[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the July 25th meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. Do a quick roll call for attendance. Jim Tirani? Present. Kristi Evetta? Present. Andre LaRue? Present. Mary Lee? Present. Yvette Velez? Present. and Jamie Thompson present. Dennis, could you read the, I think we can, we don't have to read the open meeting language anymore, we can just go straight to it.
[Denis MacDougall]: We do not, no, correct. So I can just go straight to the 86 Suffolk Street, case number A-2024-17. Applicant and owner, Amy and Andrew Weber, to install an addition at 86 Suffolk Street within the front yard setback on Suffolk Street and the rear yard setback, which is not allowed for the City Measures Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Dimensional Requirements.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Dennis. Thank you for seeing us tonight.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Hey, Amy and Andrew. If you could just introduce yourself, name and addresses, and then go ahead with the presentation.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure thing. So I'm Amy Weber at 86 Suffolk Street in Medford.
[SPEAKER_15]: And Andrew Weber, the same address.
[SPEAKER_00]: Wonderful. And do you want us to present in?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: OK, perfect. So we are Oh, thank you. We're looking to put an addition on our home. It's about 264 square foot addition to the side and we're looking for appeal because we'll be continuing an existing nonconformity. We're not making it any worse than currently is. but looking to continue along the same property line. The lot that we live on is an oddly shaped lot. We actually have two front yards, so dealing with a variety of different setbacks, which really drives us to the specific direction that we're looking to go for this addition. Okay.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Do you have any materials that you want to show the plot plan that you want to review?
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure, I'd be happy to walk through. So this is the plot plan. As you can see, we have the oddly shaped lot here where we're on a corner. Our front is Suffolk Street, but we are also on Wyman Street, and Wyman is also considered a front yard setback for us. And so our existing dwelling in here today is obviously within the black. And then what we're looking to add on here, the proposed addition, would be within the red. And what this proposed addition will afford for our family is an additional one and a half additional baths. So today we have only one bath for a family of four, which is interesting, especially as our toddlers are in potty training years. But obviously will only continue to be a little bit of a hardship as they get older and into teenage years. And then on top of that, I work from home full time, which is nice and allows me to be present for the children. But I don't have an office today. You can probably see we're sitting here at the dining room table. When I work right now, I set up in our bedroom upstairs at a desk that we've turned into an office. because the kids are home after school and so obviously can't be at the dining room table for that. This proposed addition would allow us to add an office, add an additional bath and a half, as well as dedicated play space for the kids now, study space as they get older. The non-conforming, what we're looking for is along this line here. It's tight, it's quite close, we know it is. It's a 9.3 foot setback, which is, I believe it's 5.6 feet from the current regulation is what it is. And what we're looking to do is extend and continue that existing nonconformity along here. out an additional 13.9 feet. And again, it's continuing the existing, not making any additional greater hardship. Anything I missed?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, I think the only thing I would add is you can see in the plot plan now, the existing is there is a kind of small mudroom off to the side that will be demolished. And kind of we are just extending the width of our house towards our detached garage on a single story for 12 feet, as Amy mentioned.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Great. Thank you both. Any questions from the board while we get this up? Or from the data that you've had to review? Bill, did you mention it? Go ahead.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I do want to ask a question. I look at that front corner at 14.9 and ask why or should we consider a variance for that corner? down by the front yard on Suffolk Street there, or it's moving from 25.5 to 14.9, that would be a variance in that condition. For the 15 feet, correct.
[SPEAKER_00]: This would be considered a variance as well?
[Scott Vandewalle]: You're encroaching in the 15-foot setback? It's not an extension of an existing nonconforming, it's a new encroachment. So the board would have to consider both a variance for the front and a special permit for the nonconformity extension alteration on the backside.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, yes, that is correct. I'm realizing now that it would be, that would be an additional Is that not right? Is this not the right addition?
[SPEAKER_15]: I apologize. I think this looks like it's widening the house as well. which is not correct, I'm not sure what we have up there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, you're right. We're staying on our current property line. We're not extending out forward here. Apologies. Let me see if I can.
[Scott Vandewalle]: You do show a proposed open porch there to some extent. Yeah. It's exempt, but only if it's less than one-third the width of the house. I assume it's either structure or non-exempt porch.
[SPEAKER_00]: OK, let me, can you pull, you have the plans there, but that's not on the, apologies. I don't know why, do you have the, you don't have a different one?
[SPEAKER_15]: I don't believe so.
[SPEAKER_00]: OK. I apologize, that shouldn't be going that way. We had plans initially. We scaled the project back significantly. Could that be the old plans?
[SPEAKER_15]: Potentially. We met in front of the historical commission last year, or a year and a half ago now. with a kind of a larger edition. This is a scaled back version. I think we've just gotten kind of, we're trying to find the, sorry.
[Scott Vandewalle]: The discretion of the board, if they were to include a variance and grant that variance and you built lesser, you wouldn't necessarily need to come back to them. So that's just something. Okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: I apologize, I think. Right, because this is the current. Yeah, this is the current. So when you look at the current plans here. It's it's not changing the front and it's it's continuing the extended. It's continuing the same and it's just a small little so apologies that that I shared was the. previous one, and I pulled it from your agenda, so apologies, because I thought I must have gotten my files confused and wanted to share, but.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: That was the document that was submitted with the application.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so the wrong document then was submitted. That is my error, and I apologize. We'll have to get the correct ones. but to answer the question or to bring up again. So we have our existing front here and then we continue on the same line. So I don't have it within the plot though. So I'll need to get that and get the correct one for you all.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, so I guess we would have 2 options because all of the documents that are part of the application. Are with the previous design, we can continue right now with the existing. Documentation and that. Front or. We can continue to the next meeting with the updated documents.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hey, Jamie, your audio is a little low. Can you see if you can boost it?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: No, I just went red. It looked like I got disconnected. If the documents are changing, they would have to resubmit an application, Dennis?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I don't think so. If one of the documents is correct, you can make your decision predicated on that specific document and require, which does presume that it would be fully compliant, and they can submit it if you're comfortable doing that. If you need to see the literal numbers of the setback change so it's no longer a variance, then you would have to continue and ask them to resubmit, correct the document.
[SPEAKER_04]: Do you have an updated plan Amy?
[SPEAKER_15]: We're searching for one frantically. I don't think it's likely that we'll be able to get one within the time frame.
[SPEAKER_00]: you know, probably if if the board is open to it, if we can take a cycle and make sure we have all of the exact appropriate documents, I apologize and represent at the next meeting. Um, that, um, would likely make sense. We want to make sure you all have your information and feel good and confident in in what we're doing. Okay.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Um, I mean, I'm comfortable with that. Um, and that gets us all the accurate documentation. I just wanna ask the commissioner one question. Um, Commissioner, you mentioned special permit for the extension instead of a variance. Is that correct?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I believe under section 94-5 for pre-existing nonconformities, anytime we extend or alter it, I believe it's a special permit. It used to be a finding. I think it's a special permit. It would not be a variance because they have not encroached further. They're simply extending it as I see it. Yep.
[Mike Caldera]: Unless it creates the need for a new variance. So basically, if it's an existing nonconformity and it's extended without creating an additional dimensional nonconformity, then it's just a special permit.
[SPEAKER_00]: So in that instance, we would still come back and represent with the request of a special permit instead of Yeah.
[Scott Vandewalle]: In theory, if everything is corrected the way you've described it, you would need just a special permit for the extensure alteration on the rear. The variance up front issue becomes moot, and that's what would be reviewed.
[SPEAKER_00]: OK, perfect.
[Denis MacDougall]: Can I just sort of throw out something? If that's the case, could the board tonight vote on the special permit or the rear yard, and if it turns out they don't need the variance for the front yard, they've got what they need. If they show us the changing plans and it's, you know, further than a foot away, it's longer than 15 feet away, moving forward, I think we can do that tonight. I mean, I don't really. I'm comfortable.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: For the board, anybody have any concerns with that? Okay, so what we will focus on is the special permit for the extension of the existing 9.3 foot setback. So, variants of 5.6 feet in their yard. And we will address the variants if necessary if. Or would that would that have to go to the building department or do we just continue? That and then.
[Denis MacDougall]: It was put in the notice like I actually had it in the notice. So, in theory, we could just. Continue the variance until next month if needed, but if not needed, then we can just, you know, they could, they could withdraw their request for that.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. That works for me. All right, so for the board, we are looking at only. The. So we're looking only at the extension of the existing rear yard setback that is 5.6 feet, and that is going to be a special permit. So we're looking at any specific factors that may set forth socioeconomic communities, traffic flow, adequacy, compatibility, impacts the natural environment, So, any questions to the applicant from the boards focused on the special. Okay, we are open for public comment. Does anybody from the public want to speak on the topic of 86 Suffolk Street? You could raise your hand on Zoom, raise your hand on screen, or you can email Dennis at dmackdougal. If you can put it in the chat, Dennis, thank you. That's dmackdougal. at medford-ma.gov. I don't see any hands raised. We'll give that a minute. Dennis, do you have any emails? Okay. Do we have a motion to close? Thank you guys sorry I saw you shake your head. And I do need a motion to close public comment and mention deliberation. Motion. Thank you Mary do we have a second?
[SPEAKER_04]: Second. Jim? Aye. Chris? I. I. Mary. Mary.
[Mary Lee]: I sorry. Thank you and event.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I thank you. All right, we are in deliberation. Anybody from the board that would like to make comments or have any feedback on this?
[Chris D'Aveta]: I guess I have a question with regard to the two-story structure, and you're extending one story of it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Correct. We're currently a two-story structure, and the addition will be just one story.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: That's it. Thank you, Chris. Any other discussion from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: It just seems very straightforward to me. I think that it's you know, meets the criteria, no negative impacts on the community.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Andre. Okay, definitely agree with Andre. It's an existing non-conformity and extension. It'll be an improvement to the property and it's not infringing in any way on anyone else's property or disturbing the community. So chair awaits a motion on the 6. So the.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to approve the special permit for a 6 of it.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you all second. Thank you Jim. Roll call Jim.
[SPEAKER_04]: I. Chris. Hi. Mary. I.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, thank you Amy and Andrew for the presentation. You guys were approved for your special permit. We will continue the conversation with regards to the variants. If you could submit the updated plot plan, if that's no longer an approachment on that front yard, then we do not need to meet on this next meeting.
[SPEAKER_00]: Wonderful. Thank you very much. We appreciate it a lot.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you. You're welcome. All right. And just as a heads up, so I'll write the decision for you all. So as soon as I find out, if it turns out you don't need it at all, I can just go right ahead and writing the decision for the special permit. If it's not, then I'll just, instead of having to do two decisions, it will just be one decision next month after that case is needed. But for right now, once we sort of get that sorted out, we can go right ahead. Actually, I think Mike's going to answer the question I was just going to ask.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: I wish I was 100% confident, but I do have procedural questions and concerns. I don't think we can really close the hearing until this issue is resolved. So we've voted on the special permit as part of the path to granting all the relief, but I think we need to then continue this to the next hearing. And then in the event that we get something in writing saying, here's the updated plans, no variants being requested anymore, then we could close it in the next hearing. And then at that point, that would be when the earliest opportunity to draft the decision.
[Denis MacDougall]: I believe well, in that case, maybe what I'll do is I'll draft the decision with just a special permit and then if it. Needs that we don't do it, then you'll get it right away. So there won't be any. It usually takes about a month for the month for these to get done anyway. So. It'll just be your instead of having to wait next, it'll be ready to go right away so that you get that. And then once you get the, once you actually get the permit. It gets filed in the clerk's office. And then there's 20 days appeals period after that, and then once that appeals period is passed, you go to the clerk's office, get a letter from them saying it's not been appealed, then you can go get your building permit, so.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, and we do have to vote on the continuance for the variance. So I do need a motion with regards to the variance.
[Mary Lee]: Motion. With the continuance.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: For 8,000 so chair which motion to continue the variance for 86. Sorry. 86 suffix 3 to the next scheduled meeting of the zoning board appeals. 2nd.
[Mary Lee]: I need someone to move that. Oh. Motion I motion that. Thank you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: Chris.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Hi.
[SPEAKER_04]: Hi, Mary. Hi. Hi. Hi.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you everybody so now we do have that we've got the formal continuance for the variance and we'll just need to address that at that meeting with an updated plan. So, that you can see that it's not 1 if it's no longer necessary.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. We'll make sure we have all the right documents by then. Appreciate your understanding.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Absolutely.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, Dennis, could you read the next case? 133 Century Street Extension, case number A-2024-18. Applicant and owner, Patrick and Jennifer LaRoy, to construct a porch at 133 Century Street Extension within the front yard setback, which is not allowed per the City of Medford zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, Table B, Table of Conventional Requirements.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis. Do we have a representative from the applicant?
[Denis MacDougall]: I know, but I think they're having connectivity issues. Pat and Jen, I'm wondering, if you just want to call in and not do the video thing, I can help you out by putting your plans up here so people can see them. If that would be easier, let me get the number for you to call. I don't know if that would work or not.
[SPEAKER_13]: Hello.
[SPEAKER_14]: Can you hear us? Can you hear us? Yes. Okay, great. Hi, thanks for having us.
[SPEAKER_13]: I'm John LaVoie over here. Century Street Extension. As a couple of the plot plan, you can hear correct.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Try turning your video off that might help. Okay.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, we turned the video off. Can you hear us?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yep, that sounds better. Yes.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, great. Thanks for having us. Pat and Jen Lavoie, Century Street Extension. Right down here at Playstate Park. So we're not quite as prepared as the party before us. We don't have documents to show you here. But when we left the engineer's office a few weeks back, we drove straight to the office and dropped them off. So I'm hoping you might have some documents there.
[Denis MacDougall]: I do. I'll bring them up. Hold on one second.
[SPEAKER_14]: So we are proposing to put a 21 by eight foot, eight foot deep, uh, porch on the front of our house. Um, I think it would be great addition, um, be able to sit out and enjoy the park. Um, We really didn't know that we were encroaching the setbacks. We thought we owned to the curb, but we found out that's not the case. And so we're encroaching the setback by two and a half feet, and we're hoping that the neighborhood will allow and your board will allow.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board for the applicants? We've got an extension of a porch. I believe the front yard setback ends up being three feet. A variance for three feet on the front yard setback.
[SPEAKER_04]: Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I wanted to make sure I understood that comment correctly. So it does look like there's a sidewalk on the street. And so if I understood correctly, you own the land all the way to the curb instead of to the sidewalk, then this wouldn't be an encroachment, but because some portion, I don't know if it's the sidewalk itself or some point before the curb is, um, you don't own that. That's why you need the relief that I understand that correctly.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yes, exactly. Mike. Uh, we, uh, we live on a private way. I don't know if that made a difference. We thought that we owned to the curb and, um, As it ends up, that's not the way the rules work. You still have your, what is it, a 15-foot setback? I'm not sure. But when our builder came down to the department to get a permit, something red flagged, and they thought that we should go before the Board of Appeals.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, got it. The 12.0 is from the front of the house to the sidewalk. Is that right?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Correct.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yes. Thank you. Oh, and another question while I'm at it. So looks like the property has. two trees currently in proximity to where you're looking to build the porch. So are you going to have to remove those trees as part of this project?
[SPEAKER_14]: We hope not. I trimmed those trees back. And I don't think that they're going to be an issue. They don't.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I think we lost you there. If you want to use the phone number to dial in and call into the Zoom, that should get a better connection.
[SPEAKER_14]: Guys, can you hear us?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Nope. Yeah, we got you back now.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah. So we were talking about the trees. We did trim them back on the backside of the trees to the house. So I don't think that that's going to make any problem with the deck. and they don't interfere with the sidewalk. So I think we're gonna try to leave them as they are. We may have to have them professionally trimmed, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, go ahead, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, a couple other questions. So have you had a chance to talk with your immediate neighbors about the project? And have they weighed in on it?
[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, we did speak with each one of our neighbors. And you know what, let me take that back. We only spoke with the two houses on the right and the two houses on the left. Okay. Right on my street, they all face the park as well. And I think they're all behind us 100%. They think it's great. I mean, we're not gonna be blocking any of their sunlight or anything like that. And we explained it to them in detail. And from what I gathered from them, their feedback was all positive.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, and then my last question, at least for now, it's a little hard for me to tell. I pulled up the property on Google Street View. Is the front of your house roughly in line with the fronts of the houses to the immediate left and right? Or are you further forward? Or are you set further back? It's a little hard for me to tell.
[SPEAKER_14]: I think we're all in a row. I think we're all pretty much in a row, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you.
[Mary Lee]: I have a question. So the part of the land that you said doesn't belong to you? Does that belong to the city?
[SPEAKER_14]: You know, Mary, that's a good question. We always thought we owned to the curb, living on a private way, because we all we all have to put in our own sidewalks. So we always thought that we owned to the curb, but Again, when we came down for the permit, we were told that, no, that's not the case. We don't own to the street. So that's why we got the refreshed plot plan down at Medford Engineering.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Commissioner, go ahead.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Typically on a private way, they own what's called the fee in the way, which means they own either out to the center of the way, or they own out to the opposite edge. All that confers upon them is the rights to use it and the responsibilities to maintain it. Their actual property is behind it. So while they're replacing the sidewalks, that's because they own the responsibility for fixing the pavement, fixing that, but that, Fee in the way is not actual property ownership, and they cannot use it as a part of zoning setbacks. So that's what's different. If that was a street by the city, then the city would own the sidewalks and replace the street and replace them. But private ways are a funky setup with what they call the fee in the way.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah. Yeah, we've always enjoyed, I actually have been living here since 1960. I grew up a few houses down and we've always enjoyed living here. Kind of thought it was pretty neat living on a private way.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Until the builder fixed the pavement comes.
[Mary Lee]: Right, right. And Pat, how long have you lived in that house? 32 years. Okay. All right. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mary. Anybody else from the board have any questions?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I could ask a question of the building commissioner, and it's just a technical definition of what is considered an open porch. What do you, or what is considered by the building department an open porch?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Your typical single layer level porch with handrails. It's a closed porch when you put a roof on it and you just screen it in for a three season room or you put walls in it. So that's really the difference at that point. So this will have no roof?
[SPEAKER_14]: Oh, yes, this will have a roof. It's a farmer's porch with a roof.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yes. All right. So it's open on all sides except for the house, obviously.
[Scott Vandewalle]: It's a closed porch. And if it were under a third of the length, we wouldn't consider it exempt from zoning like an open porch, which we typically view as your typical single level deck with handrails. So this is really much more of an addition, even though he doesn't necessarily put fully enclosing walls around it. still viewed more as an addition.
[Chris D'Aveta]: So they can have supports, obviously, to keep up the roof, but that's not considered a closed porch.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Well, it is. It's an addition. It just doesn't happen to have fully formed walls, but it now it's now become something different than an open porch. It's a subtle difference, but it does change the loading characteristics. It changes some of the code characteristics of it versus a standard deck.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Chris. Thank you. Commissioner. Any questions? Any additional questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Just wondering, is there a, uh, any kind of a. Of an architectural rendering or something we can look at.
[SPEAKER_14]: Dennis, did we leave anything like that with you, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't believe so, to be honest, because for this instance, because it was just dimensional, so I think that was probably all we just had was what I showed with the... Okay, could I describe it a little bit to you guys?
[SPEAKER_14]: So again, it's going to be 21 feet long.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Pat, we just lost your audio again.
[SPEAKER_14]: You still hear me? Can you still hear me? You're back now. Okay. Yeah, so it's going to be 21 feet long, it will not be centered on the front of the house, it's going to be a little bit off to the right. It's going to be about two feet in from the from the far right hand side of the house. So it's not going to be to the edge. It's going to be about two feet in from the right hand side of the house. And then maybe eight, the far end of the other the left hand side of the house. and it's gonna be eight feet deep. It's gonna be held up by piers, concrete piers under the ground. And we're gonna have four posts holding up the architectural metal roof there, those nice roofs that everybody's using now, the black roofs. It's gonna have some electrical outlets on it. with some lighting on the ceiling. And I think we're gonna be using some type of Aztec flooring. It's gonna be really nice. We've got a great builder. He's done some great work in the neighborhood. We've used them on other projects. And that's about it. I can't say it again. Yeah, that's it.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andrew, is that sufficient for what you were trying to say?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, I guess that's what we can get right now. I thought it was going to be an open porch, so I'm just absorbing the fact that this has a roof and it's a little bigger than what I was anticipating.
[SPEAKER_04]: Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so one of the things the board is going to have to assess as part of this application is whether owing to circumstances related to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or structures, a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would involve a hardship. And so I just want to make sure I understand the case there. So you mentioned that the position of the house is such that there's not really anywhere else you could add a porch. So is that where the hardship is stemming from? It's that either the porch would be too narrow or you'd have to move the house.
[SPEAKER_14]: Right, I mean, yes, in order to stay away from encroaching the boundaries, yes. To view the park, I mean, we're just about ready to retire and we thought it would be great to have a porch to sit out and take it all in. We wanted to go forward with an eight foot porch. We've been around the neighborhood and we've checked out what a six foot porch is and what a seven foot porch is and what an eight foot porch is. And clearly an eight foot porch is comfortable.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, and then so the other thing we need to establish as part of this is that these conditions don't generally affect the zoning district in which your house is located. So are your neighbors able to build a porch like this on their properties? And this is something unique to the position of your house is preventing you from doing it?
[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, Mike, I'm sorry. At the beginning, you were cut off a little bit.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, yeah, sorry. I'll restate. So essentially, I already mentioned the we have to relate the relief to something about, in this case, I guess, the position of the structure. But then the second part is that something can't generally affect the zoning district in which you're located. So I'd just like to better understand Are your neighbors' houses positioned such that they could build similar sized covered porches in the front of their properties? Or are all the houses?
[SPEAKER_14]: No, we all face the park. And I think we all have approximately the same setbacks. I wouldn't be surprised if some other people, this may prompt other people to put a porch on the front of their house. I mean, I think it's a great street to have a porch. I mean, the park is beautiful. And right now I have to sit out on my brick stairs. And I'd love to have a porch.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Mike.
[Mary Lee]: Hi, so I pull up the picture of the house on my computer and you're talking about the porch built between the first level and the second level and it's extending to the street. Is that correct? I'm just, again, I'm just trying to understand.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yes. So if you look at the house with the Google search, you'll see that vestibule on the front of the house. So obviously that vestibule will be demoed and it's going to be that same height.
[Mary Lee]: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
[SPEAKER_14]: See the four steps lead up to the landing on Mary Lee?
[Mary Lee]: Yes, I see the four steps.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yes. So that will be the level of the proposed deck. porch.
[Mary Lee]: Okay. So that's where that the porch will extend. I'm trying to figure out where it extends. It will extend towards the front of the street, right?
[SPEAKER_14]: Correct. Yes. It will be from the face of the house. It will be eight feet off of the face of the house towards the sidewalk.
[Mary Lee]: Towards the sidewalk. Okay. And And the part where you mentioned before that's not owned by you, which part is that?
[SPEAKER_14]: Basically, from the sidewalk, from what I understand, that full sidewalk that we put in, in that little strip of grass right to the curb, I don't think we own it.
[Mary Lee]: Oh, okay, okay, I see, I see. So between the two plots, the two portions of grass, there is, that looks like a path. Yes. So the porch will not, right? So the porch will not affect that little path.
[SPEAKER_14]: Oh no, no. And it won't, it won't affect the sidewalk either.
[Mary Lee]: Okay. All right. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mary. Any other questions from the board?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. To me, this sounds like something that would be great, not only for the applicant, but to encourage people to be out looking at the field. I've spent many an hour at that field with my kids over the years, and it's nice to have the neighbors involved and able to enjoy that. So it seems like something that's honestly a no-brainer in some ways. My only concern, I guess, would be, does the open porch turn into a closed porch? turn into another room in the house eventually, which is what I think happens over the years. I can tell you from personal experience in my parents' house, that's exactly what happened. So I'm sure that if anyone were to enclose it, they'd have to then go back to the building department, get the proper permit, for and possibly be sent back to us. Hence my question earlier about the open porch versus closed porch. Other than that, as the application sits before us, I think it's fine. Thank you, Chris. The building commissioner, I guess, in a way, a follow-up, if you will. Mr. Commissioner, if you could speak on people enclosing their porches eventually from an open porch to a closed porch to a room?
[Scott Vandewalle]: It's certainly very common. I certainly know of homes that have done that and put another porch on it, closed that, and over time have encroached over space. They would come for a building permit. I don't see that they would need to come back before the board because you've already granted them the dimensional spaces. They're just filling in the holes between.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chris. Any other questions from the board for the afternoon? Looks like we're good. I will open us up for public comment. Is there anybody on the call that would like to speak with regards to 133 Century Street extension? Please raise your hand on Zoom. or email Dennis at dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. I don't see any hands raised on Zoom. Dennis, do you have anything in email?
[Denis MacDougall]: I do not.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I need a motion to close public comment and open deliberation.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Thank you. Jim?
[SPEAKER_04]: Jim?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Go to Yvette Feliz.
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mary Lee.
[SPEAKER_04]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Andre Leroux. Aye. Mike Calderon. Aye. And Kustya Venna. Aye. Thank you guys. You guys will be taking the vote. We are in deliberation and again thank you Mike earlier again this is a variant so we're going to be looking at Owing to the circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures, literal enforcement of provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner, and that relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance or bylaw. And I think the, let me go to deliberation. Does anybody want to start?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm a little concerned. I always get a little concerned when we kind of set a precedent for moving into the front yard, you know, building into the front yard, whether that's a parking space or anything else. But I think. In this circumstance, I was looking at the other houses on the street. Many of them have larger side yards where they can put porches. I think for this purpose and given the fact that it's facing a park, I think it's appropriate.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre, just a clarifying question, because I didn't look at that. Does it seem like the other properties have side yards where they could put covered porches?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, there's at least a couple of houses within just a few houses that have covered side yard porches.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[SPEAKER_03]: Go ahead, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I can go next. So I'm very familiar with the street in the park. I think it sounds like a really nice project. Where I'm hung up is it seems to me like not having the space for an eight-foot covered porch in the front yard is an issue that generally affects that whole street. And if indeed the hardship generally affects the zoning district, then that's the area where a project like this wouldn't maybe not meet the standard for a variance. I don't see a detriment to the public good, and it would be nice to have something in writing from the neighbors, but I'll, you know, it, it sounds like a perfectly reasonable project, but that's my current hang up. I don't, I don't know if there's anything really unusual about this property that justifies the variance.
[Andre Leroux]: Actually, I got a question about that. The way that I interpret it was that because other properties on the street have enough side yards, they could accommodate a covered porch on the side, but this property can't, which is the hardship.
[Mike Caldera]: Through the chair, that was partly why I asked you the question, Andre, because I hadn't noticed that. So I'm trying to take a look now. It's a little hard for me to tell which specific houses you were referring to. But I do see, yeah, I guess I see some houses where they have maybe a covered porch in the back. But it looks like those are all conforming. So then, yeah, this house. It has a deck in the back. Yeah, so I think if the board were to find, Andre, that there's something about the position of the structures or the shape of the lot on this property that prevents building a covered porch of this size anywhere where other properties nearby can or especially do have something similar in size and magnitude, that would be an angle to say that the relief doesn't generally affect the zoning district. But then I also think it would be perfectly reasonable to take the interpretation that not having a covered porch in the front is the criteria. It really just depends on how you want to interpret that part of the standard. I still am not a 100 percent sure I'm seeing the examples you're referring to about other properties with covered porches.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I would look at 151 and 107. 151.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, covered porch in the side yard there. Looks probably non-conforming.
[SPEAKER_14]: I believe 119 also.
[Mike Caldera]: 119, that looks like a garage. Oh, no, yeah, I see it, yep. And then 107. Yeah, okay.
[Yvette Velez]: Well, I would even say the house next door at some point had, because it looks like their extension, their house has an extension on the left. And that could have been a porch at some point, but they haven't closed it now because of the way it's set up. It looks like a three seasons space. And I see that also throughout the block, that those types of things exist, or they have that room, but then there's a porch on the second floor. I also think the unique thing about this is that they live abutting a park. So it's, you know, when we talk about not detrimental to the community, you know, it's not encroaching on like public space or taking away park space. And I think we've heard from other folks in our group saying, you know, looking forward to having an audience, right? So I think that's like a community benefit too.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, if I may, if I may add another comment, Mr. chairman. Yeah, I think this is I you know it's kind of weird because if you look, literally across the street from the park. You see all these. older houses that have large porches and they're just a few feet away from the sidewalk. So this just happened to be a development that happened, you know, probably of the same builder. you know, 80 years ago or however many years those houses were built. And the time, the style of the day didn't have porches. And so I don't really think we can assign zoning per se of the, you know, the area that we're talking about because Like, you know, literally across the street from the park on the other side, there are these large sort of Victorian and turn-of-the-century houses all with front porches. It happens to be that these houses on the other side, which were developed later, somehow the style was to omit or, you know, not build the front porch for whatever reason. We don't really know. As Yvette just said, my feeling is that it's obviously a benefit to the applicant, but it's a benefit, I think, to the community to have people participate more in the outdoor world. Being across from the park is one of those big benefits.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Chris. I just want to jump over to Dennis. He's got his hand raised.
[Denis MacDougall]: This is more just because I was able to call up on our software here, and so I don't know if this will help, but it sort of gives some context. So 133 is about 55 feet wide, and 139 next door is 65, 143 is 70 feet wide, and then 151 goes to about 60, and then going the other direction, 127 is about a little bit the same, but 119 is I think 80 feet wide. So there's pretty big discrepancy. Like these weren't evenly, like you look in the street behind them, all the lots are exactly the same. This street has many different widths all up and down it. So I don't know if that, just because I mean, Mike, you were sort of talking about like the widths and things like that and trying to get context. And I figured that would sort of help just giving some numbers.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. Yeah. Thank you.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Dennis, very much. Mary, go ahead. Mary, you got your hand raised?
[Mary Lee]: Can you hear me? Yep, we can now. Okay, so initially, I thought there was going to be an issue with the ownership of that. I think that small portion in front of the house, but I think that Pat indicated that he lived there for 32 years. So I think that eliminated the ownership issue based on adverse possession. And I think that is why this matter is before the board, right, because of that ownership of that strip of land. That's why he needed the variance.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: He needs the variance because the front yard setback to the private way, which is community owned, where they have the fee of access is a 15-yard setback.
[Mary Lee]: So, so, so I think the fact that he's been there for over 32 years or 32 years that negates that issue.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So, I think no, it's the same. It's the same situation as if it were city property. If it were the city street, it's still within the 15 foot set back on the. of communal property.
[Mary Lee]: I think the disputed area, it's the space between the four stairs, right? And the city sidewalk.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: It's from the sidewalk to the front of the house.
[Mary Lee]: Oh, that from the sidewalk to the front of the house. Okay. But the fact that he's been there for 32 years, I think based on adverse possession, he owns that.
[Andre Leroux]: Oh, yeah, no, Mary, he definitely he owns the his front yard. I think they he just thought he didn't have a setback issue because he thought he could measure from the from the curb on the street. But actually, he has to measure from the sidewalk to the front of his house. And so he needs a variance.
[Mary Lee]: OK, does that make sense? Yeah. Thanks.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Any other deliberation from the board? Go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so one other thing I think that's worth bringing up, and before we do anything like this, we should check with the applicant, but if the board were to grant a variance, we could do so with a condition kind of restricting the use of that space. So maybe, you know, variance, conditional that it remain in open. Did the porch not be fully enclosed or something like that? There's downsides. I'm not necessarily advocating for that, but I just wanted to bring that up since it seems the board had some concerns about the future use of the space.
[SPEAKER_01]: That mean they couldn't put screens up?
[Mike Caldera]: We'd have to be very careful in how we word it. I'm just pointing out that variances can be granted with conditions. And if someone was worried about that, that would be one avenue.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, if I could, Mr. Chair, that is essentially what I was saying earlier. If we were to become living space, I would have a very different opinion of it. A porch seems like a great idea. So that's my opinion of that. And it's not encroaching, I think, on, doesn't seem to be anyway, encroaching on the neighbors to the point where a detriment to their sightline or anything of that nature.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Chris. Mary, did you have something else? Or is your hand still up? Any other items from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm just going to say that I'm not as worried now as when I was first thinking about this. I thought, Chris, your point about the other houses on Playstead Road and in looking at them, you're right. The porches and the steps come almost to the sidewalk, so I think I don't have any concerns. I wouldn't feel the need to put any restrictive language on it.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I would advise you that Chapter 48 in Article 3 explicitly does not allow zoning boards to regulate the interior of a structure. Um, any walls added to that would have to be considered part of the interior of the structure. So I don't think it would be advisable to try to put a condition on there to not allow enclosed walls. I think that's within their rights. Should they do that down the road?
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Commissioner.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: So, from my perspective, again, I appreciate Dennis looking at the lot widths there. Now, the opportunity to build this type of structure around the other areas of the house, understanding that the applicant is looking for that position for the front yard, especially because it's on the park. There's no across the street of Butters, so there's nobody that's going to be looking at the house specifically, You know, it's not obstructing public way or anybody across the street. Again, also looking at place head to Chris and Andre's point, you know, those houses are definitely closer to the street. I can definitely see the hardship for the owner for the development of this anywhere else in the lot in comparison with their neighbors. Um, anyone else? Trailway to motion on 133 Century Street extension.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, I'll motion to approve the variance for 1 33 Century Street extension.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. Do we have a second? Seconded. Thank you, Andrew. Roll call vote. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Christy? Yvette? Aye. Mary Lee. I'll come back around. Andre Leroux.
[Andre Leroux]: Hi.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Mike Calvera.
[Mary Lee]: Sorry, I'm having problems with my zoom. So I'm going to say no.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, two votes no, three votes yes. We do have an approval for the variance.
[Mike Caldera]: Point of order, it's a four.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Oh, four, you're right. I apologize. Thank you, Mike. So three votes yes, two votes no. The variance is not, I think it's four to one. I'm on mute. So the variance is not approved. Dennis, next steps on this one?
[Denis MacDougall]: I guess I'll write a decision and get it to the boys and I'll try to get that to them as quickly as possible so they can all get next steps.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: All right, thank you, Dennis. That is all the items on the agenda for seconds. Do you have any area technical difficulties? Sorry about that. I was just having trouble with my computer. I'm back. So that is all of the pieces. Moving to administrative updates. We do have meeting minutes. Did everybody have an opportunity to review the meeting minutes for 627? Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, I had a chance to review them, and I found them to be in order.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, Mike. Do we have a motion?
[Mike Caldera]: I will motion to approve the meeting minutes for the. June regular meeting of the.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you Mike do we have a 2nd.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you Mike. Mary I Andre. Hi, I.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Dennis, that was the items I had on the agenda. Do we have any other items from an administrative perspective?
[Denis MacDougall]: The only other issue is for our next scheduled meeting would be August 29th, which is a few days before the Labor Day weekend. And so I just wanted to check on member availability for that date, because I haven't sent out notices or anything for that meeting. But I wanted to check on member availability for August 29th.
[Mary Lee]: Dennis, I'll be away. I won't be able to attend.
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you. I'll be working. We move in that weekend at the university.
[Chris D'Aveta]: So that's two blocks. So I will be available, I think.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm available.
[Andre Leroux]: I should be available as well. And I'm available.
[Denis MacDougall]: So we've got five, sorry, so we can go forward. I'll be available.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Good. Building Commissioner.
[Scott Vandewalle]: I did want to ask, and I see it briefly mentioned in the agenda post today, Chair, I had sent out an email a couple weeks ago talking about rules and regulations and possibly updating and rewriting your rules and regulations to reflect where we are these days. Had you received that?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I don't know that I did.
[Scott Vandewalle]: because some of the stuff that's in your current rules and regulations are starting to get a little bit dated. We're not quite using things that way, and it might be a good time to consider doing that. I suggested so that you could avoid doing it with the whole board at once. If you're amenable to reviewing your rules and regulations, which I can send some copies over from other communities, you might want to appoint a subcommittee of two folks to sort of start hashing them out a little bit so you don't get into the need to have a quorum stuff. but in talking to KP law as well, they felt it's time to consider updating the rules and regulations.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Yep. All right. I apologize. I do see that.
[Scott Vandewalle]: So I will send over some examples I have, and then you can decide how you want to go from there with that. That'd be perfect. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: I think we're at the end of the agenda, so I'll motion to adjourn.
[SPEAKER_04]: Second. Second. Roll call. Mike? Aye. Mary? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. That is the end of our meeting. Next scheduled meeting as discussed will be on August 29th at 6.30pm.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Right, thanks folks.