 All right, so it is 734 p.m. I will go ahead and start off the meeting. So today is Tuesday, December 21st, 2021. This is the meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd call this meeting of the board to order. First light to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Dan Riccadelli. Here. Welcome, and Venkat Holy. Here. Welcome. On behalf of the town, Rick Valorelli, our board's administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, sir. And Vincent Lee is here as well from the Inspectoral Services. Good to see you. And then just to confirm that we have people here for the various cases appearing for 28 Ottawa Road. Brian Kate. Here. Good to see you. Appearing for 41 Oldham Road. Garin-Laurie Kalanian. Here. All right, thank you both. And then appearing for 66 Freeman Street, Robin Biggs and Nathaniel Fuller. Hi. Hello, hi. Good evening. Okay, so this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 of the remote meetings provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive orders to spending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location for their all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting ends being recorded and it will eventually be available on ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Other participants are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. 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 monotony, an Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby 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. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. At the end of November, this board lost three very valuable members, Shauna Rourke, Aaron Ford and Stephen Revlak had all issued letters of resignation at the conclusion of the Thorndike Place hearing. I'd like to thank them one last time for their contributions to this board and to our town. But I'm very pleased to announce that the select board voted last night to approve two very experienced members of our town to fill two of the open positions on the board. I'd like to introduce them to the board and ask them to briefly introduce themselves. So coming to joining the board as a full member is Dan Riccadelli. Hi, everyone. I'm Dan Riccadelli, my wife, and I have lived in Arlington for the last five years and I'm excited to get involved in town governments. I'm an architect. I registered architecture in Massachusetts. I've been working in architecture in and around Boston for the last 13 years. And very often I'm in the position to present to boards like this one. So I'm excited to advocate for Arlington and the rest of the residents here. That's great. Welcome. Very glad to have you. And joining the board as an assistant member is Venkat Holi. Good evening, everyone. I'm an architect as Dan is, a registered architect in Massachusetts and Maryland. I was in Maryland. That's where I got my registration done before I moved here. Been in Arlington for the last six years now. I've worked as a project architect for the architectural team in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Happy to join here and be on the other side now in presenting some of these to the towns. So excited about this opportunity. Thank you so much and welcome. I welcome you both on behalf of the board and I truly appreciate your taking part in your first hearings less than 24 hours after your appointment. Before moving on to other administrative items on our agenda, I wanted to note that the two hearings that were continued from November 23rd to this hearing will be heard on Tuesday, January 11th, 2022. Due to the change in membership on the board, we were unable to provide a full slate of members able to still vote on those cases. We've asked those applicants to revise their applications without prejudice so they can be heard by the newly constituted board in January. And I just want to express my appreciation for their understanding and their patience. I would also like to make the board in the public aware that an appeal to the board's decision on the Thorne Dyke Place Comprehensive Permit application submitted by Arlington Land Realty LLC was filed in the Middlesex Superior Court. The board's written decision was filed with the town clerk on Wednesday, December 1st, 2021 starting a 20 day window for filing an appeal. The newly filed case, O'Driscoll et al. versus Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals et al. was noticed to the town clerk this afternoon, December 21st, 2021 being the final day to file an appeal. I have spoken briefly with town council and he will be briefing the board at a future meeting to discuss the particulars of the case. And depending on the nature of that discussion, the board may enter an executive session to discuss legal strategy and any responsive pleadings that might need to be filed. So we will see where this process takes us. Okay, so going back on to our agenda. We're gonna move on to number three, which is administrative item. So as we start with administrative items, including the approval of decisions and the approval of minutes, these items relate to the operations of the board and as such will be conducted without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings, nor will there be introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. After introducing each item, I'll invite members of the board to provide any comments, questions or motions they may have. Members wish to engage in discussion with other members. Please choose so through the chair, taking care to identify yourself the record. First administrative item, we have this evening. Number three on our agenda, which is the approval of the meeting minutes from August 3rd, 2021. These are distributed by Rufela Raleigh back on November 23rd for the board's review. I know Rick has received comments from several people. Are there any further comments on the minutes from August 3rd? Being none, I moved to approve those minutes. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Hanlon. So I'm just gonna ask for a vote of the members who were, excuse me, present at that meeting. So Roger Dupont. Aye. Patrick Hanlon. Aye. Kevin Mills. Aye. Chair votes aye. That is approved. Move to item number four. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I wasn't the one who was actually seconded that. So somebody else did. I heard it, but it wasn't me. No, there's Mr. Mills. Thank you for that correction. So the next set of minutes is the minutes from August 24th, 2021. These were also submitted to the board on November 23rd. Are there any further questions or comments on that? Seeing none, I will move to approve those minutes. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. Brings us to item five, approval of the meeting minutes from October 12th, 2021. And submitted November 23rd for board review. Are there any further questions on these minutes? Seeing none, I will move to approve those minutes. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Chair votes aye. Those are approved. Brings us to item six on our agenda. Approved rule of the meeting minutes from our October 20th meeting. Those were submitted November 23rd for review by the board. Are there any further questions on the board? Seeing none, move to approve. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Chair votes aye. Those are approved. Brings us to item seven on our agenda. Approval of meeting minutes from November 9th, 2021. We're catching up. These were again submitted November 23rd for review. Any further comments from the board? Seeing none, I will move to approve. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. The chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. This brings us to item number eight on our agenda, which is the approval of the decision for 9-11 Adams Street. This is a decision that was prepared by Mr. Hanlon and distributed to the board for questions and comments. And I know those have come back and I believe that Hanlon, you did issue a revised version of the decision. I did. I believe it was Saturday or Sunday. Okay. Are there any further questions on that decision? Seeing none. May I have a motion to approve? Mr. Chairman, I move that the decision for 9-11 Adams Street be approved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. The second was Mr. Dupont, I believe. Yes. So vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. Brings us to item number nine, vote to approve the decision on 25-127 Webster Street. So this was a decision that prepared, again, by Mr. Hanlon, distributed to the board for comment and reissued, I believe, today in a final version. Yes. Are there any further questions on this decision? Seeing none. May I have a motion to approve, please? Mr. Chairman, I approve that the decision in 125 Webster Street be approved. Thank you. May I have a second? Thank you, Mr. Dupont. So vote on that one as well, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That decision is approved. Brings us to item number 10, approval of the decision for 137 Robbins Road. Again, this was prepared by Mr. Hanlon, distributed to the board for comment and issued again in a final draft, I believe, this past weekend. Yes. Are there any further questions or comments on this decision? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve? Mr. Chairman, I move that the decision in 137 Robbins Road be approved. Thank you very much. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Vote of the members present at that hearing. Roger Dupont. Aye. Patrick Hanlon. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So that final decision is approved. So on those three, Mr. Reller-Reller, we're gonna have to still include some of the past members. They can still sign, even if they're not current members, because they were members of the time of the decision. That's correct, Mr. Chairman, I understand that. Perfect. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'd just like to state for the record that of course the past members, the ones who are no longer on the board, but who were on the panel that originally decide that, have all been afforded a copy, as everyone else has, of the draft decisions and to the extent to which they had comments they have been incorporated into the finals that we just approved. Oh, fantastic. Thank you. So I am going to hold off on item 11 and come back to that at the end. This brings us onto item 12 on our agenda, which is docket number 368128 Ottawa Road. And before we start, I will now turn to the public hearings on tonight's agenda for 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 within the cells and to make their presentation to the board. I will then request that 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 the public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. And so the first, this, as it says, number 12 is docket number 3681, 28 Ottawa Road. The owner I believe is Mr. Kate. I could ask him to introduce himself and tell us what he would like to do. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Brian Kate. I'm one of the homeowners of 28 Ottawa Road. The project that I'm bringing before the board is hopefully non-controversial. We have a set of steps in the front of the house leading up to the front door that are needed replacement. We would like their uncovered steps at the moment. We would like to cover them. And in doing so, we believe that extending that covered area to the full width of the house as a porch would be more functional for us and would be largely consistent with the neighborhood in the style of house that we have. We are seeking relief for projection into minimum yards. And otherwise, I'm, you know, we'll welcome any questions you have about the project, but I think it's relatively straightforward. Thank you. I will go ahead and share the application. It's a photo of the front of the house. So this is the plot plan. So on the left is the existing. On the right is the proposed. May I make one, sorry. May I make one comment about the plot plan? Yes, please do. You'll notice that the one on the left is actually incorrect. It's from a previous plot plan. This was not discovered until last week and the surveyors gonna correct it, but the one on the right, everything behind the porch is the existing structure. You'll notice that there's a large addition that we did two years back. And it's a shed rather than a concrete pad in the backyard, but none of that is part of this proposal. Thank you for that clarification. Sure. So the portion that the board is concerned with and the proposed is the proposed open porch and the steps at the front. That's correct. Perfect. So this is the detail, both side elevations. Are there questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. I just have a suggestion to the applicant. I know he's specifying a bluestone landing. Bluestone really, in my experience, does not hold up all that well to our winters and salt and refreezing. It tends to spoil over time. He may want to think about something more resilient just to comment. Well, thank you. Thank you. The landscaping and hardcaping is not yet set in stone, so to speak. So I do appreciate the suggestion. Any other questions from the board? Just for general edification. So the open porches are allowed to extend into the minimum front yard and if they're beyond a certain size and they need a special permit from the town. And that's the reason that this is in front of this board this evening. There's no further questions from the board. I'm gonna go ahead and proceed with public comment. So before I open the meeting for public comment, it's a couple of notes. Public questions and comments will only be taken as they relate to the matter of hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Chair asks that those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing, please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host. You'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed. And the board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. So looking at folks who have their hands up, first on my list is Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Steve Moore. Pete Montstreet in Arlington here. I wanted to do as I often do with the situations where I see a street tree in front of a house. I want to remind the applicant that they need to protect the street tree with the correct root zone, critical root zone protection measures which are available from the engineering department and the tree warden is in terms of protecting the tree relative to construction. My guess is that when the applicant put on the extension to the rear of the house a couple of years back, they were made familiar with this requirement and I just want to remind them that they need to do it again for the porch, even though the porch is minimum construction, we need to try and maintain the tree canopy in town. So I just wanted to make that point. As an aside, not on this case, I just want to say I am fortunately unhappy to hear that there's been an appeal of the Thorndike Decision Place made in the town. This board did quite a bit of work over quite a long time and I'm a little surprised to hear that an appeal by another town commission has been filed after all that work. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter? I see no hands raised, I see no one waving. I'll go ahead and close public comment. So this is a fairly straightforward application. It's actually very similar to the house next door, which we saw about a month, month and a half ago, where they're just looking to add a farmer's porch, essentially to the front of the building. It's a single story, an enclosed porch. Is there any questions about the scope of work? Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Yes, please. I know that I needed the commission, so I just, if this is a dumb question, but the open porch condition is the exception of open porches just for front yard setbacks or side yard setbacks as well. Valerie, can you? That's a great question, Mr. Riccadelli. Welcome to the board with that question. So directing your attention to 5.3.9 projections into minimum yards. A, projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open fire escapes and enclosed entrances, not more than 25 square feet in four area or more than one story high, which do not project more than three and a half feet beyond the line of the foundation wall. May extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district in which the structure is built. Enclosed entrances larger than allowed above may extend into the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district by special permit. So to answer your question, it does not specify front yard only, it specifies minimum yard regulations, 5.3.9A. Great, thank you so much. You're welcome. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. What we have here is a porch and what Mr. Valerie just read about had a lot to do with enclosed entrances. It's my understanding and I wanted to see if Mr. Valerie can confirm this that if there's a longstanding interpretation from the inspectional services department that providing a sort of a roof over the porch is sufficient to make it, make it considered a closed entrance for purposes of the zoning ordinance. Is that a correct understanding, Mr. Valerie? That's absolutely correct. Mr. Hanlon, the inspectional services identifies a roofed structure as an enclosed structure. May I make a comment? Yeah, sorry. So this word unenclosed certainly tripped me up when I was reading the bylaws. The next time perhaps the document is modified we might take care to specify that the roof counts as an enclosed structure certainly changed our plans once we did realize that after talking to Mr. Valerie so perhaps making it more clear would be helpful in the future. Well taken and actually this is the right time of year as the town meeting warrant is gonna be opening up at the beginning of January if it's not open already. So we do have a memorandum from the Department of Planning and Community Development. And so they issue using memoranda on all of our special permit cases. They review the different criteria that the board is required to present findings on and then they make a recommendation which is solely the recommendation of that department is not necessarily the opinion of the board. In this case, they maintain the proposals consistent with the zoning bylaw and recommend the board can approve the application. So typically for decisions of the board there are three standard conditions that the board applies to such permit. So if we were to move to approve we would, there's several conditions. The first would be that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. Should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the zoning board of appeals. Condition two, be the building inspector is hereby notified that he is to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he deems that violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under provisions of chapter 40, section 21D 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 condition number three would be the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. And in cases of where we are doing front porches typically include a condition that the area of the proposed porch shall not be considered within the foundation wall of the building. The open portion of the porch shall remain unenclosed. So in this case, but unenclosed if the board is meaning that, you know, this shall not wall shall not go up around the site in front of the porch. So I would recommend the board consider those four conditions. Any further conditions from the board? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hanlon. I'm afraid that my effort to get to my word file is not being very successful, but I do recall that we often have a condition that refers to the building out the porch doesn't extend where the foundation wall is. And I miss that, but I think that we ought to be including that condition as well. So I think that was part of the same one that the area that proposed porch shall not be considered within the foundation wall of the building. I see. And then the open portion of the porch shall remain unenclosed. Okay, so if I could just recommend to the board, I think it's perfect. I don't think it's a good idea to wordsmith on the fly, but it's awkward to use the word enclosed when in one context it has a defined meeting by the ISD to refer to just a roof. And we don't mean that here. So if the board would give me some liberty in writing the opinion, I would like to tinker with that language so as to make it clear that this is not enclosed within the established ISD understanding of that word. I think that would be appropriate. Any further conditions? Not. The board will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve this application subject to the conditions that the chair has just read into the record. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Any questions on what the vote entails? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rickardelli. Aye. The chair votes aye. That the special permit for 28 Ottawa Road is approved as conditioned. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. You're quite welcome. This brings us to item number 13 on our agenda, docket number 3682 41 Oldham Road. If I could ask the Tolinians to introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. Hi, I'm Gar Tolanian. My wife Lori's here. And hi, we intend to renovate 41 Oldham Road and live there looking for relief from two items. One, the, it's a large term, a large addition in Arlington over 750 square feet. And secondly, the front setback, similar to the last hearing is a front porch setback. We're looking for approximately three extra three feet to make the porch, the front farmer's porch more functional. Very much. Let me quickly bring up the drawings. The basement plan, the first floor plan, roof plan, front and rear elevations, side elevations. Okay. So this is the 2,000, then you had alluded to both the porch at the front, eight feet by 42 feet. And then just overall, it's the large addition. Yep. Ms. Vela, were there any concerns in regards? It's just going to be a two-story building. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. So first question I have, I was there on Sunday afternoon and it does appear there are some recently cut down trees here on the side. Were those removed with this addition, with this work in mind or was there an issue with those trees? USR. Yeah. So the side tree was two trees, two trees, one tree was split and then the tree beside it was rotting out. Okay. And I had four people come out, some of which do work on the town. They weren't town employees though. And one of the trees are like, we can get the tree down by January possibly. I hope the tree doesn't fall. That's how- Oh, okay. Roted the base was. So then I asked him, if I take that one bad tree down, the root system was all together. And he's like, being that the tree was split, he thought, but all four people told me that the tree should come down. Okay. And that's why we took it down. Primarily because of the danger of the one falling onto the neighbor's house. Okay. Only other question I had was the, it was the depth of the front porch. So eight feet is rather deep for a front porch. And I was just, wanted to understand more sort of the, the reasoning behind the sizes of that porch. I guess it's just to use it in sitting, put a chair there. A table as well. Like a sitting area outside to use the space during COVID, we've come to realize how valuable sitting outside with your neighbors is. Thank you. Questions from the board at the moment. With that, I'll go ahead and open up for a public comment. Again, those wishing members of public wish to speak can digitally raise their hand using the button on, I believe it's the participant tab in the Zoom application. And those calling in by phone can 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 and be given time for your questions and comments. So first on our list is Mr. Moore. Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street and a member of our Lincoln Tree Committee. I would like to ask the applicant for you, is Oldham Road a public way or a private way? We're on the public way. Okay. Side of it. It's, the answer is both, I guess. It's both. Lower towards the Winchester Line is a private way. And you'll notice the lack of nice pavement on the private part. The town does a nice job paving in front of this house. Yeah, that is certainly off in the case, Mr. Chairman. There are two street trees I see that are on the street there that are gonna require protection for this significant construction job. So I don't think there are any trees in front of this house. There's no trees. There was one that was taken down, I think three years ago during a microburst situation. The town took it down, the town took it down. Oh, okay. Mr. Chairman, I looked on Google Maps and there were two, one that was on the property line with the 42 Oldham and one that was, it looked like it was in front of 41 Oldham next to the driveway, but maybe it's not there now. I was just looking on Google Maps. Okay, just if you said that there is no street trees? No, there isn't. Nope, we would entertain having one if you want to put one there. Well, they are certainly available from the town via a request. They'll first come first serve, but the town will put street trees on the street in the setback at the request of the abutters as long as you folks agree to water it. So yeah, map again, and there's definitely one next to the driveway and one on the other side of the driveway as well. Nope, I think there was originally, but they were all taken down. The town did take them down with a previous owner. All right, well, thank you. That leads me to a second question, which is the trees that the chairman reference that have been taken down recently. The two trees that are on the side there that I guess have both been taken are large trees. They're in the setback and they're covered by the town tree bylaw. And certainly a rotted tree makes sense to take it down since it's a danger. However, the second tree does not make sense to take down. I suggest you talk to the tree warden because it sounds to me like you've run afoul of a tree bylaw, which means, unfortunately, there will be a fine to be paid because they're in the setbacks. And you need to get in touch with him. His name is Tim Oquiv. He'll come out and look at the tree and see if he can confirm what you were told by the four tree workers. Fortunately, the thing about tree remover folks is they're in the business of removing trees and don't necessarily have the maintenance of the town tree canopy in mind when they do their work. So you'll need to get in touch with him. And the trees are already taken. So I don't know if a tree plan at this point is required. It would have been required had the trees not been taken yet, but since now you're in front of the fall of the law, a tree plan probably isn't required. You'll need to get in touch with the tree warden about dealing with the taking of those two trees that are already taken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next on our list is this Kristen McMillan. Hi, good evening, Mr. Chairman and the board. My name is Kristen McMillan. I'm actually the daughter of Janice McMillan, who is the homeowner of the house that is in the rear of 41 Oldham Road. And with regard to the trees, I'd like to actually address that matter if I might. My mother received a handwritten note several weeks back from I believe the current homeowners, letting my mother know not asking for permission to enter her property to remove said trees, but informing her that those trees were going to be removed. She received that note on, I believe, Sunday evening and she leaves for work at 6.30 in the morning. And by the time she returned home from work, the trees were gone, which is not so much her concern. What her concern is, is that the people who removed said trees actually cut branches off of her existing trees and did damage to some of her foliage that she has in the back of her home. That's the first concern she has. And also, I went out back today to take a look at that and one of the trees that was cut down, the stump bit is a perfectly healthy stump. So I'm not sure what the purpose of removing that tree was. The second concern that my mother has is she received notice just last night about today's hearing. So obviously we did not have a significant amount of time to prepare to address the board today, but one of her concerns is the sheer magnitude and size of the addition that the current homeowners are hoping to put on their house, nearly doubling the current house and size. Also, I believe if looking at the square footage is correct, it is going beyond, and I could be wrong, but again, I did not have a lot of time to review all the materials. It looks like it goes beyond what would be the, excuse me, what would be the allotted amount of square footage or distance from the property line to the home. So I know that a few letters were enclosed in the paperwork that was provided to the board, excuse me. And a couple of those letters indicated that the size of this house would be in line with recent builds. My mother has two brand new homes that were just recently built across the street from her and the square footage that they are suggesting is well over a thousand or better square feet larger than the two homes that were just built brand new within the last year and a half. I also had the opportunity to speak to the elderly neighbors to the right of my mother's home. And they are also concerned with the size of this renovation that is being suggested. And to be clear, my mother is not, she is not opposed to there being renovations done to the home or increasing in size. She is simply concerned about the portion of the renovation that will encroach on her personal space in the size of the addition that's going to be put on the rear of the house. And I appreciate the letters that were sent by the other homeowners, but they will be looking at the front facade of the house and not the rear, which will be taking up a significant amount of backyard that they have currently. Thank you. What is your mother's address? 46 Lantern Lane. Rick, was that included in the butters list? Give me a minute, Mr. Chairman, I have that list here. Thanks. Is that number Lantern Lane again, please? Number 46. 46. Yes, that was on the list and those mailings went out. Oh, I don't know, at least 10, 14 days ago. She just received the notice last night when she got home from work. Yeah, I apologize for that. I don't know what the reason is, but very diligent on getting those notices out. They do have to go through central mailing at the town hall. I don't know what that process is. Usually this is, we usually don't get a complaint that the notice received this late. My apologies, this is the first. Thank you, I appreciate the apology. Making further? I don't think so. I think the only, I think last note that I would make is, you know, my mother has had, unfortunately, due to a lot of the construction, had some structural damage to the foundation of her house, which she just recently repaired once all of the construction was done. And so I think she does have some concern how this might now impact further damage to her foundation. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'd like to ask Mr, excuse me, Mr. McMillan, what is the rear trying to figure out the distance between where the addition would put it, which I gather is still within the zoning envelope and where and how much backyard number 46 has. And I gathered number 42 is quite similar, but number 50 is quite a bit bigger. So if you could provide us with some kind of information as to the, as to, as to those distances. The reason, just to be clear about it is the reason why it is you have a special permit requirement for large additions is the possibility that a building that might be entirely within the appropriate dimensional requirements could, with the addition, still unreasonably dominate neighboring properties. And that sort of is what is being claimed here. But just the physical distance between the two structures is relevant to that. And so if you can give me some indication of what that would be, that would be useful. I have to be very honest with you. I apologize. I don't know the distance. Again, because we got such short notice, I tried to date make sort of a judgment call today. It's hard to tell without having accurate measurements. And I apologize for that. Again, we're in a difficult situation because we just received the notice last night. I'm certainly happy to try to get that information to the board as soon as possible. And what you're asking is how much distance between the house to the property line, correct? Yes, right. Because if I know that, I can with arithmetic figure out what the other distance is. Can you describe to me what number 50 is like? That's a house with which on Google Maps looks like it's substantially larger, at least in terms of footprint. And I like to get a sense of how big that property is. Are you asking me that question? That property is quite large, actually. And I believe takes up a good portion of the physical property of the homeowners. There's not a lot of living space, so to speak. I don't know the exact measurements. What I do know is that at least the height of the house went to the absolute max that it could. That is the one thing that I do know. Okay, thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter? I have someone who wishes to speak for a second time. I just want to check first. Being none, Mr. Moore for a second time. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to arise Ms. McMillan. I think that's your name. I know you said you were the daughter. That if the branches that were taken from the trees that I guess are actually located on your mother's property lot, 44 there on Lantram Ave, as long as the branches cross the property line, the neighbor is allowed to take the branches at their property line, but not beyond. That's the way the, not the tree by-law is, that's the way the tree laws are in the state of Massachusetts. They can't trim trees beyond their property line, but if a branch basically encroaches on their property, they can trim them at the line. Just that's sort of the rule. An additional question though, Mr. Chairman. It looks like there are a lot, there are trees on the rear of this property in the setbacks. It's hard for me to see, because again I was using Google Maps and if the first map was aged and not accurate, I apologize because the second map might be as well. It looks like there are trees back there. And I don't know if the addition, it doesn't look like the addition necessarily will encroach on those trees based on what I can see. However, if the trees are in the setback and it's going to be a significant amount of work that requires access to the rear of the property by heavy equipment, those trees are going to have to be protected. Could I please ask the applicant for you if there are trees in the back of the property within the setback? I'm happy to ask that question for you. Okay, yeah. So there's two trees. There's a maple tree and an oak tree in the far left corner. I wouldn't say like, so I don't know if they're part of the setback, but those are the trees that were there. I don't know what are the trees? Yeah. The plot plan is showing three 24-inch trees in that. Oh, I'm sorry. I was having trouble interpreting those dots as trees. Okay, my mistake. And then this one over here, this 12-inch on this side of the property. Yeah. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I would like again to remind the applicant since those are in the setback, it sounds like there's not going to be encroachment there by the addition. However, again, being in the setback, they need to be protected in terms of construction. The tree warden that you'll have to talk to already will be able to tell you about what sort of tree protection measures you need to do to make sure that heavy equipment does not damage those trees in the setback. Okay. So these are, this is the table zoning requirements. So it's a single family residence. The existing gross floor area of the house is listed 3,723. They're proposing to go to 5,946. A lot coverage would go from 16 to 25% with a maximum of 35% for the district. The front yard is a minimum 25 and that's what they're requesting. The 21-8 is for the special permit for that. The left side and the right side are both compliant with the side yard setbacks. Currently the rear yard is 45 and a half, approximately 45 and a half feet and they're proposing to reduce that to 21 feet where the minimum is 20 feet and it's going for one and a half to two stories. That's still today within the max and then the height increasing from 18 to 32. This is essentially as it is currently just a essentially a single story house with a lower speed. There's no concerns about the amount of landscape open space or useable open space. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. The frontage figure. It changed. Isn't that the locked frontage figure? Assuming that should be 107,98 for both. They should be the same. I can't see the lock size changing. Yeah. No, no, no. Yeah, it looks like it should be for both. Right, this shouldn't change. Mr. Chairman. Just one second, Mr. Hanlon. Is there any other public comments? Seeing none, go ahead and... Sorry. Bill? Yeah, so I apologize. I'm actually, my mother just called me to wanted me to be clear. Yeah, I think I was, but she wanted me to just clarify. One of the trees that they cut down was in my mother's backyard. So she just wanted me to clarify that. Okay. Yeah. In the rear of the house. She just wasn't sure if I was clear about that. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Do I have one other person to speak? Steven Stack, excuse me. Yeah, hi. So I'm the contractor that's gonna be doing the work on 41. Okay. Holden Road. And I understand the situation with the trees, but it's really the front porch. I thought it was a question. I think we stayed in guidance on everything. So it was just a front porch. I mean, again, this tree situation is completely separate. No, no, no. It was racist as a question. So we're just trying to understand the tree situation. And as Mr. Moore had pointed out with regards to his position on the tree committee, it's something that just needs to be addressed through the tree ward. Yeah. But I think the overall size that we still stayed underneath are the restrictions, even in the back. So it was the front. That was the only thing that we were looking for just to get that farmer's porch in. That is correct. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. I don't think that we should, you still need to get a special permit for the large addition, even though it meets all of the dimensional requirements of the board. And if Mr. Stack is suggesting that he doesn't think that's the case, then he would be wrong about that. The porch is, and there are two separate really requests here. One is the porch, which we've spent most of our time in the beginning talking about, but the discussion is really focusing more on the addition and the size of the addition. And again, to just say what I said before, the policy under here is that sometimes large additions which still are within all the, meet all the dimensional requirements can unacceptably dominate nearby properties. It can easily happen if you shade out, if you shade out the neighboring property, if the spaces are too close, if there's no buffering, there's lots of reasons why that can take place. And those things are before us as well. Okay. I understand that. So, but some of the numbers that were being called out on the houses are not the numbers that are beside this house. So all the houses along this house are all those sizes. Correct. Did you hear the ones behind the house? Correct. But I'm just saying, the only reason I'm saying this is so that we don't concentrate on, you can't pick the two smallest houses on the street if there's also bigger houses on the street. With that, I think I'm gonna go ahead and close the public experiment. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moore. This would be time number three for me. Is that okay? I am trying to move ahead, but go ahead. Well, very quickly, if the applicant cut down a tree on the neighbor's yard, the neighbor should have access to action, they shouldn't, that's illegal. They can't do that. So that's up to you. I certainly think all that. That's the first question. The second one is the trees in the setbacks there, the building permit should not have been issued if there was not a tree plan completed. It's on the checklist, part of the requirement now, and trees were taken and quite recently, they need to now generate a tree plan before they proceed. I'm not sure how they got a building permit without having a tree plan that should have been addressed not as part of the special permit, but rather getting the basic building permit for the house. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Yeah, so certainly anything tree related at this point really is under the jurisdiction of the tree warden and needs to be followed up directly with the tree warden. Can I, excuse me, may I say something? Sorry, I can't see who's speaking. This is Lori Tulanian. Oh, hi. Hi. So just to clarify, I tried several times to go to, is it 46 Lantern? I went to their house twice. Nobody answered the door, and there was people home, but nobody was answering. So that's why I did leave a note. The tree that we're talking about actually was on our property. The former owner did not want to technically the fence of the former owner put up on our property now is about five or six, five feet, I think, or four feet into our, away from the property line. So this tree was right up against our fence, and it was also within our property line. I just wanted to clarify that because even though it was on the other side of the fence, it was still our property according to the survey. And I would never take a tree from somebody's backyard before I went and do that. And I also, one other thing I wanted to mention on the addition, it's actually not gonna be any higher than the house that is in place right now because it's a single floor addition. It's not gonna have a second story on it. So it won't be blocking any light, any more than it's already being blocked by the house currently. The looking at the site on Google Maps, there's a pool in the rear yard. Is that currently still there? No, that's right where the addition is, is where they had a pool. And above ground pool, above ground. Okay, I was curious where sort of the back wall of the proposed addition is relative to the position of that pool, just to get a sense as to the size. Yeah, I mean, I would say it's almost that on the exact site of the pool. Okay. What that makes. Yeah, so looking at the site elevation of the house, this is from the 37 side looking essentially Southwest. So this is the proposed porch at the front and then this is the proposed rear yard addition. This next is out of 20 feet. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I just wanted to be clear since it was mentioned that there is a fence and I believe that Mrs. Tulanian said that the fence is actually into her lot somewhere in the neighborhood of five feet. Is that correct? So it's actually five feet beyond the fence is your property, but the fence is actually five feet closer to your house. So my husband says it's not five feet. He thinks it's more like three, three feet, maybe four, but it's my, yeah. It's definitely three feet into our property line. So I believe on this site plan, it's this line here, this faint line, line of the fence. And beyond that, there's a stone wall, those old, the stone walls from 200 years ago are dividing most of our properties up here. And I think the former owner wanted to make sure he didn't take that away, that look away from the owner behind. So do you happen to know how long that fence has been in place? God, no idea, but they had a pool back there. So for a while. And do you think the fence was put up in conjunction with the pool, like to keep people out of the pool? Yes. I don't know is to keep people out. Cause it was an above ground pool. I don't know. And so I'm just curious though, do we know then is the distance that I see off the back where it says proposed addition on the site plan. And it says 21 feet from the corner. That's to the property line. Is that, is that accurate? I believe that's correct. And so, so what we're saying though, is from the corner to the fence would be more in the neighborhood of 18 feet. Likely. And it sort of goes beyond our purview, but I'm just wondering about what people have been doing with the land in between the fence and the property line. I mean, is that used for anything? No, it's a rock wall. It's a non-masonry rock wall. Okay. So it's not anything that the neighbors behind were using for any purpose. It was just sort of convenience that the fence was put there. Yes. And I think the wall, the rocks were there where the original developer built the neighborhood in the 50s, just that's how they divvied the, put their extra rocks, big, big rocks in a loose wall. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Just, just wondering. So for the decision for the board here, we have two separate requests for a special permit. One relates to the size of the front porch and its location within the front yard setback, which we can, which is within our purview to grant. And then the second is the large addition, which is both in the above the main house, but also in the addiction off the rear. So we do have a memoranda from the memorandum from the Department of Planning and Community Development in regards to this. There's a couple of questions. One is, you know, just that the application may need to be referred to the engineering department in regards to stormwater, just because it's gonna increase the impervious area by 350 feet. The planning department notes that in the last 20 years, at least nine homes on Oldham Road have been demolished and rebuilt and several more have received substantial renovations. Additionally, immediately abutting structures on either side have large open front porches, proposed addition and proposed front porch complement, the style and pattern of other structures along Oldham Road. The addition is designed to renovate the existing structure from a ranch style home into a contemporary colonial. While the renovated structure will be significantly larger, the elements of the structure are adequately ornamented and balanced and the force of the structure creating a welcoming appearance and improved streetscape as in the opinion of the planning department. Go ahead and stop the share here. So among members of the board, is there? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. For me, the major issue has to do with a large addition, not the porch. I think while eight feet is a little bit larger than we normally see, it doesn't seem to be unreasonable to me, some of the risks of having a large porch are things that we can deal with and the conditions that we usually apply. But that's kind of the tail wagging the dog because the large addition is a bigger issue. And I, especially now that we're privileged to have three architects on the board, it may very well be something on which they could set my mind at rest. But let me look, Mr. Chairman, at the zoning ordinance. The provision on large, the provision on large additions contains this sentence, in making its determination, the Board of Appeals shall consider, among other relevant facts, the proposed alteration or additions, dimensions and setbacks in relation to abutting structures and uses and its conformity to the purpose of the bylaw as set forth in section 1.2. And sort of the classic case of where something may be in conformity with the dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but nevertheless, not be reasonable because it's too close to an extra house is when there's a large difference in the size of the houses. And when the distances between the two are, even though they're within the setbacks that are required by the bylaw are such that one tends to dominate the other. And this is largely a question of judgment from the letters we've received. The folks on Oldham Road seem to think that this is great in terms of compatibility with their neighborhood. But that's really a separate question than the question of its impact on the immediate butters. On that, all I have to go on and I'm not an architect, all I can do is look at sort of where the silhouettes are on Google. It looks to me as if there's a fairly substantial distance, a substantial rear yard and Ms. McMillan's house, so that the two structures would not be that close to one another. It's also true that Ms. McMillan and her neighbor to the right have somewhat smaller houses and there are other larger houses even on Lantern Street as well. And so I'm sort of left and when I went out there, I didn't think to look at Lantern Street. I was looking at Oldham Road just the way all of the other documents are. And so I don't have a personal judgment that's based on looking out there from, there's, as I recall, there's a fence here so that it's very difficult from Oldham Road to see all the way back to the way the situation is in the other. So I must say, I have a quandary. I'm not hostile to this. It seems to me that this is an interesting design and an interesting way of really transforming this property and it's imaginative and I sort of like it. But when and if I write an opinion favoring this, I have to say why it is I think that and why I think the board thinks that taking into account these factors that there's not an unreasonable encroachment here. And I don't feel that on the basis of what we've discussed tonight, I personally am in a position of making an informed judgment on that. And I sort of would very much like to involve in the discussion what the professional architects, the chair and our two new members might think about this. It seems to me that this is a best of borderline case but it's not totally implausible that this is the kind of case that the bylaw was attempting to address. Yeah, so looking at that, please. Do you mind if I make a comment? No, go right ahead. So just responding to Mr. Hanlon's initial request, I think with structures that dominate other structures especially with large additions next to older homes, it's very likely that a two-story structure can really look large if we don't bring down the roof line. And I think the design of the proposed expansion at 41 Oldham reads still like a single story house with a second floor dormer condition, which will bring down the scale and I think especially in consideration of the back of Otter, having a single story volume that gets closest to their property, I do think helps with that scale difference. Yeah, so if I, in the background, I've been looking at the, go ahead and share this as well. So this is from Town GIS, this is looking at the, that this neighborhood. So this is 41 Oldham, or we're looking at by the town. So this is based on assessor's information, which calculates things a little differently, but they're calculating the current gross floor area of the house is 5,153, which, you know, some of the other, it's at this 4432, this one's close to 8,200. The 50 lantern that we had talked about before comes in at 78, 46 is around 3,000. So, you know, currently relative to other houses in the neighborhood, it's fairly comparable with the addition, it will certainly be larger than it is now, I don't think it would, you know, rise to the point where it's, you know, the largest on its block. But, you know, currently there is more backyard space separating a lot of these homes, and this will certainly take into that in the way that, you know, what I'm imagining was an addition at 37, that also crept into the rear yard. And I agree with Mr. Riccadelli's assessment that having the piece that goes into the rear yard, being a single story structure, rather than a multi-story structure is really helpful in terms of trying to sort of break the scale of it down as it approaches the rear lot line. I think if the, you know, if the board has concerns about the, still about the scale of that, the board can, you know, request that it not extend as far back, so there's nothing on the second, there's no second floor, so it's really, it's just impacting the size of the proposed room, which is about 21 feet by 21 feet in that area. And then the other thing the board can do is the board could always condition that a second floor not be allowed in that portion of the building. So that, you know, in the future, if, you know, if the house was sold, there was a new, you know, homeowner who wanted to just do a small second story addition over it that they would not be allowed to do that. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So there's a pretty, based on looking at this map and you sort of have to imagine what would happen if the addition to 41 was brought back to 20 feet from the lot line. It still seems to me that there's a pretty long space between the 46 and 20. And I just wonder whether, I mean, again, I wonder whether when we start that this seems to be an unacceptable, an unacceptable degree of encroaching I mean, the reason I asked Mr. McMillan at the beginning what the rear yard was in was to get a sense of what that distance was because this is, you know, it's not clear to me that this would loom over that property given the distances that were involved. A second potential thing to maybe point out in the mix is if we've talked a lot about trees in terms of what trees aren't there anymore, but maybe there's something to be said for working out ways of providing additional buffering so as to soften the impact as well. Again, I'm not convinced that this is a problem under the ordinance. It might be. And I guess I'd like to know a little more about what these distances are. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So if I heard you correctly, you said that the back single fan single story addition was roughly 21 by 21. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. So out of the entire increase in square footage. So we're talking about what 400 and change 400 square feet and change. And so, you know, we're really looking at an increase of 2200 and change. So that 400 is really a fairly small portion of the total. And, you know, when I think you made a comment about, you know, conceivably, somebody could bring that down in terms of the, the length out toward the backyard. But even if you did that and cut it in half, you're really only changing everything by 200 square feet. So that's, you know, I'm not sure it's appreciable. And, and so. I personally in considering this would not necessarily be in favor of suggesting a decrease in that, because I'm not sure it's appreciable. And so I personally in considering this would not necessarily be in favor of suggesting a decrease in that. Because I just don't think you get that much by decreasing it. And I, I appreciate Mr. Rickardelli's comments. About the fact that it is a single story. And I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that in the event. That this were to be approved, I think it would have to be made clear in the decision that it was going to have to be limited to the one story. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yes, you know, looking at the plot that you put up just previously, it looked like the backyards before you put the addition on was roughly 40 feet from the back of the house to the lot line for this house and the house behind it. So even with the addition of 20 feet. It's still 60 feet to the McMillan's house. Substantial distance in my estimation. Yeah. I believe this addition of 20 by 20 feet is very much in scale of everything. Holding them to one story would be nice. And I think the rest of the design is actually very handsome and complimentary to the neighborhood. It really doesn't not look like a God get you an out of scale house. It looks like a very interesting and handsome house in my opinion. And I think would be an X, you know, very good addition to the neighborhood. In my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. And Mr. Mr. Valarelli, if. You know, if this house was being built as a new bill. Yep. Okay. So with the exception of the porch at the front, there's nothing. In this proposal that's not in compliance with the town bylaws. Is that. Absolutely correct. Mr. Chairman, with the exception of problems for it. Okay. Further questions from the board. And one question, Mr. The addition in the rear. Is that a worded ceiling in that family space? Or is it a flat ceiling there? I don't know. I don't know. I have a question for the. Question for the applicants. It's a cathedral. And the metal roof is what is happening in all the new, newer addition portion, you know, with the dormers and. You know, the shed dormers and the gable. Is that. I know we're doing one over the front porch. I don't know what the architects has for the dormers. Okay. So it looks from the drawings that the, the main roofs are shink are. And then the. The style. All metal. Okay. One, one thing I just observed is the roof slopes are. The main roof slope for the main building is 12 by 12. And then the rest. Scattered, meaning they're not consistent. They're not. They're not consistent. They're not consistent. They're not consistent. They're not consistent. They're not consistent. I'm designing or dictating that it has to be consistent. But the 1812 in the rear is, is there a reason why that's been dictated as 1812? Is there. That could be brought down or so. You know, I don't, I don't know. I have to ask my architect. Okay. This is the roof over that. It says 1812. Yeah. That's correct. I was just curious that. I didn't see it that being. That dictating everything else. So it's kind of independent of the slopes there. So. If one wants to reduce the, the volume. You know, or the shadow that's going to cast on the south side. Possibility. Yeah. It's possible it was brought down just to make sure that that roof intersects the rear wall of the house and doesn't interfere with the. The other roof coming down. Yeah. It's, it seems like it's just, just barely coming, you know, below the face your board there. Right. Yeah. And the Eve line is set to tie in with the Eve line at the rear of the house. Right. So it's all that in mind. Yeah. So. There's sort of a couple of. The themes and sort of the way the discussion among the board. So it seems in general with the overall massing. My sense is that the board seems to feel it's large, but it's not. Overly large. In scale for the neighborhood. And also. In the general size and encroachment. In the general size and encroachment. In the general size and encroachment. As was pointed out, it is within the. You know, for the most part within the footprint. Excuse me, the allowable setbacks. For the district. There were several comments or guards to the rear. The rear or yard addition. That it being single story. That if that was to be allowed, that the board should. Include a condition to cap that. There was no other sort of general concern about the. The layout of the. Of the addition on the house. It was noted before that the. I believe the above ground pool is already gone. So don't need to worry about that. The front porch. At eight by 42 is. Is rather large. The, you know, in the previous application is only. Six foot eight deep. Which is already a little bit deep for what we typically see for farmers porches. But, you know, given the neighborhood. Given this. The setback that the house has against the street already and. You know, the owners. Intention to really sort of use that as a, as a meeting space, especially. You know, the outdoor meeting space and the bubble realm is sort of a. Yeah. Something something we all need. I think I could be persuaded that the eight feet is. Is not overly large. For the porch. We did have considerable discussion about the trees. And I think. That needs to solely rest with the tree warden at this stage. When the, certainly the tree warden will need to sign off on the, on the. Not necessarily on the building permit application, but on the. There's a sign off list that the applicant will need to go through before they can get their building permit. They'll also need to speak with the town engineer. In regards to additional lot coverage. I think that will come as a part of this as well. So if the board was to. Proceed to a vote to. On this project. I would recommend our standard three conditions, which we have already read into the, the record. I would also recommend. The board. I know that the area that proposed porch shall not be considered within the foundation wall of the building. And the open portion of the porch shall remain unenclosed, which I think we're going to massage now. Of course, the board shall remain open. We also, I would also recommend that the board request the applicant work with the town engineer to address compliance with the town stormwater management bylaw. And the applicant work with the tree warden to address compliance with the town's tree protection and preservation bylaw. There. And then we had also discussed that the rear. Yard single story addition. To remain. Story. Must voted on by the board. That will be. That is. Six conditions, the standard three. I would recommend that. The board. The porch remaining outside the foundation wall and remaining open. The applicant work with the town engineer applicant work with the tree warden in the rear yard single story edition is to remain single story unless voted on by the board of appeals. Are there any other conditions that the board feels would be appropriate for this project. Seeing none. May I have the motion in regards to this project. I move that the application be approved subject to the. Conditions that the chair has just enumerated. That is to say the three standard conditions, the conditions relating to the porch. The two requests that. For the engineer and the tree warden. And the. Remaining a single story. To the board of appeals. If there's any other questions. If there's any other questions. I'm back remaining a single story. And we have a second. Second. Any questions about what the vote is. None will take a roll call vote. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi, Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Richard. I. And the chair votes. I. So the special permit for. are approved with the seven conditions enumerated. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good luck. I do encourage you to stay with the pre-ward in this as soon as possible. Oh yeah, we absolutely will. Thank you very much. Definitely, thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that agenda, here's the agenda. Item number 14, which is docket number 3683, which is 66 Freeman Street. I could just thank you, Mr. Fuller, if you would like to introduce yourselves and tell us what you would like to do. Sure. My name is Robin Biggs, my husband, Nathan Fuller. We live at 66 Freeman Street and are the petitioners for this request. We have a non-conforming lot, so our lot does not meet the 25 by 25 open space, and that's why we are requesting this special permit. And we thank you for your consideration for our request to add usable square footage to our third floor with the installation of a shed dormer where there is currently finished space under the attic sloped roof. So our current third floor is finished space with two bedrooms, one bathroom and office, and the current ceiling height is six foot three inches. And so the proposed dormer will raise the ceiling height to above seven feet for 590 square feet of that space. We've lived in this condo since 2015. When we moved here, it was a major fixer upper and it had been foreclosed at some point in its history. And so we've put a lot of sweat, equity, and money into it to make it into our family home. And we've renovated it in the 1920 style of the home. So we're very committed to keeping that 1920s charm of the original building. We love living in East Arlington, both Nathan and I work in Cambridge and we commute by bike and public transportation to get to work. We have all together, we have four kids ages 17, 14, three and one. So the two older children attended Hardy Elementary School and Audison Middle School. The oldest Wilson is at Minuteman High and 14 year old daughter is at Arlington High Schools and freshman. And so we plan to stay in this home until the three year old and the one year old graduate Arlington public school system. So we're looking to expand the usable space in our third floor to make the home a little bit more livable and efficient for our family of six. And we are joined here as well by our contractor Bob Taranzoni who's joined the meeting as well to answer any construction questions that you may have. Thank you very much. So this is the site plan. There is a line of Audison's house immediately adjacent. This would be one of the first houses in the neighborhood to do the full side shed. Yes. In this on the street, yeah. The street, yeah. And then the only, the member random from the planning department, whoops, that's the one on one. Noted it just that the shed dormers and auditions are prevalent throughout the area. The most structures have only a single dormer instead of dormers on both sides of the roof although not required by zoning. Applicants encouraged to explore potential for minor adjustments, the location of the windows on the dormer to align better with existing windows on the side to side. Applicants encouraged to set back the front of the proposed dormer to align with the front of the existing dormer. This changes to improve, to improve the renovated structures contribution to the existing streetscape. So the existing, yeah. So the currently, so the bump out that they're now, sorry, one direction. So the front of the home is set back at this point. So the proposal is, if you were to start the dorm, the shed dormer back at this point, obviously you would run into, you'd run into trouble with the access to the restroom and you wouldn't have it with the bed. Yeah. And we couldn't, we wouldn't be able to have another closet in there because currently there's a closet, right? Where the restroom door is drawn there. Oh, I see. A small closet like under the eaves. Yeah. Because we originally considered that, but then we had a fourth child. So the two younger ones share this front bedroom. So increasing the square footage makes it a little bit easier for the two to share that one bedroom. Yeah, absolutely. This rear roof deck, this at the attic floor level? Yeah, so there's currently an enclosed porch, one of the rear porch. The first floor porch is just has a roof. It only has railings on the side. And then the second floor is fully enclosed with walls and a ceiling. And so the deck off the back would be on the roof there's a flat roof there now. So we wouldn't be changing anything about that roof. It would just be putting a railing around the flat roof that already exists there on top of that second story porch. Got it. And so the existing, I was a little puzzled by the way the structure is proposed to support the dormer, but I'm assuming that the contractor has a good reason for doing it. So I'm not second guessing. And then just to, so this is sort of the typical sort of zoning sheet for this neighborhood and for lots of portions of Arlington where the lot size is small and the usable open space is zero because there is no area on the lot that is 25 by 25. And the Board of Appeals has a longstanding practice that additions basically because you're doing an addition you're increasing the gross square footage you need to provide more additional open space. You are currently non-compliant with regards to usable open space you're because it's zero but you're basically going from zero to a greater degree of zero. So the Board does not typically find that that is making the project more non-compliant sort of equal level of non-compliance. Are there questions from the Board? Down our list, I see none. What's that in mind? Go ahead and stop the share. And I will go ahead and open public comment for the project. So if you would like to be heard on this please raise your hand using the button feature in Zoom or if you're on the phone you can dial star nine. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Let's see, any. That I'll go ahead and close the public comment. Mr. Vell, really was there a note in regards to dumpster placement? Was that this? There was Mr. Chairman. So one of the abutters was concerned about the dumpsters being placed on the side of the house either side of the house apparently they may be an issue with that. The abutter had no objection to the project itself but had asked if the dumpster could be placed on the street. It could be, it's a stretch it would take a permit from the police department but we would make every attempt to ask the builder if he could put this dumpster on the front lawn and support the neighbors wishes that the dumpster be not be placed on either side of the house if possible. Certainly it appears that the only side it could go on would be the driveway side because the other side would not be wide enough to support a dumpster. Correct. And we just had our front walkway refinished with beautiful Boston brick pavers and so we'd hate to put the dumpster on our front yard and we just planted a flowering dogwood tree in the front yard as well. So not the greatest place for us to put it. Would it be possible for the contractor to do to operate without a dumpster and just to load into a truck every day? Bob says he's having a little bit of connectivity trouble to be able to respond to that. No dumpster. He says no dumpster truck removal. Not really sure if that means he can do truck removal or not but yeah. So he says truck, okay. So he could potentially use a truck and not have a dumpster in the driveway. Yeah, we are aware of our neighbors wishes not to have the dumpster in the driveway next to her home. She doesn't like the dust from the dumpster. Right. In the past when we've done some junk removal we have covered it overnight and try to keep the dust down. Mr. Chairman, if I could just real brief. The contractor, High Tech Dom has been building in this town for, I bet you for sure over 25 years maybe even longer. Not only is he aware of the rules as far as half story, great work, great workmanship and I do believe that my memory serves me correctly. He does have a dumpster truck that can be brought onsite in offsite at the end of the day. Okay. Yeah, and Bob's texting me that we are just lifting the roof so he's cutting it and lifting it instead of removing the roof and replacing it with another roof. So there's less debris that will be generated by this renovation. He did that up the street for me a few years back. Are there further questions from the board? Based on the discussion we've had, it's only the three conditions that the board typically imposes we would want to impose. I think we would put a condition. As the board, if they're comfortable with requiring the use up to remove construction debris at in place of using the dumpster, to avoid storage of trash like overnight storage of trash. So that would require the use of a truck to remove construction debris and remount around to remove construction debris to avoid using a dumpster for overnight storage of trash. Anything else from the board? Seeing none, I have a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions plus the additional condition regarding the dumpster that the chair just read into the record. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. We have a second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Any questions in regards to what the vote is? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote at the board. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rickardelli. Hi. The chair votes I. So that is an approval for the special permit for 66 Freeman street with the four noted conditions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. This brings us, we will go back to item number 11 on our agenda. As this is our last meeting of the year, we want to take a minute and reflect on the work the boards accomplished this year. Mr. Hanlon had some comments you want to make. I think we all know that this has been a really extraordinary year. It's not usual that we have to fairly substantial 40 B applications. And in addition, somewhere around 40 regular cases. Some of which we actually didn't decide, but we had hearings on and they were eventually withdrawn. And this is probably a couple of orders of magnitude more than what then we are accustomed to doing. And it is produced an enormous burden on the board. And the board, including the people who are not here tonight, rose to the occasion. I thought we did things as thoughtfully as we can. I'm not going to say anything specific about any case that might be subject to litigation, but it we did our best to handle an extremely difficult and sensitive matter. And the court will now decide whether we did that appropriately or whether we were arbitrary and capricious. And so we'll leave that to one side. But forgetting for a moment, the substance of all of this and not just the 40 Bs, the amount of effort that has gone into making this board responsive, helping to make our, the reasons for our decisions clearer, providing for new application forms that correspond better and are more transparent to applicants. All of this has really taken the board another step towards being the sort of board that Arlington ought to have. That is attempting to enforce the rules in an impartial way and at the same time to do it expeditiously and courteously, both to the applicants and to the individuals involved. And in all of this, come back to the punchline. I guess it's not really a punchline. We, the board had the assistance of people who went way beyond the call of duty. And I wanted to take the opportunity to mention just three of them, although they aren't the only three. One of them is Mr. Valarelli, whose insistence is he's just been indefatigable. And if you, if, if the public only realized such as what a small portion of time he's paid for giving us, you can just imagine all of the other stuff he must be able to fit into the 30 hour days that he must be working. It's, it's been making this up as you go along. We didn't have standard operating procedures and Rick is there, not just on the 40 Ps, but on every single case that we have, helping us figure it out, telling us what the rules are, what the rules are, what the rules are. And so we're, we're just, we're doing this all of the insight that we, we saw tonight and he did it over and over and over again. And it really was, it was quite a remarkable, quite a remarkable thing. In addition to that is Vince Lee, who's still here because I'm extending the amount of time he asked to work tonight. He didn't. He's made it possible for us to live in the, in the world of virtual hearings. And we didn't have the resources to do this to start off. I mean, the town has worked to help us out. But inspectional services has done it particularly. And without then we could not possibly have done what we've done. And he is Kelly line of a who who actually writes all those reports that we talk about and whose ability to actually take charge of the 40 fees and to figure out how to organize them and organize the record and get things out into the public in a timely way so that the people can see what's going on and react to it. And one of that is what what Kelly did, and she's always done it with the greatest grace in the world. And she never she's she's terribly put upon and she never gave a hint of it at any point because she's just she's just a wonderful person to work with and talented and and again made it possible for the proceedings to go as well as they did. So I wanted to sort of reach out with a shout out to those people in particular and finish up with the chair because behind all of this. You know, we all see what what the chair does in our hearings, the way in which he has conducted the 40 bees kept us focused kept the people who are commenting focused behind the scenes. There's also a lot of work that is done, making sure the record is right, making sure things get into the record, making sure that the hearings are planned out in such a way that that they actually happen in a reasonably condensed way. Now I know that it will be a surprise to some of you to realize that some of those hearings were condensed, but only once did we go past midnight. And we did succeed. If you can remember what it was like when we did these things in person we succeeded in tamping it down and keeping keeping the subject the way it was. The chair has been behind all of the administrative changes that have taken place that have made this more responsive board and except for his demonstrated inability to hold on to board members. He has been an absolutely stunning performance really. And I doubt that there's there's anyone else and in town who's the head of one of our board of conditions or commissions who has has had that that degree of success in in taking over and and and improving the board that that he's come over. So I think we grant to just express appreciation and hope that the board is willing to express appreciation for all the, all those four people did because it was a challenging year, and they're the ones who enabled us to meet the challenge as well as we did. And I'll second that. And I'd also add that Mr. Hanlon, in addition to other things that I could probably say has just been such an able scribe for us throughout the year, and I think that too is a skill that may not be appreciated as much as it should be, but I mean in terms of all of the writing that got done with regard to the 40 be decision for Thorndike I know that Pat was behind much of that and I think that that should also be mentioned. And yeah, but the other things you said about the other people for sure. Thank you. Mr Chairman. I'd like to have my two cents. Please do so. So you and Pat have just done of this year. And Pat, you deserve a huge pat on the back. Not only your excellent writing and decisions. I mean, they are so far ahead of all the previous history of our decisions. I mean you look back to the 60s, your virtual comic books in comparison. And lastly, I would say you were kind of like the buttro's buttro's golly of us jammed up in that log your heads and nobody could really find a path out of the woods. You always seem to have come up with some kind of rational path that we come to a decision that would be legally defensible. And you know, the fellow up the heights, getting his pub was largely, you know, your svelte navigation through the legal ease of the matter. And you'd be very commended. It's been an honor to work with you. Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. Mr Chairman, can I add one comment. Keep on straight. Yes, sir. I just want to say, with this recent development around Thorndike place. I would very much hope the board doesn't take it as some sort of insults the wrong word, but but some sort of take it personally that it happened, because you folks have put in such an incredible amount of work and when you said, what was it, Mr Hanlon capricious and what was the other word a arbitrary, arbitrary and capricious. I can't think of anything that is more opposite to what you guys had to do. And I just, I know there's a lot of competing interests in town a lot of people have single issues that they follow pretty carefully and dramatically. But you've got to balance so much. And please don't take whatever's going on with the land trust is any reflection on any of the work that you, Mr Valerie or Kelly or anyone else did, because you did yeoman's effort. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr more I would note to you that we do have an open associate position. The application I understand is going out the first of the year if you'd be interested in applying. I may be dedicated but I'm not stupid. What I've seen in the past year. Thank you for your vote of confidence. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well thank you everyone is been a remarkable, you know, I don't know if it's just a year it's been a remarkable two years that just sort of blended together. And just starting with the heart that the heights pub where we were meeting still meeting in person, and we were just about to get the documents on Thorn Dyke place and then we were scrambling to figure out how we meet online and how we all get email addresses and how we do all of that and then. So we had a second be a second 40 be then on top of that and running all those hearings, figuring it all out it's it's been a great honor to be head of this, head of this board and just the level of contribution from all the members and from the town and it's just been really remarkable and there's certainly there's there's no way this board is, I think, emblematic of, you know, it takes a, it takes a town to run a town. You know, there were there were times where we were sort of, you know, begging borrowing and scraping, what support we could get from wherever but I think we've, you know, we've gotten together a great team. It's a board that can keep moving forward in a very efficient manner so I really look forward to next year. I think it's going to be a lot of fun. I really appreciate everyone's efforts from all corners it's really very very appreciated. So that is everyone's favorite. Part of the meeting. Thank you for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting I especially wish to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee and Kelly Lanema for all their assistance and preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note that the purpose of the board's recording this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. It is our understanding that recording made by us and transmitted to ACMI will be available on demand at tv within the foreseeable future. If anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zba at town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeal website. And to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you Mr. Dupont. Mr. Dupont. Mr. Dupont. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Rikadelli. Hi. Mr. Holley. Hi. And the chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Merry Christmas everybody. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. Thank you very much. Bye y'all. Take care.