 734 PM. It is Tuesday, August 30th, 2022. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein and 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 that all members and anticipated officials are present. So members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Handel. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Daniel Wrikadelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Ben Ketholy. Here. Excuse me. Great. Thank you all for joining us. From the town, we have Rick Valorelli, he's our board administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Rick. And I believe Vincent Lee may be with us as well. It's our assisting staff. Have you here with us as well? And then. Checking for different cases this evening, appearing on behalf of 24 Grandview Road. We have Ryan and Devin Thomas. Here. Perfect. Thank you. Appearing for 12 Prospect Avenue. John and Althea, your communities. Here. Thank you. Appearing for 49 Valentine Road. A little bit from Brian Crowley. See you guys in the camera there. Hey. Appearing on behalf of 33 Barnum Street. Jennifer Cardettino. Here. Thank you. Have you. Appearing for 101 Robbins Road. Lauren Duddy. Here. Have you. And then the last case is 60 Highland Avenue. There's no one appearing for 60 Highland Avenue. They have requested to withdraw. So if anybody is on the call specifically for 60 Highland Avenue, we will not be discussing that this evening. With that, this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations signed into law on July 16, 2022. This act includes an extension until March 31, 2023 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 meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote 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. 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 the quorum 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. Less otherwise noted, 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 the interest of promoting an order leading. 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, and Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board here by acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe of 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. That, moving to our agenda, brings us up to item number two, which is approval of meeting minutes. So starting this evening with administrative items. These items relate to the operation of the board. And as such will be conducted without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. After the introduction of each item, I'll invite members of the board to provide any comments, questions or motions they may have. And if members wish to engage in discussion with other members, please do so through the chair taking care to identify yourself for the record. So first up, as I said, is item number two, which is the approval of the written minutes for the August 9th, 2022. These were prepared by Rick Valarelli and distributed to the board for comment. Are there any further comments that anyone from the board wishes to submit to Mr. Valarelli? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. To everyone's relief, I'm not going to make a comment that requires a change, but I wanted to express my gratitude that we got these minutes so quickly after the meeting. I usually find myself unable to remember very much about the meetings, that when there's a long delay, and getting the minutes out quickly is a great help. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from September 9th, 2022? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon, and may I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. This will be a roll call vote of the board to approve the minutes from September 9th, 2022. Roger DuPont. Aye. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. That brings us to item number three in our agenda, which is the approval of the decision for 1315 Adams Street. This was a case that was on the August 9th docket. The decision, the written decision was prepared by our own Pat Hanlon, distributed to members of the board for comments, and a final draft was issued later this afternoon for final review by the board. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to the written decision for 1315 Adams Street? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the written decision for 1315 Adams Street as supplied this afternoon? So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. This will be a vote of the board to approve the written decision for 1315 Adams Street. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rigardiali. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That written decision is approved. That brings us to the end of the administrative items on our agenda this evening. So now turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda. Here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves. There's the board to 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. With that brings us to item number four on our agenda this evening, evening, excuse me, which is docket number 3705 24 grand view road, which is a continuance from the August 9th hearing. This is a request for a variance. So I'll ask the applicant to please introduce themselves. And bring us up to speed. I don't know if you have made any changes or adjustments since we last had our hearing on the night. No, no changes or adjustments. Okay, thank you. This is the application package. So this is the site plan, grand view road and spring avenue. And this is the location that proposed carport. So there was there were a couple of questions at the end of the hearing last time. And we had an opportunity to speak with with the building inspector and with town council. So at the time the house was there was a question as to whether or not this is a legal front yard parking space. Because the town does not allow the establishment of parking spaces, but that was only enacted at some point, I believe in the 1960s in the house predates that. So the board does not have any documentation that indicates whether or not this was used as a driveway prior to the enactment of that change to the zoning bylaws. So it's just information we don't have. We don't know what that is. The other question which had talked to council about in particular was in regards to the nature of the nature of hardship. So this is a variance application. So variances have four specific criteria that all four have to be met. And that's under state statute. That's not a local bylaw. And what the second one has to deal specifically with a hardship. And so in talking with with council, he direct me towards, excuse me, certain precedents of state law in regards to this question. And the nature of the hardship is to relate directly to issues of the site and issues of the building and not to the specific needs of the individual owner at the time of the request. Variances or permit changes to the registry of the property. And therefore they are the board is not to make a decision whereby the board is looking at a specific applicant's needs relative to the application that they are supposed to be looking at it as a basically, you know, is there something of the land that is preventing full use of the property? And so that was that was the advice that I was was given in relation to to both both applications that are our variances that are before the board this evening. So the request that is made, I'll back up to it. So this is a special permit criteria that's right. I forgot the criteria. Second, apologize. So these are the variance criteria. The first is to describe the circumstances relating to soil condition, shape or topography, which especially affect the land or structure in question, but do not affect generally the zoning district in which the land or structure is located. So it substantiates the granting of variance. Number two is describe how the literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance relating to the circumstances, especially affecting land or structure in question would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. And note that number two hardship must relate to the circumstances of a lot as described in one three describe how desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and number four describe how desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intended purpose of the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington. So with those, we open this to the board. Are there questions that any of you have for the applicant at this time? Seeing none. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the applicant could just quickly go through and say what his view is as to how he meets all of these requirements. Absolutely. Mr. Thomas. Yes, looking at number one, the property area and question is bounded by some extreme topography up the 12 feet in elevation changes from there across the property with the ledge outcropping right there. And then there's a bit of a wall that's been built and then mature trees on that edge. There's no access to the rest of the property due to kind of an elevated front in there with about a three foot raised front yard off the sidewalk. So this is the only part of the property that's accessible. Let's see. It is. Yeah, that's the only part that's accessible. So I think that's the answer to question number one. For number two, talk about the stone outcrop. The example they give there is exactly what's happening here. I am bounded. This area is the only flat spot of my lot that is able to be built upon. That's currently in use already as a driveway, if you will. And then desirable relief. Again, the access will be off of the existing kind of driveway into the garage at the bottom of the single car garage at the bottom of the house. And we're asking to be able to put the carport over that, not a full garage. We're happy with a tight restriction or a tight relief indicating it can only be a carport. And then how it may be granted is obviously allowing the carport to proceed even though it is a variation on a non conforming property as it is. I probably put it a bit more eloquently in my application, but I don't have it all at this time. Rick, by any chance do you have access to that? Access to what, Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. Did the applicant provide the, I don't, for some reason I can't find in my records the variance criteria sheet that was written up? Yeah, I believe the applicant. I believe that both the special permit and the application. Mr. Chairman, I do have it actually. I believe, I just clicked on something that purported to be it. And now I have to make sense. Here we go. I will stop sharing if you don't mind sharing. Yeah, let me see if I need to figure out how this is going to work. Hold on a second. Okay, share screen. So if I click that, that should be the right thing. And then I click here application for a variance, click share. And with any luck, that's what you all see. Perfect. Thank you. I believe if you scroll down, we should be able to access the. I guess I'm the one who's in charge of scrolling down. So the criteria are here. So number one is the one that we started with about the steep outcroppings of what? Okay, reading number two. Okay. But I guess here the hardship is updated given the example to show a like a physical limitation hardship. And also to add to number to number three, I do have unanimous support from all my neighbors unless they've called in this time to protest on this one. There any further questions from the from the board? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. Public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at hand and 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 current, complete the patient and allow those who wish to speak for the first time to go ahead. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host to be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed. Are there any members of the public who wish to address the board in regards to this matter, which is 24 grand b road? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Without being a member of the public, I wonder if it's appropriate for me to stop screen sharing now. There you go. What's going twice? 24 grand b road? Seeing none, I will close the public comment period for this period. So the issue before the board, question before the board is sort of on the almost the highest point in the neighborhood that land generally slopes away from this property, but the property is than the street and is can not be accessed directly off of brand b road as the purposes, which they are seeking covered parking. They have an existing space in the front yard that they've been using for parking. And so the question before the board is are the criteria for variance met in regards to the erection of a carport in that position? Mr. Hanlon, if you wouldn't mind sharing that again. Okay, let's see if I can do somebody just entered the room. Bear with me. I have to figure out how to do this. There we go. Share screen, application for variance. Share. Let's roll up to criteria number one. So where the board is required to make specific findings on all four of these criteria. In the past, we have sort of done sort of a straw bowl fashion of going by each criteria. And Mr. Hanlon, I don't know, does that seem like an appropriate method to do again this evening? Or do you think we should be taking an individual vote on the individual portions? I think that it's my view that it would be safer to take an individual vote. I know that in the past I've had a different view. And I'm still concerned with how this works. But my understanding of the regulations under which we operate when we're virtual is that all of the decisions we make need to be made by a roll call vote. And I think that it's would be better form in light of the rules on virtual meetings for us to treat what we say about each one of these conditions as if it was a determination. I think the reason for that ultimately is to make certain that that we're all together on the reason for the final vote. So I think that we should just discuss each one of them and then take a quick roll call vote. People who changed their mind could always move to reconsider. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. DuPont? Yeah, so before we get started. Mr. DuPont? Yeah, can you hear me? Absolutely. Okay. Before we get started going through the separate criteria, I would like to sort of clarify what it is that is being requested for the variance because I'm not sure if it's a setback variance request or if it's a different type of request because I think after the last meeting, I looked at this and for one thing, and I think maybe this would present a question for Mr. Valorelli. But in the bylaw, carport is defined as a roof structure unenclosed on two or more sides for the shelter of motor vehicles. And so motor vehicle is not defined in the bylaw, but I do think it's a common usage or common term, so I think it's understood. But I'd like to know from Mr. Valorelli if carports are typically okay for use of other than motor vehicles. Historically, has that been the case in town? Mr. DuPont, good question. I have never seen a carport used for anything but a car. I suppose that there are cases around town where they are used for something other than a car. So what the applicant is asking for is basically a garage in the front yard setback needs a variance to pursue that. And so thank you for that. But also when you look at garage, and I'm not suggesting that people don't use garages for all manner of things, but in the bylaw, garage is also defined as for keeping of a motor vehicle. And so I guess I have a little bit of concern that the terms of the application aren't entirely clear. And I'd like to go on the record saying that I don't know as I could do a better job than the applicant has done already because I do think that this is a confusing area. Variances I think are confusing in and of themselves. And then I think when you start sort of parsing the terms in the bylaw, it gets even a bit more confusing. Because in the accessory use accessory storage section of the bylaw, which is 5.4.3. And it says accessory recreational trailer is okay for accessory storage but not in the front yard. So I guess I'm a little bit torn in terms of how to view this. I mean, if we're looking at it as a garage or say a car port, then we're looking at something that's there for storage of a motor vehicle. And if we're looking at it as accessory storage, then we're looking at it in terms of, yes, you can use a recreational trailer, but not in the front yard. But I don't think that that's a request that's being made in this application for a variance that somebody is saying I'd like a variance from the recreation, the accessory storage provision with regard to being able to store a recreational trailer in the front yard. If I haven't garbled that too much. But I just think that the application is unclear. And I have a hard time then sort of moving on to the criteria because I don't know what it is that we're being asked to consider. And I don't find fault with the applicant for that because I think it's a sort of a torturously worded situation as far as that goes. Mr. Chairman, can I continue Mr. DuPont's question? I think I can take it one step further. Yes, sir. If the board chooses to grant this, then that should be a condition that Mr. DuPont raised that only this type of vehicle X can be stored under that carport. I don't know if that helps you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I've followed. I've actually did the same sort of thing that Mr. DuPont did. And it seems to me that that both there is a distinction in the bylaw between a garage and a carport. The difference is that the carport must be open on at least two sides. It's one of those definitions that when you do a search through the document is never again used. But whatever it is, it seems like it has to be something that shelters a motor vehicle. When you look at some of the definitions of trailers of different kinds, and including the one for a boat trailer, which is obvious about this, it's clear that a thing that you use another motor vehicle to pull doesn't count as a motor vehicle. Whereas obviously if you had something that was on top of a pickup truck, for example, so that it was part of the vehicle, maybe it would be. Or if it was an RV, for example, that was a combined unit and was the motor vehicle. But somehow having motorized transportation seems to be an essential part of what both the trailer and a carport are. And now I'm not sure that I actually know, what we know so far is that this has been described to us as a trailer. I assume that it is not self-propelled. And therefore you're looking at some other kind of accessory use. So it seems to me that apart from whatever we can say about the fact that it's being used, that there are two different things that are going on here. One is the thing that everybody was originally focused on, which is that this is a violation of the minimum yard, the setback requirement. But also there's the question that Mr. Dupont has focused on in that we, this is an accessory structure of some kind. We know that. I think we know that it doesn't shelter a motor vehicle, which means it's not a garage or a carport. And then the question is, what are the rules about what it is? And Mr. Dupont did point out that that's not supposed to be in a front yard. And what variance analysis would look like, assuming that that is variable. In other words, I'm assuming that that's a structural thing rather than a use thing. And that could be something that we could address as well. Just one final note. The staff report was on this, the planning department report was based to some extent on the notion that for all practical purposes Spring Avenue is not really, I mean, it's technically a front that area is technically a front yard. But as a practical matter, when you look at it, it's it's buried around to the side and it functions as though it were a side yard. And so it was very important to staff in terms of deciding whether there is a whether there is a adverse effect on the neighborhood that if you applied the rules that normally apply as to as a side yard to the Spring Avenue side that the proposal all complies with that. And so I'm sort of wondering whether that's, I mean, that's what whether that is the key to a separate analysis of the factors that focus in on the type of the structure rather than just on the fact that it's in a regulations front yard. I have to apologize. It's not like I haven't answered to this. And I'm quite perplexed as to how not just what to do, but but how to how to analyze it. And it does seem to me that I have some problem with the fact that this is causing us or causes me at least so much difficulty wrapping my mind about what it is that is happening, where as a matter of fact, the the substance of what's happening is is a very minor thing. It's basically taking parking that's already happening that will continue to happen no matter what we do. And the only question is whether you erect something that looks like a carport over it to provide shelter or whether you you don't on a street which is only sort of technically a front yard. So it's a it's a lot of mental effort to address a problem that that somebody under the age of 12 would be able to resolve much more quickly. Well, from my my perspective that the criteria to me that sort of causes the most the most issue and the one I'm least clear on is number four is how it can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw. Because what's being requested is, you know, permanent shelter to be constructed in a step back where which obviously requires a very and but it's also being requested in order to shelter a trailer, which as Mr. DuPont pointed out is not supposed to be stored in the front yard to begin with. So it and you know, I say that understanding that there really is nowhere else on this site to store said trailer because it would be a substantial effort to carve out a piece of property where this trailer could legally be stored on the on the site and that's part of the reason that's why the request is being made for the carport in this location. And it's sort of that the duality of that whereby we're being requested to allow a structure to be built where a structure shouldn't be built to shelter a vehicle excuse me a shelter a trailer that's where a trailer ought to be. But all this is happening simultaneously in the same location because there really is no other place on the lot where this can occur. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I have up on the other screen the provision of the bylaw so it again it's in it's in the uses section and it's in the accessory uses section which is page five dash 23. And I think part of the difficulty for me is that first of all it starts out by saying accessory storage of a recreational trailer or vehicle and I'm willing to concede that it is something along those lines. So we're talking about use and I think we all know that you can't give use variances so if you said you know I want to put a swimming pool there well that's a different use so you couldn't put it there but then it it sort of goes it sort of goes off off track and says that you can have these particular accessory uses but then it provides a comment about the location where it says not in the front yard. And so to me it's really referring to both the use and the location and so the location strikes me in a way is not part of the use in and of itself and it strikes me more as what we normally deal with when we're dealing with dimensional issues. So I'm just saying that because it does I think make this a bit more convoluted for me and I'm a little more ambivalent as a result if that word not in the front yard if that phrase not in the front yard was not there I think it'd be a lot clearer and I think that if you consider this as sort of now a location issue as well as a use issue I think it can go either way and I'm just making that point because it it may be sort of what decides it for me as I'm considering the rest of these criteria. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Can I just build on that a little bit. It's helpful I think or at least to me it's helpful to look at the context here because this isn't like a separate provision of the bylaw that says that storage of a recreational vehicle can never happen in a front yard. The purpose of the place where that Mr. Dupont is quoting is defining the circumstances under which you can get a special permit and after that there are a bunch of yeses and then a couple of blanks which mean no and so what this is telling me is that you can do this by special permit as long as it's not in the front yard but nobody is saying that there's this overriding policy that says that you couldn't do it by variance if the variance criteria already were met. This is a pretty limited sort of statement and to turn sort of not into the front yard into something broader than just defining when a special permit is possible I think gives it more importance than it perhaps deserves. Right. Mr. Hanlon to clarify so you in your reading of that section because I've had gone back and forth on this in my mind as well you don't take that final phrase about not in the front yard as necessarily being a use restriction but you see it more as you know a dimensional or a or another kind of restriction that would be allowed would would that the board would be allowed to make a determination on. I think that I think that that that's correct. This just prevents us from doing this with a special permit and which which nobody is asking us to do actually. Right. So with that I think unless there's any further questions for the board I would like to move on to the direct discussion of the four criteria. As Mr. Hanlon has suggested I think we it is good practice for us especially while we're online to vote on the four criteria specifically. And so with that the first criteria would be to describe the circumstances relating to the soil condition shaped topography especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located that would substantially the granting of a variance. And the statement from the applicant is outprop and loam with irregular elevation variations of dealing with pavers. Mr. Chairman your audio in and out. I'm sorry. Oh yeah it's in it. I don't know if the other board members are experiencing the same thing but your audio is in and out. Okay. Mr. Mills was indicating he might have heard it fine. Okay. Thank you Mr. Valeroy. I appreciate that. You're good now Chairman. Okay. So with that are there any questions from the board or asks and basically what this is not you know a vote on the final application this is just a vote as to whether you find that that this can that the first condition is met. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I think it is. I think that the premise of this entire case really has been that the nature that the basically the the the the topography of the lot really precludes if you if you're going to have a structure of this kind or even the parking pad you now have this is the only place you can put it and the staff supports that that view as well. So it seems to me that that at least you get through this one there there may be other questions as to each of the other criteria but whatever the problem is it's a problem that's related to the topography of the lot. Do you concur? I do. Mr. Mills. Mr. Mills do you concur? Yes I agree. It's met. Mr. Rickerdelling. I agree as well. I mean the lot is large enough that were the topography not problem there would be other spots to put this carport that would be within the zoning rights so I agree. Thank you and the chair agrees as well. This brings us to criteria number two describe how a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning by law specifically relating to circumstances affecting the lander structure noted above would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the partitioner or appellant and the statement is that the proposed area for the carport is currently occupied by the travel trailer and a permanent solution for covered storage would limit weather damage or repairs to the antique trailer or vehicles in the area bounded by trees. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I'm willing to start this off. I think that the rationale that was advanced by the applicant was probably thought of before he's heard the discussion which would indicate that these are all individual personal things that are not the sort of thing that we can take into account. I mean ultimately the issue here is whether or not it's a substantial hardship not to have a carport just the way the question might be whether you don't can't have a garage or you can't have an addition to your house or whatever. I've always been a little bit skeptical. This is not the sort of thing that deprives you of substantial use of your property and I'm a little bit I would like to hear what other people say to be persuaded one way or the other on this but I do think that ultimately as Mr. DuPont pointed out last time the kind of hardship that's involved in many cases is precisely this sort of situation where the topography or the shape of the lot puts you in a position where without unreasonable expense you can't do what is perfectly reasonable usual thing for people to do but obviously any addition would fall into that category as well so lines have to be drawn and it seems to me that this is a harder case than some to qualify as a substantial hardship rather than an inconvenience. And I agree that this is a difficult this is a difficult criteria to me I could certainly understand you know if the applicant was seeking to you know construct the you know has no parking has no current garage basis looking to build a garage can't build it because of the the current topography of the site and then came to the board seeking permission to build a garage you know just beyond the limits excuse me just beyond the limits of what can reasonably be constructed on a lot that's certainly something um that I think would be you know very worthy of consideration I'm a little more skeptical a little bit just because of the you know the the nature of the original intent was that you know the the applicant has you know to his own admission spent a great deal of time um to be able to get in this trailer and is looking to protect it on his site and you know while that while it's very understandable issue you know the part of the issues for me still is this question of you know there there are other trailers and such stored around town and there are you know larger larger recreational vehicles parked around town but I haven't seen any of them under covered storage and it's really not covered storage of this type and so I'm not I don't I'm not convinced that the necessarily that the applicant is being deprived of of something that would otherwise be commonplace for for residents who have this type of a trailer you know you routinely see boats that are stored out in the open you routinely see recreational vehicles that are stored out in the open so the hardship of not being able to cover that that trailer I'm not well I understand that that it's a hardship because it creates a risk for the owner in regards to the protection of the trailer I'm not sure that that rises to the level of being a full hardship Mr Chairman may I interject on one point there please mr. Thomas yes relating this beginning there of the blame criteria that had the example where the hardship wasn't necessarily related to you know potential damage to the structure of financial hardship on my my side while that is taken into account it also does relate almost like a topographic hardship as in the hardship relating to the topography which was the example given under that criteria so you know that was that was new information as as iterated there and and so I'd like to to make sure that that's that's brought up that the new criteria should be taken into account here on this decision thank you mr. Thomas and other members of the board feel on this criteria mr. Chairman so I think if if we go back to the accessory storage provision in the use section and if we concede that someone could in fact store a trailer such as this on the property and then we sort of divorce that from the idea of the location if if we concede that the storage in and of itself of a trailer is permissible but not in the front yard I could be persuaded I think that really what we're talking about is the location of storage the cardboard part of it is a little bit of a problem for me but if I can find this analysis to just what is the underlying issue I I look at it as storage perhaps and then the location of the storage and if you wanted to store the property the trailer not in the front yard you are hampered in doing that because of the topography and I could more I could see that more in sort of the traditional analysis as if you wanted to put up a garage but you couldn't do it so to me it's not so much the cardboard the structure itself as perhaps it is the use which is the storage and then coupled with that the not in the front yard so I might be thinking in terms of variance from the not in the front yard portion of it and the reason that I might consider that is because the topography prevents storage other than in the front yard so anyway if the applicant was able to have the trailer adjacent to the house outside of the front setback then I think they would almost be able to build the carport you know I don't know specifically but if it's possible they could do the carport by right if it was outside of the setback Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I agree with that I guess I I'm stuck on I'm I'm trying to be really careful about using the expression carport because it's defined to mean something that I think this isn't but it is accessory storage of a recreational trailer or vehicle and it does seem to me that the very fact that that is listed as something that one could routinely do if you didn't do it in the front yard is kind of a counter to the observation that the chairman made that he hardly ever sees this happen certainly the zoning bylaw contemplates that it may happen and is generally fairly favorable to it as long as it's not in our front yard understanding that we do need to make a determination in regards to whether we can find that this criteria has been met and in light of the the conversation we've been having I think I feel comfortable saying that you know the literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning bylaw um would require the the owner to you know he would not be able to have this recreational trailer on his property at all and may either have to find offsite storage for it or might have to get rid of it and just the the vagracies of the topography leading to that and that would count for you know a second vehicle or you know any other storage use that that owing to the to the topography of the of the land that it is not possible to locate that trailer elsewhere and I think I could find that the second criteria is met I would agree I think I would agree with that too I also agree with that analysis thank you mr rickard ellie too I agree great thank you mr handlin if you would scroll us down okay hold on number three number three describe how desirable leaf may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good um so that the applicant has stated the proposed areas bounded on two sides by a privacy fence or the privacy gate to be installed blocking the view of the area from all streets the carport itself is aesthetically pleasing with the dark gray roof more slightly excuse me slightly than the current bluetart projecting the travel trailer a rain catchment system and will be installed was a reduced runoff down the alley in spring avenue um a comment in relation to um to this criteria mr chairman mr handlin um I'm actually reasonably persuaded by this and I just would emphasize the view that staff takes that that spring avenue while that may be a front yard according to the zoning bylaw it functions enough as if it were really a side yard that it's it matters that if this really were a side yard it would not create any dimensional problems agreed mr chair I agree what as well I think because it's more of an access road than a front road it makes this issue less substantial thank you mr redel and mr mill I agree with that I think it meets the criteria there I agree as well um I am just going to make a quick note that the applicant does mention here this question of the rain catchment system um and because this will be actually because it's favor is to be impervious because it has a shelter on it that they may very well trigger the need for additional review by the engineering department I'm going to make a note of that okay and that brings us to criteria number four which is describe how desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaws and the applicant had written that a variance allowing a setback of six feet from an underdeveloped portion of spring avenues requested the presence of a steep hill trees and rock wall prohibit the placement of the car for the proper setback the house is not conforming currently setback 15 feet from spring avenues so there's minimal visual impact from spring avenue the areas already developed and bounded by privacy fences so impact due to a variance is proposed their commentary on this criteria nullification or substantial derogation from the intent or purpose Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon so I'm not very dogmatic about this uh so I could easily change my mind in light of what my colleagues say um but it seems to me that that there is a policy which appears in various parts of the zoning ordinance that attempt to limit what it is you can do in a front yard and we've been wrestling actually with one of those here but there's lots of stuff that that ultimately aims to keep parking and other kinds of uses out of the front yard um and so the question to my mind is whether that general policy and the zoning ordinance applies here with sufficient force to enable us to say that it substantially derogates from the purpose of the zoning ordinance now in some ways every variance we grant that derogates from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw just because there's a rule that we're varying and that has some effect so the issue here seems to me to be substantially uh and for reasons that also came up in the other it seems to me that given the nature of spring avenue and given the fact that that if this were a side yard I'd spring avenue and and this weren't a corner lot if it was next door um we would not have this problem suggest to me that it's not a substantial derogation for the attendant purpose of the bylaw I agree as well me as well I agree also chairman knows um I was just in the background reviewing the um the section of the zoning bylaw title purpose um which is rather long so I won't uh read it into the record here but essentially it speaks about promotions of health safety convenience uh welfare health and sort of open space and land most appropriate use of land throughout the town environmental quality etc and I think in light of that I could that this would not nullify or substantially derogate from that so with that the board has um found that the four criteria for variance are met um so should the the next step for the board um would be if there are any conditions to be applied to this application um so the board typically has three standard uh conditions which I will read into the record uh condition number one the plants and specifications that oh we should before I get into the uh no we didn't land specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plants and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief there shall be no deviation during construction from approved plants and specifications without the express print and approval of the r-engine zoning board of appeals number two the building inspector is hereby notified that he's to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time there's a determination that violations are present the building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21 d of the massachusetts general laws and institute non-criminal complaints if necessary the building inspector may also approve an institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and standard number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant um I paused on the first one because I recall that the applicant had um in the information they had provided to the board um they had actually given a couple different options for what the carport may be like and I didn't want to go back to that so mr handlin if I could have you stop sharing I'd be happy to so this was there's several different versions this is the carport that's open on all four sides and is just the two roof surfaces um this is a couple different views these are not specific to the site these views these are provided by the manufacturer this is a pre-manufactured structure they're different three different views and as this one notes this would be the actual color of the roof and as an option it also provided um one was sort of more enclosure to it or um you know complete enclosure and I from the commentary provided by the applicant that's the intent is the one that has less is this is the intent that's open that's fully open and not having panels on the side so that is the is the board comfortable with that with with the option that you're seeing now being the what we're asking the applicant to proceed with chairman yes um I'd be comfortable with that if the applicant went on record is saying that's his proposal and that's what he would consider to be the sub-final plan that would be submitted to the building inspector mr thomas yes that is the proposal that I uh that I would like to go with thank you you're one there with no sides no enclosure so we'll make that as condition number four outside four and panels and then I would also add the um that the board requests the applicant work with the town engineer to address compliance the area covered that may or may not apply but it just would include that as a provision conditions the board would want to apply mr chairman yes mr ham we haven't really focused much on this but how important is it to us that this isn't a real carport it's a storage mechanism for a recreational trailer I mean eventually when the when the trailer isn't used anymore or whatever or when there's a new this structure is going to remain it could have a car in it just like the one that we see now I don't know whether I care about that we haven't really discussed it but if we use the word carport then it will necessarily imply that you could put a motor vehicle inside it and I just want to raise whether any of us have an objection to that for my I mean from my perspective if we are approving this for the storage of a trailer we are also you know for whatever storage purpose um that's allowable under the bylaws that any future inhabitant would want to store in this place right and and the section that we've been referring to does also refer to motor vehicles yes you know if it was a boat that could go under there that's fine if somebody wanted to store um you know construction equipment related to a business that may be a very different that would be different depending on how the how the bylaws written um would like to amend the so I had the condition I had proposed um that the properties to be provided with outside or in panels I would want to add to that uh that the structure is not to be enclosed in the future so this cannot be then closed off and made into a shed or a different structure in the future right mr chairman just to the the idea of the car if we think that what this is is is close enough to a carport that you know if it walks like a duck it's a duck but um there that the bylaw definition says that it has to be open on at least two sides uh and what's being proposed is being open on all four sides and that makes it sort of a different kind of structure than even if you put I mean put two sides in so it seems to me that what the applicant is committing to is this plan and this plan is completely open and should not be encloseable beyond this at all without coming back and uh seeking a modification of the variants so the structure is not to be enclosed in the future without action without action from the zoning board appeals right okay are there any other conditions from members of the board seeing none what we have before us it's a request for variants 24 brand view road and there are our three standard conditions and the two additional the one related to the carport remaining open and the second regards to working with the town engineer in regards to stormwater management and with that um I would be looking for a motion from the board Mr Chairman Mr Handler I move that the application be approved subject to the conditions that the chair has just read into the record second thank you Mr DuPont with that then a roll call the vote before the board is um a motion to approve the variants application for 24 grand view road with the five conditions um as stated previously uh motion by Mr Handlin seconded by Mr DuPont the roll call vote of the board Mr DuPont aye Mr Handlin aye Mr Mills aye Mr Riccadelli aye the chair votes aye the variants application for 24 grand view road is approved thank you all very much thank you Mr Thomas well thank you I'm glad to provide a good mental exercise on the carport carport difference thank you thank you is that going back to is back to our agenda um the next item our agenda is item number five docket 3708 12 excuse me 12 prospect avenue um I could ask the applicant to um reintroduce themselves and let's know if there have been any um any changes on their side hi I'm Althea Ayokimitas I'm the homeowner here I'm Dean Ayokimites I'm the builder all right thank you welcome welcome to you both back um wanted to open up the application package so quick so we had discussed last time this is a request as if this is also a variance request and it is specifically for uh an addition which would be into the left side setback there's a second um so the said the required side yard setback is 10 feet um the proposed addition because the house is not perpendicular is not parallel to the side yard um the addition is only eight point proposed only the 8.1 feet from the setback on the side yard um even though it's compliant at the front edge and and I had spoke we had spoken last time um particular to the applicant um they do have a child with needs and they would like to do this to allow them to create a better living condition for her specifically in the in this location on the lot um excuse me um there was a couple of questions that come out of the discussion last time one was whether there were any specific provisions in law that would um that would be particular to a situation like this where the proposal is on behalf of somebody who has needs and that this would be an assistance to them the provisions of federal and state law both seem to apply only to to larger structures structures that are basically under the the commercial code so buildings that are about five or more units for residential or commercial and so don't specifically relate to this situation um but I believe there is a provision that uh if there was if somebody was to propose an accessible ramp that that could not be opposed directly but that the um but the addition of structure would not fall under that uh that protection and so we had looked into that specifically and then um in my conversations I had spoken with with town council about this again um and his his statement as we had stated in the prior hearing is that when the board is looking at these decisions at this variance decisions the variance is something that goes with the land it doesn't go with the owner and that the board in its determinations and its findings needs to find that there is that per the criteria that there is something in particular about the land and the structure and the way that they're the way that the that impacts the ability to utilize the site and we need to use that in the determination of the variance and that we're not supposed to be looking at the individual needs of the current homeowner um and that there is considerable precedent in state law that that that we are we are not to be making a specific determination for an individual homework that we're to look at the the land and and property as a whole so I just want to remind the the board of that Mr Chairman Mr Hanlon I just I just wanted to add that I did look up Mr Babroski who's the the primary the major authority on on land use and zoning in massachusetts and he put it this way that it's well settled that personal hardship however heart-rending is not a proper factor for consideration and the cases that he gives involve things like the personal health of the owner of the property the facilitating the care of an aging parent of an aging parent uh requirements by increased nursing home requirements regulations that require expansions and so forth and all of that is in the area that for better or for worse and I think in many cases for worse uh we're not allowed to take take into consideration thank you Mr Hanlon um so I think that to the question then before the board I can back up to the application um so the in discussing the criteria so the the first criteria is that are there circumstances related to the soil condition slope topography especially affecting land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district and which is located that would sustain the granting of the variance and you know this is a large lot and as the applicant says the topography it's it's flat it's rocky sandy soil it's ideal soil for building and the site is flat there's lots of places um on the site where construction could take place and you know understanding that the driveways in this location here on the plant but not shown on the plant but the the driveway is on the side um there is room on this side for 28 by 12 um addition there's space towards the rear of the lot and there's space to the front of the lot where um the addition could take place and and in my viewing of this there unfortunately there really isn't any condition relative to soil condition for topography that would preclude building in another portion of the site I understand very clearly from the presentation last time that you know this really is the ideal location on the site as far as the homeowners and the way that they occupy their house and the way that they want to occupy their house um but I I would have a very difficult time finding for finding the first criteria met and I would want to hear from the other members of the board their feelings on that Mr Chairman Mr Hanlon I agree with that Mr Chairman as the application does say flat yep the topography does go down unfortunately the survey did not get enough time to come out and do a topo of the land it does slope down about five feet front to back which would cause a significant larger accessible ramp to get to the property so that is one of the criterias of putting it although the soil conditions doesn't prevent this from going in the back the topography does um because of the elevation it it does make it more difficult but it does not it wouldn't preclude the construction that's correct Mr Chairman yes sir I I too share the same same feelings that you had just expressed in terms of understanding the desirability of placing it where it's been proposed but also not seeing anything that is related to the shape topography or soil condition that would preclude doing the work in another area so I would not see that criteria one has been met thank you Mr DuPont um Mr Mills I agree Mr DuPont thank you Mr Rickardelli I tend to agree with you all as well thank you um so what's that so the the way the conditions work is that the board needs to agree that all four criteria are met and in this regard the board has agreed that the the first condition um of the granting of a variance is not met and as such the board cannot um grant the variance in this request um so with that um I would ask that the the board doesn't really need to go through the remainder of the um the conditions and unless Mr Handlin you think that it's worthwhile for the board to do so Mr excuse me Mr Chairman um I I think it's up to the board it is an adequate ground to deny the application uh if we decide that there's any one of these four uh that can't be met it isn't our usual practice to get to one that fails and then stop uh but I but it's certainly the defensible defensible thing to do and may in some ways I'm attracted Mr Chairman to doing that because it keeps us from having to say and to get involved in what might be tricky questions about the next three criteria that we would then have to live with when new cases come down and just sort of parsimony about not deciding any more than we have to uh would justify not going any further than we have well the second criteria builds directly on the first um so is it describe how literal enforcement of provisions that is only by law specifically related to the circumstances affecting the land or structure would involve substantial hardship and so without having found that the first is met I'm not sure how one would respond to the second so Mr Chairman if we go back to the drawing board and bring our setbacks of 10 foot yep uh then we would be within our right to build correct um as long as it's under 750 square feet if it's more than 750 square feet then you'd be you would need a special permit but you would not need a variance which it is under 750 square feet so um so at this point since you know you guys can't go past criteria one um either yourselves or us would withdraw from this um and then go back to the drawing board uh redraw it we can step the addition and um we can just go by right um and build it um so you're so at this point um the app then is offered to withdraw um is the board would require a vote of the board but I think given the circumstances it's a very reasonable request from the applicant um are there any questions from the board no no no okay um so with your uh the permission of the applicant I would uh entertain a motion of the board to accept the withdrawal of the application for variance for 12 prospect avenue chairman so moved thank mr handlin second thanks mr duPont just confirmation with the with the applicant that's okay yep it's fine perfect thank you uh then a vote of the board to accept the withdrawal of 12 prospect avenue uh mr duPont aye mr handlin hi mr mills aye mr rickard ellie hi and the chair votes aye um and the variance application for 12 prospect is withdrawn thank you very much to the applicants very welcome this brings us to next item on our agenda number six docket three seven zero nine 49 valentine road this is a request for a special permit and I would ask the applicant to please introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do and I will pull up their application package all right thank you mr chairman uh we are Elizabeth and Brian Crowley the homeowners of 49 valentine um seeking to out in addition to our house and we also have eve eisenberg who is our architect and the author of the application good evening good evening turn on sharing here and tell us what you would like to do we are we are looking to put an addition in the back of the house to contain a master bedroom suite and an expansion of the kitchen and um we are hoping that you will agree with a senior planner that the um the architectural design criteria for the town are met um my name is eve eisenberg i'm with inkstone architects in conquered massachusetts by the way and uh i just i'm happy to entertain any questions that anyone on the board has so just i would remind the board and let the public know this is so this is the request is specifically um it's under the provisions for a large addition um there are no other um issues involved with the with the property currently the property is non-conforming in regards to the left side setback but that is not being that setback is not being changed um the extension towards the rear does not affect the rear yard setback or does it affect the amount of usable open space on the property um and like i believe i just want to confirm that the that the house is being will be a two-story building it's not going to two and a half is that correct that's correct so this is the site plan um this is the house currently as it sits here as you can see in the image and then the proposed addition this is portion here so again much clearer um so this is the existing house this is the proposal so it's both the structure off the back and then the the dormers into the front this is the existing views and this is a rendering of the proposed views after and this is the set of existing plans existing elevations the proposed basement and first floor addition here off the back and the second story the addition off the back plus the dormers at the front and at the roof plan and again the revised elevations back to the application uh so where the where this is a special permit request and specifically where it's under the provision for a large addition um the board needs to make a determination that the change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and the board typically does that through the application of the special permit and the special permit criteria um so the criteria here not super filled out but I can sort of guess why um so indicate where the requested use is listed in the table of use regulations as allowed by special permit um so that would be the provision for large addition point why the requested use is essential or desirable the public board actually I will switch over because this is not I'll switch to the to the review memo by the planning department because it's a little more complete um so the requested use the requested use is permitted through a special permit in the r1 zoning district criteria two regarding public convenience and welfare the proposal would provide additional living space and the board can find that this condition is met um criteria number three um that the request use will not create undue traffic congestion or undue liam area pedestrian safety this is all the rear of the property will not increase traffic because it does not change the the occupancy of the home um criteria number four the request use will not overload any public water drainage or sewer system or any other municipal systems to such an extent that a requested use or any developed use in the immediate area or in any other area of town will be unduly subjected to the hazards affecting the health safety or the general welfare um and this would not be an undue burden to municipal systems for this similar reason the criteria three that is not dramatically increasing the use of the property um mr mr chairman right here in number sorry yes mr hamlin no i think you you should go through these i what i have is not going to relate to this okay um number five is describe how any special regulations for the use as may be provided in the zoning bylaw including but not limited to the revisions um there's an error fulfilled so that the proposal would not result in any special regulation the board defines that um they contube the the the regulation that involves the special permit for a large addition criterion six explain why the requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district we're joining districts norby detrimental to the health safety and welfare um i think the homes of the vicinity include a range of architectural styles cape to colonial revivals bungalows gable dormers are a common feature in the surrounding neighborhood while other dormer types are less prevalent on valentine road adjacent streets and consistent with the residential design guidelines the proposed design will add visual interest to the front the combined shed dormer flanked by gable dormers is well proportioned for the size does not interrupt the existing streetscape pattern rereadish designed to complement the scale and style of the structure of the neighborhood so the applicant is encouraged to explore potential for minor adjustments to the location of the proposed doors and windows to better align these elements on adjacent floors and establish a pattern for spacing overall proposal would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood character the districts or the joining districts nor will it be detrimental to the health morals or welfare of the neighbors of the property and criteria number seven explain whether requested use will not by its addition to a neighborhood cause an excess of the use that would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood um and this would not be any detrimental access to uh increasing the size of a residential structure within a residential neighborhood and that the the planning department included this is just an aerial photograph of the house itself um and this is the the view from the front okay mr chairman mr hanlon uh i just in going back to the law that applies to this um i wanted to there there actually sort of is a special regular regulation with respect to large uh excuse me with respect to large additions uh the zoning bylaw prohibits them unless the board of appeals acting pursuant to section 3.3 which is what the chair just read found that the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity so the underlying criteria here is being in harmony with other structures and uses in the facility in the vicinity in making its determination the board of appeals shall consider among other relevant facts the proposed alteration or additions dimensions and setbacks in relation to abutting structures and uses and its conformity to the purposes of the zoning bylaw um so the point that i think comes from that much of what is in that second the last uh paragraph of the opinion of the planning uh board is is or the the planning department really kind of relates to this but it's just kind of a more specific thing that focuses on that focuses a little more on abutting properties than than other provisions of the of the bylaw do in any event that's that's the standard that ultimately we're going to have to find inland um are there questions or comments from the board for the applicant switch my share screen back to the application itself well i'm feeling i've pointed this uh so there's a question raised by the um the planning department about the the spacing and arrangement of the windows um my sense is it's probably in relation to this elevation here um so back up a little bit so it's no it's at the first floor level and so the placement of those windows is driven by the location of the stove and the refrigerator i'm assuming that if you were to try to align these take these vertical lines through the windows that that would cause issues for the kitchen itself the kitchen uh the development of the kitchen plan was the the motivator for the fenestration on the on the west elevation but it's really the the north elevation in the bottom lower hand corner there where you see the the appearance of a well there's a shed dormer on either side and the existing roof down below giving that proportion and the scale to the addition which is making it seem like it's the same size as the original house that causes the top windows to be moved back if that makes sense though that's what it's the second floor windows that are out of line but i don't i don't want to lose the effect of having a a dormer there instead of just building a one large mass and lining up the windows okay thank you for that sure thank you other questions from questions from the board mr sherman yes mr rickadelli i just wanted to confirm um with the up confet uh you know from the spreadsheet it says that uh the height is the same but is is the ridge line of the existing roof uh consistent you guys are just uh matching it with the addition we're we're matching it with the addition okay well thank you what's there any further questions from the board um i would like to open for public comment as a reminder um no members public uh questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand it should be addressed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments those wishing to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application and those calling in by telephone can dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak you'll be called upon in order by the host and asked to give your name and address to the record and then given time for your questions and comments so with that uh the first hand is Mr. Steve Moore uh yes thank you Mr. Chair Steve Moore Piedmont street um i was looking at the the application and i saw the site plan might have been the old site plan is there a tree in the front yard the pictures didn't seem to show it so i'm guessing the answer is no i will let the homeowners respond to that did you say a tree in the front yard is that were you asking yeah the old site plan showed one to the right of the property there's a tree and there's a small dogwood tree in our front yard there was a tree another one from a long time ago that the town had to take down because it died um other than that there's just the one tree in the front yard okay i think i think that probably is what happened uh mr chair um there are a number of very large trees on this property mostly of the edges of setbacks and it looks like the um the construction as proposed is not going to impact these trees which is laudable always as you know from from my point of view these large trees are part of the mature tree canopy i'm wondering what the current plan is that the owners have to protect these trees during construction have the owners considered any provisions for tree protection during the construction process so there are two large trees that along the back the property that we had an arborist come and take a look and he didn't have any issue with those they're healthy strong trees um there was one other tree that was starting to rot with one large limb that was coming out already over the existing house really um that they did recommend taking down regardless of um any addition so we did we did complete that and they have quite a bit of rot in it so but the two large trees in the back and the uh yeah he said that shouldn't be a problem with the with the construction yeah thank you mr chair so one tree was taken that was rotted and the other tree is going to be protected during construction i know that these lots in our linkedin are small and this construction is significant and i think it's going to be kind of tricky to protect the tree i would suggest you engage the tree warden to figure out the best way to do that since i believe that's probably a requirement now that um now that you're proceeding thank you mr chair thank you mr moore um yeah and and to mr mr moore's point um as you go through the application process one of the one of the steps you'll have to do is uh it's a compliance check with the town's tree bylaw and that will involve the that will be an involvement with the tree warden um but that will come as a part of the of the plan review should the process move forward um the next person on the list um um part of my vision um is marianne uh kicklist oh sorry you're on mute ma'am okay now we can now can you hear me i can i just need your name yeah my name is marianne kickles address for the record yeah i live on 33 valentine road which is just a couple of houses up and i'm here in support of brian and liz for their addition at the house there's going to be just a little bit of an effect from the vision from the street wise they're still going to have their lawn it's still going to look residential it's not like it's going to come right up to that lot lines from what i can see and i would like to see them be able to continue to live in the neighborhood it's and it's a great neighborhood and they're a wonderful addition to it and i would like to see that addition go through and my neighbor my next door neighbor at number 29 claudine she also supports the addition thank you so much you're welcome next on our list um is erin shanley yes hi this is erin shanley and newton mcgowan we're also neighbors of liz and brian and we are here in support also we um we fully support their opportunity to expand their home and are willing to answer any questions you have regarding the neighborhood but we're here to ensure support thank you very much are there any questions from the further questions from the public no further questions from the public i'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period so what the board has before it it's a special permit request for a large addition for a small home on valentine road the proposed addition as was stated by the planning board is very well in keeping with the residential design guidelines it's nice that it's a very it's a very modest proposal in terms of some of the application some of the some of the additions the board sees it looks like it'll be a very nice addition on the streetscape and the larger portion of it is to the of the property which um is currently free and clear so it doesn't cause any tree canopy issues and there's still a very large portion of yard that's preserved for the for the use of their the residents so i think those are all very positive things are there any further questions or comments from the from the board seeing none um should the should the board vote in the affirmative um the board would institute the three standard conditions that were read earlier this evening into the record are there any further conditions that board members feel would be appropriate to attach to this special permit request let's see none um so with that and no further questions from the board i would entertain a motion chairman hannah i move that the application be approved subject to the standard conditions which have been previously read into the record second second thank you mr du pont so the vote before the board is to approve the special permit application for 49 valentine rote with the three standard conditions as put forward by mr handlin and seconded by mr du pont are there any questions about what the board is voting on being none i will take a roll call vote of the board mr du pont hi mr handlin hi mr mills hi mr rickard ellie hi and the chair votes i the special permit for 49 valentine rote is approved thank you very much wonderful news thanks very much okay with that those two files here uh the next item on our agenda is docket is number seven which is docket three seven one zero thirty three barnham road ask the applicant to go ahead and introduce themselves and tell us what they'd like to do and i will go about opening up the application package great thank you my name is gen part of tino i am the homeowner and the architect um i would like to put a new bedroom and bathroom and a currently unfinished attic of a two and a half story uh two family dwelling and adding some dormers in order to do so uh the lot is currently non-conforming and overall size and usable open space but the proposed plan does not increase the non-conformity because it is just um finishing the attic space so there are some dormers involved in that however um i will say uh that the design is consistent with the residential design guidelines published in arlington and consistent with other homes in the neighborhood um and so i hope you all agree and happy to entertain any questions all right thank you very much um so this is the the site plan and as the applicant has stated um the currently there is no there is no portion of the yard that meets the requirements of usable open space correct the backyard is uh only 23 feet and as we know under under the town bylaw it has to be at least 25 by 25 in order to qualify usable open space so this is a application that the board uh the type of application the board often sees where um an applicant has no usable open space which is tied to um the gross floor area of the building and as the gross floor area the building is being increased by the the attic level addition technically they were required to have more usable open space but as they already have none um this is essentially uh there's a nonconformity and this is an intensification of an existing nonconformity which is something that under state law the board uh needs to make a determination uh in regards to uh that intensification as a part of their determination so uh that's the reasoning behind this coming before the board briefly again as as we stated it's 23 feet is the short dimension in the rear yard and there's no other portion of the yard that is greater than that so construction documents so the demolition plans including the openings in the roof the both additions um most plan up in the upper level this is these portions will be under the shed dormers and then the stair going up will be under the split cable here at the rear ceiling plans and then these are the elevations so from the rear um you have this sort of half table split cable here and then you have the the two shed dormers one to either side it contains to the distance along the ridge it does not change the shape of the hip of the roof interior section the elevations structural drawings quickly just switch over to this is the memorandum from the planning department um first back to the special permit criteria um requested use uh the current use is two family in our two districts so there's no issues in regards to the requested use um public convenience the two family use will not change it simply provides additional living space for the upper unit uh traffic congestion an impairment of public safety will not change because there's there's no change to the to the number of people living in the property and there's no change to anything on involving the the street levels of the property um there's no undue burden on the municipal system that's not changing the population density um the special regulation um in this case I believe it would be that the application of the uh the number off the top of my head um but it's the provision under section eight of our bylaws that allow this to um allow for the intensification of an existing non-conformity um criteria number six notice that the vicinity is primarily two family structures non-conforming three family structures the large farmers are prevalent feature throughout the neighborhood and then consistent with the residential design guidelines addition will complement the style of the existing structure in the adjacent homes in the neighborhood overall the proposal would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood character of the district or the 20 districts nor will it be detrimental um to the neighborhood property however the applicant is encouraged to explore the potential to adjust the location of the dormer window on the east elevation to better align with the window pattern on lower levels in fact that excuse me applicant may also wish to explore other alternatives the rear dormer to make it a less dominant feature of the roof there wouldn't not be any detrimental excess of any particular use but briefly this is the image uh the house from above that's a view from the front the proposal is consistent with the special front criteria mine and I stopped sharing this are there questions or comments from the board seeing any then briefly just go back to the application package just to review the comment from the planning boards they were asking on the east all they just I believe it is this window here they were asking about um it's in the wrong direction there it's the it's related to the to the bathroom and I'm assuming that the location of the fixtures in the bathroom are related to the trying to maintain a a wet wall going down through the building is that correct it is it is trying to maintain the wet wall to align with the window below would mean uh placing that new window kind of within that wet wall which which just isn't um functionally feasible understand the comment ideally that would be great yeah it also is up at the third floor level and it's in the dormer and the the roof is continuous below so it does sort of minimize the visual impact from below that was the hope yeah and then I think the other question they had was whether this needed to be as prominent as it is but I'm assuming that the size of it is driven by the head height requirements for the stairs it is it is um fortunately the the other questions from the board seeing none I will go ahead and open this hearing for public comment as stated before public comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand it should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision members of public wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application and those calling in by phone please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak are there any members of the public who wish to address this application before the board any members of the public wishing to address this application before the board Mr. Moore yeah Mr. Chair Steve Moore Pete Montstreet um for you is this a condominium and another owner lives on the first floor um I would prefer that to the applicant it is a condominium um and my first floor neighbors have approved the plan that they just were out of town um this week so unable to make it on um they are in full approval of the plan uh great mr. that's like that was exactly uh my interest thank you thank you mr. Moore are there any other members of the public who wish to speak seeing none I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing um so the matter before the board this is a special permit request um particularly it's a you know a section six determination of an intensification of the existing nonconformity in regards to the usable open space the proposal is in addition in the attic floor level of an existing two-story building with a hip roof and there will be a shed dormer to both sides and sort of a half gable to the rear to accommodate the stair should the board vote to approve this application I would recommend that the board adopt the standard three conditions are there that were previously read into the record are there any other conditions the board would want to include for this application seeing none are there any further questions from the board mr. Chairman may I ask one question please this is for the applicant um can you just explain what the um the finishes of the new the new dormers are they are they um siding to match the rest of the house they are siding to match the rest of the house unfortunately we are vinyl sided so I'm continuing that I understand thank you okay thank you mr. Kadelli um so with that the board is ready for a vote I could ask for a motion please mr. Chairman mr. Hanlon I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions second thank you mr. DuPont and mr. Hanlon though the vote before the board is a motion to approve the special permit application for 33 Barnum with three conditions as before by mr. Hanlon and seconded by mr. DuPont are there any questions with what the vote entails seeing none I would do a roll call vote of the board mr. DuPont I mr. Hanlon I mr. Mills I mr. rickerdally I and the chair votes I so that is a positive five person vote for to approve the special permit for 33 Barnum wrote with the three standard conditions thank you very much with that go back to our close a few files here and go back to our agenda next on our agenda is docket number I don't know number eight docket number 3711 101 Robbins Road so I would ask the applicant to introduce yourself and I will open up the the application thank you so much my name is Lauren Duddy on 101 Robbins Road my husband and I are looking to have a covered front porch as part of a recent home edition and I have my architect John Piazza Telly on the call as well who'll be able to answer any questions and explain the project a little bit right there thank you for your time this evening um as lawn indicated um we are proposing to add a front porch to the home um the as as the porch is not allowed as of right due to its projection into the front setback which would reduce an existing 26 foot setback to approximately 21 feet um and the covered porch would project the um would would uh span the entire front of the home the um side yard is an existing non-conforming use and the um the the the intention of the porch was to help uh sort of divide and reimagine the front of the home so that it's rather than a vertical facade it provides a little bit of relief to that to that facade and helps articulate the um front of the home a little bit more than just a standard straight facade um generally in the design we tried I tried to incorporate and maintain uh ideas that were consistent with the neighborhood environment as well as the design guidelines outlined by the by the town is there any questions we're more than happy to um to address those thank you very much this is the site plan this is the details plan specifically of the front porch if I remember correctly currently the area of the there's a sort of stoop in this area but I don't is it covered currently uh it has a small roof over the over the fine rate there's an existing picture I believe in the end of the package that was oh okay perfect these are side elevations the porch the package doesn't have it oh but the let me it's sorry yeah it's the it's the uh the package and the planning board that has it yes the planning board that's correct sorry okay so this is the planning board um so yeah so this is the this is the existing home that's correct and as we had as we discussed the application the proposal is for a porch that would extend the full width of the front can be covered the full length but be uh be open are there questions um comments from the board quickly go back and review the criteria put forward by the planning department the requested use is permitted that are with our single family residents and then our one zoning district uh so that can be approved by the granting of a special permit um the request here specifically um is for a porch um there is a lot there is a a substantial um addition that is going on to the house but it is within both is almost entirely within the footprint of the house and is such as not um does not need a determination for a large addition um so that is not before us with before us is only the question of the front porch criteria number two about public convenience and welfare the proposal would improve the convenience and safety of the owner's entrance to their home and it also um as we've seen many front porch um addition requests um especially since the the onset of covid where people are looking for a place where they can meet outside um so that would facilitate that as well um criteria number three about undue traffic congestion impairment of public safety um the porch is not very close at all to the street so it will not impair sight lines um and it will not change the amount of traffic on the property it will not change the municipal systems um and that resulted in a need for any particular special regulation beyond uh the special permit approval uh as required in the section related to porches criteria number six regarding the integrity and character of the district will post on porch exceeds maximum square footage allowable by right covered or closed but there are common feature constructions in the surrounding neighborhood including robbins road in the native vicinity the home across the street has a covered porch which expands the full width assisted with the residential design guidelines the proposed design will introduce human skilled architecture furthermore the proposal replaces a portico with usable front porch that will reduce the appearance of height of the renovated structure overall this proposal would not definitely impact the neighborhood character of the district or the district every detriment um and would not cause a detrimental effect so that's the way to turn before this to the house from above and this is the existing house itself so are there any further questions from the board seeing none i'm going to go ahead and open this hearing for public comment um as stated before public comment is taken as it relates to the matter of hand and is to help inform the board in regards to their exposition um members of public who wish to speak should uh raise their hand using the participant tab on the zoom application or the star nine to indicate who would like to speak um with that uh our first public comment is from mr loretty thank you mr chairman chris loretty 56 adam street can you hear me okay we can it's a little choppy but it's sort of been that way on like yeah you have been to um you know interrupt me if you can't um just a few comments um first you know i kind of take exception to the planning department recommending what your board should do certainly they can advise you on what's been done in the past and what the zoning implications are but it's really not they're charged to make policy determinations on these types of um applications and frankly i think they were pretty superficial in the way they looked at this one um first it's not exactly clear what section of the bylaw allows you to grant a special permit for a projection more than three and a half feet into the front yard setback clearly this is more than 25 square feet but it's not clear to me that with just a special permit um you can go more than that three and a half feet into that setback um and that's under 5.3.9 a i don't think 5.3.9 b applies because that's for a an open deck or unenclosed steps which this really isn't um but my bigger concern and i think um i haven't seen anyone raise this issue is that once you put that porch there you're reducing the usable open space on this lot and the applicant has produced a substantial addition to the house even if that's within existing footprint they still have to meet the open space requirements both for usable and landscaped open space and i haven't seen an analysis that shows um that they do that and it sure appears to me that this area of the front yard on which the porch will be built qualifies as usable open space so i would ask um mr chairman that before your board grant this special permit that analysis be done to see if one you're creating a non-conformity with respect to usable open space or two you're you know further um um reducing the amount of usable open space if it already is non-conforming thank you thank you mr already are there any further questions or comments from the public being none i'll go ahead and close the um the public comment period and mr already raises an interesting point in regards to the usable open space that brings that up the package the analysis was provided as part of the package with um i believe there were there was a reduction in open space but i believe it is still conforming if i recall correctly um so currently um so the at the rear yard the requires rear yard type executive people currently it's 29 nine from the edge of the porch to the rear yard and then is it correct that the full width of the property at the back is available as well yes that's correct okay table currently so this shows and then that the amount of usable open space is increasing on the site is that correct or is that that to the to the point raised by by the uh i mean it's already it certainly would appear that um while the the usable open space is being decreased it's not being it is most likely not being decreased anywhere near to the amount um that would interfere with the ability of the site to support the addition um but i but this i am curious that it's increased that the usable open space is increasing when it doesn't yeah i agree i don't know sure why that i apologize it must um are there any further questions from the board mr chairman mr handlin relating to mr already's comments about uh section 5.3.9 um porches are specifically are now as a result of action by town meeting would be specifically included in the list of things that could be enlarged by special permit beyond the america limits that were previously in place uh it's my understanding that i have not yet seen any indication and maybe the chair knows more than i do about this whether the attorney general's office has has approved the changes that were made by tom meeting last time if they do then that would be retroactive and my understanding is that this is supposed to apply in the meantime and it seems to me that the addition of porches to the language i know was intended to make sure that uh it clarified our power to allow for these extensions by special permit thank mr handlin i have not heard anything yet in regards to determinations by the attorney general's office but you are correct that changes to the zoning bylaw um go into effect upon enactment at town meeting um and so that the change that was approved by town meeting adds the word um porches into 5.3.9 a uh so porches and enclosed entrances larger than that allowed above may extend into the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district by special permit yes and that is the um the reason that the board is is able to make this uh to make this determination to allow these porches um as such the porch is an open structure and must remain open and should in the future should somebody wish to enclose the porch that now does under town bylaws now requires a separate special permit um at the time that that request is made so if the porch cannot be enclosed by right the board can only be enclosed by uh determination at the board so should the board wish to move forward with this application um we have the three standard conditions which we have already read into the record um i would also ask that the um looking on my cheat sheet here that the applicant provide revised and signed dimensional and parking information in open space gross floor area sheets correcting any deficiencies discussed at the hearing um and to submit provide that to the director of and special services for review um and in this regard that would be specifically in relation to the usable open space to what the current amount of usable open spaces on the property and what it will be afterwards um just so that that corrected information is a part of the is a part of the record for this application are there any other conditions which the board would wish to impose upon a determination mr chairman mr dupont so to the point that you just made when we look at the information that's provided um with regard to the usable open space as percentage in gfa so in the present conditions it says 30.81 and is it our belief that that's going to be reduced further my concern was more in regards to the well the line above it with the square footage um so this seems to indicate that the amount of usable open space is going to be increasing understood but if i'm just as i'm reading 18 a on that chart where it says 30.81 present conditions and then it's got the 67.34 which we believe is erroneous but if the minimum is 30 and the 30.81 is accurate then does it does it follow that it's conceivable that that 18a the the proposed is going to fall below the 30 is my question and if if so don't we have an issue mr valorelli i miss the chairman i did a quick calculation so if i'm looking at the same plot plan um that has been displayed i'm coming up with 1570 square feet of usable open space uninterrupted that's an area 29.9 times 52.50 okay 1500 square feet will will uh satisfy um is sufficient enough to satisfy 5 000 square foot home uh so i have not done the calculation of the structure in the proposed porch but i would be hard pressed to think that that structure is over 5 000 square feet certainly on the the table that's provided to us uh let's see what are we looking at there's a there's also a plan that indicates that i believe the first floor footprint is at the approximately 950 some odd square feet um um this is the proposed gross floor area is pretty much 2100 square feet so well well below the 5000 feet the 5000 square feet i miss jim and if i may uh 20 really yeah 2100 square feet uh all he needs um 630 square feet of usable open space okay according to my calculations uh again with the plot plan provided we have 1570 yeah that qualifies perfect okay so we would just ask that as a as a condition we would just ask that the applicant um just revisit this table here and just double check the numbers and submit a revised sheet to the planning to the special services department yes that could be done sorry about that nope not at all are there any further questions or comments from the board seeing none um entertain a motion mr chairman mr handlin i moved that the application be approved subject to the standard conditions and the additional condition relating to correction of the record that the chairman just read second thank you mr handlin and mr dupont so the vote before the board is a motion to approve the special permit application for 101 robins road with the three standard conditions and the one additional condition um as before by mr handlin and seconded by mr dupont are there any questions about what the board is voting on seeing none let's take a roll call vote of the board mr dupont hi mr handlin hi mr mills hi mr rickadelli hi chair votes i uh the motion passes special permit for 101 robins road is approved thank you very much appreciate your your time and your patience with a long evening thank you very much congratulations thank you have a good night this brings item number nine on our agenda um which is docket number three seven one two sixty highland avenue mr valorelli i believe you have received a letter from the applicant in regards to this application we do mr chairman they uh wish to withdraw and just to clarify for the board the reason it's being withdrawn is that um even though it would qualify as a large addition because of the amount of floor space being added um almost all of it is within the existing fountain footprint and therefore it does this project does not need a determination on large addition by the zoning board of appeals and therefore they're requesting that the their application be withdrawn without prejudice so with that uh they are they request to withdraw the special permit application for 60 highland avenue uh without prejudice may i have a motion to that effect so moved thank you second second mr dupont so this is a vote of the board to withdraw the to allow the withdrawal of the special permit application for 60 highland avenue mr dupont hi mr handlin hi mr mills hi mr rickadelli hi chair votes that motion is withdrawn thank you very much that um that is the end of them items on our agenda um mr valorelli do we have hearing scheduled for september at this time we do mr chairman so we have uh two four september 13th i'll be getting the documentation out to the board charlie okay only two at this time okay and um after that i think we are into october okay yeah but for sure two on september 13th perfect um as i had noted to the board in a prior email um the apple the interested parties at 10 21 10 27 massachusetts avenue had approached the mass housing looking for a letter of project eligibility to qualify for a comprehensive permit for development the residential development on that property the mass housing did issue the project eligibility letter my understanding is that was issued last week um and the applicant is looking to um to file for the comprehensive permit uh within the month so that should probably be filed i'm guessing within the next two three weeks and at that point the board will have to open a hearing within 30 days um in order to uh this to open the hearing and then once the hearings open the board has 180 days to close the hearing so um they had they had asked you know if they were already seeking sort of specific dates for uh when the hearing would be opened and i just sort of let them know that we would make that determination once the application package is actually in because there there is a number of things that will need to happen um on the town side once that application has been filed um in terms of distributing it to the various town departments um and then setting up a schedule with the applicant for hearings and things like that so uh once we have that application in hand then we'll have a better sense as to what our timing is going to be um but for for those of you who are on the comprehensive permits we did uh two you know year and a half ago um usually at the start there's things sort of go a little bit slow at the start uh just to give the time the town time to catch up with the what's in the application and that we need to get consultants on hand um in order to uh to fully review the application package and then as we move forward we have better information things will um sort of heat up a little bit so we'll sort of see what the i don't you know we don't quite know what the timeframe of this is going to be obviously if it you know 180 days puts us you know half a year out so um hopefully by spring this would be resolved um but you know both sides can request continuances um and extensions if there are you know particular circumstances that warrant it so just uh keep that in all of your minds um that this will be be happening um starting this fall and going into the spring as in going into the winter and you know hopefully being concluded before the spring mr chairman mr hanlon just wanted to point out to the members of the board who weren't previously here that the carefully designed statement that the chair just made is a way of saying don't count on a skiing vacation this year i am anticipating that this will follow its schedule more closely with um uh with the with the with the latter one the the Artemis project rather than the Mugart project in terms of a project timeline so that so okay so it's now that we've got two hearings coming up on the 13th um possibly none for the 27th um mr hanlon we approved a wide variety of projects this evening um would you be looking for some assistance in preparing uh the written determined uh the written determinations sure i think that would be great uh i've i've already been working as you may have guessed on the variance one if i can shed one or two of the other applications that would uh that would be helpful i will not put anyone on the spot but i would i i can help you i can help on i can help on one perfect okay so one of the things to that i think i remember is at least i don't really end i don't believe that i have a recording that onto my hard drive that enables me to share so a first step uh and all of this i think is going to be sort of getting the recording to the cloud accessible to the people writing the opinions i don't actually know how to do that but i'm sure that other people who are still on the call uh either know we can readily figure it but that'll be the first step uh mr hanlon i think uh mr lee is on that perfect thank you yes i am thanks ben right all right well with that i would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the erlington zoning board of appeals and i appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting and i especially would like to thank mr velarelli mr lee miss linema and miss lao for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note that the purpose of the board's reporting of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings and as our understanding the reporting 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 zba at town dot harlington dot ma dot us that email address is also listed on the zba website and to conclude tonight's meeting i would ask for a motion to adjourn some moved second and then in second upon all those in favor of adjournment mr dupont hi johanlon hi mr melz hi mr ricka deli hi this hoffman hi mr holly hi when the chair votes aye the board is adjourned thank you guys everybody nice job nice job lot of material great job thank you thank you you too thank you rick thanks everyone hey guys