 It is 731 p.m. It is Tuesday, July 25th, 2023. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein and I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals and I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Patrick, do you need access to record? I, well, I do actually. I was ready to forget that again, but you often got my dues still needed. Okay. Send request. All right, so I'll reset. Okay. And going down the list, then get Holly. Yes, here. Sorry. Dan Rickidelli. Here. And Adam will blank. And Ms. Hoffman is not with us this evening. Way on personal leave. Town officials here assisting us. Our board's administrator Colleen Ralston. Good evening. Good evening Colleen. Appearing for 14 Oakland Avenue. Robert Nessie. I'm here. Thank you. And appearing for 18 Robin Hood Road. Josephine Caroline. Here. Wonderful. This open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29, 2023. In March 31st, 2025 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue me 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 receive a complete and proper application of the meeting. And 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 is 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. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Please be aware that attendees are participating by audio or by telephone. 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 and 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 unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted message and don't leave the venue of opportunity. This is an open-children meeting and the publicica have formats to submarines. Our delegation will be voting and ordering. 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 Arlingtonatter Massachusetts discusses on her portrait the use of land in Arlington, formerly know as monatomy and algonquin word. It's located on the ancestral lands of the the ancestral broad line of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. So this evening I apologize I have a conflict with a work I need to be on a different Zoom call for a different zoning board of appeals starting at 8.15 so we're going to take items out of order. We will do the administrative items at the very end but we're going to start with docket 3757 18 Robin Hood Road and then move on to Oakland Avenue after that because I am not eligible to vote on Oakland Avenue. So with that in mind if I could have the applicants for 18 Robin Hood Road introduce themselves and let us know what they would like to do. Hi everyone my name is Joe, I'm my wife Caroline. We live as you mentioned at 18 Robin Hood Road and we have a garage with an unfinished second floor the garage was built in 2021 and we'd like to convert the unfinished second floor of the garage into an ADU. Hey would you like me to go ahead and share the drawings that you submitted? Sure that would be great. Do that. So this is the elevation the drawings of the garage I would note that the garage does not stand proud of the ground the ground level plane is not shown in this drawing. Yep I did submit some actual pictures of the garage. I think in a word doc there is there's two pictures of the garage that I submitted if not I can certainly share it on my on my screen but the garage is built you're right it is you know that's the foundation this is the architectural drawing so to speak of the garage the door is certainly flushed with the ground. And then so this is the first floor of the garage and yes with the stair that leads up to the the upper floor is the lower floor going to remain a garage? Yeah yep um oops sorry for my direction whoops uh this is the upper floor level um so the top of the stair and then and I believe we have a proposed build out uh that we submitted as part of the plans. Fortunately I don't think we might be in a separate document um it may have been I'll pull up the document name right here oh I did submit these electronically also um there should be oh no it's a word doc the word doc that is second floor build out plan. Okay um we'll we'll go through these and then I'll check and see if if I have that and also Colleen if you could check and see if if you have that. So the the front of the garage faces Parker Street um the the lot that we're on faces both um Robin Hood Road which is our address 18 Robin Hood Road and on Parker Street and the garage doors are accessed through Parker Street and then it's a section through section through at the back showing the stairs section front to back um uh roof framing plans. I think um there's one of my neighbors Doug Turner I just noticed he was in the waiting room um so in the plot plan um there's one correction here okay um see where it says the proposed garage is see the private way that is actually three feet off of the property line because of utility lines we had to move the garage away from the utility lines so the garage sits back off the property line three feet but on the Parker Road side it is on the property line. So it's on the property line against the town of Arlington property yes um but the property line against the private way you're saying it is three feet so I guess in this plan it would be south so three feet south of its current location because of the utility lines there's a if you look at the picture there's a utility pole right on the corner oh okay yeah there it is yep okay um so the garage um um I had seen was was recently rebuilt is my understanding that the prior structure was condemned and this was allowed to be built in its place there was there was a garage on the property at some point but it hadn't been on the property for 50 years as far as I know when we bought the house there was no garage there was just a slab so that is a new construction garage okay um yeah and how long have you been on the on the house we purchased the house in 2005 July of 2005 okay um so this is so the request before the board is to convert the the upper floor into an accessory dwelling unit um as most people know certain accessory dwelling units if they are part of the house can be approved by right um if they are within an accessory structure and they're within six feet of the property line they need to get a special permit from the from the zoning board of appeals uh and the zoning board of appeals needs to um make a couple of additional findings um in regards to the application so the you know the the structure of the the garage for the most part you know doesn't really impact us the the layout of the accessory dwelling unit itself as long as the it meets the requirements under the bylaw um the question that I have a few questions but just the the one that relates directly to the accessory dwelling unit um so the exit from the accessory dwelling unit does not go directly to the outside it only goes to the garage um yeah I believe it should have an exit that goes to the it should not have to go through another space that's not theirs to exit and so I think you need you you can work that out with the building inspector but I think you will need to modify the the exit so that they the resident can enter an exit without having to go through the garage understood uh minister chair I'd just like to add to that if I could look please uh also you can't uh have an egress through a garage in the uh building code so they will have to provide a door directly to the outside regardless great thank you thank you for that clarification um are there questions from the board about the um I guess I should also ask um the applicant just to confirm you are a resident in the building in the the main house at this time and that you would be renting out the accessory dwelling unit is that correct yes well yes or a family member yeah okay are there questions from members of the board in regards to the application mr chairman mr handlin I wanted just to explore the renting a little bit I gather that the renting isn't necessarily expected to be uh the permanent situation and I was wondering if the applicant has any plans to be renting that out as a short-term rental or whether he's looking for uh a longer term tenant under lease what what kind of renting is he imagining yep I understand that a short-term rental is not possible uh as in the bylaws for an ad use so if we choose to rent it it would only be a long-term rental the long-term plan uh for the ad you is as a space for my son thank you thank you are there any questions from the board mr chairman mr dubon so I just had a couple of questions I had driven by and I know that on the side where you're making reference to there having to be a door I noticed that there was some sort of a deck and I didn't know where a door would go in reference to the deck that adjoins the garage that is between the house and the garage so I wanted to clarify that because I believe the deck so as you're in the top in the top drawing that you had just a moment ago where you show the elevation um it looks to me like there's deck in the area um that would um be where the door would come down if you ran it directly from the stairs and I might be wrong about that I just can't remember exactly so I was wondering about whether or not there is actually a place to put a door there that's my my first question and I guess the second question is that um in terms of there being some additional drawings for the dwelling unit portion of this do we know what the square footage is going to be on that so that we know whether or not it meets the requirements of the ad you yep I I believe the square footage is is just under 600 feet and then so the um Mr. Chairman so we would just want to know that based upon the the bylaw then you would have to just determine that the square footage of the the I guess the gross floor area of the house itself was at least what 1200 square feet which I'm sure is the case 900 900 is the maximum right but it it can be no more than 50 50 percent of whatever the total gross floor area of the houses yeah the house is approximately 2200 square feet okay so it looked like it was well within that but getting back to the door I just still have a question about where the door is going to come out if you have to go directly to the outside yep I to be honest I wasn't aware of that requirement it wasn't in any of the paperwork that we that we had access to so the option I guess I guess my question would be we could go directly out to the deck and just cut into the deck to put a full-size door there or there's a there's a there's a existing French door in the back I could just put up a wall and make that not a garage but an entry way into the into the dwelling so I guess those would be the two options that I have um but to be honest that it was it wasn't written anywhere um or any of the information I had did not indicate that I could not access to through the garage so I would have to either you know go out to the deck um or I would have to uh put up a wall that that separated the the garage in you know so that I had a entry way and it would go out the French door in the back thank you yep I'm going to share something different here so hopefully you can see a photograph um which says view along Parker Road um so I was also just forwarded along the the other uh that word document so it has this photograph so just just has these two photographs and the word file doesn't have a plan and I think these two photos were also at the end of that other package okay so I'll go back um so are there any other questions from the board Mr. Schringer Mr. Rickidelli uh just in terms of um the three-foot setback so is the I just wanted to ask the applicant so uh is the 24 by 30 foot dimension listed on the site plan the same dimension and the whole thing was just shifted the refeed away from the private way or did you make the building smaller in order to accommodate those utilities that you mentioned actually uh good point out so the the dimension of the garage is actually 24 by 34 I believe I think the I believe it's four feet longer than we originally proposed but we did move it back three feet off of the utility line because there's a code that says you can't have a window within an arm's length or or grabbing distance of utility line so the whole structure had to move in away from the utility line but the length of the garage is I believe 34 not 30 as it's listed there okay so then what you're saying is that the documentation we have that shows the size of the garage is actually incorrect the plot plan is pre-construction okay yep so so Mr. Chair I I mean I think that you know I'm sure the square versions are fine but uh because those dimensions are slightly different it might be slightly different than what's listed on the paperwork we have so the the architectural plans are 24 by 34 yeah the architectural plans are correct that is what was built um and that will all the permits were built all the permits were pulled um all of the the sign-offs uh the the the the engineers in the architect's drawing are all accurate the only one that um the plot plan uh the certified plot plan that has the proposed garage that was what we had pulled I don't know we had that from prior to getting all of the permits I don't have an updated version of that okay that's helpful thank you um anything further from the board Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I'm just looking at the gross square footage which is 720 and it's 24 by 30 these should that be 24 by 34 then no the the second floor if you look at the to match the house the foundation first floor is larger than the second floor so the dormer of the second floor is smaller than the footprint of the garage and we did that to match the house so the square foot upstairs is different than the square foot downstairs okay so the 720 that's listed in the application is a reliable number for the gross square footage of the adu is that correct uh let me just make sure that I hold on one second what number are we looking at because in the application it talked about both the size of the building and the size of the building is larger than the size of the oh the accessory building is 720 square feet but that's the floor not the second floor but may I thought that you just told me that the for the building it was 20 it was 24 by 34 yes but the second floor is not 24 by 34 okay but the accessory for the accessory building here let me just be clear is is that the gross floor area of the adu of what will be the adu unit no okay so let me get my let me just so I have it clear let me get my calculator out to make sure that I'm giving you the correct information sorry and again the difference is the second floor of the garage is smaller than the first floor of the garage so the first floor of the garage is 24 by 34 the second floor of the garage I believe is 34 by whatever is in the drawings but it's smaller hold on 24 by 34 oh sorry so yes um it's the sorry about that so the the 24 by 34 is 816 square feet so the the second so that the the 720 must be the second floor but there is some unfinished space in the second floor uh because of it's just the way that was built this there's a false wall and there's just unused space up there and that's why it's smaller than the actual that's why it's you know it's just it's it's a new wall so there's a new wall with an unused there's vacant space behind the new wall that is not going to be living space okay thank you yep again we want we we've matched the garage to the house so it's it's a not a standard size you know the first floor is not the same size as the second floor right so before I open the meeting for public comment I did just want to note the board is in receipt of an email um submitted by uh Trisa Harrington 38 Robin Hood Road I did not see her name on the list for this evening so I just wanted to make sure we included her comments um she I can go ahead and share this uh so just briefly uh do you see yeah I'm not in favor um I was under understanding that the original permit obtained that this adu was going to be for their son Marcus but now they're changing their plan this doesn't follow the guidelines for adus renting these units is not in compliance and it's been very lax making sure homeowners stay true to their original plans we have one at 44 that's not in compliance the homeowner has attached his so-called old garage to his in-law apartment maybe the town should do a better job enforcing the rules also rules concerning Airbnb's respectfully Trisa and Harrington 28 Robin Hood Road um so we just to briefly address that um the guidelines for accessory dwelling units do very explicitly allow for the rental of a unit an accessory dwelling unit does not have to go to a family member it can be rented on the open market as long as the primary residence is is still occupied by an owner of the property um and that's that was part of the intent of the of the bylaw so with that um public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on I believe it's the reactions tab now um 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 you'll 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 anyone wishing to address the board a second time uh the chair will allow those visions be for first time to go first and all public questions and comments uh we will keep this open probably um uh let's say 10 minutes sir until we've went out of people so at this point um it's open for public comment are there members of the public who wish to address this application we have a hand raised uh mr. Moore yes thank you mr. chair steve morpiedmont street um i was looking at the photographs which were attached to the application or one of the application documents and i think you had them up briefly uh and i'm trying to figure out with you that looks down the private way uh looking at the door of the garage the um the 2021 plot plan showed some large trees that were there and they seem to be missing in the photograph or is there something off about the angle i'm looking at you see the one with the garage door two 15 inch trees relatively close to the door and i don't see anything that i ask what happened to those trees these these trees here adjacent on the putting the private way yep so at the corner at the corner if you go back to the picture where the utility pole was there was a tree at the utility pole it just passed the utility pole that um were that were were failing um and they were in risk of of falling on the you um on the on the utility lines and it was the consensus of many of the neighbors including um my adjacent neighbor across the way that the tree be removed so that it doesn't cause harm to the to the utility line and i'll go one step further in that this year if you notice down the down the side of the down the side of the garage you can see that white tree with no leaves on it that unfortunately had to be cut down this year because it was a dead tree also so we did remove prior to construction uh one i mean the the one that you see in the picture that has no leaves on it unfortunately had to move we had to remove that this year it you know it just it was dead and the one that was uh the one that removed by the utility pole um we had removed i i'm not sure we did that or if we did that with my neighbor at the end if we shared the cost um but that was removed because it was uh it was uh it was dying uh mr. chair the only reason i bring it up is clearly the garage was built in 2021 these trees died in 2023 or between 21 and 23 i'm a little concerned construction led to the decline in failure of hold on just just to be clear the tree by the utility pole was taken out years before the construction the the plot plan um was from i think the plot plan the the original plot plan that has the trees on it i believe that was from 2006 with the proposed garage on it so the the trees were there as of 2006 not in 2021 that tree's been been gone for a while um mr. chair i would ask if a tree plan was filed in 2021 for this garage which is 816 square feet which is above the 750 size requiring tree plans etc and that actually leads me to another question which is in 2021 maybe it's my ignorance of the rules here but why was the garage allowed to be up there it is 20 second back sorry 2020 um the garage meets the setback requirement because the exterior walls facing parker street and the private way i guess they're fire rated um and by there's you know the permit allows for building on property line provided that the material used is fire rated so this the the house the you know i notice of a much larger can of worms which we need to discuss yep well um so this typically if you face a road it is the front yard in this case because this piece of property that that is labeled town of arlington um so this piece of land actually belongs to the town of arlington it was taken for non-payment of taxes by a prior owner of the property um so technically this is a rear corner between a side yard and a rear yard and so it can the zero setback is allowed um but as it is required that the construction be of a fire rated construction for a garage um looking at the construction documents that was not done um it was built using normal stick framing um but that's not an issue before the board at this time the board is restricted to the question as to whether or not the conversion of the upper floor from its current non-use to an accessory dwelling unit is um meets the the criteria and the findings requirements um of the zoning by law i i understand mr chairman but aren't you furthering a non-compliance that was incurred in 2020 2021 i i don't believe there was a non-compliance when the garage was built the there wasn't a non-compliance with the construction of the garage as far as i know so i had i had discussed this with um briefly with the building inspector um because i had an initial question about the this adjacent piece of property um so he the determination from the building inspector was that because there was a garage there before and this was the reconstruction of a garage um that that was the reason it was approved as submitted um and that that was all that's the all i know in regards to um why it was constructed in the manner it was constructed there had been a garage there in the past the the cement slab of the garage was still there when we purchased the house but the garage itself wasn't there but there had been a garage for uh a garage had been on the property you know as part of the original construction there was a garage there right where we bought the house mr chairman mr hanlon well if i understand what you're saying is is that at least with respect to the may i think mr moore is raising things of raising a question about compliance with the tree by law which we can get to in a minute but in terms of just the general compliance with the building code and with the zoning ordinance my understanding is that the building inspector in 2020 knew everything that we do now and for reasons which seemed appropriate to him at the time issued a building permit uh for the garage to be um constructed in the way uh that it is now we may disagree with that uh and or maybe we think that but if there's a if that's an issue presumably it's because we disagree with the decision of the building inspector and it's not something that uh would be mr alia's fault uh i understand mr chairman then that thank you mr hanlon that that'll lose today's the situation i just um i will say that surprised so sorry to interrupt i will say this if you go back to the the actual pictures when the when the garage was done we actually planted five trees along parker street um red maple two birch uh what kind of berry service service berry and a magnolia and a magnolia so we actually planted five trees when the construction was done and that's shown in the side view of the actual picture the the word doc so we did plant five trees across the side um after the construction was done uh okay i'm sure and that's the land that's owned by the town of arlington i i'm guessing town property yes that is yes well that that's uh i mean that's a good thing i i appreciate that having been done um i just um surprised that things went forward without questions related to the side on the private road but thank you mr chairman you're welcome mr mark are there any further members of the public who wish to address this application meaning none i will go ahead and close the public participation part of the hearing um and i will bring up the zoning bylaws so in any residential district accessory dwelling unit is permitted as an accessory used to any single family dwelling two family dwelling or duplex dwelling if all the following conditions are met um so uh these are the requirements that will be reviewed by the building inspector um and the zoning enforcement officer as they go forward with with their review of the property um where we are brought in is under this fifth bullet number three an accessory building which an accessory building shall not constitute a principal or main building by the corporation of the accessory dwelling unit provided that if such an accessory building is located within six feet of a lot line then such accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed only if the board of appeals acting pursuant to section three point three grants a special permit upon its finding that the creation of such accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the use of such accessory building as a private garage or other allowed use um and the the rest of this is uh enforceable by the by the building department um so what the the determined that's the determination the board needs to make that the conversion of the upper floor from its current use to being used an accessory dwelling unit um the board needs to find that the creation of such accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the use of such building as a private garage um and the way that the board has typically made these determinations um is with respect to the special permit criteria three three three there we go so the use requested is listed as the special permit use and the regulations for the applicable district or so designated in the bylaw we just reviewed their intersection uh 593 uh the requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare um the enhancement of property in town along with the incorporation of additional residences in a way that does not create an undue um increase in density is it is essential and desirable to the town uh requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety the use of this building as an accessory dwelling unit um would would possibly to uh increase the the number of uh cars available by one um but that is up to uh the owner as to how they would handle that uh the requested use will not overload any public water drainage or sewer system or any other municipal system to such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate area or any other area of town will be unduly subjected to the hazards affecting health safety or the general welfare uh we will be adding um a single kitchen and a single restroom um which should not cause any overload um the special any special regulation for the use as made by law are fulfilled and that is that the board would determine that um the use as an accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than its current use uh the request use will not impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining districts um it is highly unlikely that anyone would notice that it's being used as a an accessory dwelling unit as opposed to um the appearance it has now it is there are no exterior modifications to the house as a part of this application with the exception as we had discussed about uh providing proper legal egress and that'll be worked out with the building department um and the requested use will not by its addition to the neighborhood cause an excess of the use that could be detrimental to the character of said neighborhood and the incorporation of an accessory dwelling unit in this existing structure would only add one unit um to an existing neighborhood and the the lot size that's there currently is fairly generous um in the neighborhood would not be um unduly burdened by the addition of this accessory dwelling unit um I would ask the board if there are any additional questions in regards to this application seeing none Mr. Chair could I ask one question yes please um so uh under uh section 5.9.2 the accessory dwelling unit regulations under under B there's a note about um accessory dwelling units being subject to all applicable requirements of state building codes state fire code and the openings um with being protected um whether they're a certain distance from the property line so you know knowing that the building inspector approved the building permit um I guess I'm just wondering is it our is our responsibility to make that determination if if you feel or we feel that um perhaps it's not um meaning the fire rating that would be required under our code or is it the building inspector already made that determination and now this is um uh allowable because it received the permit. So it's the responsibility of the building department to review the final application for compliance with the state building code and as such they will need to make that determination as to whether the you know the way the windows are um are in compliance with the building code or if they would need to make some adjustment to that um and also because the proximity of the structure to the lot line does that you know are there setback requirements that would uh need to be met in terms of you know fire protection but that would be within that's not within our purview that's the purview of the building the building inspector but we could put it in as a condition if um no I just I'm just curious about that just because it came up here and I think it came up on one previous adu case where someone was adding to a structure that had been fire rated and they weren't proposing something fire rated I I think we probably have the same question and conversation but I wanted to be sure thank you okay um and then um unfortunately I do need to to run in a second um I do have some concerns um about sort of the the openness of some of the documentation we have that it's not overly firm is to exactly some of the sizes um of things and we don't have an accurate layout of the upper floor um and so I would put in front of the board ask at the board what their consideration would be um if they feel they have enough information or if they would want to request additional information be provided um the other thing I wanted to just briefly uh it's not related to our case and what we need to find um but I would just notice notice for the applicant that that strip of land that belongs to the town of Arlington is the town of Arlington's land it is not you it's not your property um but you are using it as your property um and I would just caution you that you're doing that at your own risk um that the town can can you know take possession and take ownership of that land uh that land was granted to the town of Arlington for uh nonpayment of taxes by a prior resident of that house um I would strongly encourage you to discuss that with the town um whether there's a a way that you could either acquire reacquire that piece of land or obtain an easement for access to the garage across that piece of land um but I just caution you that um it's it the access to the drive access to the garage is entirely off of town's property um and that that's at your own risk I completely understand and I believe the we have the easement for the garage for the for the driveway um I can confirm that um and completely understand that that you know that the land that we've been maintaining for 18 years is not our land yep okay just wanted to confirm that you were aware of that yep um with that I apologize that I do have to run um I will leave this hearing and the capable hands of Mr. Hanlon um to go forward thank you mr. Klein so now I get to be I get to be chair for for a while um so the question that's outstanding is whether uh we need to have um a correction of some of the material that is in front of us that shows where that particularly that shows an accurate view of the um where the unit is is going to be and provides uh updated dimensions and clarifies the information that we already have um and I guess that it sort of is up to you whether you need to see anything like that I would encourage us to be thinking about whether that information provided to us as opposed to putting a condition saying that updated information needs to be provided to inspectional services uh may cause a waste of our time and other people's time as well unless we think it's genuinely material uh to our decision in the case so I guess the I I think that it would we have in the past uh included a condition that says an effect uh that the applicant will at the time of applying for a building permit uh update the uh and correct all of the the uh the drawings that are before us uh is that enough or do you want to try for a continuance and and get a good look at it yourselves before acting on the case that's the chair I'm sorry I didn't see you sit yeah Mr. Luck uh I know I'm a kind of new here but I don't particularly feel comfortable voting given the documents we have in front of us um you know not for sure knowing what the square footage is and then also the um the issue with the separate entrance and egress uh I know you know we can leave that up to the building inspector but it seems like given what I've heard tonight there may be a couple of things that have transpired or something I don't know um to be up to what others here feel but that's kind of my feeling that I would like to see more updated documents just to be clear the only document that we're talking about is the plot plan correct that's the only documenting question well I think we need to see a layout of the proposed adu as well as what those dimensions are and what the square footage of that is that should be in the construction dock not the not the layout but the finished space area should be in the construction dock of the of the garage the garage plans has a second floor layout with square footage I'm just not convinced of its accuracy based on the architectural drawings I I can't provide anything other than the architectural drawings of the building what else what what would you propose that I show that has that what can I show that would be more convincing than the architectural drawing well I think my my thing is you were saying that the walls of the second floor are inset from the building and that's shown and that is shown on the the the drawings that I submitted that's all in there the framing dock show everything dimension I see on the second floor plan shows a 24 by 34 foot space but that doesn't jive of what we're hearing and then what we see hold on what the second floor that would be a two in your documents yeah that's the one I'm looking at and that that's that's what I'm looking at what's in the agenda what we have available to us if there's other things that maybe were sent that we don't have in front of us I can't speak to that but I'm just looking at what I have in front of myself right now I'm looking for a to I have a printout of what I submitted and in the printout of what I submitted I I thought I had a layout of a to there it is no that's the a to is the outside a to that house and what I submitted what I what I what I think I submitted had a layout apparently it's not in the document that you have yeah it's not in the agenda for tonight's meeting did you describe mr alia what what is the document that you think you have that we're missing what what what what what does it have on it that h you does not have I can if I you allow me to share my screen I can show it to you Mr. Alston does he have the permission to do that for me let me look and see whoops I can't do that let me just uh here we go this is uh this is what I thought I submitted with my paperwork and you can see where it says attic those are the those are the so the 24 is minus the two feet so it's 20 by 34 so you have four of these setbacks because the outside foundation of the second floor is smaller than the outside foundation that I thought I had submitted this um with my paperwork yeah I'll just add to make sure you check what the definition of the gross floor area is and the zoning bylaws because it's it's a little bit more nuanced than what you just described understood um but the entirety of the garage is even if it was the full footprint of the garage it's still only 816 the 34 by 24 so it could never be more than 816 yeah I guess I can clarify I'm I you know I want this to go through I just want to make sure that we're getting accurate information and that the record reflects the correct information that is there perfect so other than the updated plot plan and this document that shows the um all the measurements in the proposed layout is there anything else that you would like to see I think it would be good to see what the proposal for the separate entrances because that is a requirement of the zoning bylaw that we're looking at and I just want to make sure we see that and I'll leave it up to the building inspector to determine the rest of it in terms of the actual construction of it for its proper fire ratings and all that yep yeah which is the section of the of the bylaw that we're looking at so the the separate the means vigorous thing that's in the building code itself um but the separate entrance is under the 5.9.2 b it is uh one and bullet point three so what I'm asking what I'm wondering is if to read that all out it says an accessory dwelling unit shall maintain a separate entrance either directly from the outside or through an entry hall or corridor shared with the principal dwelling sufficient to meet the requirements of the state building code for safe egress so if this was actually in the principal dwelling then you could go in through that right so the problem if there is a problem is just that this is not the principal dwelling the accessory building is is a garage and so that's the reason why it is that that there needs to be a separate entrance I think so according to to as a zoning point of view but in a building code point of view putting on my other hat you can't egress through a garage well that's fair enough but I don't we're not we're not the the zoning the the building inspector administrates the building code as a state law not as and we don't administer the building code so if it isn't a zoning requirement then I don't really think that we have any any business attempting to deal with it somebody that's that's a job of a different agency the the question really in my mind is whether is is is whether that's really a zoning a zoning thing as well and I guess here the way it's written I I sort of take the view that it is so it puts us in an awkward position because of course the the thing has to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the state building both building code for safe egress which puts us right back into dealing with the building code I personally feel more comfortable letting mr chompa deal with that than doing it for our on our own but what I take it that you are looking for mr leblanc is for mr alia to decide what option he wants to take here and see architectures that show the separate exit the separate egress yeah I think just from our zoning point of view of showing the entrance directly from the outside because I believe that's the one applicable to this situation and then like you're saying but let the building inspector deal with the other components related to the building code okay so what we need then if if I understand you mr correctly mr leblanc from from mr alia is essentially the document that he's just shown maybe adjusted in some way if I'm not quite sure what what aspect of what he's just shown you I mean I'm trying to figure out what suppose he just puts in the document that he just that that he just showed us um he's still fairly long distance away from 900 and I'm wondering whether and we haven't really worked worked out what this means in terms of the principle dwelling and so forth but I think it's we're are we getting over 50 probably not that either I mean you know if it's if it's just a matter of understanding just how far a short fall short of the minimum it's a bit much to have them redo the document unless there's something specific that we can point to that says we don't think that it's that the document is right on this thing or this thing or that and the other thing is you need you need to show a design that that that is sufficient to us normally given to us that shows where the uh separate egress is is that right is there is there anything else that you would like him to have no I think it's it's mostly that and again just I I understand that the whole square footage thing is basically a non-issue but I'm just I'm just being a stickler to that I guess I guess so I you know I would encourage us if if the difference is between 816 and 817 and the standard is 900 I I'm not entirely sure that it makes sense for us to be doing that but if you think there's a substantial possibility that when you do it all correctly that it's uncertain whether or not you'll meet the minimum the maximum size requirement and we can certainly ask for that and I it seems to me that what he's already shown us probably gives us all we need to work with and I'm not sure what we can ask him to do more on the question of the external egress that is something that we haven't even started with so he'd have to produce something more demonstrating that how how he did attempt to achieve that yeah um you know I'll I'll let others weigh in um well let's see you know if we do the one if he's got the document that we already have unless we have reason why we have to ask him to redo it then he's already got that part so the the difficulty is showing where the external egress would be and that requires some more thinking and a decision on his part and and deciding how he wants to do that and providing us with that document what in it now the alternative for us asking for it is to rely on Mr. Champa to enforce the state building code and and he would presumably do this in in either event oh I wonder if others on the board have a view as to whether they feel that we need to continue this to provide this additional information or not. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So this feels a little cumulative to me based upon Mr. Rickardelli's comments and then Mr. Woblinck's comments and then Mr. Klein's comments but I guess in sum for me I mean I first of all I believe that based upon the application itself the gross floor area is established whatever that number is because my first concern going in is just making sure that it comports with that you know no larger than 50 percent or 900 square feet whichever is smaller and if the other members of the border in agreement I think that that's been established with the application itself so I I I take that as sort of step one and then if what we're talking about is then okay we need clarification for the layout in the square footage of the living space I I suppose I'd be comfortable if there was just a requirement that this plan that Mr. Aluya has provided to us was provided for the record to supplement the record so that it's there for anybody who goes later to to look at it and and so I would be comfortable with that and then I guess to Mr. LeBlanc's point I think that you know the whole idea of the egress gets pulled back into this portion of the zoning bylaw by virtue of reference to the building code if if that's correct I guess I guess it is is that correct Mr. LeBlanc so yeah it seems kind of circular so but but I'm assuming that you know the there's the condition that this plan with the layout of the floor and then you know a plan that would be submitted to the inspectional services showing egress in conformity with the provisions of this bylaw and the state building code I mean that gives Mr. Champa enough of a roadmap to be able to say oh okay well here's what I got to do I'm sure he knows that already but if if we wanted to I suppose we could put that into a decision if we're inclined to do so and then just sort of move ahead if other members of the board are comfortable with that and and the last point I will make and I think that Mr. Hanlon's already addressed this is you know we need to stick to those things that are in front of us but I do have a concern you know as a lawyer about that strip of land that is owned by the town because there is actually an access issue but I don't think that it affects the use as a dwelling unit an accessory dwelling unit so I'm willing to forego that as a concern or discussion but I do think it raises an issue that needs to be dealt with down the line so I'm generally comfortable moving ahead with the submission of the plan showing the layout and then the egress that conforms with the bylaw slash building code Mr. Chair Mr. Caught Mr. Holly just to add to what Mr. DuPont was mentioning about that large piece of land owned by Arlington we are in this in this hearing looking at a conversion of an existing dwelling structure right so we are looking at kind of conformity or non-conformity of the existing structure in a way so should we look into the dwelling structure the accessory structure relative to that lot line or not is more a question there as a point because that is the one point I was hung up on as well that was raised by Mr. DuPont my understanding is that Mr. Klein has discussed that with council who has indicated that this is an issue that the applicant ought to be taking up separately with the town as the older owner of that strip and recognize both the jeopardy is added and and attempting to come to some sort of an agreement to put this out of sound or footing I I as a lawyer too I I would hesitate for us to be attempting to get into the property issue that is at stake here and don't believe that there's anything in that that would prevent us from approving this application and and I don't think that that Mr. Heim thinks so either I agree the only part where I wanted more clarification is that the the accessory structure is at a zero property line right now and not the table dimensional table required whatever 25 feet but that is an existing non-conformity in a way for us at this time at this juncture it is an existing non-conforming non-conformity correct I well that's I I don't that is a difficult legal question because it's not a prior non-conformity it's a non-conformity only if you assume which I do not that Mr. Trump is a predecessor got it wrong and and issued the building permit in error and then there it is and I'm not even sure what what to do about that and but don't think that it is the function of this board to try to figure that out the question for the notice that the the business about fire rating is a is both a building code issue and it's it's a question that has to do with the location of the garage as such there's no equivalent provision in the sorry in the adu bylaw what that says just says if you're within six feet you need a special permit and then we have to apply the criteria that we that we have applied right right so sorry this is the last one if I may share my screen quickly the section where the request for their application has this comment I was just trying to understand this so which requires so this is section 5.9.2 b1 3 requires that the by right adu conversion must be a minimum of six feet from the property line and that the proposed adu is closer than so so the the premise is that it is okay I probably understood that it's a more illegal question nuance than this one okay right understood the question is six feet just for the garage you need to meet the fire standards those fire standards are not referred to in the adu bylaw right right okay thank you thank you so Mr Dupont I'm they something close to this is at the time of building building permit the applicant shall provide drawings or a planned showing compliance with section 9.2 b1 bullet 3 in conformity with this bylaw and with the state building code is that basically right yes I bollocks that up a little bit but okay so I guess the question that I'd like us all to to figure out is whether we think that we need to continue and see that all of that himself and and carry this agenda over till the next meeting when we can when we can address this which I think will be august 29th or whether we're satisfied with Mr Dupont's condition I personally would think that that we don't that that that are seeing this and expressing our opinions on it I don't think that it will influence our if assuming that assuming that the that that the applicant shows what with the condition says that he needs to show are seeing it first is not likely to add to the quality of the decision as compared to Mr Champa doing it and and it would cause a very considerable delay Mr Hanlon Mr Rickardelli I agree I think you know I would hate to hold the applicant up I think I think that I would be you know I'm in favor of the application and I think provided that they submit the plan that we were just shown and the condition that Mr Dupont crafted that I think I think that I would be comfortable voting tonight right I need to I need to ask your for Barron's and if you could give me about a minute for a break I need to I need to to do this it's the I will just say that I the we had a similar problem with the high eighth case where we they I think it was that one where the question came up having to do with where the with where the with what the average finish grade was and the applicant added provided additional after we had acted on the application because we had seen it just as we've seen the document that Mr Luia has the document was later submitted for the record and I would propose that rather than waiting until Mr Luia formally submits the document that we've seen if that document is all that's necessary that we proceed at least to act in that connection and then and then and then stick with the condition that that that we have since the document is in existence and really just needs to be there in order to make the record the record accurate and make it easy for people to find the document that that we're actually are relying on if we are inclined to improve to approve the application so if there's if there's nothing more the I suppose that let me see if the board is in is inclined to approve this application it will want to do that in with the three standard conditions and I'm looking hard for a copy of those for me to to read into the record with me I need to I need to split my screen there we go so the three standard conditions are as follows the first one is final plans the final plans and specifications approved by the board for the permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief there shall be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals the second deals with enforcement the building inspector is hereby notified that he is to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time that he determines that violations are present the building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21d and institute non-criminal complaints if necessary the building inspector may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and the final one is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant in addition to that Mr. DuPont has proposed a condition that would say in substance at the time of building building of building permit approval the applicant shall submit or the plan that shows egress in accordance with section b1 bullet 3 of those of the zoning bylaw and conformity with the state building code yes does that he is there are there any other conditions that that any member of the board thinks would be appropriate Mr. Chairman I don't know if it was a condition but we did agree that he will submit the floor plan that we viewed moments ago so I don't know if that was something yeah I mean I wondered well why don't we just make an indication make it a condition at the time of building inspection at the time of the building permit uh the plan that a2 uh shall be submitted as part of as part of the uh or shall be submitted to the building inspector sounds good and but nevertheless in addition to that it would be we Mr. Lee should provide a copy of that for the record in this case but we won't delay decision on that but all right so that should be the the fifth decision the the fifth condition is are there is there anything else okay the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman Mr. DuPont I move that the application for the ADU be approved subject to the three standard conditions and the two additional conditions that the chair just enumerated is there a second second second to my Mr. LeBlanc uh we'll do a roll call well let me see if I can uh Mr. DuPont I Mr. Riccardelli I Mr. LeBlanc I um who am I missing Mr. Holy Mr. Holy there you are I uh and the chair votes I so thank you Mr. Lee they you've got some additional things that you will need to provide for the building inspector but if you could file the uh document that you showed us uh earlier uh so that we could have it in the record we would greatly appreciate it yep I will send that through can I send that through email do you need a printed copy no you can send it through email all right I will send that through email tomorrow and I think there was one other outstanding will I get a uh a communication of some sort that says what the other outstanding item is I think it was final plans approved by I was writing it down but I just want to make sure I understand the other follow-up the material that will be provided to the building inspector oh got it okay perfect okay all right so I'll send the plans out I'll email them right now okay thank you thank you very much thank you um all right so we're now ready to turn to the second hearing on our our list it's 14 Oakland street yes uh Mr. Nessie go Mr. Hannah yes okay uh I am here this evening with uh my two clients uh David turned a quist and Catherine Catherine Vashica and also with Alexander Vu uh the architect now you may recall at the last hearing that uh I was into my opening statement and the chair brought to my attention the fact that there had been two cases decided at the last zoning hearing that might have a bearing on what I was trying to achieve with that I requested that the matter be continued so I would have an opportunity to read those decisions which I have done uh I have read both and I did submit a memo to the members of the board which hopefully you've received by the way along with uh many many emails from neighbors who are in favor of what is being proposed by uh my clients the the case that I looked at uh very carefully was uh 48 Oakland uh now 48 Oakland uh was a bit different than my case in that uh 48 Oakland uh was decided under section 1.8 I started at 8.1.3 and as you may recall 8.1.3 had two paragraphs paragraph A and paragraph B paragraph A essentially said that if you were doing in addition completely within the foundation uh then you probably did not need zoning relief because you essentially were conforming and the chair uh did uh in the 48 Oakland uh decision did uh indicate that as well uh and the homeowners in that case indicated that uh their lot was conforming even though they had three stories and they had three stories but the entire addition was going to occur within the foundation uh the my case involved a situation where the addition was not going to occur within the foundation therefore uh I had to look to sub paragraph B now it's interesting also to note that when I applied for my relief I applied for relief under the uh dimensional uh provision in the by law for a special permit I also applied for variance I conceded very quickly to points made by I believe uh Mr. Dupont and perhaps that Mr. Hanlon as well uh that in fact I would never be able to establish uniqueness relating to my variance request and uh I conceded that and if you're familiar with uh Oakland Ave you can see why I would have conceded that uh because quite frankly a lot of the houses on uh uh Oakland Ave are similar uh the characteristics are similar as well so I did wrote a memo or a brief to the board and essentially what I talked about in that brief was that the board in the 48 Oakland Ave case decided to hear that case under the provisions of sub paragraph B despite the fact that uh the applicant in that case probably did not even need relief because again they were building their addition within the foundation but I went on to quote from some of the comments made in that case and one of the comments that again was made was we're going to decide the case using the the parameters of sub paragraph B they now again I don't have that in my case however what I do have is I have everything else I believe okay I have uh the the design standards that we'd be complying with we're in our one zone we're not really introducing a an addition to the neighborhood that is much different than a lot of the house other houses in the neighborhood indeed one of the emails which you received from an owner at 10 Oakland Ave basically talked about the fact that she did pretty much what my client is attempting to do now 25 years ago and she was able to get it to build it 25 years ago as we all know there are statute and limitations that apply as well as a 10 in a six-year statute of limitations so even if a building had been built years ago without reference to the building plans if 10 years go by the building inspector cannot go ahead and stop that building from continuing to exist so again I had facts that were very similar now the one issue I did have was of course that I had not filed under 8.3.1 I argue in my memo that that should make any difference because what when I applied for relief I applied for relief under the dimensional aspects of the zoning bylaw and that told the world and put the world on notice that my client was seeking to put an addition on their home so that was notice and indeed historically I go back a long way with the zoning board historically years ago if in fact a property had been advertised as a variance if in fact the board decided to and but and not advertised as a special permit if the board decided to go along with granting a special permit since the greater relief had been advertised the boards historically in prior years would conclude and did conclude that nevertheless the matter could go forward because the relief being sought by way of a special permit was less relief than that being sought by way of a variance so what I'm here to argue and I'm going to have Mr. Alexander to talk with you in a few minutes as well what I'm here to argue is that we feel we fit within the language of subparagraph B and I think subparagraph B was put in the bylaw for a reason and it was put in the bylaw for precisely the kind of a situation we're talking about my client's home was built in 1939 okay it goes way back and again building inspectors over the years had an opportunity to come to the owners of the property from 1939 on and say look you got three stories you shouldn't have three stories okay and shut them down that never happened okay and so that ability on the part of the building inspector would be foreclosed at this point with respect to how this addition would fit into the neighborhood I feel that it would fit in very nicely in the neighborhood in my memo I argue about the characteristics of Oakland and starting down the bottom going up to the top how the houses just to some extent a bit varied but in many respects very similar what my client is proposing is not substantially different than what would exist in the neighborhood now and even after the fact and I think that argument falls within the four corners of the language in subparagraph B query is the applicant's proposal going to be substantially different than what is in the neighborhood and will it be a detriment to what is in the neighborhood and my my argument to you is that that is not the case now with that having been said why don't I let the real person who knows more about this than I do the architect maybe say some words to you as well Mr. Nessie let me just sort of I just say this Mr. Hanlon I did reach out to the building inspector about the issue I talked about in terms of whether I should go forward and I never heard back okay whether I should withdraw it and file a new so I said to myself why not go ahead before the board okay I've not heard from the building commissioner let's get before the board and so that's what that's what I'm sorry so I just back up for a second and remind ourselves where we where we currently stand last time when we started and I don't think we got very far into and we probably need some reflection we need need some refresh refreshment of our recollection of exactly what the proposal is and how the layout is and what it looks like and that sort of thing but the initial question the threshold question was whether or not this is introducing a new nonconformity or whether it's or whether or not it's the extension of an existing nonconformity and that in turn depends upon whether the existing house is two stories or three stories and I take it from your submissions that your view at this point and what you're submitting to us is that it's three stories and so what we're talking about is the extension of a nonconformity correct I do know for that for Mr. Champa that that is the view of the building department that that it is it is currently a three story and you've submitted for the record two other things that tend to show that one is a is a plot plan dated in 2022 as opposed to 2020 which is the original one you used that in which the surveyor said it's three stories and you also have got several drawings that do not exactly calculate the average grade but do I think are supposed to be show to us exactly why it is that the basement does count as a story because the ceiling is more than four feet six inches above the average finished grade um so that's the evidence that we have to rely on and if we agree with you that the existing building is a three story then it seems to be clear that that section 8.1.3 b potentially applies in which case the standard that we have to apply is whether or not the extension of the nonconformity is more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformity which we normally do by looking at the special the usual special permit uh special permit criteria to inform that that decision so sort of legally that's that's where we are so the first thing I guess is to make sure that that we're satisfied that we know enough to conclude that the the building inspector is right that this is three stories to start with and then we're into essentially looking at the usual special permit considerations in terms of we know where we know what authorizes the special permit that would be 8.1.3 b and then we have the various criteria that that that you've addressed so let me just ask the board members if if that seems clear enough to me and whether this would be a good time to turn to Mr. Vu in some pictures and to see more you could get more into the details is anyone on the board have any further questions I mean there'll be lots of times for further questions but let's let Mr. Vu do his thing can you hear me yes we can hear you great so is there drawings that you have or should I share my screen you should share your screen share the screen okay can you see my screen yes great so I think we're all agreed that it's a for now that it's the existing non-conform non-conforming three stories and we design or addition an extension of non-conforming three stories we're we're proposing to do a 18 by 17 footprint of a low a low first floor recreational space off of the existing unfinished basement and it's a very simple box we're also the design is to extend the design intent of the existing house into the non-conform three story and all this the additions is all within the setbacks and meets all the requirements of the site plan this is a second floor we call it the second story a family room extension of existing living room kitchen and dining and it's 19 by 18 and the third stories of the existing third story bedrooms floor a fourth bedroom bathroom and extending extension out to the back so that's our three stories floor plans any questions so this is the in the in these drawings uh Oakland's avenue is to the left correct yes and this is located in the rear yard yes extension uh so tell us a little bit about the where well how far is how far is the what is the depth of the rear setback here the site plan do we have a site plan I think in the tabulation it says something like 59 feet but it's a yes it's a very deep backyard it's at least that yes i'm over sure a survey clock plan yeah it's a it's a still like a double lot very long and then what is what what is located behind that is I mean I take it it's another lot that is on harvard street and uh how far is the is the structure uh in that from the from the real outline uh I would I mean I guess you if if the owner is here miss big showers or is may actually have a better feel for how far away her neighbor in the back is than than any of us mr hamlin I'm not a good judge of distance but I would say it's approximately 125 feet or so it's can you see that's the plot plan I'm sharing with you um I do see the plot plan yeah so so the apologize I took me a while to find this so the the back corner the left uh the north back corner of the house the two-story house it's 70 yards from the back corner to the proper the real property line right and we're extending out we're proposing sending out 18 feet right from 70 feet and the question we're addressing now is the lot in the back which is for the record 11 harvard street is also quite a deep lot before you get to the structure on it and I'm trying to get an estimate about how deep that is and uh I I think mr turnquist suggested that it was it was deep I'm he guessed maybe 100 feet or so but but it certainly it's not close is that correct yes yes all right I think that's fair what is the uh total square footage of this addition the total square footage let's see um I believe we have I think we have it in our uh our application it's on your dimensional form and the dimensional form I think yes it's on it into dimensional form so it's I guess if you subtract 2221 which is the existing from the proposed 3211 you get 990 is that correct I think we're close um so that's more than 750 and I'm wondering whether you also need a special permit for a large addition that's the case we certainly do now I do notice one thing and which may complicate things a little bit and maybe we should just kind of assume that you're going to be we're going to look at that criteria as well but there's a if I'm not mistaken in the back there there is an overhang a room that is I think on the second floor that extends out in the back it's supported by it's supported by pillars uh and you can see it in the pictures that were submitted by the original application if you look sort of the first one kind of shows where this looks and then uh the last one uh shows it sticking out there and if that's a pre-existing building within the foundation maybe that gets subtracted out I'm a little bit unclear of what we're really actually dealing with here see these are the proposed elevations so that they're going to show you what you're going to do and it would have been helpful I think to have elevations showing the existing situation as well but you can see in the plot plan a reference a an indication of where the one story overhang is and the question is whether there's any possibility that that brings you under 750 but I will say this that the criteria in this particular case the criteria for the large addition would not be a great deal different than the one for a special so we may we may want to just go back just assume that this is a large addition and proceed and proceed accordingly so in the new in the new drawings that you submitted you there are some I just wanted to make sure that the record that they're sort of explained for the record but they report to show that this as is they are evidence that this really is a three-story building now and I wonder if either you or Mr. Ines he wants to draw walk us through those and show the how that works oh what works yeah the I will say that that the drawings that I saw don't really contain a specific I mean they kind of you look at it and can sort of tell that it looks like this is a third story because of the four and a half feet difference but average finish grade isn't calculated so I'm a little bit I think that's that some explanation would be useful those would be in the new drawings that were submitted after the in the last few days in preparation for this hearing and not in preparation for the hearing before well can you do that so the the exposed lower level called the basement existing basement it's over two-third in terms of linear feet in the area that is covering up the upper level of the yard adjacent to the street open street so look at this so from so from the from the existing driveway the garage to go into the basement from this corner around to this corner and it works way up is the basement's exposed the full level so it is over 50 percent of the the linear feet of the the footprint the existing house more than one half all right is that Mr. Rickardelli I'm sorry I've I've turned off looking at my looking at my hard drive and I can't see who spoke it's Mr. LeBlanc Mr. LeBlanc I think the one drawing that they submitted that helps helped me was the updated site plan because it did show the existing average grade and then also gives to mention for the basement ceiling height and when you do the math with those you get a number greater than four foot six so to me that helped me understand the basement cutting as a story okay I'm just I'm going to pause here and just and let others begin asking questions if you could I've I've stepped away so that I can't see my screen so if you'll when you ask to be to speak if you can just say who you are is there anybody else who has questions or comments on the application Mr. Allen it's Mr. Rickardelli Mr. Rickardelli I think I you know I think our understanding the last I'm just you know driving up my memory from the last hearing I think our understanding from the last hearing was that we had a condition where this basement was mostly covered and then we were adding this the proposal was to add this addition to the basement level which we make it mostly not covered and that was the the crux of going from two to three stories it seems like what has been argued and I think makes sense is that that was never really the case it was our always three stories and as the architect just mentioned half of the foundation is already exposed so that would be counted as a basement not a cellar by the by the building code which would mean it was a story and I think that that that logic makes sense to me and I think you know in the in terms of the large addition criteria I wouldn't have any concerns about the appropriateness of of what's being proposed just my two cents so I Mr. Nessie I think that I probably have just done it again and interrupted you in the middle of your presentation and I maybe I should give it back to you and give you a fair chance to say what you wanted to say well I I was going to be arguing a variance okay even though I I knew that I'd have a problem with it but I was going to be arguing that and once I got the sense that my concern as corroborated by yourself and others that that was not going to fly you've got to understand that there historically there have been different makeups on the zoning board of appeals in Allington 20 years ago the variance that I would have been applying for and requesting would have been allowed okay by the by the zoning board and there were capable people on the board but I concede that they were not applying the law as the law should be applied okay there was a different perspective emanating from the the board more from the point of view of trying to make folks comfortable in their homes and keep folks in their homes so they don't wind up selling and by the way my clients have two young children and that's the reason why they want this additional space they want the space they want to remain here they've been here for years all their neighbors love them if you've read the emails any any five or ten of the emails I've sent all their neighbors love them and nobody registered any disdain or any non-support for what they're proposing so the question in my mind as they're currently at this point and particularly after listening to what you had to say in this to hand on last time is what can I do to try to give these folks the additional space they need so that they can have the space for their children have an area for the children to play so that everybody's not falling over each other and give them additional living space so they can stay in town and the to my mind when the 48 Oakland and case was proposed not proposed but suggested that I read it I was kind of encouraged when I read that case and I use the word dicta DIC TA for non-lawyers you may not know what that means but all of the language in 48 Oakland have even though it was a conforming situation under paragraph A all of that language that ensued after that such as the property complying with design standards are one zone not dissimilar to other properties and not having an adverse effect on surrounding the surrounding neighborhood all of those facts were not dicta they were germane to that decision because that decision was decided using sub paragraph B so I'm here trying to bring about a situation when my class can get relief under sub paragraph B arguing that they they yes they have a nonconformity but the nonconformity has existed since 1939 quite frankly and when they bought the house nobody told them that well you you've got three stories here you've got a problem and well they're actually kind of lucky they have that problem now yes yes because they have the special position that the law gives to prior nonconforming uses and that puts them in a better position than if they were conforming so it's so it's a lucky thing yes so I agree with that and so that's why I'm here and I think that's basically what I was going to say before you put me on the other path right so let me if there's nothing else that the board wants to explore right now this is a public hearing and and it would be helpful to give the public a chance to to speak on the application and I'm not quite sure who there is who wants to address this but the general rules for the conduct of a public hearing were read by Mr Klein they haven't changed and so is there anyone here who wishes to address this application I don't see anyone going once going twice going three times okay so are there any questions and comments from the board okay this is a relative in some ways this is going to turn out to be a relatively straightforward case although it's route to us hasn't been very straightforward at all the legal background is if we find if we find and it seems that this is that the existing house is three stories then this is the extension of a nonconforming use if it is the extension of a nonconforming use it's governed by section 8.1.3 b of the zoning bylaw and the standard were to apply is whether or not the extension is more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current nonconformity we typically do that by looking at the special permit criteria of section 3.3 here we have the additional complication that this is probably also a large addition that too requires us to look at the requirements of section 3.3 but to be paying a special attention to setbacks and the proximity of structures and uses to other structure butting structures and uses at this point we've had a chance to look at where this is we do know that this has been built behind is being built behind the structure and away from the street we saw from the diagrams that were presented to us last time the elevations that the building looks more or less like a two-story building from the street even though from the back it looks it it looks more like a three-story building we also know that there's about 50 to 60 feet of rear setback left and then a substantial distance between the property line and the building to the back so that we're not dealing with the kind of proximity to a neighboring property that sometimes becomes important in large in large additions the evidence before us is that many other houses in this area have had similar additions over the years and that in the end this will look a great deal like its neighbors and will be for that reason also consistent with the with the prevailing pattern of the neighborhood we've also had a certain had a considerable number of people including the a butter to immediately to the right if i forgot my hands correct that have supported the application and we haven't heard any and we haven't heard any opposition i'm saying if all of those the board is willing to find all of those things it sounds feels to me as if this is an appropriate case for an approval but you all are entitled to your own opinion is there anyone else would like to address this case all right going once twice three times right seeing none if we if the board is inclined to approve the approve the opinion case it would want to impose the three standard conditions that we read into the record before are there any additional conditions that the board considers appropriate in this case right saying none the the chair will accept a motion mr chairman mr depont so this is going to be a little bit awkward because i i think i may be adding in something that's more along the lines of findings but and then we can sort of go to the language of the motion itself so my understanding is that first of all we are accepting for the record that this is a three-family structure a three-story structure the existing structure and that as a result of that that we are going to apply section 8.1.3 b as an extension of a non-conforming structure and so that we need to therefore make the requisite finding that it is not more detrimental the extension itself is not more detrimental um to the neighborhood and in addition we are also finding that this is a large addition as defined by 5.2 i'm sorry 5.4.2 b 6 and that since it is greater than 750 square feet and it's not entirely within the foundation that we are also going to make the finding that it meets the criteria set forth in section b 6 with regard to harmony with the neighborhood and all of that so so i don't know where that goes but i think the motion i i would move that the application of the owners of 14 oakland avenue be approved under both 8.1.3 b as well as 5.4.2 b 6 subject to the three standard conditions is there a second second seconded by mr rickard ellie is there any discussion okay uh it's timed in for a roll call vote uh on favor of the motion made by mr dupont and seconded by mr rickard ellie um we'll start with mr dupont i uh mr holey hi mr rickard ellie hi mr leblanc i and the chair votes i have i left somebody out again i don't think i have this time i um right so the the motion carries and for sure we'll be making the the findings that that mr dupont indicated and that i was trying to describe a basis for all right mr inessie you've you've done good work for your clients and it's time you serve us by pointing me in the correct direction mr hamill okay welcome i think all of you too because that was a very long process i appreciate all your listening and viewing and all of that stuff thank you good luck good luck thank you thank you all right so we're now ready to do the exciting things in the evening and that's to move to uh administrative matters and i need to find them um so the first one is to you you've received there are two written decisions that are outstanding from our june 27th meeting uh one is the decision for 60 high haith road and the other is for 61 aerial street uh so let's do those next um you've received a decision written by me uh it's laid on the table for a while i have i got a few comments and have changed them have have done that and have redistributed it this afternoon does anyone have any further comments or changes that need to be made to that decision okay so the chair would entertain a motion to approve the decision as has submitted mr chairman so moved mr depont is there a second second that was mr riccadelli yes uh we'll go do the we'll call the roll mr depont hi mr holey hi uh mr riccadelli hi mr leblanc and the chair votes aye and the motion carries and that decision is approved the second decision is for 61 aerial street the number 3755 that was uh done by uh mr jupont i did a couple of ministerial things afterwards to incorporate some some comments by others and redistributed it to you uh earlier this afternoon uh does anyone else have anything further to add or questions to raise about that opinion okay seeing none uh the chair will invitation a motion to approve it mr chairman so moved mr depont moves is there a second second mr riccadelli second said um we'll do a roll call vote mr depont hi mr holey hi mr leblanc hi mr riccadelli hi and the chair votes aye so that that decision is also approved we also have before us minutes um from uh a number of previous dates um and uh the uh they were distributed to us by um mr roulston i know that there she has received some comments too does the board actually have before the anything that has been changed uh as a result of comments mr mr roulston oops well seeing that that is not going to get answered um i'm pretty sure that we i don't know a little bit they had a loss i do want to make sure we did receive originally minutes that all had the same title uh 411 uh but those have been essentially redistributed and i assumed that the redistributive versions are are the up-to-date ones um and is is there anyone who is prepared to uh move to approve the minutes from january 24th so moved mr chairman all right moved by mr depont uh is there a second second mr riccadelli mr leblanc mr leblanc your voice if i'm looking at a piece of paper your voices sound very like okay it's been moved and seconded uh we'll take the roll call mr depont aye mr holy aye mr riccadelli aye mr leblanc aye and the chair votes aye those motion those are approved is there a motion to approve the minutes from april 11th 2023 mr chairman so moved so moved by mr depont uh is there a second second seconded by mr holy thank you for getting into the act um the we'll call the roll uh the uh mr depont aye mr holy aye mr riccadelli aye mr leblanc aye and the chair votes aye uh the next move minutes are dated uh april 25th 2023 and i'm going to be really brave and join that with a motion to approve 20 uh june 27th uh 2023 uh subject if anyone wants me to take a separate vote on each one but the chair will entertain a motion to approve both of them so moved mr chair mr depont moves is there a second second seconded by mr holy what to call the roll mr depont aye mr holy aye mr leblanc aye mr riccadelli and the chair votes aye uh and that motion carries so that gets us through all of the minutes uh and i have the feeling that calleen was doing what i was doing and taking getting away from the screen a little bit but uh she now has done that i just for the record would like to compliment the way in which she's done the the minutes because i think they they are just the right length they are picking up just the level of detail that you need to in order to have the minutes and and not have them either too long like a decision would be or or or too short so uh i'm very happy that uh and and congratulate her for striking the happy the happy medium here um at this point i'd like to remind the board uh of our upcoming schedule we have as you know the special and i'm going to have to do this by memory because i've now lost the sheet that that that christian gave me that tells tells me when everything is so on april on august 1st we will be dealing with the uh comprehensive permit in the 10 sunny side case uh that will be uh essentially our opportunity to clear up whatever loose ends there are uh we're getting near the end and the to say the next meeting after that will be primarily focused on uh on the uh on a draft decision by mr haverti uh where we'll be paying attention to the language of conditions and so forth and making sure that uh everybody understands what the conditions are that are in play and the both the applicant and the public have an opportunity to comment on those things if everything goes according to plan we will close the public hearing uh on august 15th at which point we have 40 days which takes us to approximately september 20th to actually decide the case and we're going to do exactly what every sensible person would do and faced up with a daunting deadline like that we're going to take a two-week vacation from this case and and think about it meanwhile however on october on august 29th we will have a regular hearing i think that we have roughly three cases currently scheduled for that uh for that evening and then when we get into september we have a regular hearing scheduled for the 12th we do not at this point have the deliberations sessions uh for 10 sunny side scheduled yet but as you can tell from my just indicating when the 40 days are up we have to do that early on um the tuesdays would be the that are available potentially are the sixth which is i believe it's the sixth it's the tuesday immediately after labor day um and then there's a tuesday that's two weeks after that that i think that we have no regular hearing on uh that we may need we we don't really know how long it will take uh to um to decide to to do the deliberations i would say that it shouldn't take more than one day but on the other hand if even if it took only two days it would be a record for us um and so we probably need to reserve at least two days to make sure that we get the case decided within the time limit that's appropriate uh so check calendars if there's a problem with either the sixth or whatever that day is i think mr the blank signal that it was maybe the fifth but whatever that tuesday is and the fight and the tuesday two weeks later would be the the dates that we probably should be looking at for uh to finish our work on on 10 sunny side all right thank you very much uh it it's been a pleasure being with you all tonight uh and uh and uh we spent a little bit more time per case than i would have hoped but on the other hand there were some interesting wrinkles in both of these cases so we'll see you again on the first again you may want to look at your notes and anything that that you sort of once thought and that hasn't to your satisfaction been addressed uh you may want to see you may want to be willing to are interested in raising them uh on the first it's and also i guess i should say that shawn you've all got a copy of tetratex papers that produces a large number of comments some of which uh have we the applicant will be addressing orally uh they will also be submitting a paper that will with that will address all of these things and and so that will be a focus of the hearing but this is our last chance really to hear our last chance to hear uh to just to go sort of free for all and make sure that we've that we don't have any things that when we get to deliberation we wish we'd brought up and then we forgot uh so with all that that gives us another week to really enjoy ourselves uh going up to our elbows in the minutiae of 10 sunnyside avenue mr chair mr more quick question i had had a meeting down for the august 8th that is not the case must have that one i do not believe there's a meeting on the 8th no okay i probably have that one oh also well i have the floor i would like to get in touch with you about that first case tonight about what you had to say and what i was saying but that's not nothing to do with the official record ask to feel free discovery upon a case being raised with the media right thank you thank you so there's more the chair will indicate will uh accept a motion to adjourn so move mr chairman moved by mr depont seconded by mr more not really somebody else has to do the second but mr holy uh go through the role mr rickardelli i mr leblanc i mr depont i uh mr holy i and the chair votes i uh the motion succeeds i will say that it would have been more aesthetic is if each of you when you voted i had just exited then so that we would then have something that looks like in an old-time movie when you get the last thing all right good night everybody good night good night thank you bye