[Denis MacDougall]: are coming in I'm just going to read the. We want to know this. On July 1620 22 governor Baker signed into law that relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations which among other things extend the expiration provisions continue the open meeting lot March 31st 2023. Typically this extension allows public bodies to holding meetings remotely with the quorum of the public body physically present any location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The Act does not make any new changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15, 2022 to March 31, 2023.
[Unidentified]: OK, great, thank you, Dennis. So we are going to call 71 South Street first. And Dennis has an update for us on that.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, I'll just read the notice first, so 71 South Street case number eight dash twenty twenty two dash 16. Applicant and owner Sean Fahey is petitioning for a variance with Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to construct an additional story to an existing single family dwelling in the general residence zoning district allowed use, thereby exceeding the maximum allowable height and allowed number of stories. Mr. Fahey contacted me a little bit ago saying he was unable to make the meeting and is requesting a continuance until our next hearing, which we can sort of discuss at the end of the meeting is likely to be January 5th due to you know, the end of the season, people, people's availability, but we'll decide that at the end. But. That's a request for the next for the next meeting.
[Unidentified]: And Dennis, he submitted a request in writing to you.
[Denis MacDougall]: He did, yes.
[Unidentified]: OK, great. So from everyone on the board, I am fine with. With continuing, Dennis, I just want to make sure that we don't have any timeline issues in terms of when we need to get decisions or anything, are we all set on that front?
[Denis MacDougall]: I can send them the notice for waiving constructive approval and get inside that once that side we're fine. Perfect.
[Unidentified]: Okay, um, folks, any questions on that? Are we okay with continuing? Okay, could I get a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: I move to continue the petition for 71 South Street to the next regular meeting the zoning board of appeals.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded.
[Vasudevan]: Okay, great. And Andre, how do you vote?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Jamie. Yes. Oh, excuse me. I'm so sorry. We only have four members here right now. So I am going to authorize Jamie to vote as an associate as a voting member for this. My apologies. Mike, how do you vote?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline, I vote yes. OK, so as a five member board, we have four members here so we can still vote on everything. OK, so 71 South Street is continued to our next regularly scheduled hearing. All right, Dennis, could you please call? 54 South, 54 South is next, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: 54 South Street, case number eight dash twenty twenty two dash fourteen. Continued from October 27th, applicant and owner Ron Bucks petitioning for a variance in Chapter 94 city zoning to construct a two and a half story addition to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling and convert the structure into a four-unit residential dwelling in apartment one zoning district allowed use with insufficient side yard setbacks and width of access aisle to parking spaces.
[Unidentified]: OK, great. Thank you. And we have attorney Desmond here for the applicant. Good evening, Madam Chair.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'm here with Ronald Buck, the owner of Marsh Builders, Ben Minix of Eagle Brook Professional Engineering, Chris Mulhern of Harrison and Mulhern architecture project engineer project architect out of Winchester.
[Vasudevan]: Okay, so much.
[Unidentified]: Um, so, um, gosh, you know what, let me just double check the minutes I can't remember had we entered deliberations folks on this. Yeah, we had, we had closed the public portion of the hearing. And we had entered deliberations. Correct. Okay, so we're back in, we're still in deliberations now. Okay, so folks, last time that we were here, we had a question or rather I had a question. I don't wanna put words in anyone's mouth about whether or not the additional units two, three and four were properly characterized as multiple dwelling or single family attached after some review. I am still of the mindset that these are single family attached. What do you folks think? Sorry, one second, I turned it when I was talking to the other board members. But I'll definitely give you a chance to respond as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so for me, Jacqueline, So as you're aware, I'm not sure if you said this, so we did consult with the city's legal representation for some details on this as well, which we won't necessarily speak to here, but I have had a chance to review that information as well as some of the prior information, both from former Commissioner Mokey as well as Commissioner Forty's interpretation which I believe last time he said was not intended to be sort of like a commentary on future cases it was basic and so yeah I I'm in a position it's a little unclear to me procedurally if we should be voting as a board on on whether to change the use interpretation but I'm in a position to weigh in on that so So how are we going to?
[Unidentified]: Oh, so I may not understand your question, but just to something that you said, I just want to be clear for anyone listening. Last month, the board had a question and the board members were curious to get some advice from our legal counsel, which is. As board members, we only do our deliberations and only discuss these cases during the public meetings. However, when we receive advice from counsel, that is confidential legal advice that the board does not discuss with each other. And because it is confidential legal advice, we can't then make that opinion part of the public record. But we each individually, without consulting with each other, take that opinion and do whatever individual analysis, any of us are inclined to do on our own. So that's what we're referencing when we're talking about that legal opinion. Mike, in terms of weighing in, I might not understand exactly how you were framing that. What did you, you're ready to deliberate on the matter or?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, yeah, so I just, I guess I'd like clarity on how we're gonna proceed. So right now there's a permit refusal and we did discuss the building commissioner interpretations that state. And so I believe we, I think we should be taking some formal action to weigh in on that. Since you're not convinced, I think that alone merits like a formal decision as a board on this because otherwise it's not entirely sure how we would do the analysis on the other elements of the petition if the use itself is not something as a board we have weighed in on.
[Unidentified]: So I guess the way I'm seeing it is Oh, I see what you're saying in terms of the use, because the issue is the frontage. And so we're saying.
[Mike Caldera]: Essentially in one interpretation, a different set of variances is required than in the other interpretation. And so I think we need to do something formal to resolve which variances are and aren't required. And so I think that perhaps that's a vote as a board, because certainly we can vote to essentially rule differently than the administrator on matters of zoning. Perhaps it's a ruling of the chair, which, if there's no objection, would stand. But I think there needs to be some formal ruling just so that we know in the zoning analysis Right, what it is we're evaluating.
[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah, I know. So I agree on that front. I'm not familiar with how ruling of the chair would go. So what I just say that I find if you know other board members, is that something where I just say, I find that the petition before us also needs a variance regarding frontage. And if there are no objections, then that stands. Is that what you're saying?
[Mike Caldera]: I think there's two ways to do it. And you know, to be clear, I'm not claiming to be an expert. So this is just my understanding of rules and Robert rules and so on, but, and, and, you know, so I have looked at the law and so on here too, but the, so essentially I'm just pulling up the permit refusal.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: So there's a permit refusal that states that the reason for refusing a permit is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
[Vasudevan]: Like owing to or something.
[Mike Caldera]: It's, oh, for a four unit residential dwelling allowed use. So sorry, I won't blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's a public meeting. The petitioner seeks to construct a two and one half story addition to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling in an apartment one zoning district and convert this structure to a four unit residential dwelling allowed use with insufficient side yard setback and width of access aisle to parking spaces. So the, Procedure I would be most comfortable with, you know, and I do think perhaps we should let attorney Desmond share what would say, but would be that as a board, someone makes a motion to, to rule that this to rule or not rule that like to affirm or, or, or revise the ruling of the use here. from a four unit residential dwelling to whatever the alternative proposal is. So I'm not, to be clear, I'm not saying which way I'm gonna. I don't know. I don't have a vote here, but I think I have the information I need. And so, yeah, it's someone made a motion.
[Unidentified]: So like, if I say I'm going to make a motion. And I just want to be clear. I'm not making the motion folks. We're just trying to figure out what we're doing here. If I were to say, I make a motion that the. Proposed structure needs to be re.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it would be something like to amend the permit refusal to replace four unit residential dwelling allowed use with. You know, whatever the, the alter.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Okay. So do you know what, so is that something that gets sent back to the building commissioner?
[Mike Caldera]: Do we know? Quorum rules apply and I'd like. Commissioner 40 to weigh in. I believe four of us on a five member board can, is what it would take to, to overturn the,
[Vasudevan]: Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying. Bill?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Madam Chair, thank you. So, the way that I see this running procedurally is that you first would overturn the determination of the building inspector's determination that it is in fact an attached or addition, okay? That would be the first ruling and then the second ruling is, would you, you know, would, would it require a relief for frontage for the number of units, and then, and then at that point. I don't believe it would have to go back for another notice and another denial. Because you're making a decision based on, if you have determined that myself and Mr. Mahoky's interpretation is incorrect, then you can do that here. And you can also grant the relief in the same hearing. I don't think that it is appealable. Because again, you're hammering out these issues.
[Unidentified]: Whereas I don't see that I don't see that the petitioner would have to go back and start all but because it's not substantially different from what's what's here, right, I think, especially because our our review is independent of the underlying determination. Okay, so before I go to Attorney Desmond, Jamie or Andre was anything you wanted to weigh in on sort of what we're teasing out here. No, I'll say no. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Jim is joined too.
[Unidentified]: Oh, Jim. Hi. We are talking about 54 South Street and I'm just going to quickly just get you up to speed a little bit. We're talking about 54 South Street. We haven't started substantively discussing it. I just explained to the public that the board received a confidential advice from our legal counsel that we aren't going to discuss here, but we all independently determine how we do or do not interpret that. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she or her): And we're just trying to figure out procedurally. I said that I upon review of the advice I have and HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she or her): The, the briefs and the filings. I am not convinced that this is a multiple dwelling and it appears to me to be for single family attached So we were just discussing how procedurally we would handle that if, for example, I were to make a motion to overturn the building inspector's determination of the classification and then whether required a variance for frontage. So that's catching you up on that. And I was just gonna go to attorney Desmond and see if she wanted to weigh in on this.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, first with regard to procedure, we now have five members and I'm assuming that all five are voting on this matter.
[Unidentified]: I just need to check in with Jim because he was not here at the last meeting so I'm not sure whether or not he will be yet, but but go ahead attorney doesn't he was here at the first meeting and and was participant.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Secondly, with regard to overturning the building commissioners decision, I believe that requires a super majority as well as it would require. with respect to any other decision made by the board. And so I point that out, that I believe that's the case. It's not a simple majority on the overturning.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, you mean a four out of five?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct, correct. In addition, you know, I'm a little, you know, we continued this meeting for purposes of getting a legal opinion from KPLR as to whether or not they agreed with the two commissioners' interpretations as to the requirement of frontage variance. I'm a little surprised that it's not being shared at the meeting because if in fact that was an agreement, then that's where we would stand. At this point, I'm unclear as to what the legal advice was that was provided. And so now we're in a position where we have two building commissioners who have indicated that, in fact, this was a multifamily dwelling versus a single-family row house. We continued in good faith to obtain a legal opinion from KPLR, and now we don't know as a petitioner what that is. I understand, because I'm a lawyer, that client confidentiality comes into play from time to time, but I wouldn't think that in this particular instance that would be the case, because certainly if that was the opinion of KP Law and the board was relying on that opinion, then we would take that where it went in terms of having to amend the petition.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Noted. All right. So one thing before we start doing any votes or anything, Jim, you were present at the first meeting for 54 South Street for the second meeting. If you have had a chance to review the minutes and or the watch the hearing itself and you feel that you're up to speed, you can either certify or confirm that you are up to speed and that you are able to participate and vote, or you can let us know that you're not, either way. You are, okay, great. So we'll have all five members voting then. Okay, so I am going to make a motion to overturn the building inspector's determination that the proposed dwelling for 54 South Street, which has been classified as multiple dwelling and overturned that to classify it as four single family attached dwellings.
[Mike Caldera]: Friendly amendment, could we add the, and to determine that additional zoning relief is required?
[Unidentified]: Regarding frontage? Yeah, sure. Let's let's do that all as one. Yep. So that'll be that's my motion.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so then let's do a vote. Hang on one second, folks.
[SPEAKER_11]: Sorry, could you point of information? Could you just repeat the motion in terms of the frontage piece?
[Unidentified]: Oh, sure. Yes. So, um, Just as before I say it so if this property was was classified as multiple dwelling it didn't need relief in terms of frontage, if it's classified as for single family attached, it does need relief for frontage so. I'm going to strike my previous motion and I'll start again. So regarding the proposed construction at 54 South Street, I move to overturn the building inspectors determination that this proposed construction is a multiple dwelling and reclassify it as four single family attached dwellings. And therefore that it also additionally needs relief as to the required frontage. I think I did that right. Second. Okay. And I will roll call Andre. How do you vote? Yes. Jamie? Jim? Yes. Mike?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: and Jacqueline is yes. Okay, so the motion has passed. So now we're looking at, for 54 South Street, we have three variances in play as opposed to two. So now the board is considering three variances. One is side yard setback, one is width of aisle access to parking spaces, and one is frontage. Okay, so before I ask this of Attorney Desmond, board members, do we want to, do we want to discuss this a bit more? Do people feel they're ready to vote? Do we want to give the applicant an opportunity? I'd like to make sure, since this is new, we give the applicant an opportunity to do, you know, one or both of two things either to give us a substantive presentation on this third variance, potentially if they want to continue and to second, if they want to continue and provide us more information. Do you folks agree on that front?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I certainly think the applicant should be allowed to make a presentation. And frankly, I think we need it for analysis. And then to your other point, I think, because we were so fixated on this issue, I don't think we've ever really out loud shared our thoughts on the merits of the other variances. So when we get to that point, I'd like to discuss them all.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, agreed. Okay, um, Attorney Desmond, what would you like to do?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think we have to republish with the notice that there's an additional variance being requested. It's not included in my original petition. So I don't think we could move forward and I'd be reluctant to do so and find myself in a situation where I get an appeal because the relief was not made as part of the application and hadn't been published. So I think it can be amended and published, but I think that's the process that it has to go through.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so would you like us to, would you like to, I don't think you're indicating you wanna withdraw without prejudice, but would you like to have a motion to continue so that you can amend and we can republish?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I think we need time to consider.
[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah, okay. I just wanna make sure we're giving enough time. Is the meeting that's, I think, gonna be the first week of January, is that enough time? Well, the public, Dennis,
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, for me and purposes of amending, I'd amend my worksheet and my complaint. I could do that by the beginning of next week.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Well, it's definitely enough time for the notice. I just know the holidays are coming up. So I just wanted to be cognizant of that for you folks. So if you're fine with that, then we can move to continue to the next meeting so that you folks have time to amend and we can republish. Okay. Could I get a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll motion to continue the petition for 54 South Street to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Vasudevan]: Okay, second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second. Second.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Michael?
[Mike Caldera]: I just noticed commissioner for us is up I don't know if it's too late. Is it is it relevant. Yes, it is. Go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Madam Chair, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
[Vasudevan]: No, that's okay.
[Bill Forte]: We're all I just procedurally, I think that you may have to reopen the public hearing. So you you're in deliberations while you made a determination to overturn a decision of the building inspector, you should go back into regular open hearing and continue it that way. This. You see what I'm saying?
[Unidentified]: Huh?
[Bill Forte]: Okay, just just a technicality. That's all.
[Unidentified]: Do you think we need to change the motion?
[Bill Forte]: The motion should be to reopen the hearing. Okay. And to accept the additional information, because I don't think you can, I mean, you can deliberate while you're deliberating, but accepting a new petitions and new information, that means you would have to reopen.
[Unidentified]: All right. Thank you.
[Bill Forte]: Of course, an agreement with the, with the petitioner.
[Vasudevan]: Yeah. So we've had three votes, so we could just.
[Mike Caldera]: Maybe I'm happy to withdraw it. You can rule it out of order.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, let's let's do that. All right. So I'll rule that out of order. Sorry, folks, that was my fault. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: So now I would. So it's ruled out of order. So it's disposed of. So I would like to make a motion to to reopen the public hearing for 54 South Street and to continue that matter to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, thank you, Jim. All right, and how do we vote? Andre?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Jamie?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Jim?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Mike?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline is I. Okay, great. So this is we're going to reopen public hearing, we're going to give the applicant an opportunity to submit related to the ruling that we made today. And we'll hear from the public again. And we'll see you folks in January. Thank you, Attorney Desmond. Okay. Dennis, our last matter, please.
[Denis MacDougall]: 55 Burgett Avenue. Applicant and owner, Favre-Varelis, is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City of Medford to erect a new 8-foot fence on a property containing a single-family house and a single-family two-zoning district to allow use. Side yard requirements shall not project 6 feet above the grade in the required yard in all other cases.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so folks, before we just get started, I see we have a lot of participants on here. So I just wanna give everyone a sense of what's gonna happen. So we are gonna hear from the applicant. The board may ask some questions during that process. Then we will open for, provided we don't continue or something in the middle, we will open for public comment. When we open for public comment, I wanna make sure everyone gets a chance to speak. Um, we, uh, sometimes have to limit the amount of time that people can speak so that everybody gets a turn, but I will try to move through it so that everyone does get an opportunity to speak, um, before the board goes into deliberations. Okay. So can I hear from the applicant, please?
[gKNiDJB63XY_SPEAKER_02]: Hi, this is David Bartlett and James Donovan. My attorney is representing me.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Um, I don't think we can see you, but welcome and attorney Donovan. Why don't you go ahead?
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Hi, how are you?
[Unidentified]: Uh, great. Thank you.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Thank you for having us today. Ms. Barlas is seeking a variance to have her foot. You want seven feet, right, Phaedra? That's correct. She was looking for seven feet, not eight feet. So just another foot above what it is. She's just trying to get some additional privacy. The homes are very close together there. There's already a six foot fence up. Just trying to extend that up another foot.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Um, did you, uh, want to do any kind of a presentation regarding, um, going through substantively the, um, the application that's been submitted?
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Absolutely. Absolutely. I can, I can, I can share with you some, uh, some photographs if that's okay.
[Unidentified]: Yep. That'd be great. Dennis, can you just make sure he can share a screen?
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: I just tried.
[Unidentified]: I think, I think you should be able to now.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: All right. So I'm going to click on, couple of photographs so I can share with everybody. So, Phaedra, correct me if I'm wrong, we're taking a look now at a photograph of the existing fence. We're just looking to go up another foot from there. There's another view of it there.
[Vasudevan]: And I'm still seeing the first picture.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Oh, I'm sorry.
[Vasudevan]: That's OK.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: I'm technologically challenged, so let me try this.
[Unidentified]: No worries, we all are sometimes.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: All right. Here is a view of, like I said, we're just looking for some additional privacy to see how close the yards are together. I think it's to everybody's benefit to be able to have that. It certainly gives the neighbors more privacy. Can pull up another photo of
[Unidentified]: an existing one and share that with you.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Can you see that one again? That's an existing photograph. You can see it's already at the six foot level. My client is just, again, trying to get the extra foot on there for additional privacy.
[Unidentified]: And I'm going to try and share another one with you.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: and also that the remaining property area. Phaedra, could you describe this photograph to the board?
[gKNiDJB63XY_SPEAKER_02]: Actually, yeah. Do you mind telling me which photograph it is?
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: The one with the hot tub in the background? Okay, sure.
[gKNiDJB63XY_SPEAKER_02]: Sure. So essentially, you can see the retaining wall there. which at only the cement level is around, it's between two to three feet. And as you can see past that, there is even higher land. So that essentially is, I'm only asking for foot. And however, the retaining wall is between two to three feet from what I believe. So That is an indication that the property next to me is much higher than mine. Therefore, the six feet doesn't give me a full six feet of privacy.
[Vasudevan]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Attorney, Attorney Donovan, did you want to go through any of the Oh, you know what, actually, I think I have pulled up. I'm going to let you continue. I think I just have pulled up. I understand that there was a TAB, Tila Duhaime): Some subsequent form submitted, and I think I have the old one pulled up.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Okay, so I have a. TAB, Mark McIntyre I have the plot plan here showing the structure. TAB, Mark McIntyre I have the plot plan here showing the structure. TAB, Mark McIntyre I have the plot plan here showing the structure. TAB, Mark McIntyre And the the property line with the the where the fence would go. TAB, Mark McIntyre So we're at 30. 36.71 plus 25, 61 to 62 feet. And again, she's only looking for a foot. And I think given the height of the property and the amount of privacy she'll receive, I think it's a fair request.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so I just want to make sure we always want to make sure we're going through the statutory requirements on this. So for everybody listening the thing we're always looking for for the board is when there's a variance is. Is there a condition relating to the shape, topography, or soil condition of the parcel that is unique to the parcel and not generally found in the zoning district that creates a hardship that would not substantially nullify or derogate from the purpose of the zoning ordinance or be a detriment to the public good? Those are the five that we're looking for. So, Attorney Donovan, did you want to weigh in on any of those statutory issues?
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, so specifically the shape and topography, as my client explained, this property is much higher. So six feet really isn't gonna do it. Seven feet might not even do it, but at least it's something. So in regards to the shape and topography, it certainly is different and it's much, much higher.
[Unidentified]: Okay, I'm gonna let some of the other board members weigh in on this, but shape I'm seeing a rectangular lot, but in terms of, so I don't think that shape is a condition.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Topography is what I meant, the height.
[Unidentified]: I think it would be helpful to our analysis if we could see some kind of like something about the grade to take a look at, I'm hearing different numbers about it's about this, it's about that, I think it would be helpful if we could see exactly what we're looking at and what the, what the height and measurements are but I'm gonna let the other board members weigh in on this so you're looking for the, I'm sorry the height difference between the two properties, like specifically how many higher. Sure, I mean I think, I think that would be helpful. I want to hear what the other board members have to say but that was something that I noticed that we didn't have that I think if we're going to be taking into account. I mean, the zoning ordinance says you can't go above six feet. So if we're going above the six feet, then I think that we need to have all the facts in front of us for why. But I want to hear what the board has to say on that front.
[Andre Leroux]: All right. I just have a question. Attorney Donovan, you showed a couple of pictures of the six foot high fence around the other sides of the property. Is that correct?
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Are those ones that I show with the other side?
[gKNiDJB63XY_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I only have two sides. They're all six feet.
[Andre Leroux]: But I saw the poster larger. You're not requesting to add a foot to those sides, correct? It's just the one seven foot fence.
[gKNiDJB63XY_SPEAKER_02]: Just the one side. That's correct.
[Andre Leroux]: Just wanted to be where the land is higher.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Jim, Jamie, Mike, any other questions for the applicant?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so yeah, so for me, I think to do any requests like this justice, it's really helpful for us to know basically the minimum height difference across the fence, the region where the fence is being proposed and the maximum height difference. Okay. That same region. Um, I would certainly feel most comfortable having that information, um, when it was an eight foot requests, I was going to definitely need it. I do think that, I mean, I would be shocked, you know, and I'm not, you know, I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong, but it's three foot from, from those pictures. It didn't look three feet, but, um, but I think from the scale of like the, the no trespassing sign, it's clearly over a foot, but really like as just as a best practice, I think having that information is important to our analysis.
[Unidentified]: Fair enough. Um, okay, so I will, uh, I guess I want to propose to the applicant. Do you folks want to continue to next month to be able to provide that information to us?
[SPEAKER_13]: We're definitely going to need some time to be able to do that.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: So, Phaedra, would that be okay if we put it on? I'm sorry, Ms. Doherty, January 5th, you said?
[Unidentified]: I, I need to double check. I think that is the date because that last week in December is like a, is a holiday week.
[Mike Caldera]: It's whatever, but I think we've all.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Informally agreed that that will be the new date, but we, I think we need to say we're going to move it. So.
[SPEAKER_13]: And how much time before that meeting to meet the, uh, the additional information.
[Unidentified]: Um, you know, if you can get it to us a week in advance, that's really helpful. Um, but it doesn't sound like it's going to be, you know, a ton of information. So as long as we can get it like a couple of days before the meeting, I just always ideally I'd like to get it to board members. So they have time to review it on a weekend and they're not trying to do it in between like childcare and, um, work and stuff during the week.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: We certainly want to get it done before the snow falls.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. So, um, why don't, why don't we do this rather than, um, go through public comment yet, because we don't actually have all the information right now. Why don't we do a motion, um, to continue to the next meeting and we can let the public know that at that meeting, we'll have some more information in the public record for everyone to look at, and we will, um, hear public comment at that time. Does that work for everybody?
[SPEAKER_13]: Phaedra, does that work for you?
[Unidentified]: That works. Thank you. Okay, great. So, um, can I please get a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll motion to continue the hearing for 55 Birgit Avenue to the next regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals. I'll second that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. And as for your vote, Andre. I Jamie? Aye. Jim?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Mike?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, folks, we will see you next month and we will look for that additional submission.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you so much for your time.
[Andre Leroux]: Could I just say, if there are members of the public who wanted to weigh in tonight, if you wanted to submit your comments in writing or by email, that could be helpful for us to see beforehand if you want us to get that information.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, sure. To members of public, you're always welcome to submit stuff to us in advance. Okay. Um, all right. So those are all our cases. Um, Dennis, do we have any administrative updates tonight? Oh, I'm sorry. The applicant, you folks are all set.
[MCM00000614_SPEAKER_10]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Oh, I just, sorry. I just want to say, uh, Dennis, can you just coordinate with them to make sure we're okay on the waiver of the, uh, constructive approval? Dennis is also to make sure that we're all set on our timelines. Okay, thanks so much.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: All right, Dennis administrative updates.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure, just one thing. So for those at home, I'm just gonna put my email in the chat as well. So if someone is watching this on public access, they can send comments to me that way as well.
[Unidentified]: Folks, that's Dennis's email. So if anyone wants to submit anything, email him.
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing administrative on my end.
[Unidentified]: OK, great. And then the next thing we have is approval of meeting minutes and discussion of rules. Has everyone had an opportunity to read the meeting minutes that Dennis forwarded to us from the October meeting? Yes. Anyone have any edits, or are we good to make a motion to approve?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll motion to approve the meeting minutes.
[Unidentified]: Can I get a second, please?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll second that.
[Vasudevan]: OK. And how do you vote, Andre?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Jamie? Okay. Jim.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Mike.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Jacqueline is I. Okay, folks, that is all that we, I don't think we have any discussion of rules that we need to. Handle. So I think that's it. Should we get a motion to adjourn?
[Mike Caldera]: So we need to. Why don't we formally set our next meeting?
[Unidentified]: Great call. Okay, so our next regularly scheduled meeting our December meeting is going to be January 5 at 730.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, and we don't need to since it's scheduling we don't need to vote on that right yeah. Then, in that case i'll motion to adjourn. second.
[Vasudevan]: Okay, all in favor. I. Hi.
[Unidentified]: All right. Have a great little holiday season. We'll see you folks in January.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, see you all.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Bill. Thanks, Dennis. Thanks, everybody. All right.