 It is seven, both three PM, January 11th, 2022. Good evening, my name is Christian. Hi, I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. And I call it meeting of the board to order. I confirm that all members and. Members of the board. Roger Dupont here. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Here. You know, have you with us? And then. Yeah. We've reveled for her board or joining us this evening. Well, with some behalf of the town, we're telling really our board administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Revolack has joined us. Even good to see you. Good evening. Good evening, folks. And for the board. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening members of the board. 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. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022, meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirements of both all meetings and a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. At this time. I moved at the board and for executive session for the purpose of discussing legal strategies. In regards to the applicant in a budget limited to the members of the board. If it's time of the decision, the board administrator, town council and the board's council upon entering executive session, all other meeting participants will be returned to the waiting room until the conclusion of the executive session, which is expected to be at 7 30. The board appreciates your opportunity. Now I have a second on that motion. Second. Thank you. The board is now going into executive session. Mr. I really can't please. This is in. 50. People back into the waiting room. Good evening. Again. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the zoning board of appeals. Resuming this board. Back into session after. In the executive session. Previously. The members of the board. And. Officials. I don't believe we are joined by anyone. Actually. So we are joined by the town's. New senior planner. Who. Was allowed. Good evening. Hi, Christian. Great to have you with us. And. Congratulations on joining the town. Thank you. Yeah. It's always exciting. A new job. Welcome. Thank you. And then. I'm. So we are joined by the town's. New senior planner. Who. Was allowed. Good evening. Hi, Christian. Great to have you with us. And. Congratulations on joining the town. Thank you. Yeah. Always exciting. And then. Confirming. Appearing for our various hearings this evening. Don't think Bob and Essie is going to be joining us. He was going to appear for 83 Palmer speakers. They've requested a continuance. So. The portal. We'll approve the continuous rate of degree. Three minutes. Next up. Would be. Jen Potter for one place. Sir. Yes. I am here. For 25 Highland Avenue. Oh, good. I see you here. Good evening. I'm here. Good evening. Perring for 47. Broad Street. Hi. I'm here. Good evening. Perring for 238. Park Avenue. Nathan. Here. And. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Here. And here's the 121 Brattle Street. Susan Dressel. Yup. I'm here. Good evening to all. 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 16, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022. of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirements of all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long and 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 Donate Board of Appeals is convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being reported and it will be broadcast by APMI. 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 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 that you please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website, less otherwise noted. Public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. Ms. Chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. 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 in Algonquin word meeting 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. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. We will start this meeting with a few administrative items including the approval of decisions. These items will lead to the operation of the board from the such week conducted without input from the general public. The board will not pick up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. After introducing each item I will invite members of the board to provide any comments, questions or motions they may have. If members wish to engage in discussion with other members please do so to the chair taking care, excuse me, to identify yourself for the record. With that we'll move on our agenda to item number two which is to vote on the final decision for 41 Holden Road. This is the decision that I had written and distributed to the board for review and comment and the final version was distributed to members this afternoon. Are there any further questions on the final decision for 41 Holden Road? Seeing none I move the approval of the final decision for 41 Holden Road. Second? Second. Any further questions? Vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Hi. DuPont. Thank you. Hi. Hi. Chairman, I seem to be having a hard time hearing you in Mr. DuPont this evening. Oh. I don't know if your microphones are picking up on it very well. Just just seems to be loud. Thank you. Mr. McKinnelly. Hi. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. This brings us to item number three on our agenda which is to approval the decision for 66 Freeman streets. This was a decision written by Mr. Hanlon distributed to the board for questions and comments. And final version was posted to the board this afternoon. Are there any further questions or comments on the decision for 66 Freeman Street? Seeing none. I move approval of the final decision for 66 Freeman Street. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Vote are any further questions? Vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rickardelli. Hi. Chair votes aye. That is approved. That brings us up to item number four on our agenda is the approval of the decision for 28 Ottawa road. This was a decision written by Mr. Hanlon distributed to the board for questions and comments. And the final version was posted to the board this afternoon. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the decision for 28 Ottawa road? Seeing none. I move approval of the final decision for 28 Ottawa road. Do I have a second? Second. Hanlon. For the question, vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Rickardelli. Hi. Chair votes aye. That decision is approved. Item number five, the 1165 farm, that's the avenue. And I'm trying to remember now. So 1165 farm is a comprehensive permit that was approved at the end of the summer. And the decision was not appealed and the applicants have been moving forward with their documentation and they're currently in the process of applying for permits through the town. And so there's a series of reviews that are happening with Infectional Services and also with the Department of Planning and Community Development. And at this time it would be appropriate for the board if there was a member who was interested in sort of serving as a liaison to this project to sort of not necessarily to be reviewing anything but just to be in contact with the Department of Planning and Community Development in regards to the application and keeping the board informed of the progress on those applications. And then also if there is anything that needs to come before the board you would be able to bring that to the board at one of the meetings for discussion. I wasn't sure if anyone was interested specifically in serving in that capacity. Mr. Chairman if there are no other volunteers I wouldn't be doing. Well just to hand when you have one yourself a job of all the other ones of the administrative items that brings us to the hearing section of the next meeting. I'm now turning to public hearings on tonight's agenda. Some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I now see agenda item I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves to themselves make their presentations to the board. I'll then request that members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered I'll open the meeting for public comment and at the conclusion of public comment the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So the first item is number six on our agenda docket 36583 Palmer Street. As was previously noted we had a memo a memorandum that was prepared by Town Council that was delivered yesterday. The applicant upon receiving the memorandum has asked that for a continuance to allow him to review the memorandum with his client before proceeding. So we have a motion to continue on 83 Palmer Street. I have a second on that. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. Is there a date certain on that? The date certain. I believe Mr. Valerie will that be January 25th? It will Mr. Chairman. Absolutely correct. Mr. Chairman I second. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Any questions on regards to this? Go to the board Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Vanden. Hi. Mills. Hi. Mr. Riccadelli. Hi. Chair votes aye. So we are continued on 83 Palmer Street. The next item number seven. I'm just going to ask the the applicant's patience. I would like to continue to number eight which is 25 Highland Avenue. The reason for the switch one of our board members is needs to abstain from that hearing and he has a prior commitment later this evening so I would like to to proceed with 25 Highland Avenue and then then Mr. DuPont will be able to be excused from the meeting. So with that agenda item in front of us on our agenda is item number eight which is Dr. 3677 25 Highland Avenue. So this is this is a continuance of a prior hearing which took place on November 23rd. Subsequent to that the board had a change in membership and we have asked the applicants for both this and for one place and for Palmer Street to reappear at this time as a continuation of that prior hearing with a slightly different board and so we appreciate the applicant's cooperation with allowing us to continue with this. So with that Ms. Ban, if you'd like to proceed. Thank you very much. Good evening everybody. Appreciate us spending time with us together. So on 25 Highland Avenue we actually please allow me to speak today only for a special permit case and continuation of our variance permit for the parking. I have two very important items that our geotextile working on and I would like to ask that pushed forward to the next meeting if possible and discuss only special permit today. So that the information you have it in a docket that's that's the new just bringing up here hopefully this is the proper document. So for on 25 Highland Avenue we are asking for a special permit as a lack of usable open space at the property. We are looking to finish a basement and add a living space to the unit on the first floor so that will be the first floor in the lower level as well as finish the attic by adding a small dormer for the bathroom. Perfect. So you just brought up our plot plan and we are rebuilding the rear and deck to the existing size. It was brought up to my attention on the previous meeting the size was larger and that was correct. Architect has fixed that for me we're keeping in the same size everything stays the way it was a rear deck and the front existing porch. The only thing we're asking to add in the back steps from the second floor rear deck to the first floor as that's going to be our second means of egress for the second unit. Those steps are beyond existing. Yes. So that's the the only thing that we're asking to allow us to add as that would be a second mean of egress for the unit that is on a second floor. Everything else stays the same. We will rebuild the existing deck and then the just to make sure William's here like you're requesting. So at this point you're looking for a special permit to proceed with the renovation. So we're renovating the property inside out and we'd like to finish the basement and finish the attic by adding a smaller door mark. The lot is just on the smaller side and we're we're asking for special permit because of the lack of visible open space. That's something when I came to the building department Rick has discussed with me that we will have to go for special permit for that. Rick any help from here? So the application in front of us is just for the special permit and anything related to the parking that we had previously discussed that would require a variance that is no longer a part of this application? I'd like to speak on the special permit in the parking is a variance and I have two very important things that I was asked by the board last time to accomplish because the vendors delays and holidays I was not able to. Okay so if you scroll up we also have a property renovation plan attached in the docket and that shows how we're planning to finish the attic and the the basement. So what are we trying to accomplish is to increase the space in the living in the units that it will be more suitable for families. And that's the set of documents here? Yes updated set of documents attached. So we're looking at the basement first floor first floor and a second floor they stay in the same existing configuration pretty much we're moving a few things around however the what triggers the special permit is the attic. We'd like to finish by building a small dormer where you see the bathroom and on the next page the architect also gives the calculations on that for the floor area and the percentage half story I think it's one more. So there with the deck framing this is right here yeah so you see half story calculation by the architect we say was staying under 50 percent. Rick have you had an opportunity to review these calculations? I did Mr. Chairman so on right after the hearing on November 23rd I sent an email to the applicant as well as the board just recap in the events of that night it said on November 23rd the case was continued to January 11th tonight at the time the board requested additional information with respect to the variance request for the front yard parking. Please submit the additional documentation the board asks for as soon as possible. In addition to the continuance you're also applying for a special permit on the 8.1.3 b due to the lack of the usable open space and the proposal to add additional living space or way of a dormant and finished basement. The application for the special permit contains inaccurate and missing information without an accurate application it will be impossible for the board to render a decision. Also the existing plot plan shows a rear porch that is in violation of required rear setback. You may reconstruct the porch in its original location or apply for a variance. So the way I understand it is the application has backed off of the proposal for the larger rear deck and has gone back to the deck that was originally with the exception of a set of stairs. So that's where we stand tonight a little bit of an unusual case whereas the applicant was kind of depending on a decision on the variance with respect to front yard parking and then going forward with their additional request for a special permit. So tonight the board has in front of them a request only for a special permit for an increase of usable open space sorry for an increase of habitable living space lacking usable open space typical 8.1.3 b Thank you Rick. And also for the stair that's going on the outside of the rear deck is that something that we need to give a special permit 40539a. Ambiguous Mr. Chairman great question. It doesn't spell it out in the zoning it says that an open set of stairs can extend 5 feet beyond the line of the foundation for obvious reasons and in any area of the house just for accessibility. So where the applicant is proposing the set of stairs beyond the existing footprint of the deck is a little ambiguous and kind of a gray area. So it's really up to the board if they think that's okay. Mr. Chairman Cameron do we have as I recall the statute allows these by-law allows us to grant a special permit for enclosed entrances but these stairs are not enclosed even by the the view that IST has previously taken and I'm not aware of any place else where we have a right to grant a special permit at all. So if these things need a special important permit to encroach into the into the rear yard it's not clear to me that we have the ability to give that to them. I'm afraid I don't have the zoning by-law up in front of me right now but I appreciate it. My recollection is correct on this. Navigate to 539B so 539B under projections in the minimum yards unenclosed steps, decks and the like which do not project more than 10 feet in the front yard or more than five feet in the side yard 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 unenclosed steps, decks and the like which do not project more than 10 feet into the required rear yard and are not closer to the lot line than one half the size of the required yard may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district in which the structure is built. So these would be unenclosed steps would not project more than 10 feet uh and are not closer to over they're not closer to a lot line than half the size of the required yard. Mr. Chairman it seems to me that these things are either available as a right or not available. Do we have the ability to to do this by special exception? Go ahead i guess we'll switch back to the provided site plan the rift um for this district what's the required rear yard setback? Uh 20 feet Mr. Chairman. What required setback they are showing this point that is 9.1 feet on the steps to the rail uh excuse me to the property line. The problem we have uh there's a span so that's right now and really we're looking for that set of staircase as a second min of a grass for the second unit. Is there currently an interior set of stairs for the second floor? Uh right so with the new proposed plans we would like to extend the kitchen space and for that reason we have to bring them outside. And your proposed it looks from the plans you're proposing a 40 and wide stair back to five three nine b unenclosed the second sentence unenclosed steps steps and the like which do not project more than 10 feet into the required rear yard and are not closer to the lot line than half the size of the required yard may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided to the district in which the structure is built. So that's uh Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Calarelli reading that it sounds like as long as the rear as long as the stairs don't you know remain at least 10 feet off the rear lot line then they are in compliance with this regulation but I don't see something in the bylaw that says that we can violate this as a special permit. That is correct Mr. Chairman that's why it's before the board tonight. Okay so as drawn it would appear and correct me if I'm wrong that the stairs in the position they're shown now whether there's only 9.1 feet between the stair and the rear lot line that this is a variance request and not a special permit request. It's a it's a call that's before the board it just falls right in that gray area. Members of board what their opinion is on this whether this is something that the board can grant or whether it's something excuse me that the board can grant by special permit something that is available by right or something that would require a variance. Thank you Chairman. I think it is true that the only provision for a special permit under 5.3.9 is in 5.3.9a 5.3.9b which is what this would be there doesn't mention a special permit it doesn't particularly authorize it. So it seems to me that when it says that it may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for that that is establishing a rule that is applicable by right if they are able to comply with the provisions of b then they don't need to be before us and if and if they are not able to comply with that or don't don't wish to try to comply with that then it seems to me that the only thing they can do is to ask for is to ask for a variance because that's a residual authority that we already have. I find it a little hard imagine I would imagine but so that it seems to me is the legal framework with that that we're under we don't really have a special permit right here that either they can comply with and and do this as a matter of right if they comply with b or if they are unwilling to do that then they're going to have to ask us to marry the requirement of the bylaw. Let me ask you a question in order to comply with b and I've been working with Architect for trying to make it as suitable for the future family that lives in but also you know comfortable. What can what can I do in this case with the decks staying the same size on reconfiguration because the decks really they're not that large originally and we need to bring a set of stairs down. Yeah so my my sense is you've got a couple of options you can go if in the configuration it's shown now it would be a variance request right if you can get it so that the deck and the stairs can fit and there's still 10 feet off of the rear property line then it can be approved by right. Okay I understand so I need I need to stay 10 feet off my lot line maybe to make the deck smaller and make comfortable set of stairs down or the you know if you move the steps rather than being behind the deck that they are you know to the in this orientation they're to the right of the deck. Okay so what I will do I will probably work with Architect on this to stay within 10 feet not not to encroach 10 feet to the low line that's all the work on. However I think the most important question and special permit asking this one is to be able to finish the basement area and the attic. Switch back to that and I'll I'll work on the back step set of stairs I will I'll get back on that so when we will do a reconfiguration I will speak with the Rick in regards of that and we'll go from there. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. I wonder is this do is there any usable open space now on this property? Yeah so when you look at the plot plan the plan is when we will finish the renovation of two units we're planning to have a right side of the lot usable as a backyard for a unit on the first and the lower level and the back if you go from the corner of the property farther right corner to the right the back of the property will be backyard for a top unit and the side yard will be yard property green space open space for the unit on the bottom and where is it that you have the square with the 25 foot minimum dimension is that that's in the back? Mr. Chairman I don't I don't think they actually have usable open spaces to find in the pipeline. That's where I'm getting if this is another one of the zero to a greater degree of zero cases it makes it a lot simpler case given our ordinary practice. There you know horizontally I don't think there's anywhere that 25 by 25 but also the site is pitched I think greater than eight percent. Okay yes that's correct. So we were able to if you do remember from the last meeting we were able to do a little bit of regrading as we were able to put three and it was just just right under four feet retaining wall on the lot line and do the grading so that way we have comfortable yard space for the owners. This is a retaining wall on this? So retaining wall is on the right side along the lot line. In addition to the existing retaining wall on that side or was there a retaining wall previously? No no we just what it is it was a little bit inclined so we did regrading and I know a couple of neighbors brought to to your attention of the board and I answered that we have a pictures there was a small retaining wall between a 25 pile nav and the neighbor on the right and that that's what was done there. So that way we have a usable space for a unit for each unit to have a backyard open space. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. Can I ask Mr. Valarelli is there any other non-conformity that is involved in here that we need to think about or is this only a matter of the usable open space requirement that we usually deal with? It is Mr. Hanlon so they do not have any usable open space. They cannot achieve usable open space. It does not exist on the lot. It could never exist. It's a typical 8.1.3 b. They're asking for additional living space without sufficient usable open space. And there's no other non-conformity. This is just a pure case of the usable open space problem that we usually have. Again, very ambiguous. I mean we're talking about the rear yard deck, allowability if you will. So a deck on the rear yard can extend off the rear yard line of the foundation up to 10 feet or not more than 50% of the required rear yard setback. So this just falls short. So I guess the question before the board is, is the board comfortable with the stairs being ever so slightly in violation of that with respect to where one would declare the rear foundation? It's a tough call. I don't think we've dealt with this before. So to answer the first question you're absolutely right. They just have clearly no usable open space and want to add some living space to the house. The other question is, is the board comfortable with the open set of stairs in the rear yard? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. If I may, I just wanted to make clear that in plain English there's probably lots of usable open space here, but there's a special restrictive zoning order, zoning bylaw interpretation of what it means and actually it is probably to the applicant's benefit to not have any open space under the technical because we have our usual practice is when somebody has zero it is just adding some gross square footage ordinarily. Our practice is to go, is to not treat it as an extension of a nonconformity when you go from zero to a greater degree of zero. So paradoxically the answer that there is no usable open space is probably favorable to the applicant and I don't know that that's the sort of thing you need to pour yourself a heavy belt afterwards to try to get your mind around after hearing, but at this point it looks to me as if there's nothing unusual with respect to the increase in the gross square footage and the question that has to do with the projection into the backyard that we started off discussing and that the applicant seemed to indicate that she was happy to go back to her architects and see if they could move things around a little bit to make that compliant with 5.3.9 B. Is that, do I understand right what your precision is? You just did that perfectly, yes. So looking at the plot plan where 9.1 off the lot line and we will work with architects to be 10 feet off the lot line and work on that so that that will be fixed and the set of stairs will be within the Are there other questions on this application from the board? No, I think this is just finishing adding, finishing the adding a small dormer plus the basement and that's it on this application. Is there a question from the board on this application? Mr. Chair, I had a question. This is Minkhet. On the dormer calculations, on the calculations for the dormer, I saw a note saying four feet high. I did not understand that dormer greater than four feet or is it supposed to be seven feet there? This is the question for me. I think so, yeah. I think it's just a title on your page. So on the architect, yeah, I'm pulling it up too. I wanted to say the because on the different, this is the calculation by architect. And I'm sorry if I made answer that. I want to do the best of my knowledge. I want to pull up. There's a different view of she's bringing up. So on a page a 1.4. So we have she's showing where the seven feet height line is in the middle of the property in the middle of the house. And there is a 48 inch knee wall all around. This plan, I believe what they're saying is that the existing area, which is this part down here. Right. Yes. Yes. So the grass area, which is And then the addition for the dormer. Yep. For the bathroom. This is that seven foot. This number four here should read seven. It's not the dormer area because that was Yes. The dormer should be seven feet high. That's a typo it looks like. Yeah, probably. I will check in with her. So now the dormer is seven feet. It's a livable space size for the bathroom. We're adding the height. Any further questions? I had one more. If you open. Go ahead. If I go back to the the site plan, I had, I was looking at the rear setback as 17.8 feet. And I remember Rick mentioning it's 20 feet for that district. What is, is there something? I see a 17.8 foot dimension there. Rear lot lines. So the existing position of the house is It's already under the 20 feet. Okay. So it's already under non-confirming and this is Okay. Understood. So Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is an exception to Raya depth. And I don't see it on my plot plan. So the generic Raya setback is 20 feet or 20% of the lot depth. So not having a calculator in front of me. Let's say the lot is 90 feet deep. That would be an 18 foot Raya setback. Sorry. I can't be more helpful for that, but I don't have any dimensions on the plot plan that I have in front of me. In any event, there are two, there was one exception to the Raya. Setback, the generic setback is 20 feet. The exception to that is 20% of the lot depth. So it appears that the depth of the lot is 88, there is the 88.43 and 88.96. So 88.43 and 20% of that is 17.69. So are you saying that 17.69 is the required rear yard setback for this lot? For this lot, yeah. That is correct. So if it's 88.96, 20% of that would be the Raya setback for this particular lot. Mr. Chairman. So as I recall, when we had the zoning bylaw, what it says is unenclosed steps, decks and the like, which do not project more than 10 feet into the required year yard and are not closer to the lot line than half the size of the required yard makes them beyond the minimum, larger regulations. If the required yard is only 17 feet and change, and it's half of that is what you have to stay away. Why is the 9.1 not in compliance now? We were working on the assumption that it would be point that it is that 20% of the depth would be the correct number. Right. So we now at 8.9. That's 8.845. So it's 50%. So with that, then it is actually at 9.1. It is in compliance with 5.390. And so that can be constructed by right. So if the board will reconsider, so we'll get back to that question and we'll look at it that way. If there are a way to keep the way it is on the plants currently without going back to the architect and the land surveyor development. Yeah. So the only question then is just to make sure that the entirety of those stairs remain at least 8.9 feet off the rear lot line. Oh, but I'll be there with a measuring tape. 9.1 is the widest. It looks like it's tighter. So we just want to make sure that we remain in that 8.9. Right. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. As long, if we're going to, we have to take this whole case up, I think, in terms of with the variance shortly anyway. You know, I love doing arithmetic at the Blackboard, but as long as we have a little time, I'd like the applicant of Mr. Valerelli to go over these figures, do the calculations again and make, just make sure that what we've just been talking about is what the actual circumstances are. If the applicant misses, she doesn't miss by much. And, but I would like to be a little more, I would just like to have our arithmetic checked before we actually have to make a decision on this. Okay. I think we can work with Rick on that. Good. Are there any further questions from the board? Donna, now we're going to open the meeting for public comments. So public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at the end, which will be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and they comment. The chair asked those wishing to address the board the second time during any particular hearing to please be patient. And 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, if you are on the participant tab or the reactions tab, I can't recall. The reaction step in the Zoom application, those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate who'd like to speak. To be called upon by the meeting host, to be asked to give your name and address. It should give in time for your questions and comments. All questions to be addressed through the chair. And please remember to speak clearly. And once questions and comments have been addressed, or the time allotted has ended, the public commentary will be closed. The two hands raised the moment. So we'll begin with Mr. Hansen's story. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hansen Stewart, a clarification question that you may be able to answer. Mr. Valarelli, I have a large addition under county law. Mr. Valarelli? Yeah, so anything within the existing foundation is not considered a large addition. A large addition is actually, in addition, as we know it, it's expansion of a footprint. Anything within the existing foundation does not qualify for a large addition, even if it exceeds 750 square feet. Again, that's true. That's within the existing foundation. This is the property line. And then I guess it's on a section as a special permit application about kind of heritage districts. I'm not aware of other houses in this area that have actually a third floor deck. I think the typical setup is the first floor deck for the second floor. The deck for the third floor strikes me as a bit out of character and maybe a potential privacy in terms of neighbors that have folks on the deck. So far, I just wanted to raise that as something for me to consider in this special permit. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Mr. Valarelli, are you aware of the prevalence of third floor decks? Mr. Chairman, they're allowed. They are allowed. They are not a desirable thing, but in any event, they are allowed. And until Special Services is told that they are not, they will continue. If I could just take a quick second, because this might save us time going forward tonight, the problem that keeps coming up with respect to trees, that is now part of the building permit application for all residential construction. Even if a tree is nowhere in sight, the tree ward now has to sign off on it before any building permit is issued. And after the meeting we had in November, next business day, I actually did go to the building department and took care of that. And I spoke with the tree ward on the plan of protecting trees. We haven't done any work around the property as we're waiting on the decisions. So I spoke with the particular the property project manager on site and I'm following this myself closely with trees will be protected if they're not yet before we proceed with the work on the property. That's in place and all the plans are with the builder on what to do with the trees around. We have a couple on the lot line, the neighbor on the left and the mature tree in the back. That's very important. Thank you for that. Next on the speaker list is Medeiros. Hi, I'm Laurie and Medeiros. I live at 21 Highland Ave, which is on the right side where the yard is going to be to 25 Highland Ave. My questions are basically, this work is already done because they've already dug out the basement. They've already put in the well wall, the well windows and all of that. So it's kind of like we put the cart before the horse here because now I have what was originally called a wall. It's now a retaining wall, which has three feet of the basement rocks and everything else that came out of the basement now pushing on to my property and giving me lateral pressure with this wall that's now built up in the yard, which has now changed the whole trajectory of water coming down the hill. We're on a hill. We're not flatland. So Highland Ave is a hill. So the water all comes down in a certain way. Now the last rain that we just had, the whole side of my house just flooded. So I have a concern with the fact that this wall that was supposed to just be a wall has now turned into a retaining wall that was just filled in. And I've been told like at least twice that an engineer was going to come out from the town. I haven't had any follow-up on that. I'm just very concerned because this wall now, with the pressure that they're going to put on it, whether they put patio pavers, I mean, now it's even with the backyard, is now pushing on my foundation, which is an issue because now I have water against my foundation, which I've never had in the 20 plus years I've lived here. And this has all been brought up. And it's kind of like everybody's kind of rushed to just get like this kind of stuff done. But we're not, you know, looking at the whole neighborhood as a whole here. I mean, I understand that people are going to be living here, but these are basically contractors that are going to flip this house. So I don't want to have to deal with people that are going to be moving in with a problem coming at them. That's not very, you know, neighborly to say, well, you know, now you have this wall that is there drainage behind this wall? I didn't see a drainage plan for behind this wall. I've seen no drainage plan for any part of this yard. So the drainage is just going into my yard. You know, and no one's looked into any of this. So we're talking about decks and everything else. And I'm concerned about my property. Florian, thank you for the feedback. And you do have my number and also the builder's number. And I wish when we had rains, you brought up to our attention because we also have an engineer that works with us on all of this and we could solve. We're not trying to hurt the neighborhood by any means and we're not some contractor trying to flip the house. It's not that we're developing, making the property very suitable and comfortable for the next family to come and leave by adding value to the neighborhood. And I wish we had this conversation on the phone or in person prior this. If you have such a concern, a builder was very open and we've had multiple conversation when we worked on this. I apologize, but this is the first time I hear and I'd like to get it addressed first. We actually spoke to your husband about this at one point. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Was that directed at me? Yes, sir. Yeah. So they do have a permit for demolition. They have a permit for what they have executed to this point. And at this point, the job is out of standstill pending board decisions on certain matters, but they do. They do have permits for this. And have they, were they required to go through the engineering division? To the best of my knowledge, there was no increase of 350 square feet of impervious area. If there was and if there is, that burden is on the builder as in special services, cannot possibly monitor all the jobs that are going on in town. So to answer your question and everybody's question regarding drainage and so on and so forth, if the impervious area was increased by more than 350 square feet, then they need a stormwater management plan. If the retaining walls that have been constructed are greater than four feet in height from the base of the footing to the top of the wall, they need a building permit. If they are not, they can be done by right. They can be done on the lot line. If the board grants down the road the variance for front yard parking, I would imagine that at that point, the increase of impervious area will far exceed 350 square feet and we would have to take a look at it. As for what's happening right now, I would need a report from Ms. Van on exactly what the change was on the property. You know, Rick, I will provide that report for you tomorrow. Rick, as far as you know, is there an approval of a retaining wall on that property line? Again, Mr. Chairman, no. There are no permits. I can ask Ms. Van, as far as I'm concerned, Ms. Van, or as far as I can recall, there are no permits for retaining walls. Again, if they are not greater than four feet in height. They're not greater than four feet. They're not. I thought we had that conversation before. No. No permit is required for retaining wall less than four feet in height. And that also question was brought up in a meeting in November and we spoke about it. There was a neighbor from the back. Again, Lorraine, I apologize and I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'd like to see what is happening and have our engineer to look at it. That creates a bigger issue for your property. We're by any means, we're not here to just flip the house. This is not our first project we're doing in Arlington. And every time we did it with the high quality and no harm to the neighbors. I just want to say that the only thing is though I have contacted you. I have spoken with your husband and we have discussed this and there was no drainage system put in. I would like to know where the drainage system is. There's no drainage system put in. So that I find to be a huge problem. As I say, you're going to put pavers on this backyard. Then we're going to have even more rain that's going to drain right into my yard. I don't know what's going to happen in the future when people buy this house. I know we had no plan to put pavers. So we're trying to increase. Is the next one we're going to put in pavers? You don't know that. This is the problem. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I think that Ms. Madeira needs to be talking to you. That's a good point. Yeah, so we do want to try to keep this from being just a direct conversation between parties. So obviously there's definitely an issue on the side of the property that's going to need to be addressed. And the board will absolutely take that into consideration as it proceeds with its deliberations and decisions. Mr. DeRosa, are there any additional concerns? No, I think that that's it. Just that I just would like to get answers. As I say, I've gone to the building department multiple times. I've called the contractor multiple times. And instead of answering my questions, they built the wall in a day and filled it in in a day. So I mean, that's pretty much to say where we stand. Or a builder was with you. Thank you, please proceed. So I just want to make sure that the neighborhood, the three houses that surround me are, you know, and myself are all not going to be deluged in, you know, as is right now, I'm having rain come down and go around the back tree of my house, which the tree is losing dirt around the roots of, I mean, I have two giant trees in my backyard. This is just what they do on that property shouldn't change my property. I shouldn't be affected by this house in any way. If anything, I should be able to look out and say, what a beautiful house. Not that now I'm having flooding down my walkway, not that I have this wall that had, they had to put it on the line and they had to put every amount of dirt that was in that basement into on this wall. So now they've made themselves a yard that was not there previously. So if somebody from the town would, please finally just come out and check it out. I'd just be appreciative of that and have a conversation with me. As I say, I've been to the town numerous times. This is, it's just kind of silly that this is what I have to go through. Understood. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? Close public comment on this hearing at this time. So this is a pretty convoluted request at the moment. So there's, there's some items that are, can be approved by special permit. There are some items that need to be approved by a variance. And I think we need to be very clear what is what. And then we need to be clear about what the conditions are going to be. And there's, there are some of the neighbors that have expressed concerns about the current condition of the site. And the board needs to consider whether that the approvals of the board is going to grant how that is going to work back into those concerns. So the initial request, which has included a request for a variance that that variance was for, excuse me, parking within the front yard step back. And that is currently being stayed. Is the intent that that will, there will be a new application for that scope of work or are we being asked to divide the, this current application into two portions and continue one portion of it? And that's Mr. Valarelli, what is interpretation of that? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. So initially the applicant was going for just the variance for the parking space in the front of the property. Based on how that went, they had a plan to do some development with the property which was going to require a special permit due to the lack of usable open space. So fast forward to tonight because they did not get their engineering that the board requested for tonight's hearing. They are shelving the variance requests for the front yard parking and going forward with the special permit request for the additional living space lacking usable opening space, a typical 8.1.3B. The variance request will be revisited at the board's discretion. And also when the applicant has the documentation that the board requested back on the 23rd of December. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Earlier we had a conversation that I was part of that at least I was under the impression that all of this was going to be considered together that the special permit would be decided upon at the same time as the variance. So we would be solving everything at once and taking a comprehensive look at it. And that in the meantime, the various calculations that we were doing at the Blackboard would be confirmed and we'd know exactly where we stood on the stairs. I for one think that that would be a much better way of doing it than acting now on the special permit and then acting separately on the variance in a couple of weeks. And the applicant seemed to be in agreement with that procedure and if she is that is the way which I at least think that we could most effectively proceed. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I ask one question? Yes, Mr. Chairman. If it's all possible today before the board, I would like to have a decision on a special permit so we can start working on the site and have it weatherproofed and closed while I'm getting Geo-Tec and Engineering plan in place for the hearing. So if I can work on interior of the property at this given moment and keep working on exterior of the property with reports for you, I would love that decision if that's all possible. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. It is, if we were to act on the special permit today, we'd have to have a written decision which wouldn't be ready before the 25th and then there's a certain period of time after that. So we're already talking even if we act today about not having anything that the applicant could actually rely on until somewhere around Valentine's Day. I'm not sure that that really addresses the problem if the problem is to close up the building before the winter comes. So what is the anticipated deliverable state on the engineering that you're waiting on? So I know that Geo-Tec was on site actually yesterday, Monday and that's an important report and we're waiting for. They say if we've got received all the paperwork. So even if decision made on the special permit, we really cannot act on the working on the property until everything is, it will take more than a month. Well, you, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. From the time in which we actually have a decision which will be the written decision, that needs to be filed with Town Clerk and there's a period of 20 days after that to ascertain whether or not there will be an appeal and the special permit as I recall doesn't become effective until all of that time has passed. And if that's true, then the earliest date it could become effective is the middle of February. Well, if it's again, if it's all possible that sooner than having a next meeting pushed back with everything that will push us back even farther. There are members of the board. How do you guys feel are people comfortable separating the special permit from the variance and handling them as separate decisions at separate meetings or do we want to keep this consolidated as a single set of decisions made at the same time? Mr. Chairman. I think I'd just like to echo what Mr. Hanlon said. I think the calculations on the back rear yard, though it sounded like they are in compliance, it would be good to just make sure we double check those offline so we can feel confident we're making the right decision on that. Mr. Mills, do you have a opinion on how we should proceed? I'm thinking variances are always very tricky as we well know, Christian, and a huge stumbling block in and of themselves. It may be better procedurally to divide the problem in half and keep the special permit on one pocket in the variance in the other. Otherwise, I think the special permit could never be granted. The variance could be a much longer road. And in the end, for the sake of the applicant, going with the special permit may allow them some practical relief. That's our job is to try and help them get this stuff built. The variance could be much trickier as we well know. It could be a lot more give and take and going back and forth, meeting after meeting. So I would recommend separating the two. I'm not saying we have to decide it now. We still need more information on the permitting budget. In regards to the primary question, really, is the offset from the rear lot line for the steps? Would the board be comfortable with a condition that would be conditional? It would essentially just limit the extension of the deck and stairs off the rear of the house to a position no greater than 50% of the required rear depth. And then it would be up to the building department to confirm that they're in compliance with that rather than us assigning a very specific number to that condition. I can agree with that. I could work with that. Agreed. Conditions that would be appropriate for this. Obviously the board has its standard three conditions, which I'll read into the record now, but they would be applicable to this and to any other decisions that the board reaches this evening. Condition number one, the final plans and specifications approved by the board for the permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection to this application for zoning relief. There will be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the zoning board of appeal. Condition number two, the building inspector is hereby notified that he's monitored the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he determines that violations are present and the inspector of building shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw under the provisions of chapter 40, section 21 to be an institute not criminal complaint. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve an institute appropriate criminal sanction as also in accordance with section 3.1. And number three, the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. We just discussed that we proposed their does the board want to in regards to trees that we've had some discussions offline about whether the board should include conditions that basically require the applicant to comply with provisions that they're required to provide with any waste. And so I know there's been certainly expressed about a tree in the rear yard and it's just about a rather pointed out that will be handled in due course because the the tree ward will be required to sign off on the permit application as it makes its way through the town. So, Mr. Mills. Yes, I have a question from Mr. Valarelli relatives to the changing grade of the neighbor's yard and how it's affecting drainage. While the applicant has changed, they filled it part of the yard and the neighbor is stating it's caused a problem onto their property. Mr. Valarelli, if you could, sir, address that question. Is there anything in the town zoning by the laws that impinges on this question? Great question, Mr. Mills. So two ways to go here for a about to get adversely affected by drainage. The town zoning by law, as we know at the stormwater mitigation, if you increase the impervious area 350 square feet, automatically you need a drainage plan by a certified engineer approved by the town of Allington Engineering Department. And I know, but I don't have it in front of me, also the building code addresses drainage, adversely affecting a butters and maybe the architects on the board can help me out with that. The stormwater management plan has been stringent enough to address concerns with ongoing construction in town, but I do know there is something in the building code that addresses it as well that I just can't put my finger on it right now. I also will make sure that we go out this week to the property and we'll speak with the Elurian Medeiros on that because that was not brought up to my attention in terms of the stormwater and the water issue. That was not and that will be mitigated immediately. Again, Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to remind the board that they can impose any condition that they feel necessary whether it is written in the Zoning By-law or not. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. General, I'm sympathetic with those who are reluctant to simply restate other provisions of law as a condition, but this case is giving me a little bit of a concern because there's obviously a lot of activity that has gone on site, some of which is activity that Mr. Moore were here would point out to us is that has the potential of adversely affecting trees on site. And I would have thought that we would have a tree plan already that would cover all of this. And the fact that we don't and that activities, as I say, are going on and are proposed to be going on, I guess I would feel comfortable requiring thinking a little bit about what the conditions would say because the problem is, is that it's connected with the building permit and yet some of the activities that are taking place on site are not connected with the building permit and are happening earlier. And I would like to make sure that ultimately that there's full compliance with the tree by law separately from what happens in the building period process, building permit process. If I was to propose a condition that the applicant is to prepare a tree plan approved by the tree ward and prior to any further construction on the site, can that address your concern? Yes. Mr. Hamlin, I spoke with the tree ward next business day from the new November meeting and we've pulled the permit and we discussed what needs to be done. I counted and put a plot plan with all my trees marked in the building department. Since then, we had no activity on site because we just couldn't move. We're working on the old information to get to the board in front of the board for special permit invariance. And that's why I'm asking to split this permit so we can start working and get the site wrapped up. Mr. Chairman, I'm quite sympathetic with what Ms. Ben is claiming, but when she does get back to work, I would like it to be with a tree plan that has been approved by the tree ward. Then also, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan to be approved by the town's engineer. I don't know if that is sufficient or if we want to state something specifically about what we want the drainage plan to accomplish. Do we think we should get an engineer on site first and follow his advice? I mean, I'm not an engineer. Well, it would be incumbent upon the applicant to provide a plan that can be approved by the town engineer, which is why I want to have, you know, speaking to the board to be clear what we want this engineering plan to accomplish, what we want this drainage plan to accomplish, or we're looking to, you know, to prevent. So obviously, historically, there has been water flowing between the property, but obviously the changes in the site topography has caused a change in that flow. So I think we just need the board to be clear about what its intentions are in regards to, excuse me, in regards to this plan. Are we looking to have all the water mitigated on site? Are we looking to reduce the flow? Are we looking to redirect the flow towards the front of the property? Is there any sort of thoughts along those lines about what we want this drainage plan? I think sort of the minimum would be just to say that water is to be mitigated on site. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I think somebody needs to do some research to actually see what's in the building code, and then we could have a stipulation that it meets the building code, vis-a-vis drainage, from one lot to another. This would certainly be, certainly whatever's in the building code would still be in effect, and this would be in addition to that. And, you know, possibly have the town engineer responsible for assessing the situation. Okay, so the question is, do we have enough information this evening to proceed, or do we require additional time? Is it good if we could proceed? Could we have her submit a storm water plan as a condition? Absolutely. And shall submit a storm water and drainage plan to be approved by the town engineer surface water is to be mitigated on site or storm water. That would be, that is six conditions of the initial three, and then the one of the proposed that can stay on the rear yard, so I might have been closer to the rear lot line than 50% of the required rear yard setback. Number five would be the applicant is to prepare a tree plan approved by the tree warden prior to any further construction on site. And number six, the applicant shall submit a storm water and drainage plan to be approved by the town engineer into getting storm waters to be mitigated on site. Are there any further conditions to be imposed by the board? Are there any further questions or progress with the application for the board? I'm kind of thinking about the retaining wall question. Was there an existing retaining wall or a new one has been built in this situation? Or who owns a retaining wall? So the wall was built right on the lot line. It's under four feet. Because we had where the property is situated to the right side, it's sloped. So we wanted to just regret it a little bit so new owners have a green space. And I know Lorraine Medeiros has mentioned if pavers going in, the plan is no pavers. We want a grass for people. So through the chair, I'd like to ask the applicant. So it is a new retaining wall. It is entirely on your property. It's entirely on our property with the land surveyor measuring the property and giving us the markings. And it's brand new. Brand new. Okay, thank you. Are there any further concerns from the board? Can I ask you a question, Mr. Valorelli? Certainly. Mr. Valorelli, with this wall, since they don't need a building permit, do they have to build a foundation that would keep it stable? Is there a code on that? No, again, no building permit, no rules and regulations, other than it has to be on your lot line. When a building permit is not required, no inspections are required. So we have no idea if this wall will be stable in five years. So with the construction that we're doing, we have a report of all the pictures, the footings, anything was done in the process. We have that report. I can provide that. I'd like that as a condition to be provided. Thank you. Just trying to make sure five years down the line, this neighbor's great concerns and it's our job to make sure the neighbors are taken care of. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Thank you. So applicant to provide design documents for all site and retaining. So applicant to provide design documents to protection services for all site and retaining malls. Is that what you're looking for? All right. So with that further questions, I'll be looking for a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move that the board approve the special permit under section 8.1.3 subject to the standard conditions plus the additional conditions that have been read into the record regarding the tree plan, the stormwater plan, the design documents, the design documents for the retaining walls, and I'm missing one, which stormwater tree plan, walls, and the second stair distance. The second stairs addition. That's right. I mark drainage plan and the stormwater plan is two things. Yep. Okay. Do I have a second on that? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Any questions on the board as to what we're voting on? Any none? Vote at the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Bells. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So that is an approval on the special permit under section 8.1.3 for 25-highland happening with conditions as stated. Thank you all very much. And just to just keep us posted on the variance application as that moves forward. Yeah. I appreciate it. Thank you so much, board. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. That, I will bid good evening to Mr. DuPont. My name has a prior engagement. We'll now get to go. Going back to our agenda, we're going to now return to item number 7 on our docket, which is 3676, which is 1618 Swan Place. A application for a special permit for variance depending on the condition of the application is with us. I'm going to quickly try to locate documents that were recently submitted. But if the party would like to go ahead and introduce himself, I will get this on the screen. I'm Ben Potter. I'm a lifelong resident. And I live at 16 Swan Place. I grew up at 7 Swan Place and bought the house to be close to my father who was ailing at the time. I have, I bought it with the knowledge that it did not have parking, but that I had two off-street parking permits per unit. And I've been able to park at my dad's house. And now my father has passed. We also have two little kids since I purchased the property and getting them in and out of the car was more manageable with one. Now with two, it's very not manageable to park on the street. And then maybe sometimes there's not a spot right out front. And then you're shuffling kids back and forth with going back and forth can be difficult. So I had a meeting in November and the board asked me for the certified plot plan, which I got for the meeting or I scheduled for the meeting for December, but then the board didn't have enough people to vote on my application here because Mr. DuPont is working on my father's estate. And so now I have it here on the 11th. I have the certified plot plan from Bayside Engineering. And that's my application. Thank you. You know, if I remember correctly, essentially the thing that the board was trying to determine was the position of the house relative to the sidewalk and whether there was sufficient space for parking that would not interfere with the sidewalk. Right, that's correct. Yeah, sorry, I didn't add that. So the engineering Lucas Perkins for Bayside Engineering is familiar and has done work in Arlington and has added the parking of eight and a half by 18 and a half in each proposed spot here that does not impact the sidewalk. And in order to accomplish this, you would need to redo the steps leading to the entry porches that are on the side of the house. Is that correct? Yes, just one. So basically they were mirror images. And of course, when I redid the porch, when I first bought the house, I just moved the stairs up a little bit because I thought it aesthetically looked good on the 18 side. And so now we'll just kind of peel them back. Then they're not covered and they'll just mirror 16 side. No, we have looked at this before and I'm not sure. Is there any anticipated issues with the manhole that's in the sidewalk closer to the 16 side of the house? No, I spoke to Jeff Saca with Saca and Sons who's bonded by the town and he said that it will not interfere with the sidewalk or the drain. Okay. And if we were to grant you permission to build these, would maybe you would have to get curb cuts from the town and re-grade the sidewalk to get it down to the drain? Yep. Yeah. Saca, Jeff's going to take care of all that. And with, he said that some of my, as you know, my neighbors all have parking and their curb cuts, I guess, were grandfathered in with just the stop in Granite. But now it looks more aesthetically pleasing and the town requires the perved piece of Granite, which he said that he'll put in per the town's request. Okay. Questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I just like to comment that it is an unusual request and it's not exactly aesthetically pleasing, but given the applicant's physical situation, I would be sympathetic to granting this relief. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Um, so I'm still hung up on the requirements of the state law on this. And I don't, and there are two aspects of it. One is that I don't really see how there is a condition of the shape of the lot, soil conditions or topography that give rise to the hardship in this case. And secondly, I don't see, I don't believe that not that having to park on the street is a, the kind of unreasonable hardship that the state law applies requires. And I wonder whether the applicant can take their best shot on those. If either one of those is, is true, then the application needs to fail because the application has to satisfy all of the conditions that are in the state law and not just, and not just some. And I'm having some serious problems on both of those accounts. So I guess the, the, the topography, I would, I would like to put parking in the back. And, and I think that that's allowed by, by code, but I can't, I can't do that without driving on to my neighbor's property. So that, that I guess would be the topography. The, the hardship of parking on the street, we're, we can't often park on the street. And when, you know, when there's a snow emergency, we've got to park down at the, the town yard, the town lot, and then drag a newborn and a two year old across Mass Ave in the snow. I don't, I mean, I'm not sure what hardship, I don't know what examples of hardship would be. Mr. Chairman. One of the, just one of the things that I believe is true about the, about variance requirements and I'm perfectly willing to concede that the state statute is possibly unreasonably strict on this and often prevents us from doing things that I very much like to be able to do. One of the things though I think that it's clear on is that the kind of hardship that is involved is not allowed to be hardship that, that applies to the specific conditions or whoever is the, is, is the owner of the property. If, if it was, this variance isn't going to be limited to people who have young children who will be hard to get across Mass Ave. It's the most snowstorm. And that is not a kind of hardship. The law is pretty clear that we could, that we could take into take into consideration. So, you know, I'm still a little bit stuck with that. Obviously, there is a, it's inconvenient, not it's inconvenient to have to park on the street. On my street, I, when I poke my head out at one o'clock in the morning, I noticed that a large number of people are enduring that inconvenience voluntarily, notwithstanding that it violates the law. And I just don't, I just don't see how not having on-street parking presents, at least in the usual circumstances. I can easily imagine if this were a street that, if this were route two or something and there was a particular danger and you need to get off the street, that would be different. But Swan Place is not in that kind of a situation. So, I guess I'm still a little bit unpresuaded here. Sure. I would say one, I've lived on Swan Street and Swan Place all my life. And it does tend to be a cut through, especially with kickstand being so popular, people come flying around there. That being said, I think there was something saying that to conform to the neighborhood, every, I'm the only house in the neighborhood without off-street parking. So, not just me, but any future owners of the house would be constricted in comparison to their neighbors and the neighborhood at large. I mean, I guess it's, I don't know if it has to be a life and death hardship, but it's certainly a hardship, especially in times of COVID, where you need a vehicle. I mean, public transportation dropped to nothing. And having a vehicle on Swan Street and Swan Place is a hardship if you don't have off-street parking when everybody else in the neighborhood has off-street parking. I know the board in the past has considered the development pattern of a neighborhood in its deliberations on the variance partition, thinking specifically of the case of the Heights Pub, where if they were required to provide parking and looking at the building itself, where the building essentially was built in a lot of lines front and the two sides, there was no way they could actually provide parking. And so the board found that that was something in the topography of the land that made it so that that was somewhat unique and not relevant to the district as a whole, because there were other places that did provide parking. And the board used that as to meet the first criteria. I'm curious in this site where the development of this, this is a very old street in town, certainly developed prior to the advent of automobiles, and is that it is not possible the way that the house is situated on the land to provide legal parking under the bylaw as it's written today. And that as the reporter stated that, you know, this is this is the only house that does not have parking does not have parking spaces associated with it. So that's a it's a condition of the the topography of the neighborhood that it was developed without the ability to park cars. And yet his is the only property within this district that has the unique characteristic of not having available off street parking. Mr. Chairman, before 1975, that would have been quite a good argument. If you'll remember that part of the concern I think in the tavern in the Arlington Heights was the unusual narrowness of the lot, which made it a question of shape. Here we don't really have that we have a question of size basically, but as I see it at least it's the problem is that the lot is too small to fit to fit the parking into and the law is pretty clear that size is not shape and that you can't rely on simply the fact that the land is small in order to meet the what is now the the shape soil conditions and topography of a condition. So it's going to be quiet for a little bit and let other people talk about it. I I'd like to be you know the difficulty is that there are lots of problems that don't fit the variance because the state has a very narrow variance rule and we followed a practice of being pretty careful about that and I think that this may be pressing us at the very least to the edge of the envelope. There are other members of the board with their opinions on this. Other members of the board you have questions or comments on this question. Mr. Cannelly, sorry we lost you there for a minute. Sorry, my fault. I think my internet kicked out. Here's your cell for Mr. Cannelly had a sense on this question of the first variance condition of something pertaining to the topography soil condition or shape of the lot that is unique to the district. Mr. Chair. Mills. Trying to think outside the box a little bit here. One could argue it is the shape of the lot. You know if he had a couple of feet on the right side added to the left side you'd have a driveway you can get around back. You know does that fit the stipulation of a variant you know one of the stipulations of variance? I don't know. I'm just trying to think outside the box here and hope this gentleman solves his problem. Does anybody agree with that or disagree? Mr. Chairman. The courts have often considered a question where the problem arises from the size of the lot being too small and in general has come to the conclusion that that's not something that you can get a variance on. You know you just consider the number of lots we have in Arlington that are non-conforming and that may be too small to put on whatever it is. That can't be a reason for giving somebody a variance on the side wall and so forth practically everywhere and this doesn't look like it's an unusual shape in any way. Obviously the way the house is put on it doesn't provide enough room to do what the applicant would now want to do. So I'm not sure it's obviously well I'm not leaving it there. Mr. Chairman may I respond? Yes sir. So I would say that the lot is no bigger smaller than plenty of lots in town that have parking and driveways all across even East Arlington. It's the fact that the house is built with two side entries. There's no front door. If you look at the pictures that I submitted in the documents the front of the house doesn't have a front door. It's these side doors that prevent me getting to the back of the house which I would much rather get to the back of the house to put parking in the rear which there's plenty of space in the rear to put parking. I guess I'm not you guys deal with with variances and this stuff every meeting. I've never gone through this this process before but I would I would like to put it in the rear. I can't do it because of the topography of the land. Mr. Chairman. Well I I still will have some problems in general with off-street parking creating a hardship that this is a substantial hardship and so this may not help but if you look at the statute and it says where the permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would cause substantial hardship and so forth. There's not a lot of case law on what the soil shape and topography means when it applies to structures but and which means that we're sort of writing on a clean slate here but it may be that the point that Mr. Potter has just brought up that the structure which is a long-standing structure that way and today's the zoning by-law is is situated in such a way where where its its shape basically prevents the installation of the parking in the way that would be preferred might get you past the first one and you know I would if and so that at least is a is a legal theory I would I would still have problems with with the second with the substantial hardship still because I'm not sure that not being able to park on that not being able to park off site is in fact a substantial hardship but it may be that what I just pointed out would help get us past number one. Thank you for that. Certainly on the hardship question. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. I kind of go Mr. Potter's argument. You know whether there is a storm his secondary parking is not right down the street at the kickstand cafe it's just not a matter of walking down the sidewalk 30 feet he's going to drag infants across mass avenue and up swan places swan street up to his house in very inclement well though with poor visibility I think that's a hardship my definition I sure as hell would want to do it just two thoughts. Yeah it is it's approximately 850 feet from the house to the parking lot at Russell's I mean there was a crosswalk there but in all seriousness and inclement weather plows buzzing around people can't see you know it's a very highly trafficked area it's not a quiet spot on mass avenue to say the least. I was wondering in terms of you know the enjoyment of the property you know is not being is having zoning disallow you from having parking in a way that other properties are in your neighborhood have parking is that a is that a hardship that you're not able to use your property in the same way that others in your neighborhood are able to use their property because I can certainly imagine other situations where that's the case and we would you know not think that that's an issue but in this situation where you know certainly if you look up the street the first house number eight appears to have you know parking lots in the two spaces in the front yard are very similar to this arrangement the house at number 10 is offset on the site so they can get to the rear yard 14 has parking spaces as this is proposing and then 22 has a single driveway up one side but not and then the apartment building at 26 obviously has a much larger lot so I think we could you know is is the hardship that the inability to have parking off-screen which is enjoyed by other similar properties in the district chairman I think legally the answer to that is no and I'm not at a point where I can have read cases recently where where in different contexts people were talking about that that the unfair that it's it's the the unfairness that other people have are able to do it and you're not and I and the courts have not looked favorably upon that if I were going to if we were going to have to do a regular argument about this I have to go up and look up the cases to make sure that they hold exactly what they seem to do but but I I I don't think that that that will do the the trick it used to it used to before the 1975 revisions of the state law mr chair um this has been cat um because 1618 is right at the intersection of the swan place and swan street right you know would would that make sense it's it um going in and out and park it's right at this part there um would that be an argument it's difficult to do a range for off-street parking yeah that right that's that's what I'm arguing is that it's because it's right at the intersection of those two and a T at right at the junction of the T um you know parking in front and is a problematic and maybe not available all the time convenience wise to drop offs and stuff especially for toddlers and kids mr chairman I I think it is important to look that you know we may talk about toddlers and kids but we can't be talking about mr potters the one thing that's absolutely clear is that the nature of this kind of hardship has to sort of be attached to the land in some way and be anybody's hardship it would be have been equally a hardship back before mr potter had kids and his he may very well sell his land someday to people who don't have kids but will have this variant so it's it's important that we stick to a kind it may very well be that in general not being able to park on not having to park on the street is not a reasonable hardship but it can't be an unreasonable hardship for mr potter and not for other people mr chair if I may potter thank you very much mr handlin I as I said I've lived on swan street and swan place my entire life um every house I don't know eight but um from my house down every house has kids in the house we have the boys and girls club right behind us uh and spy pond park it is we have uh you know uh block party cookouts in the apartment building uh two houses down in their driveway and there must be 15 plus kids under 10 um and as you can see on uh on google maps there's a basketball hoop that uh that our neighbors have put up um it is without I understand that it has nothing to do with me and my kids but this is a family neighborhood who whoever lives in this house I would say greater chances than not they they are going to have kids um and I'm sure that that that may not always be true but it is a family neighborhood with lots of kids in the in the neighborhood I grew up riding my bike all through here playing basketball on the street and uh walking to the boys and girls club um this point I could have opened the meeting for public comment um just the fact that it's in the neighborhood so if there are um you know it's stated previously the board will accept comments um as they relate to this project if you would like to speak um use the raise hand feature under under the reactions tab or if you're able to state my phone you can dial star 9 but I see no one is producing moment um there are any members of the public who are wishing to speak down this matter and that's why I'll close public comment Mr. Chair if I if I may I've uh when I came here uh in November for the meeting and submitted my my application I did have a number of neighbors that that tuned on I I'd like to note that also I've had a number of neighbors that have offered their support to me in the neighborhood uh I I logged in to this meeting at 645 um I think due to the the kids in the neighborhood and and people's busy schedules um people people did stay for the first meeting and and I they don't have time to do it twice certainly we we certainly acknowledge it that the that the first hearing there were um there were other residents of this neighborhood who did speak in favor of this proposal right and there was nobody who rose in opposition to this so the question before the board is do we this being a request for a variance because it would require parking in the front yard which is which is not allowed under the current zoning bylaw the board would need to grant a variance and variances are controlled under state law under state law there's four criteria that the board must meet uh must must find in order for a variance to be granted um because we kind of had read out the uh the first criteria uh very explicitly there has to be something we're in regards to the topography shape or soil condition of the lot or structure which is unique unique to the neighborhood I think we we have sort of discussed this back and forth a fair amount this evening I don't think we necessarily have unanimity on an opinion but I think the the argument that has been raised is that so given that this house was constructed in the 1820 prior to the advent of the automobile and that the entrances to the house were constructed on the sides of the house the way that the house decided on the land um creates a situation where the structure is the location of the structure on the land precludes um accessing the rear yard uh for a side yard for the purposes of parking I think that that's sort of the best argument the board has uh either come up with or heard this evening in terms of how to address this question which brings us to the second condition uh for which is that um there has to be a specific hardship there's a main hardship that has been expressed is that in the absence of on-site parking or excuse me off-street parking that the only parking that's available there are two on-street parking spaces that are granted by the town but those are revoked when there is uh snow or other sort of state of emergency and in which case then the closest legal parking that is afforded by the town is at Russell Commons Laugh which is it doesn't go approximately 850 feet away um you know is that a hardship you know certainly the you know in the prior case at 25 Highland they also have on-street parking only two spaces ranked by the town they also have to relocate to an adjacent town property the closest town property to them I believe is the high school which would sort of be a similar distance but that's not something that that property has other issues and that's not relevant in this case but the while the you know the distance that is required to be reversed in order to access the to get to a legal parking space while it's long it's certainly it's not a unique condition but the question for the board is to members of the board or the majority of the preponderance of the members of the board do they feel that this is forms of basis of a hardship which would then lead to the potential granting of a barrier. Carter? I just have a question is it is it uh there was a part where you mentioned the neighborhood's importance I know on Highland Ave there's a number of houses without parking where all my neighbors have parking also the the the parking at Russell Commons is a cross mass Ave and during inclement weather there's there's not adequate snow removal at that time to jump over snow banks with bassinets and toddlers which not my toddlers anybody's toddlers. Mr Chairman? Yes sir. What is the majority that the applicant needs? It's a four or five under state law a five-member board a positive vote is a vote of four members it's going back to the first one going to circumstances related to soil condition shaped topography of land structures especially affecting such land structures but not affecting generally the zoning district which is located but that the second is a literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner or Evelyn should we find that then the third is that desirable relief to be granted without substantial detriment to the public good because the board would be able to find that fighting parking on this property that is similar to parking on other state's properties does not form a substantial detriment to the public good and that this does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw the question is what exactly is the intent I think the intent of not having parking spaces in the front yard is just it's just an appearance question certainly anyone with a driveway that extends beyond the front yard parks in their front yard when they park in their driveway there's something that happens frequently now so I think so the I think the thing is the pool at this point what the board needs to do you know I I don't think is there well I guess the question for the board yeah are there is there any additional information the board needs to be able to make a decision I think have everything in front of us I just wanted to Mr Chairman could I ask a question and I apologize if I had missed this when I dropped off briefly but in the original package we received there was the initial plot plan that we looked at as a group which had two parking spaces on either side of the property and I think in the initial package there was also a secondary option which was one curb cut with two spaces together on one side of the property are are both of those two options or are we just reviewing the option where we would be providing two separate parking spaces on either side so the on either side as you see on the yeah on the on the plot the certified plot plan that I got the the 18.5 feet um we'll hit the house if it's not on the sides I understood okay so we're just reviewing the plan as as shown on the screen right now correct Mr Chairman Mr Chairman is the reason excuse me why are we we have two parking spaces here and I'm wondering why what is that because is that because the you have two it's a two unit two family unit there is what is what is the reason why does we're doing for two it's it's a two oh sorry it's a it's a two family unit um and so my side is 16 swan place and the other side is 18 swan place um and I think that that each unit would benefit and like we talked about with with my kids you know who's to say that the 18 doesn't have kids uh down the road and and needs to be able to at least have one car off the street to be able to get things in and out safely this is very difficult I think most of us are very sympathetic to the applicants what can stated need and what do they like to do and what the difficulty is making sure that the board can reach a decision which is defensible under state law for that purpose the board we have you know for the first criteria I think we have a fairly well-developed rationale for why the board to find in the in you know find for that condition uh the second condition which is about the literal enforcement of the provisions of our law with a substantial hardship is a little more tenuous but I think we have sort of an understanding of the the hardship that is involved by um that is you know it's not a hardship that occurs daily but it's a hardship that occurs um with weather conditions over which the applicant has no control that that requires the removal of the the street spaces that they're granted by the town to need to relocate to a you know considerable distance in order to find parking then the third condition that the desirable relief relief can be granted without substantial detriment for public good we think we you know I think we could make an argument for that and that desirable relief relief can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent for purposes of my law so those are the criteria the board needs to be um the board at the point where we need to take a vote on this um my question for the board would be are there any conditions that the board would want to impose upon the granting of the variance should this type of plan that certainly the three conditions standard conditions which we've read in the record earlier you know indicates that the proposed parking that this would be the plan whether spaces would be provided it would not be moved or relocated from these positions um the applicant has already stated that you'll need to uh revisit the steps leading to this the porch on this side here on the 18th side um in order to be able to provide for this parking space and certainly if they're working with the town they'll you know work with the county board and occur that's not a within our concern mr chairman the panel is what is what is currently between the house and the street in between where the two parking spaces would go is that landscaped is it one yes it's it's so it's a lawn that we use quite sorry so this is a just a photo that the provider provided so this is the 16th side left hand this is the opposite side mr velrelly uh would the applicant need to be providing a tree plan to the tree warden um it would not be required here mr chairman because there's no building permit required the only permit he would need is to the engineering department uh for a curb cut however the board can impose that if it's so desires mr chairman hammer that was sort of where i was going to go i i do understand that mr potter was about to explain the way in which he uses that front yard and i don't want to i'm trying to think about the fourth the nullification of the purpose of the bylaw and thinking to myself that things that would at least preserve the appearance of the front uh notwithstanding the introduction of the two parking spaces uh might be thought to offset whatever nullification or interference with the purpose of the bylaw uh there might be and that that might help at least on that on that particular criterion i don't know what's possible or reasonable and and don't want to have somebody have to do a Babylonian guardian garden just in order to meet a criterion in the law but if there's something that can be done to soften the impact on that front there of the two driveways that would that would help meet that criterion i was going to recommend that the applicant submit a tree plan for review with the with the tree warden and primarily it's in regards to um this pender for a street here on the property line uh just to try to protect it during construction but mr potter appeared to have something that he wanted to say in response to what i was just saying and i'd like to hear what it was mr potter uh yeah i just that i've i've lived here since 2016 i renovated the whole house um we have a rose bush along the the front of the house that i inherited from the former owners uh and i also have another rose bush um that that will be transplanted um right by our door um and that that we use we i had a german shepherd for 14 years that actually passed this summer and we use that uh that front lawn very often and one of the other reasons i mean we had to have we couldn't do the the double wide driveway because it didn't offer the the 18.5 feet required for the the zoning um but another reason that i just talked to mr valarelli about um was that that the appearance of the driveways is something that i value uh i've i've lived in this neighborhood my whole life and i think that there's something aesthetically pleasing about having the the one car on one side and one car on the other side and a lawn that you can use um we we often sit out there as i've said our neighborhood is is very social um a gardener i am not uh but i cut the lawn and i sit out there and i we have a one of those little free libraries in our in our front uh right right in the middle of the house there and people stop by it's a it's a very social neighborhood that's that's walkable and and so getting to your point mr hamlin is that i i do take the aesthetics very seriously um and i i it's not something i take lightly um but um so in regards to conditions that would just ask that the applicant consult the reward for our protective trees i would also like to propose as a condition that the the driveway is constructed under this grant be constructed um with a pervious surface so not concrete not asphalt but similar to that the house on the other side of the just you know closer to that that that has permeable pavers to the the surface for the driveways just so that uh it's a little more conducive to the you know part of a part of a yard part of a lawn rather than are there other potential conditions from the board not that mr chairman i thought your idea of porous pavers was a good idea and probably go a long way to keeping that tree alive i hope so the tree looks like i've got a lot of good life in it but anything further from the board on this question in that case we would need to have a motion for a motion through the variance requesting two off-street parking spaces at 1618 one place with now five conditions the three standards plus the two just stated second second for this mr duke haunt not able to vote so step in into the abstent um so a vote of the board um i vote no mr mills hi mr rickard ellie hi mr holly share votes yes um four to one vote thank you all very much thank you very much i appreciate the board's time and consideration good luck thank you very much shanda i appreciate everyone's patience as we go through here three of the 47 cross b street number three six eight five patrick and nila to look what they would like to do and i will put their drawings up on the screen great hello everyone good evening thank you for making time for us on the agenda tonight i'm tyler patrick i live at 47 cross b street and we have applied for a special permit to in accordance with section 5.3.9 to add an enclosed mud room and open porch to the front facade of our existing structure this proposed addition would encroach on the front yard setback and so we are seeking the special permit to move forward with the project yeah and you can see it's the the rectangle extending in the front of the dwelling out nine feet which is the enclosed portion extends six feet the porch then extends an additional three feet in front of that and it is 10 feet in length in the enclosed mud room and then the rest is an 11 foot nine inch porch on the on the right side there's some other exhibits and drawings available as well about the project so you can see the the mud room addition that is bumped out with the with the front porch there's also a rendering i believe on the the subsequent page if you want to look forward so yeah there you go you can see where the front porch would come so you know it's in keeping with character of the of the of the neighborhood and it you know it does not it's permitted by use it improves the safety and convenience of our entrance to our home it doesn't increase traffic congestion it doesn't have any undue burden on the municipal systems it doesn't result in any need for special regulations and you know it's human-scaled architectural variation to the streetscape and adds visual interest to the front facade of the structure so it would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood nor would it cause any detrimental um you know excesses uh so anything else i can provide in terms of the overview good i was just going to note that so the the part of planning for the development did review this application but they had noted the proposed porch exceeds the permitted allowable by right which puts this is by of course for special permits there are a few portagos porches on the butting structures while massing the christian street would remain similar to the existing choose for structure to the scale architectural variations of the overall streetscape that proposes what doctors remember to detect and enable the character yeah and it's worth noting i think that the department of planning community development maintains that the proposal is consistent with the zoning bylaw and recommends that uh this application be approved and they they recited two related dockets um that that had been approved within the last year so this is yeah so here's that that recommendation from the department mr chairman mr hannah um excuse me with respect to the recommendation i just wanted to something is kind of prepped into the plan the department of planning recommendations and i'm not about to say anything that's problematic in this case but i just want to note it but it's beginning to treat the projections into front yards under a special permit as if that's creating a nonconformity and in my view at least it is not creating a nonconformity something that is allowable if you have a special permit is not nonconforming if you do have the special permit and that's important because whether or not something is classified as a nonconformity use has lots of other implications in other places in the bylaw and it's my view at least that if we granted a special permit in this case uh the projection into the regulation yard would not be nonconformity share uh questions from the board and open um this hearing for public comment so this is a public comment for uh 47 cross b street if you would like to be recognized by the board um you could use the raise hand feature under the reactions tab uh zoom or if you're participating by phone it's star nine if anyone who would like to address the board in regards to this application being none i would go ahead and do a public comment so this application is as was noted by the uh Department of Planning Development is very similar to a series of other recent cases the board has seen um that are requesting a mud room or a front porch or sometimes it has in this case both um it within the front yard um which is something the board can grant by the issuance of the special permit um in this case the because of the angle of the house relative to the the side lot line um the front porch will also extend slightly into the side yard but that's not uh close the problem because that's also allowed under the special permit um in these cases the board has the standard three conditions that have been imposing um the other cases this evening but the board in these cases is also typically um adds two additional conditions one being that the location of the porch will not change um not constitute a change in the location of the foundation wall of the house and that is that's done so that um so that the this this is not considered a part within the foundation wall of the house under for future addition and the board also it was the condition that the porch cannot be enclosed without action for the board understood that any further conditions comments or concerns from the board play motion Mr Chairman I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions and the two additional conditions relating to porches and entries that the chair just read into the record second second no any further questions from the board any explanation we're voting on both of the board mr handlin hi milk hi mr rickard ellie hi mr holly hi thank you very much i appreciate your patience this evening thank you so much i appreciate all your time very welcome this raises up to docket number three six eight six two thirty eight avenue uh tell us what they would like to do in the meantime i will find your document hi chair my name is dr Kelly i'm your architect representing the woods good evening sir if if i may um there's two parts of the project i'll speak about both separately one is a proposed single story addition of the rear of the house for a kitchen in mudroom the other is a proposed garage i will start by saying that we will not be seeking relief uh by way of variance for the garage i have to discussion with my client and with rick and looking more closely at the bylaws we're going to opt to move the garage back in the rear yard entirely then change the construction type so that we're in compliance with the bylaw with the zero foot setback and be able to do that as of right so that's the one change the proposed addition so the house is not conforming right now with a seven point four foot on the right yard um we will be the proposal is to extend that nonconformity and actually make it go from seven point four to seven point four feet to seven point two feet at the back right corner of the addition um so we'll be looking for a special permit um and relief for that uh nonconformity um mr valarelli yes mr chairman so just to confirm that the change that's being made just for the edification of the board members and for the community so the garage is being shifted back so that it is no longer in the side yard it is in the fully in the rear yard so the uh the rear yard would now be if granted the furthest line of the foundation in the rear yard imaginary line from left to right anything beyond that point would be considered the rear yard so in fact if the client simply moved his garage back three or four feet um he would be able to build that out of type one material and is the type one material is that for all all sides or just the sides facing adjacent property we are we are making the the construction has to be type one material for all sides okay with a type three b roof it's a ground level plan here so this is the location where the rear yard would start so that's why they're shifting the garage back yeah it's about four feet so the existing the existing garage obviously be raised in the garage a little bit larger but that will be entirely in the rear yard but it's not moving back so the it's not moving back so far that this would this 34.4 foot distance would go below 25 feet correct it's a 20 foot rear yard we'll be going down to about 30 about 30 okay 31 so the whole basically the reason I'm asking is the whole rear portion will still qualify as usable open space some of the definition yep now would offset any increase in the gross floor area by the proposed position yeah we're well over on the usable area any questions from the members of the board mr chairman the planning the planning department member and I think mentions that this would need a special permit with respect to large additions as well because the size the increase in the gross number of square footage is 1845 square feet and in the context of I assume that that relates to the addition to the house and it doesn't include it to garage um I don't see that there's any particular problem with that but I'm wondering if Mr. Culley could explain whether he agrees with that and whether it makes any difference to him so I think the criteria that we based on my conversation with Mr. Valarale was the 750 square foot I'll ask him to speak that as well but we are just over that um so I think that the large addition would be with respect to that is that right Mr. rather early yeah mr chairman if I could comment on that so first of all this addition has a crawl space there's no basement so I think the entire square footage is 809 square feet initially the um and please help me with this question to the applicant initially the proposed addition was just under 750 square feet then along came this mudrum on the side that was added a little bit after the fact so in fact the total additional gfa is 809 square feet which does put it over the 750 square feet criteria initially it was advertised as a variance but in fact it's an extension of a non-conformity of 8.1.3c I believe the extension of a rear wall the board can look at the gross floor area and I hope the applicant can expand on that of what his intentions are or why this can be less than 750 square feet well if I may yeah thank you um so what's not shown in the drawings is you can see the to the right of the addition is a staircase that shows a door opening up to the driveway that is an arrow going down that right now is an existing bulkhead that opens up to the exterior the bulkhead has a concrete structure surrounding it's mounted on this concrete structure and it has a roof over it which is beneath the deck it's an enclosure that encloses the bulkhead structure the proposal now is to take the bulkhead off and create actual framed walls around this and put a roof on it if you look in the elevations you'll see that with asphalt shingles that come down off the new roof line and cover that doghouse so there is some square footage there we are basically just enclosing that structure with a wood frame structure rather than the concrete and kind of half dog house structure that exists right now in the back so if we were to apply that as existing the existing bulkhead structure is 43 square feet so the my notes here so mr valeroy was correct the addition with the mudroom bulkhead the proposal is 809 square feet total that would be new framed walls the existing bulkhead structure is 43 square feet so if we count that as existing we take the 809 minus the 43 square feet we end up with 766 square feet so it is 16 square feet over the 750 and then that is an unheated space the bulkhead enclosure the goal is to just make that more accessible we don't have a bulkhead opening to drive any longer it's more of an enclosed structure for access into the basement we'll take the bulkhead off we'll frame that put a roof on it basically extending it up vertically from where it is now and just incorporating it into the new design it's for functionality it's for aesthetics but it is an unheated space mr hamlin was was your concern do you think there's an issue with the board for adding a special permit for a large addition on this case i don't particularly i just want to make sure that whatever we do is all that's is complete that we don't leave anything that we should have said on on on sad i there there are some slightly different criteria for large additions but and the hearing hasn't happened yet so i don't know whether or not any of those will will come to matter but i don't think that there's any particular difficulty doing that i appreciate you bringing up the point of saying other other questions or comments from the board that meeting um i was going to mean for public comment i did just want to briefly note um or did receive um a letter mr chair i had one question on the garage please sir um it's one a construction but then there is still limitation on the fenestration right um i see on the side elevation that is fenestration shown the percentage of opening because it's close to the lot line fsd that is absolutely correct i believe the architect will design this but i believe they're entitled to 25 percent of the facade of the wall that is within six feet of the lot line uh just taking a shot at that based on um experience but that that will all be the pot of the requirement of the plan by the architect stamp telling isd that it is in fact type one construction that is correct uh there is an allowable area for fenestration and just to clarify um mr varely the um i think it's state one type one or type two right with the freebie roof i will have to go back and look at that if you give me a second that's okay the bylaws it's the type one or type two of the freebie route just to clarify because you may be a type two be uh so this letter is from um uh the budding neighbor 242 which is the actual neighbor in the case that they have they support the approval section 5-19 so with that i will go ahead and open this area for public comment public comment taken as it relates to the matter at hand to assist the board in its decision um if you would like to speak if you could raise your hand using your raise hand feature under the reactions tab or if you're calling by phone you can use star 9 to dial in videos on it you want to wave frantically i'll call you that way as well on this please yes my name is barbara muse i am a director butter i live at 126 oakland av and i feel that the current proposal i see that you made some changes since i looked at your documentation so kind of threw me for a loop and i don't really have any expertise in this area but i did want to voice my concerns um about the current proposal for the addition i feel that it impedes the garage in particular that's what i'm referencing impedes our backyard privacy and sense of open space which we've enjoyed for almost 40 years at this location and we also feel uncomfortable with the request by the applicants in regards to the proposed garage but as i said you've changed what you know i've researched and i have a limited understanding about it anyway so um my comments may be irrelevant at this point um but we are concerned with the multiple elevated windows which will be looking into our backyard at the property line and we feel it would be more equitable if the multiple elevated windows um were not at that left side facing into our backyard hopefully not placed there at all um and i also wanted to reference the um department of planning and community memo that was sent to the dba um where it did state that the applicants you know this is a quotation have not provided the dimension of details of the existing garage nor have they provided the construction type but you were just referring to it um i don't know if this quote or this issue is relevant any longer um it did say that they could determine if there was an existing non-conformity without this information or if one would be created or increased and my husband and i believe that there it currently is no existing non-conformity with the garage and um we wanted to ask when the missing information would be submitted and what possible impact this information may have on the proposed plan but again i don't know if that's changed now also it listed that um the current proposal stated that there were non-conforming setbacks on the right and the left side of the property side yard setbacks and it didn't list it listed in detail the current and proposed right side yard setbacks but it didn't list what the current or proposed left side set yep yard setbacks would be and i was wondering if that was going to be provided and um also another question that i had which i believe was issued originally this was a request for a variance um but now i see that it's a request for a special permit and again i'm ignorant on many of these issues so i really don't know um you know how this change is going to affect me and i would appreciate some some answers and some guidance absolutely and thank you very much for speaking up um so initially this was advertising the variance because the way that the town defines the side yards and rear yards is a rear yard is anything sort of from the back wall of the house to the back to the property line and the side is everything between the front and the back of the house against the side and so as originally proposed the garage was partly in the side yard partly in the rear yard and that but only by about four feet is a very slight overlap and so that location was going to require a variance because he's not allowed to have a garage in that position in the side yard however by shifting the garage to beyond to so the what's on the screen now this was the original proposed the garage is now being proposed to being shifted further to the rear so it is now behind the proposed addition and so as such it is now fully in the rear yard and because of its size and location it's actually fully well fully conformed with uh zoning bylaws so they can build the garage by right they no longer need a special permit or variance for the construction of the garage uh mr valarelli i would ask if you could just confirm that for me that's absolutely correct mr chairman um so that then the house itself um on the the side that faces oakland um it does have the required step back a 10 foot 8 uh sorry 10.8 feet so it's um on the one side the opposite side at seven foot four at the moment and the addition is in line with the dwelling so even though the step back is getting smaller on that side it's allowable by special permit in arlington because it's in line with the side wall of the house so the the questions that the department of planning and community development had in regards to the garage at this point no longer apply because of the relocation of the garage so do definitely take into um account your concerns about the windows that are facing the property line um asked mr kelly if those the windows on the upper level um that would be facing directly out of the property if those windows could be um removed from the plan or somehow altered to um i don't i don't think we'd entertain that at this time i think we discussed that uh i just discussed with my client that's something that we're not we're not willing to take off the table um and as an as of right um building permit we'd like to put those under the project questions or comments from the public see any given the the relocation of the garage and valet rally i look for your confirmation on this we are being asked if we have two special permit tasks one is the the large addition um for addition of 356 square feet um and the second is for um the continuation of the building line for the new addition along the the uphill block that correct it's just those two special permits it is correct mr chairman i i think the uh pre-existing non-conforming right side yard setback is 7.4 the addition will end up at 7.2 um so it is an extension of a non-conformity it's section i believe it's 813c uh that allows the extension of a non-conforming exterior wall uh to be more non-conforming by special permit the with respect to the large addition um i'm a little bit from absolutely correct mr handlin it is in fact over 700 750 square feet um i thought the applicant may come back with an alternate design given the fact that he's in fact only 16 feet over but the fact remains that it is over 750 square feet so we have two special permits on the table and the board is able to act on the special requirement permit request for the large addition in terms of advertising yes it is may i mr chair please i just want to be clear also that the structure shown for the deck is at uh 7.1 feet i don't know if that affects anything mr ballerini in terms of side yard setbacks for the structure of the deck no the deck is is okay as it is by right that falls under 53539 so long as the board is able to vote on the large addition i think we are okay the board wants to vote on this application i think we would have our standard three conditions other conditions the board would want to consider in regards to this application this is reality i would just want to confirm that the board cannot place a condition on the construction of the garage where it's not party to the special permit correct that's correct mr chairman that that uh that part of the project will be by right are there questions or comments from the board or additional conditions being not mr chairman yes sir um i just wanted to inquire through the chair to mr ballerini once we get into the large addition category one of the concerns has to do with situating the project in such a way as to dominate her even though you're within the statutory envelope uh you could have an adverse effect on the other property here it seems to be clear that the addition in and of itself because of the way it's located is not going to have an adverse effect on the properties uh that are along that that size yard obviously the problem that that creates is really a problem that arises uh from the garage um but it is sort of all of the package and uh i'm i'm wondering whether something like asking for changing in the windows in terms of minimizing the structure of the project as a whole even knowing that if you didn't have the large addition you could still do the garage and we wouldn't have anything to say about it whether it fits within uh our purview uh to do that even though the changes are actually on the on the addition itself um is that a question posed to me mr hamlin yes it is so we have no jurisdiction on that at all we do have suggestions from the residential design guideline group they're not binding at this point um we accessory structures are governed by dimensional and density regulations such as height uh distance from lot lines etc but unfortunately we have no jurisdiction if somebody's doing something by right how it's going to look quite honestly so i don't know how the board could handle something like that um given that the project is completely separated and isolated from what they need special permission for consideration of the large addition request i think uh the board would be amenable i would want to include um one additional condition that um any construction on top of the proposed uh addition would require a special permit can you explain it mr chair do you mean any future yeah so any any future addition of a second story on top of uh the proposed single story addition would require a special permit wouldn't that be required anyways because of gfa um i don't know if it necessarily would because of gfa and depending on how it's constructed it may not it could be constructed in a way that it doesn't exceed 750 additional square feet and the town wouldn't count it actually as a large addition anyways because it would be over an existing foundation okay so you're saying on that a condition on that would that be a deed restriction or this condition um so that typically we have done them as conditions of a group of the special permit but i believe the special permits get issued registered yeah so any future if there was ever i mean there's a vaulted ceiling in there stuff so it would be a second story but if there ever was you have to go for a special permit exactly okay mr chairman i mean arguably that would be i mean if we're granting a special permit and the permit is as i assume posted would be uh tied to the to the materials before the board the drawing and so forth the drawing shows an addition of one story you could say that anything that increases the size of that addition is would require an amendment to the special permit since it wouldn't be consistent with the drawings and in that case you you'd at you would be at the point where you need another permit for it in any event and that would be a sensible result because otherwise you could see what they say then a much larger addition and and avoid the review of the the agreement but either way it seems to me that on that theory or any other that that if we could be within our rights to impose a condition of that sort maybe that a future seconds the construction of a future second story would require an amendment to the special permit anything further on this matter have any motion mr chairman yes sir i move that the board approved the application for a special permit to include a large addition and to include a extension of a non conformity under section 8.1.3c subject to the three standard conditions and the additional uh condition regarding a second story that the chair just read it to the record second second else for that this matter any questions being done we'll do a vote of the board aye bill aye mr billy aye mr holly my is approval of the special permit for a large addition of extension of non conformity it should be a part of new with four conditions thank you very much appreciate it thank you it's a good time thank you billy back to our agenda all right since your heart held heart held thank you the applicants for 121 bridal street for sticking with us this long we are up to 368 for 121 bridal street but the applicant to introduce themselves and tell us what they'd like to do and I will up your back to this yeah hi i'm susan driscoll and we submitted um the special permit um for an addition to the front uh which is i guess you call it a vestibule or an enclosed entrance and um two dormers on the second floor and i think the the reason for the special permit is the uh setback the entrance will be a little too close to the street so it was required to have a special permit my name carl goodness and uh i'm with kneeling constructed i'm working with susan um on this addition and the addition is just a five by ten pretty modest vestibule which is shown here on the post first law plan and it's uh kind of alleviating the problem with congestion with currently the living area the stairway and the front door all meet in one spot there's really no room for anybody to stand never mind social distancing you know the house was built in 1940 which is before the zoning bylaws um and you know we currently have a problem with setback on the front requirements 25 feet we have uh with the new addition 9.8 and the existing conditions is 14.8 feet now along the total street um all the houses have similar setbacks as we do so this is not an uncommon situation where our property is any different than our neighbors we don't see any detrimental effects at all with the addition of our vestibule structure there's also a document by the planning board that supports our position i believe it's dated january 7th we've also gone through the historical commission uh i think that's a couple of months ago now and we've gotten their approval on the entire project um i know susan has some letters from uh supporting neighbors could you speak to that susan yeah um i i just gathered these the past couple of days so i didn't know who to send them to but i have three letters from three different neighbors one um is across the street one down the other is across the street one up and then the third one is three houses up so they're all in the very close vicinity of me and they all support this so i can email them to you or read them um whatever you want me to do um if you could forward them to mr ballerelli sure so we will we will accept them as letters and support okay do you want me to do that now or later um you can forward it to him after okay yep we'll do mr chairman mr hanlon i have a question um when i look at the drawings there are two questions actually the first one is when i look at the drawings here um um i don't really think that there there is any usable open space now i'm sure there is open space that can be used and that that's not a has hasn't to do with with the usability of the house but the zoning bylaw has a highly technical definition which requires a square of some sort that has a minimum of a 25 feet um minimum of 25 feet in the open space here uh doesn't have any patch that size um and if that's true there's a very small increase in the gross floor area here as i understand it from the papers that were filed there's about the vestibule provides another 50 feet in the dormers 62 feet over that so it's quite tiny but it does create a technical issue of zero going to a greater zero that we so often case and i'm wondering whether to get full protection from a special permit we ought to be considering also uh including uh including that that that would be under uh 8.1.3 b and it would just allow for the increase uh in gross floor area without without being able to meet the uh the usable open space requirement so if i'm going to have him being sort of lucky with that one this is a sort of a longer pass uh but mr. jumas points out that on the street it's quite common to have uh front setbacks that are similar uh to the front setback that that this property has if i understand his point correctly there is a provision in the bylaw that provides for an adjustment to the front setback requirement uh if the average on the street uh is is less than the amount that is prescribed in the bylaw and i wonder if mr. valorelli or mr. tumas if he's looked at this has a view as to whether that provision may may apply in this case if it if it did then there might not be a uh it's not conformity with respect to the front yard uh if i can answer that um we did go through that process with rick valorelli and we found that um we were probably just under the common distance with the 9.8 so he suggested that we do the special permit that's good thank you welcome um the only question i had on this was um the there's no landing outside the front door now with the proposed addition and i was yeah there is there will have to be a landing there yeah i was wondering if maybe you would do a landing there and then have steps that lead in the direction of the driveway or if they would still lead in the direction of the street we were thinking um well what do you think susan we could go either way well i mean there's not many it's only like it's like two little steps and then the landing so i think it would still work going out forward or is it three little steps it's not much sorry just for safety i would want you to have a landing yeah i yeah no i it's probably when the landing um i yeah i guess whatever works best um i think it would work coming out forward um because yeah i'd prefer it to come forward valorelli is there any implication as to whether it comes further forward or goes to the side you are 100 uh correct mr chairman no that doesn't matter but there is if my memory serves me correctly and the codes are changing so fast um they need a landing on on both sides of that door as wide as the door served that's a building code issue and i believe that's still that that that is still active in the code if there's any architects that want to weigh in on that i'll be happy to um to stand corrected i believe there's a landing required both sides of that door that is as wide as the door served so it's 30 inch door and it swings out the landing has to be 30 inches on a projection from the house out i can confirm that for the commercial code but not for the residential code okay my experience is you're right it's 36 inches in this case it's going to be a frequent four thank you in any event uh code notwithstanding i agree with the chair that even for safety purposes that's that's necessary yeah the way mine is right now when i uh well i have a storm door so when i swing my storm door out i actually have to walk down a step so it'll be nice to have the you know a normal sized landing it's it's uh yeah i don't like it the way it is now definitely and then as far as the the amount of distance it would if it comes if it keeps coming straight out there's because it's unenclosed uncovered there's no issue but that's correct there is no issue for that at all okay are there any further questions from board seeing none i'll go ahead and open this hearing for public comment public comment take it as it relates to the matter at hand the superintendent assists the board in the reaching of the decision if you would like to speak if you could use the raise hand feature under the reactions tab on zoom or if you're calling in by phone you can now start an eye video is on you can wait and then the question before the board um so it's straightforward application there's two um that's a perfect question one is the five three nine a extension into the front yard and the second is the eight one three D increasing gross floor area without an extension of the usable open space in this case the amount of usable the space is zero before or after the board the questions on this application that the board has the typical three conditions have the additional two conditions that we typically apply to these situations but only one of them would apply here which is the condition that the the location of the mud room in the front yard does not change the location of the the foundation wall which is just to prevent additional development of the front without coming for a special permit and then the steps being open they won't be closed without a roof and then the roof so with that in mind i would propose the three standard conditions the one condition other conditions on the chairman i move that the board of sounding appeals approved the special permits both for under 8.1.3 b and for projection into minimum yards subject to the three standard conditions and the one additional condition that the chair has read thank you mills any question about what we're voting i miss chairman can i have that condition again i'm sorry um so the condition was that the the location of the mud room in the front yard will not change the location of the building foundation wall thank you for something similar a lot of signs okay with that we'll take a vote from the board mr handlin hi mills hi mr kigali hi mr holly your votes aye that's a unanimous decision favor approval special permit was put on bridal street with the two step by law sections with the four conditions taken thank you very much thank you very much appreciate it shanda the last item on our agenda was the thorn dyke place litigation discussion was the executive section we did a very long time ago that was not you know as soon as something starts with thorn dyke it automatically takes four hours even if we're not considered it really does so we're viewing our schedule upcoming meetings we will have a meeting on tuesday january 25th at 7 30 um it will least have 83 um palmer street i don't know mr. raleigh are there other others for that meeting that date we do we have an appeal from the building inspector providing that the documentation is submitted in a timely fashion it has been advertised so we may have one other one other than the continuance of 83 palma and possibly 25 highland the variance right actually everything thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the arlington zoning board of the deal appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting especially wish to thank rick valarelli densely heli linema and riss allow for and dughine for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note the purpose of the board's reporting the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings our understanding the reporting made by hmi will be available on demand at hmi.tv within the coming days if anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zba.town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zba website and to conclude tonight's meeting i would ask for a motion to adjourn so moved second thank you for mills we have a vote of the board mr handlin hi mills hi rick adelly hi holly hi chair votes aye the board is adjourned thank you all very much for all your patience and timing this evening