run to a

3:06:54gutter off the back and a downspout into

3:06:58a below grade infiltration system.

3:07:01Next slide, please. Our street views

3:07:05remain more or less unchanged. The

3:07:08height

3:07:09is identical. The width is nearly

3:07:12identical.

3:07:13Very little change to the existing

3:07:16character scale.

3:07:18Our overall presence um

3:07:21that this has in the neighborhood.

3:07:23On the left is the existing right side

3:07:26view

3:07:27with some exposed structure. We're

3:07:29proposing a right side view with a

3:07:31screened trellis to provide

3:07:34visual screening um

3:07:36both

3:07:38for Mary and for her neighbors. Nobody

3:07:39needs to see into the carport. So we

3:07:42thought the

3:07:43visual buffer

3:07:45would be an appealing addition to the

3:07:47design.

3:07:48And our last slide again front and side

3:07:53elevations. um Um

3:07:55very little change.

3:07:57Very little meaningful change in what

3:07:59we're proposing compared to what is

3:08:00there now. Uh there you know, this is

3:08:03applying for a special permit. The

3:08:04question is, are there any adverse

3:08:06effects? Who does this harm? And our

3:08:09position is there are no adverse effects

3:08:11as they're typically measured in terms

3:08:14of traffic, density, uh shadows, noise,

3:08:19uh pollution.

3:08:20And um that this it is actually in a

3:08:25probably an improvement. It's definitely

3:08:26an improvement in terms of zoning

3:08:27compliance. And we think a visual a

3:08:29visual improvement and certainly a

3:08:31functional

3:08:33an important functional improvement for

3:08:34Mary.

3:08:36Happy to take any questions from the

3:08:37board and you probably all know that we

3:08:39have many letters of support in the

3:08:42file.

3:08:44>> Uh Brendan Sullivan. Adam, when was this

3:08:46built?

3:08:47>> Between 2007 and 2011.

3:08:51>> Well, I don't want to be Father Time

3:08:53here, but I sat on the when it came

3:08:56before before us because it was built

3:08:59without a permit and there was a

3:09:01complaint filed with inspectional

3:09:02services.

3:09:04So, they basically

3:09:07it was a I think it was an elderly lady

3:09:09at the time who lived in the first floor

3:09:11apartment and really needed a covered

3:09:15um a covering for her car for the same

3:09:17reason as

3:09:18>> It's the same it's the same I just want

3:09:19to say it's the same owner and she's

3:09:21definitely not elderly.

3:09:22>> Oh, okay. But back way back then in 2000

3:09:26>> 23.

3:09:27>> Oh, no, no, I'm talking way back when it

3:09:29was built.

3:09:29>> Oh.

3:09:30>> Um 2010 or something like that, wasn't

3:09:33it? Well, anyhow, besides the point. But

3:09:36when it was built, it was built, you

3:09:38know, some guy just built it for this

3:09:40lady and that was fine.

3:09:42But um

3:09:45he put the roof rafters, if you will,

3:09:48they were open Um 2 ft on center and

3:09:50what have you.

3:09:52If he took the 2 by 8 that he had at the

3:09:54time, turn those into 4 by 6 and space

3:09:57them 4 ft apart, then it becomes an

3:09:59arbor.

3:10:00Which is permissible.

3:10:02And that's how it was originally built.

3:10:05As an arbor and I think they put again

3:10:09the plastic corrugated um

3:10:11uh material on top of the roof and stuff

3:10:13like that. So, that's a little bit of a

3:10:15history to it and that's why there was

3:10:16no enforcement of it because it was

3:10:18considered an arbor.

3:10:20So.

3:10:21Anyhow.

3:10:23Um

3:10:25>> Well, I guess I would say in the photos

3:10:27that we can see on Google from 2007 or

3:10:312011, you can see the corrugate Yeah, in

3:10:33that one you can see the corrugated

3:10:35roof. So, if there's been no enforcement

3:10:37action taken

3:10:39>> Right. Yeah, because it was considered

3:10:40an arbor.

3:10:41>> [laughter]

3:10:42>> So,

3:10:42a little a little bit of a quirk by

3:10:44changing the the uh you know, the

3:10:45spacing. Well, anyhow.

3:10:47>> Yeah.

3:10:47>> Um other than that, I just thought

3:10:50it was just weird.

3:10:51Um I have no problem with it. So,

3:10:53anyhow, I think it's necessary.

3:10:56>> Mr. Glassman, I'll give you credit when

3:10:58I steal your time lapse strip

3:11:01presentation [laughter]

3:11:02slide. I really like that. I'm going to

3:11:04use that.

3:11:04>> Thank you. You should copyright this.

3:11:06>> Yeah.

3:11:08Very cool.

3:11:09Uh any other questions?

3:11:14>> This is Mindy Leisersohn and I was also

3:11:16on that original case with Brendan and

3:11:18so I'm just uh looking It was March 9th,

3:11:222023.

3:11:24And according to um the record which I

3:11:27have in front of me, it does say that it

3:11:29was built in 2009

3:11:32and um

3:11:33speaks to what Brendan said it said it

3:11:35was permissible to build as a trellis or

3:11:38an arbor,

3:11:40but changed when the Plexiglas went on

3:11:42top, so.

3:11:43And I think that case was presented as a

3:11:46variance as opposed to special permit

3:11:49because

3:11:50um

3:11:52well,

3:11:53for the reasons that I yes, Mr. Glassman

3:11:55said.

3:11:56Thank you.

3:11:58>> Thanks, Wendy.

3:11:59Um

3:12:01any other questions from fellow board

3:12:03members?

3:12:07Uh like as Mr. Glassman mentioned, there

3:12:10were several letters um

3:12:13in the file uh a letters of support from

3:12:17And

3:12:19Andry And Andrea Lorden and Hugh Riley,

3:12:2316 Bowden. Uh a letter support from

3:12:26Phoebe

3:12:28Winders uh from 10 Bowden Street, David

3:12:32Hannah uh 20 Martin Street in support

3:12:36and Helen and Ray Solor Solorzano

3:12:40from 13 Bowden. And uh a direct uh John

3:12:44Paxman who at 10 Bowden is a director

3:12:46but he was also writing letter support

3:12:49uh for the application.

3:12:51Um we'll check online. Any members of

3:12:54the public who wish to speak should now

3:12:56click the icon at the bottom of your

3:12:58Zoom screen that says raise hand. If

3:13:01you're calling in by phone, you can

3:13:02raise your hand by pressing star nine

3:13:04and unmute or mute by pressing star six.

3:13:07I'll now ask staff to unmute the

3:13:09speakers one at a time. You should begin

3:13:12by saying your name and address and

3:13:13staff will confirm that we can hear you.

3:13:16After that, you'll have up to two to

3:13:18three minutes to speak before I ask you

3:13:20to wrap up.

3:13:22>> Bert Singer.

3:13:29>> Hello, Bert Singer, 11 Bowden Street.

3:13:33>> Hello, Mr. Singer.

3:13:35>> My dining room window looks exactly like

3:13:39the picture on the screen.

3:13:41Um

3:13:42I look out at this

3:13:45uh

3:13:46arbor carport

3:13:49mess and wish it didn't exist.

3:13:52Um interestingly enough the

3:13:56originally I've lived there for 60

3:13:59years. Um the original lady who built it

3:14:02parked her car in the street. She got a

3:14:04handicap parking space right in front of

3:14:08the house and she put her

3:14:13working people and stuff in her carport

3:14:16instead. So it was not used as a weather

3:14:20protection. Um

3:14:23as as as the various histories of this

3:14:27carport um exist. Um I'd also like to

3:14:31point out that for whatever uh oddnesses

3:14:35of this block of Bowden Street, there

3:14:39are 20 other

3:14:41parking spaces

3:14:43that directly abut the sidewalks.

3:14:47Um and I wonder if all those 20 other

3:14:50people would start coming forward and

3:14:53ask for carports. That would certainly

3:14:55change the neighborhood a great deal. Um

3:14:58so I'm opposed to

3:15:01having this uh project go forward. Thank

3:15:04you very much.

3:15:05>> Thank you, Mr. Singer.

3:15:09Okay. Uh that was it online. Um so we'll

3:15:12close uh public comment.

3:15:15Um

3:15:17any discussion amongst board members?

3:15:24>> Nope.

3:15:27>> Um Daniel D'Ovidio, this strikes me as

3:15:29reasonable given that

3:15:31uh they they would be have the right to

3:15:33I guess put back the corrugated or

3:15:36roof that existed

3:15:37prior to this um point. And so, this

3:15:39seems like an improvement to me

3:15:41over that status quo.

3:15:43So, I I guess for that for that reason

3:15:45I'm in favor.

3:15:47>> Thanks, Daniel.

3:15:55>> This is Wendy Lyser sin. I I'm only just

3:15:58citing for

3:16:00the benefit of the other members of the

3:16:02board, the transcript from the old case,

3:16:06which I understand the neighbors and

3:16:08members of the public are not the same

3:16:10for this case, and neither is the legal

3:16:13standard um as this is presented as a

3:16:16special permit case.

3:16:17But it there was some concern in the

3:16:20record that echoes

3:16:22what we just heard from the abutter,

3:16:25uh a concern about um

3:16:28having this be a new normal for the

3:16:31neighborhood, but also saying that um

3:16:34in that case saying that there was no um

3:16:37there would not be a right to roof it if

3:16:40it was not a legal structure

3:16:42at that time. I don't know what the

3:16:45current status would be now given that

3:16:47it has not been taken down. Thanks.

3:16:52>> Thanks, Wendy. Uh any other uh comments?

3:16:59All right. I'll uh

3:17:01make a motion. Um the chair makes a

3:17:04motion to grant a special permit from

3:17:06the requirements of the ordinance under

3:17:08sections 5.31,

3:17:10table of dimensional requirements,

3:17:128.22.2.D, non-conforming structure, and

3:17:1410.40

3:17:18for special permit uh review of

3:17:21responses to the supporting statement

3:17:23for a special permit. It appears uh item

3:17:26A, it appears the requirements of this

3:17:28ordinance cannot or will not be met. Uh,

3:17:31the reconstruction of the existing

3:17:33carport, which is existing

3:17:35non-conforming per the right side

3:17:38setback, to be reconstructed with a

3:17:41solid roof within the 5-ft required

3:17:44right side setback will have no negative

3:17:46impact on the abutters, for whom there

3:17:49will be no loss of privacy, no increase

3:17:52in noise or light pollution, and no

3:17:54impact on neighborhood scale or density.

3:17:58The addition itself will not reduce open

3:18:00space. The building height will remain

3:18:02conforming. Item B, traffic generated or

3:18:06patterns of access or egress would cause

3:18:08congestion, hazard, or substantial

3:18:10change. Uh, the proposed carport

3:18:13addition to be constructed over an

3:18:15existing off-street parking space with

3:18:17an existing curb cut will have no impact

3:18:20on the existing traffic patterns

3:18:22on or on-street parking. Item C,

3:18:26continued operation of or the

3:18:28development of the adjacent uses as

3:18:31permitted in the zoning ordinance would

3:18:33be adversely affected, and uh, the

3:18:35proposed work will have no adverse

3:18:37effect on the development of the

3:18:39adjacent uses or the continued use in

3:18:41any way of the abutting dwelling units.

3:18:45Item D, nuisance or hazard would be

3:18:47created to the detriment of the health,

3:18:50safety, or welfare of the occupant. And,

3:18:53uh, the proposed work will not cause

3:18:55detriment to the citizens of the city,

3:18:59uh, or their uh, their safety and their

3:19:01welfare.

3:19:03And no detriments, uh, to

3:19:05the neighborhood. Uh, and for other

3:19:08reasons, the proposed use would impair

3:19:10the integrity of the district or

3:19:12adjoining district. The proposed roof

3:19:15carport will match the height of the

3:19:16existing carport. All stormwater will be

3:19:19contained on site with zero runoff to

3:19:22the abutting lot. All existing

3:19:24landscaped areas will remain unchanged.

3:19:27Additionally, as an added improvement

3:19:29over the existing conditions,

3:19:31the impro- if the proposed design

3:19:33includes a slotted privacy privacy

3:19:36screen and visual buffer on the right

3:19:38side between the carport and the

3:19:40abutting lot.

3:19:42Um so, by these findings, uh

3:19:46they meet the criteria in the section

3:19:4810.40 for a special permit.

3:19:52Um

3:19:53and on the condition that the work

3:19:54proposed conforms to the drawings set

3:19:57included in the application package,

3:19:59which include the following documents:

3:20:01drawing set entitled proposed carport

3:20:03addition, prepared by GCD architects,

3:20:08uh dated uh 24 August

3:20:112026.

3:20:13Um and further that we incorporate the

3:20:16supporting statements dimensional form

3:20:18submitted as part of the application. On

3:20:21a voice vote, please, uh board members

3:20:23Wendy Liceson.

3:20:26>> Wendy Liceson in favor.

3:20:28>> Virginia Keesler.

3:20:31>> Virginia Keesler in favor.

3:20:34>> Daniel Hidalgo.

3:20:35>> Daniel Hidalgo in favor.

3:20:37>> Brendan Sullivan.

3:20:38>> Brendan Sullivan in favor of the motion.

3:20:40>> And Stephen Eng in favor. Vote is 5-0 in

3:20:43favor, and the special permit is

3:20:45granted.

3:20:46Thank you so much.

3:20:48>> Thank you so much, and uh

3:20:50Brendan, it looks like you are breaking

3:20:51into your Halloween candy a little early

3:20:53this year.

3:20:56>> You didn't bring any for the kids.

3:20:58>> [laughter]

3:20:59>> Say you're done.

3:21:00Bye.

3:21:01>> Thank you. Good night. Um next up, our

3:21:03final item of the evening,

3:21:06uh BZA 1231728,

3:21:10263 Monsignor O'Brien Highway,

3:21:14uh special district one for summer

3:21:19Summerbridge Hotel LLC in care of James

3:21:22Rafferty, Esquire.

3:21:24Uh seeking a special permit to authorize

3:21:26a hotel use containing 145 guest rooms,

3:21:30only 40 of which are located in

3:21:32Cambridge in the SD1

3:21:35zoning district. A special permit

3:21:37granted for a hotel use on this site in

3:21:402023 BZA case 230010

3:21:45with a different footprint has lapsed.

3:21:48Also to authorize parking located within

3:21:505 ft of the rear property line.

3:21:54Uh citing section 6.44

3:21:57B parking, 17.12.1.A

3:22:01hotel use, and section 10.40 special

3:22:05permit.

3:22:06>> Wait, Mr. Chair,

3:22:08>> Mr. Chair, is is Wendy abstaining from

3:22:11this?

3:22:11>> Oh, and I am so sorry about that. It's a

3:22:13long night. Um

3:22:15>> Wendy Laiserson. I am recusing myself uh

3:22:19because my employer is the city of

3:22:20Somerville.

3:22:22>> And we will be bringing on board Zaria

3:22:25Miranda.

3:22:27And you're on board. Can you hear us?

3:22:29Good to see you. Thanks for being so

3:22:31patient uh to get to this point in time.

3:22:36>> [laughter]

3:22:37>> All right. Uh Mr. Rafferty,

3:22:40>> [clears throat]

3:22:41>> Good evening, madam uh madam Good

3:22:42evening, Mr. Chair, members of the

3:22:44board.

3:22:45Uh my apologies. Uh

3:22:47Can I show you this case is worth the

3:22:49wait? You've had a long night, but uh

3:22:51you you're going to you're going to love

3:22:52this case.

3:22:53For many of you, it will be a case of

3:22:55deja vu. Uh

3:22:56my mic count at least four of you have

3:22:58sat on previous cases.

3:23:01This property has the distinction of

3:23:02receiving not one, but three special

3:23:05permits for this hotel use because of

3:23:07various changes in the economy and the

3:23:10Somerville zoning, the development next

3:23:12door, we're now here for the fourth

3:23:15special permit. Uh as noted in the

3:23:17application, uh it is a use that is

3:23:20permitted by special permit. I should I

3:23:22note that with me this evening in uh is

3:23:25Christine Thomas of Summerbridge Hotel

3:23:29and the project architect Jason Diorio.

3:23:31Could they be brought into the hearing

3:23:33if they have not already done so?

3:23:39>> Uh this is Olivia Tay, they're in.

3:23:41>> They're in. Thank thank you very much,

3:23:43Olivia. Um

3:23:44so uh as as noted uh

3:23:47there are two components to the

3:23:48application. The hotel itself is uh in a

3:23:52site uh on O'Brien Highway. It has this

3:23:54unique distinction of the municipal

3:23:56boundary, which follows the former uh

3:24:00Millers River, goes uh right through the

3:24:02site. In fact, it goes right through the

3:24:05proposed building. As we were describing

3:24:07the hotel the other night at the East

3:24:09Cambridge planning team, I told them,

3:24:11"There are five rooms on every floor

3:24:13where the municipal boundary goes

3:24:15through the room."

3:24:16So, you can go to bed in Somerville and

3:24:18wake up in Cambridge and have never left

3:24:20your room uh given the way this

3:24:22municipal boundary works. It's for that

3:24:24reason that this jurisdiction, both with

3:24:27the Somerville Planning Board and uh the

3:24:29Somerville Zoning Board as well, they

3:24:31granted a variance and uh and the

3:24:33Cambridge Zoning Board, uh the

3:24:35Somerville of the largest portion of the

3:24:37property is in Somerville. Somerville uh

3:24:39has already conducted their hearings on

3:24:42this property. The appeal periods have

3:24:44run. So, both special permits, uh

3:24:46including site plan approval, were

3:24:48granted in Somerville and a variance um

3:24:51uh regarding height was permitted in

3:24:54Somerville. [snorts]

3:24:55Uh so, before the board tonight is the

3:24:57question, as is the case in nearly all

3:25:00special permits, is what as to whether

3:25:01or not this use is compatible with

3:25:03surrounding uses. And I think as uh four

3:25:06of you have determined over the years, I

3:25:08think that's an easy determination to

3:25:10make. I should point out that we did

3:25:13provide in the file

3:25:15copy of the Somerville decision

3:25:18in the playing board because in the

3:25:19Somerville case

3:25:21and for many years

3:25:23Ms. Thomas and the ownership of the

3:25:25hotel has been working with bicycle

3:25:28advocates to provide an easement on the

3:25:32property that will serve as a link in

3:25:34the final section of the Grand Junction

3:25:38bicycle path in Cambridge that's going

3:25:40to come all the way down to the Goldstar

3:25:42Mothers Park across O'Brien Highway and

3:25:45then behind this site is the community

3:25:48path in Somerville that runs along the

3:25:51Green Line railroad tracks. So this is a

3:25:53critical step that will connect those

3:25:55two paths. So

3:25:58the applicant has willingly agreed and

3:26:01there are conditions in the Somerville

3:26:03decisions that I have suggested to Ms.

3:26:07uh Rote that that this board might wish

3:26:09to incorporate into your findings

3:26:12because the commitment exists and it's

3:26:14set forth

3:26:15in the Somerville decisions and frankly

3:26:17the area where the path is located, if

3:26:20you look at our site plan, you'll see

3:26:22it. That area is actually in entirely in

3:26:25Cambridge. So I think it would be

3:26:27appropriate for this board's decision,

3:26:30even though the prior decisions didn't

3:26:32address this, it wasn't as prominent an

3:26:34issue

3:26:35in the years that this was before the

3:26:37board, but the applicant is certainly

3:26:38willing to do that and they also, as you

3:26:41can see from the decision, they also

3:26:43agreed to pay for 25% of the design cost

3:26:48for this rent. This is going to be a

3:26:50rent because you have to get up to the

3:26:52top of the bank with the bank that the

3:26:56rail bed sits on. So

3:27:00Uh, even though it's uh, it's a rather

3:27:01straightforward application around use

3:27:04and the setback by the way is the 5 ft

3:27:07off the rear. The rear setback is owned

3:27:09by the MBTA and it's the land uh, on

3:27:12which the uh, railroad sits. So, there

3:27:15really isn't an abutter that would be

3:27:16adversely affected by these parking

3:27:18spaces going a bit closer. The parking

3:27:21spaces also allow provide ample room and

3:27:24access to the ramp. So, even though it

3:27:26is not a hardship requirement for it,

3:27:28it's also the case that the adjoining

3:27:30uses will not be affected by allowing

3:27:33these these parking spaces to go

3:27:35slightly within the 5-ft setback.

3:27:38Um, we have Mr. um, DeOrio here who can

3:27:41describe the hotel, walk you through the

3:27:43elevations. It's smaller than you've

3:27:45seen before in the sense because the the

3:27:47building got a bit smaller, uh, but it

3:27:50uh, it uh, is going to be a six-story

3:27:52building

3:27:53uh, and we're happy to answer any

3:27:55questions about the building or the

3:27:57hotel operations. SummerBridge also

3:27:59operates a hotel a few doors up from

3:28:02here, the Fairfield uh, Suites on on

3:28:05O'Brien Highway is also operated by

3:28:08SummerBridge. So, they're familiar with

3:28:09the area. The local business

3:28:11association, I believe, has shared with

3:28:13me a letter of support that they sent to

3:28:15Ms. Picciotto today. And as I said, we

3:28:18we appeared before the East Cambridge

3:28:19Planning Team uh, last evening and we

3:28:22found them to be uh, they were uh,

3:28:25they were quite accustomed to us because

3:28:27the last time Ms. Thomas was there, she

3:28:30left saying, "Well, hopefully the third

3:28:31time is the charm." So, uh, it's proven

3:28:34to be that we need a fourth time, but

3:28:36uh, as I said, both Ms. Thomas and Mr.

3:28:38DeOrio are here to answer any questions

3:28:40about hotel operations or about the

3:28:42building design itself.

3:28:44Thank you.

3:28:48>> Thank you, Attorney Rafferty. Uh, Jason

3:28:49DeOrio, 10 uh, New England Business

3:28:52Center Drive.

3:28:53>> Jason, excuse me. Why don't you wait and

3:28:54see if the chair

3:28:56has any questions for you.

3:28:58>> Sorry, thank you.

3:28:58>> Oh, no. That That Jason, that's fine.

3:29:01You can

3:29:02I think I think we could just go forward

3:29:04with the presentation. So.

3:29:06>> Okay, I I didn't I didn't know. Okay,

3:29:08fine. I I didn't mean to interrupt

3:29:09Jason, but I know it's late and and the

3:29:11building is pretty straightforward, but

3:29:13Jason, you could probably take 2 minutes

3:29:16to tell them about the

3:29:16>> Yeah, that that'd be fine.

3:29:18>> Yep.

3:29:19Excellent. Thank you. If it's okay, we

3:29:20have a a quick mixture of slides here.

3:29:23Michael Milanowski from Allen & Major is

3:29:26also on the call. If he could be

3:29:28promoted as a panelist to speak to some

3:29:29of the civil slides, and I will speak to

3:29:31the

3:29:32architecture if that's okay.

3:29:39>> He should be on now.

3:29:43>> Thank you. I'm on.

3:29:45>> Michael Michael, why don't we let Jason

3:29:47go and see if it's necessary

3:29:52We'll wait and see if there are

3:29:52questions.

3:29:54>> Absolutely.

3:29:55Jason's got it under

3:29:58>> Okay.

3:29:59Uh so this first slide is just a the

3:30:01cover page for the hotel. 145 keys

3:30:05and noting the location. If you could

3:30:08move to the next slide, please.

3:30:12>> [snorts]

3:30:12>> Um just existing

3:30:14Alta survey.

3:30:17Next, please.

3:30:20Uh so this is the

3:30:22This is the new proposed footprint of

3:30:23the hotel.

3:30:25Uh for those of you that remember, the

3:30:26driveway was previously on the left side

3:30:29of this site, which was

3:30:31in the Somerville portion of the site

3:30:33closer to the Rufo Road intersection.

3:30:36So due to the site constraints of

3:30:39the abutting neighbor at 15 McGrath,

3:30:42we've redesigned our building to pull it

3:30:44off of the property line. So as you'll

3:30:46see, if you recall, the building used to

3:30:49go along the western property line.

3:30:52Uh

3:30:53between us and 15 McGrath. So, we've now

3:30:56moved the building away from that for

3:30:58constructibility purposes and we have a

3:31:00drive aisle with an existing curb cut on

3:31:03the Cambridge side, which you can see

3:31:05right there.

3:31:06Uh to the far right in the zigzag

3:31:09pattern is the space the dedicated space

3:31:12reserved for the path.

3:31:14Um

3:31:16and there's 13 parking spaces located

3:31:19within the municipal boundary of

3:31:20Cambridge that you can see at the top

3:31:22right-hand corner of the plan now.

3:31:25The two parking spots at the top right,

3:31:28you can see the number seven.

3:31:30And then the parking spot directly to

3:31:32the left of it, those are the two

3:31:33parking spots that are in discussion

3:31:35that are within 5 ft of the property

3:31:37line of that rear property line.

3:31:39Those both abut

3:31:41um the MBTA retaining wall, which is

3:31:44approximately 14 ft in that area.

3:31:48Um so, there's a there's a wall right in

3:31:50front of those uh stopping that from

3:31:54protruding any further.

3:31:57Uh next slide, please.

3:32:00So, this is the landscape plan. You can

3:32:02see landscaping along the front of the

3:32:04building on Monsignor O'Brien Highway.

3:32:06There's the tree wells.

3:32:08Uh and then there's landscaping

3:32:10throughout the property concurrently

3:32:13with Somerville and Cambridge

3:32:14requirements.

3:32:16The landscape in Cambridge you can see

3:32:18on the upper right-hand corner.

3:32:21Uh and it's important to note, too, I

3:32:22apologize, I should have said this

3:32:23earlier. The zigzag line that you can

3:32:25see going through the middle of the

3:32:26building in the middle of the screen,

3:32:29that is the municipal boundary.

3:32:30Somerville to the left, Cambridge to the

3:32:33right. Um just to put that out there as

3:32:35well.

3:32:37Uh next slide, please.

3:32:39So, this is the proposed architectural

3:32:41rendering

3:32:42uh of the building. It's very similar

3:32:44material and concept to the previous

3:32:46proposal.

3:32:47Horizontal and vertical vertical

3:32:50corrugated metal panel along with an

3:32:52accent panel that goes between the

3:32:54windows

3:32:55and also in the center of the building

3:32:57there.

3:32:58You'll see the building signage. It's

3:32:59currently branded as a proposed as a

3:33:01Moxy Hotel, which is a Marriott

3:33:04flag hotel.

3:33:07Uh next slide, please.

3:33:10The next few these are elevations just

3:33:12showing building height and

3:33:15uh areas of the building. So, you'll see

3:33:17the red line going directly down the

3:33:19building.

3:33:20Uh that is again the municipal boundary.

3:33:22So, in this particular view, Cambridge

3:33:24is on the left, Somerville is on the

3:33:25right.

3:33:26We really don't have a front and back to

3:33:28this building due to

3:33:30uh the street frontage on Monsignor

3:33:32O'Brien Highway and the MBTA and

3:33:35community path on the rear of the

3:33:36building. So, we've treated every facade

3:33:39and every elevation as if it is the

3:33:40front of the building. Uh so, you'll see

3:33:42that as you move around the building.

3:33:46Uh so, same materials, same

3:33:49uh value of aesthetic throughout.

3:33:52Next slide, please.

3:33:56Uh this is just a building section

3:33:57through the building again showing

3:33:59building heights uh and locations, guest

3:34:01rooms, corridors,

3:34:03uh etc. just showing the stacking of the

3:34:05building.

3:34:06Next, please.

3:34:10Uh so, first floor plan.

3:34:13You can see again the municipal boundary

3:34:15going through the middle of the site.

3:34:17Somerville is depicted the lobby of the

3:34:19building is on the left side there in

3:34:20the pastel green and then Cambridge is

3:34:23on the right side. There is a uh pull

3:34:26off area for guest drop-off as well as a

3:34:30um

3:34:31uh overhang and porte-cochere that will

3:34:33stick out and have provide a covered

3:34:34entrance uh for guest drop-off on the

3:34:37right-hand side of the building there.

3:34:41Uh so, this is really where you can see

3:34:43how the building has been pulled off of

3:34:44the property line. Previously, this

3:34:46building was uh going along the west

3:34:49property line. It was previously

3:34:51proposed as 199 keys.

3:34:54Uh and it was 86,765

3:34:58sq ft. 23,205

3:35:01sq ft were in

3:35:03uh Cambridge. The current proposal has

3:35:05reduced the building to 145 keys. Total

3:35:08square footage is 62,646

3:35:11sq ft. 18,183

3:35:14sq ft of that is in Cambridge.

3:35:17Um so, again, you can see that portion

3:35:19on the bottom right of the building

3:35:21there.

3:35:24Um these next few slides are all very

3:35:25similar. This is just the typical third,

3:35:28fourth, fifth, and sixth floor plan. Uh

3:35:30as we move up the building, the the

3:35:32guest room stacked, the

3:35:34cores of stairs and elevators, uh etc.

3:35:37all stack for efficiency throughout the

3:35:38building.

3:35:42Uh this is just a a photometric of the

3:35:44site. It's a little hard to read on the

3:35:46screen here, but just proving that we're

3:35:47meeting requirements for

3:35:50uh both cities of Cambridge and

3:35:52Somerville, as well as uh Marriott life

3:35:54safety requirements are here, too.

3:35:59Um this is just showing facade

3:36:00fenestration

3:36:02uh for the first floor just to meet the

3:36:04Cambridge zoning requirements.

3:36:06Uh so, it's a 47% fenestration on the

3:36:09first floor located within Cambridge, uh

3:36:12which is above the 30% minimum.

3:36:20Um just an existing

3:36:22photograph. Uh this is actually it's a

3:36:24little bit dated. The building's

3:36:26actually been uh removed at this point.

3:36:30>> Okay, I think that we probably covered

3:36:32it, Jason.

3:36:33>> Yep, I think we have.

3:36:34>> Thank you very much.

3:36:35>> All right. Thank you.

3:36:36>> Any

3:36:37comments or questions from fellow board

3:36:39members?

3:36:40>> I'm Bonnie Sullivan. No, I'm good.

3:36:42>> Okay, thank you.

3:36:45Um

3:36:46hearing none from the board,

3:36:50we'll move to public comment.

3:36:53Got quite a few letters.

3:36:56Um

3:36:58more focused supporting the project, but

3:37:01more focused on trying to ensure the

3:37:04bike path is you know still included in

3:37:09the agreement

3:37:10or the development, as well as some

3:37:13suggestions of

3:37:15matching the 25% design fee, as well as

3:37:19some asking for a little more, like

3:37:21100%, but you know, that's

3:37:24I think

3:37:26Mr. Rafferty you've you've proposed your

3:37:2825.

3:37:29Um

3:37:30And those were from Elliot uh

3:37:34LB

3:37:36um

3:37:37as well as letter from City of Cambridge

3:37:41Transportation

3:37:43Department Charlie Cree Cree Cree Cree

3:37:47um

3:37:48Renee Scott

3:37:50she she wrote a letter um

3:37:54regarding the case um

3:37:58focused on making ensuring asking us to

3:38:02ensure the bike ramp will be you know uh

3:38:05reserved and funded

3:38:09as well as emails from

3:38:12uh

3:38:13uh Alexi Kleiger

3:38:16Friends of the Community Bike Community

3:38:18Path

3:38:20um

3:38:21all very

3:38:23you know interested in ensuring the bike

3:38:26access is maintained.

3:38:28Um

3:38:31And let's see, I didn't see

3:38:35the business group letter. Was that in

3:38:38Did you happen to see that?

3:38:39>> I I sent an email to Ms. Pacheco today.

3:38:42I don't know if it made

3:38:42>> Oh, okay. Maybe yeah, maybe it just

3:38:44didn't get in here, but um I It's noted

3:38:47in in the record now um you mentioning

3:38:49it. Um

3:38:50and uh emails from David Marcus uh

3:38:55also focused on uh supporting the

3:38:58inclusion of the bike ramp. So, um

3:39:01that was it for correspondence.

3:39:04Uh

3:39:05Check uh we can now ask uh members uh

3:39:08online. Any members of the public who

3:39:10wish to speak should now click the icon

3:39:12at the bottom of your Zoom screen that

3:39:15says raise hand. If you're calling in by

3:39:18phone, you could raise your hand by

3:39:19pressing star nine and unmute or mute by

3:39:22pressing star six. I'll now ask staff to

3:39:24unmute the speakers one at a time. You

3:39:27should begin by saying your name and

3:39:28address and staff will confirm that we

3:39:30can hear you. After that, you'll have up

3:39:33to two minutes to speak before I ask you

3:39:35to wrap up.

3:39:38>> John Dunderdale

3:39:45>> Good evening, Mr. Chair and and members

3:39:47of the board.

3:39:48Uh my name is John Dunderdale. I am the

3:39:51business manager of the pile drivers

3:39:53drivers locals 56 affiliated with the

3:39:56North Atlantic States Regional Council

3:39:58of Carpenters.

3:39:59We represent skilled construction

3:40:00workers throughout the greater Boston

3:40:02area including residents of Cambridge.

3:40:05I'm here tonight regarding the proposed

3:40:06hotel development at 263 Mount Auburn

3:40:09Street and Brian Highway.

3:40:11I have one straightforward question for

3:40:12the applicant.

3:40:14Will you commit to using responsible

3:40:16contractors who participate in

3:40:18Massachusetts state-approved

3:40:19apprenticeship programs and provide

3:40:21Cambridge residents with opportunities

3:40:23for good-paying construction jobs?

3:40:26As a development of size

3:40:29it should be should benefit the

3:40:30community beyond finished building. It

3:40:32should provide opportunities for local

3:40:34workers, support apprenticeship

3:40:36training, and ensure the project is

3:40:37constructed safely by qualified workers.

3:40:41We are asking the developer to make a

3:40:42commitment publicly here tonight before

3:40:44this board. Thank you for my time.

3:40:47>> Thank you, Mr. Dunderdale. Uh

3:40:49uh Mr. Rafferty, you have a

3:40:52response to that request?

3:40:55>> Uh

3:40:57the short answer is no, but I mean the

3:40:59the the the contractor uh

3:41:02will will be selected, and I'm sure

3:41:04there'll be opportunities uh

3:41:06uh

3:41:07Summerbridge uh operates several hotels

3:41:10and has a track record of

3:41:12accomplishment, uh and uh this is the

3:41:15first we've heard of this request from

3:41:17Mr. Dunderdale, but I'd be happy to give

3:41:19him Ms. Thomas's contact information,

3:41:21and they can have uh conversations uh

3:41:24about this issue. I'm not quite certain

3:41:27uh this is the appropriate venue to have

3:41:29those conversations.

3:41:30>> No, I and I I thank you, Mr. Rafferty,

3:41:33but uh yeah, thank you for uh sharing

3:41:35that info with Mr. Dunderdale.

3:41:37Um next?

3:41:39>> Charles Hines.

3:41:44>> Can you hear me?

3:41:45>> Yes, sir.

3:41:47>> Hi, my name is uh Charles Hines, the

3:41:49current president of the East Cambridge

3:41:50Planning Team. I live at 207 Charles

3:41:53Street in East Cambridge.

3:41:55I'm here to support this project. Uh we

3:41:58couldn't get our letter in time because

3:41:59we met with the applicants last night,

3:42:02but I do have a a short letter I'd like

3:42:04to read into the record.

3:42:06Uh on October 14th, 2026, at a regular

3:42:08ECPT meeting, Christine Thomas and

3:42:11attorney James Rafferty, representing

3:42:13Summerbridge Hotel LLC,

3:42:15presented a proposal for a new 145 guest

3:42:19room hotel, which will be partially in

3:42:21Cambridge, 40 rooms, and partially in

3:42:24some of our 105 rooms.

3:42:26After deliberating the proposal, we

3:42:28voted unanimously to support

3:42:30uh granting a special permit for hotel

3:42:32use and a variance for the parking at

3:42:34the site, which is in the ST1 district.

3:42:38Uh the support is conditioned on the

3:42:40petitioner building the hotel according

3:42:42to the plans presented at meeting.

3:42:44That's the same plans that were today at

3:42:46uh presented at the BZA.

3:42:48And any commitments for the community

3:42:50path presented to us. Those commitments

3:42:53uh include dedicating 10% of the land

3:42:56site to the community path,

3:42:58uh paying for 25% of the construction

3:43:00costs, and paying for the path's

3:43:02feasibility study.

3:43:04Uh our support is also conditioned on

3:43:06the petitioner meeting the conditions

3:43:07imposed to them by the Somerville BZA.

3:43:11Uh and it's also our request that the

3:43:14petitioner work with the appropriate

3:43:15agencies to design a safe crossing for

3:43:18bicyclists and pedestrians

3:43:21to cross McGrath uh what's excuse me,

3:43:23Monsignor O'Brien Highway

3:43:25using the community path.

3:43:30And thank you for your consideration.

3:43:32>> Thank you, Mr. Hines.

3:43:34>> Alan Moore.

3:43:41>> Hi, can you hear me?

3:43:43>> Yes, sir.

3:43:44>> Hi.

3:43:45Uh my name is Alan Moore. I live on

3:43:47Cherry Street in Somerville.

3:43:50I'm co-president of the Friends of the

3:43:51Community Path.

3:43:52Um and as was mentioned, we've been

3:43:55working with the proponent for her

3:43:58about a decade already

3:44:00on um having the connection between the

3:44:03Grand Junction Path and the Community

3:44:05Path

3:44:06uh

3:44:07uh

3:44:08be created on this site.

3:44:10Um I am um

3:44:13sup- support

3:44:15the construction of this hotel. I

3:44:17greatly appreciate the um

3:44:20the provision, the donation of the

3:44:23part of the site for the future ramp to

3:44:25connect those paths.

3:44:27I appreciate that

3:44:30a certain amount of funding has been

3:44:33committed to help design

3:44:35the ramp. But I would ask the board in

3:44:41if you make conditions on related to the

3:44:43to this ramp

3:44:45that you could increase the amount of

3:44:48funding

3:44:49required. I know in the past when the

3:44:53adjacent 15 McGrath

3:44:56project and this hotel project together

3:44:59was going to they were going to pay for

3:45:01the entire design and construction of

3:45:04the path. They understand that now the

3:45:07the smaller project without the adjacent

3:45:10means there's less funding available.

3:45:13But I still think the project could

3:45:15afford more than the 107,000 that

3:45:20maximum that's agreed specified in the

3:45:23Somerville permit. I think it'd be

3:45:25appropriate for

3:45:28a larger amount of the funding for the

3:45:31design of the ramp to to be required in

3:45:35your

3:45:36in your decision. Thank you very much.

3:45:38>> Thank you, Mr. Moore.

3:45:40>> Lynn Weissman

3:45:49>> Hi, can you hear me?

3:45:50>> Yes, we can.

3:45:52>> Excellent. Hi, my name is Lynn Weissman.

3:45:55I am co-president along with Alan and

3:45:59co-founder of the Friends of the

3:46:00Community Path.

3:46:02I just wanted to mention that the the

3:46:04ramp and the path, they're not

3:46:06all these things, they're not bike paths

3:46:09where pedestrian and bicycle advocates

3:46:11and something like you know, 85%

3:46:1590% of users of these paths are

3:46:18pedestrians. So, we're very aware of

3:46:21cyclists on these paths, but I just

3:46:23wanted to

3:46:24let people know we're community path

3:46:26people and very excited about this and I

3:46:30just wanted to

3:46:32you know, say that I was grateful to

3:46:34hear

3:46:35from Mr. Rafferty about the project that

3:46:38that he

3:46:39recommending that the same conditions

3:46:42as in Somerville are part of the

3:46:45conditions. I believe this is my

3:46:47understanding of the of the BCA

3:46:49conditions for this project because we'd

3:46:52love to see this codified in Cambridge

3:46:55since Somerville

3:46:57probably doesn't really have

3:46:58jurisdiction

3:47:00over any parts of the project that are

3:47:04in Cambridge and we'd love to see this

3:47:06codified in case of

3:47:08a property transfer or anything like

3:47:11that. We've worked in good faith with

3:47:13with this developer and so I was just

3:47:16very happy to hear that.

3:47:19So, you know, if these can be also

3:47:21conditions of the CFO, we would be very

3:47:24happy.

3:47:25I just wanted to sort of imagine, you

3:47:27know,

3:47:28you know, we are at you know, we are

3:47:31asking for the possibility of thinking

3:47:33about the funding of the design to 100%

3:47:36not necessarily the project doing the

3:47:39design, but funding the 100% design in

3:47:42imagining

3:47:44the sooner this project

3:47:46the ramp gets built, the sooner it can

3:47:50serve

3:47:51the hotel visitors and the guests and

3:47:55the community around it. And right now

3:47:57the city of Cambridge is actually

3:48:00funding and designing

3:48:02the adjacent spur right above the ramp

3:48:07on the MBTA property with MBTA

3:48:11permission to do that. And we'd love to

3:48:13see that design be seamless.

3:48:16So if

3:48:18I'm just sort of imagining if if the

3:48:20100% design could be funded along with

3:48:24that spur design, that would be pretty

3:48:26amazing

3:48:28for the hotel and the community at large

3:48:31because currently there's no funding

3:48:33identified for the 25%

3:48:36to the 100% design and everybody really

3:48:39wants to see this get done. And of

3:48:42course there's no

3:48:43funding identified for the construction.

3:48:46However, having the full design will

3:48:49allow

3:48:51that to happen much faster.

3:48:54We also recommended some sort of prefab

3:48:57design so that should the

3:48:59the ramp be built after the hotel is in

3:49:02operation, it could be kind of plunked

3:49:05into place quickly and easily and not

3:49:08interrupt the hotel operations. So

3:49:12um

3:49:13uh those you know those are the kind of

3:49:16things we're asking for is

3:49:18um

3:49:19anything we just we just want to see

3:49:21this with this happen this connection.

3:49:24It will help connect the current

3:49:26community path with the Grand Junction

3:49:29path that's being

3:49:31designed and is partially built in the

3:49:34city of Cambridge. And so we're we're

3:49:37just all about path connections and

3:49:40community connections. So thank you so

3:49:43much for listening to this this comment.

3:49:46>> Thank you, Ms. Weisman.

3:49:49>> Phone number ending 8311.

3:50:01Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley

3:50:04Street.

3:50:05And I would like to

3:50:08um add my voice to everything that Chuck

3:50:11Hines said.

3:50:13Um I was actually the person who made

3:50:15the motion at these Cambridge Planning

3:50:17Team meeting last night.

3:50:19Um and I think he he captured it well.

3:50:23Another thing that I would point out

3:50:26with respect to this um

3:50:29is that

3:50:31uh it fits in well with the type of

3:50:34clientele

3:50:36that we were told they wanted to get for

3:50:39this hotel.

3:50:41So I

3:50:43really hope that the board will see its

3:50:46way clear to incorporate everything

3:50:50that Somerville

3:50:52um listed as a requirement

3:50:56that

3:50:57could apply to this.

3:50:59So that there won't be any question

3:51:02of

3:51:04having the the two different sovereigns

3:51:07fighting

3:51:08over what's supposed to happen here.

3:51:13Um

3:51:14these paths

3:51:16make a difference.

3:51:17And so I would like to see it. I use the

3:51:21community path.

3:51:23And uh

3:51:25having a a connection that may also

3:51:28include a way to get safely across

3:51:31the O'Brien Highway or Boulevard, if it

3:51:34ever becomes such,

3:51:37is um an additional benefit to

3:51:39everybody.

3:51:41Thank you.

3:51:42>> Thank you, Ms. Hoffman.

3:51:46Okay, so uh that closes uh public

3:51:49comment.

3:51:51Um

3:51:54board deliberations. Um so

3:51:57I think in terms of the motion I'll be

3:52:00including

3:52:02uh

3:52:03>> Mr. Chair, if Mr. Brady could um

3:52:06sort of address some of the

3:52:08uh

3:52:09funding issues and their commitment uh

3:52:12um

3:52:13just to um

3:52:15make it clear to us

3:52:17uh their commitment.

3:52:20>> Uh

3:52:22I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Chair. Um

3:52:24and Christine Thomas, who's also on the

3:52:27call, uh has been working with the

3:52:29friends on this issue for a decade, as

3:52:32noted.

3:52:33Uh the the language in the Somerville

3:52:35decision by the Somerville Planning

3:52:37Board

3:52:38uh was achieved through collaboration

3:52:42and uh coordination with the Somerville

3:52:44uh

3:52:45transportation officials, and it

3:52:47included a 25% commitment on design with

3:52:51a cap at $105,000.

3:52:54Uh

3:52:56The number a number beyond that is

3:52:57onerous. The project is not what it once

3:52:59was in terms of its scale,

3:53:02uh and the truth of the matter is the

3:53:04real value here, and people who follow

3:53:07these issues will understand that, is

3:53:09getting the land.

3:53:10>> Yes.

3:53:11>> With all this with all this talk about

3:53:12the the design cost,

3:53:15uh the value of that easement that will

3:53:17provide the physical connection

3:53:20is nearly priceless.

3:53:23Uh and it's

3:53:24cuz if it doesn't happen on this site,

3:53:26it's not going to happen at all. So,

3:53:28that that willingness on the part of the

3:53:30applicant very early in the process to

3:53:33agree to do that is really what's

3:53:36advanced most of this discussion. So, I

3:53:39would like to suggest that the language

3:53:41that I I've provided uh

3:53:44in the file from Somerville is is

3:53:47appropriate and that the two decisions

3:53:49would would uh

3:53:51be um would be complimentary. They would

3:53:54contain the same conditions regardless

3:53:57of whether the Somerville municipal

3:53:59authorities are enforcing it or the

3:54:01Cambridge municipal authorities. So,

3:54:03uh it it's simply not uh

3:54:05fiscally possible to extend the

3:54:07commitment beyond the 100

3:54:10uh the 25% funding at this time.

3:54:12>> Yeah, that my my point was I I wanted to

3:54:14get that out on the record as to before

3:54:16we start

3:54:18attaching anything to our decision.

3:54:19That's all.

3:54:20So. Okay, I wanted to follow a follow an

3:54:23an understanding.

3:54:24My understanding was that the uh you're

3:54:27correct is that the land, the easement

3:54:29is

3:54:31um the necessary element to this whole

3:54:35um development area. So, anyhow.

3:54:38Okay, thank you.

3:54:40>> No, thank you, Brennan, for for making

3:54:41that uh you know, opportunity to clarify

3:54:44that. Um

3:54:45any other questions from or comments

3:54:48from board members regarding

3:54:51the application.

3:54:54>> This is Janelle Hidalgo. Yeah, I I fully

3:54:56support this. I I was on special permit

3:54:59number three, so it's good to see you

3:55:00know, well, I hope this time it's

3:55:02locked.

3:55:02>> So was I.

3:55:04>> [laughter]

3:55:04>> Um and I you know, I think I'm fine with

3:55:07the 25%. I just feel like we're not well

3:55:08positioned to like bargain here and and

3:55:11understand all the um considerations

3:55:13involved with changing that number. So,

3:55:15to me, I'm perfectly fine just matching

3:55:17Somerville.

3:55:18>> Right.

3:55:19>> I think I think the nature of the ask um

3:55:22exceeds our

3:55:24authority a little bit by imposing that

3:55:27as a condition.

3:55:29Um I'm a little uncomfortable that

3:55:32you're right as to

3:55:34um attaching that

3:55:36and whatever that magic number or

3:55:38percentile is

3:55:40um beyond what has already been agreed

3:55:42to and what is under discussion. So,

3:55:45uh

3:55:46>> I

3:55:47Mr. I didn't want to raise the legal

3:55:48issue, but uh as is often the case, Mr.

3:55:51Solomon is quite correct. There are

3:55:52things called permissible conditions.

3:55:54This is a use special permit. So, uh, to

3:55:58put to put a financial burden so these

3:56:00conditions are being agreed to up front.

3:56:03So, that's up to the applicant because I

3:56:05think as the

3:56:07as a pure condition on a special permit

3:56:10for use that's otherwise allowed upon

3:56:12the granting it could be seen as a bit

3:56:14onerous

3:56:15uh, in in excess of the board's

3:56:17authority when it comes to granting.

3:56:18>> I think I think that's where I'm headed

3:56:21that that it exceeds our authority to do

3:56:22that.

3:56:24>> This is our

3:56:25>> Yeah.

3:56:25>> Um,

3:56:27um, I agree with Brendan. I actually did

3:56:30I didn't sit on the last case um, in

3:56:322023, but I did go back and review it

3:56:36and the question or the conversation

3:56:38around the bike path um, obviously came

3:56:41up that night and when we when you guys

3:56:44made the vote there was no language

3:56:46actually in the

3:56:47>> That's correct.

3:56:48>> And so,

3:56:49um,

3:56:51I just wanted to point out that I

3:56:54wouldn't also be comfortable or

3:56:57needing to put it in.

3:56:59So.

3:57:00>> Oh, thank you. Thank you for your

3:57:02comments.

3:57:03Um, so yes, I I

3:57:06believe uh, using uh, following or

3:57:08including the Somerville Planning Board

3:57:11conditions uh, along with and are those

3:57:14the highlighted areas Miss Mr. Rafferty

3:57:17in in

3:57:17>> That's that's correct, Mr. Chair. Those

3:57:19three highlights were referred to and

3:57:21that is that is the special permit what

3:57:23what's called site plan approval.

3:57:24Somerville actually issued three special

3:57:26permit decision, but the one that

3:57:28contains these conditions

3:57:30is called the site plan approval by the

3:57:32Somerville Planning Board and the three

3:57:34highlighted conditions are specifically

3:57:36related to a feasibility study for the

3:57:39ramp which is also going to cost the

3:57:42applicant uh and then uh the feasibility

3:57:45study for the ramp, the design, 25%

3:57:48design for the ramp, and then an

3:57:50easement for the land for the ramp. So,

3:57:52those three conditions are spelled out.

3:57:54I would think the the language uh in the

3:57:57Somerville decision could be uh

3:58:00cut and paste right into the board's

3:58:02decision.

3:58:05>> Okay, so we'll do that and that includes

3:58:08the easement item. So, that that uh gets

3:58:10that locked in as well. So,

3:58:12um

3:58:13>> Yes, that that that would be item 16 on

3:58:15that decision you have, Mr. Chair.

3:58:17>> Right.

3:58:18>> Yeah.

3:58:20>> Yeah, cuz you've got nine, a portion of

3:58:2211, 13, some areas highlighted, 16, and

3:58:2718.

3:58:28Um

3:58:30>> Yeah, I Yeah, but but the but I'm sorry,

3:58:32the the the nine the the Somerville has

3:58:34something called a mobility division. We

3:58:36don't We don't have that. So, I

3:58:37apologize.

3:58:38>> Got you.

3:58:38>> So, so I think what really should be

3:58:41included is 13, 15, and 16.

3:58:44>> 13

3:58:4715 and 16

3:58:53Okay.

3:58:55>> Thank you.

3:59:05>> Uh

3:59:06just looking just looking over it

3:59:08quickly. We're

3:59:11Is 18 apply as well or no?

3:59:15For uh

3:59:17provide public right-of-way

3:59:19>> Yes, yes, it it could. That That's

3:59:21>> Okay.

3:59:21>> Yeah, that's Thank you for pointing that

3:59:23out. This is the um

3:59:25the the sidewalk on uh on Monsignor

3:59:28Brian Highway is going to be expanded uh

3:59:31widened and uh it will then go on to

3:59:35privately owned land that the that

3:59:37applicant owns and they're prepared the

3:59:39to give an easement to allow a public

3:59:42sidewalk to be on that portion of their

3:59:44frontage.

3:59:44>> Very good.

3:59:47All right. So, uh board members, any

3:59:49other uh comments

3:59:51regarding

3:59:57the project uh or

3:59:58>> I'll let it toy with this a little bit

4:00:01as well, Mr. Sullivan.

4:00:02Um that in the four alterations of this

4:00:05project and this development from what

4:00:08it was before,

4:00:10there's always been discussion about

4:00:12Mascoma Highway and making a safe

4:00:14passageway and so on and so forth across

4:00:16there.

4:00:17And

4:00:19it's a state highway.

4:00:20You know,

4:00:21it's not There's really

4:00:23nothing we can do about that without

4:00:26involving the state. Um and and they're

4:00:28going to dictate um that in

4:00:30collaboration with the city

4:00:32on

4:00:33safe passage across

4:00:35the um the highway. So, anyhow.

4:00:39Um

4:00:40it's necessary, but

4:00:42it's it's not on the onus of

4:00:45um any of the property owners along that

4:00:48strip.

4:00:49>> But but I but I will point out, Mr.

4:00:51Sullivan, that the applicant has been

4:00:53working with DOT State Highway because

4:00:56that is a state highway and an access

4:00:58permit. So, the new the new um

4:01:02the new expanded uh

4:01:04sidewalk and plantings there are all

4:01:06being done in coordination with the

4:01:08access permit from uh State Highway for

4:01:12for that frontage. So, they they are

4:01:15they are a signatory and a signatory to

4:01:18the to the final

4:01:20uh design in front of the hotel.

4:01:22>> Yeah.

4:01:23Yeah.

4:01:24>> Okay. That's great. Good to know.

4:01:27Um so, yeah, I guess uh

4:01:30let me give a shot at a motion.

4:01:32>> Yes. Uh so, chair makes a motion to

4:01:35grant the special permit from the

4:01:37requirements of the ordinance

4:01:40under the following sections, section

4:01:436.44.1b,

4:01:46parking,

4:01:47section 17.12.1.a,

4:01:52hotel use, and section 10.40, special

4:01:55permit.

4:01:56Um reviewing responses to uh supporting

4:01:59statement for a special permit that A,

4:02:02it appears the requirements of this

4:02:03ordinance cannot or will not be met

4:02:06according to provisions of section

4:02:0817.12,

4:02:09a hotel use is permitted in special

4:02:11district 1 upon the issuance of a

4:02:14special permit from the Board of Zoning

4:02:16Appeal.

4:02:17Item B, traffic generated or patterns of

4:02:20access or egress would cause congestion,

4:02:22hazard, or substantial change. Uh ve-

4:02:25vehicular access to the site will be

4:02:27exclusively through driveways on

4:02:30Monsignor O'Brien Highway and as such

4:02:32will not have any change in the

4:02:34established neighborhood character.

4:02:37Item C,

4:02:38the continued operation of or the

4:02:41development of the adjacent uses as

4:02:43permitted in the zoning ordinance would

4:02:45be adversely affected. Uh there are two

4:02:48hotel uses in close proximity

4:02:51to the site on Monsignor O'Brien Highway

4:02:54as well as a retail shopping center.

4:02:56None of these uses uses will be

4:02:59adversely affected by an additional

4:03:01hotel use. The rear budding uses are

4:03:04train tracks and a community path, both

4:03:06screened by a fence. Neither use will be

4:03:09adversely affected by the siting of

4:03:12parking spaces within 5 ft of the rear

4:03:14property line.

4:03:16Item D, nuisance or hazard would be

4:03:19created to the detriment of the health,

4:03:21safety, and welfare of the occupant. The

4:03:23hotel will be operated in accordance

4:03:26with all applicable health, safety, and

4:03:28licensing requirements.

4:03:30And for other reasons, item e, the

4:03:32proposed use would impair the integrity

4:03:35of the district or adjoining districts.

4:03:38This use will replace a former car wash

4:03:40and warehouse with a well-designed

4:03:42building that will provide much-needed

4:03:45accommodations for people visiting the

4:03:47city.

4:03:49Um so that by that finding, they meet

4:03:53the criteria under section 10.40

4:03:57for a special permit and adding

4:03:59conditions uh to include

4:04:03um

4:04:04the conditions

4:04:06the mobility conditions listed in the

4:04:08city of Somerville Planning Board um

4:04:14site plan approval case uh P&Z 21-028

4:04:20uh in the high-rise HR zoning district

4:04:23citing sections in mobility

4:04:26uh

4:04:27numbers 13

4:04:31which uh states uh prior certificate of

4:04:34occupancy, the applicant or the

4:04:36successor shall fund and execute a

4:04:38design of community path ramp to the 25%

4:04:41design level.

4:04:43Um

4:04:44and uh provide to the city a payment in

4:04:46lieu of 25 um

4:04:48However,

4:04:50the amount said payment shall not exceed

4:04:53$105,038.88

4:04:57being the off-site improvement

4:04:58calculation of 44,508

4:05:02square feet * 2.236

4:05:05per foot. Uh item

4:05:0915

4:05:11Was it 15? The applicant

4:05:14or their successor shall coordinate with

4:05:16the cities of Somerville and Cambridge

4:05:18on the design and construction of the

4:05:20proposed community path ramp. The

4:05:23applicant will provide the space on

4:05:25their site for the community path ramp

4:05:27and will allow for all site access

4:05:30necessary for construction to occur.

4:05:33Uh 16, the applicant or their successor

4:05:35must provide a public right-of-way or

4:05:38pedestrian access easement in perpetuity

4:05:41by a covenant or other deed restriction

4:05:43for the full area of the proposed

4:05:45community path ramp. And uh 18, finally,

4:05:4918, the applicant or the successor must

4:05:52provide a public right-of-way or

4:05:54pedestrian access easement in perpetuity

4:05:57by a covenant or other deed restriction

4:05:59for the full area of the sidewalk

4:06:01provided within the frontage area of the

4:06:04lot.

4:06:06Um

4:06:10And uh on the condition that the work

4:06:13proposed conforms to the drawing set

4:06:15included in the application package,

4:06:17which includes the following documents,

4:06:19drawing set entitled 145

4:06:22room hotel, 263 Monsignor O'Brien

4:06:25Highway, dated

4:06:2715th of October, 2025.

4:06:31Is that Is that right? I'm sorry.

4:06:34I think that was Yeah. Uh

4:06:37by XX

4:06:39uh

4:06:44Sorry. Just uh

4:06:50It's the drawings. Sorry, guys.

4:06:56Uh for drawings prepared by uh Allen and

4:06:59Major Associates and

4:07:06>> Jason, can you can you identify the name

4:07:08of your firm or is this stamped by

4:07:11>> XSS Hotels.

4:07:13>> Yes.

4:07:14>> Yeah.

4:07:14>> That is correct. Yes.

4:07:15>> Yep, we got it. Sorry about that.

4:07:18And further, we incorporate the

4:07:20supporting statements dimensional form

4:07:22submitted as part of the application.

4:07:24So, on a voice vote, please, board

4:07:27members. Brendan Sullivan.

4:07:29>> In favor of the motion to grant.

4:07:31>> Thank you. Virginia Keesler.

4:07:35>> Virginia Keesler in favor.

4:07:36>> Daniel Hidalgo.

4:07:38>> Daniel Hidalgo in favor.

4:07:40>> Soriya Miranda.

4:07:42>> Soriya Miranda in favor.

4:07:43>> And Stephen Eng in favor. The vote is

4:07:46five zero in favor, and the special

4:07:48permit is granted.

4:07:51Thank you, Mr. Rafferty.

4:07:53>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the

4:07:54board. Uh for a long hard evening,

4:07:57you're really earning your

4:07:58You're really earning that stipend they

4:08:00pay you. I got to give you credit.

4:08:03Tonight was That was a marathon.

4:08:05>> Yeah.

4:08:05>> Congratulations. Thank you.

4:08:07>> Good Good to close with you.

4:08:09Uh uh

4:08:10to end the night, so Thank you. So, that

4:08:12concludes uh the Board of Zoning Appeals

4:08:15business on October 15th. Thank you,

4:08:18board members, for hanging in there,

4:08:20getting through this evening, and uh

4:08:22we'll see you all soon.

4:08:25>> Farewell, everybody.

4:08:26>> Thank you.

4:08:27>> Thanks.

4:08:28>> Bye.

4:08:49>> to expand our efforts to provide better

4:08:51support for survivors of sexual violence

4:08:54here in Cambridge.

4:08:56From this need in 2016, the Cambridge

4:08:58Police Department's Trauma-Informed Law

4:09:00Enforcement Initiative was born. This

4:09:02initiative was designed to ensure that

4:09:05our approach to survivors is grounded in

4:09:07trauma-informed care prior