35, well, that's the Caddy Corner property.
Those are 1,320 square feet lots.
And if you look at the photograph on page 20,
these are across the street from 270 DuPont Street. These lots are again,
783 square feet, and they were built with the consent and support of the Civic Association.
So the suggestion that we're imposing something extraordinary is not supported by any of the facts.
It's just an opinion that the civic really embraces.
I don't know why.
Mr. O'Brien, could you go back to page 12?
is that a driveway separating the
on Fleming is it separation between a and b and then c and d no these are now um so that
I can show you the rendering rendering is on page 15.
Let me see if I can increase the size of that.
So what you see is the original format was, again, four wide houses attached.
In order to reduce the massing, they were reconfigured on the same lot lines as a pair
of duplexes.
so what you see is the side side yards between the two structures was there any consideration
looking at this uh proposal here uh to have the entrance keeping everything the same but the
entrance on the dupont street side to that a property i mean i don't know if it works uh i
mean i guess it could work i'm just curious it didn't work with turning radius providing parking
turning radius providing parking is essential to this development and providing parking and
is essential to this.
turning radii it just didn't work okay all right but you know again if you if you look at the
civics request for reconsideration and most recently their letter dated
august 28th it was submitted they make representations that the applicant did not
make modifications. There were many modifications made and these lots again are as much as 45%
greater than lots across the street that the Civic had supported. I do want to address one issue
and there's a representation that I misrepresented to the Board the Planning Commission's position.
in my letter i state that the zoning board or that the planning commission supported
the applicant's proposal and mr smith in his letter said that they expressed non-apposition
the two days before the zoning hearing there was a and i'm going to bring that document up
There was a plan review of the modified plan, again, without the roof decks, without the
pilot houses, the reconfigured narrow houses, the smaller driveway.
And that plan review was Monday, November 18th, and that was with Marty Grigorski and
Matt Weisong.
They had no objections, expressed no problems with the plan.
however they did express a preference for five foot wide side uh sidewalk clearance um i'm sorry
bill can you just what page is this in the packet can you see this document i see it is that in the
packet that is uh well this was produced uh to the zoning board and i was bringing up as rebuttal
to the to the suggestion that i misled the board uh this is a copy of my email to marty grigorsky
and Matt Wisong dated the same day, Monday, November 18th at 440-something in the afternoon.
Marty and Matt, thanks for taking time to meet me today to review the proposed modifications
to the proposed redevelopment of 270 DuPont Street. As modified, the proposal calls for a pair of
twins, piled houses, and decks have been eliminated. Each of the four single-family homes will have
accessory two-car garage accessed from dupont street by a shared driveway the proposal satisfies
the nco overlay and replaces non-conform a non-conforming multi-family dwelling your
remaining concern focused on the encroachments in the public way your recommend you recommend moving
the escape wells the window escape wells to the side yards and modify the stair entrance
so a five foot right of way is maintained the following day
i sent an email to kevin uh smith and celeste hardister the president of the two civics
matt wysong marty gorski the councilman joshua cohen tanya sunkett and sharon were copied in
this email kevin and celeste the planning commission uh have expressed the staff has
expressed preference for a five foot wide clearance at the sidewalk of the proposed twin homes
accordingly the escape walls have been relocated to the side yards and the entrance stairs have
been recessed attaches a copy of the revised zoning plan the subject of our october of the
october 2nd rco meeting that now includes the two foregoing modifications this plan will be submitted
to the zoning board tomorrow with the revised proviso plans form when i wrote my letter saying
that the planning commission supported it that was my frame of reference that a plan review with the
plan the northwest plan reviewer matt uh weisong and and staff uh the uh coordinator uh martin
marty gregorski had no problem expressed no problem with this they had one suggestion we
adopted the suggestion um so i don't know and i raised that question with um uh matt weisslong
when this issue was arose august 7th i sent him a letter uh suggesting that
sorry to interrupt i think the comment in the letter just was that they stated non-opposition
as opposed to support at the meeting.
I don't know if we need to read it.
Okay, we understand that.
All right.
So on August 7th, I sent this letter to Matt Weisong
where I go through the facts with him
and suggest that maybe Ron Bednar,
Ron Bednar, who expressed the Commission's position, wasn't aware of the plan review
who expressed the commission's position,
that had occurred two days earlier.
But at the end of the day, I don't know if there's support or non-objection whether that's
a distinction that really doesn't make a difference.
I'm sure that I'll probably have a lot more to respond to as Mr. Hunter and Mr. Smith
than the others testify to so I think we'll leave it there and I'll just yeah I want to
interrupt everybody for a minute it's uh five o'clock I my question I guess is to the court
reporter would the court reporter like to have a break this is the last case on the two o'clock
session we still have two or three cases for the 3 30 session I would love a break Mr. Chairman
10 minutes yes perfect 10 minute break we'll come back thank you thank you mr chair
okay uh mr o'brien we're back on uh i would you're muted at the moment
mr o'brien you have to unmute yourself okay i i i mentioned uh that i think i responded
everything that corin had raised generally yeah i know that the corin has witnesses that want to
testify and rather than ramble on i'll hold off until i find a need to respond to additional
testimony just one last thing in response to corin there was a suggestion that i did not copy
the RCO's attorney, Mr. Wise. This matter started about 16, 17 months ago. I found out that the
RCO's engaged Mr. Wise for the zoning hearing on November 20th, on the morning of that hearing.
In speaking with Mr. Wise that day, it was my understanding that he was engaged for that
purpose if you look at the documents on my cover sheet the six post zoning documents my letter
to the rcos of december 12th through the date of february 11th when reconsideration this
reconsideration hearing was scheduled um none of them copy mr wise uh the reconsideration
the letter issuing the April 15th reconsideration hearing date is sent to Mr. Smith and it is not
even copied to Mr. Wise. Now I would never had I known Mr. Wise's relationship was an ongoing
relationship I would have included it. I didn't know that didn't realize that so no harm. All right
Mr. O'Brien, have you concluded this portion of your testimony?
The only thing I want to suggest, the Civic has repeatedly said that the compromise offer of three houses with the empty lot on Parcellet is somehow kind of an epiphany that four houses is not the least modification.
the modification that the applicant is requesting is for the board to allow this to be developed
according to rsa 5 standards the three house proposal proposed compromise still requires
rsa 5 standards it doesn't change the relief that the applicant requested but it was the remaining
issue that the civics had on the table was density and so okay we'll do three attached houses
rather than two semi-detached and we'll have this empty lot on the corner uh i did not attend the
hearing uh i think some of the witnesses that are going to testify uh mr wisena call will confirm
that it was their opinion that this proposal as depicted i don't know if you can if it's still on
screen, the two mansard roof twins was better than the three-lot, the three-house compromise,
that the three-house compromise, as Mr. Smith articulates in his letter dated December 23rd,
he has four or five or maybe six bullet points as to why the compromise proposal is not as
is this as a as the revised plan but both require application of RSA five dimensional standards
but why are we here I don't mean that sarcastic no we're here because we're saying that four
is better than three I I'm I'm lost yes Mr. Chairman um
i i'm i'm lost yes mr chairman um i'm also lost uh the the application is an rsa3 lot
and the variance is seeking four houses it's not we mr o'brien is saying well if if we just ask for
rsa5 it's it's not really a variance or it's not or it's minimal but that's that's not really in
my opinion that's not really how the code works we have an rsa3 lot and a developer that has an
agreement of sale on it is trying to maximize it and fill the lot and by putting them facing
fleming street and calling them rsa5 properties um but if he's looking to amass if it's an economic
issue isn't he kind of cutting himself short by removing one of the houses he's only building
three as opposed to four i don't know there's no evidence on what the financials are when we
the agreement was secret i think i think it's obvious that it could cost more to build four
than it does to build three well i i can't speculate as to what the finances are i assume
that it's cheaper to build three it's cheaper to build three on fleming than it is to build
two on dupont and one on fleming but the neighborhood who has nothing to personally
Gain wants to maintain that character on DuPont and has offered up a third property, which by
right, there should only be two properties if they subdivide the lot. But we don't get to a variance
because we haven't heard any evidence of a hardship. There's no hardship that supports
a variance on this lot to build anything but a buy right property it could be a very large
property on dupont or if he wants to split the properties it can be two good sized properties
on dupont and the minimal variance would be a third one on fleming which the neighbors have
have consistently supported density is not their main issue it's character on dupont and a curb cut
on a street that has no driveways okay all right yeah but but the four on fleming street uh never
mind you guys finish i'm not going to briefly counsel raised the issue of hardship uh it's
the applicant's position that the record contains uncontradicted testimony that because of the
existing multi-family dwelling the purchase price does not allow this property to be redeveloped
according to the civic's wishes we have tried to work with the civic to find a way that makes sense
and i want to refresh the board's recollection on the screen right now is 217 green lane
and the following photograph is uh the corner of um wild and fleming street i mean this i'm sorry
mr o'brien i have to object mr councilman i i don't know what the relevance of other properties
is i'd like to hear let him finish we've made an effort the applicant has made an effort to
develop this property consistent with the community to to have design elements that
are compatible the civic in its letter requesting reconsideration criticized the applicant
it, because it mentioned the Central Roxborough Overlay District. One of the exhibits offered,
which is now on the screen, shows the Central Roxborough Overlay District, and it clearly
shows that 270 Dupont Street, the red circle here, red square, is outside the district.
we don't have to comply with the overlay but the applicant wanted to and there's a reason for that
the code says that the overlay is important because it makes the area walkable and walkability
serves the health safety and general welfare of the citizens by providing human scale design
interesting and pedestrian friendly facades and eyes on the street my point was that the applicant
He didn't have to do that, but he adopted these standards and applied them to these
proposed buildings that are outside the district.
In Mr. Smith's most recent letter of August 28th, he enclosed photographs of houses, 10
houses on DuPont Street.
I checked city records on these houses, and it revealed that not only is the existing
structure on 270, a non-conforming multifamily dwelling. But based upon the 10 houses that
But based upon the 10 houses that Mr. Smith provided, it may be the only non-owner-occupied dwelling in the neighborhood.
Mr. Smith put in the house, the 10 houses, the 10 houses, the 10 houses, the 10 houses,
All these 10 homes are owner-occupied.
So by removing the non-compliant, the non-conforming structure, introducing four new homes with a shared driveway, two off-street parking spaces,
it's it's a benefit to the community they're going to be owner-occupied
i'll i'll uh i'll rest there but we you know relying on the record that was produced before
the zoning board uh on the essential issues and again my letter of uh january 14th is
a letter offered in summation and i stand by every word that's on the letter
and Mr. Smith sent a letter on December 23rd, similar to mine, offered in summation.
There was spin and hyperbole in that letter. I don't disparage that. He's trying to make
his best position, but the civics positions in this case are contrary to the facts. RSA 5
is consistent with the community's immediate, the immediate area, and these homes are consistent
or even larger, that lots are even larger than what the civics have previously supported.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, if it's appropriate, I'd ask neighbors and the RCOs to raise their hands so they can
yeah and and for those folks who are preparing to testify i'm sure i know mr hunter and others
have been here before we always ask that you as you speak you give us new and different information
i could be wrong but i guess uh i'm going to be hearing a lot of we're going to be hearing a lot
of the same things so we're going to limit your comments to two minutes thank you thank you mr
chair um i in response to that mr hunter as an architect can speak to the streetscape uh argument
on dupont much more eloquently than i mr smith can speak regarding the the procedures uh and the
rsa3 um uh better than i have um so uh if you so choose mr chair um and i believe you should be
able to see if if the neighbors in attendance have raised their hand um we'll handle that she'll
she'll take that mr hunter mr hunter would like to speak first i believe and he's representative
from uh neighborhood council mr hunter please raise your hand if you haven't already done so
when you get on identify yourself with the record name and address uh can you hear me yes i can
Excellent. It's John Hunter, H-U-N-T-E-R, address is 4308 Terrace Street, T-E-R-R-A-C-E, 19128, representing Man Utd Neighborhood Council.
Do you swear in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
And I'm sorry, John, do you need the screen or do you have documents or do you want me to put up the photos?
I would like you, if I ask you, to sort of pull up a plan or something.
If Mr. O'Brien could.
Actually, if you could pull up the compromise plan with the X on it.
If Mr. O'Brien could release the screen.
Thank you.
Thank you, Bill.
Chairman DiCicco, I will try and avoid the filling of Groundhog Day.
I will just remind you, and I wouldn't expect you to remember this,
But back on November 30th in 2019, we went through this whole argument in exactly the same fashion from Mr. O'Brien.
And we got to the end of me giving my version, which I'm trying to do now.
And you asked me if the civics would be willing to consider a compromise.
And I said we had suggested that we would be willing to discuss a compromise from day one.
that we met with the applicant some over a year maybe 18 months ago now and then you turned to