Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 11-05-2025

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the City of Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for November the 5th, 2025. It is 6.01 p.m. Let me do the disclaimer here. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals will be conducted via remote participation. A video recording of these proceedings will be available on the City's website meetings and events page or by emailing zoningboard at somerville.gov. Tonight we have for your Zoning Board of Appeals, we have Zach Zaremba, we have Ann Brockelman, our Vice Chair, we have Brian Cook, we have Sisia She's going to be our acting clerk this evening. And we have a brand new member. Our new member is Olivia Mobayed. So welcome, Olivia. I'm sure you're going to enjoy this. It's exciting and challenging. I am Susan Fontano, your chair. And also on staff tonight, we have Kit Lester. We have Alvaro Esparza. We have Christian Contenard and also from Inspectional Services we have Josh Mannion and these folks in the background are gonna they always give us great support and help and they're on board tonight to ask any answer any questions we might have for them so without further ado um we've we've introduced our new board member We need minutes approved, so I'd like to ask the Clerk, the Acting Clerk, to please make a motion.

Regarding the minutes for 15th October 2025, I move to approve the meeting minutes.

Okay, can I have a second for October, you said 15th? October 15th, correct. October 15th, yeah. Can I have a second? I'm sorry, I missed it. Second. Seconded by Ann Brockelman. All in favor, please say aye as we go around. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Ann Brockelman? Aye. Zach Zaremba? Aye. Olivia Mobayed? Mobayed?

As long as I'm permitted to approve them, I have reviewed that meeting. Aye. Thank you.

Sisia Daglian? Aye. And myself, Ursula Susan Fontano, aye. Let the record show that October 15th was approved unanimously. Motion, please, on October 1st, Sisia.

Yes, October 15th. This is 4872 Broadway. I move to approve the meeting minutes.

So we're doing, did we just do the 15th?

We did the 15th. Sorry, we're doing them a little backwards.

So now you're going to do the first?

Yes.

Okay. May I have a second on October 1st minutes? Second. Ann Brockelman, going around, please. Brian Cook.

Aye.

Anne Brockleman? Aye. Zach Zaremba? Aye. Olivia Mobayed? I abstain. Okay. Susan Fontano, why? And Sisia Daglian? Aye. Let the record show five members in the positive and one abstain. So we're going to do 36 Beacon Street first. Am I doing that right? Did I get it right, Kit?

This is Kit, yes.

That's what we said we'd go. Okay, so we're going to do 36 Beacon Street. It's continued from the 15th of October, so it does not have to be opened. And are the parties here? Would you please come on board?

This is Kit. I've just sent a panelist invite to David Cameron. He should be joining shortly.

All right, this works. Okay. Am I set to kick off? Can everyone hear me?

Yes, yes.

Welcome. Well, thank you very much. I enjoy being back. Let me share my screen here. Sharing is not turned on. Can I send request? Okay.

I'm just going to interrupt you one moment, please, Mr. Cameron. Sure. We do have a new member here joining us tonight. She's well versed on the case. She did all the studies, signed all the papers, got everything to the office. Sisia Daglian is going to be our acting clerk tonight. And we designated her last week, I mean, the last meeting to vote on your case. So stand on board with that. And Brian will not be voting on this case. But he's going to chime in and give his two cents as well. So I just want to let everybody know who the players are going to be. And you may go forward, please. Thank you for your patience.

No worries at all. All right. I will share my screen. Hopefully it's a bit of a wide monitor. So can everyone see that or? Yes. So much. All right, for the new folks, I'll just spend one minute quickly zooming through to orient. I think you said they'd already read everything, so I will quite literally spend 60 seconds or less.

It's one person, yeah.

Okay, so I'll take 30 seconds then. So 36 Beacon, it's property here. That's the lot line. This is the staircase in question. Oh, sorry, I need to, just where it is located. And again, this is kind of a white existing part of the structure that we'll be building off of. this is an existing picture of the site here there is an old door i do not know how when or where that came from but it is there this is the existing kind of little porch that will be demolished this here just these are more quick street views this is the um you know architecturals you have the stair here and then we have this kind of little porch piece which will be up for discussion today some structurals and then we also have kind of the setbacks and then we also have the materiality here which will be up for discussion today so I won't linger on it and then a site survey if you want to review a stamped alta so that's my 30 seconds hopefully I kept that to 30 seconds so I was hoping first to run through kind of the permeable impermeable discussion that happened at the end of last week and I think we kind of left off just wanting more clarification I'll quickly run through kind of I went back and and looked at all the exact comments and kind of ran through a little narrative here which I found personally very helpful and it kind of shows how it was drawn the way it was drawn feel free to read it by yourself but I will quickly read it so an ISD reviewer Matt wrote an existing and proposed lot coverage calculation calculated in accordance with Somerville zoning ordinance 2.4.2.ci will be required this is it here if you want to read it please also include an accompanying dimension site plan that includes materiality lot coverage includes the footprint of the structure any ground story so it includes the footprint of the structure any ground story building components accessory structures and any paved surfaces on the site permeable pavers do count towards lot coverage based on the runoff coefficient from the manufacturer if one cannot be found then a 0.33 can be used Even if a surface such as the rear concrete walk directs stormwater to infiltrate on site, it would still be considered block coverage. And then I kind of quote the zoning ordinance here. I won't read it, but you're welcome to. So we updated applicant response. I updated the drawings to include the all ground story building component footprints and all paved surfaces and the pavers which we have, which directs, you know, a lot of these pavers in the front here. You can see the exact callouts. all direct in the concrete as well to infiltrate but we calculated those at 0.33 as directed and ISD responded completed and then when Matt was looking at the zoning document about a month later wrote the statement that the zoning committee heard last time lot has an existing non-conforming lot coverage of 70.4 the maximum is 65 per the 3.2.11.8 which is down here that's the 65 and then a hardship variance for relief from 14.1.7 for further reducing non-conforming landscape and permeable area and this is the statute tier non-conforming landscape and permeable area cannot be further reduced so that's kind of what i tracked back and i have not made any changes since i if i remember correctly it was going to be discussed exactly what the relief was going to be for and whether lot coverage was indeed drawn as desired by the committee.

Okay. Let's see here.

And as the committee thinks on it, feel free to cut me off. The red is the existing lot coverage here. and then the green is the addition, about 167 square feet. Now there will be like dirt underneath or I guess gravel probably underneath the stairs here, so it will all infiltrate, but we included the full footprint as directed, at least in the initial ISD request.

Can you, I'm trying to see if I, where that is in my packet. Can you enlarge your graphic?

Yes, which one do you want enlarged? The text or the drawing?

The drawing.

Yeah, sure. Any specific, like the back here, I can enlarge the back.

There it is.

And then I can kind of go to the front, too, if anyone wants to see that.

I'm looking to see here. I didn't see it in the narrative section. I'm trying to see if you sent it. Did you send it to us?

Send this?

Yes.

I uploaded this to CitizenServe, which I believe Kit used and paraphrased and simplified in her Staff Report.

Susan, this is Kit. Yeah. I think that the updated narrative did go out with the packet on Friday.

That's what I'm looking. I thought I had the whole packet in front of my face. Yeah.

My apologies, Kit. Thank you.

I see a picture. I made copies myself. I have them right here. That, that, that. Is anybody else on board with me here or am I the only one thinking of this? Does anybody else have that? Do they see where that is on the screen that I can see it? I didn't see it in my, I have a little, little thing here that I can barely read.

Susan, it's under supplemental staff memo, updated narrative. Yeah. It was in the email that we got.

Yeah, let me see. Let's see. Let me go back to the beginning. Okay, so I have no change. This is the staff. Yeah, I got that. Open that up. And there's the drawing there. That's it. Original plan showing rare edition. That's number one, right?

Yeah, this is Kit. I just included the original plan just for context in the staff report. I don't think it's exactly what Mr. Cameron is showing here.

Did you include this one, Kit?

Yes, I included that one, I believe.

Gotcha. This is the materiality one, and then this is the zoning setbacks one. But they should show the same stair.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Go on. Anybody else? Anybody have comments? I do. Go ahead. No, go ahead, Ann. Ann Brockelman?

Yes, it took me a second as well, Madam Chair. Kit, it's the formatting in the email, the supplemental staff and the applicant's new narrative was like one line, so it looked like one file when we got the email, at least the way My email was received. So then I'm just now opening the updated staff report. I'm taking a second to look it up. So that's the documents. But I remember it's in our meeting minutes too. I think. One board member last time asked that the living area not extend into the 20-foot rear setback, which we agreed, but I don't see any.

Yeah, that'll be, that's the next point I want to hit once we hit this one.

Okay. And I still agree. That was not submitted, right?

Oh, no, I did the drawing and it's just a few inches. And so I wanted to ask the committee kind of their thoughts about that. But I want to do that as a second point. No, no, I definitely. Oh, sorry, maybe on your end. I'm not sure. But from the staff memo that I had read, that Kit put together, it did address that from my recollection.

Okay, so back to the issue of um setbacks in lot coverage we were um talking about whether lot coverage was just building footprint and the landscape was permeable non-permeable now we have clarification that lot coverage means the building footprint and other elements that are non-permeable such as the concrete walkway um so if everyone else Other board members disagree. Let me know. That's my reading of the ISD determination. And so you are not supposed to further reduce the permeable area, which you are. Therefore, you need a variance. Is that correct? We were confused as to what was being sought, what relief was sought. And I see Brian nodding. So thank you. but I did I guess one last point was we were discussing metrics you know quantification of the the square footage of permeable area that's further reduced I think it was myself that asked if you had a quantity of that is there do you have that or it's just asking for relief that you know it's slightly reduced

The permeable pavers here are 317 square feet, which I times by a 0.33 coefficient. These all drain into underground dry wells that actually feed the plants, the big hedges on site. As I think I jokingly said last time, I hate maintenance. I'm sure we all do. So why not use rainwater to help the hedges and trees grow? It seemed pretty self-evident. And then back here, I don't have a calculation of this area nor of the concrete walk, but I can get it for you if you'd like on the call here. I have the Revit model pulled up.

But through you, Madam Chair, is that a change? You're adding those pavers or it's just a part?

No, these are in place for about five years now. Okay, okay.

So that's existing.

The only thing adding is the green here. Just the 167 square feet is the add of the green rear stairs.

Change from permeable to non-permeable because of the structure there.

Well, so I guess the land remains permeable. It still infiltrates. It would be the footprint of the structure is changing. The posts. Exactly. Yeah, the posts. I can probably argue that that's negligible. Where is the... So, yeah, the posts here have changed. and then this skirt with the posts here. These will still have like the lines between treks decking and the water will still fall between onto, I think will be gravel or dirt. So I would argue that the permeability is not changing nor any runoff. It's just the footprint has, yeah, the footprint, any ground story building components, accessory structures or footprints of they're in, so.

Thank you. My pleasure.

Anybody else? Sisia, I believe you had a question or a comment.

It had to do with the deck encroaching of setback. Do you want to speak to that, David?

Yeah, if all the questions on this item are done, then I'm happy to jump into item number two.

Well, we might jump around.

Oh, yeah, no worries. Happy to do that. So this is I went into Revit and snapped a dimension here. This is this is the kind of as previously opposed stair with there's the nineteen five and seven inches, the ten back. I got just a little blurb here. So when we left off, we thought that this was going to be like a foot and a half, maybe two. We were just eyeballing it. And then I pulled it open. Snapped it, got some data, and I remain as open and as amenable as before to the committee suggestion. Don't in any way think I'm not. But upon seeing this kind of new information on the seven inches, I wanted to like ask the committee if the seven inches still remained within the spirit of the hardship request. Kind of notably, you know, compared to a potential three-story stair or a much larger deck space, and many more. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Redrawing, coordinating and re-stamping as I think folks in this call know they've worked in architecture with the structural it's going to take two-ish weeks and $500 to $1,000 which again we're okay doing it's just I wanted to bring it up and of course a little tiny extra space helps with the tenants who are Somerville residents enjoy with a table there and some kind of enjoy their livelihood so of course if the committee determines that it would prefer the design to be modified by the seven inches more than happy to comply but wanted to just bring it up for a chance just for discussion in case there was any hearts that were changed, but if not, happy to comply.

Okay, Sisia, anything else?

That's the extent of my questions.

Okay, thank you. Alrighty. Brian, you have any comments? I see a hand up. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On this matter, which is the 000075 rear setback question, I didn't have any problem with it last time, even though I also wasn't going to vote on it. So the seven inches does not concern me. However, the encroachment on the 20-foot setback was an Ann Fullerton uh position um and she's not here to speak to that um so I don't know how um the other members of the board feel about addressing that without and present but I do want to go if I may um okay I'll wait

No, go ahead, Brian.

We can jump around. Redirect back to the question of the bot coverage. Yeah. Since, well, let me put it simply. In order to approve the variance that's being requested for the lot coverage, it would seem prudent on the part of the applicant to give us the additional change from the existing nonconformity with respect to percentage, because that's the way lot coverage is conveyed in the ordinance.

Right.

So if that's what it is now, Mr. Cameron, as you're showing in the table, it would behoove us to make sure that we're specific about that in how we structure the motion to make a determination on the variance request.

In the verbiage, are you saying, Brian?

Yes. I mean, if we're going to say we're approving a further encroachment of the lot coverage, we should say how much we're approving, if we can, rather than as Member Brockelman suggested, it's just some vague statement that it's further encroachment or further coverage.

Be specific. Yeah. Let's see. I'm looking up, I don't know if Zach's there, or Olivier, if we see anything, speak up. Sometimes I don't see the hand, and I only have half, not even half a screen now with the graphics, you know? So speak.

I can make it larger, like I can just share a window instead of the whole screen if you'd like, which will make it look larger.

No, no, I'm saying even that, no, they know what I'm talking about.

Oh, I'm sorry, yeah.

It's all right, yeah. Apologies. No one has any comments? Thank you.

Well, I just want to go back to the deck issue. I mean, I would prefer if it did conform, even though it's just seven inches. It's just a flat portion. I mean, I don't know that you even have to modify your drawings. The builder could just lay it out. It's probably going to get surveyed anyway. So I would prefer myself if it conformed. to the 20-foot setback. It's my opinion. Right. I mean, overall, yeah.

Sorry, I agree we can probably, the contractors, the carpenters, you need to snap measurements for all the beams and everything, but I could probably get away without it and be on site. It'd be the structural engineer. They wouldn't sign off any liability unless the drawings match the constructed structure.

Right. um I mean overall like this case is it's a little hard to stem it because it's already the site has been so over built egregiously relative to its neighbors and now it's we're just at compounding it even more um and I understand Mr Cameron it's not you know it's not your fault um and you're just trying to get some code compliance here so um Even though it's relatively minor, I'd prefer if it conformed in other aspects.

Thank you, Sisia. And so, all right. So now on that, I agree with you on that. And what was, remind me, Brian. So is this what Ann Fullerton was talking about, like the seven inches here? for the 20-foot setback.

Just she was quite specific that and for her to be willing to accept the design she wanted no further encroachment into the 20-foot setback.

Right and now we're looking at this and Mr. Cameron's setting that saying that the difference would be the seven inches. yeah at the time we thought it would be a foot and a half to two feet and since measuring we learned it's seven yeah again happy to comply if the committee wants to do so but wanted to just raise it I think that's what we want to do so I got Sisia and I've got uh okay um anybody else want to speak to that so in other words the design of the back deck would stay the same with a little extra space there that they could put a little chair there or a table. And what is this going to do, the seven inches? What are you losing with the seven inches in the design that I'm looking at? Be specific.

Oh, a negligible amount of usable space. I'm not going to sit here and say that seven inches is essential to fitting a table. We all know that. it's more the time and cost to change it as as like we're getting into winter and i'm not sure i can do it before spring which is fine but but it's just if we can save a thousand here or 500 there from the structural engineering stamping and such and re-coordinating you know i yeah i learned from my parents it never hurts to ask so i thought i would ask to save the time and money but you've had this property since 2020 correct yep and you went up with historic preservation then

and they approved certain things for you then. Did you act on all the things you asked them for permission to do?

So the historic commission back then was to do this stair. That was the request back then, which they did approve. Then I think we had this chat last time, COVID hit and the universities emptied, which was how to bridge some cash flows there and then interest rate.

Yeah, so you didn't do the work, right?

Correct. I did not do the work. We went back to historical last week and historical approved it again last week, which we asked them to change it from wood to vinyl. Kit can paraphrase if I'm speaking out of turn, but I think they determined it was very, it was not that visible from the public way and it was pretty far back. There was a little concern that headlights could reflect on vinyl, but I think they determined pretty quickly it was just so far away, it doesn't necessarily matter.

And I'm looking at the building, there's a lot of vinyl on it already.

On the back, yeah, exactly. And they brought that up too, now that you mentioned it, the back is vinyl.

And what's going to happen there? You're not going to add any more, are you?

No, that is being left unchanged, that existing...

Because I thought you said something about something like that last week and I was just getting confused.

Oh, sorry. Yeah. Well, the building skirts. Somebody pull this up here. That's right. The stairs, the skirt on the stair. What I would just do it to match. This is the white kind of vinyl that's there. Yeah. Yeah. The little skirt here. I would just just to match the existing, you know.

So is that it's going to be vinyl?

yeah i was just going to try to match the existing as white vinyl the the trex um that you're going to be using on the rest of the thing they don't have something for skirting maybe uh i guess if it's as long as it's white then i'm i can i can just wanted to yeah color wise and kind of rough dimensions uh otherwise i'm open to to different materialities well because i was just looking at you know the for the the continuity the back would be all done over nice and new

and it doesn't look like a patch job if you patch in the trekking, you know.

Did this you mean? I'm not planning to redo the siding on this.

No, I know that. Oh, okay. Just saying on the skirting on the deck of the stairs and the porches, what's that material going to be? You said vinyl.

Oh, you're saying make it nicer because it's new, right?

Right, let it match the whole, that whole back section be one image as you look at it. I mean, I'm not requiring that. I'm just saying uh if you're starting to put some money into this these row houses are beautiful and uh you know you got a little play in the back they're giving you a little leeway with the it's not that visible but it would just enhance your property even nicer if you could do something like that you know with the white to match the thing match the house but if you go with the vinyl that's fine that was just a thought from my own I'll see if I can do that yeah

In the front, we are restoring the entire historic front porch.

I remember that, yeah.

As is. We're actually taking away that weird little kind of plywood thing that was built in the 60s, and we're going to sandblast the brick, or sorry, chemically treat it. If that doesn't work, then sandblast it. And we did a project in Cambridge that won a historic preservation award, and so we're going to try to, I don't think we'll get an award for this, but we'll try to get it looking spiffy.

Yeah. Anybody else here? So now that's the back. That's the 0075, right, Brian? You reminded us?

Yes, yes, that's 0075, right?

So we all okay with that? We want to go to seven, bring it back to the seven inches, okay? I see Olivia's hands up. Olivia, you have something you'd like to add, please?

Sure. Mr. Cameron, could you go show the same image on the other drawing you have with the surfaces?

Sure. Yeah, it hasn't been updated.

I'm just hoping to see it again.

Yeah, yeah, of course. No problems at all. And I can split screen it here for you.

So, okay, I'm sorry, not this one, the one next to it.

Oh, okay, materiality, got you.

Thank you, thank you. Is this one showing that those stairs that exist today are considered a impervious surface?

So they're not, in red it shows they are, they're not considered an impervious, they're considered an existing ground footprint within the definition of lot coverage. So yeah, I include those here as an existing ground footprint.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Olivia. Sisia, I see your hand up.

Yes, I wanted to go over the criteria for the variant so that I can reference it in the motion that's to be made. If we feel this is a good time to do that.

Okay. On this, I want to bring up the Beacon Street. Beacon Street. I want to go right to the front. Madam chair. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Are we saying that we'll put in the 20 foot requirement as a condition and then we'll just have staff follow up on it, right? We don't need to see revised drawings.

Right. Perfect. Okay. I just brought it. Yes, you got that, Sisia? You understand? Yes. So if you want to go over this section first, we'll be happy to. I was just looking down here on the staff report of October 30th and wheeling all the way down and there's the new conditions. Yeah. Does everybody want to weigh in on that and help Cece a little bit today?

Well, let me just give my thoughts on it. So criteria one, special circumstances relating to, I would say, the shape of the parcel in that it's a relatively narrow lot and it's been extended towards the rear in the past. So it does not leave a lot of room to have a stair that is external to the existing footprint. And the adjacent, I would say that the adjacent, you know, lots that are similar do not have that characteristic. Criteria two, that . The letter enforcement of the provision where the subject land or structure is located would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. I would say the hardship is a Well financial because we discussed last time putting it internal to the building. It's fairly involved structurally and also a hardship of having a building that's not conforming to the building code and potentially creating a hazard for its occupants. and then criteria three, relief could be granted without causing substantial detriment to the public good. I mean, I think that this parcel is not particularly visible from the public way on That I could use some help with. I think it is a little bit detrimental to the neighbor adjacent. Does anybody else have ideas about that one criteria?

I was going to suggest the same thing. I don't think it's really substantially visible for anyone besides the immediate neighbors. I also think it's called out in the memos that they don't see it as having that detriment. I was going to suggest that as well. I don't recall if there was a pushback from the neighbor or if anyone in the neighborhood was really trying to stop this. Does anyone remember?

Yeah, the only thing that came up that I recall The neighbors was the flooding, the water leakage.

Which is not likely to be exasperated or affected by this structure. It's not even near their basement.

So I think if we add that, so we add that detail in along with the lack of visibility, I think that would satisfy that.

Right, yeah.

Kit, can we make the hardship variance first on 75 and go through all that and then go back to the second hardship variance, please? Can we do that?

Just to confirm, you want to vote on the first hardship variance then discuss the second a bit more?

I think that's what we're trying to do. You like that idea, Cece? Does that help you?

Yes, it's fine. I see Brian has his hand raised if he wants to. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Brian. Can I help you?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just recalling in the past that for two separate hardship variances on the same property like this, we've often found that the Findings for the criteria apply to both. We just have to word the rest of the substance of the hardship variance a little differently for each of them. But the findings for the criteria are really quite the same. The two sets of reasons why these are happening, it just happened to be that they were two separate Hardship variances, but all the circumstances are the same. Shape of the lot, unusual character of the building because it has this addition that the other row houses don't. Hardship, financial and otherwise, of trying to alter the way to construct the stairwell to meet the code. and very little impact on the public good because most of it's not visible from the public way and the other public ways in another jurisdiction so I think those all those findings are applied to both.

I agree with you I just wanted to know my question went for Sisia was what she was comfortable with and making them the The one motion and then a second, you know, again, do it. Okay, Cece, whatever you like to do. That's what I want you to be comfortable.

And then we need to close public testimony.

Yeah. Well, I didn't even open it yet. Fortunately, I didn't. I don't know what's going on there, but we're going to open it right now. In the matter of, let me see something here. I want to check that one thing here. Okay. So in the matter of 36 Beacon Street, Kit, is there anybody in the viewing audience that has something to say? We just had the one or two last week, last meeting.

This is Kit. If anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes to do so.

Thanks, Kit. I see no hands raised. Okay. So at 6.42, we'll close the public portion of the question and answer period for the public and go back to the board. And we'll then move on now to the, from 75, we're going to go to the 84. So what are the comments? Who has comments on? Hello. lot coverage is everything getting answered with that for everybody for the permeable and the landscaping and what have you there we go yeah thank you you've got taking care of that cca earlier zach or Brian, anybody? Or should we just move forward with what we have now?

Madam Chair, this is Brian. Just to clarify, Mr. Cameron, if you could zoom in on your table again so that we can put in the motion to help the Clerk that it's additional, adding to the non-conformance by 6.8%. So you're seeking relief of an additional 6.8% for an existing non-conforming lot coverage.

Thank you, Brian.

Thank you.

Sisia, how are you doing?

Yeah, are we ready to make a motion?

Well, I've asked everybody and nobody else had anything else to say.

Yeah. Okay. Are we going to close public testimony?

In one second. Could I ask, Mr. Cameron, could you clear the screen, please? Now that, Sisia, you got everything, right? Yeah. Okay. So in the matter, we're going to give the currency for the record then. In the matter of 65, 36 Seacon Street on the hardship variance for, I want to get this right. I'm flipping and flipping around here. I lost my screen. Let's see, see, see, see. Let's see. Oh, oh. One minute, please. I want to get it through. It's 84, isn't it? I'm looking here.

Yes, come on.

Thank you. I want to do that. So in the matter of 36 Beacon Street, the review of the lot coverage, is there anybody out there in the virtual reality world that would like to have a last minute comment or a question that you don't feel comfortable with? The answer is

This is Kit. Once again, just raise your hand if you'd like to provide any public comment. You'll be given two minutes to speak. And I don't see anyone raising their hand.

Okay, fine. So at this time, at 6.47, we will pause the public portion of 36 Beacon Street for ZP25-0000484. Thank you. Now we'll open up to the board. Any final comments before we go forward now? Seeing none, we'll go for motions. Sisia?

Okay. So first regarding variance number 75, I move to following public testimony review the submitted materials and upon deliberating and finding that all criteria required for issuing Council of the City of Somerville Council of the City of Somerville Council of the City of Somerville Council of the City of Somerville Thank you all for joining us. Thank you very much. Thank you. and having found that the relief should it be granted would not substantially derogate from the intent of the ordinance, would not Sia Daglian, Detract from its neighboring properties, enjoying the use of their property. So given those conditions, given those criteria being satisfied, I move to approve the variance with the following conditions. First, that the decision be recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. Second, a digital copy of the recorded decision stamped by the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds must be submitted to the Planning, Preservation, and Zoning Division for the public record. And third, that a modification be made from the plans that have been filed Thank you.

Thank you for bringing up input in that as well. So on that motion, may I please have a second? Second. Seconded by Ann Brockelman. All in favor, please say aye. Not in favor, say nay. Ann Brockelman. Aye. Zach Zaremba.

Aye.

Olivia. Aye. Sisia.

Is Brian voting for us or I'm?

Oh, you are. Oh, I'm voting. Okay, aye. I think they had that last week.

Yes, sir.

Yep, okay. And Susan, aye. Let the record show it was unanimous. All five voting members voted in the affirmative. Thank you. So that's good there, Mr. Cameron. Now we go to number two.

So for case variance request number 84. Right. following public testimony review the submitted materials and upon deliberating and finding that all criteria required for issuing a hardship variance as required by the Somerville zoning ordinance have been satisfied and those criteria being very similar or identical to the ones just listed for variance number 75 I will not repeat them again I motion to approve with conditions the variance for the I move to approve with the following conditions and those being again that this decision must be recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds a digital copy of the recorded decision stamped by the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds must be submitted to the Planning Preservation and Zoning Division for the public record and those are the only two decisions for the the two conditions for variance number 84.

Right and did we not want to mention the 20-foot rear setback on this one under number under the permit for built did we say we wanted to do that?

I don't think it says relevant because that's really more to do with the construction of the rear egress stairs okay because this is more the yeah

All right, thank you.

Chair, you should incorporate the 6.8% additional non-conformance to the lot coverage.

That's good. You got that for the record, Kit? Yep, I can add that. Thank you. Okay, so may I have a second if everybody's happy with that? Second. Seconded by Ann Brockelman. Again, we'll go around. As I call your name, say yea and nay, please. Anne Brockelman? Yes. Zach Zaremba?

Yes.

Olivia? Yes. Sisia? Yes. And Susan? Yes. Again, let the record show, in the matter of VP25-000084, all members five members voted in the affirmative and it passed unanimously thank you good luck Mr. Cameron we're gonna have to go peek out and see how it looks you're welcome to visit and and just a huge shout out to Kit here thank you Kit you've been wonderful to work with for several months and I couldn't have done it without you thank you very much for all the hard efforts she's great thank you for acknowledging her thank you hey all right all right So the next case is Summer Street. Now we had here a good friend here from Inspectional Services. We didn't have to call on you at all for that. Let's see, what do I have? That's done, done, done. Beautiful. Okay, so here we go. Summer Street, brand new. So if you would be so kind, is everybody here for Summer Street? Kit? Should I open the case, Madam Chair? I want to make sure everybody's here first. Everybody here? Yep.

I'm promoting the applicant to panelist. Okay. This is Kit. You should be all set now.

Beautiful.

Thank you. Our clerk's going to open your case now. Hold on, please. Thank you, Sisia. Please go on.

Uh, the board wishes to open, um, 156 to 158 Summer Street. Somerset LLC, Kevin Folley seeks a hardship variance for a transformer in the frontage area per section 2.4.3.D.B of the Somerville zoning ordinance.

Great. Thank you. and just for the record, that's ZP25000098. So welcome, Mr. Foley.

Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. So I'm in New York City, so I may need either you or Alvaro to help with the exhibits, but I can give you and the board a general overview of what we're looking for. The building at 156, 158 Summer Street was built in 1925, 1924 by my grandfather. So our family has had it since then. In terms of the electricity, the electrical power there, we received notice from our insurance company, Several months ago, as soon as we heard that, we instituted a plan to upgrade the electrical. And I will give you and the board an overview in terms of what we're looking to do is our building is a four story building. It has essentially very little room on the left side of the building. Thank you all for joining us. and you go to the left of the building or go down the hill there's a grade issue and the reason I mention that is obviously we want to work with Somerville but in terms of the power we need to also work with Eversource and what may be helpful is whoever controls the exhibits It may be helpful to scroll through some of those now so I can give the board a general overview of what we're talking about.

I can go ahead and share. This is Alvaro. I'll go ahead and share.

Great. Thank you. All right. Why don't you scroll through? We'll come back to this one. I think probably what's helpful is the I'll stop there this is a schematic of the building the first upper portion shows essentially looking down at the building and left of the building there's maybe only five six feet of uh and many more. Thank you. The property falls off. So if you're looking at the left edge of the building, there's a retaining wall, maybe five, seven feet off this left edge. The reason I mentioned that is Eversource will not allow any transformer on site when there is a great issue like that. So what we'd like to do, and we'll go through more pictures, but this is probably the most helpful one. What we're trying to do, obviously, we have to upgrade the electrical. We have been notified by our insurance company that on or around January 1, 2026, we need to upgrade the electrical and put in a new transformer and then switch over the wires internally. If we do not, we will lose insurance. The building would not be able to be insured. in addition if the building is not able to be insured we risk losing our mortgage and obviously losing our mortgage could cause bankruptcy so the first there are two financial hardships there one relating to insurance and the consequential damages that could relate to that and then Financial bankruptcy. In terms of the other hardships is we obviously would want to and need to work with both you and Eversource. So Somerville, I think the intent of this regulation is so that generally new buildings or where possible, the city would not like to see transformers. And obviously we understand that. We first looked at this and if you're looking at the right side of the building in the front. So the provision in Somerville tries to not have transformers in the front of the building. Unfortunately, the only place we can put a transformer is in the front of the building. And when we first talked with Eversource, when we first spoke with our internal electrical engineers, if you look at the upper portion of this drawing, we see on the right side the word shrubs. That's where we originally envisioned maybe putting the transformer. But the problem there is both in terms of Somerville and in terms of Eversource, it did not meet either requirement, the city's requirements nor Eversource. When we dug in a little deeper, we have come up with what we think is the one site that would work. And we're hoping that it parallels and tries to really meet the intent, the spirit of what Somerville is trying to do here. If you could, we have some more pictures in the front of the building of our, so if you could scroll to those pictures.

Yes, give me one second. I'll have to reshare my screen.

Sure. All right, so this is the front of our building. And our new electrical room will be on the right side of the building in the basement. And if you envision this building, I showed the schematic. It's essentially an H. So you can see on this side of it, you have the left side of the building, essentially the crossover member of what would be the H, and then the left side. So you can see that the right side of the building is fairly well landscaped. Wherever we can, we would like to maintain those shrubs. And essentially where we envision putting the new transformer It's hard to see in this picture, but if we may have another one, but I'll describe it. Going from right to left on the right side of the building, you obviously have a nice group of shrubs on the outer edge, and then you have a large shrub on the right, a medium-sized big one in the middle, and then a fairly good-sized one on the left. There's one other shrub as you go in deep, and I think there's even one more. We envisioned essentially as you turn this corner, one or more of those evergreen shrubs they're used that we will take it out but once we put the transformer we would essentially try to do as much landscaping so essentially what you would see is what you see now there obviously would be a transformer it's green we would try to make it blend in as best as we can So I think you understand what we're trying to do. We're trying to live within the spirit of what Somerville requires. We have strict requirements according to Eversource. So our hardship is both financial, it's insurance. We also have hardships in terms of the site. and so what we would like to do is if you have any questions we're more than happy to address those but we're at the stage where we need to get this done immediately we appreciate any and all consideration that the city can give us the design has all been done Eversource is okay with the location and I think this one location would really be the best match for everyone concerned. So I'll open it up to questions and we're happy to work with the City of Somerville and the Zoning Board.

Thank you very much. At this time we'd like to open up the public portion of the meeting. Kit could you take care of that please?

Of course, if you'd like to give public testimony for this case, please raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes. Thank you. It's 7.06.

No one with raised hands currently. Okay, we'll leave that open for a few and go right to the heart here. Who from the board would like to open this up? Zach, go ahead please, Zach Zaremba.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions and a comment. First question is, has there been, and forgive me if I miss this, any consideration to see if you could put the transformer underground or is it only above ground?

So there are probably hardships in addressing that. If you could, Alvaro, if you could scroll through the exhibits, I think what we see here is there's a ton of utilities on the right side of the building. We would not be able to meet our requirement with our insurance company nor our bank if we were to do that. So this shows the front of the building and it's twisted to the side. So I don't know if you can rotate this, Elvira.

I have it open on my screen as well.

So I just wanted to rotate it that way so it paralleled the pictures that we saw. The new electrical room will be on the right side of the building. You can see that there are gas lines, there are electrical and water. And then there's another set of gas lines on the left side of the building. We want and need the transformer as close to the new electrical room The first location, if we had put it on the right side close to the street, it would not have met Somerville's requirement. It would not have met Eversource's. Where we show it now is to the left of the water utility line. So far as we know, we should not have any real problem or issue once Eversource trenches, once we get the transformer in, and once we have our electrician connect. However, if we were required or if we explored going underground, the timing, we just couldn't meet. And we also feel like it's dangerous, a lot longer process. and we we just have to do this immediately so so is this is this transformers the returns company of acquiring this because the current transformer and electrical system has like met the end of its life is there an active safety issue that's been identified correct so we we don't have a transformer now we basically had we this is a 1924 building right I don't know the upgrades over time, but we recently moved away from fuse boxes. So we now have breaker panels. But in order to meet the insurance requirement, and again, these are rough numbers, each apartment might have only had 15 or 30 amps. and the insurance company the bank requires somewhere in the order of 60 to 100 so obviously bringing in new bigger power that's why we need the transformer

Thank you. This is more of a comment for the board, but I have walked by this property many times and what I think makes this property and just that section of the neighborhood of Summer Street is that it has it's a much more densely populated, larger building area than the average street in Somerville. I also Don't remember just by memory walking by, but I see on Google Maps that it looks like the building across the street has a transformer in front of it. Correct. Which to me means that at some point that was approved. It's not an area that I think is very heavily trafficked by pedestrians. It's mostly cars. So knowing that it's on an incline, that it's a large building that doesn't really blend in with most of Somerville's 4MB zoning as it is, and that there already is a transformer across the street, My initial reaction to this is it's not particularly controversial, and it's not really in line with some of the other transformer cases that we've reviewed recently.

Thank you, Zach. I agree. Thank you. Anybody else? No? Everybody's happy with this? Hi, Olivia. Go right ahead, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering, Mr. Foley, if you could provide the approximate dimensions of the transformer. Is it equivalent to the one across the street?

It is. I think when you look at those transformers, the pads themselves are about six by six and the transformer would be slightly less than that so it's probably you know a little less than six feet high a little less than six feet uh both dimensions and again we'll we will use all efforts to landscape it i think you can see on the right side we've done a fairly good job we would like to maintain that thank you uh brian cook please

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with Zach about the neighborhood. I walk past this quite often. It's in fact one of the nicest blocks on Summer Street because the way the buildings are so well maintained. I don't have any objection to the hardship request at all. The criteria are easily met. the shape of the lot the unusual character and shape of the building the restrictions around the building lot the requirements of the regulated utility and its demands as well as the insurance company and the requirements for upgrade meet criterion one criterion two clearly financial hardship if the Varianz is not granted. The relief is not granted. And third criterion, the applicant is making a considerable effort to reduce to minimal impact on the public good and no derogation of the ordinance and its requirements.

Excellent. Thank you, Brian. Yes, Ann Brockelman. A few questions, Madam Chair.

Please do. You'll need to put a concrete pad under the transformer. We will. And the dimensions of that, I wonder if you're being optimistic in the spacing of the shrubbery and what is the clearance in front of the transformer? Also, usually their utility companies are pretty So I'm just wondering if you're sure you can actually put trees right next to them and in front of it.

We will not be able to put shrubs in front of it. We would be able to put them left and right of them. So it's unfortunate. We obviously don't have any other option. We've worked with Eversource. They are fine with this. They're planning to move ahead with it. It's really our only option. We will do the best we can left and right.

of putting shrubs in so essentially the green box the green element of the transformer will blend in with the adjacent shrubs so across the street right just looking at the google street view it looks like a foot pad around the box yeah and then you give a bit of space and then the tree next to it so so you'll do your best but it's not going to quite be hidden or blended in.

Yeah, we're going to do our very best. I think what you find with the use or the evergreens over time, they grow and they can be sculpted. If you look at our front hedges, I mean, I think we do a good job. And so obviously we know the intent. This may take a year or two to really blend in, but we're happy to do whatever we can to make it as best as possible.

Thank you.

I have a question, Mr. Foley. What is the distance between the building and the walkway, you know, that space where the greens are going to go and all that? Do you know what the dimensions are there?

I think the total dimension is in the order of 10 to 12 feet. So the transformer will come close to the walkway. The transformer really is hardly ever used. So Eversource does not have a problem where we want to put it. We will meet all the requirements that Eversource has. And our goal is to, you know, do whatever we can to make the shrubs soften the effect.

When, how soon do they want to get going on this?

We have to do it immediately because I know that at some point, whether it's Somerville or Eversource, there would be a, you know, we have to deal with the freeze in the streets. So we want to move ASAP.

Okay. And I see, Alvaro, you're the case worker on this?

Yes.

And do you have, and the packet any place a letter from Eversource that's saying they are approving this?

I do not.

We do not. Do you, Mr. Foley?

So here's what we need. This is sort of a chicken and egg issue. They have gone ahead knowing this is an emergency. I don't know if they felt comfortable filing for a permit until we got it approved. I couldn't file an application until it got approved. You guys were the first one I've gone through. We went to Somerville, I think, early September. So we just found out about this stage of it. So I apologize. I thought we were doing the exact right thing. And so you obviously reach out to Alvaro. We've done whatever we can to help in the process.

Well, just for the record, HACHA variances come to us first now because of other things in past projects over the years. Everybody's doing everything. There's HACHA variance. They come to us for that and we don't approve it. So it's a financial thing. So I understand you're coming to us first. But here's my reason I mentioned this only to you is that we've had cases in front of us that EverSource goes out and they say, we're going underground. We approve that. They start building. No, we have to go in the back. We wait on that. We can't go in the back. We have to go on the side. You go on the side, they can't get up the ramp. So what I want to know from Alvaro, who's your caseworker and Kits listening in, is that we approve this tonight with the plans you have. Everybody's all in good faith and happy. What happens when Eversource goes out there and they have a problem? Do we stop work order? Where is our inspectional services? Where are you, sir? Mr. Josh?

So I want to jump in a little.

Wait a minute. Josh, are you listening to what I said? Why I said it, you know?

Yes, Madam Chair.

And Alvaro, you know what I'm saying? I want to protect Mr. Foley as much as we can and protect the city of Somerville. So we go and approve this today. What happens, either of you can answer this, if all of a sudden Mr. Foley gets a call saying, oh, we can't do it on the side because we don't have a fire wall here, we don't have this here, we don't have clearance here. What happens, Josh?

So what happens if Eversource wants to recite still in the frontage area? Right. Depending on the structure of this board's approval or not, I don't know that we would need to like the relief point wouldn't change like if there's the site doesn't have anywhere else to put a transformer in the side or rear so reciting the transformer the frontage the relief would remain the same you're still seeking relief from that specific section. We would, I think, want to revise site plan demonstrating the new location of the transformer and that the transformer site is complies with the screening requirement in 10.7.4. 10.7.4 is a ground mounted is ground mounted screening section that basically stipulates that any mechanical equipment that's visible from a public thoroughfare must be screened by materials landscaping that are compatible with the site. So for ISD's portion of this under the electrical permit, which would be reviewed by our electrical team and routed to me for comment or the zoning team for comment, We would, you know, just ensure that that condition is, you know, added to that permit. But I don't know if this is an analogous case to some of the other cases that have been before this board that I am familiar with.

Right. This is very different than what's been before us. That's why I was trying to say I'm worried about the seat of several and I'm worried about Mr. Foley, who comes out in good faith, has done all this homework and doing all this stuff, you know, back and forth and making sure everybody's safe. and then there's a glitch in the work. So I just wanted to know about that. That's all. Thank you so much. Mr. Foley, it doesn't require a comment because we can see that you've done your homework and figured everything out. At this point, could we see if there's anybody from the public that's chimed in? And 721, would you comment?

Mrs. Kitt, I don't see anyone with their hand raised. Okay.

Thank you, Kit. So at this time, we'll close the public portion for the 156 to 158 Summer Street and open it up to the board for their final comments and wait for a motion. Does anybody have another comment to make? Well, we have to go over that for Sisia. Yes, your hand is up, Sisia. Please speak.

Yeah, I just want to clarify the site plan. portion of it yeah we're just generally approving the transformer in the frontage the site plan we have is really just a sort of like a napkin sketch right it's not particularly accurate so if in the process of installing it it gets moved elsewhere in the frontage we're sort of blanket approving that as well i just want to confirm that that's the intention can i make a comment

Yeah. So the site plan in terms of the shrubs, that is schematic. I did that to help the board, but the actual plan is exact. That's where we plan to put it. So the shrubs, I could obviously dress this up where the existing shrubs are. But I think what I don't know is I may have to take out one. I may have to take two out. Those are all to use. So in some ways, it's a good thing. Whatever we take out will be replaced by younger, more hardy stock. and we know the intent of the board, we know the intent of the regulation, but that site is exact where we plan to put it.

Yeah, it just, I just get a little bit dubious with Eversource that the team that actually goes to install it says, oh, we're going to move it somewhere else because of X, Y, Z. Like I've typically seen that they don't like to park transformers Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

and we we don't intend that because that was the first site that we looked at okay are you okay Sisia all right so does anybody else have any other comments seeing no hands or anybody and we're going to give it to Cece yeah oh yeah sorry just

Thank you. One clarifying question. When you say the plan shows it specifically, that is the marked up plan that shows the utility lines also indicates where the transformer is intended to be, correct, Mr. Foley?

Yes, there's a cleaner print that does not show the utilities. So if you could, Alvaro, show that one. The last screen, I just highlighted the utilities. There's a cleaner version that shows where the transformer is in the exact same location.

Can you see it?

Not yet.

There it is. Yep. So this is the exact same plan and we just don't show the other utility lots. That's helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Do we do not have that in our packet, do we?

Yes, you do.

You should. No, I think that I, on the package that I sent on Friday, no. I just submitted the one with the utilities, but I'm happy to send it to kids so it can be also sent to the board.

Yeah, do that. But this will go forward tonight. But whenever you have something like that, it helps us. I'd like to have it. Thank you, Alvaro. Okay. So, Olivia, you all set with that now? Good. And Sisia, you all set with your questions? And everybody else fine? Brian? Yep. Where's Zach? Zach and Ann, are they good? Okay. Sisia, do your magic.

All right. In the matter of zoning variance number 98, following public testimony review of the submitted materials and upon deliberating and finding that all criteria required for issuing a hardship variance as required by the Somerville Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. Those criteria being number one, that the special circumstances relating to the shape or the unusual character of the existing structure such that the existing Structure really occupies most of the lot leaving very little setback in the sides and the rear and criteria too little enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance where the subject land or structure is located would involve substantial hardship and financial or otherwise such that not being able to all of which I think would be really helpful. And then lastly, I just want to say thank you to all of you for joining us today. I'm going to turn it back over to you. Thank you. are all members of the Board of Trustees. Coffin, shielded with shrubbery from the public way to the best of the owner's ability. We've talked about that at length during our hearing. So given that criteria, I motion to approve with conditions, the variance in those conditions being This decision must be recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. A digital copy of the recorded decision stamped by the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds must be submitted to the Planning, Preservation, and Zoning Division for the public record.

Great. Thank you. May I have a second on the motion?

Second.

Seconded by Zach Zaremba. All in favor as we go around, please say aye. Brian Cook, I should have announced this before. Brian, you're voting on this and Sisia voted on the last because we have our full membership now and these are our alternates. We have somebody out tonight. So without further ado, Ann Brockelman? Aye. Zach Zaremba? Aye. Olivia? Aye. Brian?

Aye.

and Susan. I let the record show all five members voting in the affirmative. Motion passed. Thank you very much. Good luck, Mr. Foley. We'll be spying out. Make sure they're doing the right thing. Put your sound on. Your sound's not on.

Sorry about that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We'll do everything that we said today. Really appreciate your help.

I'm sure you will. Thank you. Take care. Have a good night.

Thanks a lot. Bye bye.

Bye bye. Okay, now let's see. So Josh, thank you so much for coming in tonight and talking with us.

look forward to thank you for having me madam chair um you know feel free to extend the uh or i'm happy to happy to join anytime um you know that some further explanation is needed i know it's a little difficult to parse all the um interlocking uh zoning standards in our code so um yeah anytime well it's very helpful it's educate it educates us as well so we can understand and explain things even better to the applicant sometimes you know and yeah

I hope that little one, that little teeth start coming in so you get some sleep nights, huh?

Yeah, thank you. And I should, I think I hear some dinner time happening. But no, thanks so much. And yeah, you guys have a good night.

Good night. And I want to say hi to Alvaro. You did very well tonight, Alvaro. Thank you so much. We know you're newbies. We don't want to beat you up too much, newbies, you know. Hope to see you again soon. All right.

Thank you. Have a good night.

You're a good girl, Kit. Efficient, I should say, is a good planner. Excuse me. And I'm glad we got everybody here tonight, Zach. Olivia, I hope you enjoyed tonight. We look forward to participating and don't ever feel shy to ask something, you know. We all got to speak up. There's no, what's that expression, Brian? You might remember it. There's no stupid question or something like that. What is that about? Do you know? I got to look that up. Go ahead, Sisia. What are you laughing at? No, I'm just, it's just funny. It's just funny. Thank you. Good job tonight, girl. Kind of tricky. What a tongue twisting there.

A little bit more practice would make it better.

You did great. I don't want more practice. No, you did really good. Thank you. And Brian, you do the same thing. You two must be going to the same night school for this stuff. And listen, where's Zach? Zach, when are you going to be our clerk? You want to volunteer for some week ahead? We need somebody for the next meeting.

I mean, if there's a gun to my head, I'll do it. When is the next? Let me just make sure I'm available.

We will not have a meeting on November 19th since nothing was continued tonight and no legal ads came in, so we will reconvene on December 3rd.

I would be more available, but it's the 17th. There's a chance I might not be here in the third. So can I volunteer for the 17th now?

December?

Yes.

Yeah. So in the third, anybody available? Will you guys think it over and send me an email, all right? Yeah. Okay.

I want to say hi to Olivia and welcome again. Welcome on board.

Thank you. Yeah. Hi. Thanks. I know it's sad. Hey, happy Thanksgiving, everybody. Oh, yes. So we'll be missing you if we're going on the night off at the 19th. Oh, good, good. Hey, no calling and taking it back now, Kit. I'll do my best.

All right.

All right, everybody. Happy days. Take care. We have to adjourn the meeting. You see, Ann Fullerton wasn't here tonight. I thought I was going to get away with it. But you're covering for her between you guys taking care of Ann tonight. Thank you. May I please have a motion on adjournment?

I move to adjourn this meeting of November 5, the Zoning Board of Appeals.

So moved.

So moved by Ann Brockelman. Go around here. Olivia. Aye. Zach?

Yes.

Ann? Aye. Brian?

Aye.

Sisia? Aye. And Susan? Aye. Let the record shows you, unanimous, all members voting in the affirmative. Good night, everybody, and take care.

Good night.