 So it is 7 33 p.m. on Tuesday, February 27th, 2024. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals, and I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I would like to first confirm that all members and the zoning board of appeals do we Roger Dupont here. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Venkat Hulley. Here. Dan Riccadelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam Blablank. Here. All right. And from the town, we have Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant. I don't see anyone else from the town with us. And then appearing for docket 3784, which is 71 Edgerton Road. Jeremy Gavin. Yes, I'm here. Perfect. Thank you. Appearing for docket 3785, 51 Birch Street. James Ritzling. Or someone else on behalf of Birch Street. Christian. Yes. James, it's coming in right now. Oh, perfect. Okay. And then for docket 3786, 19 Shadow Road. Michael and Molly Hargrove. Yeah, we're here. It's John Street. Wonderful. Great. Thank you all. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into the law on March 29, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31, 2025 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 quorum 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 as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Recordingly, 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 the quorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting and orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting, as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals of 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 that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony province and commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. So moving to our agenda, first up is just an administrative item. These items relate to the operation of the board and in such will generally be conducted without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. So what's before us is the written decision on docket 378253 Lansdowne Road. So this was a case that was heard in two subsequent meetings voted on preliminarily at the last meeting and the final written decision was written by Mr. Hanlon and myself and distributed to the board for comments and a final version was issued this afternoon. Are there any additional comments for the written decision for 53 Lansdowne Road? Seeing none, I will accept a motion to approve the written decision for 53 Lansdowne Road. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Thank you. Second. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So vote of those who were present at the hearing. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. That is to the end of our administrative items. Before opening the public hearings, here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves for themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. Any vote taken at this hearing will be preliminary until the written decision is approved by the board at a subsequent meeting. All votes will be conducted by roll call vote. Under state law, no decision granted by this board shall take effect until a certified copy of the final decision has been filed with and recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of D's in Cambridge by the applicant. So with that, I will move on to item number two on our agenda, which is docket number 378471 Edgerton Road. So if I could ask the applicant to introduce themselves and tell us what they are seeking to do. Yes, I'm Jeremy Gavin. My company is one of my properties. We own the property and we are looking to, right now it's currently a two family with living space on the first floor is one unit and the second floor is another. We're looking to add living space into the basement for the first unit to make two floors of living and then living space on the attic. We have two floors of living space for the other unit. In doing so, we're short on open space. So we are looking to get a variance on the open space. I will go ahead and bring up the terrains. So this is the site plan that was initially provided. And so my understanding is that the additions to the basement level and the attic floor are all within the footprint of the existing building. That's correct. On the first floor, the only change is you're enclosing the rear porch. Correct, yep. And then on the upper floor, this is already enclosed and so you're just staying within the existing on the second floor? Exactly, yep. Okay. And then also I believe the plan, the existing egress stair is going to be removed as a new exterior egress stair is going to be added, is that correct? Yeah, you're meaning for the second floor unit? Yeah, currently it's got a back stairway going out of the house to back door on the first open porch. We're going to have the egress off that back porch and then there'll be a landing off the porch and then a set of stairs. Okay, all right. And I know you had exchanged some emails with Colleen Ralston this afternoon. There were some questions about the gross square footage of the property because there were just some discrepancies in what was in the record that was submitted. So I just wanted to confirm with you, so you're saying that the existing gross floor area, including the attic and the basement is 4514 square feet? That sounds right, yes. Sorry, I don't have it right in front of me, but yes, that sounds right. Yep. And the proposed gross floor area will be 4,808. Correct, yep. Okay. And so this was brought to us as a special permit under 542, but we'll have to sort of think about this one a little bit. In the zoning bylaw, any change in gross floor area that occurs within the footprint of the existing foundation wall is not considered substantially more detrimental and so can be allowed by right. But there's the question about whether the gross floor, what the existing usable open spaces in the backyard and whether the property is compliant at this time and whether it's being made and non-compliant. And then the other that came when I was reviewing this with the zoning official is that the enclosure of the porch on the first floor actually requires a specific special permit from the board under section 539D. So we can look at that as well. So with that I am going to stop the share and turn to the board and ask if there are any questions of the applicant. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So what is the current, I guess I'd like to have a little bit more explanation of what the current status is with respect to the amount of usable open space, if any, that currently exists. My interest here is in making sure I understand whether or not we're dealing with a situation where it's already not compliant so that we're talking about the expansion of an existing non-conformity or whether we're talking about the possibility of a new non-conformity. So that is the applicant's correct, if I'm wrong here. This is my understanding, this is the existing condition and the rear yard is 30 by 28, which comes out to 840 square feet that would count towards usable open space. Correct. So if the existing, Mr. Chairman, if I may, you need to have 30% of the gross floor area as usable open space? Yes. So 30%, I mean, just take roughly a third of that would be around 1500 square feet and that's, would suggest that the amount that they currently have is already non-compliant. It's not zero, but it's non-compliant. Is that correct? Yeah, so 840 I believe is 30% of, yeah, this around is, I think it might be more than that, but it's certainly nowhere near the 4500 gross square feet that the property already has. So Mr. Chairman, if I can continue there on that line of thinking either this is not a significant extension because you're not going to a zero to a greater degree of zero, but you're going to some non-compliant percent to a greater degree of that percent. Or alternatively you're dealing with something that we can grant a special permit for through a finding there's no substantial adverse impact beyond what's already there. And that, I guess, since the applicant is already there, presumably, it would be more efficient just to undertake to give him the permit if he otherwise qualifies for it. So again, this is the floor, the plan set of the building. I just wanted to go back. So this is the porch on the first floor. This is an open porch today. This will be enclosed so this will, the board needs to make a finding in regards to the enclosure of this porch. The other question I would have for the board, so the, this stairwell as it comes down extends into the rear, what is currently the rear yard. So it would reduce the 30-foot dimension to about 27 feet. So it would still count as usable open space but it would be less than there is. But as we've said, we already are under what we believe the proper value to be. I'll just sort of ask as an open question for the board as to whether they feel that those, that egress stair should be included in the calculation for usable open space or whether it should be excluded from usable open space. This is sort of a situation we haven't really encountered before. Usable open space is intended to be for the recreation of the occupants by the definition in the bylaws. And in this case, it really wouldn't be for the recreation. It would be as a, as an egress path. And so I was just curious if the board saw any issue with that and whether we should be including it in usable open space or not. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I may be a bit too simplistic about this but I don't think it really makes a difference. Because if there's less, suppose it turns out that we have to subtract that from current usable open space, if they're non-compliant now, they'll be a little bit more non-compliant later. But you're still talking about whether or not there's a substantial adverse impact by the extension of the non-conformity. And it doesn't seem to me that this amount is likely to be material in that consideration. Not long about that, but it just seems that it's a fairly minor thing compared to in the context of the entire, in the context of the entire proposal. Mr. Chair. Mr. LeBlanc. I agree with Mr. Hanlon on his interpretation of the egress stare and encroaching into the open space in the rear yard there. I do have one question that I just was thinking of. Does the applicant have any intention of subdividing the yard in any way? Since I'm assuming now this would be, you know, a two-unit condo. So I know sometimes there's a desire to subdivide the rear yard with a fence or other type of screenings or anything like that. Mr. Gavin. We weren't planning on dividing it with a fence or anything. We've done this in the past and we would just usually just swear off in the condo docks, you know, or the, you know, saying that this is this half and this is that, but not with a fence or anything. Just keep it one big open space. Okay. Yeah, I'm just kind of asking, yeah, just like a, you know, a fence would kind of make it even smaller. Yeah. Yeah. Even though it's the same size, it just makes it feel smaller. So yeah, I like that plan better. It's kind of how I have as well and it works great. So yeah. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I just wanted to make sure I understood. So the attic that is going to be developed into a space, living space, I wasn't sure that I understood the numbers correctly in terms of the percentage of that area that was going to be seven feet or above. And I just wanted to make sure that the math made sense in terms of the restrictions for the half story. And sort of a corollary to that was, I also was wondering, because I know that it said that there's going to be a dormer above the stair to give it more headroom. Is that correct? Yeah. And so would that be counted in the seven feet or above area? Because it sounds like it's coming up the stairs, but I didn't know. It's not actually floor necessarily, right? So. So according to their documentation, the existing attic floor is, excuse me, 615 square feet. And that will be increased up to 762 square feet, which is about 48%. Oh, 48% of the floor below? Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood the numbers. Thanks. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Rickidelli. I just wanted to ask the applicant if there are any changes planned for the garage? We were hoping to keep that. That was one option when I was talking with the building inspector was to remove the garage to create more open space. But you know, I hate to lose a garage. It's existing. It's there. So there is no plan to change it or anything. Because if we had to, if we had to add the open space there, we couldn't even have parking there. So we would lose two parking spots even in the driveway. There's enough room right now in front of the garage to have two spots. So right now we kind of really have four parking spots. But if we lost the garage, we really only have two parking spots because you'd need the other, the rest of the driveway to get in and out of the parking spot. So we were hoping to keep it so we can keep four parking spots off street. Okay. Understood. And if I may, Mr. Chair. Please. The added stairway that is coming at four feet off the back of that new enclosed porch, that doesn't impede the operation of the garage as you have it. It looks like they're pretty close together. So just one to ask. No, there should be plenty of room to get, you know, you'd still have enough room to get up the stairs are going to come almost to the footing of the driveway in front of the garage. And there will still be plenty of space to get between to get into the backyard and to get to the other, the other unit you'd have to go around the porch to get into the back of that unit. So there should be plenty room there. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? The only other question I had, I know in the basement you're planning on installing two egress windows on the driveway side. I would just encourage you to provide some kind of an easily detectable edge or bollards or something to make sure that cars don't accidentally drop a wheel into the well. Yeah, that was a plan. We were going to, I've used them before in the past. There's a pre-made base in there early there for the same reason. Same concerns of people falling in as well. So right. Yeah. And that's one reason why we moved the basement, the layout's a little bit funky, because we were originally tended to use the first window well nearest to the garage, but we realized if we did that we would lose, you couldn't get in and out of those parking spots because we'd be impeding in the driveway more. So we kind of moved everything back to make that work. Understood. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Seeing none. Open the meeting for public comment. So just a reminder, public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing its decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the reactions tab in the Zoom application. For those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair. You'll be asked to give your name and address for the record, and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. For anyone wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing, the chair will allow those which to speak for the first time to be called upon first. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed, and the board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. So with that, I will ask if there are any members of the public who wish to address the board in regards to this application. Let's see, a hand raised. Sabrina Egan. John Aprazizi. Hello. My name is John Aprazizi. We live at 66 Chandler Street, which is right behind 71 Edgerton. We looked at the plans. I just wanted to triple check. My understanding is there's just going to be a dormer on the second floor to add a little space. You're not going up an extra floor. It's just you're putting a dormer on the second floor. Is that correct? Yes, correct. On the right hand side, looking from 71, looking from our street. It's on the right hand side. Okay. So you're not adding any floors. You're just putting a dormer on the existing second floor to sort of square it up. Yeah, correct. Thank you so much. That was all I had. Thank you. Oh, you're welcome. Just go quickly show. So this is the elevation of that right hand side, which is the side opposite the driveway. So there's a small dormer above the stair to provide head height at the stair, and then a second small dormer over I believe is a bedroom area, upper both bedroom area on the on that upper floor. And then on the side that faces the driveway, there's there are no dormers proposed for that side. Are there any other members of public who wish to address the board? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close public comment for this hearing. So what the board has before it, this is an application for special permit 71 Edgerton Road. The applicant is proposing to do a build out in the basement floor and a build out in the attic floor. The build out in the attic floor will require the addition of two small dormers on the right hand side with the addition of those two dormers. The floor area of the attic remains under 50%. So the house still fully qualifies as a two and a half story house. The applicant is constructing two small egress windows on the driveway side of the building, which are allowed under the zoning bylaw. In addition, they have an existing front porch with which is built out above that will remain as is. There is also an existing open porch on the first floor at the rear of the building with which is built out above. The plan is to enclose that lower porch that requires special permit from the board under section 539D and the applicant is also providing an exterior stair from the second floor level down to grade at the rear that will wrap around that existing porch structure at the back. As we had discussed at the start, there are a few existing non-conformities with regards to this property. So the lot is undersized at 5,160 feet, the minimum for the two family district is 6,000. The existing frontage is 50 feet, where the minimum is 60. So those are both pre-existing conditions. The existing front yard is 10.25 and there will be no change in that. That is a non-conformity. The existing right side is 5.67 feet, where the minimum is 10. That's an existing non-conformity. The existing usable open space at the rear of the property is 840 square feet. 840 square feet is not sufficient for the amount of gross floor area existing in the house, so it is non-conforming with regards to usable open space. So those are the existing non-conformities. The intent is not to create any new non-conformities, but there will be a change in the degree of non-conformity with regards to the size of the house in regards to the usable open space that's existing at the rear of the property. In support of those, there's not much of a change in the appearance of the house, so I'm not going to go through the residential design guidelines. But in reviewing the review criteria, so the board would need to make the standard findings for a special permit. And in addition, the board would need to make a finding in regards to the increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure that is in regards to the usable open space. Often, we won't make that if that's entirely within the footprint of the building, but where we are enclosing the rear porch, I think it's appropriate for the board to make that consideration as well. So are there any further questions from the board about the application? None. Or review the required findings. So the first is that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts. This is an existing two-family home in a residential district. It will continue serving as a two-family home in the same residential district. There will be a modest increase in size from 4,514 square feet to 4,808 square feet. Most of that will be restrained to within the foundation wall of the basement, which by the zoning bylaw is not considered a detrimental to the neighborhood. Second, that the requested use is allowed or allowed by a special permit in the district. So the two-family use is an allowed use and it's an existing use. The requested use is essential or desirable to public convenience or welfare. So the residential accommodation in Arlington is an important part of our town and increasing the value of that stock and increasing the modernization of that stock is good for the overall health of the town. The request of use will not create undue traffic congestion or impaired pedestrian safety. There are no improvements to the front of the property that would impede the view and will not be a change in the number of users of the property anticipated and so there should not be an increase in traffic. Request of use will not overload any public systems. This is a two-family house remaining as a two-family house. The needs for the utilities should not increase significantly. The special regulations for the requested use are fulfilled. So the special is section 539D, which requires a finding by the board that enclosed in the porch is not can be allowed. So that is a finding the board will need to make. And there are no other and the similar they're finding is just that in general it's not detrimental to the to the neighborhood. Next is a request of use will not impair the character or integrity of the district. So this is this house is not changing substantially in terms of size or form. There will be two small dormers that added to the top and that will be visible from the street. The enclosure of the porch at the rear is not something that will be noticeable from the public and will be a minor change to the property and neither of those should impair the character or integrity. The requested use will not be detrimental to public health or welfare. The existing use and the existing structure are existing in the neighborhood and the changes to them are of a minimal nature that should not be detrimental. The requested use will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood. Again, this is a two family and a two family district is the intended use and will not cause an excess and then under section 813B, nonconforming single family or two family dwellings an increase in the nonconforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. As we said before, these changes that are being proposed are fairly de minimis and should not cause any kind of substantial change to the neighborhood and certainly nothing that would be considered more detrimental than the existing current house that is on the site today. Are there any questions or any opinions in regards to those findings? Mr. Hamlin, if you're speaking, you're muted. Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. Please. I just did some quick arithmetic. If you take the increase in gross floor area from about 4500 square feet to about 4800 square feet, that is an increase in the if you and then you you basically make the fraction of 840 square feet divided by those two numbers, you go from 17 to 19 percent of the gross floor area for usable open space. It's a measure of how de minimis it actually is. And it's the standard, I mean, it seems to me that the cleanest way for us to do this is to assume that what you have is the substantial increase in the nonconformity because as long as we've had a hearing on it, we might as well proceed on that basis rather than do something that that the building inspector might disagree with us later on. But if that's true, it's hard to imagine that can possibly be substantially more detrimental than the current condition. Thank you, Mr. Hamlin. There should the board choose to move to vote in favor of this application. There are three standard conditions that would apply. The first 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 from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Number two would be the building inspectors hereby notified there to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures that anytime they determine 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 Noncriminal Complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve an Institute Appropriate Criminal Action also in accordance with section 3.1. And number three, the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. Are there any additional conditions which the board feels would be appropriate to recommend for this application? Seeing none, the chair will accept a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the application subject to the three standard conditions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this is a vote of the board to approve the special permit for 71 Edgerton Road with the three standard conditions. So roll call vote. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The special permit for 71 Edgerton Road is approved. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. You're very welcome. So we will prepare a final draft and we'll hopefully vote at that at our first meeting in March. Okay. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good evening. And returning to our agenda. Next item is Docket 378551 Birch Street. I could ask the applicant to introduce himself and tell us what they are proposing. Hi. Good evening. My name is James Risling of LR Designs Incorporated in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We are seeking approval for two curb cuts at 51 Birch Street to provide two 10 foot wide driveways at each side of the site. This will allow us to develop two equal duplex units at the center of the lot. The other benefit is the two drives, which would be equivalent to a single double drive of 20 feet wide, will help preserve an existing 30 inch diameter ash tree that's basically in the center of the greenway in front of this house. And that's, we think that's a good benefit. A buddy neighbor to the right, their driveway is on the opposite side of their site. So there'll be quite a distance between the drives. And then the abutter to the rear and to the left is undeveloped land in a flood plain. So again, we're seeking approval for two 10 foot wide drives in the curb cuts, along with the materiality that we propose. I think maybe the best way to look at this is in the landscape plans. If you don't mind pages two and three. Thank you. So page two shows the existing condition with an overlay of proposed building footprint. And then to the center of the bottom of the page is the ash tree that I mentioned. They're supporting photos on the right hand side that show the existing house and the driveway is to the right of this ash tree. And you can see it in the lower image. If we could look at page three, please. So we're proposing two 10 foot wide curb cuts off of Bert Street on each side of the lot. And that would again provide us with basically a lot that we can create two equal duplexes in the center of the lot. And as I mentioned, the 47 Bert Street, the driveway is on the opposite side. So there's still some distance between this new proposed driveway, which is fairly close to where the existing driveway is. And then the new driveway on the other side, again, a butt's undeveloped land. And this is the site plan that was submitted as well. The site plan, correct. And the landscape plan is based on this. So there's the two 10 foot 8, 10.8 foot side yard setbacks, which would be the two driveways. And then I believe you're indicating that this is a six foot fence that you're providing. Yes. Yes. The driveways would actually be, I mean, they're nominal 10 feet, but nine foot nine to provide another three inches on the property line to allow us to install the fence. Okay. So that three inches point two, five and eight, that's, yeah, a little over a foot on the fence line. Okay. So in the zoning, in the Arlington zoning bylaw, parking is allowed on a driveway in the side yard, but it is required that there's a vegetative buffer between the driveway and then adjacent residential parcel. So what is the, what's the, are you just proposing a solid fence or is it vegetation or what exactly are you proposing? Right now it's the fence. I believe with the foot though we could also include some vegetation at the base of the fence. The fence would be installed, it's indicated to be installed maybe four inches above grade. So there would be room for a ground cover. Thank you for that. And so there is an existing house on the right to the right hand side and then to the left and to the rear is land, Arlington land realty, which is the developers for Thurndike Place. So that land is intended to remain as a, as forested property as a part of that agreement. The other item, and I don't know if the building inspectors had an opportunity to speak with you today or not, I was reviewing this with him and we're concerned there may be a miscalculation in the rear yard of the property because the required right now, although the first floor is set back at 24.8 feet, the actual rear of the building is only 18.8 feet off the rear of the property. Right, and we're taking the rear lot reduction. The lot is 90 feet deep. Okay, but at 18.8 feet, it does not meet the 20 foot minimum required for usable open space. This is overhanging the usable over space and it's less than 25% of the usable open space below. So usable open space, by the definition for usable open space is that it has to be part of the yard. And because the yard ends at the building, even though it extends under an overhang at the rear, it's not considered usable open space. It's not under our purview to review that this evening. I just, I bring it to your attention because I don't want to be caught flat-footed when you apply for the building permit because I would encourage you to speak with the building commissioner in regards to this question. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Certainly. So with that, are there questions from the board in regards to this application? Do not see any questions. Oh, Mr. Ergonelli. I noticed when I was reviewing the application on the landscape plans, the flood zones, the two flood zones that this property falls in are indicated. Are there any other requirements because of the flood zone for development of this property? Yes. We will be going to conservation and there will be requirements for the method of construction if it's approved. Okay. And that review has not occurred yet. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? In 9, I will go ahead and open this for public comment. Just to remind everyone 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 its decision. Members of the public wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the reactions tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star 9 to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair. He asked to give your name and address and given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. Are there any members of public who wish to speak to this application at 51 Birch Street? Do not see anybody wishing to speak to this application. Just want to confirm. Anyone wishing to speak to 51 Birch? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. So what the board has in front of it, this is an application for only for a second driveway under section 6, 110A of the zoning bylaw. This is not related to a change to an existing house. This is a de novo project. So the existing house will be torn down and replaced by this new house. The existing house is a single family house. This will be a two family house, but it is a two family district. So the use is appropriate. And then I had to address the question with the applicant in regards to the useable open space the rear yard, but that's not under our purview this evening. As far as this hearing is concerned. So what the board would need to make a decision on in regards to location is falls under section 6, 110A, the location of parking spaces. So the board would need to find that a second driveway may be added in a manner that avoids an undue concentration of population. That a second driveway may be added in a manner that allows adequate provision of transportation. And that a second driveway may be added in a manner that conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. And in making those determinations, we will also review the general special permit requirements under section 333. So with that, so oftentimes the board will go before conservation. And so we'll have the benefit of sort of their requirements. But in this case, we're going before conservation. So I just sort of thinking through if there's anything we would be doing that would be would need to be undone by conservation. Have you, but as recently, have you made any determinations in regards to the makeup of the driveways? We're proposing permeable concrete pavers. Okay. And then the only other question that's in my mind is if there's a change to the overall design to work out conflict with the building department or obviously usable open space, how or if that would impact the driveways? My sense is that probably would you would not change substantially the design of this the building, but just change things in order to comply with the requirement? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. So then with that, we'll go ahead and review the required findings. So the first under section 61110A is that a second driveway may be added in a manner that avoids an undue concentration of population. So obviously this is a two family district. It is an existing single family home. So this will effectively double the cars from this property. But that is in keeping with the intent of the zoning bylaw. And as the applicant had noted that the proposed driveway is not immediately adjacent to another driveway on the street. And so they should hopefully not cause the potential for any disruption of use of the driveway from either property. The second driveway may be added in a manner that allows adequate provision of transportation. So the applicant noted in order for the two units to each have sufficient number of parking spaces and to have the parking at grade and in the side yards, as opposed to either under the house or directly or in the front of the house, which would require the removal of an existing tree that is a very substantial public shade tree. That the use of the side driveways would allow them to provide the required amount of parking for a structure of this type. And the third is that the second driveway may be added in a manner that conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. So it does not appear that the addition of a driveway would impact necessarily the value of land or buildings in the vicinity. I do note that the abutting property to the right, their house does seem to be fairly close to the property line on that side, which does give me a little bit of pause. But as the applicant had noted that they are planning to provide a privacy fence between the two properties that hopefully should ameliorate any impact that may have and that the applicant is going to look into providing some greenery associated with that to comply with the zoning bylaw that requires that there be a vegetated buffer to an adjacent property. So those are the three findings that need to be made under section 610A. And then under section 333, which is the general section on special permits, the board would need to find that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts. So the second driveway would create an additional point of traffic entry, but this is a very quiet section at the back end of this neighborhood. So to speak, this is a very quiet neighborhood. The board is very familiar with this neighborhood due to work on previous projects and that this should not cause an undue burden on the neighborhood. The requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit in the district. So special second driveway can be allowed by special permit under section 610A. The requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare, whereas this property is being brought converted from a single family to a two-family house and doing so well is allowed under the zoning bylaw and creates a house of a size that is anticipated for the zoning district. It would be desirable to facilitate that. The creation of a second driveway would lead to that. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety. The proposed structure is actually farther back from the street than the current structure. It is the last house on this side of the street and so there should not be any traffic traveling down this street past this house except to serve houses on the opposite side. Hopefully the work that is being done in the house will improve the quality of the pedestrian traffic in front of the house. The use will not overload any public system creation of a second driveway. As the applicant has noted, it would have concrete pervious pavers which would allow any rainwater that falls on the driveway to percolate into the groundwater and so it will not impact the existing storm drainage system in that neighborhood which would be the only public system affected. Any special regulations for the requested use are fulfilled, so the special regulation that is at 610A findings which the board has already reviewed. The requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the district and having most houses in these districts have existing surface parking to the side of the house. Doing this on both sides should not impact the character integrity especially whereas on the left-hand side there are no other houses on that side of the street. And then the requested use will not be detrimental to public health or welfare. It is just a driveway does not impact the health or welfare beyond the traffic and the pedestrian safety which we've already discussed. And the requested use will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood. This is the addition of a driveway to the side and should not is not causing an excess and then the number of driveways are such in this neighborhood. So that is how I am viewing this this case. Are there any questions comments or contradictions in the board? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hanlon? I certainly don't have any contradictions. I think that that the chair has presented the property has presented the question correctly. I just wanted to sort of make a more general observation that it is often true that when people are building duplexes basically and they're side by side it's often more convenient for the people who occupy the duplexes to have separated driveways and that potentially increases the concentration of curb cuts that may be thought to have an adverse impact and in some places does have an adverse first impact. Here because of the fact that the driveway on the right side is located on the opposite side of the property and there won't be a driveway on the other side because that is going to be conservation land and I think that is apt to be true even if ultimately the project that has previously been approved for the Thorn Dyke Place project doesn't proceed because of some other reason. So essentially the pattern that emerges is very similar to the pattern that would normally emerge in the event that you just have driveways lined up onto a property. So it seems to me that that that we normally take is as normal and is an appropriate way of organizing the access to the streets. Certainly I wouldn't want to sacrifice a significant tree in order to, in order not to have that and so it seems to me that what we have is sensitive, is sensible in this way. There is a general problem that because of the increased prevalence of duplexes rather than two-family houses you have more and more side-by-side and less and less interest in having consolidated driveways because you want to keep the two houses separate and have separate access to the street. That's always a conflict and this bylaw was not written with that conflict in mind and to some extent the language doesn't provide us with the guidance that we need in order to in order to work that out but this is kind of a unique case. This is the only one that I can remember where the way in which the access to the street works with two driveways pretty much replicates what the normal pattern is when you don't have two driveways but you have each one driveway for each house. Thank you Mr. Hamlin. Any other comments from the board? Seeing none, should the board vote to approve this special permit application? There are the three standard conditions which were previously read into the record this evening which the board would apply. I would also ask that the board consider condition that the applicant is to provide a revised landscape plan to the Inspectoral Services Department demonstrating compliance with the requirement to provide a vegetative buffer between the side yard driveway and residential properties. I just want to make sure that that is covered and that may very well be impacted by the Conservation Commission before so this would just be, we would just need something at the end just to confirm that we are meeting that requirement. Are there any other conditions which members of the board feel would be appropriate for this matter? Mr. Chairman, I have a question about the conditions that we just mentioned and they're similar to that. We've got plans before us but the only issue before us has to do with the access. So presumably we will have a standard condition that says that the applicant has to observe the plans that have been presented to us. If they should change in a way that doesn't affect the access, in other words the driveways don't change, will the applicant need to come back for us to leave to make any other amendments that wouldn't be tied to the access? Very good question. We could certainly write a condition essentially to that effect that any changes so that the board understands the applicant may make changes due to requirements set by Conservation Commission or Inspectional Services changes not affecting the approved layout, approved driveway layout, shall not be considered to be a deviation of the approved plan. So if the board would accept a condition that the board understands the applicant may make changes due to requirements set by the Conservation Commission or Inspectional Services Department, of course I can't read my handwriting, changes not affecting the approved driveway layout shall not be considered to be a deviation from the approved plans. Mr. Hanlon does that seem to meet the requirements? Well it does, let me just add let me just complicate things a little bit further. I wonder if it would be appropriate since Mr. Risling's representation about preserving the 30-inch ass tree is a not insignificant factor in our decision. I would be inclined to recommend that we have a condition requiring the presentation of that tree subject to the concurrence of the tree warden and in that event that would not relate to the driveway as such so I would probably suggest adding to the approved when you say approved plans say or any specific condition in the special permit grant to include that. Could you do that or the we do have a standard condition that we frequently use that the board request the applicant work with the tree warden to address compliance with the town's tree protection and preservation bylaw and so we could start with that and then say including the preservation of the public shade tree in front of the property. With me too I just you know it's it's really built in suspenders because there's reasons why it is that that needs to be preserved in any event but it seems to be useful for us to include that in the conditions that we have just to to note that it was an important part of our decision. Okay so what we are losing we have the our three standard conditions that are three additional conditions the first that the applicant is to provide a revised landscape plant to the inspectional services department demonstrating compliance with the requirement to provide a vegetative buffer between a side yard driveway and residential property. The second would be that the board understand the applicant may make changes due to the requirements set by the thing the approved driveway layout shall not be considered to be a deviation from their fruit plant and the third would be that the board request the applicant work with the tree warden to address compliance with the town's tree protection and preservation bylaw including the preservation of the public shade tree in front of the property. Are there any additional conditions that the ward feels would be appropriate from this matter? Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the application subject to the three standard conditions and to the three additional conditions that the chair has just read into the record. Second. Thank you Mr. Dupont. So this is a vote of the board to approve a special permit for 51 Birch Street with six conditions and this is a special permit request for a special driveway excuse me for a second driveway. Motion by Mr. Hanlon approved by Mr. Dupont roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Hully. Aye. Mr. Rivera-Coudelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. This special permit for 51 Birch is approved with the conditions. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time and your consideration. You're very welcome and I'll go back going back to our agenda this brings up item number four, three, seven, eight, six, 19 Shattom Street and tell us what they are proposing. Yeah. Hi. I just wanted to introduce ourselves. We're the homeowners. Rock Hargrove, my wife Molly Hargrove. We've lived here since I think 2016-17. I always get that wrong or 16. Thank you. And we have two kids who attend Strat school right at the end of the street and we'd love to stay here but need a little bit more space. And Katie Flynn, our architect is going to walk you through the application. But thanks for hearing us. Well, thank you very much. Ms. Flynn, do you have a presentation to make? I'm happy to. If you'd like me to share a screen, I have the permit set that we submitted and I also have like a really brief just sort of three page summary of basically the same thing. Or you could open the permit set from your screen, whichever you prefer. That's great. Colleen, if you wouldn't mind giving her permission. He is all set. Great. Thank you. Great. So like Rock and Molly said, they live at 19 Chatham Street and they're hoping to put an addition onto the rear of their house. And we are seeking a special permit that will allow us to increase the gross square footage of the home by 877 square feet, which is more than the 750 square feet allowed by right. So that's what we're here to seek a special permit for. And this is a really brief summary that we put together for Rock and Molly to share with their neighbors just to understand what's happening. But we do have the full permit set here. And our calculations show that the property is existing non conforming in four ways. Lot area, lot frontage and front yard setback and side yard setback. Those are all existing non conformities. So we're creating no new non conformities, but we are adding 877 square feet. But we check out on open space and all other metrics. So that's the kind of summary of what we're hoping to do. But we can share these kind of digestible images for you. This is the house as it appears from the front, from Chatham Street, the top image. And our addition is at the rear. It's kind of a low slung two story addition. The grade slopes down to the existing garage and then slopes back up to the backyard. So we're not doing any modifications to exist natural grade, really. We're just tacking on this two story action. And it is kind of a smaller volume than the primary volume of the house. So the home will still read really exactly as it does from the front, with the exception of being just sort of generally spipped up with new windows and siding and things like that. Another benefit of this project is that because we're affecting more than 50% of the house, we're required to abide by the new energy stretch code. So the whole house is going to get an energy makeover and be much more efficient and kind of healthy for the neighborhood and for the Hargrove family. So again, here's the front elevation, the driveway side elevation and the rear elevation. And I do want to note and I apologize for this. We've tinkered with the front elevation and added a couple of windows since the permit set that we shared with you. So I just wanted to clarify that as I was listening to the prior hearings, there will be just this modest change of adding a second window at the front bedroom and we're putting a circle window over the front door. But I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. And I think I'll land on the kind of annotated site plan as an easy way to talk about what we're hoping to do. Oh, I'm sorry, one last thing. There's an existing single story kind of addition in this back rectangle that will be demolished to make way for the new larger addition. So that just to clarify what that little bump is at the back of the house. Great. Thank you very much. The description of the project. So when I was first reviewing the project, my one question had to do with the transition from in the roof from the old house to the new house, but because it looked like there was a little bit of a hitch, but I believe that's just a little bit of a parapet there on the edge. That's exactly right. Yep. And then it's going to be a predominantly flat roof with just enough of a cricket to shed water through the parapet wall. Okay. Otherwise there were no other questions I had on the application. And you noted that there may just be a change in a couple of windows on the front of the house, but otherwise everything else is essentially as submitted. Correct. Yep. And that change would be the existing portion of the house. So it would be not the part for which we're seeking a special permit. Okay. Questions from the board? Mr. Chair. Mr. Gerardelli. You can ask a question about the retaining wall, which is noted in red here. So it looked like there was an existing retaining wall there. Is the wall just being rebuilt or is it taller in the new condition than in the existing condition? That's a great question. It's something that we haven't totally designed through yet because it does need to be repaired. And I think that's our primary goal is to repair it kind of in its current place and configuration. But the stairs that exist there now are like steep and crummy and like the driveway has this weird like mound of dirt kind of at the back edge of it. So we're hoping to clean it up a little bit and that might change the geometry of the retaining wall a little bit. But we're aware that if a retaining wall is within the side yard setback area, it needs to be I think it's less than four feet tall. And we know we need to meet natural grade at the property line and things like that. So I'm sorry, we don't have like a total ironed out plan for that. But the goal is to kind of repair in kind as much as possible. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I may just respond to that. Please. I think that's great. It's good that you know about those regulations. You know, oftentimes when these come up at the property lines, neighbors have concerns about, you know, water management at those locations. So I just encourage you to consider that if the wall is taller or if you're regrading in that condition just to be respectful of the neighbor's property. Thank you. Other questions to the board? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hanlon? I wonder if this one could explain to us a little bit where this new structure, well, the bigger structure will be in comparison to where the other structures are in the vicinity. There's 23 on one side. There's another house 17, I believe on the corner. There are a couple in the back. And I've noticed in the record that the owners of number 23 have supported the application. But when you're dealing with the, when you're dealing with the, this particular section of the bylaw, there's a sort of a thumb on the scale in favor of protecting the sort of acquired rights of the people whose houses are already there. And so it's always helpful to have an analysis of how this relates to the structures in the vicinity. We haven't captured the adjacent structures in the property survey, but my understanding, and maybe if Roth would like to hop in, if he knows offhand how the neighboring structures relate, the footprint of the existing house at 19 Shattom is smaller than its neighbors on either side, I believe. And it's certainly not kind of out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. I think that's all I can sort of definitively say, but without, I'm sorry, without having the like, crisp drawings of the neighboring properties. The one additional comment I will make is that Rock and Molly are also really cognizant of retaining not only like a technically usable open space of a backyard, but like an actually family friendly, large, comfortable backyard. So I think we could have pushed further back relative to the rear yard setback and the open space calculation, but there's an existing patio kind of in this footprint, and we're trying to respect the fabric that's been already established. So that's sort of a soft way of saying we're aware of that, but I don't have a hard answer. Thank you. Actually on the on the front page of the drawing set, you have what looks like it might be a figure ground of that. Oh, it might just be like a Google Maps screenshot. Yeah, it might just give a little sense as to it. That's the existing house footprint. So if I were to hazard a guess, we'd be going back about halfway as far as that circle does, or two thirds of the circle, something like that. I'll flip back and forth. It's it's less than the remaining yard, the addition. So yeah, it's like almost to the edge of the circle, something like that, sort of in line with the rear walls that the neighboring homes. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I can just characterize this. This house is considerably removed from the structures that are on Fabian Street, but immediately behind this. So the only really nearby structures are at 17, which is to the right and 23, which is to the left. I think I have that right. The people at 23 have basically endorsed this application. And I'm assuming that that they feel that this is compatible with their house. And 17 has, we may hear from them later on this evening, but their house is just a little bit further away than 23 is and doesn't look from the map as if there would be a particularly large impact from an additional structure on this property. So that's kind of what the map tends to show. And we'll see if the public hearing shows anything else. Are there any other questions from the board? Seeing none. I will note that the board is in receipt of three letters in regards to this application. So this is a letter from out of the end David Boggs of one Epping Street speaking in favor. And then second from Paul's zone at 23 Chatham, which is one that Mr. Hanlon had referenced speaking in favor. And then the third, there's nobody in Adam Bailey, and that they are in favor as well. So three letters in favor from neighbors. So with that, we'll go ahead and open the meeting for public comment. The public comment is taken as it relates 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 using the reactions tab in the zoom application. If you're calling in by phone, you may now star nine called upon by the chair be asked to give your name and address given time for questions and comments. Are there any members of public who wish to address this application? Mr. Moore. I guess thank you, Mr. more people on the street. I do want to compliment the board's attention to issues, particularly on the last case where I could not really participate. So that's great. And relative to this case, a question for the applicant. I was trying to follow up on Google Maps, particularly the street, the shape of the backyard. And on the Google Maps, there was a whole series of white fences around the backyard. I wonder if the applicant could relate whether or not those represent the property boundaries currently. I can just say, Katie, when we had those fences installed, we conducted a survey, so they should be, they should reflect the property line. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's great. It looks like there's no significant trees in the edging of those boundaries that are going to be impacted by any construction that there. I also, I can see that where they're planning to actually put the addition, it doesn't, I'm not sure if there are trees there or not. I do want to draw the attention, though, just as with the last case, that the significant public street tree there may require some significant protection during the construction, just because it is a large tree and will require protection. So I would just like the board did for the last case, I would certainly encourage the applicant to talk to the tree ward about dealing with that particularly. So thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll comment that in the tree ward and go back and forth about that tree quite frequently because it has branches that fall from time to time, but we can definitely do that. It looked like there had been some trimming, Mr. Chair. So good. I think trees complement the house and I'm glad you're well being careful at maintaining it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Are there other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? Seeing none, go ahead and close those hearing for public comment. So what the board has in front of it, this is a request for a special permit for a large addition by Section 542B6 in the zoning bylaw, which applies to large additions that are outside the foundation wall of the existing building, which this is in the rear yard. There are several pre-existing nonconformities with the property that were already read in by Ms. Flynn, and there are no new nonconformities that will be created and there are no existing nonconformities that will be made more nonconforming. In regards to residential design guidelines, this is in addition to the rear of the house, which is in keeping with the request of the guidelines and the existing house is being essentially intact and so sort of preserves the existing street look and the setbacks and whatnot from the street side. So all that is appropriate. And then in terms of the project review, the one question I had had on the application and I believe this is just a typo, there is no change to the height of the building, correct? No, the existing ridge line is going to stay the same and the addition is lower than it. So yeah. Okay. When the application was typed in electronically, the building height was changed from 29.62 to 39.62, but I figured that was just a typo, so we'll... What about a typo? Yeah, perfect. Then... Thank you. The gross floor area and the usable open space are all fun. So with that, so under section 542B6, large additions, the board is required to make three findings. First, that the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. The second is that we are to consider dimensions and setbacks in relation to abutting structures and uses. And the third, we are to consider conformity with the purposes of the bylaw. And then in review of harmony with other structures, we typically review the special permit criteria, which we will go through as well. So for that, so the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. As we review the size relative to adjacent structures in the neighborhood, this will be sort of keeping in general size with the structures on both sides will not be significantly larger than other structures in the area. And the addition is kept to the rear and is not larger than the existing house. And so it will be in harmony with both the existing structure, but also with other structures and uses in the vicinity. Mr. Hanlon pointed out the dimensions and setbacks in relation to abutting structures. There's quite a bit of distance behind this house to the next houses on the next street. And this will not be causing any sort of crowding of adjacent properties. And as we said before, is in keeping with the general scale of houses in the vicinity. And the conformity with the purposes of the bylaw. So the purposes of bylaw include such things as preservation of fresh air and sunlight and increasing the value of the property, increasing the value of the town and having an eye towards conservation and other such things. And certainly this does all of those. Then looking upon the required findings for special permit, the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts. The adverse effects I think are very could be very minor. As Mr. Rickidelli pointed out the depending on what goes on with the reconstruction of the the existing retaining wall that is sort of outside our purview for the for this special permit, but certainly that that is something that the applicant has said they will look into going forward. That the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit in the district. This is a single family house, a single family district that is allowed. And then the the large addition is covered by a subsequent condition here. Requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. The use and enjoyment of the existing housing stock in Arlington isn't generally a public good and the increase in the size to make the house more usable to families that have certain roots in our community is in that benefit to the town. That the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or impaired pedestrian safety. Again, this is a in addition to the rear yard. It doesn't impact sight lines at the front of the property will not increase the number of people living on the property and will not have an impact on traffic or pedestrian safety in front of the property. Requested use will not overload any public systems that will remain a single family house. So any there will not be an increase and the the number of occupants of the house caused by the construction project and so therefore will not overload any public system. Special regulations for the requested use are fulfilled. So the special regulations, this is the requirement for a large addition and we have already reviewed the findings that are required for that. Requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the district. The this single family house where a main single family will be expanded in such a manner that it is in keeping with the general pattern in the neighborhood. Will not be detrimental to public health or welfare. Excuse me, this is this is sort of on the other points. This is very much in keeping with what the house ought to be. And lastly, sorry about that. Lastly, will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood and that certainly will not single family house and single family district of a size that is compatible with its adjacent homes. Are there any questions, comments or contradictions to those findings? I just wanted to say that the last excuse me on every single case that we have the have we come to that last criterion and we always say the same thing. And we might just want to just kind of take general notice that when you've got when you have a situation where the use is the use that is with this primary use that is envisioned by the zoning district, that condition never applies. It needs to be a conflict of uses for that to be here. You know, that's aiming at putting little stories in residential districts and that sort of thing. It doesn't really apply here in general, rather than having to say that each time we should just take notice that that that is really an applicable to this kind of case. Thank you. So then moving on to conditions. The board has the three standard conditions that were earlier read into the record. There was a recommendation by Mr. Moore that we include our typical or somewhat typical condition that the board request the applicant work with the tree warden to address compliance with the town's tree protection and preservation by law. And as was was raised by the architect, they may be shifting some of the windows or doing something different with some of the windows on the existing house. And so I would propose the condition that the board does not consider changes to the fenestration on the existing building to be a deviation or requiring review by the board. So if those would be acceptable to the board. And with that, unless there's any additional questions, that share will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Hoping that this is a sufficiently entertaining motion. I move that the board approve this application subject to the three standard conditions and the additional conditions that the chair just read into the record. Second. So that would thank Mr. DuPont. So just to confirm this is a motion to approve the special permit for 19 Shadow Street with five total conditions as a motion by Mr. Hanlon approved by Mr. DuPont. So a vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The special permit for 19 Shadow Street is approved. As we noted before that these approvals are preliminary until the final written decision is approved, which we hopefully will be doing at our next meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Yup. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Now that we're off the for the other cases anyway, we've got three opinions coming out of tonight, I think, and I'm willing to take with two of them, but would love to have somebody take the third. I also am wondering whether Ms. Walston could just make it a general practice. She has both a good Zoom recording of all of our hearings, and that recording also produces a transcript. And it's possible for her, because she has been doing this with me, is to post at least the transcripts, and I think both in one drive or whatever it's called, the town's version of that. If we move to the point, which I think that we have to eventually where the opinion just spread around more, it would be helpful possibly for everyone to just have one place that's accessible to all of us, where they can go to look for those and make whatever use of them that they need to. So I mean, Ms. Walston, I think is still with us, and if she can manage doing that, it would make it easier for everyone who might be writing an opinion to go back, check what was said at a given point, use the transcript and check what really was said that the transcript recommends, which is a challenge sometimes too. But anyway, it makes it easier for everyone to be in a position to write up one of these. Patrick, I'm happy to do that. Same place that I put it for yours on the SharePoint site, and then I can just share the link with everyone so they can see it. That would be great. So if there are folks who would like to take a hand at writing a decision, we have shared them around a little bit more recently, but it would be this Mr. Handler said it would be nice if somebody could take one of these on as well. I don't know if we need to, it would be great if someone could step forward tonight, but if not, you could just let Mr. Handler and myself know that you're willing to do it. It would be great. It doesn't take an exorbitant amount of time. It's really, it's just taking an old one and modifying it to meet the new requirements. I can do the large edition if that's okay with you guys. I agree. Sure. That's the last one, right? Yeah. Yeah, 19 Chatham. Okay. Thank you, Roger. You're welcome. So we have meetings coming up two in March. We have March 12 and March 26. March 12, we have two continuances from our last hearing that are scheduled to come up on that one. So let's see what happens there. And then we have meetings scheduled for April 9th and April 23rd. So April 23rd is right after the first night of town meeting. It is also during Passover week. So I don't know if that, if there's any members of the board who would not want to attend on the 23rd, you can go ahead and let me know. And if we need to, we can reschedule that to another night. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I would suggest that we make a decision on that now or at least, you know, not wait. I'm not quite sure whether there's anybody on the board for whom that is a significant problem, but there will be people who are members of the public for whom that may be a problem. And the 23rd is the second night of Passover. That is a night that is generally regarded as time for compulsory satyrs. The first two nights are the ones that almost everybody does. And so there will be some people who potentially may be interested in whatever will be on that agenda who will feel as if it's not appropriate and certainly not convenient for them to have to attend that night. And I think that it would be better if we didn't put them in the decision where they had to sign. Okay. Would anybody be opposed to shifting the 23rd to the 30th? So just move it out one week. Fine. Okay. We'll go ahead and do that. We'll move our April 23rd meeting to the 30th. Christian. Yes, Colleen. As of today, the two people we had for the 27th don't have completed applications. They didn't provide the items that they needed. And I can't do the legal notices on Thursday. So that meeting, unless there's a continuance from the next meeting, would end up being canceled. That would be in March 26th? Yes. Okay. Excellent. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you. This has come up a couple of other times. But if in fact we're putting off the we ought to be just paying some attention to the fact that whenever we cancel a meeting like that, it postpones when we act on the decision. And having a 10-minute meeting to get rid of the administrative items and not make the applicants wait may sometimes be valuable. Absolutely. I can't remember what the record was that we set in December, but we could certainly aim to try to beat that. I think that was 23 minutes. Yeah, I think if we do careful planning and write out a script in advance, we can probably whip through this. I bet you we can do it in less than 10. Okay. Perfect. I'm sorry. Anything else for consideration this evening? Seeing none, I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Earrington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would especially like to thank Colleen Ralston and Mike Champa for their assistance in preparing for and hosting our online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings. It is my understanding that the recording made will be provided to ACMI and available on demand at acmi.tv within coming days or coming weeks. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zdaatown.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. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Vote of the board to adjourn. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. The chair votes aye to the board to adjourn. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Enjoy your, enjoy Leap Day tomorrow and I'll see you all, see you all in the next month. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.