[Chair Andre Leroux]: Welcome everybody to the April 30th meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We will move on to the first case. I think, would you be able to... Dennis, I think we have a request to take one of the items out of order, correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: We did, yes. 41 Yale Street asked if they could go at the start of the hearing.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I know there's a conflict. The attorney has a conflict a little bit later. So do we need to take a vote on that or can we just do that? Can I just do that for my prerogative?
[Denis MacDougall]: That can just be done by your prerogative.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. All right. So can you read the 41 Yale Street? 41 Yale Street, case number. Oh, yep. Sorry. I got to take the roll call vote for who's present. Uh, Mike present, Mary present, uh, Jim present, Yvette present, Chris present and chair is present. All right. Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: 41 Yale Street applicants Rebecca Schott and John Halpin to allow the recently constructed addition at 41 Yale Street, which will require a special permit to alter and extend the pre-existing non-conforming side yard setbacks and require a variance for adding, for creating a third story, which is not allowed per the City of Medford zoning ordinance.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, so do we have the attorney here for Yale Street?
[Dash]: We do, thank you. Yes, Mr. Chair, Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street in Summerville. I appreciate it, I have a meeting in Belmont on Zoom at seven, so it's a little hard to do this, so I appreciate that. Yeah, no problem. I'm here, my client, I'm the attorney for Rebecca Schrott. Rebecca Schrott is the petitioner, she should also be here somewhere. The property 41 to 43 Yale Street's a pre-existing non-conforming two-family house in the GR zone. Do I have the ability to share my screen? I do. Excellent. All right. So Ms. Schrott had plans to add dormers to both sides of the house. You can see the plans here.
However, the construction of the sidewalls of the dormers were inadvertently not set into the exterior of the property from the exterior walls, and they ended up being mistakenly coplanar with the wall below, and that was not the intent. For the existing as-built dormers, and I'll show you more to remain, Ms. Schradt would need a special permit for the alteration and extension of the pre-existing non-conforming side setbacks and a variance for creating a third story. I would note the side setback discrepancies are only 0.8 feet on the right side and 2.9 feet on the left side.
And as you can see from as far as the third story piece, it's not taller than the roof. For looking at photographs, this is the property that we're looking at. The differences, as you can see, this is from the street. They're pretty small and not really all that noticeable, which is clearly the case because Ms. Schirratt didn't notice them, that they were constructed in the wrong location and was only made aware of this issue by the building inspector on a routine inspection. So I credit the building inspectors for the city for being diligent. Um, the existing structures walls are the same as the dormers as the new dormers set back because again, we're not sticking out beyond the walls. Um, and see here, not sticking out beyond the wall. So, the relief is still keeping the dormers within the existing building footprint. Also, as you can see from these photos that the eve of the building. juts out further than the wall and the dormer. The dormer is co-planar with this line with the wall but the building pre-existing piece already sticks out further than that. So here's some other views of it from the back. This is from the side again you can see the jutting eave that's pre-existing and staying.
Rather than having to the impact of the relief, you can actually see it as built, which is not the typical way. So the variance to be three stories instead of 2.5 stories also does not have any impact. As you can see here in the as-built, the building is not getting taller. It's just that the dormers will technically be creating a third story, but they are still dormers and they are still below the ridgeline of the roof.
In reality, it's not really creating a story, but the impact can be seen today. It's not detrimental to the neighborhood. This is the asphalt site plan, and you can see the dotted line, which is the setback line. You can see it's very little over. The structure on the lot already was in violation of the side setbacks, and the relief sought is just due to the existing structure's nonconformity on the site and the inadvertent error in construction. Literal enforcement of this would be substantial hardship by requiring Midshrop to demolish the work already done and start over at great expense and great disruption to the neighborhood. Rebecca is a victim of a construction error she did not intend or ask for or realize. So the relief will create no substantial detriment to the public. Good, because the structure otherwise is dimensionally compliant.
The dormers already exist, and the lack of impact can be seen. Again, the size of the relief is small. It does not increase the building's footprint. It does not increase the building's height. There's also no change in the number of units, traffic, parking, utilities, public services, or natural environment. In fact, Forcing Rebecca to tear down and rebuild the dormers is just going to disrupt the neighborhood with more construction. Again, Rebecca did not intend for this to happen. She's sorry that it did. At this point, she asked you for the requested special permit for the side setbacks and the variance for this three stories technicality so she can live in the house and close out her work. Thank you. And I'll stop sharing my screen.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you, Attorney Dash. Appreciate that. Yes, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I just have a question for Attorney Dash through the chair. So I remember this building was before the zoning board. I think it was in December of last year, and there was a request before the board then that was later withdrawn for the third floor. I'm a little unclear, and I just would benefit from some clarity on, um, how does the as built differ if at all from the plans that were before us earlier? And am I correctly understanding from the November 4th date that actually it was already built when we heard the other related case? Or did I misunderstand that?
[Dash]: I wasn't handling the prior case. I don't know. Is Rebecca able to speak? because she was involved with this before. But this was a dormer application, which was by right, had the dormers been in 0.8 feet or whatever the distance requirement was, had they been in a little bit more, the dormers would be by right. It's just that the dormers ended up being coplanar with the wall, which creates this third floor, but it's not, as you can see, a third floor. So as far as what the original happened before I got involved, I am not aware. Rebecca, are you here?
[SPEAKER_12]: I am can you hear me. Yeah. Um, what was before. This was a different plan, it was more of a unit and not a dormer situation. I think those drawings are still on file somewhere at City Hall but this is a completely different situation that other Project wasn't built. It was scrapped after that variance meeting and recon redesigned to do the dormers.
[Mike Caldera]: So, Andre, I just, I did see the plans, they are on file. I just, it was hard for me eyeballing it to tell how this was different. And also, I thought we heard that in December of 2025. And I saw on this plan that the as built was, it looked like November of 2025. So I just wanted to make sure I understood.
[SPEAKER_12]: This was built February. The dormers that are here now were done this February, 2026. For that, it was just a regular attic space.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Clarifying questions?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Chris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the applicant or the applicant's attorney, Along the same lines of the question that Mike has just asked, these would be shorter and away from the exterior walls if they had been built to the plan's specifications? Yes. And they would be smaller? They would be perhaps closer up to the... were they incorrectly built, I guess, is the... Yes. Were they supposed to be closer to the ridgeline of the roof in general?
[Dash]: The exterior walls of the dormers were supposed to be indented a little from the exterior walls instead of straight up from them. And that's what ended up being built. The discrepancy is not The difference isn't huge, which is why Rebecca didn't notice it. The city inspector noticed it, and then, obviously, it becomes apparent. But as you saw, the existing soffits, they stick out. It sticks out anyway beyond all of this. So because the existing exterior walls violate the side setbacks on both sides, Since the dormers now are the same as the walls, they also violate the setback on both sides, although it's the same violation that's already there. Yes, it's taller, but it's not as though the dormers were going to be shorter. The dormers just would have been in a little bit on either side to match this, to create, to not violate the setbacks, but they wouldn't be shorter.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, well, that's actually to my point, I guess, is that I want and perhaps the applicant can answer this question directly. Or if they were incorrectly built, are they simply too small? Because they were they supposed to be closer to the ridge line of the roof, perhaps?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: No, they're supposed to be further in, Chris.
[Chris D'Aveta]: No, right. But they. But they would be. super small if they were further in. So I'm wondering if there's some kind of miscommunication that, you know, this happened. And outside of our purview, because this did not come before the board, apparently. So I don't see the large, the big deal with this, honestly, but it seems like a a situation where the owner would correct it with the contractor?
[Dash]: We're definitely dealing with the contractor because that is where the error lies. But as you said, it's really not a big thing because actually, it's not as if the dormers would have been shorter or slid up higher along the ridge and they would have been squished in a little bit to meet the setbacks. But like I described, the setbacks aren't that far off. in reality. So, you know, had the setbacks been compliant, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the special permit. But it's just because it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure that going straight up, you're just taking the same non-conforming setbacks up. But like I said, on one side, it's like 0.8 feet.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I mean, they're not... Right. Yeah, no, I don't see this as a big deal from my perspective as to granting the relief. I just wondered that you know, if there's a rectification about to occur, would the contractor then have to reconstruct these dormers? And I guess you folks are not going to pursue that part of it, but you're just seeking relief for that.
[Dash]: How that gets pursued in litigation that comes from all of that, I can't say at this time. Reconstructing those dormers would be a big, big mess in the neighborhood all over again for something that's been pretty much done. Um, but that's obviously we're here to ask you for permission to leave it as you see it. Um, if you go by, you'll see it's not really a big thing. Um, but I guess that's our opinion. Um, I would say, but it really is. It's an unfortunate mistake. Ms. Schrott feels terrible about it. There was no intent here on her part to do anything. We're not adding a unit or anything like that. This is not the original plan. Um, it's just we were trying to, she was trying to do this by right. which is why I wasn't involved and which is why you weren't involved because she was trying to do this by right after the original plan. And then obviously it got messed up and now it's not.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. I should have mentioned at the beginning that for the purposes of this, uh, um, you know, this topic, uh, Chris and Mary are going to be full voting members of the ZBA. Um, yeah, Danielle, you have your, your hand hand raised for the city.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Did you just introduce who you are, Danielle?
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Yes, sorry. Danielle Evans, Senior Planner in the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. I think that the issue with the third story is that they went over, they're no longer qualified as a half story because of the floor area. And they must have calculated it to be exactly a half story and popping out just a, What was it, a foot or something like that, or less than that?
[Dash]: 0.8 on one side.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Yeah. So that must have been just enough that put it over half of the floor area of a story. So I think that's where it's the area. And we actually recently changed how we measure height to be a little bit more clear, but I don't know if that will affect how we calculate stories. So I think that will remain the same. But it has to do with the area and head height and the headroom, things like that.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Danielle. Yeah, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so that relates to the part that I'm just wanting to make sure I understand. When the other case was before us, it was three stories. And I'd like to understand if the construction error hadn't happened with this set of plans, would it have, in fact, been two and a half stories? I'm assuming that's the case, because it was by right. But I just, I guess, would like a little bit more detail on what's triggering the third story. the construction error or is there like a material difference in the square footage or the height?
[Dash]: Yes, if I may. Danielle is exactly correct. It's the square footage because popping it out like that by mistake, even though it's relatively small, took something that was compliant because she got the building permit by right for doing it as a two and a half story project. So the dormers were by right. By accidentally building it, out to the edge of the Tobiko planer with the exterior wall of the structure, that added some square footage, not a ton, but it added some square footage. I believe it's in our application. It's, so it, yeah, like, so, you know, from like 3854 to 4099, I mean, not a lot of square footage, but whatever it did, it must've pushed it over, it pushed it over the limit. And, cause the FAR went from 0.99 to 1.02.
So it's not a very big change, but I guess it was enough because that's what we got cited for. Now everything stopped and we're here, so. Okay, thank you.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Let's move into a public comment period. Are there any members of the public who'd like to speak on this issue? Yeah, my name is Patrick Walsh. I'm a resident of Sturgis Street. I'd like to speak. This is the 41 Yale Street matter. Is that what you wanted to speak on? No, I'm looking on the Sturgey Street matter. Okay. Great. Thank you. Anybody else on the 41 Yale Street matter? Dennis, do we have any comments that have been submitted on it by email?
[Denis MacDougall]: We did not receive an email.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, motion to close the public portion of the hearing for 41 Yale Street. Is there a motion?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to close.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Is there a second? Second. Jim, thank you. Roll call vote. Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris? Aye. Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, public hearing is closed on this matter. We move into deliberation of the board. What do you think members?
[Yvette Velez]: So I just have a quick clarifying question. So once this happens, it's deemed that it is essentially a third floor because of that square footage. So does that mean like in the future, it could really expand and become a true, 3rd floor, like, in regards to, like, the look of the building might change and they would, by right, be able to do that.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I think that's a that's a good question. It was someone that's something I was thinking about as well. I mean, I believe we could condition it to be for the existing work and not for future work.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I see Attorney Dash nodding his head there.
[Denis MacDougall]: If I can just jump in, I think the only way they could possibly do that would be to actually expand the existing nonconformity, which means they'd have to come back before us. Because if they'd expanded the wall and increased the wall alongside the building or did anything like that, that would be an extension of an existing nonconformity. So I think it would be pretty hard for them to For that to actually even happen in the in the property as it is.
[Dash]: Yeah, I mean, I was going to say something to that effect. I think that's exactly so that because we're here because of this very small thing, I don't know how you can do anything more without having to be here again. Right. Yeah.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and just to be clear for the board members, there are two things we need to vote on. One is a special permit to extend the existing nonconformity. The threshold there would be to find that there's no significant detriment to the neighborhood. And then for the variance, you know, there's the three state statutory criteria there in terms of the, uh, you know, shape, uh, size, topography of the, of the lot itself, um, soil shape or topography of the lot, um, that strict enforcement of the bylaw would cause substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, the petitioner and that relief can be granted without detriment to the public good or the intent of the zoning bylaw. So those are the, those are the standards for each of the, the, the two, uh, matters that we'll be voting on for this.
Other board members want to weigh in.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I'll just weigh in to say that this would be a good time to have Scott's voice on this, but, um, I, I do, uh, echo the thought that perhaps, you know, creating the, um, the relief for that third floor extension of the existing nonconformity, essentially, perhaps would mean in the future that another current owner or future owner could use that to extend then further up to, say, the height limit of the zoning area, zoning district. But I don't know. I'm still not.
bothered by the fact that this is a small ask of relief. It's not large.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I don't know if we have, uh, one of the building inspectors on here today, but my, my understanding was that, you know, they, they found that it was not, it was not intentional and that the contractor, instead of building the exterior walls where they were supposed to, they did the easier thing and just built it on top of the existing exterior walls.
[SPEAKER_03]: Jim or Mary or Mike. No, I don't have a issue with it.
[Mary Lee]: I'm in agreement with the general consensus. Thanks, Mary. Yeah, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it might have been apparent from the questions I was asking. I was worried about the scenario where it was kind of a bigger deviation from the by right plans, in part because this came before us in a different configuration, and there was at least one neighbor that took issue with that configuration. From the answers I received, it's now clearer to me that this was unintentional, and it's a pretty small deviation from what would have been allowed by right, which does put to rest some of my concerns coming in.
I think in terms of the standard for the board on the variance side of things, we have to talk about it as though it weren't already built. And so, you know, when I go through the thought exercise of if an applicant had come before us and said that, Hey, I really want to do this extension into the, um, the, at the half floor at the top of the building, and it's just not quite enough space. And so it'd be really nice if I got an extra, still don't, didn't commit to memory what the added space is, but it's so small, like I could envision a scenario where we'd hear that and say, yeah, it would be a hardship to keep it exactly to that number.
So, yeah, the thing about the lot is the existing structure in the shape of it. That's my take.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. So, let's maybe do we have a motion for on the special permit again? The threshold for the special permit is to find that we that. the project does not significantly add detriment to the neighborhood. So is there a motion on the special permit?
[Mary Lee]: A motion to approve special permit.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I'll second. Thank you, Mary and Jim. We'll do a roll call vote now. Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[SPEAKER_12]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary? Aye. Chris. Aye. All right, 5-0. The special permit is approved. Is there a motion on the request for a variance?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Motion to approve the request for a variance for 41 Elm Street.
[Unidentified]: I'll second.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thanks, Chris and Jim. Roll call vote. Mike. Aye. Jim. Hi, Mary. Hi, and Chris. Hi. All right, 5 0, we have approved the variance for the 3rd floor on the on the 41, you know, street.
[Dash]: So you got me out of seven on the nose. So I don't like asking for this, but I, I, I'm sorry. I do appreciate it.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. And I guess you'll be in touch with Dennis on next steps. So thank you so much, everybody. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Good night. All right. Dennis, could you read the next item on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: 91 Waterville Road. Applicants Fisher-Wilder and Powell-Wilder for an administrative appeal of a notice of violation regarding the operation of the business at 91 Waterville Road, which is not allowed use in a single-family, two-zoning district per the City Metro Zoning Ordinance.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Do we have the. So, just to be clear about what this is, this is a 91 Waterville road. It's been issued an enforcement letter from the city's building commissioner. enforcing single family zoning, which does not allow a business to be operated out of it. And the finding was that there is a gutter company operating out of this property. And what we are considering here is that the recipients of the enforcement letter are appealing this letter, and we as a board need to discuss this matter and take a vote whether we want to overturn the city's building commissioner's determination to issue the enforcement letter. So that's really all we're doing. Similar, we don't usually get these very often, but it is similar to what we had last month with the very heated and infamous chicken issue. So let's go to the folks who are appealing and hear from them first. So the Wilders, would you care to kind of explain the situation and explain why you're appealing this finding?
[Jessica Schiller]: Good evening. Yes, we are chicken free. We would like to share that we disagree with the characterization that a business is being operated out of this home. It's a residential property where individuals live and similar to many tradespeople and many people that work in Medford bring work vehicles home. There's no customer traffic, no retail activity, no signage, no business operations, no customers. The observations appear to be based on vehicles and occasional incidental activity, which does not constitute commercial use.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. Thank you. Do we have, uh, Dennis, do we have a building inspector with us at all?
[Denis MacDougall]: It does not appear that, uh, the building inspector that was on the call was Paul Smith, who is not, I don't appear to see him on the call.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Do members want to ask questions before we go to the public, uh, comment period? Well,
[Unidentified]: Yeah, Jim, I have a question. Who is saying that there's a commercial business being operated out of this home.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So, the, um. A butters have submitted a series of photos and videos. Which have been uploaded to the shared. Public share drive, um.
[SPEAKER_09]: Files received, I'll keep an eye out for updates to the drive by the way.
[Unidentified]: Can we see them?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes. Dennis, could you just drop that link in again?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. Hold on. I'm just trying to double check to see. I mean, we have also the violation, which we can sort of.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: I think that might be the best one to go for.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Why don't we go through that?
[Denis MacDougall]: That's not apocryphal. That is literally from the bill. Hold on a second.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, yeah, while we're doing that.
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah, well, you all are pulling up the photos. So then what is the address of the work? I mean, if it's not the home, then what is the address of the establishment or the workplace?
[Jessica Schiller]: Yeah, our official legal address is 30 Spring Street, Medford.
[Yvette Velez]: And is there no room to park the trucks there, or is there like,
[Jessica Schiller]: I don't, so they were parked there for about five years and I did ask our next door neighbors to kindly join this call just so they could also share their point of view that there was no, this activity that might be being complained about is not, there's no operations happening, there's no customers, there's no, so again, like we just had our commercial vehicles parked over at 30 Spring and had no issues.
[Yvette Velez]: So I guess clarity again. So why aren't they getting parked any longer at the actual place of work?
[Jessica Schiller]: Well, because our tenants who live in the home at 91 Waterville who are employed by Green Monster gutters use the vehicles. And so also the parking area is much larger at 91 Waterville.
[Yvette Velez]: So the tenants of your building are actually also your employees. Correct. So that's important to know, right? We need to know that. So that's their home vehicle. So yes, technically, that's not your home. That's your rental property. It just happened to be your employees. Yes. And they just happened to like.
[Jessica Schiller]: Verizon and you had your Verizon truck that you drive to your work site. It's the same thing.
[Yvette Velez]: Right, so can I ask why? Because I did see a few of those pictures. And the truck is oftentimes not parked in the driveway. It is parked, what do you call that, adjacent to the driveway, which is weird. So is there a reasoning behind, why doesn't it get parked? What do you mean adjacent? Sorry.
[SPEAKER_22]: I'm sorry.
[Yvette Velez]: Yes, like on the street. Exactly.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah. I think those pictures, the data they were taking.
[Jessica Schiller]: We don't know what the pictures are.
[SPEAKER_22]: No, because we sent, we received the letter from. yeah well i yeah i saw them and i know which pictures i think it happens on the day that we were doing some renovation on the house actually like we're doing some gutter work on on the rental house so usually park the truck that way because we need to take gutters out and they're like long gutters when you replace gutters we do some uh gutter installation and some gutters happen to be like 60 feet long 80 100 feet you know so We need to park like in the street to take the gutter out and that they happen off was doing some work like on the on our on our property.
[Jessica Schiller]: Also, to provide some clarity what my husband said. So, as you can imagine, 6080 foot gutters, they're all done at the job site.
[SPEAKER_22]: Oh yeah, we don't make them there. We don't produce anything there. It just happened off of us doing work on their house because we did some renovations for the tenants and there is still some work going on.
[Yvette Velez]: So you're still working on the property itself. The work is not complete. That's why it is still happening.
[SPEAKER_22]: Is that what you just said? No, not the gutter. I mean, we're still going to, yeah, do some work because we got to... I mean, in general. Yeah, in general, like, you know, some roof work, some siding, some AC work. We're still going to be doing some work. The gutter, it's mostly done. The gutters are mostly done. But it happened like on that day. Yeah, where the guys were, you know, I was, by the way, I was with them. We're just taking stuff out to do the job on the house.
[Yvette Velez]: And would you be able to just show the recent work maybe of that? And then do you have a timeline of when that will be over and done with so that your neighbors are aware, like, oh, there's no more. 84 products coming in.
[SPEAKER_22]: So we are like, we're very busy with our own customers, you know, who we attend. But so it happens like in some rainy days or some day that we have some job council, we just do some work like, you know, like in our own home, like here. or like in a rental property or even like for your neighbors, you know, because our neighbors ask and they ask for favors like, oh, can you guys clean our gutters? And we're like, yeah, yeah, I cannot give you a date, but I'm going to do it for free for you because you're our neighbor. And, you know, like in a day that we get another job, can also just do theirs. So it's basically like I don't have a schedule for that. But if that's the it's a problem, yeah, I definitely can find and give like, you know, like a some date for us to finish the job there.
[Yvette Velez]: No, I understand. It's your property to do it on different times, so. Yeah, right. That's all the clarifying questions I have right now. Thank you. Yeah, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so since it sounds like this is a rental property that's residential and other than putting gutters on it and renovating the property, you're not actually doing anything? What exactly is the city demanding that you stop doing?
[Jessica Schiller]: If that's a question for me, I'm not I'm not sure. I'd love to.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just to clarify my question. So there's apparently three notices of violations. Um, you know, perhaps the first visit there was a misunderstanding or something like that. Um, my understanding is that, uh, you know, if the, we uphold the building commissioner's determination that you're, um, that you are or were, uh, operating a business out of this property that at the minimum you'd have to stop. And I don't understand what stopping would be in this context. And I, so are you just like appealing a fine or is there something that you want to keep doing that that this determination would prevent you from doing for this rental property that's residential and not being used for the business?
[Jessica Schiller]: Do you have anything to warn her? Yeah, so from our understanding and our point of view, we have not done anything that makes this a commercial property. It seems like the most major complaint was that we have commercial vehicle parked in the driveway. I'm not, again, I've never had this happen before. We lived in Medford for a while and not had this issue. If there is something I should be asking for, like, hey, can we leave our commercial vehicles there that belong to our tenants? Like, sure, yes, that would be what we're asking. Yeah.
[Mary Lee]: Do you use that property to register as your business? No. So you don't use that address for any business activity?
[Jessica Schiller]: No. And nothing is delivered there? Nothing.
[Mary Lee]: There's nothing.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Chris.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had this similar questions along the lines of Mike to try to get clarification, perhaps from Dennis. Again, it would be great to have the perspective of a building commissioner, building inspector on this particular case, because I'm not sure what we would be doing by voting or determining that the building inspector was incorrect in his or her determination that this was a business. I don't know what that means. And so I would suggest if we can't get clarification from the building department at this meeting that we continue such until we can.
And that way the applicant, you know, just so the applicant knows and we're all still maybe a little bit confused about what we're voting on, that would add clarification from our perspective so that we don't vote down something that could negatively affect them. Dennis, can you? Sorry.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, I think we were, we were hoping that one of the building inspectors could join us today, but I don't, um, obviously we have the, the building commissioner, uh, we have a transition going on there. So, um, you know, we inspector with us. Um, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So I pulled up the. violation notice so yeah i was going to share that on my screen i was just waiting for everybody to finish their questions they're clarifying questions okay gotcha well um i guess i could hold off it just if i had to summarize if you're going to go through it anyway my read of the five things that um need to be done to abate and correct uh like i'm not seeing from what the um proponent is sharing with us anything that would be problematic for them to do. It's stop doing the thing that they claim they're already not doing. Contact the building department for a site visit.
And maybe that would include the fire department or inspectors. stop the violation within 10 calendar days and contact the building inspector to determine if you need to do anything else. So, I mean, for someone who's not doing anything, then effectively that's like no burden to do what this asks. And so if we're being asked to overturn that, I think as a board, we would need to understand the city's position on the thing that needs to stop happening. I see no reason to approve or to overturn the building commissioner just for the sake of overturning them. Like what's the thing that you want to do that you're not allowed to do under this order? I don't understand.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Danielle.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, so, you know, I looked at some, I dropped the link to the photos and the videos in the chat. And I don't know if you guys saw that. Um, so I, if it's to be a commercial business running out of the single family home, like home occupations are allowed, but so there's a definition of what a home occupation is and things you can do. And when it crosses into like a commercial use, it's like, are there employees coming to the property? Are there customers coming to the property? Are they storing material there? Is it somehow operating like that? I think the tricky thing here is that the employees actually live here. So I think there might be some confusion. I mean, how many employees live there? Is that all the employees? Are there other employees that are coming in that don't live there?
I think that, so if they're like two of your employees live there, but you have 10 employees and they all come and kind of congregate there in the morning before they go to the job site, I think that's a problem. I don't know if that's happening. If, I mean, I see the pictures with, you know, some of the materials, if that wasn't in connection with work being done at that particular house, then that would, I would say would be a violation if you're bringing materials for other job sites to this home, that would be a violation. So you would have to stop doing that. But it seems like if those are the employees, the only employees who are there are the ones that live there. And the only materials that we're seeing were for that, for that home, for work being done, that I would say it was probably a misunderstanding, but I don't know all the facts. But I think that is the finding you would have to make that this wasn't, you know, anything more than that. And if you do make that finding, then you'd be saying that the building commissioner was incorrect, that they're not, you know, running a business.
And then I'm sure the fines would be waived or canceled. But I feel like there might be more to investigate about the employees, customers, like material storage.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you. Danielle. Do you have a question?
[Yvette Velez]: I do have a question in regards to. The comments and y'all made about like, oh, the employees coming over, like, I think you can be friends with your like, your. We're colleagues and I don't think that's unusual to like. meet up and it not be work. I think that's appropriate. If it was 5 in the morning and it was a noise disturbance, then I think that's something else. But in this case, so I don't think that's any of our business because that's like they live there and they can have their friends over. I think it's a gray area and it's your determination there. And I guess that's my point is I don't see that as a gray area, right? Like you have friends.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: But if they're on the clock meeting up and then they're going.
[Yvette Velez]: But they're not on the clock.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I don't know. We don't know.
[Yvette Velez]: Well, I'm going to safely assume they are not on the clock because that's not where they work. That is that person's house. That's that's what they rent that place. They're not.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Let's not get into deliberations at this point. We still have a public hearing to open. And there were I know Mike did have a kind of an open question, I guess, that I didn't allow to get get answered, which is for the while there's why do you seek this appeal if the enforcement letter just asks you to stop kind of doing those business activities if you say you're not doing those business activities.
[Jessica Schiller]: So maybe I misread the letter, but I think the letter said you need to stop doing these activities or you can appeal. So it seemed like, from my point of view, or it said, or offer a site visit. But from my point of view, you're accusing us of doing something that we're not doing. So why would I It seems like you're almost saying, it just seems weird, right? In this day and age, I'm not about to offer someone a site visit to our home that we rent for something that we're not doing. It didn't really make sense to me. And so that's why I went with the appeal because, I mean, to me, I would like more information and to understand, again, where this is coming from versus just saying, yeah, sure, come on in. Let's do it. I mean, that seems odd.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So, and the other clarifying question, which I will add to the mix here is there are a lot of videos and photos that have been submitted by the butters, which seemed to indicate that this activities happening on more than 1 day, particularly the materials going in and out of the house. So, I'm wondering if you could just. Speak to that how often are. Materials going in and out of that house and how often do the trucks get loaded up there?
[Jessica Schiller]: So again, I would say any, you know, occasionally, yeah, boxes are going in and out of the work vehicle. But again, I don't, it wouldn't be any more different than incidental or any other household wants to move boxes in and out of their truck or their car. I would say it's less often than I do groceries at my own house. But again, I think it would be helpful to get some definition or to understand the bylaws that you guys have of what's considered too much. It would just be helpful to understand that.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Are you also saying that these trucks could not be stored at your place of business?
[Jessica Schiller]: they could if they had to, but again, that would be a little bit of an inconvenience to our tenant. And again, I'm not understanding why is it okay at 30th Spring and not this house?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I think I can sort of see where this is going and maybe others can as well, which is we need some clarification. And I really would suggest for for the applicant's sake to, they talk with the billing department to get a clearer picture of what it is that they're seeking relief for. I mean, in this case, it sounds like you're seeking a use variance, which you most assuredly will not get granted from, you know, based on, on, on what's, uh, the, the zoning district that you're in. So I think, you know, uh, you should probably have a conversation with the billing department, continue this matter, and then we can revisit it with some clarification from the person who actually wrote up that, um, that order.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Um, I mean, the matter that we have to consider is that they're not an applicant for anything. They're asking for an enforcement letter issued by the city's building commissioner to be overturned. So we would have to make a determination that the city's building department was in error and overturned that. We, you know, Let me kind of put up on the screen. I'll share my screen here so that we can go over the letter so everybody can see it.
CR2. So I just have a lot of tabs open. The right one. Okay. So the building department, uh, on January 27th. Issued this letter. Notice of violation for running a gutter company out of his house at 91 Waterville road. there have been three site inspections by a city building inspector, one at the end of July of last year, 2025. Um, and then two more in October and the building inspector based on those site visits, um, made the finding that the Wilders violated the Medford zoning ordinance in each. Let me just make sure you can see this a little bit better. No building structure or land shall be used or occupied except for the purposes permitted. And this property, there's a couple of photos there. We've gotten more since then.
Um, there were notices of violations and tickets that have not been paid and that this property is in an SF 2 zoning district and does not allow commercial activities to take place, which the building inspector, uh, asserts, uh, he observed. So Mike already went through these 5, um, the five actions to abate and correct. Uh, if this continues, uh, and is not followed, you know, the building commissioner will need to do a site visit and, you know, there could be a civil or criminal proceedings to correct.
[Yvette Velez]: So abatement and correct is what they should be doing, then they should not have come here because it sounds like it was a miss.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: No, well, they're they're appealing. They have the option to appeal within 30 days. And that's the that's the decision that they made. So they have not they've decided not to pay the violations and. or to follow the abatement actions in the letter. And they are appealing the determination by the building inspector. And we, it's our job to decide whether to, um, uphold the violation letter or to overturn the city's building inspector and his decision. Um, So, I'll let the wilders say 1 more comment and then what I'd like to do is take public comment and then we can go into deliberation of the board. So.
[Jessica Schiller]: Sorry, just a clarity question. When you say we haven't paid our violations, what are those violations you're referring to?
[SPEAKER_22]: We also never received any inspection. I mean, some pictures on the street, anyone can take, you know, as I was saying, like we could do being, we were doing like some work in the house, someone took the pictures while they're running a business out of the place, but we never received an inspection. Someone, you know, going and can we inspect? Like we never received a ticket or a citation. Yeah, we did. But not a ticket. Which fine? We didn't even know we were supposed to pay a fine.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I'm just reading what we have in the letter before us, which says... Um, notices of violations and tickets as yet unpaid. So that's what it says in the letter.
[Jessica Schiller]: Um, possible at least offline to get a copy of this violations and fines that we have that, that we were served that are unpaid.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Um, uh, Dennis, is it possible to try to contact Paul to see if he can join the call? Dennis may have stepped away for a moment. Why don't we go to the let's go to open up the public hearing and then we can continue deliberations. Are there members of the public here who would like to to speak on this matter?
[SPEAKER_00]: I would.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I'm sorry, who could name?
[SPEAKER_00]: My name is Mike. I'm the next door neighbor.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, and can you just state your name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yep, Michael Ciroccello, 97 Waterville Road, Medford, Mass.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you.
[SPEAKER_00]: So my infant son is the one who's most affected by the neighbor running their gutter business out of their home. His bedroom window is right above where they keep their large work truck, where every weekday morning at 7 a.m., anywhere from two to four workers start loading and unloading equipment into their two work trucks in the driveway. It's impossible to be quiet when they're moving large extension ladders, those 80 and 100 foot ladders they talked about, onto the top of their truck. They're putting gutters and other heavy equipment into their trucks, as well as opening and closing those roll-up doors, all by doing this, keeping their trucks idle. They've woken up my son in the morning and during his afternoon naps. He's an infant. He doesn't deserve to be woken up throughout the day. This is a residential neighborhood that the owner treats like a commercial neighborhood. I just want to share one quick story about how bad it is for my infant son. Two weeks ago, he got his measles, mumps, and rubella shot. That night, he woke up with a fever. It was very difficult to get him down, to calm him down. We finally got him down. He was going to sleep, and an hour later, Paolo takes his work truck, parks it right below his window, and proceeds to move one of those 80, 100-foot ladders off the bed of his truck. That makes a ton of noise. It hits the ground. It wakes up my son. So now I have an infant who's woken up. He's crying. He's got a fever. They constantly are having workers at their house. In the morning, they load everything from one truck to another, from their basement to the trucks. This is not just a seasonal thing. This is all year. Even in the wintertime, their workers get there at 7 a.m., and from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m., they leave their trucks idling in the driveway. This is not right. This is a residential neighborhood that they're treating like a commercial neighborhood. You know, I'm sure the owner wouldn't want a business operating right next to his house, waking up his family, but why is it okay to do to my family? Why does my infant son have to be woken up every morning because he wants to operate their business out of a residential home? The owner should not be able to run this gutter business out of their house. They shouldn't be able to use their garage and basement to store all their inventory. The workers should not be able to leave their cars all along the street. The owners know what they're doing is wrong. Paul Smith has talked to them multiple times. They've told him that, oh, yeah, we'll put everything in inventory. We'll move the trucks. We'll do this. We'll do that. It's been six months, and they've done nothing but wake up my son, and they make a ton of noise every morning. 7 to 8 o'clock every morning, they do this. And then every week or two, they'll do a big unloading where they'll bring their truck in, and they unload for an hour or two hours right into the house. I don't think I'm being unreasonable asking to keep this a residential neighborhood. The Fulton Heights neighborhood is a great neighborhood. There are a ton of families in here. I'm asking you to please enforce these zoning laws to keep this a residential neighborhood. And when you think about this, when you're making your decision, please think about my 12-month-old child who constantly gets woken up by them. They're noisy. What they're telling you, it's not a one thing, not a here and there thing. It's every weekday morning they do this. They have trucks there. They have employees show up there. And I'm happy to answer any questions, and I will answer them truthfully.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you very much. Uh, are there other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Can you just state your name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes. Um, my husband and I and Jim flask up 30 spring street.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, so we live next to them on spring street for the last 5 years. We've never had any issues with them or their trucks. They used, they parked them in the driveway. They never gave us any trouble. We never saw any customers or really any of the business part of it affecting us. There was never any in and outs. We never even knew they were really, the employees came, took the trucks and left. There was never any noise problems. We really didn't have any issues with them. They're wonderful neighbors and they've done a wonderful job with their house. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Just to be clear, 30 Spring Street is a different property than the 91 Waterville.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes. They used to store their vehicles for about five years or four or five years at that property. They did have them in their driveway off the street.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Other members of the public who would wish to speak. Okay. I don't know if Dennis is back. Dennis, we can't see you if you're back there.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry about that. I forgot. I hadn't turned my camera back on. Yeah.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, and Dennis, have we received any written emails or testimony on this matter? We have not.
[SPEAKER_09]: Okay.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, I don't know if you heard my question earlier, if it would, if it's possible to get, uh, Paul at all on the phone here, I can send a message and see.
[SPEAKER_09]: Okay, thank you.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Danielle.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to ask a question just so I can better understand this. So the Wilders, they live at 30th Spring or no?
[SPEAKER_22]: Uh, yeah, I was.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Yes. Okay. And then you were, this activity used to be at that location.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yes. Yeah. We stay here for like five years.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Did you get any permissions to do that there or no. See, I don't think that was allowed there either to be perfectly frank, but it's just a little busier and probably, you know, it's not as quiet. So, you know, maybe loud ladder loading or maybe business is busier now, but you wouldn't have been able to do that at 30 spring either. Now it's been moved to some place that's bothering people and that's when the complaint happened. A lot of enforcement in the city is complaint driven, so you can kind of coast along and have no issues, but once there's a complaint and it's reported, that's when enforcement action happens. So you might need a commercial garage somewhere to store this stuff. You can't store materials and operate a business at 91 Watervale, which the more that I'm hearing this, now I'm really understanding why this has happened.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Danielle. Um, let's, uh, is there a motion to close the public portion of the hearing?
[Mary Lee]: Motion to close.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mary. A second.
[Unidentified]: I'll second.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Jim. All right. A roll call vote to close the public comment period. Uh, Mike. Hi, Jim. Hi, Yvette. Hi, Chris. Hi. And Mary. Hi. Thank you. All right, public hearing comment period is closed for the hearing. Now we'll move into deliberation among the board members. Board members, what do you think? And again, just to be clear, the Zoning Board rarely sees enforcement actions. It's been very strange that we had one last month and we have one this month, but these appeals are to essentially overturn the actions of the city's building department. And the question for us is, these enforcement actions happen all the time without the zoning board being in the middle of them. And the question is whether we feel that it rises to the level that we want to intervene and overturn. If we were to say no, then it would proceed with the city and the enforcement action would proceed as normal. Jim.
[Unidentified]: With everything I've heard so far and seen, I am absolutely not comfortable with overturning the building inspector's decision.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Jim.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Chris. I would say the same exact thing, and I wanted to be clear, and I think part of the issue is the applicant perhaps went into this with honorable intent, and just perhaps a little bit unsure of what is going on here and how this may affect anything in the future. I will again reiterate that if And this is mostly for the applicant, I guess, that if they do not request the continuance of this and try to work it out with the billing department, that our vote tonight may have repercussions for them. And it's something that I believe, as chair, you could allow them to continue if they request to do so. But, uh, I'm intending to not vote against overturning the, um, building commissioners, uh, building inspectors, um, letter.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Uh, just a question. I'm not even sure we can continue this matter. Uh, Dennis, is this something that can be continued? You're on mute.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, honestly, I'm sort of thinking I don't really see why not if it's requested, but I honestly don't. Again, I mean, I've been staffing the zoning board for 12 years this last month where the 1st, 2 of these types of issues we've had come before us in those 12 years. So, I mean, it's kind of good in a way, but it also means that we just don't have. I don't—genuinely, my answer is I don't know. I would assume so, but I don't want to say yes or no outright.
And again, I did text Paul and have not heard back.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay. Well, I mean, on that issue, before I go to Mike here, Mike, do you have something to say on that issue, the continuing
[Mike Caldera]: This is not why I raised my hand, but my understanding is we could effectively continue anything for just about any reason by vote.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: And that's what I was going to say is that, um, if there's a desire to, um, to make this decision with the building inspector and present and get feedback. And if there is a desire by the appellant, um, the wilders to find out more specifically what, um, you know, the issues are, the violations are, and if there's a set of standards, then I would be open to continuing this matter till next month. But it's really up to the board members. And again, the voting members on this issue will include Chris and Mary. Yeah, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I mean, from my perspective, so first of all, for an application like this, the burden of proof is on the proponent to establish that the building commissioner made an error. And examples of what that might look like in a case like this would be explaining to the board specific activities that you want to do at the property that you don't consider to be running the business out of that property or providing details about how actually the materials that you use to run this business or other things are typically stored in some other location that isn't the two residential locations we talked about today.
The board doesn't have that information. And so the board would either need it or would vote tonight based on the information it has. So yeah, I mean, I certainly did not see much evidence to overturn the building commissioner presented tonight.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I would, you know, I've heard the concerns around the continuance and I'm totally open to that if that's the will of the board. You know, my question would just be, we've heard that there's only two addresses for this business, and they're both single family or they're both like residential properties, neither of which allows a commercial business to be operated there. And so that's really the question that I have. I mean, if there's no commercial address for the It's kind of hard to come to a conclusion that they're not running a business out of a residential property. So, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, this is more just the original connection with the Wilders got dropped or lost and there is a Trisha on the line and I'm just seeing is that.
[Jessica Schiller]: Yes, sorry, that's us. Okay, all right, fine.
[Denis MacDougall]: I just want to make sure you were still listening in on the call while this was going on, because if you weren't, we would have to just... Yeah, no, yeah.
[Jessica Schiller]: Great, thank you. Thanks.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so board members, what are your thoughts about this matter? Would you want to continue? Do you want to take a vote?
[Yvette Velez]: Andre, I would... be comfortable voting only in the fact that I didn't understand initially that the other address was a true residential space. And I am in agreement with you that regardless, if you're having this type of commercial business that requires physical things of ladders and materials, There's no doubt in my mind, you're probably storing it and doing it out of one of those houses, right? And so that's not appropriate or within the means. So I'd be comfortable voting at this point. I feel like I have enough information.
But I'll leave it up to other folks and what they think if we want to put it on pause to hear exactly what the inspection has witnessed in their three visits.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thanks a bit.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Mike. Um, so my perspective is if the applicant wants us to continue so that we could hear the inspectors take on why they consider it to be a violation. And so the applicant could present additional evidence as to why actually it's not, then I would be open to that. But I tend to agree with Chris and Yvette that I'd be comfortable voting tonight. And so if the applicant wants to do that, just keep in mind, you'd actually have to learn something new that would sort of help us overturn the building commissioner. If you don't think that information exists, then there's probably no point in continuing it.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mike. So Mr. and Mrs. Wilder, would you, oh yeah, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, this is also just, and this is actually for the Wilders. I just had a thought, and so I just checked with Danielle. We actually have in our office Kayla Maros. She's an economic development person. She's actually, one of her jobs is to help find business, help businesses find places to work out of. And if you want, just shoot me an email tomorrow. Kayla's unfortunately out, sick right now, so she's not in, but she'll be back in next week. And then that might sort of help this matter as well, because I mean, you're a business in Medford, we'd like to keep you in Medford. So I think that's another sort of aspect of this that I just sort of, I'm thinking from the other half of our office, business development and things like that. So if that's, if you want to do that, just shoot me an email and I can put you in touch with her.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you. That's really helpful, Dennis and Danielle. Thanks for that suggestion. So given that, Mr. and Mrs. Wilder, would you request a continuance or would you?
[Jessica Schiller]: Yes, that would be helpful. Again, we're happy. We want to be compliant. So whatever. Again, more information for us would be helpful than just simply you're running a business out of your home.
[SPEAKER_22]: That would be great. Yeah. in the business out of her home. So yeah, they'll be nice containers. Yes, Danielle.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I just wanted to ask, is there a place where they store materials? Do you have at least a storage unit somewhere or a garage on a commercial property somewhere that you can at least pivot to in the meantime? Because I know I would be You know, I'd probably go insane if I was living next to ladders loading every morning.
[SPEAKER_22]: It's not true. You don't live there, so maybe you don't know what the employees are doing.
[Jessica Schiller]: So I've got a company needs ladders. So obviously we're not taking the ladders off our vehicles on a regular basis. That's not what's happening. And also, yeah, whatever.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: At least maybe talk to the employees and try to ask them to be especially quiet. And for the meantime,
[Jessica Schiller]: I guess, yeah. So the nature of living in Medford is people exist. It's not silent. As someone who lives on 30 Spring Street.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: We don't live next to businesses and single family residences. That's why we have zoning and uses are allowed in certain areas. And this use is not allowed. So just asking that you kindly be conscious of the neighbors that live there. You don't live there, so you probably aren't exactly sure. Respectfully, and I'm upset now.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, you know, I'm sorry. Can I speak now? What? Oh, yeah. I mean, we have like other homeowners, you know, and they reach out to me when they received the letter to join tonight's tonight's Zoom, you know, appealing. And I said, no, that's fine. I didn't know what was happening, actually. How would it will be? So I said that there was no need for them to join. But they would say, listen, I've been living with you guys and we've never had any issues. And of course, if we have another opportunity, I can ask them to join, like, you know, the neighbor in front of our house, who lives up the street, two houses. And they don't have, like, they don't feel bothered, you know, like, at all. And I don't, Of course, I speak with my workers, my guys, and they try to be as careful as possible. I would be happy to offer some camera or some noise device to prove that it's not loud, there's no letters. banging no, like 800 pound letter, like the neighbor was saying like 800 feet, 800 pound letter. Like that doesn't even exist. I mean, um, yeah, we're, we're going to be compliant for sure. So just would like to understand why, why we are doing that. So like, I think, um, right.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I think there's a possibility that the board may vote for continuance, but it's up to them. And, uh, I think what Danielle was suggesting was if that happens, which again is just a possibility at this point, that you do everything that you can to ensure that no business activities are happening on your residential properties. That's just the fundamental issue. Our role as a board is to, we're the zoning board of appeals, is to uphold the zoning rules of the city. So we're not here to, evaluate how loud you are or not. It's really whether there's just a residential use happening in residential areas. Yeah, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so if the board were to continue, the cease and desist is in effect. So like you actually have to comply And just as a reminder. you could just let the building inspectors do a site visit and stop doing the thing they said to stop doing. And that would also satisfy the terms of the letter.
[SPEAKER_17]: So how do we do that instead?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: The letter has the building inspector's name on it, Paul Smith. And I would reach out to him.
[Jessica Schiller]: So, if we do a continuance, then we have the opportunity, though, to, like, tomorrow call Paul to do a site visit. Correct?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Well, that, as Mike Caldara said here.
[Jessica Schiller]: Sorry, just so I understand.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, the letter is the letter. It's in effect. Unless we overturn it tonight, which I'm sensing will not happen, but. So I think you still have to, you still have to abide by the rules of the letter. And there will then potentially, if we vote on a continuance, there would be a vote no later than next month. Okay. Yeah, Mike, the neighbor, I just, we are done with the public comment period. So. I. unless there's something like new information that you're bringing to the table, I would say, just hold on.
[SPEAKER_00]: I just want to say, I think Dennis has a lot of videos and pictures that are not on the ticket that make this very clear what's going on.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Yeah, they are part of the public record. I believe they're in the shared public drive. I know I reviewed them. All right, do we have a motion from a board member either for continuance or to vote on this matter?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair? Yes, Chris. I make the motion to continue the matter of 91 Waterville Road until such time as we get more clarification from the building department and or
[Chair Andre Leroux]: The applicant, could we amend that to the next month's meeting? I don't know.
[Chris D'Aveta]: That's a Dennis question. Maybe.
[Denis MacDougall]: What was that? Sorry, I'm doing 2 things at once. And 1 of them was not listening. I mean, I was listening, but I was taking notes. So, yeah, that makes sense.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris made a motion to continue, but to an unspecified date, and I would suggest just continuing it to the next.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, so the next, sorry, the next hearing date is May 20th.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is that all right, Chris?
[Chris D'Aveta]: By me, it's only up to the legal ramifications, I guess.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is there a second for the? Second. Okay, thank you. All right. Roll call vote. Mike. Aye. Yvette.
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Jim. Aye. Chris. Aye. And Mary.
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, so the continuance to next month's meeting has been approved for this matter. But Mr. and Mrs. Wilder, again, the enforcement letter is in effect and I would recommend contacting the building inspector as well as Dennis on the economic development specialist to try to about, you know, locations for Medford?
[Jessica Schiller]: We'll do. Thank you.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, everybody. Dennis, could you read the next item on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: 64 Boynton Road. Applicants Stewart, Palaquin, and Jessica Wilhoff to build an addition to 64 Boynton Road within the rear yard setback, which is not allowed for the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Do we have the proponent here?
[CAS00002445_SPEAKER_21]: Hi, good evening. This is Jess Wilhoft and my husband, Stu. Sorry for the distraction. Our son, Arthur, was sort of in the background for a bit. So we appreciate the forum today to talk about our variants as it relates to the proposed addition at our home, specifically regarding the rear setback. Due to the current home's position on a uniquely shaped lot, we are kind of We have a hardship in terms of where we can build. And so we are asking for consideration tonight to allow a variance for the rear setback so that we could propose our addition. Just a little bit of a background regarding that. We really thought comprehensively about how we wanted to tackle this addition. We think with our growing family, it gives us a little bit more space to grow, but also wanted to maintain a lot of green space. So we don't think it's overly large for the neighborhood. and really wanted to focus on maintaining the character of the home, its original vintage, which is why we worked with our architect, who is also on the line today for additional questions, David Whitney, as well as our builder. So here for further support, Mike Dietering and John Bavuzzo as our consultants. So we have our full team here. I think we also presented to the board a letter regarding some details about the project, as well as a petition from our neighbors. So we did present this plan to All the butters as well, some additional neighbors, both along the point and on the pilgrim roads who are in support of it and didn't show any concerns to us at least.
So, I guess if you have any questions, I'll open it to you guys.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, great. Yeah, thank you. Do we have the architect? Maybe you could walk us through the visuals of.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Sure. Hi, my name is David Whitney. I have my mail on the screen. That's my email address. I'm trying to start video as well.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, we can see you. Would you be able to share your screen to walk through the material? I can give it a shot. Not one of us could do it too.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: You know, if you don't mind, I'm sure you're better at it than I am. You've got the permit set of drawings, I believe.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. The stamp plans, yes, I do. Hold on one second, and I will bring it up.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: You want to do it, Dennis? Yeah. Or you want me to do it?
[CAS00002445_SPEAKER_21]: We could also do it if it's easier.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I think Dennis is committed.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, they just were rotated, so I didn't want to just make sure that they are. All right.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Terrific. Thank you. So these drawings show that the proposed work. These demolition plans, if you scroll down to A1.1. Super, terrific, thank you. That shows the addition we're planning off the back of the house. The walls that are hatched in solid show the existing house, and the sort of hollow walls show the proposed addition. It's off the back of the house. We're trying to maintain the appearance of the house from the front as much as possible. We see this as a relatively modest addition.
Unfortunately, it's really a kind of an oddly shaped lot. The rear right-hand corner of the proposed addition is the point where we protrude into the setback. It's a shame on the lot in that it looks like this.
[Yvette Velez]: Can you just make your picture a bit bigger?
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. Super. Thanks. You see, it's that powder room in the back corner that projects into the proposed setback. The house has no bathroom on the 1st floor now at all. It was fairly small and humble and we're trying to expand it a bit to serve Jess and Stu's growing family. It's that back corner that protrudes into the setback. The lot is sort of a funny shape. Forgive me, do you have the site plan there? Are you able to share that as well? I don't know if it's in this set. I can switch over. It's not in my set of drawings.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, yeah. Hold on a second. I've got to switch.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I have it on my screen too, Dennis, if you want.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I had it called up, so it's just a matter of just... Thank you. I'm still not, Herbson, with sharing is going from one document to another.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Super, thank you. You can see is that property line across the top, the Boynton Road is labeled on the side. This shows both the existing conditions and the proposed addition. The lot line that's defined as the rear is the one we're coming up against. And it's a shame in the site, because boy, it looks like a side yard and it feels like a side yard. But per the zoning bylaws, it really, at least in Medford, it really operates as the rear setback.
But again, we're trying to be respectful of the neighborhood. It's a minor addition and we hope you will see your way to Alameda.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Does the board have any questions for the proponent?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, you're unmuted. Did you want to ask? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I missed it. What is the relief being sought for the dimensional? requirement?
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: I believe we project about three and a half feet into the required setback.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, it's 11.3, so it's 3.7 feet from the property line as proposed addition.
[Chris D'Aveta]: And it's only in the rear?
[Denis MacDougall]: 3.7 feet into the setback. Into the setback, yeah.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Into the rear, but not the side?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Correct.
[Denis MacDougall]: Correct, and only in that.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: It's a triangular lot, so it's kind of just that point diagonal. Yeah, got it. Okay. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Mike? Yeah, I may have missed it, but I'm wondering if did we already show the site plan? Because I think that would help people. Yeah, I think Dennis did put that up there.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: OK, great. Yeah, I already looked at it.
[Mike Caldera]: I just wanted to make sure. Yeah. Yeah.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Let's open the floor to public comment. Is there anybody on who would like to speak on this matter? I would.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes, name and address for the record. Aaron Knoplett, 35 Powder House Road. We're, we have bought to Justin's still. Great, thank you. I mean, my only comment is that we have no concerns that we would approve it if we were on the board. It's a, it's a tough lot to deal with. We have similar issues. And I don't think four feet is really an issue. Just knowing how the diagonal line goes. So I would approve it if it were me.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Are there other members of the public who would wish to speak on this matter? Dennis, did we get any written testimony on this?
[Denis MacDougall]: Did. I mean, we received a letter in support. It was signed by, I mean, I can, by nine budding neighbors to the property.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. I remember.
[Denis MacDougall]: It's all in support.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: That's in the file. It was just about all the properties around. Yep. Exactly. All right. Thank you. Is there a motion to close the public comment period? Don't move. Thanks. Is there a second? Seconded. Thanks, Chris. All right. Roll call vote. Mike. Aye. Jim. Aye. Yvette.
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris. Aye. Mary.
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right. Public comment period is closed. Now we enter into board deliberation. Board members, what are your thoughts? And for the purpose of the vote, just to note again, Chris and Mary are gonna be full voting members.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Chris. Mr. Chair, if I may ask the applicant, I just looked at an aerial shot on Google and I'm just curious if the proposed addition sits basically on top of what currently is a patio in the back.
[CAS00002445_SPEAKER_21]: It's a rear porch, yes.
[Chris D'Aveta]: The rear porch, okay. So that will take the place of that. And will it be roughly the same size as what we can see on the... It's a little bit further out.
[CAS00002445_SPEAKER_21]: I think it's about two and a half feet further out from the porch, but David might know better.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: I don't have that number in front of me, but that's approximate. Yeah, basically we take off a porch in the back of the house, replace it with a slightly larger enclosed space.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, I do see, there's a patio that sort of goes around the back that's a, you know, it's a white line on the Google aerial. So I was wondering how, you know, if that's roughly what you're going to occupy.
[SPEAKER_01]: I think that might be the, we have a cement walkway that goes around the perimeter that would be coming out as well, so.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Right, okay, so that will come out to roughly a little bit less than that distance perhaps.
[CAS00002445_SPEAKER_21]: A little bit less than that, yes.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mike. Yeah, I mean, the lot's clearly unusual. It seems like a really nice project. The neighbors are supportive, so I'm supportive. I think it would be a hardship to literally enforce.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you, Mike. And again, just to reiterate, you know, the standard for securing a variance. There's unique circumstances related to soil shape or topography of the lot. Um, there's, uh, you know, substantial hardship, uh, would be caused by strict enforcement of the zoning bylaw, and then relief can be granted without detriment to the public good. So. other board members wish to speak, especially about those standards?
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay. Do we have a motion on the floor? Make a motion to approve the variance. Is there a second?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Second. Okay. Thanks, Mary. All right, we'll have a roll call vote. Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris? Aye. Mary? Aye. All right, 5-0. The variance has been approved. Thank you very much. Dennis, do you want to just say what the next steps are?
[Denis MacDougall]: So, Justin, Stu, so what happens is I will work on the decision. It'll get reviewed by our legal counsel. And then once it's done all through that, it'll go out for the members for signing. Once they've signed it, it'll get filed in the city clerk's office. I know there's a lot here. So then that will start the 20 days appeals period. So at the end of, so once it's filed, And at the end of that 20 days appeals period, if there's been no appeals, then you will come talk to me. What you do is you get a letter of no appeal from the city clerk's office, and then you can go get the building covered. The building can walk you through that process once you get to that point. Great. So we've kind of streamlined some of the permit making write-ups. So I would say it would probably from, you know, I think a few weeks just to get it in. And then once, well, I'll let you know when the, when the permits filed and when the clock starts on that 20 days.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Great. Thank you, Dennis. Members of the board, thank you very much.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Thank you very much. Thanks for waiting. Cooper. All right, Dennis, what is the next item on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: 9 Sturgis Street. Applicant and owner merely need to build in addition at 9 Sturgis Street, which will extend existing non-conforming structure. That's requiring a special permit.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, thanks. So just to note, this is a fairly unusual circumstance because 1 of our zoning board members is the applicant. So, obviously, Mary will not be voting on this. I will be voting on this along with Chris. So, Mary, would you kind of walk us through the project?
[Mary Lee]: So, so thanks for staying late to hear me out. So, so, you know, I, we originally just wanted to to to extend a bathroom just to modify the bathroom. And when my contractor, he's actually on the phone. Um, when he opened up the ceilings, he noticed that they don't comply. So, I encourage him and say, let's make everything co-compliant and then say, to do that, we want to raise the ceiling. The structure, everything, all the renovation, all the remodeling is based on an existing. pre-existing, non-conforming foundation. We're not going away, we're not going sideways or anywhere, but only going up. And even when we go up, it's within the limitations of the method zoning code, which is two and a half stories. But I think the height increase is only 18 feet, which is also pre-existing to the tip.
The building department actually approved for 1 part of that renovation. And then somehow back in January, we were asked to ask the contractors to stop because we want to, we can't just raise 1 side. We have to raise the other side. So now we are stopped. And my understanding is that. because the location of the house is at a corner lot, that's why we're required to go through this process. So if the property is located other than at a corner lot, then this process will not be necessary. Again, it's only remodeling based on a existing foundation. And I think the issue is just the height, but even with the height is within the zoning code.
Okay, so, so, I guess, just to continue, because half of it is renovated. And we were stopped in January. That we have to go come to this board to ask for permission to continue, I guess.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, so just, um. Uh, I was. That was a little confused by some of the materials in the folder. And do you have your architect or contractor here to walk through it, the plan? Just to understand.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, the contractor. Edmund, are you on?
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes, I'm on.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: OK. And Edmund, I don't know if you can share your screen or we can put the plans up there. But it'd be helpful if you could just explain what the change is and what relief you need.
[SPEAKER_10]: I'm not sure about the zoning code in Medford. The only thing that my boss is doing, she's only bringing it up because her kitchen ceiling is only seven feet. Her bedroom ceiling is only seven feet. There are two by four ceilings and two by four joists. That's why she wanted to bring everything up to code, build it on the existing foundation. and only raise the roof. And so the structure is currently one story there? It's a one story and it will stay as a one story after we finish.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: And so it's going from, well, the internal height is seven feet, but what's the, so that's going to go up? The wall height. The outside wall height is seven feet.
[SPEAKER_10]: We bring it up to eight feet.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_10]: And that's the only change? That's the only thing, because everything else is not up to code. We're doing the floors too, because they are 2x4 floor choices. They built it with 2x4 back then. So we have to comply, they made it up to code. So we're doing the floors, we're doing all the exterior walls and the ceilings. You know, the roof, because the exterior ceiling height is only 8 feet. We're not doing 1020 feet is only 8 feet on the outside wall with the 9 pitch.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay, the board members have questions they'd like to ask. I mean, Mary, do you by any chance have like a photo from the outside to be able to. To see.
[Mary Lee]: You mean, oh, the half renovation, sure, I mean, so. So, Dennis, can I can I send it to somebody's phone number, the picture?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, it might just take us a few minutes if you send it to me, so.
[SPEAKER_12]: OK.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So I guess I'm just, maybe everybody else is clear on this, but what is the non-conforming part of the structure that requires a special permit?
[SPEAKER_10]: I guess the building department, I'm sorry, go ahead.
[Mary Lee]: My understanding is that the nonconforming part is that this house is located on a corner lot. It's not conforming.
[Denis MacDougall]: It's also it's. It's very close to the property line, so it's an existing house. Basically, everything in the house is within an existing setback, so any expansion to the house would be an extension of an existing non-conforming.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Right. So even though it's just one foot up, it's still that whole area is non-conforming. Yeah. Danielle, I see your hand raised.
[Mary Lee]: Excuse me. Sorry. Can I just send this to...
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I just sent some pictures to Dennis. Dennis, can you?
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Because I did a site visit. Before things go to your board, Scott always sends things to me to do the errors in the mission review. And the only thing is that the elevation drawings that you have don't don't match what is half built already. So it was really confusing. Like the window placement's different. Like the pitch of the roof didn't seem right. So I wasn't sure if what was being built is different from those drawings.
[SPEAKER_10]: Oh, actually, actually.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Confusing to follow. And then the plot plan seemed to be regarding, like there was a proposed addition on there that I, must be not what you're going ahead with, because I think it's like a, I don't, where is the, I'm looking for the plot plan again.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, I think that that plot plan was dated 2017, and actually back in 2017, this board approved for variants for a two-story, which we never proceeded with.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: So the plans were confusing to follow. I was having a really hard time following what was proposed and just going out there and seeing that it didn't seem to match. So I didn't know if there was another situation where the builders kind of
[Mary Lee]: It is trying to comply. So what happened was that, you know, I'm actually the trustee for this property and the owner is, it's a service member in the military. So that owner asked me to hire someone from Medford to do the drawings, to support the economic development of Medford. So I hire someone who actually, I think he's an old timer. He drew the plans by hand. But it's with the same elevation, with the same requirement. But subsequently, Scott said that doesn't comply with the standards. So I went to Quincy to hire a different architect.
for the drawing. So the current drawing that you have is the one from Quincy. And I do agree that the hand drawing from the first architect was very confusing. He used different colors and it was all hand drawn too.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I'm looking at the ones by JCBT, which look like they were done in Chad.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, that's Quincy. So I think I sent you an email maybe two days ago to explain the elevation part. Did you receive that email?
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Yeah, but you just, it was like a screenshot of the plans that I was confused by already. I was just saying that the placement is off. It just seems like what is being built right now doesn't quite match the permit drawings. And if these are going to be the control drawings.
[SPEAKER_10]: Well, if you look at the plans, it says existing and proposed. If you see the proposed, we will line up what we are building, but we didn't finish it. I mean, it didn't go out there with like a... Well, you got the addition, and in the middle of the addition, we got stopped.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I know, it just looks like the windows aren't quite right. Like, the proportions are different, just like eyeballing it, it just didn't look like... So why is the window not quite right? It's just not... What is being built doesn't match the drawing. I don't know if this... Usually, just the control set needs to match what you're going to build.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, when we finish, you'll match the drawing.
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, it was stopped in January.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I know, but the windows, there's windows in there. Dennis, can you put these up?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I'm just gonna, I was just waiting for a time to.
[Mary Lee]: So, Danielle, you're saying that the drawings don't match with the real build-out, or I'm not understanding.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: You have that front edition on, yeah, so, That one, that I'm looking at the elevation drawings, I'm just trying to figure out what is happening here. Like the windows are higher than, so you have your east elevation, that's the east elevation, no?
[Mary Lee]: Right? So you're saying this drawing doesn't, this picture photograph doesn't match the drawing?
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Yes, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't match. I'm happy to be mistaken.
[SPEAKER_10]: May I ask you a question? What is existing?
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I'm not trying to be a stickler. It just really is confusing.
[SPEAKER_10]: Well, as you see the existing, as you see what's going to be built, that's what we are doing. And as for what you see on the existing plan, on the upper left, which is the, I don't have my glasses, the front north, that's the existing how it was before we do the addition.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: Now, when we got the permit- When we started that, we had the permit to start building.
[SPEAKER_10]: and then when the owner wants to do the rest of the house, we made it up to code. So that's when we're at right now.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So we're not, just to understand, so this part that's this big addition, which is like the two and a half story piece that's here in green on the screen. Actually, that's an eight feet wall.
[SPEAKER_10]: That's what? That's an eight feet wall. The sidewall is only eight feet, and then you got the gable, the roof. It's not a big building. It's not a two and a half story.
[Mary Lee]: It looks two and a half story, but it's not.
[SPEAKER_10]: I know, it looks big.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: But actually, it's only eight feet wall. That's all it was. But I guess my question is that, but this part is not what we're talking about. The green addition has already been approved. That's not the part we're talking about, right? No, we're talking about- that asking about is about this the existing part to the right of that which is that correct that's the original part of the house that needs to be brought up another foot yes right yes exactly thank you and bring it up to code to bring it up to code that's the key so Yeah, so I mean, Danielle is.
So I guess what you've raised, Danielle, though, is different. You're raising concerns about the already permitted part.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: They have a stop work order, and they made them stop doing that part. I'm just confused. that what they were building triggered relief, because that was, did they go to the board for that? I don't think so. I think that's part of the issue. It was enough of a change that it triggered some kind of relief, because it wasn't just, because it's already non-conforming setbacks, yada, yada, yada, they altered them. It wasn't a straight building permit, and that's why.
[Mary Lee]: Edmund, can you clarify, did we get a stop order from anybody?
[SPEAKER_10]: I get a call from the building inspector to meet. I met with them. I think it was Ken and Paul. I met both of them at the site, and they looked at it. They took pictures of it. They see the roof. The old roof is two by four. It's open. And they saw the new section. and the new section is only eight feet on the outside wall.
[Mary Lee]: So Emma, did anybody issue a cease and desist order in writing?
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: No, nobody did.
[Mary Lee]: Nobody, so that was my understanding too.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: All right, that's what somebody, that's what I was told.
[Mary Lee]: Sorry, oh Daniel, so you're saying that there is a cease and desist order for this property? That's different from a stop work order. Or stop work, yeah, because I wasn't aware of that. All right.
[Senior Planner Danielle Evans]: I mean, you discontinued the work, right?
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so I think my understanding from Edmund is that I guess just need your permission for us to continue. And maybe what Dennis says is right, it's too close to the neighbor, but then again, it's more than what, five, five, seven feet or something like that.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So, I mean, I feel like what we, we have to be clear about what we're doing here. I mean, I think we can consider a, A special permit for the kind of existing part of the house. To, uh, extend. An existing nonconformity by raising the roof from 7 feet to 8 feet. Yes, correct and is that that's all that's being requested. Yes, that's you don't need more than that. Just no, no. Okay. All right. So that, I mean, that's my understanding of what we're talking about here. Not the. not the other part, but I, you know, again, correct me. I feel like if there's an issue with that part, that's already been constructed. Like that's kind of a, that's sort of a building, uh, department issue, right? I don't know that we have anything to do with that, but department's already been issued for that. That's why I'm just going off of what people are telling me here. Um, so Mike, you have your hand raised.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Andrea, I raised my hand. for a similar reason. So I think that you communicating that you had a similar take as I do is comforting to me. I thought my comment was either going to be super helpful or completely unhelpful. Like my reading of the agenda and my understanding of kind of the law and how the building commissioner was applying it is simply that extending any nonconformity maybe there's a handful of small carve-outs, but effectively, we see a lot of cases where it's, I'm extending a non-conformity, I'm not making it worse, I'm just modifying a structure, it triggers that threshold, I need a special permit. So this kind of sounds like one of those cases, and the analysis is very different than if it's like, oh my gosh, it's totally not the thing on the plans, which doesn't seem to be the relief being sought here. If we're just asking for the board to weigh in on, can we extend the existing non-conformity triggered by this roof height thing, then I think it's a simpler analysis.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes. All we're asking was to raise the roof and the outside wall.
[Denis MacDougall]: And just to clarify, this is still keeping it under what's allowed. So it's not, it's not like we're extending it and creating a new nonconformity. Like if you wanted to go up 30 feet or something like that, it's you're keeping it within the allowable height of the property.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Um, well, I feel like we could. Um, well, let's do the, we got to go through the process here. Hold on. Uh. Let's open, uh, public comments. Is there anybody who would like from the public who would like to comment on this matter? Dennis, have we received any written comments?
[Denis MacDougall]: You did hold on a 2nd. I'm just trying to receive the. Letters of support from. So, I'm just trying to count, right? From 6 of the abutting neighbors.
[SPEAKER_09]: Okay, thank you.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Any other any other comments just for the public, Jim, we'll get to just a 2nd. All right, seeing 9, is there a motion to close the public comment? Period. Thanks. All right. Thanks, Jim and Chris. Roll call vote. Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. Okay. The public comment period is closed. Let's move into board deliberations. Jim, you had raised your hand.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. So are we voting on, is a special permit to be able to raise the roof? Yes. In the wall?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yes. Okay. Yeah. So my understanding is that's just from seven to eight feet. Yes. In the existing part of the house, not in the, uh, actually it's eight feet four and a half inches. Okay. And let me just share my screen for a second. I want to make sure I'm just looking at the right thing here. So is this in blue? Is this the part we're talking about?
[SPEAKER_10]: No, we already have the permit for that part.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_10]: It's the right side.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So it's this side over here or is it down?
[SPEAKER_10]: How do I point it? The upper right or down? Okay. Go to the, uh, from the, from the, where the stairs come back to the corner and go straight across to the other side of the room. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_09]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_10]: From that point on the whole, the house is all, it's going to be this whole part. Yes. Whatever you see on the plans or on the picture that, um, that was not done. That's the part that we need to do.
[SPEAKER_09]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes, you see where the stove is? From the stove, the other side of the stove, all the way to the bedrooms, the whole entire area into the front. This whole area? Yeah, the whole entire area, the bay window, all the way to the front door.
[SPEAKER_03]: Oh, okay.
[SPEAKER_10]: That's the rest of the house that we need to make it eight feet, four and a half inches.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: I mean, is that anywhere in like plans that, is that part of these documents?
[Mary Lee]: Yeah, it's all in the drawings.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, board members, Thoughts?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, the neighbors are supportive. And as I understand it, it's a small change that would be allowed by right if the structure weren't already nonconforming. So it's not introducing any new non-conformities. It's just extending an existing non-conformity. So I don't see a substantial detriment to the public good in issuing a special permit here.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mike. Do other board members want to weigh in?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Yeah, Chris. Yeah, I don't see any detriment to the public good or to the surrounding neighbors for this renovation. In fact, it's probably an improvement. So I'm in favor.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: All right, anybody else? I would just say, I agree. I think when we make the motion though, because we don't have like the clearest of plans around this, we have to include in the special permit motion that... Actually, the plans itself shows the whole entire house on top of the foundation is going up eight feet.
[SPEAKER_10]: That's basically the one drawing for all, because the roof line has to match and everything.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So it's matching the other addition, is that what you're saying?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes. Yes. Okay. That's why the drawing is existing and opposed.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: So it's going up 8 feet. It's not going up to 8 feet. It's going up an additional 8 feet above where it is. It's only going up 8 feet. OK. Sorry.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's only going up 8 feet.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes, it's only going up eight feet.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: And I think, well, maybe that doesn't matter anyways, because again, if it's like within the existing, what's allowed in that district, that doesn't matter. We just need to approve the extension of the nonconformity. We're not approving a variance or so. Okay. Any further thoughts or emotion?
[Unidentified]: So is the motion, if we make a motion to grant the special permit, is that to allow the increase in the height?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: It would be, yeah, it's kind of confusing because the height is actually allowed in the district, but it's only non, it's a, it's a nonconforming structure right now. So we have to approve extending that even though it's not going out, it's just going up.
[SPEAKER_03]: So I'd like to make a motion to approve that, the special permit. Is there a second?
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Seconded. Thanks, Jim and Chris. All right. Roll call vote. Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Chris? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So the special permit is approved for Nine Sturges.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you very much.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And I guess, Mary, you know how to contact Dennis. I think so, yeah.
[Mary Lee]: One question, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Can I waive the appeal or the appeal is from other... No, no, the appeals, it's... Yeah, no, there's no way that you... Okay, okay, that's fine. Yeah, but yeah, no, don't call it.
[Mary Lee]: That's okay, I thought I'd ask. Thank you.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Okay, great.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Other items, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: The only other items we have are the approval of the meeting minutes.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Great. Have board members been able to read the meeting minutes? Mike, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I reviewed the meeting minutes and find them to be in order.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I did as well. Does everybody else feel comfortable voting at this meeting?
[SPEAKER_09]: Okay.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Is there a motion to approve the minutes for March 26th?
[Yvette Velez]: Motion to Chris.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Second. Thanks Mike. Mary seconded. A roll call vote. Mike. Aye. Jim. Aye. Yvette.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary. Aye. Chris. Aye. Okay. The meeting minutes are approved. Um, all right. Thank you. And I think we're all set. I just want to say that, uh, before we disband here, you know, real big, thank you to Mike Caldara, because it's just done. an amazing job as chair and really also helping get me up to speed and everything. So just thanks, Mike, for all your service to the board. Thanks, folks. It's been a pleasure. Wishing you the best. Yeah, we're going to miss you. You'll be missed.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Mary Lee]: Thank you, Mike.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Everybody else, got to do a lot more prep next time. All right, well, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. All right, thanks, Jim. Second? Second. Second. All right. Good night, everyone. Mike? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Chair Andre Leroux]: Mary I Chris I. All right, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody. Thank you very much. Good night guys.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you.