 ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help. Well, it is 733 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12th, 2024. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. First, I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Daniel Workadelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam LaBlanc. Here. And Venkat Holley will be joining us closer, but sometime between 8 and 8.30. Joining us from the town, we have Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant. Here. Good to have you with us. And I don't believe anyone else from the town is with us this evening. And then for the two documents we have tonight, for Nine Morton Road, I believe the applicants were unavailable this evening, but they submitted a letter that is in the record. And then for Docket 3781, 165 Franklin Street, we have Christian Germano and Gregor Leves-Salinascus. Yes. Yes, here. Perfect, good to have you with us as well. 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 supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29th, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2025, the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location, as long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available in the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. And as chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting and orderly meetings. So with that the first item on our agenda this evening are administrative items. I'm going to be moving those to the end of the meeting because we are hopefully, Mr. Holly will be able to join us by then and we would like his vote on the written decisions for cases that he heard with us. So we'll be moving administrative items to the end which brings us to the next item on our agenda which is the public hearings. So before opening the public hearings there's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves for themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered I will open the meeting for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. Any vote taken at this hearing will be preliminary until the written decision is approved by the board at a subsequent meeting. All votes will be conducted by roll call vote. Under state law no decision granted by this board shall take effect until a certified copy of the final decision has been filed with and recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds in Cambridge by the applicant. With that, that will bring up docket 3779 Morton Road. This is a continuance from a prior date. The applicant has submitted a letter which is in the record that's attached to the notice for this hearing. They are requesting a further continuance. Colleen, I know that they are requesting that they be continued, but they didn't have to pick a specific beat. Did you have a sense of what date they might be looking for? Yes, Christian, she told me in the portal that she wanted April 9th. April 9th, yes. Okay. So with that I would entertain a motion to continue the hearing for nine Morton Road until Tuesday, April 9th, 2024 at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So a vote of the board to continue, Mr. DuPont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Riccadelli? Aye. Ms. Hoffman? Mr. LeBlanc? Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on docket 37799 Morton Road until Tuesday, April 9th. With that, that brings us to the next item on our agenda, which is docket number 3781 165 Franklin Street. Would ask that the applicant reintroduce themselves to the board and give us an update on their proposal. Good evening. My name is Christian Germano and I'm one of the owners at 165 Franklin and I'm here with my general contractor, Greg Zelanskis. Good evening. Good evening. From our last meeting, we carefully and thoughtfully took into account everyone's input and my architect and I discussed in depth how to make this work for everyone. We revised our plans to accommodate everybody's concerns, I hope, and we look forward to hearing your feedback. I also just wanna say I've done a few plans in the area. Best far I haven't been in Arlington too long. My partner is a resident. He grew up in Arlington. I really just want everyone to know I do try to go above and beyond the call of duty. I'm not just a typical builder, developer that I don't care, I really truly do care. That's why I took on a historical project. Most people would run from a historical project but it's something that interests me and I do care about keeping everything looking as it once did and we really took a lot of care and thought and the type of materials and just bringing it back to its form of glory. So with that, I'm probably gonna hand it over to my architect Jim Rieslein. Hi, good evening Jim Rieslein from LR Designs. Yes, I think tonight we'd like to share the changes that we've made to the project based on the feedback that we received last time we were here. We've made the addition more compact, reduce the overall footprint of the project and have increased the side and rear yard setbacks, hopefully easing some of the concerns. So I don't know, would you like, can I share my screen or? Hello, can you go ahead and set him up please? Okay, so I think this figure ground helps illustrate the primary changes. The black shapes are all of the existing buildings on this edge or this end of Franklin Street and the black shape is the building that we're looking at pared down with the existing additions removed. The red shape is the new proposed rear unit and then the blue box represents where we were last time we were here. So we've increased the rear setback from 32 feet to 46 feet and we've, so that's this rear setback. And then the right side setback, we've increased from 11 feet, three inches to, call it 17 feet, 10 inches. And that allows us, these are side by side comparisons of the plan and I'll zoom in a bit and I'll get over here, there we go. So what we've done is we've pulled the driveway over so there's a three foot vegetated buffer along the driveway, we reduced the driveway width to nine foot six and I've made it a little more compact and then you can see the footprint comparison of the plans, what we've done is we've taken the second story program and put it over the garages that are added on to the historic house. So in effect, we've increased the usable open area and the rear increased the side setback in the ability to provide landscape buffers. Let me get to my elevations. We've done side by side comparisons of the elevations. Reduce this a bit. So the current proposed is on the top with the rear addition, visible down the long driveway and the lower elevation is where we were prior. So the addition has been reduced in terms of its width and then length and then again, the top is the right side elevation. This is the current proposed and then the previously proposed elevation is on the bottom of the right side. So you can see we've pulled the rear of the building in quite a bit and reduced the mass of it. I think there was some concern about the height of the building, but everything around it is two stories plus an attic. So I don't think the height of the building is very incongruous with the neighborhood. Again, the left elevation, the reduced the current concept and then the previous below it and then the rear elevation. So you could see it's to become more compact in terms of its width as well. Along with the figure ground, we thought maybe looking at it, let me see if this is visible. We have an aerial shot that also helps reinforce the sort of figure ground study. The historic house here with the current addition, the driveway would remain approximately in the same location with a three foot vegetated buffer and then our addition would be in the back here. But as you can see around us, all of the houses are two, two and a half stories. So we don't think the height is, again, at odds with neighboring properties. And we think the improved setbacks also help provide more buffer. I mean, in this zone, typically a 10 foot side, 20 foot rear and 20 foot front is adequate. But I suppose because we have so many more butters along our long property line, we need to enhance that a bit. There was some, I don't know why there was any question about it being a two family. Looking on Google maps, you can find images that go back to 2007 that show the house having two mailboxes and the assessor confirmed that they've been assessing this as a two family since the mid-60s. So I'm not quite sure where that concern came from or if it's even really valid since two family uses is allowed in this district. I think because we have a special challenge because we are adding on to a historic house, we cannot simply change the form we have to allow, I'm gonna go back to this elevation, but we have to allow this form to be legible in reference to the addition. So it's not like we can wrap the addition around that piece without some great pains in the historic, with the historic commission. So we think the addition is reasonable and it also seems reasonable to take two cars off the surface and put them in the garage. We have, I'm gonna switch over to the zoning sheet and just share how much what we've done. I'm gonna get that up first. Okay, new share. I think, Jim, just to interject what you were just saying that last time when we were here, I think someone on the committee was referring to why not just build it out? Like they normally build them out and add on and dormer it and we're not, we can't do that with this. It's not that simple. So because it's historic, we need to keep that form exact. So as Jim just said, it's a little bit more challenging. It's a lot more challenging. Yeah, yeah. And to be sympathetic to the 1850s form, I mean, it's an interesting neighborhood in that, Hamlet Street clearly was developed in the early 30s or late 20s. It's in a Tudor style. They're handsome two-story houses with attics that read as cottages because of the sweeping applied eaves. We're looking at a different form being a simple Greek revival. That form was much more vertical in its appearance than these Tudor or storybook style houses. I believe this is visible, my building area calculations. Just wanna show that follow the thread of where we've been. When we first applied for the special permit, we were removing the kitchen L and we had a total gross floor area of 75, 7,563 square feet. While meeting with the historic commission, they required us to retain the kitchen L so we picked up a little square footage in our proposal which we presented last time to 7,668 square feet. Our current proposal, we've shaved off almost 600 square feet to be at 7,077 square feet. I think the figure ground study is interesting in that most of the properties around us are approximately, they have a site coverage or a building coverage of an average of 30%. And in Arlington, building coverage includes the house and garages or sheds, any structure of such. And hours after what we are proposing right now is at 23.5% all in. So we feel it's a bigger lot and we're less dense than our neighbors. We've increased our buffers and we think it's approach that's on the right track. I also think, Jim, just to add also there was some discussion last time about it not fitting into what's currently there and I did take the time to walk around the neighborhood and look at the other homes and I strongly disagree that it doesn't fit in what we're proposing. It took me probably within minutes to find something quite similar. There were a lot of houses that were similar but there was one in particular that I pointed out and I took a picture of for Jim, a much smaller lot but it was practically the same idea. Yeah, I'll do a new share. Yeah, so this was, is 66 Park Street? Yeah, so this is just a couple streets over. Yeah, a couple streets over, a long lot, front house, back house addition. Much denser than what we're proposing but there are these types of structures in the nearby neighborhood. This one just caught my eye because it was pretty much, it looked the same from the front and I started looking back down the driveway. So this is pretty much what we're proposing and then when I looked up the address, this lot's only 7,500 square feet. So they're taking up a lot, a lot there comparatively to what I think we wanna do. So I think we can turn it over for any question if that's the right time. Thank you for that. So looking at the program, so it is, did you change the program at all or is it still the same four bedroom, four and a half bath that it was before? It is the same. That's in each unit. So each unit is comparative. And did you look at all in reducing from four bedrooms to three bedrooms as a part of the process? Well, I think you can get four small bedrooms or three large bedrooms. So I always weigh that. Most people want that fourth bedroom for an office of some sort or an in-law. So I do try to squeeze in a four bedroom. I mean, we could make it a three bedroom with three larger bedrooms, but it wouldn't change the square footage. Yeah. Okay. I mean, we are, yeah, we are three bedrooms in an office. Oh yeah. Oh, there's four identified bedrooms on the plan and four and a half baths. Yes, you're right. And there's an attic bedroom. That's correct. Jim, you too, too many of these, you get confused. Yeah. And so, and the overall GFA now is just over 7,000. Yeah, 7,077. And then you have something on your page that you're referring to as gross area that's not gross floor area. And I was just curious what that is. That pulls in the garages. I believe there's an exception to accessory parking and residential. So, but we want to show that pulled in. Okay. And then on the site plan, it's a nice healthy vegetated buffer against the driveway, which is nice. The driveway's a little tighter, which is nice. It's still labeled as 21-4 as the width at the garages. And I'm just not sure if you're gonna run into an issue with the building department on being wider than 20 feet. Okay. Which is the maximum driveway width. So I just, I flagged that again for your attention. Yeah, we would correct that. Again, we're making that 90 degree turn into the garages. So, but if need be that, that could be shaved off and it just would add to the vegetated buffer then perhaps that portion of the vegetated buffer that the bumper could go over to make that swing would be low planting or something like that. Okay. I think that was the questions I had at the moment. Are there other questions from the board? Mr. Hanlon. So I guess some question I have is that suppose the worst case happens and the board is not prepared to prove this. What if anything given the historical character of the building, would you be able to do by right? I'm sorry, I can't hear. Yeah, your volume is variable. The channel needs you to speak up. All right, let me get the microphone closer to me. If this were not to be approved, question I have is given that it's a historical structure, what is it that you could do by right? Basically, I think what you see as the front unit would be allowed. I'm sure we could go for the, you know, a lesser addition of less than 750 square feet. I mean, it would have to be a back and forth with historical as to where, how that looks. There are additions on the house that haven't been torn off so they could remain and the house just wouldn't be, I guess put back into its historic vision. I'm not sure. The decision of just demolishing it and building something new, right? No, no. No, I don't think that would be possible. If we left it as is, it wouldn't be historical. We wouldn't, we'd leave what's currently there and there, you know, some ugly additions. The house was pretty dilapidated, vinyl siding. It was really an eyesore on the street. We didn't take everything off as of yet. So could it be saved? Yes, but it wouldn't bring it back to its original glory. That's for sure. It wouldn't be the correct shape. Other comments or questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. We have the applicant share the view from the aerial view again, please. Ms. Dressling. I will do that. I'm getting better at the switching. I think that's it. Okay. So if I'm not mistaken, I drove by there, the house that is toward the bottom that's white, is that yellow now? The house, the neighbor? Yes. And I'm just looking at the surrounding properties where things seem to move very close to the property line of the subject property. And in fact, the one that is now yellow, it looks like, unless that's a separate lot, and not a separate lot, it almost merges into the next door property at the very bottom. So I'm just trying to get a sense for the scale of the building now, and then what I think is being proposed relative to the other properties. I can show another. Yeah, I'm sorry, Jim. Well, yes, there's another image of that house in question. Okay. Let me pop that up. So there, it's almost a twin, like it's a historical twin. If you look back at the atlases, the yellow and white house, the white trim and white bays, these two houses were the houses on this end of the street. And Jim, I just want to be clear too that if they're looking at 165 Franklin, what's currently on the back there, that would be coming off. So we're not adding on to what's currently there. That's coming off and a portion of the house is coming off. So we wouldn't be going back much further, I don't think, than what our neighbors have. Where would we end, Jim, if you can just point? Where would I, approximately, if you were to guess? I think it goes up into this garage here, probably. Again, I could switch to the figure ground. I switched over, sorry. Lots of things open today. So yeah, we would be a little past that garage there. That's there. Yeah. And Mr. Chairman, if I remember the numbers that were given originally at the beginning of this presentation. So it's being pulled back from what was proposed before, 14 feet, is that correct? I think I did the math when you said the distance. Yes, yes, the rear lot, the rear lot went from 30 to 46 feet. The right side yard went from 11, 3 to 17, 10. So that's the difference between this blue box and the new red box. Okay, thank you. I was just trying to be able to visualize all of that. Okay. Mr. Chair. Mr. Ikadeli. I can go next. I, so first of all, I want to thank the applicant for taking our concerns and the neighbor's concerns into consideration. I think the added setback on the back and especially against the neighboring properties that are on Hamlet Street is really helpful. And I think that makes a big difference for the proximity of this larger structure in the neighborhood. I had just one question about the roof lines and the elevation Mr. Riesling showed that now it's sort of all one height. Is, could you explain, there's two ridge lines going on the addition first, the existing building, is that correct? The existing building has, yes, two ridge lines. Okay. And then we are keeping our second story plate down to match that rear ridge line with this piece here. Got it. And then our, the final piece that has the attic under it goes back up to the height of the existing. And again, we've kept the second story plate down. I can show that in the elevations. So that portion that is over at the garage is for the benefit of the back unit now. That is, that's correct. Yes. So one garage bay belongs to the front house and is communicates to the house through a mud room. The second bay belongs to the rear unit. Right. And then the rear unit's second story program goes over the garage. Great, thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may just ask one more question or make one more comment. I think that the reduction of light is the most helpful thing that's been changed. So I really appreciate that. I do think one disadvantage of this change is that there was a little more variation than in the height before, which made it feel a little bit less long. I do think that by breaking up those ridge lines, it helps and maybe it won't be perceived that way. But I certainly think that this is, has moved in the right direction. So thank you very much. Thank you. Chair Rosalind, can you show the opposite side to YouTube? Yeah. Is the door for the stair in the rear unit still required? It should, it is shown in plan, yes, to get the headroom up to the ridge area. Well, actually the stairs moved in a bit, so. It looks from the front elevation or the rear elevation like there might be a dormer there. So it's in the plan like there was one. So, but it's not in that elevation. So I just wanted to confirm. Right, right. Are there other questions or comments from the board? It just to reiterate one of the things that Mr. Rikadelli said, it's nice that it is more compact. It does mean that it's taller. It would note that for the adjoining, the houses on the adjoining properties, the 169, 171 and then going up to like 173, 177, those have their two and a half story portions all towards the front of the house. And then they drop off. And then the portions that are farther back from the existing building here are all single story. Whereas in this, it's going out that full distance at the full two and a half floors. So it is significantly taller going deeper into the site. Then the property immediately below it where the garage and that first large addition portion are only a single story. True, but because it's historic, we just, we can't add to that, you know, that front area, we can't bulk it up. We can't, we have to keep that as is. So again, it's a little bit more challenging, a lot more challenging. No, I understand. And your, I mean, your program is also significantly larger than their house too. 169 Franklin is just under 5,000 square feet. 173 is just over 3,000 square feet. And you're just over 7,000 square feet. So it is a significantly larger house. And it's just, I just want to make sure that it's sort of clear. It is a significantly larger house. And this is where the bulk of it is because it's larger and because you're trying to maintain the historic front, it ends up that there's a lot more bulk at the back relative to the other properties than the figure ground would necessarily relay. Got it. Mr. Chair. Mr. LeBlanc. I just wanted to say that I think the proportionality of the revised elevation works a little bit better than it did in the initial submission. I think I still struggle a little bit with the kind of what you were describing with the overall size of the addition in terms of its square footage and all that compared to the surrounding. But I just wanted to say that I appreciate the relook at this and the revised kind of massing. I think the proportions are better and the proportion of the addition goes better with the historic structure itself than it did initially. And I think that helps the historic structure overall. Thank you. Anyone else from the board? Seeing none. I'm going to go ahead and ask this wrestling if you can go ahead and stop. Yes. So I will now be opening the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board 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 the reactions tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star and nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair asking if you're a 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. For anyone who will wish to address the board a second time during any particular hearing, the chair will allow those wishing to speak for the first time to be called upon first. Once all questions and comments have been addressed or an allocated time has ended, the public comments period will be closed. The board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. It is now quarter past eight. I will hold public comment open until say 845 unless there's still a large number of people we should to speak. So with that, this is open for public comment. Are there any members of the public who wish to address this application? First hand is Lauren Ledger. Hi, thanks for recognizing me. Lauren Ledger 169 Franklin Street. I live next door in the Yellow House. And first of all, I'd like to say that I think the front of the house is a huge improvement from what is there now. It, the applicant is correct that it really has been an eyesore and this looks a lot better. This comment is more of kind of interesting story. So we purchased our property in 2008. And became friends with the developer who developed this property and close with almost all of our neighbors. And they told us many stories about trying to get this house built and their first plan that went in front of this board many, many times was very similar to this with two stories going bath all the way to the garage about 7,000 square feet is what they were trying to do. Because as you pointed out, this is also a historical home that is kind of similar and they came across the same difficulties in trying to add more square footage to this property. They were not able to do that. And then our bedroom area, which is the part in the bath is just one story. And it has been a really, it's been a great setup for us. But interesting to see kind of the difficulties in this process. I do hope that this does not go, remain that tall two stories all the way back. It's a really, really big property and a big structure. So I would be thrilled to see something more like what we have at 169 Franklin Street where you have one story towards the back. But do like the improvements to the front. So thanks. Thank you. Next on our list is John Donnelly. Hello and thank you. John Donnelly of Hamlet Street 41. Again, I'm hard-pressed to find another property in this neighborhood that would look like that. One house on Park Avenue, which is four streets over and up a little, I don't consider that this neighborhood. If you walk up and down Franklin Street, you're not gonna find any house that looks like this. You're not gonna find any height, the height of this project really concerns me. You know, as Lauren just said, her house has a garage and a one bedroom that are one story. This project has chopped a little bit off the back from last time. They've added more height over the garage and it's just gonna be one big piece of building that goes back as far as it goes and as high as it goes. That does not fit in with our neighborhood. And again, I'll point to the residential districts and where are two and saying the town discourages, uses that consume large amounts of land, uses that would detract from a single family and two family or duplex residential character of these neighborhoods. This project certainly would detract from all of the homes that are around it. It's simply because of the height of the building all the way back and the size of the building. So I thank the board. I couldn't agree with Mr. Klein more that the front of the house is fine but the back of the house is as big and I appreciate what you said, right? And that's all I'd like to say. I would like the board to disallow this special permit. So thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next on our list is Steve Moore. Oh, yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I'd like to sort of echo the comments of Mr. Rickidella and Mr. LeBlanc. I think this design has moved trying to accommodate the concerns that were expressed at the last meeting. I think they've come away towards this. Pulling the house back from the rear lot line was clearly a move in that direction because there were some comments about how close that size addition was gonna be towards the back lot line. They've moved the second story, as they said. A lot of that, they've moved it forward over the garage space in attempting to accommodate. And looking at the other homes that are nearby, the other homes are masked differently. And this historic home, which was built long before the other homes in the nearby is trying to get that kind of useful space out of their lot while keeping the historic home. So the challenge for them is pretty unique compared to what the other newer built houses were able to do with their massing and their lots. And I'm thinking that this house reflects a little bit that sort of the rambling nature and the offset of the additions and moving towards the back in the new approach sort of reflect the kind of a rambling of farmhouse design which is not out of keeping the age of historic home. I'm thinking that they've probably gone about as far as they can to accommodate the concerns of the abutters while still wanting to get a useful size for their needs. And I think this is a good compromise, I guess I would say. Thank you, Mr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Moore. But next is Ben Mangrum. Hi, can you all hear me? We can. Great, so thank you again for inviting us to comment on the proposal. As Lauren and John- Oh, sorry, I just- Do you- I'm sorry about that. I live at 37 Hamlet Street. I'm one of the abutters. This is actually my wife also live at 37 Hamlet Street. So yeah, we would also oppose this request for a large addition. And I agree with what Lauren and John said earlier that this still is incongruous with the neighborhood, that the height in the back of the lot is just not consistent with Lauren's property at 169 Franklin. So again, heart calling out to a home five streets over, it just isn't a comparable. And so I feel like this proposal, this large addition would change the character of the neighborhood. So, you know, I do, I am sympathetic. Like I understand that this is a hard situation with the historical character of the home and the restrictions that are placed on it. But I just don't think that that justifies the way that it mars the experience of other people's homes, you know, on the abutting properties. So that difficulty doesn't justify, I think this large addition. As I understand the bylaws, you know, looking at section four dot two or five dot four dot two B six that, you know, no alteration is supposed to be allowed in less than there are two conditions. And in the second condition is whether or not this property is harmonious. And it's just not, I can't imagine any justification saying that it actually is. So yeah, I'm just adding my voice to what others have already said, including Chairman Klein's point about the height at the backside of the lot. It would just mar the experience of the abutters. On backyards. So that's my main point. Do you have anything, Ashley? Two would like to add. Yes, I'm Ashley and I'm at 37 Hamlin Street as well. I mean, maybe the height at the back of the house would not have been as big of an issue if all of the trees along the back fence line hadn't already been cut down in addition to the big willow. But there's nothing to block the view of the massive house, which if that's what we purchased our house knowing, then that would be one thing. But it's different now to already own the property and know this would be coming. I do appreciate the movement away from the fence line. I do appreciate that effort and acknowledge that. And also it feels as if though it's just shifting away from some properties and then makes it worse for other of the neighbors. Which I don't appreciate. And so a reminder is how I ended at the last meeting was I mentioned that there are eight children who live around the budding properties. I was incorrect, there are actually 10. And so there are 10 children that live around this yard to which sun and trees and would be continued to be blocked by the even higher now structure. Even if it is farther away, which I again do appreciate the height of it still is just that would be the experience of all of us who's yards back up against this property. Thank you. Great, thank you both very much. Next on our list is Michael Seidt. Hi, thanks for my name is Michael Seidt. I live in 136 Webster Street, which is the back house. We share the back fence as a rear view is important to me. First, thank you for allowing us to comment. And thanks for the applicant for taking on our feedback and coming back with an alternative plan. But while I appreciate all the efforts, I don't believe it addresses the concerns. My concerns are really four falls. One, as others have said, it changes the character of the block in the neighborhood and the street in multiple ways. One, there is no similar house with that same kind of like, there are multiple house with similar lots, but none of them has something similar to what is proposed old or new, like old proposal or the current one. However, there are three lots in that block that have the same size. And there are five lots that have the same size in the extension of Franklin Street across Hamlet. So as we said last time, allowing this exception will open the door for a big change in the neighborhood. I know there's nothing right now about this, but allowing this exception will just make it much easier for developing the future to change the characteristics of the neighborhood, which will bring hardship for us, mostly financial hardship. But also, this is street, if you live in the area, and I think someone from the board made this comment last time, that part of Franklin Street, it looks like it did end. It is not. It kind of curves into a parallel street, which has parallel park on it. I walk with my five years old from Webster Street to Franklin, Hamlet, Franklin, and then parallel street to go to this park regularly. They're really very low traffic, low foot traffic or car traffic because of this, because of the characteristics of how this street kind of merge or move into a parallel street and how people who don't live in the neighborhood thinks the dead ends as you don't go in it. So it's really a safe neighborhood. It makes this park very, kids of course will look into the driveways and all of that, but adding two family homes with their cars and opening the doors for the future to add a lot more. It's just, it's not like financial impact. It doesn't just change the characteristics. It make it a little bit risky for our kids. And part of why we moved into the neighborhood is the access to this specific park. The other point is, and I think a few of you have made it before, when I look from my backyard, I see 165 and 169 next to each other. 169 is the yellow street. The end of it is the garage. It's one level. So it really has a very good nice view into the sky and into the trees. And the yellow house there is a good privacy between us and them, like what Lauren has mentioned. This plan takes it a little bit closer to us than the yellow house, than the garage and it's much higher elevation. So we would have concerns about privacy as well. The last point I would say, I understand that this is a hardship for the applicant. If they cannot get their return on investments always you would expect. However, and I have done very simple math and very simple research, I believe the property was sold 185K below at least what the yellow estimate is. I understand there is a lot of work in the property, but I believe there are other options to have a good return on investment. There is one family who's living in the house. Yes, it is registered to family, but there was one family living in it, selling it as two separate condos. And maybe instead of having this massive two family homes, if you have one family home or just an extended little bit, like maybe just the size of the garage or something at one level, maybe you would be able to get not as much as you expect as a return on investment, but maybe a lot more than what you have paid for this property, which would be a decent return on investment by itself compared to any other alternative out there. So with that, to the hardship, to the privacy, it's the character of the area and our kind of view from the backyard. Thanks a lot. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the feedback. Well, thank you very much. Next on our list is Ushua Shrestha, excuse me. If Ushua is with us, you're on mute. Fortunately, they're gone. We'll hold public comment open for just a minute and see if they jump back on if they just got accidentally disconnected, but while we wait for them, are there any other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? I see Mr. Moore for a second time. Oh, yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I remembered one comment I didn't make during my earlier time, Steve Moore, People on Street. I wanted to, I saw this as a rather large mature tree on one of the property lines and I'm hoping that they will be proactive in protecting it whatever construction happens back there. And I am sorry to hear that a bunch of trees were cut down. I'm wondering when that might have occurred and were they in the property line set back in the back, Mr. Chair? I would ask the applicant if they can comment about the removal of trees. One tree was removed in the center of the property. Okay, that's good, it sounded like that perhaps it was a more substantial trimming. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Anything there currently we will try to save. I don't want to cut anything down that doesn't need to be cut down. And there'll be plenty of landscaping and plantings and a buffer put up in the rear. Well, Mr. Chair, just to offer a little implementation I think I might have said this before, they will need a tree plan and speak to the tree warden about that tree on the property line. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not, I just see, I see Ushua, did you want to address the board? Yes, please, can you hear me? I can hear you, yes, please. Sorry about the technical difficulty. No, not at all. It didn't work. My name is Ushua Shrestha. I live on 134 Webster. I'm right next to Michael Said. And so part of our backyard also kind of faces the property in question. I think, you know, Michael laid it out very well in terms of my experience is very similar to what Michael would have looking into the house. I did recognize that the applicants actually pulled back the space between our fence and the proposed property. But from the height of the house that's proposed, it does seem like it would have a very adverse experience for us in general, in terms of looking back into the yard. The kids, my kids go to parallel park as well. So very similar experience to what Michael said. And therefore, based on the size and height of the house proposed, I do also request that the board not approve the proposed house at this point. Thank you very much. Thank you. I see John Donnelly, I believe for a second. Yes, hi again. There were a lot of trees, little trees cut down, that's put particularly fruit trees along the edge of the fence, probably in October or September, just some Saturday, some guy cut them all down without telling anybody or, you know, these were beautiful trees that had been there for a long time. They weren't big trees, but they were budding the fence. And, you know, they helped a lot with not looking into somebody else's yard, but looking at a beautiful plum tree. So there were quite a few of those along the edge that were cut down. There's a big maple tree along Lauren's edge, probably right along her fence in this lot of land. Very, very big, beautiful maple tree that I would hope would never go. But I also hope the willow would never go. And that went without any type of consultation with the neighborhood or anything else. So, you know, there are trees that have been cut down. They're not, they weren't gigantic trees, but they were beautiful trees. And that's all I'd like to say. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? One once, going twice, looking around. How do you not see any other hands? You see anybody waving? So with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment period. Okay, so what the board has before it, this is a request for a large addition. And the board is required to make certain findings to substantiate that. We need to, wait a second. So for a large addition under 542B6, the board would need to find that the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. We would need to consider dimensions and setbacks in relation to abutting structures and uses in support of that finding. And we need to consider conformity with the purposes of the viola in support of that finding. And then the board also, because as this is a special permit, the board is required to make findings on the special permit requirements which are under section 333. So the question before the board is, has the applicant made the case to support the finding? And I see my notes from the last time, there were concerns about the driveway width which still a little bit up in the air, but the applicant said that it's something that they can address with the building inspector. There was an initial question about the vegetated buffer along the sidewall, the property that has been addressed. And then there's the main question which involves the depth that the building extends into the yard and the height of the building and is that in harmony with other structures in this neighborhood? So I did want to display the screen here. So this is just the Google maps of the neighborhood. So this building here, 165, 167, this is the property that's in question. We did hear from one of the residents at 169, 171. Which is sort of a similar form going back to about this point at which point it transitions into a single family, sorry, not single family, single story structure with a detached garage. 173 is also appears to either be a newer building or just developed in a different style. Appears to be a duplex that is massed at the front. We spoke with several of the residents on Hamlet and on Webster. And then it was also referenced this adjacent block where there are large two and a half story houses directly on Franklin Street with larger rear yards that are not developed. So those, because those were brought up during the here I did want to just quickly go back and show that. So with that, I would like to open this for discussion on the board as to whether what their sense is of the size of the addition that is being proposed to the rear of the property. And assesses to whether that would be whether the board could consider that to be in harmony at this stage or if there are concerns from the board in regards to the massing of the proposed addition. Mr. Hamlet, and I'm gonna need to ask you to speak up. Okay, do my best. I'm not doing well with microphones today. I have a couple of thoughts. One is I think that the applicant in acquiring the property and attempting to do what they're trying to do has, as Ms. Ledger points out, undertaken a challenge that others have undertaken before. And the nature of the challenge is sort of inherent in the nature of the neighborhood and the nature of the lot. And the fact that you are attempting to bring back a historic property in the fund. And I put a considerable amount of weight on the beneficial things that are being done with the historical property. I don't know ultimately what's going to happen. If we said no, it's not clear to me that the applicant or any applicant would be able to do in the fund what this applicant is proposing to do. It may continue to be an eyesore in the neighborhood. This is not a neighborhood in which eyesores are in harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood either. So we're not, as a public matter, we're not faced with something where there are easy choices. Second thing is I'm very uneasy about the way in which density is being brought up here. This is an R2 area. It is intended under the plan and under the zoning bylaw. The intent is they have this developed at that density. And I understand that people may prefer if they already are living in something that's built out as single family, they just assume did not be built out in accordance with the zoning. But I really can't by myself accept that increasing construction that is R2 by in and of itself because of the density is not harmonious with the neighborhood. Even if this is a part of the neighborhood where the prevailing density is R1, that happens all over East Island. And it would be a huge thing if we began to think that there's the density under the zoning map. And then there is sort of an effective density that's based on what happens to be built out there in the R2 area. So the third thing is it really to me all comes down to what the chairman has observed. And then I'd like to hear more discussion about. It does seem to me to be true that the pattern in a way 169 sets the pattern here in terms of the massing going backwards. This is bigger than that. Quite a bit bigger than that. It's not 100% clear to me that that's intrinsic and the general nature of things that you couldn't design something which had less massing. I'm not talking about just moving the massing around. I'm talking about having less mass because you have a smaller house. And it seems to me, I would hope that you'd be able to do that. When it comes down to it, I feel a lot like Lauren did when she first spoke. Appreciative of the changes that are happening in the front. Appreciative of all of the things that have been done in order to make this more palatable and certainly more harmonious to the neighborhood than it was when we were there before. But still wishing that there could be less massing in the back. And I sort of feel like that. I'm not sure. I'd like to listen to what the rest of you have to say, especially the architects who are far more capable of judging these things than I am. But I'm pretty much on the fence on this one because I'm not quite sure whether the massing is so much that it counterbalances the other things that are at issue. I will say as one post-graph, I live on Park Street and I actually raised this very house that the applicant points to in the discussion last time in pointing out that in streets that are not in this neighborhood, this kind of a pattern happens from time to time. We've seen it in other places as well. I don't really think of, I mean, just in terms of the psychological sense of what the neighborhood is, I don't really think if Franklin Street is being in the same neighborhood as the one I live in. Certainly Park Street is very different from Franklin Street and different from any of the other streets in this area. And so while I think it's not unheard of to do the kind of thing the applicant wants to do and it happens in various places, I'm not sure how persuaded I am with the house on Park Street as a president and I'll leave it there. Thank you. Other members of the board? Mr. Chair. Mr. LeBlanc. I agree with Mr. Hanlon in some regards. I kind of, and on the fence, on the density questioning as well, I do agree that it is an R2 district and this is kind of what those districts are set up to do is to have a more dense setup and that's kind of what is sort of being proposed here. One question I do have that I thought of in the, when they went back to the drawing board after our last meeting, was there any kind of design thought that went into a more tiered back massing similar to the adjacent property? Just seeing if there was any exploration of that between the meetings and if so, what was the resultant of that study? Either Mr. Wiesling or, excuse me, or the owner? Yes. Okay, go to. Yeah. I guess based on our interactions with historic, we came away that there's some value to replicating the massing, the sense of the massing of the existing house. So we didn't look at one story solutions very much. I think it's interesting. I think we could certainly explore that. Yeah, I guess I would be kind of interested in that, but I don't know where we want to go with where we're at right now, but. Just as Mr. Wiesling again, so in terms of working with the historic board, how do things sort of get left with them? I know that they sent you a letter approving your plan. Do they assign someone to work with you going forward or how do they operate? That was our understanding. However, I think we are likely to go back after some time with your board. We're gonna go back to review materials, but I know that historic was on board with the plan in the massing of the original house. They were happy with that plan. So changing the plan this time, we'd have to go probably and discuss it again, but the plan that we proposed, historic. So we were just going back to discuss materials at this point. Okay. Other comments from the board? Chairman? Mr. Dupont? Yeah, I would just say that I had an agreement with Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Hanlon. I have the same sort of sense of being in a in-between place on the fence, if you will. And I think that it is, for me, the observation that everyone else has made, which is that you've got that sort of long distance of the two-story building. And like Mr. LeBlanc, I'd be interested to know what, if any, other possibilities might exist. That's it. Thank you. Mr. Duganelli? I think that I'm thinking about the task at hand, which is first thinking about the harmony of the building. I think, as it says here, with other structures in its vicinity or in the vicinity, the thing that may be tripping me up a little bit is from the street, this is a huge improvement. And I walk down the street all the time with my dog. And I think it certainly is in harmony from a streetscape perspective. What is, I think, a big challenge is that the neighbors will be really affected by such a large structure. And the harmony from their perspective is quite different than me just walking down the sidewalk and seeing the restored front of the historic house, which I think will look very nice. So I think, because of that, I'm sort of leaning on all of the neighbors who are finding that, from their perspective, as homeowners in the vicinity, that this is certainly not in harmony with what they're expecting. So I think that's sort of where I'm getting tripped up. And I don't wanna devalue all the work that the applicant has done, because I think that this is a much better proposal than what we saw the last time. But that's sort of where I stand right now. Great, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hamlin? One of the point out that at this point, with the possible exception of Mr. Riccadelli and the chairman, that everybody else seems to be on the fence. In a minute, we're gonna come up to having a motion. And if that motion, I don't even know what that motion is going to be. And I'm sort of reluctant to make it because I'm on the fence more than just about anybody. But I will say this, that Mr. Ristling has suggested that the applicant could consider single story solutions in the back, things that would address the concern that most of this has had, I have spent about the kind of massing here. I recognize that that means potentially some sacrifices from the applicant's part in order to make that work. But I just wanted to point out that if we let this go forward and that motion is made and the applicant loses, then that will be over for now and it'll be over for the next two years. So if Mr. Ristling and the applicant are seriously interested in having some time to explore some single story stuff and to address some of the concerns of massing that have been expressed by a number of us, this is the time where he's gotta decide to do that. And the only way I know of to do that is to request a continuance or alternatively to withdraw the application and start over. Either way, he probably doesn't want us to go forward with the motion right now if he wants to see if there's a rapid that he can pull out on to have it. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Yeah, I was gonna say, certainly based on the, sort of the tender of the conversation the board has been having, obviously we're sort of not of a single mind in terms of what we're seeing today as to whether or not we feel that it's, it would be harmonious with the neighborhood and with the current pattern of development in the neighborhood. And I agree with Mr. Hanlon and with my colleagues that if the portion of the building that is the addition that's not part of the original structure but the addition if that was single story or possibly one and a half stories that that might better fit the pattern and be a better sense of development of this lot. A lot of the, obviously when this neighborhood was originally developed, all the house was at the front and it was much larger yards. And so one could surmise that the intended pattern for this, for these series of lots on Franklin Street was that they did have sort of a larger house at the front with a more substantial yard at the rear. And certainly that pattern is more, is sort of better defined I think in the next block where the front building is actually a much larger, does appear to be a larger building. It's more sort of along the scale of, you know, their 6,000 square foot houses, but they are, you know, but they're sort of, you're more traditional sort of larger townhouse, they're wider, they're deeper initial structures whereas these are much smaller historic homes at this end of Franklin Street. But I do think that that pattern is telling and it's something that we shouldn't necessarily deviate from where the bulk of the massing is at the street side of the property, maintaining a larger yard at the rear. And as we have discussed, the adjacent property at 169, 171 has had development in the rear yard and I do not know the record, but I'm assuming that they appeared before this board in an earlier iteration at the time that they sought to make changes. And excuse me, but we're seeing it 169, 171 was approved by that board. With that in mind, I would ask the applicant if they would be willing to take another look at what they're proposing and see if a plan can be drawn up where we can see what it would, you know, what the impact would be if the portion that was in the proposed for the rear behind the house was of a single or a single and a half story as opposed to the full two and a half stories that we're seeing now. Yeah, Jim. Yes, absolutely. We would be interested in exploring that and preparing to present that to the board. With the board, excuse me. With that, is there anything else that members of the board would ask the applicant to consider at this time? We are requesting them to continue a second time. So I do want to try to make sure that we are being as efficient of their time as possible. Mr. Hanlon? Mr. Hanlon, I'm afraid your microphone has conked out. Can you hear me now? Oh, very well. Okay, well, I just like to, I think I have enough of a sense of where the neighborhood is that it'll never be completely into agreement on all of this, but it does seem to me that it would be helpful even though I don't think consensus is likely to come from it. It would be helpful if the applicant opened up a conversation with the neighbors and talked through a little bit where they are and got a sense of what seems to work from their point of view and what doesn't. That may not actually change anything, but in exchange of views and just consultation now, even if it doesn't produce anything that's closer to a common opinion, it at least tends to make the hearing more productive later on. So nobody can make anybody have a conversation they don't want to have, but my experience is just that having open communication, this has been a friendlier hearing today than it was last time. And while I don't expect everybody to emerge from this close friends, it might be that at least everybody will understand people better and we can get a better sense of what a good compromise is if those conversations have taken place. So I'd encourage them to take place. I'd encourage the neighbors to be involved themselves in that sort of thing as well. In an effort to try to work out, there's good stuff and there's not such good stuff about the proposal. And I think it's important for people to do their best to come up with the best solution for the neighborhood and for the town. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Unless there's anything further from the board. So our next scheduled, so we have a hearing scheduled for March 26th, which is likely to be too soon. We have one for Tuesday, April 9th. And then the one following that is Tuesday, April 30th are either of those. April 9th, is that good for you, Jim? That sounds right. Yes. Perfect. So that would be Tuesday, April 9th, 2024. Okay, so with that, the chair would entertain a motion to continue the special permit hearing for 165 Franklin Street to Tuesday, April 9th, 2024 at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. DuPont, the roll call vote of the board in regards to the continuance of the special permit hearing 165 Franklin Street till Tuesday, April 9th, 2024, 7.30 p.m. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on 165 Franklin Street until April 9th. Thank you all very much. I really appreciate the efforts you put into coming before us this evening. Thank you for your time and everyone's consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. With that, the board returns to the administrative items we passed over previously. We passed over those until Mr. Holley was available and he is with us at this time. So there are three items before the board that we have three written decisions which come out of our prior hearing. Excuse me. The first of those is docket 378471 Edgerton Road. This was a decision written by Mr. Hanlon and reviewed by the board during the review of this by Mr. Hanlon. We discovered that there was a possible issue which we felt needed to be addressed in regards to the area of the attic floor. During the course of the hearing when the attic floor was discussed there were a couple of different square, there was some discrepancy early on about the gross floor area because it had been listed differently in different places. During the course of the hearing we had discussed the gross floor area and it was portrayed as being at 48% of the floor below and that was agreed by the applicant. In reviewing the numbers, it's actually not the case. It's actually 52% which would be a new non-conformity which the board cannot approve by a special permit which is what had been requested. And so in consultation, Mr. Hanlon and myself and talking with Mr. Champa we decided that we would add an additional condition to the decision which was in the draft that you saw which would essentially state that just a paraphrase that the decision by the board in regards to the special permit did not apply, did not designate, did not signify an approval of a variance in regards to the area of the attic and that that would need to be a separate matter. And so the board, so we're sort of adding that administratively whereas at this time the decision is pending. So unless there are any further questions or comments in regards to the decision for 71 Edgerton Road I would entertain a motion to approve the written decision. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Any questions or due comments? So then a vote of the board in regards to the written decision for 71 Edgerton Road. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Riccardelli. Aye. Chair votes can I have that as approved? That brings us to the written decision for docket three, seven, eight, five, which is 51 Birch Street. This was a decision written by Mr. Hanlon reviewed and approved by the board and redistributed this afternoon in final copy. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to the written decision for 51 Birch? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion to approve the written decision for 51 Birch Street. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont, for a second. So a vote of the original voting members for the to approve the written decision, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Riccardelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. That brings us to the next one, which is docket three, seven, eight, six, 19 Chatham Road. This is a decision written by Mr. Dupont, distributed to the board for questions and comments and distributed in final copy, I believe it's yesterday or the day before. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to the written decision for 19 Chatham Road? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion to approve Mr. Hanlon. I just wanted to note that the date for the decision hasn't filled in yet. It will be presumably once we take action, but I just wanted to observe that. So it may be that Ms. Rawston can just add that after we approve it. Noted, thank you very much for that. And we'll entertain a motion to approve the written decision for 19 Chatham Road. So moved. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Dupont. So vote of those present at the prior hearing. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Chair votes aye. That is approved. So that is the end of the administrative items that were on our agenda this evening. So with that review of our upcoming schedule of meetings, March 26th, Colleen, I believe we just have administrative items on the 26th. Is that correct? As of today, that is all we have. We'll have some minutes for review and approve for that meeting at that meeting. And I'd also like to just review with the board the upcoming zoning articles that will be in front of town meeting in April, just in case there's any questions or if the board would like to put in a statement on it, if them. Then after that on April 9th, we do have the two continued hearings from tonight. And is there any other business on the 9th so far? There's one new one, 70 Robins Road, they're adding a porch, closing a porch. Oh, okay. Perfect. And then after that, we had shifted the second meeting to the last Tuesday. So that'll be on April 30th and then May 14, May 28th. But that is our upcoming schedule. Are there any other questions or concerns from the board? Mr. Chair, one question or what a comment. For some reasons, since the town made the changes to the emails, every time I send out a docusign, a bunch of them bounce back saying that no one got them. So if you don't see them in your email, can you let me know and I'll try and send them again? Absolutely. I've had some of them pop up in my spam. That's not good. But there's not much in my spam, so I find them. So yeah. Yeah, no, I keep getting a thing saying not sent or I'm not deliverable. And yet some people respond to them. So I don't know who's actually getting them and who's not. Oh, okay. That's good to know. They all show up in my town email account, but they can't get properly forwarded, which is all my other email gets successfully forwarded to my personal account just to save me from checking multiple places. So I'm guessing that might be what's happening with other people as well. It could be. Yeah, because I think the last one, there were five or six of them. That's a lot. I just, if you guys aren't getting them, just let me know and I'll see if I can try and find a, do a resend. Great. Thank you very much for that. Well, I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I'd especially like to thank Colleen Ralston and Mike Champa for their assistance in preparing for and hosting our online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings. And it is our understanding that recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the ZBA website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Hamlin, thank you, Mr. DuPont. So we'll vote to adjourn. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hamlin. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The board is adjourned. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Have a good night. Hey, everybody. Have a good night. See you all in a couple of weeks. ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help.