 It's 732 p.m. on Tuesday, August 9th, 2022. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein, and I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. And I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Handler? Here. Kevin Mills? Here. Dana Rickidelli? Here. Blaine Hoffman? Here. Venkat Holley? Here. Thank you all. On behalf of the town, Rick Valerelli, our board administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. And Vincent Lee is our assisting staff this evening. Here. Good to have you with us, Ben. And then appearing on behalf of 24 Grandview Road, Ryan and Devin Thomas? Here. Thank you. Appearing for 1315 Adams Street? Anna Jeremy Wilmer? Here. Perfect. Thank you. And appearing for 12 Prospect Avenue? John and Althea, Yucca Medis? Here. Wonderful. This open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations signed into law on July 16, 2022. This act includes an extension until March 31, 2023 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a forum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access that's listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. In this chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting and quarterly 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 Monotomy and Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board here by acknowledges the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands, the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony province of 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'll be skinning this agenda. Item number two on our agenda is the approval of the decisions. So these items relate to the operation of the board and it's such we 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'll invite members of the board to provide any comments, questions or motions they may have. Members wish to engage in discussion without a member please leave so through the chair, taking care to identify yourself for the record. So first is the approval of the written decision for 3840 Newport Street. This was the case that had hearing dates in June and July. I wrote up the decision, forwarded that to the board last week for reviewing comments. Comments have been incorporated in a final draft with the issue this afternoon. Are there any further comments in regards to the written decision for 3840 Newport Street? Being none, I move to accept the, to approve the written decision for 3840 Newport Street. May I have a second? Second. Hanlon, vote of the members of the board who are present and voting on that hearing. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Thank you. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. That brings us to item three on the agenda, the approval of the written decision for 79 Ronald Road. This was the case that was heard in July of this year. It was voted on favorably by the board. The decision was written by Mr. Hanlon, distributed for comment and provides final copy was issued to the members of the board this afternoon. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the written decision for 79 Ronald Road? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I inadvertently, when I distributed the decision earlier on, forgot to take the draft watermark off and change the, and change it from sort of opinion the gray to opinion the white. And so when I move, I will suggest those two changes be made. Are there any further changes being proposed? Being done, I'll turn to Mr. Hanlon for a motion. Chairman, I move that the proposed written decision in 79 Ronald Road be approved. Thank you very much. As amended by your point. As amended by my prior's thing, that is getting the color white and getting the draft mark off. Perfect, thank you. May I have a second? Second. Mills. We'll call vote to the members who are present voting on that decision. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Hanlon. Mills. Hi. Rickardelli. Hi. Chair votes, that decision is approved. That brings us to a brief of the meeting minutes for approval. The first is the minutes from June 15th, 2021. These were distributed to the board and comments were received back by Minister Bellarelli. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to those minutes from June 15th, 2021? Seeing none, I have a motion to approve those minutes. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second, Mr. Mills. Hi. Second. And then a vote of the members who were present at that hearing, Mr. DuPont. Hi. Hanlon. Hi. Bill? Bill? Perfect, thank you. And the chair votes, those minutes are approved. That brings us to item number five in our agenda, approval of minutes from March 22nd, 2022. Again, these were minutes that were distributed by Mr. Bellarelli to the members of the board for their review. I want to set an opportunity to provide comments back to Mr. Bellarelli. Are there any further comments or questions in regards to those minutes at this time? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from March 22nd, 2022? So moved. May I put the Hanlon, and may I have a second? Second. A vote of those members present at that meeting, Mr. DuPont. Hi. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Rickidelli. Hi. Muffin. Hi. Mr. Holley. Hi. Chair votes, aye. Those minutes are approved. That brings us to item number six on the agenda, the approval of the meeting minutes on the April 26th, 2022 meeting. We were distributed by Mr. Bellarelli to members of the board for their review and comment. I want to set an opportunity to return comments. Are there any further comments on the minutes from April 26th? Nope. Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. Hanlon, and a second? Second. Thank you. Mr. DuPont. And a vote of those members present for that meeting, Mr. DuPont. Hi. Hanlon. Hi. Mills. Hi. Rickidelli. Hi. Mr. Holley. Hi. And the chair votes, aye. Those minutes are approved. Thank you all very much. That brings us to item number seven, which is the first of our hearings this evening. Turning to public hearings on tonight's agenda, here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves for themselves and make their presentations to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what questions they have on their 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. Check, there's no one waiting at the waiting room. There's not. So with that, I will turn to the first of our three hearings for this evening, which is 24 Grandview Road. I would ask the applicant to introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. Hi, this is Ryan Thomas of 24 Grandview. My request for this appeal is to install a carport in a currently pavered area off of the driveway, off of Spring Avenue, the kind of alley road that runs next to the house. Currently, because it's a non-conforming lot, it's a 15-foot request because it's a corner lot, so two sides would be 15 feet. Due to a rock wall and hill and uneven terrain and a bunch of mature trees, we're looking to have the carport six feet off of Spring Avenue behind the current privacy fence and over the pavered area, as opposed to the 15-foot setback. I believe all images and documentation were submitted. I don't have a copy to share on my computer at this time, though. Go ahead and share that right now. This is the packet, so this is a request for, it's written originally as a request for special permit. I'll pull up a separate page because it is actually a request for a variance. Yeah, that was corrected by Rick. I believe this is the existing area, including a trailer that's stored on site. Yep. That's the camper. Ah! This is an image of the alley or Spring Avenue with the current privacy fence. Good thing, that's Spring Avenue over there. And this is looking down Spring, I believe, and your property is on the left-hand side. Yes, that's correct. Grant, if you wrote it's the main street, Spring Avenue is the side street. And this is the proposed location here. That's correct. You'll see it's just off the driveway right there. The currently pavered area has a six-foot setback from the property line, almost exactly. So I'm guessing who the previous owner had had to install it to that specification. Okay. And the plan doesn't include the location of any trees. It doesn't include any topography. Do you sort of explain a little bit about what the nature of the site is? Yes, sure. If you look, the majority of the property has about a 15-foot elevation differences across. It is at the start of the slope. It's unable to be accessed by anywhere, but the existing carport area and driveway, near quite a regular in the area. But if you look just to the right, the right boundary of the proposed area, there is a row of mature trees, oak trees that are in this area, as well as about a five-foot elevation change where the ledge is outcropping. And there's a rock wall built up on top of that and a little below with some landscaping on it. But the ledge is just to the right there, impeding any ability to move it further to the right. And then the rest of the property is elevated from the surrounding streets so there is no other access to the property except for through that area. Thank you. There's mature trees across the rest of the property as well, but in the area in question, there is a mature tree at the corner of the driveway in the whatever the upper left corner would be there. And then there is a nice grassy median which will remain between the driveway and the proposed area. And then there's probably about 16 feet available with for the proposed carport. So I don't have the ability to move it further over to be 15 feet off of Spring Avenue, hence only six feet available and with the privacy fence remaining between Spring Avenue and the proposed carport. Okay, thank you. Go ahead, you've had shared some images of what the carport might look like. Correct. It is a steel structure with a dark gray metal roof built to the required specifications. And I believe, hey, this is not your house. This is more of a generic image, is that correct? That's correct. These were images provided by the carport company. Okay, and then I believe that the request is for simply for the roof and the open sides. I know you have provided some other images with a partial side or with full sites. And I just wanted to confirm that the request was simply for the open-sided structure. Yeah, that's correct. That's what I prefer. I just provided the alternatives in case there was a requirement for any type of siding. Okay, thank you. Application with a variance to go right on the hand. Go ahead and share. This is the report from the planning department. This is this application. So you notice that the applicants are requesting a variance for a reduction of the front yard setback for an accessory structure in the R1. So many districts from 25 feet to 60. Our port will be located to the right of the existing driveway access from Spring Avenue, comply with the rear side yard setback requirements of six feet, and lot coverage would increase from 17% to 20% of the proposal. That's cool. I have one correction. It is a non-conforming property. So it was a 15 foot requirement for the setback. For the front yard setback? That's correct. I believe the rear yard setback varies by the depth of the lot, but I'm pretty sure in the R1 zoning district, the front yard setback remains 25 feet. Okay. I was just told when my initial call, just because it was a non-conforming property, if I could make it 15 feet, that would work. So the variances, there are four criteria. The criteria are set under state law. First, and the board has to find all four criteria. So the first, I'm just gonna quickly read through the criteria and then I'll open this to the board for questions. So the first criteria is to describe the circumstances related to the soil conditions, shape or topography, especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. That would substantiate the granting of a barrier. The second is describe how a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning bylaw, specifically relating to the circumstances affecting the land or structure noted above, would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, the petition or appellate. Three is to describe how desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. And then describe how desirable relief may be granted without not qualifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw that's kind of our only thing. So the comments here added by the planning department, they know that the topography and existing vegetation of the site significantly limit vehicular access except from spring app and the property slopes towards the northeast. Additionally, mature trees are located within the front yard along Grandview. This review does not specifically discuss other properties within the zoning district so that something the board will have to consider. Criteria two addresses the hardship question. If the applicant were to follow a literal interpretation of the zoning bylaw and for environmental costs to create a flat area for the carport on the slope side of the lot with the certificate. Right, criteria three, sustained assessment of a good proposed area for the carport is already developed with the stone patio and no further increase in the previous area is needed. Criteria four without nullifying or potentially derogating the intent of the zoning bylaw, the proposal is consistent with the general intent of the R1 zoning district. This is a request for an accessory structure and it's not related to the primary structure. Initially, there's an image, Google image of the house. It's highly surrounded by trees. Okay. You'll feel for the rest of the, some of the adjacent houses in the R1 district. Front view of the house from Grandview Road. This is the view from below on Spring Street. The trees that are right on the edge of the street. That's some of the other trees that are on the site as well. The planning department felt that the proposal could meet the four variants criteria that is for the board to deliberate. So with that, are there questions from the board with regards to this application? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Conelli. I just have one question. I know in the zoning memo, I mentioned that the access is unchanged, but I was wondering if the applicant could explain, you're not asking for a new prop cut off of Spring Street, right? It comes off of your existing driveway. Access to the car forward. That's correct. Access would be off the right side of the driveway, creating a bit of a T, but separated by a grass barrier. Done. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. It's my understanding from what you said, that Mr. Thomas said earlier, that the trailer that is being protected is already there on the site. Is that true? Thomas? That is correct, yes. Does it have any other means of protecting it, or is it just open to the air? It's open to the air right now, and there is a canopy of trees over it that are quite high and unable to be trimmed too severely. So there is the potential for damage. Is there a, are there things like, sometimes when you walk down the street, you see people who've got tarpaulins or other kinds of things like that to protect otherwise open driveways? Is, have you looked at that? Is that an available option for you? It is potentially for the summer, but during the winter months, when the snow load would be quite heavy on our, it's an old airstream in 1975, we wouldn't be able to keep the sunshades, the tarps up and elevated due to the snow load, if that would occur. How long have you had this trailer? I've had the trailer for seven years, rebuilt from the ground up, it is our baby and our, our favorite pastime with the kids is taking them out camping. Has it, has it incurred any damage so far? No, we've had some limbs fall on it, but no damage or dense to it so far. So Mr. Chairman, I, the reason I'm asking all of this is to try to explore a little bit, my view at least of what, which is different from the planning department's view as to what it means to have a substantial hardship. The literal application of the bylaw either means that Mr. Thomas would have to spend extra money in the way the planning department was contemplating or he'd have to forego having the structure. And so the question ultimately is whether or not this not having the structure is a substantial hardship within the meaning of the section 40A or whether the structure is just a convenience that otherwise that is not a substantial hardship. And so the question really ultimately is how big of a hardship is it to forego having a structure of this kind? Ultimately, according to the law, at least the individual problems or individual harms that relate to the particular use of the property by a particular owner don't count because who knows, one of these days, Mr. Thomas may not own that this anymore or he may not own it the trailer anymore and you'll still have the carport. So there's an objective standard for this and I'm undecided on this point without having heard the rest of the hearing. I don't know what I feel on all the other points. It seems to me that there's a strong case that whatever the problem here is, it's due to shape topography and so forth so that we get past condition one. But I need to understand better why the hardship that would be involved in not having the carport is the sort of substantial hardship that would justify a variance. And if I may, for one minute, just to come back that potential damage from the overhead canopy is significant be possible. We just had the microburst, a large limb did drop down with a 12 inch diameter nearby and storing the camper offsite is not an option really due to the financial costs associated with that upwards of six to $900 a month, 900 for covered within about 30 miles from here. So we can't afford that one. So it is mostly as a protection. It's the only parking cover we would have in that area. The garage is quite small and not accessible for any vehicles other than a very small one. So it does provide protection to our property. Thank you. What would the height be of this proposed carport? It is 12 feet at the sides and 13 point, I believe it was 13 feet, two inches at the peak. And that gives sufficient clearance for the trailer underneath? Yes, that does. The trailer height is about 12 feet, three inches. So on the image that we had seen before of the trailer, not anticipated that the canopy would be significantly taller than what we're seeing in this image. Yes, it would, there would be that foot and a half for the trusses to go up underneath the roof structure. So it would be about a foot and a half taller than what you're seeing now. And the access to it would be through the existing driveway where the truck is parked today? Yes, that's correct. And then a gate will go up across on the right there. That would all be covered. Okay, but this would essentially remain unchanged? That's correct. The actual area, I think the six foot line is about two and a half feet on the other side of that fence. Further questions on the board? Mr. Chairman? You're fine. So I just have a question if I could pose it to Mr. Valorelli. And Mr. Valorelli, are you there? I am, Mr. Dupont, go right ahead. So if there was a proposal to put a garage in roughly the same location, what would we be dealing with in terms of the setbacks? He has a preex, I'm sorry we didn't drop you, but I think I know where you're going with this. Yeah. He has a pre-executing non-confirming front yard setback of 15 plus feet. So we would have to maintain that. And then the rear yard setback for an accessory structure, you'd have to maintain the six foot setback. So it would be 15 to spring? That's correct. So what the applicant is asking the board is if he can seek relief from the 15 foot setback which is pre-executing non-confirming, which he could do by right and get a little closer. I see, okay. So we're really now talking about the difference between 15 and six point something. That is absolutely correct, Mr. DuPont. Okay. And then I just wanna be clear because I know that the planning board memo says 25 feet and I think the difference has been explained. So I think it would be the 15, but it does talk about not only the financial but the environmental cost. And so I'm just asking the applicant, Mr. Thomas, to address what the environmental cost is. I think I understand what it might be, but could you please address that, Mr. Thomas? Yes, of course. The area is all currently pavered. So there would be a no additional and pervious cover added. The canopy is high enough that no additional tree trimming or tree removal would be required. And I do plan on putting a rain catchment system on it, which would actually reduce the runoff that occurs down Spring Avenue a bit from the property. And to the extent that the planning board memo indicates that were you to try to adhere to the 15 foot distance from Spring, it said that there would be an environmental cost to doing it that way. So I'm just trying to understand what that environmental cost would be? Yes, on the left side, those trees would have to be removed and we would have to jackhammer out the ledge. There is a five foot rise occurring over to there. It's currently, you have, it's quite say 21 feet from the property line, hence with the six foot set back in the 14 foot cardboard that would leave about a foot off of the ledge in existing, well, the trees are back a little further. They're into the landscaping and on the ledge there. So it would be required to excavate out the ledge in that area. Thank you. Just to clarify a point there, so the existing, so in the R1 zoning district, the minimum required front yard step back to 25 feet, but this house has a pre-existing non-conformity of having a front yard depth of only 15 feet. I misunderstood that initially, so I did just want to clarify that point. And so basically the applicant is looking to reduce the front yard step back from 15 feet to six feet, which is from, which is already in a, which is already a non-conforming step back. Further questions from the board? Open the meeting for public comment. So in opening the meeting for public comment, public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter of hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asks those wishing to address the board a 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 who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine and indicate you would like to speak. You will be called upon by the meeting post. You'll be asked to give your name and address and you will be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. And please remember to speak clearly. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time has ended, the public comment period will be closed. Board and staff will do our best to show documents that are being discussed. So with that, are there any members of the public who wish to speak to this particular item? Board, I do not see any, but I will ask again, are there any members of the public who wish to address the board in relation to this application for 24 Grandview Road? In none, I will close the public comment period for 24 Grandview Road. So what is before the board here, then I do wanna try to clarify this a little bit because the board has some discretion of if there's an existing nonconformity and an applicant is seeking to basically increase the level of the nonconformity, then the board has discretion to act under state law and granted as long as there is not, it is not significantly more detrimental. However, if there's a new nonconformity that is being proposed or something that creates a new conflict with the zoning by-law, then that requires a variance. So I did want to just quickly, Mr. Valarelli, if I could just confirm this. So the creation of, do we have any documentation of allowing the creation of the front yard parking area? We do, Mr. Chairman. The applicant due diligence resubmitted his application in the variance form. Okay. So is there an existing, so the parking space that's currently being utilized in that front yard facing Spring Street? So that parking area is not permitted at the moment, is that correct? That's a great question. So the structures or the parking areas, if you will, are based on, doesn't have a roof or does it not? So a driveway would be allowed by right, with the new by-law change with a minimum buffer. But because this particular structure has a roof, the board has to look at this as if it was a garage, if you will. So therefore, that's why the applicant is before the board. So ISD looks at structures roofed or unroofed. In fact, it's reading in the zoning by-law several times with that description. So the applicant is looking for basically a carport instead of a driveway. And that's what he's asking the board for relief from. If the applicant came before ISD and maintained a 15 point, whatever it is, one foot setback and maintained that pre-existing non-confirming setback, he might be issued a building permit by right, but because he can't, because of topography reasons, what I'm hearing tonight, he needs our relief for that. I hope I answered your question, Mr. Jim. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. There was another implication, I think in the chairman's question that I wanted to focus on. One way of looking at this is as an intensification as the extension of an existing non-conformity. That it's already non-conforming to 15 feet, now they want it non-conforming to six feet. And I can see reasons one way or the other why you might regard it that way, but why wouldn't this be a extension of the existing non-conformity? So my sense is that there's two issues going on. That one is the setback issue. So the reduction of the existing non-conformity to 15 feet to six feet. The other is this question about creation of a front yard parking space. So Arlington does not allow the creation of parking within the front yard. This is a little bit of a quirky situation where there is an existing parking area that has existed at this property and is currently being utilized for parking. But the question about whether or not there is a record of it being allowed to be parking or whether it predates this provision of the zoning blah blah, we really don't know. And that's part of what I'm a little uncertain about is are we being asked to not only allow the structure but are we also being asked to allow the use of the front yard for parking in this case which would require the variance. If it was just a question of can the setback be reduced? And I believe that would be a section six determination that the board may, but is the fact that there's parking involved within the front yard does that therefore make it that it needs to, is that part of the basis for the variance request? And in this case where it's an existing, it's basically an existing front yard use that the board has no knowledge of how it was created. I don't know if that creates an issue for us or not. Mr. Chairman. The issue really, it seems to me the issue with respect to the parking, I mean, the applicant is allowed once he's got a driveway there to park wherever he wants. So it's not a regulation issue in that the question is whether or not this would be sufficient to meet the parking standards of the zoning bylaw and the rule is that those things don't count. You can't have the regulation parking located there. And I'm not sure that issue is really before us. I mean, suppose we said no, does that mean the applicant is supposed to remove his trailer and cars, your truck, presumably not. So I at least am a lot more concerned about the six feet than I am about the fact that this is being used for parking at all. I may be wrong on that now because the house itself, whatever it is, is already has something. It was approved, there were probably parking requirements at the time it was originally went in and either this was before that or it met whatever was, it's a little bit too late now to reopen that. Do you think this is a lapse of a case of variance requirement and more of a section six determination or is this? Well, I'm attracted to the idea. Let me just say that if we had a choice, if we could look at it either way and it was a matter of judgment, I'd much rather treat this as a section six application because it would focus our attention on what ought to be the right considerations and the kind of worries I had about substantial hardship that I expressed earlier wouldn't be relevant. And we'd be just looking at land use sorts of things and not looking at the sort of quasi constitutional issues that gave rise to variances to begin with. So if it could be done as a special permit and that is open to us, I think it would be a preferable way to go. Members of the board, I think can ever go. Mr. Hanlon said, you know, if he has a driveway, you know, once a driveway is there, we can park wherever he can. But I have a question, Mr. Valorelli, doesn't a driveway have to extend past the front of the house? So the intention is to pat that the parking could be past the front of the house. Is that true, Mr. Valorelli? It does, Mr. Mills, that's absolutely correct. So this is not a legal driveway in any sense of the word then? As it stands. Just clarifying the issue. Thank you. Essentially the driveway needs to lead to legal parking by definition. In this case, the driveway does not lead to legal parking except for the parking that is under the house. In that regards, Mr. Hanlon, which does that change your opinion about what we're trying to accomplish? Well, it's troubling. The record isn't, I think it's troubling, although it doesn't really directly deal with the issue that I'm concerned with. In other words, as the chairman pointed out, this does involve two distinct issues. One is the location of the parking, which has got a distinct set of considerations. And the other has to do with the extension of the existing non-conformity that comes from essentially intruding more into the protective front yard. We could solve that last part, it seems to me, by treating it as an extension of existing non-conformity and there would be some good practical sense in doing so. It doesn't necessarily deal with the second issue, but I'm not sure. We don't have an application in front of us really that is dealing with the second issue. We haven't heard any real argument on it except the discussion that we're having now, which we all made up ourselves. And the applicant, sure he wasn't expecting when he filed this application to suddenly find himself having to vigorously defend the existence of his driveway. So I'm a little bit perplexed as to what to do about it and nervous about dealing with this kind of an issue on the fly. The fact that it exists and has existed from some time suggests to me that there's some sort of a vested interest in it, which I'd like to be able to explore more, but it troubles me to suddenly entertain this issue and without having much of a basis for it, without having, I mean, I would like very much to get more information about how this got to be here and why it's here and so on. If it's a mistake by, if it was a mistake by ISD or its predecessors earlier on, there are provisions about how long you can have to challenge those things. All of those are things that have not been developed on our record that I'd be reluctant to jump into right now. My perspective, the board has had several applications recently for variances in regards to parking, having a prior one on Summer Street. I think it's a fairly good job of sort of exploring needs and discussing them, especially as they relate to public safety and the necessity of the property and for how those work together. And in some ways, I'm a little more comfortable in regards to the application to say that the board could consider the location for the structure as of previous criteria, then the structure itself would just be a section six determination, because they're essentially at least of a new structure under variance, I guess. Mr. Chairman, at least I'm having a hard time hearing you. A little topic, where the board has experience in regards to variances for parking, feel a little more comfortable for discussing and this parking area as of doing that discussion as a variance, the question about the structure and then structure then just an extension of that same conversation, or is it a separate that it would all be sort of part of the same piece. But then the question really becomes, does the board have sufficient information for the record to satisfy the request for a variance? There are certainly adaptations in regards to the remainder of the site, how would the site goes up, how the site falls away, the trees on the site and the documentation we have for that is included in the images and in the planning department memo and those are sort of the basis for the first of the four variance criteria. So if we're comfortable with that record or should continue along the lines of a variance at this time, if the board thinks we need additional information or is concerned about that then we should figure out what it is that the board would need it to be able to reach that decision. Mr. Chairman. DuPont. So when I went by, I did not look at the driveway per se. So is there at the end of the driveway, I'm sorry, did somebody just refer to the fact that there's parking underneath? Mr. Thomas? Yes, there is a, it is an exposed basement. So the basement is partially buried but not on that side because it slopes down and it's exposed, there is a small carport there. Not carport, sorry, a small garage under the house. Okay, so that extends beyond the driveway, obviously. The driveway leads to that garage space. So not to get too far into the weeds here but as I'm listening to other members of the board, I mean, it sounds like if you have a driveway and it is there and has been there for a period of time, yet there's no record of how it got there in the first place because there's no finding that it was either in conformity with whatever the regulations were at the time that the house was constructed or there's no variance requests saying that we need to be able to park here because of the placement of the house on the lot. And I'm not sure that that's actually true but in having looked at the lot, it does seem to me that there might be some merit in arguing for variance for a driveway. And I'm not suggesting that that's what I think that the applicant should do now but I'm just trying to think this through. So if there is either no record of how the driveway got there, are we looking to see then in order to make a determination how it got there because is it not logical that if we believe that the driveway is there but we're not sure whether it's appropriately there that we can't move to the next step which is the analysis as to whether it's an extension of an existing non-conformity. Is that Mr. Hanlon? Is that how you see it? Yes. Okay. So it strikes me that we need more information unfortunately about that point. If we're going to treat it as an extension of an existing non-conformity. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So to argue against what I, if we don't treat it as an existing non-conformity then it's up to us to define what the scope of the variance is, what we're varying. And I suppose we could just in an abundance of caution if we were disposed to grant this, extend the variance to include the driveway also so that the whole kitten caboodle is suitably protected and there's a record of it for the future. And there at least is a practical advantage to proceeding in that way. You know, I have to say that on the basis of what I've heard so far, I'm pretty comfortable with either a variance or with the extension or with the other theory of extending a non-conforming use. Primary, I do think that there is some issue with respect to the variance that I'm more or less satisfied with but I hate to stick precedents out there on the variance because, you know, they're influenced a lot by the influence by what happens at these hearings and afterwards they don't necessarily line up very well. And but that being said, I could go either way and I'm not, neither thing makes me feel as if I ought to vote to deny this application on the basis of what we've heard so far. Mr. Chairman. No. Following up with Pat and Mr. Hanlon's analysis on precedents, I think that's allowing someone to build a driveway in the front of their house in making it legal by variance, et cetera, could be setting a dangerous precedent and other people could come marching in and say, they wanna start building driveways and you will allow it here, why can't I have one? I really am sympathetic to the applicant's proposal but, you know, once we say one person can do it, there's no stopping anybody else from doing it and then the zoning code has basically got huge holes in it, just my opinion, thank you. Thank you. So I think that would, the board would need to very carefully consider the first criteria for variance. What are the circumstances particular to this plot but not affecting generally the land in the district? Agreed. That would lead to this decision and I think the board would need to make up, you know, a strong and definitive finding in that regard to make sure that the board is clear for the reason that it's acting the way it's acting on this application where it may not act similarly on other applications. Right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So in light of that, I just can say where I am personally on this is that when I went out to go look here, I didn't look with this in mind and I am not 100%, I mean it may be that I had the opportunity to study this but I didn't do it. So that makes me reluctant to face this issue tonight. The second thing is I'm still a little bit hung up by having, but this may be an illegal driveway. I don't know whether it is or not, but I'm guessing it's been here for quite some time. Certainly at least seven years because Mr. Thomas has had his trailer on it for seven years. And... Sorry, just to clarify that, we moved in a year ago. We've had the camper for seven years. Oh, I see, okay. Well then, I just wonder how long it's been there because it seems to me more likely to be a mistake on the part of the town government, if it's illegal, rather than a bootleg driveway that somebody stuck there when he didn't have any driveway before and was just parking on the street. It's just a guess on my part, but if it was in fact a permit, there was a building permit and that was part of it and it's more than a certain distance away in terms of time, then it can't be challenged anymore. And I don't regard what's happening now as an intensification of that use. And so to me, that issue would then go away. It would be another, these things happen all the time and eventually there's peace. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't give you the right to extend it necessarily, but it does remove it from the list of precedents that we might be concerned about. And I don't really know anything about how long that driveway has been there and why it was there and where it was put there. And none of the rest is, probably even Mr. Thomas doesn't know that. And I doubt that we've looked. If I may, interestingly, there are three driveways off of spring. I am one of three. So precedents was set at some point and it is an existing garage that was built into the house with the existing stone. So I would say from 1937, there has been access there. And if that's true, then I don't know why we're dealing with this. I mean, at that point, either it's an prior non-conforming user. If it's not, it's been there for such a long time that it's no longer subject to challenge. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yes, but what's being proposed here is not simply maybe a driveway that is non-conforming. You're looking at a building, a garage, if you will, that's going to be built in that area. So again, the variance would have to be very tightly written to make sure we're not setting precedent for people building garages right on their property lines, if you will. No, absolutely. Mr. Valerick, do you know what the time period is after which, you know, something is constructed after which point is allowed to stay by law? Mr. Chairman, I don't. So the question before the board tonight, if I may, is Mr. Mills is very accurate. Because the applicant is proposing a roofed carport, it is not the same as a driveway front yard parking. It is, in fact, a garage. So I think the board should consider that this carport has four walls and a garage door. I think that is the question posed before the board. If, in fact, the applicant was to extend just a driveway, we wouldn't be here tonight. So I hope that helps you navigating your decisions. Thank you, Mr. Valerick. Mr. Chairman? Yes. If I may, just following up on that a second. I had been envisioning that we would, that if we condition, if we granted a variance, we would condition it on a carport so that it didn't somehow someday become a garage. And it wasn't just a matter of allowing any kind of structure there. I will point out that the defense that Mr. Thomas made for white is there is a substantial hardship, that is to say, protecting the trailer would apply equally well if he was proposing to build a garage. And conceivably so with the first consideration, we would be then looking at whether a garage was inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance and we'd be looking at whatever adverse effect there might be on the neighborhood and those would become relatively more important. But I certainly take Mr. Mills's point that the next applicant may be proposing a garage and it needs to be quite clear why it is that we don't think, assuming that we don't think a garage is appropriate, what the reason for that might be. So if it's the, this is the, I got a phrase here. So the substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the partitioner, to the petitioner is that in the absence of a carport, their vehicle is open to the sky or open to the trees above or whatnot. So the nature of that substantial hardship is that it puts this vehicle in jeopardy. That's the understanding of the nature of the hardship. That's my understanding. And of course, garages do that too. If I may, Mr. Chairman. So that's sort of a difference for me because when somebody says I wanna put up a garage but I can't because of topography or soil condition, whatever it is, I don't know that we look at the rationale for a garage. We don't say because cars need to be protected from the weather and therefore we need a garage. We just say, well garages are permissible. And generally speaking, you have to have them located within these dimensions from the rear and the side and the front yards. So I guess I have a little conceptual difficulty in looking at this and saying that the hardship is the potential damage to the trailer because I agree. I think it's a garage. I don't know. I looked for the word carport in the bylaw and I didn't see it. So I'm not sure what we term it to say we're allowing fill in the blank. It's an accessory structure or some sort of that. It's an accessory structure. So we've got an accessory structure but do we generally speaking, look at what the rationale is for wanting the accessory structure? Or do we say, you know, there's a generally accepted valid reason for wanting this. And now we have to deal with the dimensional requirements and whether or not the conditions and criterion one are satisfied with respect to the placement. And that to me is the issue. I'm not so worried about whether it's a boat, a trailer, a car because I think it's a garage or it's an accessory structure, but nonetheless the use is pretty much the same. So I don't see the hardship as the damage to the particular vehicle or whatever that is as much as I just see like somebody wants to put this there. Is there enough of a reason to allow a permitted structure to be placed here based upon the criterion number one? Mr. Thomas, do you have, looking at the drawings, do you have dimensions for the car? I don't see dimensions listed. Yes, that was submitted as well. I don't think it made it into your packet, but it is 14 feet wide and 26 feet long. It fits onto that existing papered area. Okay, thank you. And you had said it was essentially 13 foot two, I believe? Yes. With the information the board has in front of it, do we feel comfortable proceeding with the direct discussion of the four criteria for variance or do we feel we need to to request some additional information or is there concern that the variance is not the, well, we should be proceeding along the lines? My sense at this point is that, you know, there's a general consensus that a variance is what's required. We would need to be careful in crafting the wording of the variance. And it really comes down to the question of, do we feel that the four criteria for variance are met? And if we feel the four criteria are met, then we can stipulate specifically issues related to the size and materiality, whether the sides are enclosed, those kinds of criteria. But the real question is, are the four criteria for variance met in such a way that we can proceed beyond this point? Mr. Terman? Yes. So if I had more time and I could get answers somehow to the questions about how long that driveway has been there and I think has been suggested, if it was there pursuant to a building permit that was lawfully issued many years ago, then there's, I think it's 10 years, if I remember correctly, from the time that a permit is issued, that somebody can come in and can challenge and say that was incorrectly granted that permit. But whatever the period of time is, I suspect that it's long before that. And I do wonder how the other board members feel because if we were to determine that, in fact, it was a longstanding driveway that was part of an initial submission and approval, then I think we do have the opportunity to look at it as an extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use. And I do think to me that that's perhaps a better alternative to consider. Perhaps we don't get to that, but that would be my preference would be to try to have more information where it's gonna come from, I'm not sure, but to have more information so that we have the choice to treat it more as a special permit than a variance. Chairman. That just to say, that would be my preference as well. And we could work out and we could think in the next few weeks of what would happen if we don't actually have that permit, but we're convinced that the driveway has been there that long a time. I'm not quite sure legally exactly what you do about that, but my recollection is that under some circumstances, it's seven years in other circumstances, it's 10 years, but obviously this is almost certainly been here a lot longer than that. Then the question would be for Mr. Thomas, would you be amenable to a continuance to August 30th to allow the board in yourself time to try to determine the age of that existing parking area Oh, you broke up there, but I got the gist of that. Yes, I'm fine with the continuance. Okay. So in addition, are there any other points that the board would want to try to elucidate during this period apart from the tenure of that portion of the yard? Seeing none, then I think I would entertain a motion to continue hearing the 24 grand review road until Tuesday, August 30th at 7.30 p.m. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Endlund. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this would be a vote of the board for a continuance. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Endlund. Aye. Mills. Aye. Berke-Delling. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And Mr. Holley. Aye. Chair votes aye. So we are continued on 24 grand review road. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Endlund. Could I suggest that we consult with Mr. Heim on this as well, it would be valuable to me at least to have his guidance on how to work our way through this. Certainly we can discuss this with council. Aye. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Good evening. My name is Dean Iochemides. I'm representing John and Alphera committees. And I'm also here with Savina Iochemides. I understand we're on the agenda. Am I keeping her up too late? Is that any way we could switch us next just because it's getting late and she'd like to be in the meeting. Then I would ask the Wilmers to say what it's like. I'm sorry. I was just asking to the Wilmers or the next but they are fine with doing that. In that case, we will move to the next. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Certainly. So the next item we would take up would be DACA number 370812 Prospect Avenue. So with that, I will bring up the documentation for that. But in the meantime, I can ask you to introduce yourself and tell us what you are interested in doing. So my name is Dean Iochemides. I am John Alphera's brother. I'm also their contractor. And I'm here with my client and my niece, Savina Iochemides. I am not your client. She said, I am not your client. She's not my client. I'll be translating and holding a call with Savina today. So Savina has cerebral palsy. She's a wheelchair bond and right now, her parents bring her up and down the stairs every day. Her bedroom's upstairs. We are proposing to build a handicap suite for Savina. So it'd be a bedroom, a bathroom, an entranceway, mud room so she could put all her apparatus and gear coming in and out of her existing handicaps. Well, you do have some gear. Your chairs, your standard. So that's our proposal. I understand we're encroaching into the side yard. A portion of the addition is encroaching into the side yard. So this is the existing, correct? And then the proposed structure is right there, yeah. On the front, we got 11-3, I think 11-2. And on the back is eight-two. So, I mean, the yard, there's plenty of room on the yard. We tried to remove the deck in the back and build the addition off the back. Unfortunately, what it does is just put Savina away from the rest of the family, which is towards the front of the house and upstairs. So it would be a far away walk or area to get to every time they would need to get to her. Where this brings her to the front of the house and it's right down the bottom of the stairs, right outside her mother and father bedroom. So this is the living house. Yep. Across the avenue. Correct. So this is the living first floor plant. So on the first floor, what are the purposes of these rooms currently? So one's a living room, one's a dining room right now. Okay. So the living room, and then that's a family room back there. Oh, okay. So, and that's a kitchen area, right? We hear a pointer is right here. Oh, okay, perfect, okay. So, yeah, we're gonna become, the living room's gonna become her bedroom. And then the... One too far, sorry. Yep, I did. And so it's essentially the property lines coming at an angle here. The property lines coming at an angle. So, I don't know, two thirds of it is encroaching and then the rest of it is not. My understanding was that a conforming lot is seven and a half foot on the setback, but I guess that's not correct. No, it's 10 feet. Okay. I thought it was non-conforming 10 feet. And then on the second floor left, it goes in just a... Just a proposed master suite. Okay. Yeah. None of that impacts the... What sets us on the 14 foot is the actual layout of the bathroom and mud room area to get the correct diameter of swing for wheelchair and the shower. As you can see, we're just squeaking by on that. So it's actually pretty tight on that 14 foot. We want it to go bigger, but the 14 foot has just given us what we need. I don't know. Then is the area for the bath and the floor and the closet, is that encroaching on the existing? I would say like half a portion of it. So, the front mud room, no, but as you get closer to the toilet area is, you're probably just touching and then the rest of it goes in. So, if we took the building and cut it on a diagonal, stepped it back, then I think architecturally it'd be horrible, especially when the roof lines came up to the roof line. So, what's driving it is the front room at that 14 feet. If we bring that in and we could bring it, we could step the back, but I think just architecturally it'd be coming in from the side of the street. You could see that clearly, so. This portion here would be. That's correct. And then, where would the access be up to the? So, right there, there's a ramp, there's a ramp right in front of our house right now. And then it actually comes in, swings where that the entrance is now and then turns into the porch and then goes across the porch. But there's a bump on the threshold that goes into the main house is a three inch bump. So, they have a curve and then coming into the doorway, if you look at the plans, it's really tight. With this, we're gonna bring the ramp flush out. We will have a zero clearance threshold and then she'll be able to go in and out of her own suite and she has a PCA that comes in and helps her. And it would be perfect. They can come right in on the door and it just, she'll be ready for school in the morning. Get on the bus, right? What time does the bus come? What time do you get? Eight o'clock. Eight o'clock, eight o'clock. No, eight o'clock. Eight o' four? No. So, the new entry sequence, would the porch extend in front of the new addition or would it just be? So, there'll be a little porch in front of the addition and then the handicap ramp that's not drawn in there would be on there. So, there's a handicap ramp that runs parallel to the porch, to the front porch. Swings, there's a landing, comes over to another landing and then goes on to the porch, like right to the left of your cursor and then goes into the house. So, basically, we're gonna extend the landing of the ramp and then there'll be a little porch coming into the front. So, I won't come back, I won't come past the setback. Okay. The front setback. But I think you have addressed the question if I did want to ask it again. Have you, obviously, if the addition was 1.8 feet shorter, you wouldn't be able to force it all. I just wanted to make sure that that was something you had considered and that. We did consider it stepping the foundation back, but then again, it would throw the roof lines off. You'd have a step back. I just think it's architecturally, and then I'm not sure, but technically, we can't leave the second floor back in if we wanted to legally. So, instead of stepping it out and at that point, keep it clean, we considered making it smaller, but again, we did three or four configurations of the bathroom and it just wouldn't work. And if we did it the long way, again, she'd have to go through the living room. This just gives her, she's part of the house now. She's part of the entrance, part of the hallway and then up the stairs is her parents' bedroom and her brother and sister's bedroom. So it flows, she's part of the house and then she'll have her own way to get around. She has a power chair that she's getting trained on so eventually she'll be coming in and out with her own power chair. We're gonna put a 42 inch front door, probably with an ADA access opener. So as she grows, she'll be able to do that. And just to confirm that on this side of the house is where the driveway is. That is correct, that's where the driveway is now. So we couldn't do it that way. If you look in the back where it says deck is in addition and then the deck, we considered renovating it and then adding to the back, removing the deck, adding to the back going further back because we've got plenty of room. Unfortunately, like I said, it throws her way another 30 feet out behind the house. Now you gotta go through the living room, through the family room, through the kitchen, up the stairs, so it's a far walk to upstairs bedrooms or her parents need to hear or whatnot. We feel that she's not part of the... And then accessibility, she would have to come all the way back if we put a separate ramp down the driveway and the elevation of that is a lot higher. The part of it goes down, so the elevation is higher, so the ramp would be much, much longer. Right, and I did want to... I'm not sure if he's got Topo on that, but it is, I think that the slope's down two or three feet. I just want to bring up the memoranda from the planning department. And so they had looked at this and applied the various criteria as well. So I sort of note that the front porch would be extended, they just would extend the footprint to the left into the leadership backwards, currently not the decrease setback from 25 to 8 feet, 8.1 or 8.2 feet by the appellant, whereas 10 foot is the minimum, the result increases the square footage from 1825, which is less than 750 square feet, so it's not considered a large addition. However, the proposed gross area is not provided by the staff note, if the total increases over 750, then a special permit would be needed in addition. Under the proposal, a lot coverage would increase to approximately 20.7%, but that does not include the four... Structures of R1 does not have any existing non-conformities. So this would be creating a new non-conformity, which is a reason for variance. And then it's stated on the prior hearing that the various criteria are set under state law, there are four criteria and the board needs to be able to find all four criteria in order to be able to accept the variance. So the first one is... Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Is the fact that we're dealing with a disability here impinge on this issue, is there some law that would impact on this decision beneath the architect's note? I would ask Mr. Vellarelli if he's aware of anything. I'm unaware of anything specific. I know that the application of variance criteria were not supposed to consider a specific resident or a specific need of a specific resident as opposed to be general to the property. I'm not sure, and I would ask Mr. Vellarelli if he's aware of anything in particular to this circumstance that we want to do. So Mr. Chairman, that's a great question. So I actually have to defer that back to you and the architects on the board, does the ADA or the AAB take precedence in this matter? An analogy would be if a person came to the building department to put in an accessible ramp and looking at it at face value needed to variance, well, it would not because it in fact helps the person who needs assistance to get from point A to point B and that would be by right. So this is a little bit above my pay grade. So I have to defer to the architects to look at the AAB and the ADA standards and make an assessment if this may be applicable to that. Mr. Miltz, three point, thank you. Don't think, I don't remember that. I don't think that a architectural access board requirement specifically relate to single family housing. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I agree. I think it was my experience ADA is for public spaces and public buildings and then FHA would determine housing development. I'm not aware of a specific law that would apply to single family residential in terms of accessibility, but I may not know every single one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Riccadelli, I appreciate that. So the memorandum that was prepared by the planning board does not believe it specifically addresses that question. So they say that the soil conditions shape photography, the lot do not limit opportunities for expansion in a manner that conforms to the current dimensional requirements. So as the applicant is over the noted, there's room in the front, there's room on the right, there's room on the rear. And there is a shy of 12 feet of space or just over 12 feet of space to the left is that they could expand and stay within the requirements of the zone of fire law. And there's, but that there are specific desires in regards to the interior layout of the house that are driving to determine the decision to locate it on that side of the house. For hardship, additional primarily, and remember, wheelchairs out of the house on the lot limits the opportunities for expansion into the side yards, it's likely the proposal could be revised to comply with the mental requirements. However, substantial modifications to the existing structure may be necessary given the need to construct a traditional living area that meets accessibility standards, which could be cost prohibitive. Criteria three is without substantive sentiments of the public good. Proposal to the dish would encroach at 1.9 feet would otherwise being character with the abiding homes. Property can accommodate the addition without compromising the public good. And the planning department felt that without derogating for the intent of the bylaw that it's consistent with R1 housing and trying to allow the housing for all of our LinkedIn's residents within the residential neighborhood. Is this an image from above? So you can see that this is the location for the dish with the driveway here on the side. Front image from the front of the house. The dish will be here in this grassy portion on the side. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon, sorry. It just, I wanna be clear that this is a two-story addition. There's a second story on top of it. And certainly in terms of what it looks like, and I dropped by there just before our meeting today, there's sort of a house just on the other side where this picture is. And a two-story structure there is something that might occasion some question. I guess it will be interesting to hear what the butters have to say about that, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that that is a non-issue. No, absolutely. The recommendation for the Department of Planning and Development is that they, in their opinion, that it does not meet criteria one, but they're uncertain about criteria two. Okay, Mr. Chairman, can I, the application form that we have is very perplexing because the numbers on the dimensional requirements are not filled in for the proposed, although there's a statement that says how many extra square feet this is. There's no supports for that. See, none of it is filled out except the existing. And on some occasions in the existing, like lock coverage, the figure is clearly wrong because if you do the arithmetic from what's there, you get 15% instead of 10%. And this is an extraordinary sympathetic case, but we're dealing with information that I don't trust and that doesn't really fill it all out. One of the issues that's raised by the Planning Department is how big this is. We have a statement that it's here, that it's gross square footage is goes from 18 to 25, which would be 700, but the next page, which is where we normally calculate that isn't filled out. So there's no way to verify that. If you do the arithmetic looking at some of the drawings, it looks like it's somewhat more than, certainly more than 700 and possibly more than 750. And I just, I'm not entirely clear on, we just don't have the facts that we normally have to make these judgments. And I'm perplexed by that. And I guess as long as I've got the floor, I'll say I'm also somewhat perplexed and I will rely a lot on the architects on the contention that this couldn't be built with in compliance with the zoning by law. I look at it, it's attractive emotionally, but we're not supposed to be looking at the particular conditions of the particular people who want to do this. And so to me, it's a building, it's an extension, it's an addition to the side of the building. If there's some special category that relates to building for the handicap that then sort of takes it out of that category in some way, which is what we were exploring before that would be very relevant. But otherwise, it seems to me there has to be some way in which there's a hardship that's cognizable under the zoning by law, under the state law that allows this intrusion. And it's hard to, so I'm gonna just step back because I don't, it reminds me of the Venner Road case we had before, which was very sympathetic, but ultimately it came down to the applicant going back to his mom and saying that the board of zoning appeals over a bunch of hard-nosed people and maybe there's a way out of this. And mom said yes. And I'm curious as to whether, if you really put your mind to it, there's not a way of solving this problem that will enable the needs of the applicant to be met and at the same time not require a deviation from the zoning by law. Mr. Hamlin, I would ask the applicant, is there, do you have a version of this that is actually filled out completely? I believe so, I believe it was all submitted. As far as the square footage, the addition is 14 by 27. So you're talking about 378 square feet downstairs. And then the roof lines come in on the second floor way in. So you're talking about maybe 20 by 14 another 280 square feet. So you're under 700 already on that. Again, by right, we have the ability to build the front to the 14, right to the 10. We could step it back, kick it over and then can't leave the second floor back out to the 14 and maintain that. But again, I think architecturally that's not the correct thing to do to this house. I mean, it's not a historical house but it does have some character. It's been here for a long time. It's been in the family since 87. So we take pride in the house and the land. We believe that for Savina's sake, this is what she needs for an extra foot and a half if we have to shrink it and she's banging our knees when she's older trying to maneuver her power chair. I don't think that's correct. So the addition is 14 by 28, correct? Not 14 by 27. 27 or 28? Should be 27. 28 on all the drawings. Okay, so 28, I apologize. I mean, I think this is part of the issue that the board is having is that I don't know if... But you're still way under 700. It's very correct that, you know, this is the documentation that was provided to the board which this is incomplete. It makes our job very difficult to determine exactly how we should proceed. And so if this is not the record that you submitted then that's something we need to determine but if this is the information that was provided... It might be what we submitted and if it is missing items, I guess we could go back and do it. But again, if you do the math, it's just a 14 or even at 14 by 28. And again, upstairs the roof lines come way in. Habitable is way under 16 feet. If you get to the habitable space on the second floor because of the roof lines, the second floor, the roof sits on the second floor. I think it sits on a one foot, two foot knee wall. So by the time you come out to the five foot mark, you've come in eight feet on both sides. So in reality, it's a very small room. It's probably 12 by 14. So you're way under your 700 square foot mark. Whether I put it on tape or not. There's no information on the drawings that provides that information to us. Yep. And... But you can see it. I mean, it's... For us to make a decision that, you know, is legally binding, we need to have figures that we can legally hold to. And right now it's very fungible as to what the proposal actually is. But it couldn't be because of the roof, the roof where the roof line sits, you know, just you couldn't have habitable space. There's no second floor walls on the roof. There's no roof pitch. It's a, yeah, fine. There's no roof pitch. But it's even at a 12, 12, you're again, there's no knee wall. There's no walls that those roof is sitting on. It's sitting on basically a foot off the second floor. So habitable, you know, is, I think it's a 12 by 12 or 14 by 14. You're way under your 750 square feet. But I think you can be sympathetic to our position. You know, we need to have, whatever decision the board makes has to be transmitted to the registry of deeds. That's fine. It's a legal document. So we need actual. That's fine. We can, if they're incomplete, we can definitely come back and fill that out and give you a complete drawing showing that, you know, but that's not an issue. Okay. I think then it sort of comes back to this, to, you know, sort of the primary question, which is that this is a request for a variance. That's correct. And I think the real question for the board, and as Mr. Hanlon had said, you know, it was sort of the question on Benner Road as well, is where you have a site where you can readily develop in any direction. And for, you know, what in this case is very, you know, very valid and very important reasons you are requesting to do it in a particular direction that is creating a new non-conformity. The first criteria established under state law is that there is some reason that it has to, that this has to happen. You know, is there something about the soil conditions, the shape of the lot, or the topography, especially affecting this land, but not generally affecting the zoning district? And I think that the board is, you know, the planning board certainly struggled with that question. It's usually the planning department struggled with that question. And I think that that's, you know, something the board hasn't had an opportunity to discuss yet, but I think this is something that the board, you know, I'd like to hear from other members of the board what they feel in particular about this question, because as I said before, you know, when the board is making decisions in regards to variances, it's not supposed to be looking at specific situations with specific households because the variance will outlast or outlive the residents of the home. It will be a permanent change to the land record. And, you know, as was brought up, I think it's very important that the board speak with council and confirm what the situation is with regards to, with the laws in the Commonwealth and whether there are any laws that would apply in this case because of the residents of the home. But otherwise it's a question before the board as to, you know, can we meet the requirements under state law for criteria number one? So I would like to hear from other members of the board to sort of get their sense on this question. Mr. Chairman. Dupont. So, you know, when I read the planning department memo and without having, you know, come to the meeting yet, I was just looking at it in terms of the end recommendation that we work with the applicant to try to determine whether there is a way of having the addition conform to the existing zoning. And, you know, I really do understand and appreciate and sympathize with what the applicant is saying as far as why it is desirable. And I really do get that. And I suspect all of the members of the board do as well. It's just that when we deal with variances as opposed to special permits, special permits, as everyone knows we have discretion. And when we talk about variances, we don't have really discretion as far as whether or not we have to meet the criteria in the section for variances. And so when I'm faced with a variance and I don't think that it meets the criterion, in this case, particular criterion number one, I just feel like that removes my ability to grant the relief that's requested. I just don't feel like I'm authorized unless there is that finding because you can't write a variance decision saying we're granting this relief, but it doesn't meet the criterion number one. And so that's my problem. I just don't know how to get around that as much as I might actually want to do that. I just don't know how that can be done. And so I think it would be important to understand whether or not there is some superseding law, you know, either state or federal that would say, you know, that under these circumstances, those dimensional requirements don't have to be met, you know, but as it stands now, I don't see how we get past criterion one. And so I would go back to what the planning department said and see if there is a possible way of designing so that that, you know, 1.9 feet can be, you know, can be accommodated. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jupan. Other members of the board? Mr. Chair. Yes. I guess following up on that, it would be helpful because I believe it's not in the application currently tech for me to have the topographic data because I think the point that the length of the ramp could have to be substantially increased in other locations is relevant, but the information doesn't seem to be part of the application now for us to consider. I know that's a good point. And the other, this is again, just kind of along those lines, I'm also sympathetic to the point that reconfiguring accessible spaces for particularly bathrooms can be very challenging. I'm not sure I see quite enough information on the plan to prove that it would be impossible to reconfigure it. It would be nice. For instance, I can't quite see what the size of the bedroom is. So I think that would also be helpful information. Approximately 14 by 14. That would square off the other room. As far as a topo, again, it would be a cost to the owners. They're also getting some relief for this. As you all know, this is a very expensive project. The topo does drop down the back. So it would be increased on the ramp. But I understand you don't have the information, but it would cost them money to get the survey to come out and do a topo. Then they would have to renovate demo a beautiful family room that I'm actually in right now and renovate that. So to then renovate an addition. So you're adding a tremendous amount of cost to the house and you're pushing Savina way back in the back of the house or off to the side of the house. Again, to get accessible to that point would be very difficult. You have to go all the way down the driveway or always to the side of the house. So as far as avenues, we've explored a tremendous amount of avenues on how to do this. There's an existing office, there's an existing family room. We talked about renovating that, but then they would lose the family room. So then we would go in the back if we flip flopped it, but now you're going through Savina's room to get to the family room. Again, not feasible. She's nine now, but she's gonna be 20 one day and older. The plan is one of her siblings eventually to take over this home and stay here. I mean, we don't know what the future brings, but that's the plan. But at this present time, as you architects know, it's difficult to, whether it's ADA required or not, it's very difficult to put a power chair in there, have her spin around and be able to get in and out of her bathroom. Eventually, she can't stand up, she can't walk without assistance. So eventually you're gonna have to put a chain fault where she's gonna need assistance. So there's another piece of equipment in that room. So, you know, every foot matters. Again, I think we have the setback requirements to get to her room, but then we'd have to step it back and go up and go back and then kind of leave at the top. I mean, we could go through all that, but for a small portion of the variance that we're trying to get into, I feel that we've exhausted all our avenues and this is the place to go. Now, if you need some additional measurements on the drawings, that's a different story, but I think that's small, small measurements or small numbers to what you see here. I mean, you got 12,500 square feet, I'm a lot. So our coverage is way over. I mean, just to clarify with the board, the situation the board is in, is that a request for a variance or criteria are established under state law. And so we need to follow what the state criteria are. And so saying that it's under two feet, it's not a big deal. Unfortunately for the board, it puts us in a very compromising position if we... I understand that. I mean, the board... I understand that. So that's where we're trying to get at. And one of the things that we're trying to, I think trying to impress upon you is if there is a way to make this compliant with the 10 foot yard setback that it will not only do you then no longer need the action that needed an approval of the zoning board of appeal, but you can do your project entirely by right and you can move forward right away. I understand that. And we've thought of that. Certainly the board would encourage you to follow. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just want to sort of stress something. And that is, I mean, I think that I foresee that there's a certain amount of additional work that needs to be done, but I just want to sort of state at the outset that I'm not sure this is not a special permit. A special permit sometimes can do the kinds of things that Mr. Yocometis is talking about. And we don't have full discretion to do that here. And if I can't get by criterion one relating to the shape of the lot, and that looks like a big hurdle that I can't say that I can vote in favor of this. And so I just want to be really clear that nobody can be sure of what will happen when we come back and take a vote unless this is fixed. And again, it's the same way as Vena wrote. It was extremely sympathetic. And I'm extremely sympathetic in both cases. But when you deal with variances, you really are dealing with a set of strict requirements where your sympathies are in many respects not allowed to take precedence over just following it by the book. So I don't think that we should miss. I don't know how this vote is going to be. I haven't talked to any of you, except in what everyone has heard. But I can just sort of say that I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to get the yes on this and would really, really like it if by the next time we saw this, it was like the Vena wrote case again and we didn't have to get the yes because it wasn't in our jurisdiction anymore. Are there any further questions from the board at this time? Jeff, I had one question. I would like to see a roof plan because that would also help us establish where the bridge lines are and how the front facade is going to help with the addition. I know that's a criteria he has in mind of making the front look good. But that would help us a little more to understand how the roof merge at the front. I have a feeling that taking the two feet off in the back might actually help you. Yeah, and that's 750 square feet. Taking the two feet off would help me? No, in the back, just to remain within the setback with all the roof lines coming in. Well, Gary Wright, if I jog the first floor, I can cantilever the second floor and bring the roof line right back out. That would still be within the setback and still be constructing within the setback if you're cantilevering into the setback. Even on the second floor? Even on the second floor? Okay. Eve lines are allowed to, I think eaves are allowed to extend. There's a list of things that specifically can extend within to the side yard setback, but the second floor addition is not one of them. Would like to open the meeting for public comment at this time and just to quickly reiterate. So public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. If you wish to speak, you can digitally raise your hand from the participant tab in the Zoom application or if you're calling it by phone, you may dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak. And all questions should be addressed to the chair and the board, we will do our best to show what her documents are requesting. So members of public who wish to address the board, please go ahead and raise your hand at this point. Just for more. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I would like to echo Mr. Holly's comment about the roofline. I think I was having a hard time looking at the drawings and getting a view of what the structure really will look like with the addition because the roof lines are drawn in so lightly, almost like dimensional lines. Because I think when we're all done here, the structure's gonna be pretty blocky though. So it's hard to tell. I was having trouble with that. And I think I've heard the board say in a number of ways now some compromise probably is needed here. And I think you're offering that option to the applicant from what I can tell. I would be very surprised if it was not possible to do some, what I would guess is a minor readism to make this fit within the dimensional requirements by right is one of the board members mentioned. I would be very surprised. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Are there other members of the public who wish to address this hearing one last time? Any other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? None? I'll go ahead and close the public comment to the meeting. Excuse me for this hearing. So with that returning to the board, I mean, certainly the board has asked the applicant if there's a way that they can try to find a compromise decision that would allow them to avoid the need for variance. Several members of the board have spoken in regards to their concern about whether the application meets the criteria for variance or whether the board would be able to grant the relief that the applicant is seeking based on. There's also been a couple of questions raised about whether there's other legislation in place that may impact the decision the board may make. And that is certainly something I would like to explore with council to see how that would apply in this situation. If such legislation exists. And there has been some requests to have asked the applicant to provide some additional dimensions and the completed application forms for dimensions in an area. Are there other pieces of information that the board is seeking or other recommendations for the applicant that the board would like to make a decision? Seeing none. So the takeaways here for the chair would be to discuss with council as the applicant for first to consider an alternative avoiding the need for variance. If not, or I guess in either case, provide more complete dimensions. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just, I think that this might be included in more complete dimensions, but just to make clear, Ms. Hoffman asked for more information about the ramp and Mr. Holy's more information regarding the roof structures and those should be included in the task list as well. Was there any, did I miss anything from the board? Mr. Chairman, I just have a question. Yeah. If after consulting with council, there is some pathway that handicap accessibility would allow some relief. Is there a way that we could let the applicant know ahead of the next meeting so that he is able to react to that decision? So I can reach it. I'll reach out to council tomorrow and I just think he might need to research a little bit, but I will definitely ask Ms. Rellerally to keep the applicant informed as well progress we make. Thank you. That's very important. I will do Mr. Chairman. Thank you. With that in mind, I would ask the applicant if they would be amenable to a continuance to the next meeting of the board, which is Tuesday, August 30th. So, you know, as far as replanning, we've gone through this, we've done it. The only way of doing it, we'd shrink the room, the bathroom would be non-conforming. Forget about the non-conforming because again, ADA doesn't apply to single family homes. It wouldn't be usable for her wheelchair and it would be very tight so she'd bang into the wall. So with the exception of, you know, moving her to the back of the house and doing it by right or shrinking it and not, you know, not be able to use the property. You know, I can get you topographies or get your roof lines. I don't know what that does, but we can get them. But we will also see council too and see what the buy right is for that. If not, I mean, if we have to go through this whole process then we would just step it back to our buy right, jog the building and then go from there. But I think it's, you know, what we have to do, you know, for that is not correct. You know, the roof lines, they're on the plans. Okay, I could show you some roof lines but they're not gonna change any matter of the setback. The room has to go where it has to go because of the way the room is, you know, for the access and for the topography. You drive by the house, you can see the topography. There's a retaining wall. If you have, look at your picture, the retaining wall on the side driveway. It goes from one block to five blocks down the back. So you can see the topography goes clearly down. So the back doesn't work. It doesn't work for accessibility. It doesn't work for her in the house. It would cost them a tremendous amount of money to rip down something that's already built to rebuild it. So it cost them money to do that. It cost them money to get a topography built and it cost them money to have the plans redesigned. So as far as us coming back in August, I don't see anything changing your mind on that, but it could be wrong. Yeah, no, I mean, I understand your consternation with the boards or quests, but the board is in a position where, if you asked us to vote today, we could vote today, but I think the board's concerns are clear that what you're asking while it is perfectly reasonable for what you are, by your reasoning, we're bound by state law. And state law does not grant us the ability to say, in all cases, this is what the law says, but this sounds okay. So we're gonna break state law and do something against what state law is. I'm not asking you to do that. We're in a very difficult position as well. And so that's why we're trying to... So what is criteria one that's holding you guys back that you can't even get past criteria one? So essentially criteria one is, what are the circumstances relating to the soil conditions, to the shape of the lot, or to the topography, especially affecting this land or structures, but not generally affecting the zoning district in general. Okay, but it's... So you have a lot that you can build and you're requesting to build for extremely specific and extremely understandable reasons to build in the one place that puts it into conflict with what zoning is state for that zoning district. And so there's nothing about this lot that is so different from other properties in the R1 district that make it so that there's a reason that we need to create a special non-conformity for this property that would not be normally allowed. And I understand the reasons you're making this request and I understand the reasons why you're wanting to do it in this location. But so, and that's why we wanna talk to council, but from what our understanding is of state law, that we do not have the discretion to provide the relief that you would like to have. And criteria one though is not applicable for this application, it doesn't hold ground. Criteria one doesn't hold ground on what we need. We can build, we can build another, another spy law we're building on the house. Why, this is exactly why we cannot find that there is something about this lot that is particular to this lot that requires the granting of a variance. Well, the granting of the variance is, it has to go on that location for accessibility. The girl will not be able to go in her house if it doesn't go in. You could add to the front. You could add on the driveway side. There are other locations on this land. So then I take the driveway and move the driveway on this side? What? Yeah, I don't wanna, you know, the laborer there's too much. We do have another couple who has asked, you know, who's ready to do it first. So I am trying to be. What I will do then is I would ask for the extension for August 30th. Since you guys are not comfortable with this and we're not comfortable with this, I guess you guys will send us what you're looking for. We'll get you some more information. You'll see council, we'll see council. And, you know, until then we'll see what happens. Okay. So with that, I would request a motion to continue the variance hearing for 12 Prospect Avenue until Tuesday, August 30th at 7.30 p.m. So moved. Thank you for handling. Do I have a second? Thank you Mr. Dupont. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hamlin. Aye. No. Aye. Coudelli. Aye. Hoffman. Aye. Olly. Aye. Chair votes aye. We are continued on 12 Prospect Avenue until Tuesday, August 30th. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the couple that let us get in between them. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Rick Valorelli, Board Administrator. Yes, Rick. Can we just be clear on what we ask in the applicant to resubmit? So the recommendation from the board is that they consider an alternative that would avoid the need for the side yard variance. Okay. In other words, something that could be granted by right. Could be granted by right. Okay. They're able to come up with that then at the continued hearing the board would basically be voting to withdraw. And then they could proceed directly with the special services. If it's a different application that requires some other relief then the board would need to discuss it at that time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And as we said before, also the board will discuss with town council whether there's any other mitigating legislation and if there is so we will notify the applicant. As quickly as we're able. Yes, got that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much everybody. Have a great night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the is Stockett 37061315 Adams Street. Appreciate the patience of the applicant and they're allowing the prior applicant to proceed in front of them. If I could ask them to go ahead and introduce themselves. I will go ahead and load up the documents for this year. Thank you. My name is Ann Dwyer Wilmer. Can you hear me? We're at 15 Adams Street. Jeremy Wilmer with me. And we also have Frank Dill who's the architect who's helping, well preparing the plans and application and Rachel White, the builder here with us. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to present. Absolutely. Do you have a presentation? Yes, I do. It's pretty much the same, but it's in a different order. So I could pull that up. Mr. Velleralli, does Mr. Dill need specific permission to do that? Let's see if I can do this. How's that? Perfect. Does that work? Okay, great. All right, thanks for your patience. My name is Frank Dill. I'm an architect representing Jeremy and Ann, the property owners since 2014. Ann and Jeremy live with their two children in the upper dwelling unit of the two family and intend to reside there for the foreseeable future. Ann and Jeremy are requesting a special permit to add a shed dormer to their existing non-conforming two family dwelling solely to provide additional living space for their family. These photos show the existing two family residents which was constructed, let's see, I'm having a little trouble advancing. I'm sorry. There we go. It was constructed around 1921 prior to the adoption of the current zoning bylaw. And the proposed shed dormer would be roughly in this area on the northeast side of the roof only. So a single dormer. The existing property and residents are non-conforming with respect to lot size, lot coverage, street frontage, front and left side yard, height and usable open space requirements. Specifically, the usable open space is actually considered to be 0% because it fails to meet the 25 foot dimension in both directions. We are not proposing to increase the footprint or the existing non-conformities of the structure. The two families, one of the dominant styles in East Arlington, as I'm sure you know, and third floor additions are also quite common in this neighborhood. This is just the existing third floor plan. So it's finished space right now. There are two bedrooms, one in the front, one in the back. There's a half bathroom right now under the roof. It's a little bit of an awkward arrangement because you have to pass through the front bedroom to get to the bedroom in the back. The proposed plan is here. The shed dormer is along this side. So the proposed plan would have one full bathroom. Again, a bedroom in the front, a bedroom in the back, and then a small study. And then there's some additional headroom that's gained through the dormer to make a stackable laundry and sort of an actual full-size, full-height closet. All right, so the Arlington residential design guidelines do call for sustainable practices and to reduce the operational energy consumption and carbon emissions for the project. We're proposing several things, triple glazed windows, insulation and air sealing improvements, electrification and reduction of fossil fuel use and reinforcement of the roof for future PV panels. So this is the existing east side of the house. This is as it exists right now. So it's got a hip roof with two hip dormers on the front and back. And we are proposing a shed dormer right there. So we're looking at the residential design guidelines in the design of the dormer, specifically the length. The proposed dormer is 20 feet long, which is less than half the width of the main roof, which is about 50 feet gutter to gutter. We're maintaining that existing hip roof ridge. We're not proposing to change that. And we're maintaining the very broad eave line that goes all the way across. It's about a 20-inch deep eave. So pretty substantial. We are trying to respond to the second floor windows with the windows on the third floor. We're sort of centering this pair over the pairs on the floors below. This is the street elevation as built. And then this is the proposed elevation for the front. We're also trying to keep the pitch relatively steep. It's a three and a half in 12, which also helps to reduce the volume of the dormer, especially from the street side. And that's, I'd like to keep this brief. We welcome your questions and comments and thank you for your consideration. And shall I stop sharing now? Sure. Thank you very much for the presentation, location. As I stated, this is proper for the board primarily because this property has many, many, many, many properties in Arlington has zero usable open space and the creation of additional gross floor area within the house requires the addition of additional usable open space, which there is none, which is an extension of it in existing nonconformity and as such the board needs to make a determination under section 813B and also under section six of chapter 48 that such change, such intensification of the existing nonconformity will not be significantly more detrimental to the neighborhood. And that's the board typically makes that determination using the criteria for special permit. What is a special permit application in this case? So just reviewing the documentation, it's an existing nonconformity lot, but it's stated it has zero usable open space. There is no new dimensional nonconformity. The only nonconformity that is changing is the requirement for usable open space, which is more of a clerical change than anything else. So here you can see the attic floor is extended from 395 square feet, 548 square feet. Plot plan that was shown by the applicant's architect. Oh, the drawing says that putting the shed dormer on the side to things in that section through and then for both side elevation. Are there questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Hanlon. At the outset, I'd like to thank Mr. Dill for what I thought was a particularly good presentation. I wanted to focus in on the sustainability things and particularly electrification, but if you could just take up a minute or so, explaining a little bit more what it is that you're planning to do, I think it would be helpful. No? Sure. I think a lot of our projects involve converting, fossil fuel, natural gas systems to electric. In this case, Ann and Jeremy, you already have air source heat pumps in your home. We are sort of expanding that system by adding a new one. So all electric heating and cooling for the study space. Part of the project right now, I believe is replacing the first floor water heater and switching from natural gas to electric resistance heat. You're also removing your radiators, which I believe uses a backup system now, but I'm not 100% sure about that. Yes. Correct. Great. So they've already made some moves for electrification and eliminating natural gas. You guys won't be 100% gas-free as a result of this, but for this stage, it's mainly relying on your air source heat pumps for electrically heating for your unit, your round, and extending that system and replacing the first floor water heater and switching from gas to electric for that. That's a separate dwelling unit though. Right. Thank you. Welcome. Mr. Chairman. No. While we're commenting on the electrification, have they considered a heat pump water heater much more efficient than resistance? It is a conversation we were having. We're actually planning to talk with Frank and Rachel about that tomorrow morning. Plus, it's a full-time dehumidifier. They get a great rebate on them these days. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Any further questions? Actually, I just wanted to pass the memorandum from the planning department. They quickly went through the criteria for special permit. It's allowable on the special permit. We're not changing any aspect of public convenience or welfare or traffic suggestions. We'll pay any burden on the municipal system. There are no additional special regulations. The integrity character with the district was noted by the applicant. They have reviewed the residential design guidelines and made adjustments to their plans. Plans with that, especially in the size of the dormer, the location of the dormer, the alignment of the dormer relative to the eve and the windows below, and also in regards to the energy conservation and two-minded aspects of the residential design guideline. And this would not create any excessive use for the neighborhood. So this is, for a house, you can just make out the hip of the roof. And so the proposal is single shed to this side. If you can see this, then another gable roof building that has basically a shed on both sides, creating an able and this side, there are other additional similar roofs in the neighborhood, including roofs of portable take and several locations. We're to the photo zone before it, that's the thing, the side of the house that would have the proposed dormer. The house, I need to find what's built with the proposal would be consistent with the central current criteria. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Yes, sir. Is this part of the half story? Or is this a full story now? Let me switch. I guess, I don't know if I was supposed to answer that, but according to my calculations, it is still a half story. And I have some documentation of that in the drawing set. Yeah, so it would be going up to 548 square feet. Under seven feet or higher, and the floor below is 1455, so it would be well below half. Any further questions for the board? Go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. Again, public comment is taken as it relates to the matter before us and to assist the board in this determination. If you would like to speak and you are on Zoom, you may raise your hand using the raise hand feature at the participants tab. If you are calling and you may not start not. With that, we have one request to speak from Mr. Moore. So Mr. Moore, you're on mute. Thank you. Sorry, huge land, better that way. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Steven Moore, Piedmont Street. I want to applaud definitely the folks approach to using the guidelines for design. I want to encourage that wherever I hear about it. And the more and more that gets used, I think the better and better things are. So I appreciate the fact that those, the folks went ahead and did that. Let me ask you a question though. Is this a condominium or is this a two-family home that's owned by one of the people living here? We own the full structure. It's currently my parents residing. Ah, ah, okay. Thank you, that's my question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. All right, is there any other members of the public who wish to address the board? One's going twice. Go ahead and slow public comment for this hearing. So to reiterate the question before the board, this is a request for essentially a section six determination or determination that the proposed intensification of the existing non-conformity in regards to usable open space is not significantly more detrimental. The applicants have presented well as the application, showing a single shed dormer, being added up to the attic roof of a hip roof that appears to be keeping with the recommendations of the residential design guidelines. Are there any further questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion in regards to this application. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application be approved, subject to the standard conditions, which I think that we haven't had a chance to go to yet tonight. Are correct. Second, I will. So the three standard conditions that the board would attach to a special permit. The first one is that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There should be no deviation during construction for improved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board for field. Number two is that the building inspector is hereby notified that he can monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time. Is it determination that violations are present? The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve an institute appropriate criminal action also in the process of section 3.1 and that the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware. I don't have my own mind any other conditions. And if no, but he else does then I can continue the motion to its conclusion. So I move that we, again, that we approve this application subject to the standard conditions that the chair just read into the record. Thank you Mr. Hanlon, do I have a second? Second. Thank you Mr. Dupont. So the vote before the board is a vote to approve the special permit for 1315 Adams Street with the three standard conditions. Motion by Mr. Hanlon, seconded by Mr. Dupont. So any question as to what the vote entails? Being non-roll call vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Hanlon? Aye. Mills? Aye. Rickardelli? Aye. Chair votes aye. The special permit for 1315 Adams Street is approved with three standard conditions. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I think we mellow a little bit as the evening goes on. Oh, that was just an easy one, Pat. And can I just ask a clarification? So you guys will write the decision and that'll be voted on the next meeting. Do we need to wait for that before we proceed with any other, with our regular permit application? Mr. Valerelli? I think Mr. Valerelli stepped out. If you wouldn't mind getting in touch with Mr. Valerelli in the morning, he can straighten that out. Okay. I spoke to him today a little bit so we can talk. Oh, perfect. Perfect. Thank you all very much. So for the board, so the next meeting of the board will be Tuesday, August 30th at 7.30 p.m. We have now four new cases and two continuances. So I apologize that the 30th will be a bit of a night. There are new cases for 33 Barnum Street, 49 Valentine Road at 60 Highland Avenue and 101 Robbins Road. And then we will also have a continuance for 24 Grandview Road and the continuance for 12 Prospect Avenue. That will all be on Tuesday, August 30th as well as vote on the final, the final opinion for 1315 Adab Street as voted in that hearing as well as possibly minutes. Is there any questions from the board? Seeing none, I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Ireland and Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting and especially I'd like to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee, Kelly Lineman, Marissa Lau for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting in the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceeding. It is our understanding that reporting made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question before you adjourn? Mr. Moore? I'm wondering if there's been any news at all on the 40B application for 10, was it 1025, Massav? Do you want 1025, Massav? I have not heard a thing. Okay, thank you, sir. Sure. Do I have a second to Mr. Hanlon's motion to adjourn? Second. And a roll call vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Dylan? Aye. Bill? Aye. Rickidelli? Aye. Hoffman? Aye. Mr. Holley? Aye. Here, both aye, the board is adjourned. Thank you also very much. Enjoy the weather. Right?