 It is 6.05 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25th, 2023. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals, calling this meeting of the board to order. I would ask all attendees who are not recognized to speak to please mute their connection until such time as they're recognized by the chair. First light to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the zoning board of appeals, Roger DuPont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Daniel Riccadelli is traveling. He will not be with us tonight. Venkat Holley. Oh, you Venkat. Venkat, do you hear? Yeah. There we go. Elaine Hoffman. Here. Thank you. And Adam Leblanc. Here. All right, thank you. Here on behalf of the town, we have Colleen Ralston, the zoning assistant. Here. Good to have you with us. And I believe Marisa Lau is also with us. Yes. Hi, Christian. Hi. Welcome. Here on behalf of the board, Paul Haverde, our technical review consultant. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Also, we have Sean Rudin from Tetra Tech. Good evening, everybody. Good evening. You know, we have Cliff Bomer from Davis Square. Hi, I'm here. Wonderful. We also, from the applicant, we have Paul Feldman with us. Good evening. Good evening. And I believe we're also joined by Matt and Paul Machuri. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening, I'm sorry. Thanks. No problem. Okay, so this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29th, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2025 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue meeting, holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to public meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting and the opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying inappropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on this meeting's agenda or on the town's website unless otherwise noted and I will note now that there was a flurry of new documents that came in this afternoon. They have not all been able to be posted due to the timing on that. I apologize for that. They will all be included on the record on the website for this project as very soon as we can. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda and as chair I reserve the right to take items out of order in order to post an orderly meeting turning to the comprehensive permit hearing for the residences at Mill Brook to be located at 1021 through 1027 Massachusetts Avenue. This evening the board is continuing the comprehensive permit hearing for the residences at Mill Brook, the redevelopment of an existing site in the neighborhood office B1 district. The submitted documents are available for the board's website or as an attachment to the posted agenda. This evening we plan to receive an update on the status of the wetlands permit hearing before conservation. The conservation commission conditions and comments from board's consultants. And if the board is satisfied that all information that is required to reach a decision has been received, the board may vote to close the public hearing this evening. After members of the board have had an opportunity to ask their questions to the applicant, the hearing will be open for public comment and questions on the topics discussed this evening. The board has reached the end of the scheduled hearings for this project under state law as extended by consent of the applicant. The public hearing phase of this project must conclude before April 30th, 2023. The board will hear a public comment this evening on topics related to what materials presented tonight. The comments from the public which are not received by the time the board closes the hearing cannot be accepted into the record. And at the conclusion of public comment, the board will discuss whether there's the need for an additional session or if the board is prepared to close the public hearing. At this point, I would like to introduce Attorney Paul Feldman to start off tonight's proceedings. Good evening, members of the zoning board. My name is Paul Feldman and I represent the applicant 1025 Mass Ave LLC. We were last before the board on Monday, April 20th at which time the applicant presented all the information that we thought the board had asked us to present in all the prior meetings and we felt that we had given the board everything necessary to render a decision. We submitted revised plans that brought up to date all of the comments and changes that have been made through the six months of public hearing so that the board has in its records the most complete and update set of drawings that it can reference in a decision if it chooses to grant the requested permit. The other thing we covered on April 20th was Mr. Hoverty had prepared a draft decision. We discussed it, comments were received by us and from others. Mr. Klein also provided some information and we were asked to propose any changes that we thought appropriate and get them to Mr. Hoverty, which we did. And we were also asked to update the requested waiver list to pick up a couple of additional waivers that upon review of the application we realized were necessary for this project and that was also submitted. We indicated that we had a hearing coming up which was held last Thursday night with the Conservation Commission. The hearing was a public hearing on the Notice of Intent under the Wetlands Protection Act. At that hearing, the Conservation Commission went through a proposed order of conditions that it was contemplating issuing the applicant. The Conservation Commission agent had put together approximately 51 conditions that they thought were appropriate in order to grant an order of conditions under the State Wetlands Protection Act. The hearing lasted about three hours because the commission gave the applicant an opportunity to go through those 51 conditions and provide comment. We did that and by the time we were completed the Conservation Commission had all our comments and the Conservation Commission seemed satisfied that the issues they wanted addressed should be addressed. The Conservation Commission closed its public hearing and proceeded to vote and unanimously granted an order of conditions for the requested project at 1021 1027 Mass Avenue. We requested the Conservation Commission if they were able to deliver to the Zoning Board the conditions that they thought were appropriate for the Zoning Board to consider in connection with the local bylaw, wetland bylaw that is issued pursuant to this comprehensive permit proceeding which we've been in. I saw an email earlier today that the Conservation Commission did so submit that to the Zoning Board. I reviewed what was submitted to the Zoning Board and the conditions conformed to the conditions that was voted upon last Thursday night by the Conservation Commission. I've also looked at the latest draft decision that was circulated by Mr. Haverty. The whole goal with regard to at least wetlands protection is to try to have both the order of conditions under the State Wetlands Protection Act and to the extent that the local bylaw is issuing a permit under the local wetlands bylaw for this project to have any conditions conformed. So they don't conflict. They conform with one another and we know the rules of the road going forward. I suggest to the Zoning Board that it consider when it deliberates and works on its comprehensive permit decision that if it's going to approve this project that it import virtually wholesale all the 51 conditions that the Conservation Commission has proposed under the State Wetlands Protection Act into the comprehensive permit. I say almost wholesale because when I went through the conditions there are a couple of conditions are drafted for the State Wetlands Protection Act and make reference to the potential issuance under the comprehensive permit. And obviously you'll have to modify that condition in the context of it being included in the comprehensive permit. But that's worth smithing more than it is any substance. The other thing we would request and the reason why we would ask that the Board rely on the conditions as presented by the Conservation Commission or Wetlands related matters is because while there are some conditions on that subject matter in the draft comprehensive permit that we've received there are inconsistencies and that's exactly what we're trying to clear up. Just to illustrate, we've spoken to this Conservation Commission about an enhanced monitoring period where we would agree to monitor the development of the woodwind restoration forest for a 10 year period. And there's a draft condition in the comprehensive permit that covers that subject. There's also a draft condition that covers the same exact subject in the Conservation Commission's Wetlands Protection Act order of conditions. The Wetlands, the Conservation Commission wanted certain changes that don't appear in the comprehensive permit. For example, they wanted the condition to be clear as to when the monitoring period commences. So they drafted language as to exactly when the monitoring period commences. They also wanted to be clear that they wanted us to achieve 90% survival through the initial monitoring period of three years, which in the current draft of the comprehensive permit, it only speaks about 80% survival. And so I'm just trying to illustrate that the Conservation Commission conditions on some of the subjects that are even covered in the comprehensive permit are I think more thorough. There may be some language from the draft comprehensive permit decision that you want to add that's completely up to the discretion of the board. All that we ask is that you avoid conflicting requirements so that we have a clear understanding of what our obligations are going forward if a permit should issue. So that's where things stand with the Conservation Commission. I think you have everything you need from them and you're in a position to address conditions for the local order of conditions in this comprehensive permit. My final thing that I'd like to say and I'll turn it back over to the chair is I'd like the opportunity to provide certain information in response to certain open items in the current version of the draft decision. So we can give the applicants feedback on a couple of points. So the board has our position known to it when it deliberates on the requested comprehensive permit. So if the chair allows and when the time is right I could quickly do an indication some of which are just cleaning up typos some of which are a little bit more substantive and provide the applicants feedback. Matt? Yes, in addition to Paul's comments I think it would be, I just had a chance to review the merging of our the decision that we had most recently marked up with the decision marked up by Attorney Havardy and just getting through a lot of that this afternoon and I do have some comments for discussion. So I guess somewhat similar to what we did with the Conservation Commission. I would like to quickly go through this decision and address some things that could be an issue for us or just at least discuss those items if we have the opportunity. And this is in addition to the stuff we discussed last time. Oh yes, because the red line that we sent to Almond recently has some conflicting, conflicts in areas that could be problematic for us on the project. And I think it's just best to go in order through the decision if we may. Okay, just first briefly I wanted to go through. So these are findings that were prepared by the Conservation Commission and requested to be a part of the comprehensive permit. The first, the project meets the Arlington-Wetland regulations climate change standards through consideration of climate change, resilient native plantings, and the native plants control stormwater management system. The only question I had for the applicant was, they specifically mentioned NOAA 14 plus plus, but I think you guys only use NOAA 14 plus, which is what is currently listed in our documentation. And I just wanted to see if you knew specifically which way it is. It's plus plus. It is double plus. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And then the second was the project includes a small amount of impact in the outermost portion of the adjacent upland resource area, which is defined in the Arlington-Wetland regulations. The impact is mitigated by the significant improvements made to the restored wetland area, which is partly within the aura and wholly in the riverfront area. So essentially these comments from them are just stating that the application as it stands today is essentially in compliance with the Arlington-Wetland's bylaws. So we will make sure that those get included. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. This is, I'm getting used to it. This is a point of order, I think, but is it possible as we go through this, especially as we go through Mr. Hoverty's decision and deal with the comments that the applicant has, if it's possible to make this bigger, so that it's actually legible on the screen, but I can't read what we have here. Even on the big model. Absolutely. Absolutely. At this point, I was gonna go from here on to the final submitted comments from Sean Reardon from Tetra Tech. Is that easier to read, Pat? It is now, yeah. Okay. Christian, these are all up on the town website. Do they need to see if they need to see them? Oh, wonderful. Thank you. So essentially, so these are updates, updates. So here's the first one, Sean, that's dated as today's date, which was just that the vinyl fence is gonna be replaced by cedar and that has been confirmed in the conservation commission's documentation so that it's noted as resolved. This is about the traffic study and some additional documents requested, it's been resolved. Number 67. So this is really the only thing substantive that not really hasn't been resolved, but all of the other comments reflect that the applicant has addressed the prior comments. This is just something that I think, just in closing is worth considering. It's not a requirement by any means, but it's something that I wasn't sure if it had ever gotten resolved in any sort of conclusive way. There is still, it just, it feels like there's a lack of loading space for the facility. I know they can get into the garage and use that, but it seems like we've got a pretty good solution out front by just sort of replacing the existing on-street parking that's out there right now with a loading zone. It does a couple of things that I think you yield some clear benefits. One is it increases sort of the site distance available to cars exiting the garage. As you know, if cars are parked there, you can't see to the east as well as you could otherwise. Granted, if there's someone loading, it's kind of a similar problem, but you're gonna have a longer periods of time where there's not gonna be anybody there. It's gonna help people as they're exiting. And then just, it's just a good way that the building will have some open space out in front of it for, as everybody knows, the amount of delivery vehicles now with Amazon making multiple deliveries during the day, FedEx and Postal Service, just a much more convenient way to sort of serve the building. Mr. Cherif, if I just could point out- Mr. Thelman? Yeah, the recommendation here is that the board consider a condition requiring this. I think it's not up to the board to reallocate the parking spaces that probably the select man or the DPW. So if you get a draft a condition on this subject, I ask that it be written as that the applicant request modification of the parking spaces of certain parking spaces in front of the building to be a loading zone instead of on-street parking. We'll make that request, but we can't. If it's a direct condition and somebody denies that request, it will be in violation of our permits. So I'm just stating the obvious. And the only thing I also wanna point out is we wouldn't wanna convert all of the spaces. I think it's the ones that you're sort of adjacent to the access drive, because there is a commercial space in the building that would benefit from having a couple of on-site spaces. We have plenty of footage. I think Mr. Reardon's idea is a very good one. It's just when the board agrees with this idea and it's gonna draft a condition, just cover the fact that all we can do is request and we wouldn't seek to have all of the off-street parking removed, just a sufficient amount to create the loading zone concept that Mr. Reardon just described. Okay. Well, thank you for that. And yeah, as everyone has already said, the board is not within the board's description to reallocate the street spaces. We have this current one. Yeah, you'll find all of them have been resolved. Yeah. There's two piddly little comments that I added at the end in case other revisions are required, they just might wanna clean them up a little bit. But by no means do they have to be, the plans have to be changed to address those two minor comments. Yeah, that's just 80 and 81. It was just a numbering issue on some of the drawings. That's it. That's it. Yeah. Perfect. And that, I was gonna quickly go over to the last set of comments. These are from Cliff Boehmer. This is based on the first draft we had put out. So it's, the surrounding stuff has changed, but I did want to get to the ones that, whoops, Cliff had mentioned. The first stuff, this is under landscaping, just the tree protection and preservation plans that it should include trees on neighboring sites. There was discussion in the rear, towards the rear of the property on the right-hand side, that protecting those trees that are adjacent to the property line. Just wanted to show that that's included. Yeah, so a point of order, Mr. Chair. That's not the right, I would suggest that's not the right place to add that concept. There is a later condition that talks about protecting trees. And this is about the plan for the project site. And so this, I would add this concept, I think it's already covered later in the decision, and I could point it out. If it's not sufficiently covered, I just think this concept belongs in the other condition that's already there. Okay. And the construction mitigation plan, are the final plans, the permit drawing is submitted to the building department, are the, submitted a few weeks ago to the ZBA, the former. So the bill, I had been inquired of the town as to whether on 1165 Bar Mass Ave, which is the comprehensive permit that's under construction currently up the street. As to whether they required the hiring of additional reviewers for those applications. And I was told they did not. And so, and the applicant has requested that the 45 dates, I believe in this case be reduced to 30, is that correct, Paul? That's correct. And this language has changed to say that you would hire someone only if the town didn't have the expertise to address the issue on their own. So this is the older version. This concept has already also been addressed. I apologize for marking up the older version. No, that's perfect. Then here, so the architectural plans you're saying it should be full construction documents? Yeah, and that's just because I don't recognize architectural plans as a term of art. So it's really much broader array of plans that need to be submitted and approved. So it's a detail, it's an edit. I don't think it adds any burden onto the applicant. It's what the building inspector would expect to see. We're fine with it. Perfect, thank you. And then sprinkler system contractor shall prepare for building commissioners review, well-developed NFPA 241 plan ensures life and property safety during construction period. I think that's a building code requirement as well. Well, sort of. And Christian, you're right. That's generally been my impression as well, but I've recently done some hearings in other towns where there appears to be ambiguity about the degree to which the code actually does require it. My only comment on this section was since the decision is waiting into very specific NFPA requirements, I would hate for that one to be missed. It is normally, and I will just have one emphasis point, which is this is a kind of infill project. It's between a small wood frame building on the right-hand side and a multifamily masonry building on the left-hand side. And if there were any serious issues during construction, you'd wanna be sure that that was a requirement, whether or not there was ambiguity in the code about whether it's enforceable. Great, thank you. The construction completion provided a letter to the board signed by the African Civil Engineer certified on the structure and supporting infrastructure. And their comment was to include architect and other engineers in that final sign. I just have never seen this language. I would limit this kind of certification to the civil engineer. That's the only reason I added that. I'm sure Mike Novak doesn't wanna certify anything on the building. No. That was my main point. Not to demean the profession of civil engineering, but it doesn't check all boxes. I agree this E-8 was a little bit, and we've sort of been massaging this language as well. That electric heat and electric hot water is the intent for the project. So that has been fixed. Great. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Matt. I'm not quite sure I understood the most recent thing. Does that mean that we are no longer looking at reasonably available language and it's just straight out heat and water, is there, what is the resolution? I gather there is a resolution, but I don't know what it is. So when we come back to the updated draft and we go through the other questions, we'll come back to this one. Okay. It's resolved the way you believe this for Hanlon. Yeah. You know, this is getting a little confusing looking at a previous version, for sure. No, I just wanted to make sure that we cover the topics and then we'll move on. So for those spaces coming to structured garage spaces and surface parking spaces. This is just a typo level. Okay. Yeah, because we don't actually have any surface parking spaces technically. They're all structured, aren't they? Yeah. The stairways, garages, I think we've run into this one before. Yeah. And because it's a podium building, it's actually a three hour separation. And so I think what the board should consider is just saying that the fire ratings must be per the building code rather than being specific about. That's right. It shouldn't be prescriptive. Yeah. Okay. Compliance with all state building code and FPA requirements, fire access and safety should be met including during the construction period. That's a reference back to the 241 plan. Yep. And then the elevators, that is correct. We're doing an emergency generator back. That's a gas fire generator for the elevators. Right. My point was that generally, and I think Matt probably agrees with me, generally only one of those elevators would be powered by the backup generator. In the current draft, it says as required by the Massachusetts Elevator Code, we've addressed it. Okay. Terrific. Yeah. That's all for that one. Might be it. Mr. Chair, I did want to come out. I did review the plans as well, all of the drawings. And I'm very satisfied that most of everything we talked about was really looked at and much of it integrated into the current set of plans. So I just want to point that out. The conditions in that were the parts that just needed some tweak in from my perspective. Great. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm just going to try to go through these somewhat quickly and pick up places where we need to cover stuff. I know, Matt, you said you had some that you specifically wanted to address. I think it would make sense if we could to, Paul, do you have the ability to share your screen with the merge? No, no. That's what this is. I think we got to do it this way. This is the, Matt, if we just do a page turn, when we come up to an item, we should just point to the item and point out the issue. I think we got to work off of this draft. We would really confuse things by putting up my room. So I didn't have anything on the first four items and I didn't have anything through item 12. There are a couple of questions there. Is there evidence of assignment in the record? Yes, we provided the board with the assignment of the persons and sale agreements by both sellers to the applicant. So that information is part of the record. Yeah, we have both the, we have the purchases and sale agreements for both of those properties. And the assignments. Yeah. Can we go back up the top? Which paragraph number, Matt? So number seven continues, unless I'm missing something, continues to go back to 1,658 square feet of ground level commercial. It's 1,700, approximately 1,700. It's 1,700, but I just want to make sure we're getting credit for that additional footage, please. All right, so you want 1,700, okay. Okay. So that's a change that comes up many, many times. Are you going to set up in the construction plans as well? It's 1,700 on the construction plans. The last set of construction plans I had said 1,658, which is why I was putting in 1,658. So I just wanted you to make sure you're catching that. Stand by a second. You do have the word approximately in there. That gives you some flexibility. Right. Yeah, I mean, if it turns out to be 1,658, approximately 1,700 is good enough. Right. Okay. So these numbers I have advised figures for comment three from the Department of Planning and Community Development. So we will incorporate those and those were from April of, I believe it was April of 2022. And what's the new percentage? The new percentage is 6.54. Oh, good. As of April 27th, 2022. It's another, just another thing that this project is 1021 through 1027. And it still goes back in some places to 1025. I just want to make sure that we're referencing 1021 and 1025 through 1027, which is the same as 1021 through 1027. Okay. Back to, I'm sorry. I said a question on number five. So it says additionally, the property contains significant pavement covering approximately 25% of the property. And I'm saying for a current total impervious area of 36% are we suggesting are we talking about the as improved fully improved as built percentage at 36% is that what that is alluding to? I just couldn't. No, that is the current as of today impervious area on the site. The impervious is only changed by a couple of points, Matt. No, no, okay. Just making sure. Yep. Going down, my next comment is just 19. In 19, there's a... Okay, we're not there yet. Yeah. And so this gets at what you were asking before about 1021 through 1027. So we'll go through, we'll make sure we correct that. Okay. Going forward. And then on 18, here we, it's looking for a specific number of square feet. The information we have from the conservation commission just says, you know, a small area. And so as long as everyone's comfortable with adopting a language, I don't think that's an issue. It's all the way down at the bottom, next to the parking lot and the site. It's right where the first hundred feet is. It's just a little teeny strip. We don't have a square. Exactly. And this is number 19. We basically have a new text from the conservation commission for this. So 18 and 19 we will fix with the new information from ConCon. Yeah, I just picked up and it's one of the one typo between restoration and is. Yeah, well, that's going to change that paragraph. They're going to import the ConCon's paragraph. I understand. I understand. There's a typo on 23 just past it. It's 51 parking spaces. Okay. It was picked up later in the decision, but not here. Okay. And then 27. 37.8%. Is the new percentage? Yeah. So it will increase the amount. Yeah. It's increasing by just a couple of points. Okay. The rest of the paragraph works. The rest of it all works. Okay. And here. So I think Paul, will you say you had wanted to remove the first paragraph, the first sentence, excuse me, in 2032? Yeah, no, the only concern that I had about that paragraph was it was regarding the traffic that I, my point was there were virtually no traffic concerns raised through the public hearing process. And it felt like that was a holdover from another draft where traffic was a bigger concern. So I just thought that to highlight traffic as if it was an issue, it wasn't an issue for this particular project, either from the traffic assessment point of view or from public comments. That's why I wanted those couple words to lead it. Okay. It's just going through the documentation that's included. There's the 51 parking spaces, 95 bedrooms. So in A4, you see A4 has that reference to 1658 again. So if we're going to use 1700, just you have to do a search and replace, because it comes up a lot. Yeah. So A7. Here with A7. Yeah, could we, would the board consider, you know, we were at 15, you're at 30, you know, meeting us part way and 30. We started at 45. I'm sorry. All right, good. Thank you. Sorry. Can we get some confirmation on the number of bedrooms in A4? Sure. Absolutely. But I think Christian, you had 97 and the applicant had 95. Or race wrestler. Paul, do you have a fixed number for that, Paul Feldman? I don't, you know, one thing that happened is I think we wash one bedroom when we added that second access to the patio area, right, Matt? Yeah, I think we went from 97 to 96, but we're 95. I'll have that for you by the morning. No, no. We've got to have that tonight. Tonight, wait, we can't hear it. We go like this as soon as it's over. So, so can we just say approximately 95? And then we don't have to worry about the 95 or 96. Yeah, I'd suggest no more than 96. We could say no more than 96. 96 is divisible by four, too. Let me pull up the applicant application. Anything we can do tonight, it'd be fine. It's just that we can't, if we close the hearing, we can't take it anymore. No, that's fine to say no more than 96. That works. That's fine. Because I, it's either 95 or 96, so that covers it. No. Comment on B4, that's for the board to determine how it wants to handle local preference. There's a question here about whether the MPDES permit is necessary. But it does here indicate it's obtained in file copy if necessary. So I think if we leave it in, we're not. I think we're under the disturbance that would kick us into an empty spot. That's why we ask for everything we require. And then, again, here was another one where it was 45 and reduced to 30. There's a typo in this last paragraph. As you write right before you, right after the list, there's a typo of plantings right there of the third monitoring year. And this is one of those areas where you may make a highlight. It's inconsistent with the concom. The survival rate that the concom is imposing is 90%. And the language is a little bit different because they have an actual date by which the monitoring period begins. So again, we're going to suggest that when you reconcile, when the board's working on its own, that it conformed to the concom's language. This is just one example of it. All right. I think all these things were covered, yeah, in the construction management plan. So yeah, they have snow storage. We do want to keep snow storage in here just to keep it fresh and foremost. There's a, I mentioned this, in C2A, you jump past it. C2A, there's reference to a subdivision plan, but that's not applicable to this challenge. So I should say record the comprehensive permit with the middle sex. All the subdivision plan through the board should come out. So the comprehensive permit, I guess, by definition is endorsed by the board. No, no, it wouldn't be endorsed by the board. That endorse was referring to a subdivision plan, and that was from the different applications. So that's perfect. OK, that's enough. This was just that the condo doc should address things like snow removal, trash removal, and other such issues. Yeah, so the only thing there is public access. We would ask that to be, we've already been through this. We discussed, as opposed to how many is opine on this as well, that we don't know what you mean by should address issues relating to public access. But people are going to be able to enter the building that are visiting residents of the building, but there's not public access to the site. So that the words public access should be deleted. Well, we do have the retail components. Do we want to compartmentalize it? We could say to relate to public access to the retail space. That works, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Dupont. So just a small point on this. So where it says that copy of the condominium association master deed, I'd like to see condominium trust included in there as well after master deed, because the rules and regulations are often just promulgated by the trustees. But that doesn't give you a look at what's actually in the trust itself. OK. Question here, number 17. So this E2 has to, we suggest changing E2 in a pretty substantive way, because we would delete it as it's presented here and just say the construction management plan referenced at the outset of this decision has been reviewed and approved and the applicant shall construct the project in conformance with the plan. OK. Or worse to that effect. Yeah, I think our previous language you should have that was. Yeah, our previous language was referencing an exhibit B, which we don't know what we need, because it's been included in the beginning. So we have to see the construction management plan has been reviewed and approved in construction and the project shall be performed in compliance with the construction management plan. Yeah, yeah. OK. And then on E8, this is a question that I had for E8, you gentlemen. This is the language about the project's going to be all electric, including heat, hot water, and appliances. Mr. Hanwin, this was the provision you were asking about. So now it's clear natural gas service to provide. And so slowly back up, my question is if we don't have any idea who the commercial users are, but wouldn't it make sense that the commercial user needed to tie into the gas service they would be allowed to? So we had discussed that last time and I have been assured that that was not going to happen. Well, we were pretty confident there wasn't going to be a restaurant because we don't have grease traps and everything. But again, we don't know. I mean, Matt, I read that up to you. I did tell Christian that as we weren't looking to have a restaurant use in there, there shouldn't be a need for gas for cooking or makeup air. So we expect a pretty low impact to you. So I don't want to go back on that at this point. There's a small correction to E13 when you get to it. Yeah. The where it says it where it says the third per title five, article 12, section three of the town bylaws, you need to say except as waved here in because there's a waiver that covers the hours. But everything else in the bylaw will be applicable. Question on E15 about referencing the landscaped plans. Which we can look into. It's spelled out in the landscape plans. So yeah, that's in the CMP, I believe, for temporary stabilization. But that last reference was final stabilization. Yeah, final stabilization, which is the only places that are long and seated. No building areas shall be left in an open, unstable condition, long and secluded. That's to me sounds like a construction item. Which item are you in that? I was in 15. Yeah, so at 15, the last sentence, that's what we're talking about. But final stabilization. Per the landscape plan. Yeah, that's all we were asked. So to the extent that earth removal is necessary, the exempt earth removal associated with construction of footings and foundation walls. So this is material that's going to be taken off site, correct? Most likely. I mean, this earth removal condition, we typically see it when we're in a site that is not balanced with cuts and fills. And you're really going to be hauling stuff off site. It is going to be a minor amount of earth removal potentially for the foundation footings and the foundation walls. But you don't typically develop a whole earth removal plan for that. It's pretty, so we would just suggest that given the nature of the earth removal that we would expect at this site, because the site is balanced generally, that we shouldn't have to prepare all these plans and do things that, it's just a typical job site issue. Is that right, Matt? Sure. How about to the extent extraordinary earth removal is necessary? We'll come up. We can put a bound in there somewhere. Yeah, Mr. Chair, all of the earth removal is incidental to foundation construction. So I mean, to Paul's point, it's pretty sort of above and beyond, in my opinion. OK. It would make sense in a site where you don't have a balanced site and you really have trucks going in and out. OK. Catch basins. So the issue is that there are a couple of catch basins that are shown on the plans that are not receiving vehicle water. And they're not going to be set up with oil water separators. This is saying that Paul. The plans indicate that Paul? Well, the plans don't say if the catch basin has an oil water separator or not. This says all catch basins are going to have oil water separators. There are some in the back in the restored forest that don't receive any vehicle water. They're going to be a catch basin, but they're not going to have an oil water separator. You can say all catch basins exiting to sewer or to sanitary shall have oil water separators. This comment has a lot of issues because in theory, a catch basin is an oil water separator. So I don't think this adds any value. So if it can be removed, that suggests to be removed. The whole condition, that works for us. Yeah, because in theory, a catch basin is an oil water separator. And there are very different definitions for oil water separators. So between the order of conditions and the other storm water management requirements, yeah, you've got that covered, Mr. Chair. I don't think you need to worry about that. Go to E28 for a second. I just want to make sure we, I think E28 turned out a little broader than we were expecting. This reads that we're going to do pre-construction and post-construction survey of properties within 300 feet. That means we're talking about properties on the other side of Massachusetts Avenue. We were, what the concern was during the public hearing was the house next door, where we're doing the foundation of the basement. Support of excavation. That's where the excavation is for that. It's the two family next door, what is it, 1031? Mass Ave, I think, or I mean, I have the number right. But 300 feet within the property is a ton of survey for no reason. It's the 300 feet that wasn't consistent with what occurred at the public comments. So I just want to point that out. We can come back to that. And in E31, there's a typo just if you want to pick it up. It's right there, you know? Yeah. And Mr. Chair, I think it's correct me if I'm wrong that it's 250 foot requirement for blasting. So the 300 feet would be. Okay. Well, it's too, but there is no blasting. That's- No, no, I'm saying if there were a blasting, the requirement is 250 feet. So- All I'm saying is we would like to see the requirement be specific to the property next door adjacent to our basement construction. Not on the other side of Mass Ave. I mean, that makes just no sense. And then also in E31, it references pest control post-occupancy. So is there an expectation that the management company or the HOA has pest control in perpetuity regardless of whether it's needed or not? I mean, I guess you would have, there would be an assessment as to whether there is an issue. That's part of the first sentence. And then- I'd like to do that for a long time. And for ongoing operations on site during construction. And then- It's the post-occupancy comment. That's a border health issue. That's not a comprehensive permit issue. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuBois? Or is that Mr. Hanlon? Sorry. This is Mr. Hanlon. We'll have to look at this. I think this is a very difficult issue that is currently pending in town. And it's entirely possible, I suppose, that no integrated pest management plan is necessary because there won't be any pests. But it's something that we have to, I think here, the applicants view on this and figure out what's necessary. But I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's not within our plan. So just so our view is clear, we understand that during construction, when you're disturbing potential pest habitat, you got to manage it because all of a sudden, those critters or rodents or pests end up going elsewhere because you're doing construction and it's very, very common. But after the building is built, if there is a rodent problem at the condominium, that really is a border health item. And I don't know if it's not, in my view, it would not be an appropriate condition for post-occupancy. That's so, you've heard it and I ask you to consider it. Cliff, did you have a question? I did. I think on the previous condition about the surveys of properties, certainly across Mass Ave, I think is extreme, but I think I would change it to just a budding properties. The building to the west is an masonry building that is prone to cracking. I think it protects all parties, including the developer, to do a survey of that building as well. Okay. Directly abutting? Yeah, just directly abutting properties would be my suggestion. Just keep in mind, Cliff, that would include the condominium complex because that's a budding property. Yeah. So I don't know if that's the intent. Oh, and that doesn't make the building, the Milbrook condominium building itself is quite far. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's the two Mass Ave properties that I would cover if I were doing this building. We'll take the two properties to the right. Yeah, there you go. It is eight outdoor spaces, but that was fine. Yeah, I've tested some wordsmithing. I know that Paul, Mr. Haverty, was going to do some wordsmithing to F4. So you may want to just highlight it and talk with Mr. Haverty. Yeah, so there are four hoops, which is eight spaces. Yeah, I'm talking about F4, two up from there. F4. Yeah, it was just the way this language is written, the applicant shall ensure that emergency vehicles can adequately remove it through the site. It was the concept of through the site. It's adequately mover into the site drive. I don't want to get caught into the fact. Everybody knows we don't have emergency vehicles on the two, it's on the right and left side of the building. Right. So Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that we change this to state the applicant shall ensure that emergency vehicles have access and egress through the site driveway. And then you would delete, you can adequately maneuver through the site. And I think the second sentence leaves us fairly wide open. Well, that's a requirement anyways. I mean, fire department access is reviewed by the fire department before. But they've already reviewed the access. They review the application. But these are preliminary plans, so they're going to have to review the final plans and confirm that the access. The building can't change size, the building can't change location. The building can't shift left or right. The footprint and the building can't shift. Well, again, they've reviewed plans that are preliminary plans as part of this process. The requirement is that they review the final plans, which have all of the details. Yeah. And that's a state law requirement. That is a state law requirement. There's no question that's a state law requirement. But that statement leaves us to suggest that somehow there's another bite at the apple with regard to emergency access and we can't have that. Okay, Matt, again, if we go back to Mr. Hoverty's change, you got to go back to that where you didn't complete the change. The app will ensure that emergency vehicles will have driveway access. You have to, the weed can adequately maneuver through the site. That's the phrase that's problematic that we're concerned about. It's that we're going to ensure that emergency vehicles have access to the driveway. Or whatever, Mr. Hoverty. Through the site driveway. Mr. Hoverty had the language. Yeah. So it is 709. I actually do have to leave for another meeting. Mr. Hoverty has to leave. The board has another meeting at 730. We are probably 60% through this. We haven't had an opportunity for final public comment yet. This, can you just go to one more that's important? I'm, I guess I just want to jump. Not comfortable slamming this closed. Where we, and so I'm trying to, so I need to go back to the applicant here. You know, what's our plan here? Do we need to have one more session to keep massaging the proposed conditions? You know, I, well, that's up to my client. I'm not available until after May 15th, after today. Yeah. You know, I think there's only, I didn't know we were living on time this evening. Yeah. It's the only, well, Matt, I'll move it up to you. The only other one that I had, the other wordsmithing I'm quite confident. I'm not as concerned about that. That's going to be problematic. The only other one is I too. That's something that we've been through with the concom. And, you know, there is- What was your final resolution with the concom? They haven't presented a bond amount. We've explained all the ways that this project has been tied up with regard to getting their work done and how problematic it is to have a bond with the condominium association. And so it's not a requirement of the local bylaw. It's a May. And we think all of the ways between the condominium documents, putting it in the budget, all the things that we've done during the public hearing process has, you know, a bond that's just not appropriate. And it's very complicated with the condominium. We would ask that be straightened. But those are just some wordsmithing comments, but we were comfortable with that. I didn't have anything else, Matt. I don't know if you did. I mean, I love to be able to breeze through. Can we get five more minutes, Christian, please? Mr. Hanlon? We'd like to remind that this is a public hearing. And so once we finish with this, we have a total of about 20 more minutes that we can give the public to comment on this. So, you know, it's, we either need, we either need to give ourselves more time or we need to focus really hard. But I think that we can't possibly do this with giving the public less than 15 minutes. And there's no way that the next hearing gets pushed off by 10 minutes? I mean, we could. It's a continuation of this meeting, is it not? I mean, not closing this and starting another or is it a completely separate meeting? It's a completely separate meeting. I mean, we can ask our, you know, we can have our administrator open the meeting and notify people that we're running late and we're gonna, you know, that we'll be delayed in the start. But we do want to, you know. I think we can, if that's doable, I think we can get through the balance of it. I think we've covered all the bases. But if we had, you know, five or 10 more minutes, I think I can be a lot more comfortable that we have. Okay. Colleen, are you comfortable with that plan? I'm gonna have to leave for my other meeting. Yeah. Okay. But you can contact me and let me know where you go from there. Christian, I can't start the other meeting until I close this one. It won't let me. Oh. Oh, it won't. I didn't realize it would happen. I don't, Matt, I don't know. Why don't you just look through your notes and point out any other changes? I don't have any other than that. They need to conform to the concom, but we've been through that. I don't know if you have any other comments. You just want to give them the numbers and just let them know. Or we can extend out the hearing and we have another session. Can you give me 30 seconds, please? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I do have to go, but I can let you know that if this does get continued, I am available next Wednesday or next Thursday. Okay. And also, I think you've got something already on for next Tuesday. We do. Which I'll be there for that. So if you wanted to stack it onto that hearing, I'm gonna be available then. My client could do without me. I'm not gonna be available for May 15th. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. I think I'm okay. Okay. All right, so with that, we're gonna say we have no additional comments. So we will go ahead and open for public hearing. Like I see, so I apologize to the public because there really isn't much time this evening remaining for public comment. But we have had several opportunities, but I do want to make sure we open it up. So if you would like to address the board, please use, raise your hand using the button on, I believe it's the reactions tab now. And you will be called upon, asked to give your name and address and be asked to give your comments. So with that, we recognize Ms. Winnell Evans. There we go. Winnell Evans, 20 Orchard Place, Precinct 14 Town Meeting Member. As you're going through this, I'm also following along. So forgive me if my questions are repetitive, but I just wanna make sure I'm clear on a couple of things. On page 10, A6, it indicates that the waiver from our noise bylaw has been approved, allowing a seven to six workday on weekdays and an eight to five workday on Saturdays. However, I do not see this in the final list of waivers at the end of the document. So I just want to confirm that that has indeed been granted. So it has been requested, but the board won't make a final decision on waivers and everything until the very end. But there should be, there was earlier a waiver related to that, I'll make sure it gets back in. Okay, I would just like to, Okay, thank you for that. I would just like to register a comment given that this project may take up 12 to 18 months as Mr. Maggiore stated in a previous meeting. I think that's a pretty big ask. This is a busy street, but it is a residential street. And I think that's a big ask for the neighbors. So just for the record, my second comment is on page 16, item D2B, the plan for property management, professional property management has been deleted. And I'm wondering why that is. What section is it? This is a D2B, it's all been deleted. The applicant shall provide to the board evidence of a property management plan or a contract with a management company. And I'm wondering what provision has been made for property management in it's stead. We discussed this last time, there was a question about, because it's not rental units, but it's condominiums that it's a little bit different. Okay. Yeah, the homeowners association, the homeowners association will, typically in a 50 unit condominium engage a third party property manager because there are 50 units. But again, we didn't want to bind the homeowners association to a particular plan. It's just that it's not a rental project was the point. And that's why it was deleted. But I can assure you that every project to this scale that we've developed starts with a professional management company. I believe all of them still have them. We just, as Paul stated, don't wanna pass off a requirement to an association that wouldn't be appropriate based on condominium ownership. Understood. Is that Vincent? Thank you. I appreciate that. On page 17, item E1 removes the suggestion that there was going to be a neighborhood meeting that has been deleted. If that is indeed the case, will this project, Mr. Klein, you would probably be able to answer this. Will this project be required to distribute the so-called good neighbor agreement to all the butters within 200 feet as required by our bylaws? I believe this would still be covered by the good neighbor agreement. Yes. Okay. So we'll get that, but there will not be a neighborhood meeting. Is that correct? It hadn't come up during the hearings that there was a request for such a meeting. Okay. Is your sense that a meeting like that would be important or do you think that adherence with the good neighbor agreement would be sufficient? You know, it's so hard to tell. People are so oblivious to what goes on in town. Somebody wanted to know what's that big new building going up in front of the high school. They didn't even realize it was the new high school. So I don't know how people would. I think the GNA would be very much appreciated though. Okay. Okay. And my final, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, I just wanna make sure that everybody understands that what we're dealing with here is really an ask that there are no decisions that have been made on any of these things. So, and it's entirely appropriate for Ms. Evans to make asks too. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. And my final comment is if there is a need for rodent control during construction, I would beg you to please not use second generation anti-coagulant rodenticide boxes. This is something that the town is working hard to get rid of. We have had deaths of raptors. There has been a lot of attention paid to this issue. And I would beg you to please look into using dry ice or other methods. I know that the Millbrook condominium use dry ice. They dug into the boroughs and use this. And I believe it was fairly successful. So that would be a request to you if that becomes necessary during construction. I believe that's in E31, E.31 now. I missed that. All right, thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. And that is it for my request and my comments. Thank you all. Thank you, Ms. Evans. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address the board this evening? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment for tonight's hearing. Mr. Chair. So where we are now. Just one response. I mean, I really appreciated the comments of Ms. Evans. But if the concern is the length of time the project will go on and, you know, as projects go on the length of time does become annoying to neighbors. As Mr. Masiori said at the last public hearing starting construction at eight during the weekday or nine on the Saturdays, it's going to eliminate weekends because contractors don't want to start at nine and end for half a day. And the entire, most trades, the entire Commonwealth started at seven. You eliminate that hour, you're going to take a 12 month project or a 13 month project and you're going to add weeks to it. And there's a balance there. I take Ms. Evans comments 100% but the balance is let's get the construction done and get everybody out of there rather than have weeks more because of an hour in the morning. So it's important to the contractor. That's why we raised it. And we just want to point that out. I know the board will deliberate on it but I wanted you to understand the reason. Is the contractor planning to work seven days or six? Six. Okay. So if we were to grant the seven a.m. but remove Sunday hours, that would be acceptable. I think that would be fair to right off. Thank you. Perfect, we'll do that. So at this stage, public comment is closed. Are there any additional questions on the board or is there any information? The board feels it is lacking in regards to this application being none. So I think the board therefore is at the end of the public hearing process for this application. The board has a considerable public record that has been built up as Mr. Feldman said over the last six months. So at this time, I will move to close the public hearing for the residences at Millbrook to allow the board to proceed to deliberations on the final decision. Second. Second, Mr. Hanlon. So just clarify for the board, this is a vote to close the public hearing. We will no longer be accepting new information on this hearing and the board will now move on to the deliberations section. We have 40 days to issue a written decision. So with that, I will do a vote of the board. I'm Mr. DuPont. I see him. He mouthing aye. Oh, aye. Oh, sorry. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Mr. Riccadale being absent. So the public hearing for the residences at Millbrook is now closed. The board will need to schedule its next meeting on this. From here out, the meetings of the board that relate to these, they are public meetings. Everyone is able to access them and watch them, but the meetings will be closed to just the members of the board and Mr. Haverty as we compile the final decision. So we will, as soon as we have a schedule for that, we will post that up for everyone else. So with that, our evening's business for this hearing are complete. So thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the year on. Should say this evening's meeting of the year on board of appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording is to ensure the creation of an accurate record. It's our understanding that reporting will be available on ECMI. If anyone has comments or questions, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. And with that, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Handman. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. The board is here. This is a vote to adjourn for four minutes and then return on the next hearing. So with that vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Rickidelli is absent, Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are adjourned. For everyone that it is a different call-in number for the next Zoom meeting, which starts at 7.30. So thanks everyone for your participation. Really appreciate it. We'd like to thank everybody. It's been a very cordial process. I know a lot of evenings have been taking up this project and we'd like to thank everybody for their time and for working with us. And we're very excited to hear your thoughts and deliberations in the coming weeks. And again, thank you for the opportunity and thanks to everybody for your time on several evenings over the last six months. I second that. I second that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great evening. Cheers. Thanks so much. So long. Okay. Well, it is 7.34 p.m. It is Tuesday, April 25th, 2023. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. First, I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. So members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Candlen. Here. Then Kev Holy. Here. And Dana Riccadelli is not with us this evening. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam Mowblank. Here. Good to have you all back. On behalf of the town, we have our zoning assistant Colleen Ralston. Good evening. Good evening. Long time no see. Appearing on behalf of 15 Grandview Road, Thomas and Jennifer Baxter. Hello. Here. Hello. With us, hearing for 21 Oakledge Street, Anthony and Liglia Byers. Here. We're here. Good to have you. Appearing on behalf of 106 Varnum Street, Bob and Essie. Let's see if Bob's name is up. Is there anyone else who's here on behalf of 106 Varnum? Bob and Essie is here. Chris. Okay. Oh, good. Thanks, Bob. Sorry about that. And then appearing on behalf of 25 Teal Street, Carolyn and Antesh Salvi. They're not here, but I'm Rachel Gray. I'm here. And Rachel Gray. Carolyn Salvi will be here in a few minutes. Okay, perfect. No, no problem at all. Okay. So this open meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29th, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2025 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all public meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at the meeting location, so long as they provide adequate alternative access to public meeting. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda and as chair or reserve the right stake items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotony, an Algonquin word, meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony, province and Commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. So this evening we have no administrative items to take care of so we're gonna be moving on to the hearings. Before the opening of the hearing here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announced the agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves for themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So with that, the item on our agenda, item number two, it's docket 374415 Grandview Road. And actually I apologize, it's docket 3743, I believe it's 15 Grandview Road. So with that, I would invite the applicants to introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. Hi, my name is Jen Baxter and I'm here with my husband, Tom Baxter, and we have a proposal to add a covered front entryway to our house. The purpose is to improve curb appeal and it is nearly identical to the covered entryway of a cape to houses down from us on the same street. I'm sorry, I understand that you already have, you have all the materials from our contractor. We do, I'm just going to open that up. So this is the application, existing conditions to the houses currently under renovation, but this is the front validation. These are the steps currently leading towards the street. And then this is the proposal here for three foot six by 10 foot seven covered porch with new framed steps, essentially the same position leading towards the street, bringing details. Here's just the site plan. So on the left, this is the existing condition where the steps and the landing are the same width essentially it's the walk itself. And then here's the proposed condition with new steps and the three and a half foot by 10.6 foot covered porch. I believe this is just the same sheet. Yeah. So, all right. So this is, they're seeking relief through section 539 A and B, which has to do with porches that are in setbacks. I had one question, but I believe in talking with the building inspector, it sort of worked out. One of the things that's going to happen here because of the imposition of the covered porch, one of the things we have in town is this provision of usable open space, which any space that's 25 by 25 can count for usable open space. And this area in the front yard is 25 by 25 and will now be smaller than that. But the usable open space provision also requires that the space be relatively flat and this area being on the side of a hill is not flat. So the area at the front does not count toward usable open space. So the creation of this porch will not affect the overall calculation of usable open space. So I just wanted to clarify that. Are there questions from the board? Mr. Chair. Mr. LeBlanc. Just one question on, I guess, what the proposed materials are of the porch just to kind of know what that plan is. Do they have that? Yes. Sorry, is that for me to answer? Yes, please. It's ASAC for the steps and the posts and the flooring. And the roof, I assume, is going to be the same shingles that are on the main body of the house. So the idea is to kind of use complementary materials to what you have going on the rest of the house. Yes, yeah. Yeah, we're in the process of residing the front of the house with hardy board, and so it will look the same as the new siding. That's all I have. Okay, thank you. Here, so we have a memorandum. Are there other questions from the board? Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Holly. Just a minor comment, maybe. On the sheet, it says directly like three feet. Is that, it's just a type, I suppose. It's on sheet A23 or? Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't actually have a copy of the proposal that the contractor submitted. So is that on the, is that on the plan or is that on the, that's on the second sheet of the? It's on the plan, detail one. Detail one. So is it that the guardrail height is three feet? Was that the question? Yeah, yeah. Shouldn't it be three, six? Because the fall is bigger. Right. I'm just trying to remember if the number is different in the commercial code and residential code and I do not know off the top of my head. I don't recall it's top of my head either, but I believe they are different. That is certainly something we can leave to the building inspector to, to rectify. Any other questions from the board? Okay. So I am now going to be opening the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on, used to be the participants tab, but I think it is now officially the reactions tab. And if you're calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair. You'll be asked to give your name and address for the record and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. And all questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time has ended, the public comment period will be closed. We can easily give 20 to 25 minutes for public comment. Should that be required? With that, the name on the list is Daniel Peterson. If you could name an address for the record and... Hello, my name is Daniel Peterson, 38 Teal Street in Arlington. Just a quick point of clarification. Am I correct in looking at this and thinking, really the only issue is the front setback of a few feet. Is that right? Is there any other reason that it requires board approval? Nope, that's absolutely correct. So the zoning bylaw requires a certain front yard setback and if an enclosed or closed or covered porch is larger than a certain size, then it just requires a special permit from the zoning board of appeals in order to be approved. Great, thanks. That's what I thought. I mean, I love the project. It looks historically appropriate and great curb appeal for the Baxter. So, yeah, definitely a plan. I won't take any more time. Thank you. Thank you, appreciate it. Are there other members of the public who wish to address this issue? Going once, going twice? I will go ahead and close the public comment period for 15 Grandview Road. And I'm gonna go ahead and share. This is the memorandum prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development on the... So the applicants are seeking a covered porch or their single family home, approximately 37 square feet, which exceeds the maximum 25. And the purpose of the project to improve convenience and safety. It's in the R1 zoning district. Proposed porch projects forward 3.5 feet from the front facade. New stair and additional four feet is decreasing the front yard setback. And the following of the special permit criteria by section 333, which we need to find. The first is that the requested use is permitted in the R1 zoning district, the single family home. Criterion two, public convenience and welfare proposal would improve the convenient safety and appearance of the owner's entrance to their home. Criterion three, there will not be an increase in traffic congestion or an impairment of public safety. Criterion four, there would not be an undue burden on any municipal systems. Criterion five, the proposal will not result in the need for any special regulation, apart from the section 539, which they have requested in their application. Criterion six, the integrity and character. While the proposed front porch exceeds the maximum square footage allowable by right, covered or enclosed porches and porticoes are a common feature in the surrounding neighborhood, including on Grandview Road. Consistent with the residential design guidelines, the proposed design will introduce human scale architectural variation to the overall streetscape and add visual interest to the front facade of the structure. Overall, this proposal would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood character of the district or joining districts, nor will it be detrimental to the health morals or welfare of the neighbors of the property. And criteria number seven, that this proposal will not cause any detrimental excess of the use. This also includes a photograph of the property, which is here. And this should be, yeah, a view from the street. So as you can see, these are the steps. These will be taken off. It'd be a slightly deeper, slightly wider porch. And that's just a more straight on view. And then the summary from the department of planning to do development, they maintain that this proposal is consistent with the special permit criteria in 333. And then they reference some additional documents that have been similar. Go ahead and stop share on that. Are there any further questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just to comment, I'm fully in support of the application. It seems to me that this is pretty much as plain vanilla as this kind of an application can be. The amount of space that's involved here is small. The kind of project that we're talking about is common in the neighborhood and as both the planning department and Mr. Peterson pointed out, it's carried out in an effective way that will only improve the curb appeal of the applicant and the overall attractiveness of the community. The only thing that would have been a potential issue would have been an aggregation of usable open space deficiency. But since it doesn't count, this area would not have counted to usable open space anyway, it will not make anything worse in that regard. So I'm going to be in support of this. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Should the board vote to approve, there are three standard conditions that the board would impose, which I'll read into the record. The first number one is the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. Should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals. Number two, the building inspector is hereby notified that it is to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time they determine that violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40, section 21D of the Massachusetts General Laws and Institute on Criminal Complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve an Institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and condition number three, the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. I would ask the board if there are any additional conditions they think are necessary. And Mr. Holly raised the question about the height of the guardrail. That's certainly something that the building inspector has jurisdiction over and so it's not incumbent upon us to remind the inspection services to review that. Are there any other conditions that members of the board think would be appropriate in this regard? Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Dupont. So are we still including for these the reference to the fact that this does not create the lot mind foundation or is that something that's been addressed with the bylaw itself? Remember, we would say that I forget exactly what the wording was. I'm just gonna quickly flip to that page in the bylaw just to make sure. Seven, five, three, eight, five, three, nine. So provision D now is, so five, three, nine D says porches, decks, steps and landings in the required setback are not considered to be within the foundation wall and may not be enclosed, extended or built upon except by special permit. All right, so then. So that was added at how many last year specifically for this purpose. It's a little bit less direct than I was thinking but I think that that covers it. Thanks. Oh, you're welcome. Anything further from the board? If not, I will take a motion in regards to this application. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Handland. I move that the board approve this application subject to the three standard conditions that the chair has just read it to the record. Second. Thank you, second to Mr. DuPont. So this is a vote of the board in favor of the special permit request for 15 grand view road with the three stated conditions roll call vote of the voting members of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Handland. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. And in the absence of Mr. Riccadelli, Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The special permit is approved. Thank you very much for coming before us this evening. Thank you very much for your help. I appreciate it. Absolutely. That brings us to item three on our DACA this evening, DACA number 374421 Oakledge Street. We could ask the applicants to introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. I'm Anthony Byers. And I'm Laila Byers. So we are looking to add an additional bedroom to our house but given the very non-conforming nature of our lot, we are seeking a variance to do that. All right. Pull up the documents. So I will, I know the applicants have requested a variance. For a very specific reason, the notice says a special permit. And I'll explain that in a second here. So we'll note that the Byers has appeared before the Dunning-Gordon of Appeals a few years back for a variance request to add what is currently within the bound of the red dash line, which is a first floor bathroom with a landing and stairs. And at that time, the board granted them a variance for this. And this is constructed and this is in place today. So what they are now requesting is they would like to build on top of it, which includes because a bedroom needs to be at least seven feet wide, they are requesting what amounts to a second story addition that is wider than the first floor, which is gonna further reduce the side yard setback. And subsequent to the last time you were before us, the interpretation of the state zoning laws have been amended or changed. And if there is an existing non-conformity, which in this case you have because it's only 6.7 feet to that, 8.7 feet, because you already have an existing non-condition, a furtherance of that non-conformity can be approved by special permit. So you do not need a variance for it. It's basically what it means is just that the requirements are much less stringent than they would be otherwise. But it does not differ in any other way, shape or form. So the blue dashed line is, I believe, correct, though requested new outline. So looking from the rear, it's this portion here, looking from the front, this portion here. So this is the porch down below. Is this portion currently unroofed at the back? Yes, there is no roof. Okay. Yeah. And so this is the second floor proposal. And then on the first floor, will there just, will there be a column dropped in? Yes. For this outer corner? Okay. Yes. The view from the street, close up of the first floor addition. So this roof will come off, it'll extend out pretty much to the edge of the eve and then come up. Yes. And then further rear. There are some examples of some similar type additions here in Arlington. Yep. Right. Are there questions from the board? Go ahead and open the meeting for public questions and comments as stated before. Public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask their questions and make comments. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using a button on the reactions tab in the Zoom application. And if you're calling it by phone, you may dial star nine. You'll be identified by the chair and ask to give your questions and comments. So with that, the public hearing portion of this meeting is public comment period is open. Are there any members of the public who wish to address this application at 21 Oak Ledge Street? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing at 21 Oak Ledge Street. So there are, the request is being made is pretty straightforward. So where this really comes down to, it's in the zoning bylaw section 811A and 813B, which have to do with preexisting non-conforming conditions. So the board, which is essentially falls under section six of the state statute under 40A. So an extension or alteration of an existing structure or use shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood. So that's what the board would need to find. And the board would also need to find that an increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. And the board typically applies the special permit criteria under section 333 to assist in making that determination. I just wanna check. I don't recall if we have received a memorandum from the Department of Planning and Community Development on this. Do not see one. This location, oh, there it is. Because you're seeking a special permit in accordance with section 813. I'm not gonna see to construct the additional better than the second story of a single family home. This is a structure in our one zoning district non-conforming with the bylaws lot size, frontage, front, left, right, side yards and use will open space. The new board of appeals previously granted a variance for the construction of a one-story addition to the left side yard. The proposal would add a second story to the side addition and create a overhang. As a result, the building footprint would be extended into the required side yard setback by an additional foot. The rear yard setback would be slightly reduced from 15.7 to 15.0. The addition would not increase any of the other non-conformities of the existing structure. In their review of the special permit criteria, criteria number one, the requested use is permitted through a special permit in the Arwin zoning district. Criterion two on public convenience and welfare as proposal would provide additional living space for a family. Criterion three, there will not be an increase in traffic congestion or an impairment of public safety. Criterion number four, there would not be an undue burden on municipal systems. Criterion number five, this proposal would not result in the need for special regulations. Criterion number six, regarding integrity, character of the district's proposal would add a second story to a side addition with a roof overhang into the left side yard due to existing topography, lock conditions, orientation of the structure. There are limited opportunities to expand the existing structure in conformance with the zoning bylaw. The ZBA stated in a variance decision dated October 6, 2020 that it would be a substantial hardship to expand the building footprint without intruding at least a small way into the left side yard. Homes in the vicinity of the property are primarily two family, colonial and old style homes while site additions are not a common feature in this neighborhood. The proposal to add a second story above an existing addition does not interrupt the existing streetscape pattern consistent with the residential zoning design guidelines. The addition is designed to complement the scale and style of the existing colonial and bungalow style home and adjacent homes in the neighborhood. Overall, this proposal would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood character of the district or joining districts nor will it be detrimental to the health, moral, and welfare of the neighborhood of the property. And criteria six, there will not be any detrimental access. So this is the property here. And similar, these are the photos from the front and a photo from the front corner. And in their summary, Department of Planning and Community Development maintained that this proposal is consistent with special permit criteria in section 3338 through G of the Zoning Bylaw. Are there any additional questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm a little bit, I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion that this is a special permit rather than more appropriately an amendment of the earlier variance. It is somewhat odd that you go through all of the requirements that the state does in order to get one thing and then you can extend it without doing anything more than a section six notice. But it's not necessarily inconsistent with the bylaw. And I suppose you have to decide this thing one way or another and it is in some ways is a matter of policy more appropriate to use the framework that we're using here. But I do wanna note that it doesn't seem to me to be completely obvious that non-conforming structures is the right framework for dealing with this. In any event, it seems to me that no matter what structure you used, you would come to the same result here. It seems appropriate to the amount of additional intrusion into the side yard is small and many of the basics of the original variance would carry over. So I'm not sure it makes a big difference and in some ways I prefer the way in which the board is going about doing this, but I do want to say that I don't think it's entirely obvious that that's the right way to do it. And I go with that with a slight amount of discomfort, but in generally, I think it's the right outcome. Yeah, I mean, this was the direction that special services recommend. And we proceed so I can say in that regard. Are there other questions or comments? Only thing I had wanted to go back to. So this is the certified plot plan that was provided by the applicant. The special permit does need to be registered with a registry of these. And you will need, I'm fairly confident to have an updated plan showing the current condition and the proposed condition for this project as opposed to for the previous project. So I just bring that to your attention that that will be most likely a requirement in order to file this with the registry. Okay, we'll do that. Thank you. Absolutely. And then that will include the final setbacks as was stated in the documentation from the planning department. The site plan doesn't have what the revised number setbacks are and that will be included on that as well, so. All right, we'll get that done with this. Okay. So with that, the board, should the board decide to vote on this matter, there are the three standard conditions that would apply. Those were read into the record on the prior hearing. So I will go ahead and waive that for now. Are there any additional conditions that the board feels would be necessary on this application at 21 Oak Lodge? Seeing none, I would ask for a motion on this application. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm moved that the application for a special permit be approved subject to the standard conditions that the chair previously read into the record. In doing that, it implies also making all of the findings that are required under state, under MGL section 40, section six and chapter 40, section six, which I think have been adequately addressed by the staff report. Second. Thank you. So this is a vote of the board to approve the special permit request for 21 Oak Lodge Street with the standard three conditions and also in compliance with section 40, excuse me, chapter 40A, section six. So with that, a vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Any absence of Mr. Riccadelli, Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The special permit for 21 Oak Lodge is approved. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Absolutely. Yeah. All right. Thank you, everyone. Take care. Take care. Thank you. This brings us to the next item on our agenda. This is docket three, seven, four, five, which is 106, up. So I have this alternately listed as docket three, seven, four, five, and three, seven, four, two. But I believe three, seven, four, five is the correct number. Mr. Chairman. Yes. To the extent that it matters, the docket number that is listed in the legal notice, which I had assumed would be the official one is four, two. Is four, two? Yeah. Okay. So either way, this is 106 Barnum Street. I will ask Mr. Nessie, I believe was the attorney for the applicant to introduce their request. Mr. Nessie, is there anyone else here speaking in favor in behalf of 106 Barnum Street? Hi. My name is Alex Giller. I'm the project manager and son of the owner, David Giller, who's also available to speak this evening. We are here seeking a special permit in order to add parking to the rear of our property. Our current project is converting a two family unit into two condos. What currently exists is an 8.5 to 8.7. So basically the bare minimum width of a driveway that requires everyone to park in tandem and what we are trying to achieve is putting three parking spots in the back with an area to allow them to properly maneuver so that they can pull straight in and straight out in order to not have to have such a tight area as well as having ease of use to the driveway instead of having to shuffle cars. Prior use for this building was a rental property. There would be four to five cars that would be stacked up in that driveway. And it would be a constant shuffle. Feedback that we've gone from tenants of the past is in order to get one out, everybody has to move. So we're trying to address that. We're trying to improve the current situation that's on the property and we are here seeking a special permit in order to execute this plan. Okay. Mr. Nessie is there. Good to see you. Mr. Nessie, you're still on mute. And I'm also here, I'm David Giller. Okay. I've unmuted you three times, Bob. All right. They're doing it. Here we go. Can you hear me? Chris? We can't hear. Okay, that was a good presentation that we heard just a few minutes ago. Essentially, I think we all understand that parking is a problem in the town of Allington. You have no overnight parking on any of the public ways. Indeed, even during the day, there's a problem with parking. Now, this property happens to be very close to Magnolia Park. People who go to Magnolia Park certainly would like to have a place to park their vehicles during the day when they use the park with their children. And what we are proposing is that we would get our cars off the street. And by the way, I heard that sometimes there are cars stacked up in the driveway. Well, if you look at the plan that was part of my submission, you'll see that the driveway itself is very, very narrow. And the only way that you can get cars in that driveway would be to have tandem parking. We all know also that tandem parking is not the best approach in the town with respect to having cars back out onto a public way. What we are trying to do with our property is get the cars out of the driveway. So we don't have tandem parking. We don't have cars backing out onto the public way and get them into the backyard. Now, one of the issues that we have is that that have open space. There's very limited open space presently on the property. It's like 1097 square feet, yeah, 1097 square feet. If we are able to achieve what we're trying to achieve, there'll be no open space, essentially on the property. Now we can argue that there'd be open space because you'd have a certain open space on the lot itself, you'd have open space. You've got my memo, I believe, I hope that I submitted to the board yesterday. And one of the points I made was that you certainly have open space. You don't have continuous 25 feet of open space, but you have open space on the open portions and you have open space on the lot itself. What we need is if we're going to be able to achieve or try to achieve, we would need relief with respect to open space. We would also need relief with respect to parking in a residential area. We would also need relief with respect to location of parking on the lot. Now, why do I think that this is a good suggestion for the property and for the town? I believe it is because again, it frees up parking spaces on Varnum Street and it brings about a situation where it's an aid to people who will be using Magnolia Park. What it does for my client is it brings about a benefit to them because they no longer have tandem parking and they're not bothered with having to back out onto Varnum Street. Now, when the clients came in to see me, I must tell you, I said to them, this is a challenge, okay? This is not the everyday situation that gets approved in two seconds by a zoning board. One of the points that I discussed with them was are there any other properties in the neighborhood of your property that have a similar situation where they have parking in their backyard? And there are, as a matter of fact, there are a number of other properties that have parking in the backyard. So they got their cars off Varnum Street. I'm suggesting to the members of the board that there'd be no adverse impact on the neighborhood if in fact, my clients were given relief with respect to the parking issue. Indeed, there'd be a benefit to the town and there'd certainly be a benefit to them as well. One of the points I did make as well in my memo was with respect to open space, at least the image of open space, you've got Magnolia Park with all of that open space. So you're not creating a situation where you're massing property here. What you're doing is you're getting cars off of a public way onto the property itself. And I believe that it's beneficial for all. So I would buttress what my client just said and I would be asking that the board grant relief so that we could have parking in the backyard as shown on the plan that I've submitted or the plans I've submitted to the zoning board. And that's my request. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nessie. So just to clarify, is the property currently conforming with usable open space? No. Why do you say it is not conforming with usable open space? Alex Savisky, are you on? Alex? I do not believe Alex is on right now. I tried calling him, but he's not with us. Well, we did not believe it was, at least the architect did not believe that it was conforming to open space, Chris. Okay. Because the listed gross floor area of the house and the application is 3,511 square feet. And if the usable open space, as you had said, was 1,097 square feet. Correct. And that is 30% of 3,657, which is larger than the size of the house. So it appears that the house is currently compliant with usable open space. And so this would be a request for a new non-conformity, which would require a variance and not a special permit. We are increasing the non-conformity. That's what you're saying. Well, we're saying, from the documentation we have, there is no non-conformity with usable open space. And this, by adding parking to the rear, you are creating a new non-conformity. And therefore that requires a variance and not a special permit. Well, we don't have the criteria to. And you would not meet the criteria for a special, for a variance. For a variance. We do not have that. And I would not even try to do that. That would be an exercise in futility. So, you know, I'm hoping there's another way. We can approach this. Okay. With respect to again, achieving a good result for everybody, not only the property owner, but the town and the people who use Magnolia Park. By freeing up parking spaces on Varnemstreet. Now, if you're not a property owner, I would not even try to do that. That would be an exercise in futility. So, you know, I'm hoping there's another way. We can approach this. Okay. With respect to again. Achieving a good result. For everybody, I would not be able to do that. I would not be able to do that. Because we don't have the resources on Varnemstreet. Now, if you're telling me that, no, we're not going to be able to get anywhere. Because you need to go for a variance. I'm telling you that I would not be able to get it. Yeah. I'm honest. I'm honest with you about that. Yeah. No. I mean, that would, that would be our. You know, as you know, very well, the first variance criteria is there has to be something unique about this parcel that's not general to the district. And there is nothing unique about this, this rectangular parcel on flat land. No question. Is there another way we can approach this? That's one of the things that I mentioned to my clients when they first came in to see me as well. I said, look, we may wind up brainstorming this. With the zoning board to see if there's some way we can achieve this. It's a challenge. Okay. Yeah. And I, you know, I ordinarily. Don't come before the board with a situation where I say to the board, I took the case on and I told the clients it would be a challenge. Yeah. I would. I'm unaware of any other way to proceed. I would ask Mr. Hanlon or other members of the board if they have any different opinions on this, but it seems very straightforward that if you're trying to create a new nonconformity. That's a variance. I'm sorry. I will just, if you look at the drawing. Which I gather with the area calculations. It seems pretty clear to me at least that. If you. The parking area. Is what makes it conform now. The area that would be changed into parking. And I don't see any of place. Else. In which. You, you can actually conform. So it does seem to me that, that the chairs analysis is quite right. But the other thing that I could see would be is, is if you could show that you were not, you were nonconforming now. So that this would be the extension of a, of an open space deficiency conceivably. We could treat this as a. Nonconforming use case, but if you're starting to conform, if you're conform now and you. And you are introducing a new nonconformity. I don't see how you can avoid applying for variance. I don't see how you can avoid applying for variance. So we're certainly nonconforming. With respect to every, almost every other aspect of the lot. The lot size, the frontage, everything else. Okay. But as Chris has done his calculations and. I accept them, Chris. The, you know, we, we do comply presently with open space. And again, I can't get around that. I just can't do it. Mr. Yeah. I just. Oh, sorry, go ahead. I apologize. I'm having a problem with my camera, but I am here. If I may. So the reason why we are here tonight in order to apply for the special permit is under direction from Mike. Mike Champa when asked directly after the result of a conservation commission meeting, he said the proposed parking in the rear yard would create a new nonconformity and could only be allowed by special permit approval by the zoning board of appeals. So although I'm not questioning the statement that you've made because clearly you are more well versed in this than, than I am. We are here directly under the direction of Mike Champa. So that's, I guess, why we're kind of confused at this point, because we told us that by inspectional services, that this is the direction that we need to take. And which is why we are here today. Because otherwise, I mean, I agree with, with. Well, the Nessie and I agree with your comment. I mean, to go to get a variance. I mean, that's just a waste of everybody's time. So that's why we did try and go this route, you know, as it was recommended by inspectional services. Okay. I'm happy to forward that as well. I just wanted to add, and I apologize if this is not the right time or place to bring up, but there is a warrant article to strike usable open space. I'm not sure where that stands in terms of how people feel about it, but it is something that is on the warrant for the town for town meeting that's ongoing right now. It has not been heard yet. What is that designed to do first? Actually, if I may. Can I ask Mr. Fleming who's on the call to. That article. Sure, just James Fleming Oxford Street. So the provision is designed to remove this requirement in its entirety for one and two family. So that's why it's so important. Home is in all districts in town. And it's actually this case is a perfect example of why I'm filing the article. So forget the parking for a second. If this house is indeed just barely conforming with usable open space, that means it literally can do nothing. You can't add any dormers at all without creating a nonconformity. This is the case I hadn't thought of. You can't. Reconfigure your parking without creating a problem. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go back to the article. I expected these cases were out there and you've. You've handed one to me. Thank you. If this article passes this would. You would not be running into this requirement at all. I think under those circumstances. I might want to see what happens at town meeting. With respect to that warrant article. And if in fact the sense on the part of the members of the committee, I would like to see what happens is to vote on this at this evening. And I am not going to get a favorable vote. Then I think I would be asking. I subject to my client's permission. That this matter be. Either continued. Or withdrawn without prejudice. Okay. I think I'd rather not have it withdrawn without prejudice. I think I'd rather not have it withdrawn without prejudice. I think I'd rather not have it withdrawn without prejudice. What happens with that warrant article. If that war article. Gains the pleasure of the town meeting members. That could well. Help my. My situation. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just to add one little. Given what the testimony that we've already heard. I think it would be appropriate. I think it would be appropriate. I think it would be suggested that a special permit would be appropriate in the situation. I would like to have Mr. Champa. Provide us an explanation for what his thinking is. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that he may have been spoken. And so I think that some continuance is. Is in order. No matter what. Whether a continuance is in order in order to keep this on the agenda. I think it would be appropriate. I think it would be appropriate. And maybe in three or four months. The Attorney General will approve that. And then it'll be retroactive to the vote of the town meeting. Is something that. That. I would hesitate. To do. But the applicant does have the option of withdrawing without prejudice. And. Refiling. If. It turns out that the law changes in the applicant's favor. So. Not that we would be continuing immediately. But the next date. On our calendar would be May 23rd. You're aware of what the. Our timeframe is. There's something lurking in the recesses of my brain. Mr. Hamlin. About a withdrawal without prejudice. That may be a problem. But. I don't know. With respect to my situation. And, and quite frankly, I can't put my finger on it right now. But it came up in one of my cases. About a year ago. And. Before the ARB actually. And one of the members of the ARB. Raise the issue of. A withdrawal without prejudice. If you're going to withdraw. Then it's going to be with prejudice. Now again. It'll lose me right now. In terms of what the thinking was behind that. But I would not want to see a situation develop. Where I request that that happen. I withdraw without prejudice. And then find out that I'm behind the eight ball. And I can't do anything with it at that point. I can't do anything with it. I can't do anything. If it might make sense. And I'm not talking about June. Mr. Hamlin. I'm wondering if it might make sense. To give us a reasonable continuance. So that we can perhaps see. What happens at town meeting. If in fact. The article is voted on favorably. At town meeting. Then I think that's a different situation. I think that's a different situation. I think that's a different situation. I think that's a different situation. I think that's a different situation for myself. Representing my clients as well. So I think I'd be asking. For a reasonable continuance. Rather than a withdrawal without prejudice. Since again, I have a concern. That a withdrawal without prejudice may not. May not really be. What it means. Mr. Chairman. This is David. Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I hear what Mr. Nesse is saying, but, but I'd also like to get a clarification from Mr. Champa, because all along Mr. Champa has told us as my son has indicated. That the special permit was the avenue for us to pursue. And now we're being told that that's not. A possibility. So I'd like a short continuance. So that we can get a clarification from Mike. As to whether we went in the right direction. He's the one that gave us the guidance. Right. I would certainly be. A menable to a request to continue to May 23rd. That would, that would be our next regularly, a next regular hearing. If that's not too far out for you guys. That's fine for us. That's good. Okay. Before. The vote, the board considers the continuance. Do have a fair number of. People in attendance. And I know that this case is. Has a bunch of people who are interested in. Speaking on it. So I would like to. Continue on to. Public comment on this. I think it will be valuable for. For the board and for the. Applicants. So with that in mind. I would like to open the meeting for public comment public questions and comments. As they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Members of the public wish to speak. Should digitally raise their hand using the button on the. Reactions tab. If you're calling in by phone, you may down star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair asked to give your name and address to the record and given time to your questions and comments. And once all public questions or comments have been addressed or. We've reached the hour of nine o'clock. The public comment period will be closed. So with that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. The first hand I see raised is. Daniel Peterson. I think I incorrectly. My name's Diane. I don't know whether I. I'm seeming to help. Mr. Robert, I'll come back to you. But I did want to go to Mr. Peterson. All right. So really crucial issue before us here. Sorry. I have to ask you name and address the record again. Sorry. Daniel Peterson, 38 teal street in Arlington. And so I have great respect for this project on, on certainly on both sides with, I mean setbacks are impossible in East Arlington as everyone knows who lives here. You're pretty much in violation from the existing footprint. So I think to the point before town meeting. In order to be able to enact changes in many flat, tiny squares. You know, I think we're going to require a special variance, which is impossible. Or consideration from the board of appeals. And so, and this is a important matter. I would like some clarification from the board about how much precedent there is. I don't have great history in this town. You know, I'm a bit of a newbie myself on teal street. So. The parking is impossible to the attorney's perspective. We know that to be true. You know, we're part of like letting tenants know that you can't park on the street. And there's a lot of. Many ways that this could potentially be resolved. I think the attorney makes a great point that we don't want people bark backing out recklessly. In front of Magnolia park. I don't know how much traffic there is. I'm less convinced about how much traffic is alleviated. On the street, but could you guys, could you talk a little bit about how big of a precedent this sets? And I mean, it seems to me that maybe it would be good to just go in line and see what the vote says and, and revisit in a month or two. But curious for like a little more perspective. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So that's the first part of the course for rear yard parking. This is the first I have seen where there wasn't already some form of. Of parking already in the rear. There was a project on summer street. That had some existing rear yard parking that they were looking to reconfigure. I've seen parking where it's essentially no, bringing a. If in cases where there has where there is no usable open space, it does give the board more more discretion in how to act. Then if it's the property is complying with usable open space. In some way, that's sort of an arbitrary distinction. And that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. No, I appreciate it. I mean, I'm just sort of like, I don't want to open a can of worms where everyone can build parking structures. But at the same time, I want lots to make sense and public areas to make sense. Yeah. And so I would be, I understand that there's a bit of an issue here where the technicalities as Mr. Patton has laid out and you have laid out Mr. Klein. This is not the appropriate venue on the technicality of the variance. We've also heard from Mike Champa, the building inspector by proxy, that that's a non-starter. And this is the only way to possibly achieve a win-win for the property owners and tenants and the town at large who uses the park. And so I'm definitely all about those solutions. As long as it's a kind of a case by case basis. Is it, you know what I mean? Is it safe to say that, like, I would like to place my trust in you in a case that this on its face seems appropriate to me. But at the same time, I wouldn't want to get part of launch to have underground above ground backyard parking and no open space. That said, it does seem to make sense that if you, you should be allowed to use your open space for parking if it's enclosed within setbacks on your property. So I guess, I guess I'm maybe also asked doing for a continuance. I don't know. I mean, informative here. I think this is an issue that's going to come up a lot though, right? In terms of the redevelopment of the space and limited lot sizes and trying to figure out parking and housing until the town changes overnight parking. Yeah. Thank you very much. Next on the list. As Tanya Hughes. Hi there, Tanya Hughes, 87 Varnum Street. I was wondering, is it possible to let Diane Torbert go first? She was trying to raise her hand. I was. Okay. Thank you. Absolutely. Diane Torbert. Hi, my name is Diane Torbert. I reside at 110 Varnum Street and I'm the owner of 110 112 Varnum Street. I think the issues that has not been brought to the forefront here is that I'm a direct abutter. And these properties are located in a flood zone. With a very high water table prone to flooding. I would direct the board to the written comments that I submitted as well as the photographs, which causes me great concern about actually having. The green space totally removed in addition to a tree with a lot of water. So I'm not going to go into the permable pavers in this flooded area. It's not been my experience in the 30 plus years that I've lived here that people. That fruit can't Magnolia field park on Varnum Street. They generally park in the parking area by Thorndyke or directly across from the playground. But my understanding is that this is would be a new project and that there would need to be a setback from my property. We are routinely flooded in this area, both 106 one away to 110 112 or sloped by the storm drain. There's a parking station in Magnolia field. FEMA has visited our properties due to flooding. And I can only see this. And that's where I'm going to be. And I'm going to be creating more problems in that arena. Would you like me to display your letter and photos? Sure. That's from my second. And when was this. I think there's. There's two years. There's one that's 2010. That's actually when FEMA came. And the others picture. That's my backyard. That's my driveway. 106 108 is to the left. This is the pump that I use to not lose. All my furnaces and hot water heaters in my basement. That's the final photo. I mean, I'm also concerned about the contamination of these cars apart there with gas and the, the vehicle fluids and the oil. This, you know, I'm also concerned about the maintenance of the permeable pavers. I'm also concerned about the snow removal. I do not want snow plowed up against my property, increasing the flooding and my yard and basement. So I just request respectfully that you take an into consideration. This is not. And we are not, we're sloped. We are not level with Magnolia field. So you say you're lower than Magnolia field. And I'm not aware of the properties that Mr. Nisi was referring to, but to my right all the way down to Thorndike and to my left up to a house that I believe has a high fence. I don't know what's behind it. I do not see any yards that have permeable pavers or parking. And the backyard. Because this essentially would be removing the entire backyard. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're welcome. Turn to Miss Hughes. Hi there, Tony Hughes, 87 Barnum street. I should do an okay job with this, but I've been scribbling things. And I can't always read my own handwriting. I started out with three comments, but I got another one during while listening to everybody. So my first comment is that paving the backyard. The petition says that it's desirable to public convenience and also that it will enhance the character of the neighborhood because it will mean that cars for that, that property won't be parked on the street. But I think that's actually a little bit of a specious argument because my experience as a long-term resident of this neighborhood is that people regularly pull their cars out of their driveway and park them on the street, even when they have sufficient parking. And even when they aren't using tandem parking, because it's much more convenient and practical to do so. If you're coming and going throughout the day. Also people like to, you know, mark their territory by putting their cars in front of their house. So I don't think that that the addition of three parking spaces is going to either alleviate or prevent any parking burden or hazards to pedestrians. I think at best it's kind of a neutral change. The second comment I have is that, and this is just probably slightly nitpicky, but the petition itself lists one parking space on the property. But we've heard from a couple of people here tonight that the current driveway fits four to five cars. So the addition of three spaces behind the house is going to result in seven to eight parking spaces, not three. So that's just a little nitpick. I feel like they have sufficient parking and I know tandem parking is a pain in the butt. I do know that. Then my third comment is that I have concerns about the long term viability of the permeable pavers because they require maintenance to keep them unclogged. There's no guarantee that the pavers will be maintained. And driving on the pavers itself will compact the subsurface. So even if it's appropriately constructed, the ability to drain will decrease year by year having adverse effects on the immediate of butters. And then the final comment I had was that somebody did bring up that, you know, there may be other yards that have been turned into parking lots, but just because we've done that in the past is not a reason to continue doing it. We've done a lot of things in the past that we don't still do like draining wetlands. And, you know, building buildings on them, which we part of this neighborhood is kind of in that situation right now, which is one of the reasons we flood. And I just respectfully request that the petition be denied. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Mr. Crystal already. Thank you, Miss moderate crystal ready. Can you hear me? Okay. We can. Thank you. I'm at 56 Adams Street. I'm not in the immediate neighborhood, but I do live in a neighborhood of two family homes. And as those of us who live in these types of neighborhoods know, it's quite common for some houses to have single with driveways and some to have double with that's just a fact of life. And this is the situation this developer finds himself in is not at all unique. And I think that's a good point. The, what people do is you just put a garage or a widened area towards the back of the lot in order to, you know, have two cars that can park side by side. But what you don't do is, is pave over the rear yard. And, you know, frankly, I don't care whether permeable papers are used or whether it's paved with gold. This is an excellent reason why we need the usable open space to make sure that everything should not remove it. It clearly provides benefits to the neighbors to have that there. I don't think I or anyone else should have to look out my kitchen window and see a parking lot in my neighbor's backyard. And I certainly share the concern of the neighbors of this particular house. So, you know, frankly, I think this is a really big reach. I don't know what the town's doing in putting out its legal notices because clearly this did require a variance. And I would also say, I think the applicant is probably overstating the gross floor area of the house and therefore the amount of usable open space that's needed. So I certainly hope you will. Now, finally, the other thing I was going to say is I'm looking at this neighborhood. It's not at all uncommon for houses just to have single with driveway. So again, it's nothing unique. But I really hope the board will recognize the importance of maintaining the usable open space bylaw and speak against the article that's coming up at town meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Loretty. Somebody in the waiting room. Mr. Gillar is the applicant. I'm going to pass you by just for another member of the public. Mr. Fleming. Hi, James Fleming 58 Oxford Street. What the, to me, the environmental argument doesn't matter as much because under usable open space that space doesn't have to be green and environmentally conscious. It can be a patio that's paved or it can be a swimming pool. The only requirement is that it isn't parking. So in this case, if the developer just put a patio in back there, it would be equally as environmentally destructive. It's just that we wouldn't be having this conversation. And then the other, one other thing is to Mr. Loretty's point, they could do a wider area in the back. But if the measurements are to be believed, they have literally no ability to modify their backyard without running into the usable open space requirement. So there is just no option available to them. Thank you. Thank you. Chris, may I say something? Chris. Bob and Essie. Mr. and Essie. Yes. Our intent from day one. Was to in fact go before the conservation commission. But in speaking with Mr. Mr. It was suggested that perhaps what they ought to do is see whether they could get zoning relief with respect to parking first. They are in the 100 year flood zone. So they have to go before conservation in any event. So even if they did get and do get relief from the zoning board, the conservation commission is going to have something to say about conditions on the lot as well. But again, we don't get to that. If we don't get by the zoning board of appeal. So again, I'm reiterating my request. Yeah. Or in my clients request for a continuance at this point, a reasonable continuance. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wished to address this application? Yes. I believe Mr. Loretta, your hand is still up, I think, from before. I remember just requesting to address this a second time. So Ms. Yes. I'm just wanting to confirm that the members of the board have access to my written comments as well. We do. Yes. Okay. All right. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No further members of the public who wish to address. I will go ahead and close the public comment period. Of this hearing. And we're. Turn Mr. Alex Giller. If you had a, did you have a, something you had wanted to raise? I did. So I just wanted to address a couple of the public comments if that's possible quickly. If I can share my screen, I can show you the abutting properties that actually do. We have a lot of parking in the rear and for that matter, paved. And that's why we wanted to do. Permable pavers as in it. Try to be some sort of middle ground. I mean, we, paving obviously it's cheaper. It's easier. It's faster. But we also know that it's not best of the environment. We do know that we back up to a wet land and we are in the buffer zone for the flood plain. So we are trying to make. Certain design choices that will be as beneficial as we can. So I'm not sure if I'm able to, I'm trying to share my screen, but it's saying it's disabled. Right. So I would need to ask Ms. Ralston to let you. To make you a cohost so you can share. Could be all set. Sorry, the other one, the other Giller, sorry. So it needs to be Alex Giller, not David Giller. Thank you, Colleen. Alex, you should have permission to share. There we go. So if you can look here on this screen, you can see that. One third or excuse me, so to point out, so the red dot on the screen, that is our property 106108. If you look diagonally across to the left and diagonally across to the right. So we have 13115. We have 109111 and we have 101103 all with substantial amounts of parking in their backyard that is all paved. They do not meet the open space requirement to the naked eye. I honestly, I don't know what process they went through in order to achieve this. I do know 109111 was repaved and was a condo conversion in 2021. Which should be relatively. Recent and relevant to this project. And that's why we thought that this was just as simple as, you know, getting a special permit while also appeasing the request of conservation commission. I would like to address the flooding concern. I mean, right now, the cars are currently parked as deep to the back of the property as they would be with our proposed parking plan. So it's basically whether the cars are kind of centered in the yard versus along the fence, but at the end of the day, the same amount of contaminants would still spill in if that's a concern, no matter where they are parked in this driveway, because that one event where the pump failed in 2010 would have gone, you know, covered probably 80% of our driveway as it currently stands. And then one other thing, so with the conservation commission, we actually have gone to front and they did want us to, that's how we clarified everything with my champ as to the avenue that we need to go forward and conservation commission commission. I actually also said, but I don't have that in writing that this is probably a special permit that we should be addressing first before talking to them. With that said, they also did have some of the same concerns that Diane had and we're happy to address such as dealing with snow removal, maintenance of those permeable pavers. It sounds like that is all going to be terms are, are approval if we do get that far with the conservation commission, because that is also something that they had on mind as well. And we're happy to agree with. We've also reached out to all the neighbors. We've sent letters ourselves in addition to what's been provided from the town to simply say, Hey, this is what we're trying to do. We're happy for feedback. I've reached out to Diane personally, both in person and an email several times. I understand she lives there, you know, she's lived there for 30 years. I hope she lives there for another 30 years. We're gone after this project. We want to make this something that she is okay with. We're going to try to get feedback from her in order to get landscaping ideas are offered to have her. Pick the tree for the backyard, whatever it may be, I'm trying to make it a better situation for everybody. And so I understand that it's not ideal to be looking at cars in the backyard, but we are trying to do our best to make the best to the situation. So just wanted to address a few of those comments. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and close the share. Thanks. We will we have before us right now is a request for continuance. On this application. Are there any other. Questions from the board before we. Consider that. Okay. So. If I could request it a continuance. I think. From the board's perspective, it would be worthwhile for us as well to have an opportunity to speak with the spectral services and find out exactly. They're, they're reasoning for. Suggesting this is a special permit. You know, it's very possible that we have this wrong as well. So. With that in mind. I would move. To continue. The. The hearing for one of six Varnum street. Till Tuesday. May 23rd, 2023. At. 730 p.m. A second. Second. Mr. Hanlon. So vote of the board to continue. Mr. Chairman. Can I ask you a question? Yeah. I'm a little bit. I'm getting mixed up on dates a little bit. But I'm wondering whether after the meeting that we had earlier to plan out the sequence of events on. For 10 sunny side, whether the 23rd is available to us because I. Have this feeling. I thought they had requested the 16th. I think you're right. I just wanted to be sure. Yeah. So this is a motion to continue. The hearing for one of six Varnum street. Until Tuesday, May 23rd. At 730 p.m. Let's put forward by the chair seconded by Mr. Hanlon. So then a vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Holly. Hi. Mr. Rickardelli is not with us this evening. Hi. Mr. Blank. Hi. And the chair votes. We are continued on one of six Varnum street. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time. Absolutely. This brings us where that could be agenda. Here's the agenda. This brings us to docket three seven four six 25 teal street. Okay. So if I could. Applicants to introduce themselves and tell us what they are proposing. We have two applicants here at different locations. Introduce myself first. I'm Carolyn Salvi. I am one of the. Owners and residents. Of 25 teal street. The other owner who is here is Rachel Gray. Who is owns 25% of the property and is a non resident. So we bought this house in fall of 21. At which point or. At the point at which we bought it. This was not true, but at the point at which we put in the offer. This was not true. The house, those zoned as a two family was being rented as four separate rental units. By the previous owner. So she had subdivided the first floor. That was being rented as two separate units. The second and third floor. It's a, the house is a 1890s. Mansard with a large addition off to one side. It's on a wide lot. It's a two separate unit. And then there is a converted garage in the back. Yard. That was being rented as a studio. So we. Put the house back to its intended zoned state. As a two family. The people that we initially bought this house with. In December of 22. And we would like to ask for a special permit to rent out. The ADU, the accessory dwelling unit in the backyard. We would. Of course need to get a certificate of occupancy. For that. So we would need to put work back into it to put a kitchen. And the reason we need. A special permit is because the ADU is within 10 feet of the property line. On two sides of us. The neighbors. One over. We're at 25. So I believe they wouldn't be 27. When I spoke to them directly about it. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And before now we've never had any problem with tenants in there. It's been being rented out the entire time we've lived in this house. We. The neighbors behind us have raised no objections. We distributed letters. So aside from it not being. As requested, it should otherwise be pretty conforming. Again, because it was being rented. Not properly before by previous owners. In some ways this is sort of. We're asking for. A previous grant thing to be grandfathered in. More properly. I think we already have six spaces of off street parking. So we would certainly be able to accommodate parking for a tenant back there in addition to the tenants that we now have in the second and third floor unit. Yep. So I will introduce myself too. I'm Rachel Gray. Carolyn has already covered my involvement in the property. I basically helped the selfies buy out their previous neighbors in December. And we are working toward renting out the property. So I'm going to introduce myself. And I'm going to introduce myself. Including this ADU. The only thing I would add to what Carolyn said is that the ADU, which is clearly a one-time conversion from a two car garage. It's already built. We're not requesting any new construction. It actually already has hooked up gas, electricity, water. The only thing it doesn't have is basically we would need to throw in a kitchen sake at a fridge. To make it livable. We don't need to make any major new construction. It will not change the amount of open space. We don't even need to make new parking spots. The only things that we seek relief on are the two issues of it being within actually six feet of the lot line. And also only two of the three owners are resident. So one. Question we had. So. The way that the ownership works now. Is it that one person. Owns one unit. The one person knows the other unit. Or is it sort of all combined? It is. One mortgage. On a two family. It is. So it is not. So. My husband and I. Own 75% of the total property. We're all on the deed. And the husband and I are both on the mortgage. And I'm not out in the mortgage only because I don't make money that makes me useful to have on a mortgage application. So the section. And that this is falls under. And the only reason that they need to be in front of us. As they had noted. This is five nine two B bullets. Five. I think four or five subsection triple I. So the exception and accessory dwelling unit may be located in. An accessory building. Which accessory building shall not constitute a principal or main building by the incorporation of the. Accessory dwelling unit. Provided that it's such accessory building is located within six feet of a lot line. Then such accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed only if the Board of Appeals acting pursuant to three three. Grants a special permit upon its finding that the creation of such accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Then the use of such accessory building as a private garage. Or other allowed use. So. That's what we need to do. So that's what we need to determine. But in sort of doing research on this, we're going through the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit. And. Essentially it. An accessory dwelling unit needs to be accessory to. A principal dwelling. So. It's a little in a standard to family situation. It's easy because it's a single owner. Which it goes to, if it's a straight condo, it's easy because one unit has one owner. The other unit has a different owner. We can, it's easy to assign. It's a little more fuzzy in this case because we have. Sort of essentially an ownership group with. Where most of them are resident, but we, it's not clear to find, to find which unit of 25 teal street is affiliate. It's going to be affiliated with. Yes. Because we can't just do it blank. Make it for the property. By the way. By law appears to be written. So we would just want to clarify which unit it would be associated with. It would be. It would be associated with unit two. Okay. Which is. The unit that in our, in our sort of collective conception, although this may not be entirely. No, it is clear in the legal legal framework, I believe. That's the one that Rachel owns. Okay. Does that make sense? So that the Salvis 75% of the total building, they own all of unit one and half of two. Okay. Rachel. Owns half of unit two. Okay. We, we may well. We have talked about a condo conversion, but because of the financial picture at the moment. That doesn't make sense to do for us financially. Unless interest rates drop at which point, you know, we can do that. Okay. No, by my reading of the ADU laws, you can actually have an ADU associated with a one family or a two family house. Yeah, that is what this is. I did not see that one can be associated with a condo unit. So my, by my reading, it is okay to associate it with the two family house, but condo icing might bring us back in front of you again. Right. So the way the law is written. The, in order to have an accessory dwelling, so you can have it on a single family property, you have a single house that is owner occupied and an accessory dwelling unit that's rented out, or you have a, an accessory dwelling unit where the owner resides. And the, then the primary dwelling becomes the rental unit. Because the bylaw requires that they resident that one of the owners be the owner occupied. And so I'm a little sort of be a little curious what the board thinks about this where I think in this situation, if it was affiliated with unit one where, which is clearly owner occupied, that would be simple, but if it's affiliated with unit number two, it is 5050 ownership where, but neither of them are resident in that unit. So the only concern is that if we, that that would not be allowable under the bylaw. Mr. Hanlon. Could you point to the provision in the law by law that requires someone to actually be a resident in that unit. What I'm looking for it's looking at is it says an accessory dwelling unit shall not be owned separately from the principal dwelling unit with which such accessory dwelling unit is associated. So that's the one that sort of drives that it has to be affiliated with a dwelling unit in order to be an accessory dwelling unit. So I'm trying to see what the where the effective language is. My reading this wrong. So I know that the accessory dwelling unit shall not be owned separately from the principal dwelling unit with which such accessory dwelling unit is associated. That's the one that sort of drives that it has to be affiliated with a dwelling unit in order to be an accessory dwelling unit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit, this is sub C one. The owner must deliver an affidavit to the building inspector stating that the owner or a family member of the owner will reside in either the principal dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit upon completion of the accessory dwelling. So just five nine two C one. So in so far. As it is possible to treat the ex the existing accessory dwelling unit. Yeah. As an accessory dwelling unit to the whole property. Certainly. I don't think we can do it to the property because the before. As an accessory dwelling unit shall not be owned separately from the principal, the principal dwelling unit with which such accessory dwelling unit is associated. So your property has two dwelling units. So you can't. Assign it to both dwelling units. It has to be assigned to one because it says the principal dwelling unit. Okay. Okay. If it legally needs to be associated with unit one. What restriction does that really place on us? I don't know. I don't know. None whatsoever. I think. I mean, that seems fine then. Yeah. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. I mean, we've had so few of these. I, I'm not surprised that we're sort of working on these as we go. And I looking at the language of five point nine two. A two, it says helping Arlington residents to conserve and grow their own property values. And I know Mr. Hanlon asked the question about whether somebody had to be resident in the building, or I think that was the question. And I think at least, you know, from the beginning, we were dealing with these not that long ago. When it started, I was of the impression that it had to be somebody who was living there. As a resident. Who would then be having a, an accessory unit associated with their. The residential unit. And I suspect that there are variations of interpretation here. So I'm not saying that I'm a hundred percent right, but that's just my sort of feel or take for it. So I do think that since there are residents in the unit one. That I think at least would address the concerns. That we have whether or not it clears up the question, the answer to the question for all time. I don't know. I think that that would at least be a workaround. If, if we needed. So I had a conversation with, with, with Doug Hime, town council about this because the question was raised about having. About the way the ownership works. And he was. Not entirely sure how to do it either. And I had approached him at last night during the break of town meeting and just said, you know, we've got this case. We've got this case. We've got this case. But the approach that, that I think. We can work with is if we can assign it to one unit. And that is the unit that has the residents. Resident in it. Then it becomes very clean than it is really just. There's that we just need to make a determination that using the building at the back. As an accessory dwelling unit is not more detrimental than. Current condition or the condition that it would be if it was a building. And that's the only determination that needs to be made by the board. So. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I was just saying, thinking that, that if in fact we proceeded with this and, and we're going to approve it. We could include as a condition in the special permit. That it would be associated with, with a unit in which case, when that's filed that establishes a legal record as to which is the principal unit for which it's so that you don't have the situation where, where there's musical chairs down the line that it keeps on being thrown back from one, from one to the next. And then that will make, would make the situation clear going forward as to what the principal unit was. So you, you're saying we could do a condition where we say that the accessory dwelling unit is accessory to. Whichever of the two units is owner occupied. Well, I would, I don't know that I would do that. I mean, my, to me, at least the clearest thing to do here is to be able to, is to find a way of having somebody make an election as to the, which is the, which is the principal dwelling that's associated with the ADU. And I would, my inclination, but maybe this is just being overly legalistic is that once you make that election, you're stuck with it. So at that point you've, you've got, you, you've, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you know, you've got to, you know, you've got to identify the principal unit and that unit then eventually has to, you know, comply with the provisions of, of the ordinance and you have the bylaw and you don't care about the other one. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to the confusion a little bit. So, you know, when people are making reference to unit, I understand that it's sort of shorthand, but I don't think it's, I don't think it's, I don't think it's a good idea to talk about a two family structure. And I wasn't clear on that myself. So I think from what the applicants have said, it's not yet condoized if, if it ever would be. Right. So, so it strikes me that if you had an actual condominium, and all of the other conditions were met, each of the condominiums could have its own ADU. Right. So it's, you know, we're sort of trying to nibble at the edges a little bit and say, okay, well now, and I think it's right. We have to sort of assign this to one of the, you know, units so called. But in some ways it's really, it's not just, it's not a unit yet is all I'm saying it's sort of not matured. But I don't think that we need to do any more than what you suggested, which is just find that it's not more detrimental. Because I think there are clearly gray areas in this, you know, that we'll be dealing with for some time to come. Any other questions at the moment from the board. Mr. Trep. Mr. Blank. Just wondering too, is it something that we should ask for to get plans of the unit. Once it's ready for occupying. I think it's going to be. I think it's going to be. Like, as they mentioned even. In their presentation also the letter from the town. That there currently isn't a kitchen. And not so it's can't be actually rented. So I think it would be good for us to have on the record of what their proposed condition is going to be. We can certainly. Request that through a condition. So this time I'm going to go ahead. So public comment is taken as it relates to the matter of hand and. To be used to direct it to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. To like to speak, you may raise your hand digitally using the button in the reactions tab. Or you may dial star nine if you're calling in by phone. So with that. Daniel Peterson. Hello again, Daniel Peterson. Hi, I'm Daniel Peterson. I'm from. 38. To the street. Just across the way and down the road from the Selby's. Just again. Point of clarification. I remember when this unit went for sale, it was being purported as a three property. Home. It's zoned as a two family home. It was sold that way. It was a two family home. My understanding is a garage, et cetera. Not rentable, which would be. The reason you can't get a permit for a kitchen or a bathroom. How does this relate to the additional dwelling unit. Situation, because I'm sure tons of people would convert the garages to guest houses. Please inform. Thank you. Sure. I'm not going to approve by town meeting two years ago. Might have been three. And. There are certain criteria has to be less than nine hundred square feet. It has to have its own separate entrance. Several other, it has to fully comply with the building code. So I'm not going to go into that. I'm not going to go into that. In this situation, if it is. Within six feet of a property line, it needs to get us, get approval from the zoning board of appeals. The. Part of the idea behind it is that our Arlington is somewhat notorious for having lots of. Off the books. Units. And this is an attempt to try. To increase the housing. In our housing opportunities in Arlington and hopefully housing opportunities that are smaller and less and more affordable. Then. That's sort of your standard units in town. It was also an attempt to try and. Hopefully make situations with people who are. You know, land rich and cash poor. Where all of their equity is in their house and they're looking for a way to live on the property, but they're looking for a way to live on the property. So that's why we're looking for a way to. Gain some, some value from the property as well. So if, if you're doing it within your house, you don't even need a special, as a part of your house, you don't need a special permit from the zoning board of appeals. You can just go straight to the building department and work with them on creating it. So they. The only reason this is before us today is because it is within the zoning board of appeals. So the only reason this is before us today is because it is within the zoning department. What makes it a dwelling unit is effectively that it has a stove. If you have a garage with a bathroom, that's not. That's not illegal. You can have a water service to your garage. You can have electric service to your garage. But as soon as you put a stove in, it becomes a dwelling unit. And so. You know, that where, which is why this not currently doesn't have a kitchen. So it doesn't currently qualify as a dwelling unit. So it doesn't qualify as a dwelling unit. So if you're adding that back, adding that in. Should they get the special approval from the board? To move forward on that. Does that address your question? I think it does. I'm, I'm a new resident love Arlington, Wisconsin boy, you know, Cambridge educated here in town and happy to be in the neighborhood. But one of the things that has been beat into. Is that parking is terrible. Can't park in the street overnight. Got to try and figure this stuff out. And there are no additional dwelling units. I thought no guest houses. You know, I just did an external garage. So I'm just sitting here full disclosure thinking like. Sounds to me like I could rent out my garage, but I know it's not that easy. What's the difference here? I didn't need to get rezoned. Right. Like that's what all the neighbors on teal street. Are curious about how do we go from a one or a two family to all of a sudden renting three or four units additionally to the primary residents. Right. So the, the ADU bylaw does restrict you to one accessory dwelling unit per principal dwelling unit. And it's only, I think it's only available in the one and two family districts. So. The most that could be on a single property is for, and that's only if it has to exist. If it's in a two family district in a single family district, there can only be two units. So that's sort of what restricts the overall number that could be created. This law came into effect. I think you said two years ago. Yeah. Have you seen a flood of these? Is this like, I don't want to, I'm not holding things up. I'm excited for my neighbor. I mean, I'm a two family. I have my former NAMI living downstairs. I mean, it's great, but. This is a short case that's come before the zoning board. For being close to the property line. How many have gone to have not required that I have no idea it is not a big number from my understanding. But I mean, is it, is it fair to assume that it's like when that law went into effect, the long standing kind of deterrent for increased housing. It opened and all of a sudden it went from a no go to like, these are mostly going through. Like you can, you can convert a garage. You can build an additional dwelling unit externally for a two family. Could you build one unit and split it. And have it be half and half. And now you're at four families. Like this is a can of worms that people are going to open. I'm curious. Mr. Chairman. At this point, I'm, I'd like to sort of use the word scope. We're, we're now kind of debating the implications of the zoning bylaw. And I suggest that. Mr. Peters take a look at it. And it's, it's in itself. And you can look up accessory dwelling unit and it tells you all about it. The purpose was to actually promote these. And so it's not a bad thing when people do it. Mostly it's a bad thing when they have to come to us. Because that, that is a barrier to doing it, but they have to for certain circumstances, particularly when they get within six feet of the outline for a separated building. And so it has not been an overwhelming and practically nowhere has it been an overwhelming flood of these kinds of things because it's expensive to make them typically. And so, but beyond that, I think we ought to try to focus on this particular case and see if we can make some progress towards resolving this one. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Peterson, you're on mute. Sorry, Mr. Patton, respectfully. Did not mean to waste time at all. I hear you. I know it's late. I love Arlington. I'm excited about the community. And I'm excited if you guys, if this is, if we're approving this, like full disclosure as a private citizen, 100% on board, but just want to understand the implications as well. And like if you guys are generally in board with this, I just, I wasn't sure. I thought that there might be opposition, but that's amazing to hear. So I will take no more of your time. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. Daniel Rosenblatt. Hi, my name is Daniel Rosenblatt at 29 Teal Street. I'm Carolyn's, Carolyn Salvie's neighbor, neighbor right next door. We're right on the line here and I'm, I'm appearing here to support her, her permit. I think you should, I think it's great that they're legalizing this residence that as long as we've been here for 15 years before Carolyn was rented out to a tenant. And I think it's great that she's legalizing it and, you know, we need more, more housing in our own time. We understand that the, that Carolyn doesn't intend to expand the footprint or add a second story to the existing adjacent dwelling unit. However, if the property changes hands, new owners might not have the same intentions and we would request that the permit expressly exclude expanding on the footprint or adding an additional floor. As that would impinge on the character of the neighborhood, privacy of far dwelling and with adversely affect the value of our home. Thank you. You're welcome. As an accessory building, it is limited to 20 feet in height. So, but we can, we can certainly consider your recommendation for including a condition about adding a second floor. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Are there other members of the public who wish to address this here? I know Ms. Salvi has her hand up, but she gets to speak anyways. She's the applicant. So are there any other members of the public who wish to address this? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period on this hearing. So the matter really before the board is whether using the existing garage at the rear of the property, which has a history of various uses, whether using that as an accessory dwelling unit would be more detrimental than the use of it as a garage. So I'm just going to quickly switch over to the document. So this is the the memorandum from the department planning and community development. So it notes that the existing structure on the property, which is in the R2 testing on conformities because the accessory building is located within six feet of the left and rear side lines. The board may grant a special permit provided it finds the creation of the ADU is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the use of the accessory building as a private garage or other allowed use. Applicant is not increasing the footprint or height of the existing structures. The proposal would not increase any of the existing nonconformities. And so in their application of the special permit criteria, requested use is permitted through a special permit in the R2 zoning district since the existing accessory structure is located less than six feet from the property line. Proposal would provide an ADU to allow the owners to earn supplemental income through investment in their property. And number three, that would not be an increase in traffic congestion or an impairment in public safety. Under the bylaw, an ADU is not required to have an additional parking space affiliated with it. But even if it were, it would not, because of the small size of the unit, it will be increased to the single vehicle. Criteria number four, undue burden, it would not be an undue burden on municipal services. Criteria number five, special regulations, if granted by a special permit, the proposal would meet the required conditions for ADUs under 592B1. So the floor area of the proposed ADU is less than the maximum floor area requirement, which is 900 square feet. Due to its proposed side of the size, it is not a large addition and therefore not subject to 542B6. It would have its own separate entrance. This would be the first ADU established on this property and a maximum of two would be allowed. An ADU are allowed in accessory buildings, in this case subject to the granting of a special permit. The ADU would not be used as a short-term rental. An ADU is subject to state building code and state fire code. Criteria six, while the accessory building is located less than six feet from the budding properties, the proposal to create the ADU is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use as a garage. Near a structure on an abutting property is also an accessory garage. Three family and two family homes are located in its immediate vicinity. The B1 zone lies approximately 200 feet to the south at Mass Ave. Accessory building is located entirely behind the principal dwelling in the rear yard of the property. Overall, the proposal would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood character of the district or the adjoining district nor will be detrimental to the health morals or welfare of the neighbors of the property. And it would not cause any detrimental excess of a particular use. So this is the property here and the garage is this small corner back here. From the street. Oh. In Google stream view, the tree is still there. And now it's gone. Um, So it's gone because it was a Norway maple and we asked the city to take it away because those are invasive. Ah, indeed. Um, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if the chair could, could inquire of Miss Alvie whether she's agreeable to the condition that her neighbors as a proposed to, um, Not to include another second story. Absolutely. We are a hundred percent agreeable to that. We have no intention to do any construction. On the ADU. Aside from. Bringing it up to the level needed to get a certificate of occupancy. Uh, Uh, and. And, uh, Uh, And we have a different. That just means putting in. A kitchen sink, a stove and a refrigerator. Um, It is already fully plumbed. It has its own gas meter. Uh, we do not want to increase the footprint. We like our big yard. We're very excited about it. Um, We're in fact about to remove what the previous owner had created as a And not gravel, which I'm very excited about. And I really appreciate the support from, from Daniel Greenblatt. And I, Mr. Peterson at 38. Nice to meet you. So, yeah, I mean, we absolutely want to just be increasing the housing stock, the affordable housing stock and, and, you know, helping defray the cost of having to buy the second half of the house. Yeah. And as co owner, I agree with that completely. I do have some photos of the ADU from the inside, if I could share a link somewhere, it may not matter, but the inside is actually really nice. It has a little bit of a gabled roof. There's a skylight in there. It's a little bit extra tall. So adding a second story to it, I think would actually harm its character and we don't want that. Thank you. I did have one question on that. So. Are the windows that are in, in the garage or in the studio. Do those face onto the property or do they face budding properties? They all face into the property and there's also a. Any further questions from the board? Hearing none. So we're the board to approve. We're the board to approve this special permit. We would have our three. The three standard conditions make sure they make sense. So. These are the three standard that we've read into the. In hearing prior. And then Mr. Hanlon, there was. We sort of had a couple of different opinions about how to condition and the. Which unit is associated with, did you have. Any other comments? Any other comments? Any other specific language of mine. Mr. Chairman. I sort of was persuaded by Mr. Dupont, unless he's changed his position, like I'm about to. That we might as well just. At this point. It was especially when you have the building itself is under common ownership. It's just, it there's a single. There's, there's an undivided interest that it, then everybody has a proportional interest in that. It might be better. But it's also. Not specify which is the dwelling unit that's attached to, at some point, one or the other of the. Of the dwelling units will probably go pass into the hands of someone else. Or maybe there'll be another ADU built here, but either way. I don't really see any very good reason for. For. You know, I think it's a good idea to take a step forward and, and deciding that question when it's right for them. And when they can do it in the best way that. That is suitable for all of the owners here. So I, I'd sort of pet take a pass on that and. And let the later on decide if as the. As the time comes. Which is the. Which is the primary unit to it that it's addressed to. But if the board were, were thought differently from that, then the primary unit will be. Attach it will be affiliated with whatever the language of the statute affiliated with the principal unit. Which would be unit one or two is the, as the case may be. But I think we might be able to. It might be just as well to avoid that. Okay. Yeah, because the two. The two paragraphs. It's B four to accessory dwelling unit shall not be owned separately from the principal dwelling unit with which such accessory dwelling unit is associated. Sort of implies that it needs to be affiliated with a single dwelling unit. And then see one part of the issuance of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The owner must deliver an affidavit to the building inspector stating the owner or a family member of the owner will reside in either the principal or the accessory. So Mr. Chairman. Yes. The language that would seem to me to work would be that the. The accessory dwelling unit. Shall be. Shall be. Associated with unit with dwelling unit one. I think that's the one that, that is the more unambiguous thing. If you wanted to do that and the applicant was comfortable doing that, then then that, that would nail it down. And then then you could. At this point, if that makes it clear. I mean, it makes it clear that you're not dealing with a partial interest of me, which raises a separate kind of legal problem of what happens when someone. I mean, suppose that it wasn't just a person that are enter. You could have five or six people all invest in one unit. And if any one of them lived in it, maybe that would, that would count. And so it's not clear where that goes. And Mr. Dupont is right that there's lots of things that are not clear about the bylaws. We begin to actually see it go into effect. But in any event, the language, I just indicated that the accessory dwelling, dwelling unit shall be considered associated with unit. One, if that's the right one. Would, would solve that problem. I would agree with that. We can either condition. The accessory dwelling unit shall be associated with. The dwelling unit number one. IE 25 teal street number one. Or. We could say something a little more fuzzy, like for the purposes of complying with section five to four, five to five, nine, two. Before. The accessory dwelling unit shall be. Considered associated. With dwelling unit number one. The thought there just being that it's not as. We're sort of saying that we're associating it with one, with the one unit for the purposes of complying with the, with the bylaws opposed to directly assigning it. I think that would be fine. Okay. If I may interject. We, the owners are. The owners. We have had our own, you know, back channel. That sounds much more than I needed. And we're fine with associating it with unit one. Okay. In that case that is. A far cleaner solution. So we'll go ahead and just do that. And then the. Planning department memo had. And Mr. We would say that we would like that. I think that was something that was intended. That we. That we. Request or revise drawing. Indicating the. Locate indicating the. Location of the kitchen. Okay. We have one that's not perfectly distilled. And it's not professionally done. Yeah, that we could actually screen share if you wanted. make it contention on the issuance of the building permit because it's using a local by-law to supersede the state by-law. So I'm wondering if we should just leave it up to the building inspector to take care of that or if we do want to still include it as a condition as the board feel on that. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I think it is useful to have the information revealed, but the truth is that the plan for the kitchen and the interior or organization of the unit is not really going to be material to our decision in this case and rather than way this down with conditions that are really more contingent. I think it would be better just to request the applicant to provide those drawings and so to the building inspector and let it go with that. Okay. And then the last one was there was the, best about a, about not adding a second floor in the future. I recommend that we condition that any addition to the gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall require the approval of the zoning board of appeals. I think that's right, Mr. Chairman. I had a concern that we're imposing a condition that we wouldn't ordinarily be authorized to impose if we limited it specifically to not going up. And that's not withstanding Mr. Rosenblatt's concern. I get that part of it, but I don't want to overstep our bounds. And to the extent that there's compliance with the bylaw, I think that the applicants would have a right to go in and to speak to the building department unless because we've already had to deal with this because of the location within six feet of the property line that we would be necessarily making that same sort of determination that it wasn't more detrimental. So I think what you just said sort of incorporates a concept that if they're going to increase the footprint or they're going to increase the gross floor area that that is a bit of a difference that we would need to take another look at. Yeah, I mean, you could sort of infer from us having a condition that the board should maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the grant of the special permit that it would automatically carry that if you tried to change the accessory building that it would cause necessarily that you would have to come back. But I think having it be a little bit more explicit is helpful. Right. Are there any other conditions that the board feel would be important to include? Okay, so then there are three conditions. There's the three standards. Then number four would be the accessory dwelling unit shall be associated with the dwelling unit number three IE 25 Teal Street number one. And then the third, the fifth would be that any addition to the gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall require the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. So unless there's anything else, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the application subject to the conditions that the chair has just referred to. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. This is a vote of the board to approve special permit for 25 Teal Street with the five conditions creating an accessory dwelling unit in the existing garage slash studio structure at the rear of the property. So vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. And the absence of Mr. Rickardelli, Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That special permit is approved for 25 Teal Street. Thank you so much for your time and attention. Oh, you are very welcome. Thanks for the help. You're quite welcome. Thank you both. With that, I'm going back to my agenda for tonight. Where are we going? So earlier this evening, we closed the public hearing on 10, 21, 10, 25. Or I guess 10, 21, 10, 27, Massachusetts Avenue. So we should be calling it. So I'll send around an email to the board looking for when we can try to meet to have hearings to discuss the decision on that. But our next scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, May 2nd where we will have the opening session for 10 Sunnyside Avenue, which is another comprehensive permit, this one on behalf of the Housing Corporation of Arlington. And then on the Tuesday, May 16th, we will have the second hearing on that property. And then Tuesday, May 23rd will be the next regular meeting for the board. So that is our schedule going forward. Any questions from the board? No. Seeing none, I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would especially like to thank Colleen Ralston for setting up not this meeting, but two meetings this evening and running them both. And also thanking Marisa Lau for her assistance in preparing the memoranda from the planning board. Please note that the purpose of the board's recording this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. It is our understanding the recordings made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. The chairman so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Vote of the board to adjourn, Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holley. Hi. Ms. Hoffman. Hi. Mr. LeBlanc. Hi. And chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Good night, everyone. Good night, everyone. Good night. Mr. Memorial, see you tomorrow night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.