 Okay, what is 732 p.m.? It is Tuesday, July 12, 2022. Good evening all. My name is Christian Klein and I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd like to call this meeting of the board to order. First, I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. So members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Candlen. Here and hoping to get privileged to record soon. Oh, I can take care of that question. Thank you. Yeah. Kevin Mills. Present. Dan Rickardelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Venkat Holy. Yeah. Welcome one and all. Officials from the town Rick Pallarelli, our board's administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. And Vincent Lee. Here. Good to have you as well. Then for the two hearings this evening appearing for 3840 Newport Street, I believe Brandon will lock us this year. Yeah. We'll caucus excuse me. We'll call us. We'll call us. Yeah. And appearing for 79 Ronald road. Scott rule. Yes, sir. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This. This open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures signed into law on February 15, 2022. This act includes an extension until July 15, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of the 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 are allowed to continue to participate remotely. And if my records are correct, this is our 69th such meeting having started in April of 2020. 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. Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference being an assumed application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, and the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. And as the board will be taking up new business at this meeting, as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotomy and Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board here by acknowledges the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony province and Commonwealth have taken their names. And in our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. On our agenda this evening. This item is the item number two, the approval of the decision for 68 Grant Wood Road if this is a decision written by Pat Hanlon and distributed to the board for questions and comments. And then I believe that a final version has been distributed to the board. So at every I send it at six this evening to everyone. Are there any questions or comments from the board in regards to the decision. Seeing none. I have a motion to approve the written decision for 68 Grant Wood Road to chairman. So moved. Thank you and then they have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this is a vote to approve the written decision for 68 Grant Wood Road. So a roll call vote of the members who were voting on that hearing Patrick Hanlon. Hi. Kevin Mills. Hi. You know, Rick Adele. Hi. Venkat Holly. Hi. And chair votes I that written the decision is approved that brings us to item number three on our agenda, the approval of the written decision for 30 Venner Road. Again, this was written by Pat Hanlon distributed to the board for questions and comments. And then a final version reissue to the board. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the written decision for 30 Venner Road. Seeing none may I have a motion to approve the written decision for 30 Venner Road. Mr. Chairman. So Hanlon. So moved. Thank you. May I have a second. Second. Mr. DuPont. So this is a vote for to approve the written decision for 30 Venner Road roll call vote of the members voting on the original decision Roger DuPont. Hi. Patrick Hanlon. Hi. Kevin Mills. Hi. Daniel Rick Adele. Hi. And the chair votes I that written decision is approved that brings us to item number four on our agenda tonight, the approval of the written decision for 82 Grandview Road. This is a decision written by Patrick Hanlon distributed to the board for questions and comments. And then a final draft issued at the end of this afternoon. Are there any further questions and comments in regards to this written decision. Seeing none may I have a motion to approve the written decision for 82 Grandview Road. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Thank you very much. May I have a second. Second. Hi. So this is a vote to approve the written decision for 82 Grandview Road roll call vote of those members voting on the original decision. Roger DuPont. Hi. Patrick Hanlon. Hi. Kevin Mills. Hi. You know, Rick Adele. Hi. And the chair votes I that written decision is approved. And the administrative items on our agenda this evening. And now turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda, some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves 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. And the first up item number five on our docket this evening is the continued hearing of docket number 3, 7, 0, 0, which is 3840 Newport Street. Good evening to the applicant. And if you could, I have the revised plans that you have submitted. Mr. fellows, if I could ask you to go ahead and tell us what we are seeing. So, I think there was a, at the last meeting, there was a question of. She don't remember exactly what it was. I know there was some conversation between my architect and the board members regarding. I don't know what they call it like the relief where the addition meets the second floor and they just want to make sure that that was, you know, in line with the second floor. So it was one straight shot and it would be roofing material at the base of that which is, is correct. So I think to adapt the plans and send it directly to the board. I think that was about it. I think that was what we had discussed to make everyone kind on the same page. So here from the front elevation you can see on the left hand side that the dormers are in alignment with the sidewall of the building and the same is happening on the right hand side as well. The ridge of the shed dormer is still above the ridge of the main house. But the, there are egress windows on both sides of the house and currently, and now the with this wall, the wall above being in plane with the wall below. The existing eve of the roof is allowed to be to continue in front of the. That's the applicant to do. And then again here from the rear you can see better that on both sides, the dormer now aligns with the sides of the building rather than sticking out beyond. And at the prior hearing, the applicant had presented the roof with a pitch I apologize for the phone in the background. And then this is the left hand side and the applicant had we've discussed with the applicant as well that the eve would continue in front of the dormer. And that this small dormer piece here which is to go over the stair that this is just sort of a glitch in the drawing that it pokes out that it will not poke out beyond the front of the building. And then this is the section through showing the alignments and noting that the roof is to remain on both sides. Are there, is there anything further sir. Oh nothing for me no. Any questions or comments from the board. Do not see any. With that, I will go ahead and open the meeting for public comment public questions and comments are taking us there relate to the matter at hand 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 chair asked those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing please be patient allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead. Members of the public wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application for those calling in by phone please dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak you'll be called upon by the chair. You'll be asked to give your name and address you'll be given time for your questions and comments all questions are to be addressed through the chair please remember to speak clearly. Are there any public comments or questions in regards to this application for 3840 Newport Street. I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this evening on this particular docket item. With that the question before the board is basically the application is that they have been seeking to expand into the attic of their existing house. They're looking to have a shed dormer on both sides, and the meeting region line will be higher than the existing Ridge as it is today, and as the applicant has stated before the reason for that is the low height of the existing Ridge, and the the relative size of the egress windows that are required by code. For the most part they proposed dormers do meet the standards as established by the residential design guidelines and the reason that this application is before us is because the house has zero usable open space. And because they are increasing the gross floor area of their house, they need to have more usable open space and as they are already non conforming. So this is considered an intensification of the existing non conformity and therefore it requires a vote of the zoning board of appeals that the proposed change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. So the board and its typical practice we will apply the special permit criteria for that, and especially criteria six which deals directly with this question. Are there any further questions from the board in regards to the request is none. The board has applications that could be for it. There are typically three conditions which the board would apply to the to the decision. I'll read into the record here now the first one standard. One, the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There will be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. And standard condition number two the building inspector is hereby notified he's to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he determines that violations to present building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21 D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute non criminal complaints if necessary the building inspector may also approve an institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And standard condition number three the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant with those three conditions in mind. Should the board be voting to approve this special permit request are there any additional conditions that members of the board would wish to impose seeing none. I have a motion in regards to this application. The chairman. And I moved that the board approved the application subject to the three conditions that the chair just read the record. And then we have a second. Second. Thank you. Mills. So the before the board is a motion to approve the special permit application for 3840 new port street with the three standard conditions of motion by Mr. Hanson a seconded by Mr. Mills. Are there any questions about what the vote is in front of the board. Seeing none, I will do a roll call vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rick Goodelly. Hi. Chair votes I the special permit for 3840 new port street is approved with this three standard conditions. Thank you very much for all your your patients and your cooperation working with the board really appreciate it. I appreciate the board as well. Thank you for your time. I know it's a lot of work. Thank you. You're quite welcome. Thank you. Good luck. Good evening. I'm just going to bring this to item six on our agenda this evening, which is dock number three seven zero one, 79 Ronald road. I will open up the files for this so I can present those but in the meantime, if I could ask the applicants to introduce themselves and tell us a little bit about what they would like to do. Back wheels but at speaking in our presence going to be Keith Miller who's our, Thanks Scott and Becky. Good evening, chairman members of the board. My name is Keith Miller familiar design. I'm here representing Scott rule and Becky will listen 79r. for insufficient open space for their home pursuant of section 8.1.3B of the Arlington Zoning Ordinance. When they purchased the home over a year ago, they loved the cozy craftsman style home, but they knew they would need to add a new entry as the current front door opens directly under their living room. And they would need to add a half bath as the existing home only has a single bathroom in the upstairs. And Becky's father visits often he has mobility issues. The primary purpose of the new addition is to provide the entry sequence that allows for a mudroom covered front porch and powder room. The proposed design meets all the setback criteria and only adds about 60 gross square feet of living space and 50 feet of covered outdoor front porch space neatly fitting into the style of the house and the scale of the community. The only area of non-compliance came under the definition of open spaces. The existing non-conforming lot is small on an incline and lacks any space that could form the open space square requirement leaving the property with zero open space. The new 60 gross square feet of entry space therefore requires your approval. We are asking the design board of appeals to grant us a special permit allowing us to build this front addition as proposed. It is our belief that the proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and not detrimental to the community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. So if I step through the plan if you wanna just briefly explain to us what we're seeing. Sure, right now you're looking at the basement and first floor of the existing home. They are doing, in addition to the front entry they're doing a kitchen addition but I didn't think that came under your purview today as it's an interior addition only with a slight window modification. But at the front there's an existing stoop that's covered with a series of front steps that goes down and they're removing that in its entirety, keeping the existing entry to the house where it is but removing that door and pushing it further out. So as you can see right now, as I said in my presentation when you open that front door, the mailman comes or anybody knocks at your door and the door's opened you see everything. So they're hoping to kind of mitigate that scenario right now. Our next set of plans shows the existing roof being removed and also some work in the upstairs bathroom which again doesn't come under the board's purview but it was in my drawings for the overall project and scope. Again, elevations showing the existing front door and front stoop that's covered being removed. Other elevations on the side and the back. And then this shows the new roof plan over the expanded front porch and it shows the small mudroom, powder room and farmers, little small farmers porch and steps down to grade. More details, the exact front elevation and then a section detail of how it's being constructed. It does not have a full foundation. It's going to be constructed as a single story structure on piers. Side elevations, we're gonna be using a solid screening and not a lattice screening. So it's a more solid appearance and it fits more with the arts and craft style of the house and it doesn't leave a lot of space for rodents and other creatures to take residence under the porch. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Back up to the site plan. So just to note that within the setback, the entire addition is within or is it beyond the required setbacks or beyond the existing setback to the side does not create any new non-conformities. And as the applicant and the applicants architect has stated, the reason that they're before us today is because of the usable open space issue. So with that, are there questions or comments from the board in regard to this application? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Is there an extension of an existing non-conformity with respect to, I'm thinking of the front yard setback? So the front yard is supposed to be 25 feet. And it's a little bit hard for me to make all of this out, but it looks as if it comes at least between to 21-6 at some point. And I'm wondering if they also need to have us address the extension of an existing non-conformity with respect to the setback. I'm not saying that they do, but I just am not clear on it. I believe that the, so there is a small portion of the steps that would encroach within the front yard setback, but I don't think they rise to the level where we would need to make a determination under. Yeah, Chairman, the allowance for our front steps, those steps fall under that allowance. Okay. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a question? Mr. Trigendale, please. So is the, just so I'm orienting myself correctly, where is this eight foot eight rear yard setback? So that's the rear yard is actually sort of to the left of the main entry and the side yard is the property one on the right there. Yeah, it's a corner lot. So they take between the two. Yeah, that's correct. Thank you. Go back to the expansion that this is stated is at the first floor level. So it's just going from 738 square feet to 798 square feet on the first floor. And then in regards to, so it's an undersized lot. It's been formed with the frontage. The lot coverage is still going to be below the right lot coverage. The front yard depth is currently 21.6 in the district. It's 25, but because it's an existing non-conformity, it's at 21.6. The left side yard is greater than the 10 feet as required. The side yard, which technically is on the right. And then the rear yard, which is technically on the left is 8.8 and so they are not changing that dimension. That's two stories that's being unchanged. The height is unchanged. Everything else is essentially remaining as it is today. Any further questions from the board? None. I am going to go ahead and open the meeting for public comment. As stated before, we'll take public comment as it relates to the matter of hand and it should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public who wish to speak may use the raise hand feature on the participant tab in Zoom, or if you're on the phone, you can dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. Are there any members of the public who wish to address this application? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. So the question before the board, this is an application for a zoning, essentially a section six determination by the zoning board of appeals, which we handle as a special permit where the property has zero usable open space. And as the applicant is increasing the gross floor area it requires additional usable open space of which there is already no usable open space. Therefore the board needs to make a determination that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood to allow this nonconform, the intensification of this existing nonconformity. Otherwise there are no new nonconformities that are being created nor are any of the other existing nonconformities being intensified. If the board was to move to approve this decision, there are the three standard conditions which we read into the record earlier this evening which would relate to this application. Are there any other conditions which members of the board would like to discuss in regards to this application? Seeing none, may I have a motion from the board? Mr. Chairman? Hanlon. Just for a second, before I give a motion, let me just say that it's going to be a motion to approve. It seems to me that there will not be any increased detriment to the community based on the things that are being done. All of it is being able to make a house more liveable to this occupant and anyone else who should eventually occupy the home then there's no adverse public effects at all. So this ought to be as clear a case of finding of no significant detriment under section six and on that ground, I move that the board approve the application subject to the three standard conditions that the chair has referred to. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon, may I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this question, the motion before the board is a motion to approve the special permit for 79 Ronald Road with the three standard conditions with the motion is put forward by Mr. Hanlon and seconded by Mr. DuPont. Are there any questions from the board in regards to what the vote entails? Being none, I will ask for a roll call vote of the members of the board. Roger DuPont. Aye. Patrick Hanlon. Aye. Kevin Mills. Aye. You new work at Alley? Aye. Chair votes aye. The special permit for 79 Ronald Road is approved. Thank you all very much. Good luck. Thank you very much for your time this evening, gentlemen. Thank you. And ladies. You're quite welcome. We gave you so little of it compared to what we usually do. Which is perfectly okay. Yes, it is. Enjoy the rest of your summer. Thank you. Thank you so much yourselves as well. Right out. Thank you. Thank you. So the next meeting of the zoning board, I believe is Tuesday, August 9th. Is that correct, Mr. Valerelli? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I already distributed the material. Still waiting for some bits and pieces on a couple of them, but I think that it outlines what the applicant is looking for as a whole. And unless something changes, we will meeting in town hall, August 9th. So keep that in mind. It will keep our ears open to hear, to see what the legislature does. There is a, the Senate budget bill does include an extension until December 31st, 2023. Of the lifting of the, some of the requirements of the public meeting law, but at this point that has not come to a vote. I'm uncertain if anything is happening between now and Friday. So. So Mr. Chairman, those notices were advertised both ways, either are, that will time will determine as legislature approves or disapproves the continuance. So we're covered either way. Basically if we meet in person, I mean, meet by Zoom. And just to take one second and I never do this, but I hope everybody realizes the exorbitant amount of time it takes to write a decision that Mr. Hanlon has taken under. And Pat, I got to tell you, it's a phenomenal amount of time, not to mention a weekend in the summer. God bless you. The email is with the text is back to you and I. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes, thank you. All right. Well, thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, I especially would like to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee, Kelly Linova, and VersaLao for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Should this be our last online meeting? I would like to extend my personal gratitude to Doug Hyne, Kelly Linova, Jenny Gray, Vincent Lee, Mike Ciampa, and especially Rick Valerelli for making these meetings possible and for making sure we abide by all the changing rules and regulations that are coming from the state. I would also like to thank all members of the board past and present for bearing with these online meetings. I know they often go longer than necessary and I very much appreciate your patience and understanding as we try to conduct the business of the town. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings and it's our understanding that recordings made by ACMI will be available on DemandedACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.west. That email address is also listed on the zoning board hotel's website and to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moore. I just want to ask a brief question before then. If there is activity by the legislature or sound Zoom approach, how will one find that out? So if you type into Google something like Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, it will take you to their website which they promise will have updated information as soon as it's available. Okay, so I assume, I guess I assume that if somehow they take some vote that it says December 31st, then we'll default back to Zoom as opposed to live, right? So I think the board would need to determine that. I think for the summer, I would want to keep remote just because it's with people scheduled that you're to maintain. And then there is a town committee that's looking into hybrid formats which the board has volunteered to be a test subject for. And so we would then be sort of looking to see what that becomes. But my understanding is that won't be coming online until September or October. Yeah, I believe the tree committee has volunteered to also be one of those. Okay, so if I go to this open meeting place, they will know if this be extended. Otherwise, I will not be part of the August 19th. So thank you. You're quite welcome. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just want to just observe for everybody and especially for those of us who are over a certain age and so feel a little bit at risk, but there exists a new variant, BA5, that appears to be more contagious than even the Omicron which is otherwise thought of as the Omicron version. And so I don't know what Ms. Bonjourno is going to do and how this all works out. But I think that caution in the coming weeks is probably very desirable. Absolutely. Not to mention monkey pox, but we'll leave that for another day. All right. So would anyone like some motion to adjourn? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Okay, a vote to adjourn. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Berkele. Aye. Kaufman. Aye. Godley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are adjourned and we'll see everyone on August 9th. Great guys. Alright, everyone. Take care, everyone. Have a great time till then. Okay, guys. Thank you.