 So it is 732 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24th, 2023. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. First, I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning board of appeals. Roger Dupont here. Patrick Hanlon here. Venkat Holly here. Dan O'Reilly here. And Elaine Hoffman here. Have you all on behalf of the town, our administrator Rick Valerelli. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Rick. And assisting us as well as Vincent Lee here. Good to have you with us as well. And then also just want to make sure that there's someone here representing 189 Forest Street. The applicant here. Yes, hi, my name is Ilya. Thank you. Okay, so 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 includes an extension until March 31, 2023 at the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order to spending 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. The public 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 is listed on the agenda close 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 the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. The recording 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. And as chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting is chair and make the following land acknowledgement. The zoning board of appeals of the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington formerly known as monotony. Now Gunkman 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. Moving on to our agenda the administrative items on tonight's agenda will be taken up after tonight's hearing. Therefore I'm tabling items two three and four on the agenda so we can move on to item number five which is docket 3731 189 forest street. Before opening the hearing here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announced the agenda item I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves, make their presentation to the board, I will then request that the members of the board ask questions they have on the proposal. And after the board 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. So with that. I'm going to turn to the applicant for Ilya. And if you could introduce yourself and your company and what you are intending to do and do you have a presentation you want to show or do you want me to bring up the drawings. I think you can bring up the drawings. Good evening everyone, my name is Ilya Zvinyagorsky, I represent IG investments, my partner and Jean Bernstein is on the line as well, as well as our architect Eric Zacherson so he can speak a little bit more about the design. What we're proposing today is to do a large addition to the existing structure, located 189 forest street. So we're looking to say that then they existing setbacks and utilize their very large backyard to kind of do the addition, as well as add additional floor. Just wait for the zoom in. Are you seeing the plan, the site plan. Yes, perfect. If you look at the center of the diagram there, the light is the existing house and the rear block is the addition that we're going and the next couple of pages will show the exact layout of the house. And Eric, if you want to jump in to discuss a little bit more details please feel free to do so. And what did you want me to explain the walkthrough. Okay. All right, he's moving around a little bit. So, on this level that you've pulled up here this is the main living level with living room with the bottom of the page and the kitchen in the middle dining room towards the front, the screen porch at the top of the drawing at kind of at the back the site. If you want to scroll through. Oh, sorry. And on the left you see the primary bedroom at the bottom of the second bedroom and a bedroom at the far end with a kind of lounge sitting area at the top of the connecting stairs between the two between these two main levels. Yeah, and then there's a basement plan, maybe elevation is actually kind of maybe the most interesting part of the project, because it shows how this project really sits into the yeah. It really sits into the short elevations existing and proposed but on the next page, you see how this, this project's fairly long, but it really sits into the, it sits into the slope of the natural slope of the site. And so that that that first level that we were looking at really extends from from kind of the well above the sidewalk. And the top floor is right at the back of the property and the top floor is a third floor on one end of the building and and about six feet above grade at the rear deck. You see how we're kind of extending the existing the lower image here is the existing home and how we're kind of leaving that but extending it back, both the the main floor and the addition floor the upper floor. Yeah, and then there's that section that also kind of helps explain the situation how we're going to use the garage area there on what is called the basement level but is really, you can drive right into it at the front sidewalk. And then it's like plan just showing how really deep the site actually. So to summarize, we're trying to utilize the lawn and narrow lot, which is oversized lot to really do the extension on the building that are really impacting the view from the street as you drive down for street, the front of the building will only look basically floor and the rest of it is all the addition and the back so it doesn't really impact the look that significantly from the main road. Did you receive a cup to the, unfortunately came out rather late but the Department of Planning and Community Development came out with a comment letter, it came out just before five o'clock today unfortunately. So I don't know if you had an opportunity to see it or not. I was going to just go ahead and pull that up. This is from them just the basics about the site and reviewing some of the criteria that required for a special permit. But they had, and they had a couple of questions which go ahead and put it at this point so the first So that the driveway itself. Do you know it so it's pitching up from the sidewalk to the building itself. That's correct. Okay. So they had raised a question about that with regards to the zoning bylaw but the zoning bylaw restricts you with the driveway is headed downwards towards the parking space but not upwards so that wouldn't apply in this condition. And the other question they had so on your plan where you're talking about the site plan. You have identified most of the lot is being usable open space. But the definition of usable, but the way that you're calculating it doesn't comport with the way that the definition is in the zoning bylaw for Arlington. Do you know what the slope of the yard of the rear yard is at all. Not off the top of my head I would have to consult. Okay. Because if it's if it's great. We've drawn this quite a few times. And it gets a little steeper after the house so I'm just going to do from the house to the sidewalk at the moment. Essentially, if it's, it only counts as usable open space, if it's less than 8%. Yeah, I remember that. So the, the, from the rear of the proposed house, the sidewalk is at almost exactly 15%. Okay. From the front of the house to the sidewalk is almost flat. It is three over 17 is over 17 feet. So that portion is one and a half percent. Okay, and this is it hits the front of the existing front of the house which is the proposed front of the house also. That's when it gets up to being in the 15 ish percent range 1516% range. Okay. And does that basically continue for the rest of the site. I believe so. It's been a while since I looked at fact there but I think so. I'm trying to find the survey beyond the code beyond our site. Link's not coming up. Yeah, it does. It pretty consistently continues up to an elevation. So it's at 2424. Whereas 200 at the front of the sites. In that point, out of the house. 27 over 146. Yeah, 18%. It may even get a little steeper after the house and. Okay. Opposed house ends. Thank you. So the existing driveway that runs at the side of the house that's going to be demolished. And there's a new driveway here. Are the turns in the driveway just to so that it meets the existing curb cut. That's it. Yeah. Okay. And does the driveway currently egress over the, the side lot line, the way it's drawn here. I think so. Let me see if it's on the survey. Yes. Okay. Yeah, just a little bit. I can say for sure, but about a foot and a half. Okay. And then just trying to understand the existing. Setbacks on the house. So currently. The house is 2.6 feet from the. Side lot line. Yeah. But the smallest point. Yes. The smallest point. And then the addition will be. Larger than that. Looks like the addition is 3. Somewhere between 3.3 and 3.4. Correct. Never less than three feet from that. But yeah, 3.3. I think it's the smallest point. And then on the opposite side. I think it's 9 feet 5 inches. The existing. At the very front, there's a pinch point that is. That is. 9.1 at the front, I think is what it's labeled. Yep. Yep. And I was, I was going back. To this point, I think it's a good point. I just wanted to make sure I had all the straight. So while it does somewhat appear to be a three story structure, it is only a two story. The definition for. A bit. So the. The level where the parking is where the car is. Is considered a stellar. Because the less than half of it. grade for the project and as a seller it does not count towards usable I mean it does not count as a story so the basement level is still even though the basement level is exposed at the front it doesn't count as a store it's a seller it doesn't count as a floor so it is just a two two stories um and on the plans is identified that I believe the spaces the attic spaces are not inhabited and not inhabitable correct correct okay and so the the building itself obviously you're sort of turning the back the proposal back portion to be a consistent distance from the side yard lot line um did you look at all at moving it farther from the side lot line or was is there a particular reason for the for the size you're using um we we didn't want to make the building any skinnier that like than it is it just kind of got to the point where the rooms were kind of were a little awkward um and we we didn't want to we wanted to try and kind of respect its neighbors relatively so on one side we have 2.6 and we expanded that to 3 on the other side we've got 9.1 and expanded it to 9.5 but the the reasoning for that was really because uh like we didn't want to make either side worse than it was um currently we don't want to get closer to either neighbor on either side um and yet fight making it any longer than it already is and then on so to the to the left hand side which is the the narrowest side um on the site plan you show briefly where the abutting house is but you only show a portion of it do you know how far back the abutting house goes relative to where the addition is going um I don't know I don't that's not necessarily um okay not familiar with uh really you might know they're open up for questions from the board any questions from the board mr chairman yes sir um and I did the discussion we had earlier uh about usable open space I find myself somewhat confused it's clear that the tabulation that is in the application and in the zoning package is not right um and that the and it does not follow what we have in the bylaw the area all of the area really from on either side of the of the house the team seems too skinny to count and the area behind the house might be too steep to count and while I followed pretty much what the discussion was earlier it leaves me with a question as to whether or not uh this actually can meet the usable open space requirements of the of the bylaw and it's it's hard to evaluate that just on the basis of the conversation we've had without seeing accurate delineations that apply our bylaw definition um do you want us to respond to that question sure yeah our our uh our understanding is that this the uh site doesn't really have much open space except for what's in front of the property today because it's all over eight percent um and there you know we kind of took some license with that said okay well we want to preserve what is there we want to preserve kind of the green space that doesn't count as green space but we need to have a driveway somewhere so we put it here instead of on the side but we don't believe we're making the green space the amount of open space less than what we what exists today because so little of the site is actually below eight eight percent slope so mr chairman if I can please that suggests to me is that what we're being told is that this is actually non-conforming already in terms of usable open space and that uh this makes it only marginally worse something of that kind is I wonder if that's the view that he takes of it the you know when I look at the tabulation I'm told that there's 14 percent now and there's going to be 40 percent and that clearly isn't right um and I'm just trying to figure out how this stands if this is a question about whether or not uh there's a substantial extension of an existing non-conformity we haven't had any discussion about that in the either in this in the what we've done so far or in the memorandum from the planning department no certainly there's there are several places where this built where the existing house is non-conforming and there were a number of them listed initially the side yard setbacks are both non-conforming the front I believe the street frontage is non-conforming the it would appear that the site might be non-conforming in terms of usable open space and you know as you know those are all important factors to consider because of the way that um the state law is written that if you have a if you don't have a non-conformity and you want to make something non-conforming it's a variance application but if you have an existing non-conformity and you want to make it more non-conforming the board can review that under the special permit criteria but it has to make a finding that the requested change is not more detrimental uh to the neighborhood than the existing condition and so that's something we'll have to well they will have to consider is do we have enough information based on the the data that's been provided to us to to be able to make that assertion and then if it is do we if we do have enough information is that something that we we feel is correct um they're further from the board at this time Mr. Chair Mr. Genelli I just have a question about the extension of the non-conformity at the side yard lot lines uh and I was looking at the zoning code but now I can't find the section so maybe you can remind me but I think um in previous discussions we've talked about extension of an existing non-conformity uh with uh the assumption that it's extending the the actual non-conforming wall um where this is sort of like you know set back it's is not worse than the non-conforming nature of the existing structure but it is a sort of different shape and uh coming into the lot in a different way could you just clarify what that rule is for me as we talk about this sure so there there uh there was an amendment to the zoning bylaw no meeting last year um so there used to be something about if you maintained at an existing if you maintain the existing set back and you extended parallel to the lot line that that would that that was allowed um but the implication of that was that if you got closer to the lot line that it was not allowed which was actually incorrect because under state law you are allowed if you have an existing non-conformity you are allowed to intensify the non-conformity but if you have the board has to make a determination that it's not more detrimental but it is a very interesting point you raised that you know they're technically they're not increasing the level of non-conformity right now the side yard setback is 2.6 feet and that is not changing on the opposite side the setback is 9.1 feet and that is not changing um so in that regard they are not increasing the level of non-conformity it's they're maintaining it um but as we were discussing in regards to the the question of usable open space is technically they are required to have a certain percentage and because the building is getting larger technically they're supposed to have more usable open space and they don't have any um and so in that case they are intensifying an existing non-conformity um which the board can consider Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I just wanted to point out that in the past we had a number of cases in which they have when there hasn't been an increase in the building footprint so that the increase in gross floor area was only uh an increasing in the amount within the within the footprint that exists that uh the we came to the conclusion I think the plan the uh building inspector did that that would not be extending an existing non-conformity uh but here of course we are expanding like quite a bit the the foundation and so that principle which we which spent a lot of time during the fall coming to uh doesn't apply here and we don't actually have as far as I know we don't have a determination by the the uh inspirational services as to whether they believe that this does constitute a significant extension of the non-conformity. I believe this is coming to us because it is a large addition um this addition of over 750 square feet outside the existing footprint of the house um but your your your question is as well taken too that we whether or not this is considered under that section of the law uh we don't have a specific statement to that effect. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. Just for clarification so is the area that is proposed for the addition also greater than eight percent grade? My understanding from the applicant is yes. Okay so they're not there's no question of eating up existing usable open space. I think the only place where that could be a question is at the very front of the building. But what I don't know is whether there is existing usable open space at the front the applicant had said that this area was flatter and the driveway initially hugged the right side of the house so it is possible that there was a space um at the front that met the criteria but I don't know that for certain. Is that something Mr. Chairman that we would want to know? I think it would be it would be certainly useful to know. Yeah. Hi I'm Gene Bernstein I'm Ilya's partner on this project um currently the hi sorry coming in late um currently right now the driveway goes from where the curb cut is all the way down to the side of the building to pretty much where the back staircase is to the right of the sideway. So there is a pavement that covers all the space that we would be opening up pretty much trading our driveway for that so I believe that it's pretty much we it's going to be the same open space as as it was as it is currently right now because we'd be giving up the right for more open space. Also in the back right now um past that staircase there is a standalone garage right now that would be also taken down and with that we believe that you know with some with kind of some trees down we would actually be able to provide a pretty decent backyard there that currently does not exist. Okay you don't happen to know the distance along the front lot line from the edge of the existing driveway towards the the left hand side. Yeah I'm just looking at some pictures it's pretty much like if you could see where that side staircase is it almost goes right to that um I don't have the exact calculation but um from just from looking at it from my eye I think it's on the same distance um driveway actually I think our disc that I knew proposed driveways obviously smaller in terms of um distance but it is wider than the current one and I just want to make a point that I believe questions to our neighbor to the left um they did a very I don't know if the current owner did the same thing but at one point ownership um did very similar um addition with I believe they have a front garage as well um I wish I had some pictures for you um it doesn't go as back as our proposed um but I do believe in terms of story and addition it does go further than our current house does now and the current condition of the house is just in really really rough shape and obviously it's under 900 square feet right now um we just felt like having a 2500 I believe this one is closer to 200 square foot house on uh in this neighborhood and we're not trying to change any uh look of it from the front um again we're trying to stay within this current setbacks um we we believe that this is going to help the neighborhood and help this this sore thumb um come to actual usable house that uh hopefully in your family would really enjoy thank you so the the existing house that's there now you are raising the roof is that correct you're not leaving the existing roof in its current location uh that's correct do you know how much you're raising it by um Eric if you can jump in on that I can't see the calculations on the screen uh about the the peak would be raised about seven feet seven foot uh five inches are there other questions from the board any so I'm now going to go ahead and open the meeting for public comment uh public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision members of public will be granted time to ask their questions and make comments those who wish to speak should digitally raise your hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application and 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 that are to be addressed through the chair and please remember to speak clearly um anyone wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing the chair will allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go first and once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time has ended the public comment period will be closed and if you would like me to show the documents um please go ahead and ask quickly jot down the list okay thank you so with that uh the first on the list is um Steve Moore uh yes thank you Mr. Chair Steve Moore Piedmont Street um I've been looking at the plans and also trying to online see uh what the tree cover is I think the planning department's memo suggested that perhaps a tree plan would be necessary it was they weren't sure and the answer is I believe yes a tree plan will be necessary before any commencement of work demolition or otherwise um because I believe and this is the thing I'm having a hard time with I'm trying to find out whether or not the addition is going to require the taking of a significant number of trees in the backyard the reason I'm having trouble is I'm having trouble locating the property uh lit up with daylight uh so it looked for the winter picture there's a number of trees along the driveway um which probably will be retained since the driveway's just been removed but uh behind the house is there a significant number of trees so that would be my first question thank you um I'll put that to the applicant are there the site plan we have doesn't have a lot of detail about the the existing condition of the demolition so are there trees in the location that need to be removed for the creation of the addition um I don't believe so um I believe all most of the trees are past the um where the existing garages right now but um I can definitely confirm that I I wouldn't have that um I haven't been on the site for a couple weeks now and if the town requires to do the replanting plan we're definitely hoping to do in that um Mr. Chairman Mr. Moore uh yeah the the replanting is something that uh we don't necessarily offer as an option if you take trees that are in the various setbacks around the town uh they they have to a fee has to be paid to a fund which uh which will look to plant street trees uh however behind the property here uh clearly there's I mean when I say clearly I don't I can't say clearly because again I was having trouble locating the actual aerial viewing property um that that will be a requirement so the first step that would have to be taken tree wise is a tree plan has to be developed of all the trees six inches and greater in diameter breast height on the property and then also notated to say what is going to be taken by the addition uh and also how the trees that are not going to be taken but are going to be in the construction zone would be protected in the process of the development work this is an extensive rebuild so there will have to be some significant protections to the trees that will remain uh just want to make sure the applicant is aware of of those uh details uh and one last one last question I know I don't have a lot of time here um the driveway that's being removed is going to be replaced by what uh is it going to be permeable and is it going to is any of this going to contribute significantly to the runoff from the property jean when you say runoff you mean drainage yes so we were told that as far as the permit process we do need to um do the drainage calculation we haven't gone to that process yet because we didn't we're not there yet but of course the actual permit application that would be something that's submitted and needs the town requirements okay thank you mr sure thank you mr more uh just for following up on that question though is the intent for the area where the former garage and driveway were what is the intention for that area is that to be seated for lawn is that being landscaped what's the um kind of the green space and we'll work that um plantain and architect just to make sure that it makes sense okay next is uh Kathy Connolly hi there can you hear me yes if I could have your name and address for the record absolutely um I have a prepared statement my name is Kathy Connolly and I'm the owner of 187 Forest Street which is directly next door to 189 I'm on the right hand side of the 189 as you face the house thank you okay um I'm I'm opposed to the current proposal for the redevelopment of this property and under uh 3.6.1 of the Arlington zoning rules I'm asking the board to postpone the decision making and continue this hearing at a later date uh to allow us the nearby neighbors and homeowners to seek effective representation this proposal package including the plans and the all the paperwork was just posted and made available to us four days ago and I don't understand how we can advocate for our interests if we don't have enough time to consult the experts and to understand the implications to our properties I'm not a building or a real estate expert but at first glance I have some real concerns about this proposal they are the the size and the increase in the size of the house based on what's there now we have a 900 foot square foot house and you're growing it to 2,900 square feet which is like a 222 percent increase um and so that we live in modest houses and my particular house is listed as historic um and the size of this proposed house is way out of scale with my house and the other dwellings in our neighborhood and at the current scale it will dwarf my house and then the house next door to it 191 which is Layla Moore um and have a significant negative impact on the character of our neighborhood and potentially the resale value of our of our houses I mean especially Layla will sit between these two giant um houses and dwarfing her house and in this narrow little corridor secondly um the as mentioned drainage is a huge problem in this neighborhood especially 187 185 and 191 forest we have wet basements and have invested a lot of money to fix this um and with the increase of the footprint of the proposed house uh there will be less ground surface area to absorb the rain and the runoff from the expansion of new roofs and gutters this will cause more runoff that will go directly into my basement causing damage additional remediation and impacting the value of my property I guarantee it is getting worse and worse over time and this is only going to make it worse I have questions lots of questions about the height of the structure and things like that and the information in the plans but I'm really not an expert um so this is where it comes down to the fact that we need more time uh and experts to help us understand this and this is happening way too fast uh so I've just raised just a few concerns in this short period of time I've had to look at your actual proposals and again we need time to have a lawyer or building consultant to help us better understand the full impacts of this um so we can bring it back to the attention of the board and have meaningful representation which we're entitled to thank you thank you next on our list I just lost whoever was next on the list um so then uh would be uh John Sanchangelo Mr. Chairman I think next to the list was Ms. Niles indeed she took her hand down oh she's her hand is back because now if you could go ahead and um unmute yourself I'm sorry I'm sorry put my hand down and I got rid of myself anyway good evening Mr. Chairman and everyone here on the call um I'm Layla Moore Niles I live at 191 Forest Street since 1998 I appreciate this hearing tonight um and being heard I'm opposed to this proposal I'm deeply troubled by by it um putting almost a 3000 square foot house on a narrow lot that's 12 feet away from my house and among many other modestly sized houses that you know as people have mentioned we have hydrology and storm water issues will negatively impact our homes um our property values and diminish the enjoyment that we have of our yards and homes and I also believe could possibly diminish the integrity of our foundations but the proposed house is not in harmony with the neighborhood um I didn't retain a lawyer yet I'm I'm really thinking that if I could paint a picture of you know the gentleman that couldn't find our property on the map it's because it's very narrow I mean my house is on a very narrow lot I'm to the left of one night 89 and it's 12 feet away from my house now it's going to go back over 55 feet and it's going to go up at least 32 feet near I will have no sunlight and no views out of either floors my kitchen window or my bedroom window um I I mean to me it's it's just it's I can't really picture it honestly I look already I look out at a house on the left hand side because another monstrous house is there 193-195 a house was torn down illegally and then this monster was built so on the right with this proposal I mean I'll have no view I'll look at another house I have some pictures if people want to see how close it is um I don't think the special permit should be granted I also found there were some discrepancies in the application many people have mentioned it and I've appreciated that the about the open space it shows less usable space on one page saying you know existing was 7558 square feet going down to 7466 square feet and then on the next page it's increased to 40% of the property so you know I I don't understand how you can put go from 922 square foot dwelling and then go to 29 plus 100 square feet and have an increase I do believe that's a violation I really enjoy the space in my backyard um the narrow the you know I I knew the house was close to that house and narrow but we enjoy the space in the back and it is like a little you know haven so to speak and now that's all going to be destroyed I appreciate that um there was a comment by the the builder that the front is being tastefully done so we won't see the huge building that's in the back but the back is me john and um john to my right and kc and I I just feel this is really really really going to be a problem for all of us not only with the diminishing of the property values which I believe it will um but also what about sunlight and views so I really um hope that you'll reject this proposal this evening thank you for hearing me if I could ask you a quick question um so how far so the the back of the the existing house at 189 where's the back of your house relative to that or does your house come farther back right now is it about even with it where does that my house goes slightly back my kitchen windows look out partly on their little breakfast nook but it is only about six feet off the ground from my level they're down a bit so I have a beautiful view there and then I have a little laundry room off of that you know my house is slightly longer than their house I have 1400 square feet thank you thank you um now we'll go to uh john sentron sand tangelo excuse me but john you are muted still there we go I see you're unmuted but I'm not hearing you I'm still muted on the microphone on the I have three mutes on so no one would be able to hear me um my name is john sentangelo I live at 185 forestry um and I'm also opposed to the project there I mean it's just a very large addition it I mean it's basically like building two houses behind the current house given that it's over 200 percent increase in its square footage and there are just many discrepancies between how they how the plan is presented and what it will actually be it I mean it looks good on paper but once it's in existence it won't look good one of the things that the the discussion about a third floor or having three floors which would be on you wouldn't be able to do that the basement garage is not counted as a floor because it's mostly below the average of the current of the proposed development but if you look on page a 21 it shows the existing the the basement is mostly out of the ground so it really does count as a floor which makes from the front it's going to look like a three-story building even though it is a basement but it is almost entirely out of the ground so that alone makes it outsized for any other house on the street no other house other than 193-195 which is this really outsized property on the street no other house looks like that so it would destroy the character of the neighborhood of modest sized homes I mean again you know none of us had any adequate time to get representation I mean I don't even know if I'm speaking to this correctly because I've never I've never worked on a on a zoning appeal so I mean I just want to say that I am opposed and that's that's my piece no it's very good thank you thank you very much appreciate it all right thank you thank you next on the list is Eric Arano thank you can you hear me okay I can thank you all right thank you very much so I live at 129 Newland roads so I'm not in a butter but you know walking out my front door I basically see you know you're walking my front door looking to the right I see the following views and if it's okay view I'd like to share my screen oh looks like the screen sharing is not allowed I can ask though if um Rick could you possibly Mr. Chairman you should be all set thank you Rick let me try it now no looks like it's still disabled Eric give me one second okay okay tried that okay yeah good to go okay so this is the view actually this is not my view this is the view from KC Connolly or KC Catholic Connolly's back backyard currently and you can see the the small house that is currently there you can see across to Layla's house you know which is the the high one that you're seeing over the over the low I guess that's like an enclosed porch there you can also see several trees that are that are there in their yard so you know that would perhaps address part of Mr. Moore's question and you can see that you know the the house as it is is pretty much at a level with with KC's house slightly slightly lower than the house of Layla and now I'm going to show you what I did is I I did an overlay you know basically putting it to the scale of the current house of the drawings and so this is this is what the new house would look like you know by comparison and it's over over the same exact spot again I'll go back and forth between the two this is the existing this is the proposed so you can see from the perspective of KC this is this is essentially a 70 foot wall that's going up and it's going you know 70 feet long and about 32 feet high and then this is the view from the street currently you can see Layla's Layla and Niles Moore's house in the in the in the middle you can see the the monstrosity that was built illegally a few years ago and this is the the current house so you know right and you know so you can see that again the current house and Layla's house looked to be pretty much on a on a scale with each other okay now this is the overlay of the the new house as it would be so you know now with that with Layla's house would essentially be inside a canyon between these two enormous houses so that's the so that's the first point that I would like to make and if anyone wants to you know to review these again I can I can switch between them the second point I would like to make is that looking over the plans it seems to me that this really looks more like it's a tear down and a kind of complete rebuilding of a new house I'm curious as to which walls would actually be preserved to make this an addition and not just a tear down and rebuild especially you know as they're putting in putting in a driveway underneath the house and from what I had heard that the existing foundation is is also has also got a lot of problems which was you know part of why the the property went for cheaper so I guess you know I would like to ask that question about the you know what walls are going to be preserved to make this an addition and not and and not a not a complete rebuild or not a complete tear down and the third question third thing to know what it was all of a sudden all of a sudden my mind goes blank on the third on the third point but it was also the I think that there's something misleading about the the height you know the height claims here and that is that if you base the height on the average grade but you're building 50 feet back up a 15 percent grade you're adding a perhaps four or five feet to the average grade so that means that although you're maybe going to be a 32 foot house from the average grade from the front of the house you're probably adding 10 feet or more and I wouldn't be surprised if the measurement from the front of the house to the peak of the house is closer to 36 or 37 feet and the one other point that john had brought up when when he and I were talking earlier was that the drainage from off from brand street which is behind behind all of this is is very poorly done so that when there's their heavy rains there's essentially a river coming down what is now the driveway of 189 and if that you know if that isn't dealt with in some way that's not going to be making things worse then it's definitely going to be causing huge problems you shouldn't so you need to not only consider the the drainage off of the roof of this house but you also need to configure consider the effect of the the the water that's coming down naturally from from behind this coming coming down from brand street so I would like to get an answer to that question about what what walls would be preserved you know that would make this an addition and not a rebuild thank you thank you um I can ask you to release your screen share mr chairman mr hanlon um I wonder if uh I just wanted to say this before we I forget before we move on uh but it would be helpful if uh mr arnell would submit the material he just presented to us for the record so that we can so that we we can follow it otherwise it's just a demonstrative in the hearing and and people who don't see the recording won't see it I'll be happy to do that thank you I'm gonna go ahead and just share the floor plans again and then if I could ask the applicant if they could um to show what what is existing and what is where's the place for the change yeah I'm sorry go ahead happy to address that so all the walls of the cellar would remain all the walls of the first floor with the exception of the rear wall would remain the walls on the second floor we would ideally keep the front and right and left walls and extend them up to the new gable to the base the new gable um there's when we've done that before we've had different kinds of luck so there's a possibility that we would have to remove the walls of the second floor in order to kind of more cleanly support the gable but the current intention is that we would keep the front right and left walls of the first floor and uh second floor and then build the extension behind that so that that's how we don't mean to be disingenuous our intention is to keep the keep the building as it is we're not changing the floor to floor height so with the windows uh on those walls we've worked to preserve um because we want this to be to fit into the fabric as it as it has um along the street okay so just to the the basement where we believe is is remaining as it as is and then at the first floor level it's just the the larger opening between what's the existing house and the proposed which is the only part of that wall that's being removed but the rest of that is essentially is the same the second floor of framing is the same and then above the second floor it's more a structural question as to whether the existing walls can be maintained or if they have to be replaced because you're raising the roof right correct okay great thank you just briefly go back to mr erin have you um did you have any further questions i know yeah i'm just thought the one other thing that made me wonder about that there's one of the pages there was uh the the side view it looked like the distance from the basement window uh up to the first floor window was different from the existing house to the you know to the proposed so that that made me question it you know but if you're saying that the those those walls will be left as is you know i'll i'll believe you that's the intention yes oh thank you thank you mr hanow um next is uh melanie and andrew jarbo uh thank you mr chairman thank you uh to the board um we uh live across the street at 200 forest street we're actually across from that large um double uh wide structure that mr arnaud showed in his photos that's directly to the left of um layla's house at 191 um we urge the board to either deny the special permit um on the grounds that it is in fact detrimental to the neighborhood or um as the abutters have suggested to defer a decision until the abutters um and the neighbors can get some expert advice and perhaps retain council um i'll note three particular concerns two of which have been discussed so i will note them briefly first the drainage um forestry is a significant hill um during storms you can see drainage coming down anywhere that there is a hill down the street down the driveways down the roads we all have wet basements um and this is a significant concern decreasing the permeable space um anywhere near the street um the the fact that the the applicants are concerned with the front view the sort of um curb appeal of the structure is laudable um we we certainly look at that view every day we appreciate the fact that they're concerned um that the view from the street be attractive however building up and back to such a significant extent essentially tripling the size of the property really impacts the abutters ability especially you know 185 and 187 certainly but especially 191 forest that's layla's house the gray one in the middle um their ability to really get adequate light and air this is basic this is basic turn of the century zoning that everybody needs to be able to enjoy their property they need to be able to get adequate sunlight and fresh air um the the the large large structure to the northwest of 191 forest is huge um it is well dwarfed layla's house it her her roof is much much lower than it and this this new proposed structure will also really block out her light and her air um and also it's it's very close um 12 feet away that's that's that's incredibly close um and finally you know something that hasn't really really been mentioned but this house backs up into turkey hill which is a part of arlington that is home to a lot of wildlife a lot of vegetation um and to to further decrease this very valuable open space from a drainage perspective from a wildlife perspective from a vegetation perspective would be really unfortunate and absolutely would negatively impact both the neighborhood the people right and the ecosystem um so again we would just urge the board to either deny um the special permit or defer this decision um until uh the applicants can answer some of these very critical questions that they do not seem to have an answer to thank you thank you if it does um next is uh marlene silva thank you uh marlene silva newland road arlington precinct 19 town meeting member thank you for this opportunity to speak i appraise this proposal as submitted this has negative impact to the butters and the neighborhood first of all the neighbors need time greater than four days to understand the impact and the zpa also must more clearly explain if we are increasing the non-conformity of a non-conforming lot and structure i think that's really important to get more clarity on the actual slope must be evaluated because i really am confused at what buildable space is on the slope as stated um also a tree plan the developer stated tonight he would just cut down some trees in the back um there must be a tree plan an impervious surface plan a drainage plan and an impact study for sunlight too for the abutting neighbors it's really hard to see a structure like this go be proposed without an understanding of impact um again i do oppose this as it is currently submitted additionally it is not in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood i understand towns change but we have to understand that this isn't in keeping with this neighborhood and it also doesn't bring affordable housing to arlington and it just doesn't help this in any aspect i hope you'll consider to um allow neighbors to have a greater time to study this and thank you for your time tonight thank you appreciated um next is uh kim fan savage hi thank you yes kim dan savage i um am not in a butter i live around the corner on park have extension and the corner of forest street and i'm familiar with the neighborhood because i'm not walking my dog and all of the streets around the neighborhood and have gotten to know and understand to a certain extent the character um of the neighborhood i think as everybody's saying there hasn't been a lot of time to look at this actually um looked at the information that was provided yesterday and was really trying to figure out how do you make decisions like this and i noticed you know the criteria for approval of a special permit specifically states that the benefits of the proposed project must outweigh its adverse effects and so through this i've been thinking about okay so far i've got a long list of adverse effects there's the green space environmental issues the very clear and detrimental impact to the abutters character of the neighborhood as we've all spoken about um and it goes on and on there's going to be a longer list by the end of everybody's participation in this conversation so then i'm trying to go to what are the benefits of the project so from what i can tell and this could turn into a question um for the developers because there may be more um but what i understand or conjecture of the benefits are number one increase property tax base for arlington that's one thing that could help us huge benefit for all um increase developer profit which is why a lot of these construction projects go up the developer very specifically states that housing is a benefit in the application mentions housing as one of the benefits and only tonight the developer mentioned that getting rid of an ice or was a benefit but that wasn't in the application so i would say providing housing is a benefit eliminating a ice or doing some renovation is a benefit both of those things can be done without applying for the special permit um is what i would propose so again i'm struggling with what the benefits are and that if it is i'm assuming that it's the developer's responsibility to share with us those benefits it didn't come across to me in the application and i want a lot more information in that area i i also just want to note people have mentioned it a couple places in the in the application they mentioned that um it maintains the character because it is a single family home and i think that all of us who walk through this neighborhood know that providing a single family alone does not necessarily maintain the character of the neighborhood as you've noted by one of the new housing as other people have described as monstrosities in the neighborhood so i i guess that's my comment throughout the night i'm going to be listening i'm going to think about what are the adverse impacts what are the benefits and way it's so far to me it's weighing towards that adverse impacts thank you for listening well thank you thank you for your participation um would you mind if i uh address a few of these comments um because i do think that you know i there's some valid validity to them but i would kind of think if we could color in a little bit of this it might help explain how we got where we are is that all right um we can either do it now or if you'd rather wait till we have all the comments in i i'm i'm a little concerned that we're going to hear the same comment from a bunch of people and and we this might help them kind of understand it rather than us make the comment respond to the comment more times um if that's all right yeah so i think i take a few minutes to respond to a few of the concerns that have been raised sure just i just really quickly um one comment that's brought and brought up a bunch of times and is very important to us is that is the drainage of the site and just so people understand right now there is a drainage issue and there may be a drainage issue on other sites when we're done with this um but part of the problem is that there most of the sites around here have not done a drainage plan or have not done one in a long time we would as we're doing this have to take that into consideration we would have to drain our building and and any pervious surface and contain that within our lot and that might actually have some knock-on benefits for some of the projects downhill from us because we're going to end up collecting some of that water too as part of what happens here so i think you know i agree that drainage is a concern and it's just not something that we at this stage in the game would have put together a drainage plan for but something that we would have to work with the city on if this were approved so that's i appreciate that and i don't want to say it's not an issue i just want to let you know that we do actually we have thought about that the other thing that i think is um two other really quick points good one of them is that um barring the special permit this project is zoning compliant it meets the height it meets the far it is a single family on the site so that's how we got to this point we're not we didn't feel like we're kind of uh asking for the world we this is this is what the zoning code implies for this site and it may seem long to you but the site is 300 feet long um we're not we're not um extending beyond the uh the setbacks or the existing setback so i know that may not make it make you feel a lot better but this is this is what the site is is zoned for and then thirdly i apologize to anybody who didn't get noticed we we filed our uh application in november 30th um so we did not mean to surprise anybody by having this this hearing tonight but so you know that being i just wanted to point out those three things um and you may still continue to comment on them but i wanted to let you know that that we're not not listening all right thank you for that um going back to the the public speaker's list um christinus moraglia hi thank you mr chair board applicants i'm christinus moraglia i'm at 164 forest street so down the street um i do want to say i appreciate the consideration that the applicants have made for keeping the aesthetic from the street uh similar to the you know existing house um i do hope though that the board will defer decision for a few reasons as as others have mentioned um a tree plan as well as a water drainage study seem important um and it seems that those should be done before making a decision rather than after approval uh i also want to make a note about the overall size um while i realize this um may be within the um allowable size for the zone arlington really is in in desperate need of modestly sized and starter homes and not large expensive single family homes and the proposed development will just contribute to that problem decreasing the very important stock of small and moderately sized housing certainly i think some increase in square footage from the original is reasonable um it was it was a very small to start with so i can understand wanting to put an addition on um but it doesn't seem that it needs to be nearly as large as what's currently being proposed so i think that's a consideration as well um one question that i have my only question is whether shade studies um have been done for this given the potential impact on the adjacent homes um especially with the narrow lots and i'm thinking in particular of leila's um home which we've talked about um before um and the solar panels on that side of her property which you could actually see in eric's photos thank you um so shade studies have not been done so far but that is certainly that something that the board could consider requesting from the applicant thank you thank you um next is uh deborah duke hi good evening and thank you mr chairman and thank you to everybody that's come um i'm uh i'm not one of the close neighbors but i do sorry i just need you to verify your name and address the record sorry yes deborah duke at 25 dartmouth street in arlington thank you and um i know i know leila's property well and from standing in her backyard and imagining this gigantic house next door she's kind of not going to have a backyard um and i i feel like it's really unfair for one property owner to be able to create something that's going to so severely impact another property owner that's that's one concern i've got and then another one is really about the environmental impacts with the runoff issues while at the same time the town of arlington has been investing lots of money and effort to you know mitigating the climate change issues of runoff and too much water and so forth um so it it seems really in conflict with that um that's all thank you very much thank you uh next on the list is uh steven chason okay can you hear me we can good evening good evening uh and thank you i'm steven chason i'm really 124 newland road which is just down a few houses on newland road from uh from women's colony is in this now is 11 i'm a neighbor and friend of both of them uh and they are of course the owners of the homes on each side of this this proposed new construction i want to join their objections as the proposed project is one which is entirely inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and the other concerns that they've expressed including i think very importantly the hydrology and stormwater issues um the proposed home would be entirely out of scale with other homes in the neighborhood separate and apart from these objections and is discussed by miss connolly and miss niles at length they have not had or they've not received adequate notice of the plan development and accordingly they're effectively being deprived of an opportunity to be heard in this proceeding uh i'm a lawyer they contacted me on saturday after finding out about what the plans were that's when they were posted on the website and um i don't practice in the area of zoning law but i do lawyer that does that i've worked with in the past uh his name is bruce fit simons he's here in arlington i spoke to him monday afternoon after hearing from layla and and kc and unfortunately on such short notice he couldn't even meet with them before this hearing much less review all of his documents that he would have had to review to be prepared to represent them uh however he has indicated that he will be available to represent them and i believe that it's likely that they will be retain him to do so obviously miss niles and miss connolly have not had a reasonable opportunity to consult with the lawyer and potentially a civil engineer or other appropriate professionals to advise them on the myriad issues and the potential legal objections they could raise to this project further the required report from the department of planning and community development as required by rule 2.46 was not even posted until today on the time of the website as you've noted mr chairman not until late this afternoon again one wonders how people in the position of miss connolly and miss niles can be expected to respond effectively to the request for a special permit when such critical information is not provided until the last minute now we're not trying to imply that there's anything intentional here being done by the town i'm sure there are circumstances that explain why this information wasn't provided until so late but it's an important consideration and in light of all the objections that have been raised today the board should deny the request for special permit at this time i believe however if the board is at all inclined to grant a special permit at a minimum i think a continuance of approximately 30 days to allow miss connolly and miss niles and others who may be interested in retaining counsel to obtain proper consultation and legal advice that should be allowed i believe and the board is respectfully requested to do so to grant that continuance under rule 3.6.1 i think as a matter of fundamental fairness at a minimum that continuance should be allowed to give them adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard the fact that they're present by video tonight is not an opportunity to be heard because they have not had sufficient notice to allow them to prepare for this hearing by obtaining legal and professional advice as to the issues that are being addressed here tonight um and as a point of order mr chairman i would respectfully request that the board inquire us to the department of planning and community development representative whether it is on the normal course to issue its report on the day of the hearing on the special permit or if not what the usual practice is as to how much notice is provided to the community and to the people whose rights are being impacted by by this type of decision finally it's respectfully requested um i i didn't know until this evening that this proceeding is being recorded but i know that there are typically minutes of the hearing provided and i would request that the minutes of the hearing specifically include the objections that have been raised as to the unfairness to Ms. Niles and Ms. Conley with regard to the release of the plans um essential late time by the department of planning and also the late timing of the release by the town of the actual building plans which we now find out tonight and apparently submitted to the town uh at least a month ago we believe that that deprived them the opportunity to obtain effective legal advice and i would just respectfully request that the minutes reflect that those objections have been watched tonight thank you thank you and we will take note of of that as well next on the list is uh jessica grill um thank you for the opportunity to talk um so i live at my name is jessica grill i live at 181 forest street so i'm two down from the property um my house sits back off the road and just i've had two occurrences that so people said i anticipate this will cause i am kind of proof that it will cause difficulties i my house was very small it was a two room house that got built on to when we poured a new foundation um it was uh flooded with water we had all our new furniture down there and things like that it was way steep in water and that was before the people on brand street rerouted the water to come down through our house so i'm like one over and back from 189 um the other thing that i'm concerned about on behalf of uh john and his family is i have neighbors on either side of my long steep driveway the pictures did not indicate that eric erinow showed just how steep those driveways are and that shows the grade of the house um you know i do think it's wonderful that if the building of this new house can help remediate some of the the water that runs into the road and then freezes um which makes it dangerous to even drive people can't even get up for a street when there's bad weather just happened the other night um but so on the on either side of my driveway i had one neighbor who without any illegally put up a wall on the side of the driveway both at the bottom and at the top and a new neighbor just put up a wall on the other side i have nowhere to put my snow um and it's a very very steep driveway um so it's not like i can walk it up or down because i'm sliding down at that point and i'm concerned that something similar will happen to john with a retaining wall that will be put up on that side um so i just those are kind of the two real life experiences um we obviously welcome new neighbors it's a very friendly neighborhood but there are definitely concerns thank you thank you so looking back on the list there are no new names um but there are a couple of names who are on for a second time so first would be uh leila niles for a second i i don't know anyway can you hear me there you go we can okay sorry no it's also you know i appreciate that you know the the concerns were were addressed by eric um but the the you know our current intention is not to take down the walls i don't believe it was the intention of the developer at 193 195 forestry to to tear the house down and the house which was historical disappeared so i also know that they made a drainage plan and their drainage plan pumps i think it's a perimeter drain i don't know the exact name of the pump that comes up it goes down comes up goes down again and it's right outside my left dining room window there's two of them and since that has been put in i've received water on the left side of my basement consistently and all the other runoff goes down into this pipe that then people have mentioned floods the sidewalk on the north side of forestry it's like a it's like a skating rink so these issues are exacerbated by you know like jessica said i just wanted to bring that up um i think they the drainage issue is huge and with a almost 3000 square foot house the rain will not go in the in the ground anymore it's already pretty bad when it goes in the ground it's now going to go off the roof on both sides into my yard and then john and kasey will get the rest of it so i i really just i just hope you reject this proposal it's too big thank you thank you and um erik are now for a second uh yeah another thing that i was wondering about was don't know to what extent the the builders know or the developers know about the fact that all of this all of these houses are built on ledge and so i was wondering whether your foundations you know whether there would be any cracking of ledge that that you've anticipated or that you know how how would you address that just because cracking of ledge can cause cracks in the in the neighboring foundations especially if it's so close and then the other question that i have is how do i how do i post those pictures how do i attach them to the agenda um i can answer the second one first so the pictures if you can email them to the board's address which is uh zda at town.arlington.ma.us then we will get those posted okay i'll do that thank you and then for the first question i would go back to the applicant um have you done any subsurface testing for location of ledge and do you have a sense as to what you're going to need to do to prepare the site? we we haven't done much as far as subsurface test search but we also are not actually cutting into the ledge very or cutting into the ground very far if you'll notice like the back of the building is about three feet into the ground and we don't anticipate a foundation more than four feet below that and maybe we might even step it so that's less than four feet so we're we're not the intention and the seller does not expand backwards and the first floor extends back kind of to where we felt it would be without having to do much um subsurface work so we we haven't but we also don't anticipate going deep into the hill or going for you know it's kind of skirts up the hill and you can see that on like our 821 sheet which kind of shows the building in section and our 822 like the the building does not sit very far into the ground okay and then as far as um as drainage is concerned if you if you're going to be required to um you know to the water that and that company that you have to deal with the water that's on your site without allowing it to leave and you're going to be doing infiltration how does the the presence of you know ledge potentially near the surface impact your ability to do that yeah that's definitely tricky because we don't want to create we don't want to dig too into the ledge to create an infiltration system it wouldn't wouldn't particularly work well we'd have to look at potentially doing something even under the the pervious pervious driveway towards the front of the site or along the the nine-foot wide site adjacent to our neighbor where we have a little bit of space we'd have to do something kind of long and narrow in there but we'd have to bring the civil engineer could speak to that more than I can when we get one okay great thank you and then um there's somebody who's new to the list so go to Jennifer Tidwell Hi I'm Jennifer Tidwell I'm married to Rich Carrero we are neighbors up the hill and forestry we're at 211 so we're not direct butters but we're going to pass the site every single day um so I mean most of my concerns have already been raised by most of the people that have spoken and I absolutely concur on these issues especially with the hydrology I'm very worried especially about the front of that house we were talking about a pervious surface for the for the driveway I think it's going to be very important that's downhill of everything on that site and you're going to need that space to absorb the storm water so I absolutely want to see some assurance that the storm water is being handled appropriately for something of this size other other issues like many of you I also think that the size the sheer size of this house is completely out of scale with the other houses around it especially Leila at 191 I've taken this plot plan and projected it sort of onto using Arlington's GPS data I've predicted onto you know aerial views of this neighborhood and it is going to extend so far past her her back door it's going to block all the morning sun from her back door all of it and it's going to be 20 plus feet above grade at that point plus she has that other huge huge house on the other side it's not fair it's really not fair to her to to to put something of that size there so on that on that basis alone I hope you decline this permit finally I like many others want to see a tree plan I hate to go buy some of these houses that are being rebuilt to renovate it and seeing so many trees being torn down Arlington needs this tree cover it's important to the town to have a good tree canopy and it is particularly important to this neighborhood it's part of the character of our neighborhood to have these big trees so I really want to know what the developer wants to do and plans to do with these trees so all right that's all I have thank you thank you um so with that um even chasing for a second yeah mr chairman I just wanted to ask um I requested earlier the point of order as to whether or not the community department of planning usually issues it's reports sooner you know bigger pardon sorry uh bigger pardon I've forgotten you had that um so this is something that the board has has sort of struggled with over time it is a it's a coordination between a couple of different departments to get that done and at the moment well as of Monday the staffing is a little bit better but the department of planning and community development has been understaffed for at least the last couple of months obviously it's it's not a you know not an excuse in this in this particular case but this is something that the board has recognized and has been trying to work with the department of planning community development to address and to come up with ways that we can streamline the process we can get these earlier this is exceptionally late is often that we will receive the report at the end of the week prior we sometimes receive them the day before but this is exceptionally late and you know as it's been noted by several people you know really you know it's unfair to the public but you know it's unfair to the board as well we barely had time to look at it too okay um I just want you know I understand and I'm not trying to throw you know bombs at anybody but I just think that it's further indication as I said before um out of respect for fairness for the process and the people that are impacted by the decision of this board I think it's a strong further indication of the propriety of brief continuance for 30 days or so for for them to have the opportunity to to show the plans and and the planning department's report to people that can advise them with with a much better knowledge base as to what is and what is not appropriate under the circumstances thank you um Mr. Moore for a second yes thank you Mr. Chairman um I'm wondering is it is it within the ZBA's purview to perhaps require a drainage study or some sort of drainage plan prior to approving a project I know that sounds a whole lot like it's carpet for the horse because you're not going to approve a project I would you have someone do a drainage plan but that seems to be one of the very consistent points of concern here by all of the butters and neighbors is the drainage here um and is there any method for doing that that's question number one um that's a very interesting question one I had not considered before um typically if there's a situation where we are concerned about drainage we do apply it as a condition to the the permit that you know that a properly engineered drainage plan be prepared and reviewed and approved by the engineering division but I don't think apart from you know comprehensive permit applications um that we have typically requested that because it's we're not in a position to approve a drainage plan we're just in the position to you know to look at it but we we don't have the expertise to approve it right Mr. Chair that does that just that does make sense um Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I wonder if like I've been struggling with the same issue all evening um um and we obviously can't approve the plan um the question actually is whether or not there's any plan at least a question is whether there's any plan that the town engineer can approve and you know if we aren't convinced that at least this is doable um whether or not it's specifically done and when but if we're not convinced that it's doable at all so that we aren't sure that even if the rules that are provided in the that if by the the town engineer can matter we may take that into account in applying rule excuse me implying section 3.3 and also let me point out that the applicable section is actually a section on large additions which is more specific than the general provisions on on uh on special permits and which are specifically addressed the the kind of situation where something may be extended in a way that complies with the zoning bylaw but nevertheless because of the way it's set or because of other specific site specific conditions and conditions relating to the specific properties that are nearby um that it's inappropriate to grant the permit so you know the reason we have a special provision on large additions uh is precisely to deal with the kind of site specific issues and issues on immediate of butters that that we've heard a lot about tonight so all of this is is is very relevant and I'm not sure exactly how far we go or what kind of advice we can have and I think we need to sort of think about that but I wouldn't rule out any kind of inquiry at this point at least the kind of inquiry to give us some confidence that this is something that in the normal course of things can be worked Thank you Mr. Handelman. Mr. Moore? Thanks those comments help a lot Mr. Handelman I appreciate that um the the last the only question I have left is logistically with a if if the plan moves forward with a addition of this size how is all of the heavy equipment required to or foundations to do whatever is required back there going to access the rear of the site without impinging on the neighbors I mean I assume they'd have to use the driveway which is going to be torn up eventually but uh there's there's almost no there and I'm concerned that the trees which are all along the edge will be killed in the process even regardless of of protection measures that might get taken there they are protected trees I it's hard to tell if they're on the property which property line they're on but I'm I'm pretty concerned about that thank you Mr. Thank you so I have gone through everybody there's nobody else wants to be for first time there's nobody else wants to speak for second time I have two hands who've spoken twice I'm not sure if they're newly raised or still raised from earlier um so I'll just briefly ask Mr. Jason is this a new comment or is your hand just still raised no I'm sorry I I apologize no that's okay and then the same question from Ms. Niles um did you have something further yes please yes I have um I'm concerned about the trees also because again there's this very vague talk about well we'll take care of the trees um I have a I believe it's a cherry tree I don't really know what it is but I really enjoy it it's right outside my kitchen window half of it might be on the property of 189 what's going to happen to that tree and honestly I mean I feel that the drainage is a huge issue I also feel that the developers haven't addressed my lack of sunlight this is going to be a wall a wall from seeing my neighbors John and Casey a wall blocking sunlight and I those trees that I'm sure are going to get destroyed John said I could tap and I've tapped before so it's like this is really diminishing my property and life and nobody seems to really get it I'm sorry I'm I'm very upset I'm very tired I've been reading over these papers for days and trying to work so I really really encourage with all the thoughtful comments why not reject it and then reevaluate later thank you very much I won't speak again thank you thank you um uh next on the list is Amy Cooper for first time hi there um Amy Cooper I'm sorry I can't get my camera to work properly but I live on James Street in Arlington um and know a lot of these neighbors I pass down Forest Street a lot and love our town and I do agree with all these comments about this property just being way too big and um would hate to see it go in at this size and I agree with Layla that it should just be outright rejected that's all thank you thank you um then there's two well for a second okay I hope this is a small comment um and maybe the suspended address so correct me if it has um on the in the pack that was sent out um the first page says request for special permit um it says the applicant request uh some of the the addition will make the house about 2,500 square feet with three bedrooms and two and a half baths um is that is that a wrong number um and does the applicant plan to correct that if I can ask the applicant back 2,500 square feet because what is the correct square footage it looks like it's 2,800 plus depending on how you uh measure it um it's a worksheet if I could ask the applicant to answer that question as to what the actual that's the 2,957 yeah yeah the um the the proposed gross floor area is 2,957 and part of that is portrait balcony um no gfa is gfa gross floor is yeah it's it does not include the porch okay in any case I can't I can't find any math that makes it come out to 2,500 square feet um it when I first read the special permit I saw that and I thought oh 2,500 isn't so bad but then I continued to read um I feel like that number is misleading if not outright wrong I I I'm not sure where you see the 2,500 square feet um but I give it as 2,957 second page of the pdf that was uh sent out yes on the first page of the application the front page of the application the top of the page says request for special permit town of Arlington you know it's it's probably just a mistake but at least for me it put my back up it made me feel like there might be other things in here that might be hidden that I wasn't seeing it did not incline me to look well upon the permit I I apologize the draft I'm looking at doesn't actually list any area on the front page so I'd have to see um the package that was sent out and see if because this is an earlier draft and I don't have the final that we sent out on number 30th in front of me but it is 2,957 currently there's a stamp on the page that says November 28th 2022 I can settle this offline I can show you what I have um but we will take up any more of the meeting time for this thank you thank you our apologies for any inconsistency were there any other members the public wishing to address this permit excuse me this application do not see I will go ahead and close the public sorry sorry I just I'm joining a little bit late so um hi I'm Drew I live on Forestry I don't know if I've um if this has already been covered because I just I'm joining now so please tell me if it's not but just was wondering how much um how much kind of what's this going to do to our to the just the normal functioning around our area just so you know thinking about um along the build is going to take where all of the trucks are going to park how much noise is it going to cause if I've got small children at home that live here so is there going to be hammering during their nap time and are we not going to be able to go up and down our road because we're building this massive house on it um I live on the corner of Huntington and Forest so are we gonna have trucks just parked on our road for six months now and blocking all of our parking spots and blocking our driveways or but yeah so I don't know if those things have came up apologies if they have no um there was some brief comment question about how to access the rear of the lot for construction um but not specifically for um you know sort of the the construction coordination and what the impacts of those will be yeah um I could ask that the applicant if they have a census to how long the construction period would be we would anticipate about four to six months once we pull the permit okay from when to when it's from my obviously condition weather condition we're not going to be in the bad weather once we start building this obviously if it does get approved so but realistically it'd be from start meeting like day one start to finish and you're from four to six months just depending on how challenging um you know the site's going to get um but in terms of getting in the back of the building we have absolutely no worries we're very well-diverse developers we've built much much bigger you much bigger buildings and smaller lots and Boston and around so in terms of getting in the back even porn foundation there's pumps that you can do so you don't have to bring in big trucks in the back so we would obviously abide by all town and inspectional services um rules and regulations even times of construction and stuff like that so but in terms of parking we have plenty of we feel like we have enough space to um not use um street parking um so I don't think you will have trucks parked in front of your house so where will you park all of these cars to take down an entire house and build a new one I'm not taking down a whole house and again it's it's not like a house gets built uh everyone's there at once doing all different trades it gets built in stages um so there's not you know at most we would have you know even framing would have four to five guys there framing um porn foundation that's two to three guys at a time so again we're not anticipating having you know 15 20 people at once um putting this together so do you anticipate closing down if you could if you mr. Carlos if you could just address questions to me as chair and then I oh sorry Christian thank you yeah no problem it's hilarious um okay so do they anticipate closing down four street at all during that four to six months I do not believe they are no okay um and do they anticipate uh unusual amount of noise and commotion during daytime hours for folks that work at home and people have small children so there was a question about whether or not they would need to do anything in regards to uh ledge um and they had indicated that their the reason for partly for the way that things are designed was to avoid having to get into any ledge um that might exist on the site uh assuming that they have not though done a thorough uh subservice evaluation so we have the possible locations of ledge have not been fully identified um and then so that if assuming that there is no ledge then it would just be standard um construction um going on during the the times that the the town allows under the noise ordinance and the bylaw so it would be you know framing you know pneumatic framing guns would probably be the loudest um apart from when they're you know any concrete structures and like that that may be on the site momentary you know for a shorter period of time thank you absolutely I might have a new name on the I'd like to address uh Beverly Superu yes I'm here um address for the record please my name is Beverly sugar when I live at 137 newland road um just two houses away from where the construction would be um in our newland I've lived there 51 years previous to that my grandfather had the house built in um 1931 so we've been long-standing neighbors and I can tell the builders right now they are going to find ledge every practically every house on the street has ledges part of their foundation it's just that's why there's such big water problems too is because the neighborhood has ledge but I just don't understand you've had the meeting tonight every single person that has contributed in anything has given a negative feedback to this large construction and I know that that houses are being built bigger and bigger these days but this is kind of ridiculous I mean it could be bigger without being that big it's it's it's just inconsiderate to the neighbors that live here and to anyone um in the surrounding houses and so no I'm old and I'm crotchety but I'm also a long time neighbor and I just don't want to see my neighborhood go to heck reject so I really think you should just plain reject this proposal let them come up with something that's a little more in line with what the neighborhood is that's it thank you you're welcome okay Mr. Chair can I just address that real quickly so I just want to say again to Eric's point you know we we um our intent was to build by zoning laws and not to ask for variance also to know it about the size we did do you know public record study of other homes in the area and just to give you just a few homes that would meet you know close to what we're looking for for gross living area 181 fosters 2,840 square feet 185 fosters 2,425 square feet 183 forest is 2478 square feet so if we're talking about scaling it down 3,400 square feet um you know that's again that wasn't our intention to push it 400 square feet and to get you know the opinion of every neighbor that this is such a mega development um but again I completely understand everyone's concerns thank you okay um added on to the list again uh is johnson uh johnson tangelo yes i just wanted to respond to the size of the houses in the neighborhood um the houses mentioned by their square footage are all along far larger lots the my lot is 185 forestry at 24 23 2400 square feet it's on a lot of 24 acres whereas the lot size of 189 is only where is 0.23 0.23 my my lot is twice the size and i have 900 square feet or 600 square feet less so the proposal is outsized even 181 forestry jessica's house is almost as large but the property card seems to show her lot as being 0.2 acres but her lot is about the same size as mine almost the same size um it's obvious to see that and so all of the large houses listed are on larger blocks this is too small and too narrow of a lot to build a house that's nearly 3,000 square feet and i get that people want to buy big houses you know everyone wants to buy the mega mansion and it's just not the space to put a mega mansion if this were a flat lot that were that had more maybe 45 feet of fronted tread of the 30 then you could probably fit a bigger house on it but it is a small lot that's just very long and narrow and unfortunately when they when they built when they when they um surveyed the lot when they when they drew the lines from a lot a hundred years ago or whenever they did it that that's how they beat it and that's something that's just set in stone we can't change that and unfortunately it's not you know it doesn't work with the modern uh wants and needs of people but it can't be changed you know and that's that's all in my comment thank you um mr coloris thank you mr chair i don't think i gave you my address before if you needed that for the record just two one two four street um this might have been addressed earlier i didn't see this in the um in the proposal but i just was curious given the that housing shortage in the area um if you're going to build something with that amount of square footage was there any consideration to a more affordable housing for multifamily home as opposed to a single home in that huge plot um so it's a single family district so um the zoning bylaw restricts you to a single family house or a single family house with an accessory dwelling unit those would be the only two housing options gotcha thank you you're welcome and i can tell you we did look at both of those and a two family just a straight two family or um kind of the 20 you know using the same area but like you said this was the zoning compliant option that we we arrived at because we wanted to comply with all of the zoning requirements miss grill yes so um to address the the monstrosity that people have talked about on the other side of leila is actually a two-family house so i'm really confused about the zoning laws and we we do know that there were things that were not legal and there was a 10-year building ban due to pulling down a historic house um but that is a two-family house so i am a little confused about that that's why i ask that same question thanks for raising that so i do want my battery's about to die but i do want to um add on to what john um was saying so my house not only i'm at 181 so i'm set up john and i both set off the street we are the larger houses in the neighborhood um i'm not sure why foster street is considered um a comparable plan because it's not in this direct neighborhood it's you know not it's not this neighborhood um and um my house actually has a has an entire other it's a buildable lot size but it's not buildable due to no road frontage so i actually have two lots that are up there um so those are the two points i wanted to make so our houses do not detract from the field of the neighborhood we are the outliers we almost didn't build an addition on because we were afraid that we would outprice the the neighborhood um but because of the way that our property is set it doesn't impact anyone else and we do have a very large lot it's almost a third of an acre when you add the extra the um extra property on that we all own that's just land thank you thank you um and see one new name on the list um we have a we have a lot of people sort of just sort of tagging on tagging on tagging on if there are people who who definitely want to address the board please make sure you raise your hand um so that we we have a sense as to uh who is looking to address the board um next would be uh mr. tomlinson hi uh thank you my name is mark tomlinson i am at 192 forest street and i i just wanted to point out that we step back from this meeting if we think about everything that was said this evening there there's a lot we don't know and there's a lot that i think we have to look more closely and the the the lot comparison that was just made feels very disingenuous to me and a lot of the concerns over trees the slope the shelf are legitimate concerns that we don't have any strong data on what we're hearing is a lot of i think it's this if i remember correctly it's this i don't have that paperwork with me right now um at the very least we need time to look at this more closely although i am against this change and and i would recommend that you uh that you simply disallow it but at the very least we need much more time to look at this thank you thank you um with that and seeing no further hands raised i'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period for tonight um i'd really like to thank everyone for all their comments and all their different uh the different points they've raised you've certainly given us a lot to excuse me let's consider a lot to think about um so returning back to the board so what we have before us um is an application it's a filed excuse me is a large addition which is you know anything that is at least 750 square feet outside the footprint of the existing building and um under the zoning bylaw there's specific criteria that the board needs to consider because it is a large addition um but in addition to that um as we've noted there's a question as to whether this also needs what would uh under 813 to the foot's referred to this section six determination as to whether um there's an intensification of an existing non-conformity that would be happening as well that would require um a different evaluation and that's what it says sort of at the start there's some questions about what the actual usable open space is today and what it will be afterwards um and i think certainly based on that and other concerns i think there are there are several items that the board would um would want to see before it makes a final decision on this application um and so i would ask the board if they could to put forward what what piece of information they think that we need to clarify and that we need much better definition on um sort of going forward the ones that i had sort of noted um as we were going along there was definitely some questions about where the existing trees are on site and if those could be added to um to the site plan so we can understand better where the trees are in relation to what is being proposed um and there's also the question was raised about uh shadow studies which are are something the board doesn't ask for very often but i do think in this situation um it would be very informative as to what the what the shadow what the shadows are today and what they're anticipated to be um going forward so i think that that is information that the board would like to be able to review as a part of its consideration um are there other things that the board would like to see as a part of um would like to see from the applicant before they consider this application mr chairman yes sir um i would like to see drawings that show the proposed building in relationship to the uh abutting houses and abutting structures really we we have the pictures that were provided by mr aronow earlier which which i thought were very helpful um but if we're going to evaluate sort of what we think the implications are are in putting this particular structure in this particular space which already has buildings around it uh it's important to see it in relationship in a plot plan really in relationship to those other those other buildings so i'd like to have something to have a broader a broader look so that we could evaluate those relationships i guess the other thing is that that and this sort of is part of the usual open space but it would be valuable i think to have some sense of the contours so that we could evaluate the slopes i would also just add on the floor plans if it could be more clear as to what's existing and what's proposed sure um mr chair mr rick and ellie just add one more item i i don't think it's um really a new drawing but uh you know we there was a discussion about um the permeability of um the the new surfaces um on the lot the driveway that the walk uh so if that could be noted on on the plans they go be helpful for us just evaluating it okay so what surfaces are permeable what surfaces are impermeable yes that's right okay thank you mr chairman um so the public comment period is closed um is there mr chairman mr dupont yeah i just wanted to add on uh mr handlin had directed our attention to the section on large editions so it was a bit different than just a straight special permit consideration and i would like the applicant to also take special note of the fact that at the end of that section which is referred to in the memo from uh planning department in 5.4.2 b6 it says that at the end in making its determination the board of appeal shall consider among other relevant facts the proposed alteration or additions dimensions and setbacks in relation to abutting structures and so i think that that's a very important point for us not to lose sight of as has actually been articulated by many speakers tonight but if the scale the massing and all of this even though the comment was made by one of the applicant speakers saying that it is zoning compliant uh that may be true in some general sense but it is also true that we have to satisfy this particular uh requirement as well of that section that i've just noted so i would ask the applicant to consider that and i think it would also be helpful um if the applicant could i don't know you know what your plans are in terms of you know when in the process you would be doing any kind of subsurface evaluations but if there's any way to give us a better sense as to what the the impact will be um regarding alleged on the site um that's something that the board has requested on on prior applications especially in a situation like this where there are houses that are you know less than 15 feet away that are attached to the same piece of rock um that if it's really important that we understand what the what the possible implications would be if there is the the need or the intent to do any kind of of chipping or on the site do you want to share mr handlin i just wanted to underscore something that we all sort of know but we don't usually have occasion to say um but in both in general and special permits and here the board has to actually find that the alteration is in harmony with the other structures and uses in the neighborhood and this puts us in a situation where where we need to be we we need to be able to make that finding and there's this question of burden to prove here if if at the end of all of this we still can't make that finding not because we can make it a contrary finding but because we just we just don't have the uh the ability to make a positive finding then we will have to say and we will have to deny um so the applicant has to decide what the applicant wants to do and how far they need to go to persuade us and so forth but if after all of that there's a really substantial uncertainty that remains on an important point then we have to we have to give that the effect that the statute requires us to do so i just sort of encourage them it's it's it's really it's been a frustrating hearing in a way because a lot of issues come up and a lot of times the the question is well someday someday that will be taken care of and in the normal course mostly that is taken care of we're just operating in a in a system that has a lot of other gateways in it the town engineers taking a look at this the tree warden is taking a look at this and so on and yet we know that things don't always come out the way they're supposed to even though the laws have it all set up so it's a great system and we have to play our role in it and our role at this point is to be able to make the finding the statute requires us to make an uncertainty is not the friend of the plaintiff's case of the applicant's case thank you mr hamlin so anything further from the board at this time seeing none um so based on based on the the testimony tonight and discussion among the board the board would highly recommend that we continue this evening to a future date to give the applicant some time to put together some some additional information and to consider the the testimonies received and and some of the comments particularly about the the adjacencies to neighboring houses um and the the density of the neighborhood and to consider that in their plans and then come back to the board um with you know with revisions if you think that's appropriate or or with the same application with more with more information for the board um that would all be very helpful um so would the would the applicant be willing to entertain a continuance yeah yes um so let's see just pulling up the calendar um so I think the 28th of February is the next date do we have um Mr. Vellerelli do we have any anything scheduled for the 28th at this stage we do not mr chairman do we have anything scheduled for February it's given let me go back on that so we did have something scheduled for the 14th so it's not a favorable favorable day so I think we're gonna push that to the 28th okay we do have one of the minor residential case scheduled for the 28th okay so I think we would be seeking to continue um this hearing until Tuesday February 28th at 7 30 does that date work for you gentlemen yes yeah okay uh so then with that um may I have a motion to continue mr chairman Mr. Hanlon I move that this matter be contained you until a date serving the date certain of February 28th 2023 at 7 30 p.m second thank you thank you mr. DuPont so vote of the board to continue uh mr. Roger DuPont hi uh Patrick Hanlon hi uh Venkat Holy Venkat you still with us in Ben Rickardelli hi there he is Venkat hi hi there we go um Elaine Hoffman hi thank you and the chair votes aye we are continued on 189 Forest Street until Tuesday February 28th 2023 at 7 30 p.m uh thank you all very much thanks to the applicant for the broader information thank you very much to the public for all your your interest in your input this evening it's very helpful to the board thank you all thank you chair with that the board to go back to the administrative items on the agenda um so I want to see uh mr. Fleming is here good um so I had asked so mr. Fleming had asked if he could uh address the board to get some input um on an article he's proposing for town meeting um and I also wanted to quickly take the opportunity to go through some of the zoning articles that the ARB is considering um they had their meeting last night to decide which articles to put forward and I was unable to attend so I'm not entirely sure what they're doing um but most of the things that the ARB was considering relate almost exclusively to the industrial and business districts which pretty much fall outside our purview um they were looking at one that would uh looking at the different kind of open spaces as they relate to the business districts um one looking at addressing changing the rear yard the required to rear yard setbacks uh there's one looking at changing the step back requirements which is where the building is after a certain height have to step in so they're looking to possibly try to change that uh we have what's referred to as a reduced height buffer area between business and residential that's very hard to understand so they're looking to clarify that um they're looking to change corner lot requirements in business districts so that maybe the side street doesn't have to be treated as the exact same way as the front street um they're looking at looking at height minimums in the business districts uh looking at a larger program is an Arlington Heights business district which would be sort of a larger overlay district stretching basically from where Forest Street meets Mass Ave all the way to Lexington they're looking at some of the uses that are available for in the industrial district solar in the industrial districts and ARB's jurisdiction over properties in the industrial district so those are the things that specifically the ARB is looking at none of those really impact us but what Mr Fleming has um would directly uh affect us and our work so uh James if you're able to unmute yourself um just a quick introduction to the board and tell us what you're considering who are um I don't suppose you have the you got the memo that I sent over did you um I didn't see it in the materials if not that's okay I thought I don't know okay let me let me find it apologize for that that's okay okay um you're that or we can give you control if you want to bring it up yourself oh that's dangerous it might be more expedient though it might be um um Mr. Chairman Mr. Fleming is good to go if you chose us to do that thank you Mr. Trella really sure um so let me quickly grab it and I'll give you an introduction um so I should first James Fleming 58 Oxford Street so um this the article in short the purpose of it is would be to remove the usable open space requirement for one in two families um just it's entirely just completely gone let me find the proposal and I have it up okay are you able to see it yep perfect um so the base of the background is that every every property with the residential component has to have open space it's usable which is a 25 by 25 square that is less than eight foot eight plus an eight percent in grade oh we heard about it a lot tonight um and it's set as a percentage of the size of the building so what I would like to do is make it so that doesn't apply and the goal that I have in mind is that the person who the stated purpose of these will open space is for the enjoyment of the residents who live on the property but if someone has made a decision to encroach upon it or reduce it and possibly become non-conforming they've already made a conscious decision that a living space that they would gain is more valuable than the open space they would lose um what the in thinking about this there are also a bunch of other requirements on the property that limit um what you can do with it that I think to some degree make the usable open space requirement redundant so one is lot coverage requirements so if you already have a large percentage of your lot covered you can't just expand into your usable open space really nearly because you have this other restriction on you and then of course you have the rear setbacks you have the rear in front setbacks side yard setbacks things like that and to some extent this really only this change would really only apply to our two uses and older non-conforming single family uses and the reason is that the front yard setback for single families has been 25 feet for I think since the 50s it's a very long time and so if and those those front yards are de facto usable open space and this almost by definition can't apply to them so what this is really targeted at is sort of the older housing stock that was built before we had that setback or built before we even had in many cases zoning at all um elimination sounds kind of scary one thing I was able to find is that Medford and I'll go down here Medford has a very similar definition of usable open space which is based on a percentage of gross floor area although theirs is defined as a little like ever so slightly differently there's also doesn't apply to detached single and two family dwellings so it appears as if we would we wouldn't be without precedent in doing something like this and in thinking about other ways we might change it no matter how I touched it we would run into some other kind of problem these are some slides I showed to the ARB about changes you may have so one of the problems is that if you add building space you need more yard but if you can't get more yard then there's a chance you could become not important way of doing so right now this is if maybe we get rid of that requirement for example and say it's based on the lot area some fixed value the problem is that the top row here is a existing house that can currently add a 10 by 15 addition on their back and they would still be in compliance with the usable open space so for example this house has a what is it this house is fully conforming for something like R2 and they're all usable open space is 103 percent of gross floor area they can add this addition right now and that cuts their usable open space in half but they're still well over the 30 threshold that they would that are they're required to have now let's say we take that and make it based on the lot area this house is still conforming as is 30 percent of the lot area but now they could no longer have this addition because this usable open space would be 15 percent of the lot area so and this admittedly this is a contrived example to show the point but there are tens of thousands of lots in Arlington I really don't want to be the one taking the risk that I caused someone to lose an ability to make an addition that they currently would have one other thing you could do is you could we could maybe change the percentage but we still don't get out of the situation where there is no guarantee of not creating a problem for somebody somewhere unless you reduce this percentage to a very small number at which point it is very close to just getting rid of it in its entirety well another way oh sorry yes please go ahead no I think that was a cost oh okay um the other way is um that I considered modifying as well you have these 25 foot minimum dimensions and so well maybe you could just shrink that um this is a example of a non conforming use where you are um in this case that you're at 22 percent of your lot area is usable um or is uh non usable open space um so you have none um which you can go up as is without a problem um so in this case we add a 50 percent addition on a two-story building their gristful areas as a percentage of usable open space goes down but they don't have any to begin with if we shrink that dimension all of a sudden it becomes usable open space so if they become conforming and then they they would lose the ability to add this dormer because now they would be going from 33 percent of gross floor area and which is now a usable open space dimension because it's 20 feet if they tried to add that dormer now they would exceed um the either it's not a seed they would go below the 30 threshold so in this case we'd be going down from 30 percent to 26 percent by adding the dormer I'll pause does this make sense it makes sense in my head I just want to make sure it makes sense to you well is it it was interesting because the you know you had come to us because the ARB wanted to get the to the benefit of our experience so you know usable open space is something that comes up routinely in houses in east Arlington that are looking to do attic buildouts and the situation with almost all of them is not that they're they don't have enough usable open space it's just that they have none whatsoever um and you know looking at this example it's it's an interesting question like you know if we were to do something that would all of a sudden make people compliant with usable open space now there's a you know there's a whole level of additions that we are now disallowing if we do that um exactly but part of in my my mind is I've been trying to go back and think like how many cases have we had where somebody actually had usable open space and this this really made it that you know trying to try to conform with the usable open space requirements was difficult and I honestly can think of like one or two in all the time I've been on the board and in most cases the use of the lack of usable open space is not that there's too little or that they have some that we're they now are going to cross the threshold so they just have they just don't have any period and so we are relying on other means of reducing the you know of constraining the the size of the house on the land and as you you know correctly pointed out we already have several other methods of doing that we have a yard setbacks which if they're compliant with the yard setback then that's going to constrain it if they're non-conforming then you know they need to make their case before the zoning board that that they need to that they should be allowed to make it further non-conforming same with lock coverage I've never seen us get into trouble with the landscaped area but that's only 15 percent and anything counts so that I don't see us ever getting to that point either so a lot of the so a lot of these cases are interesting but I'm almost you I think to your initial point of you know do we just say we don't you know is it worthwhile to just get rid of usable open space for single and two family housing because it really doesn't do anything or do we say well let's leave it in because it doesn't do anything it's a quirk it's a you know as you know it's sort of it's a quirk from the past and it doesn't really impact a lot of what we do Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon the the situation where it doesn't really impact things is really essentially when you're putting a dormer in but you're leaving the but you're not making another addition so that you're still within the the footprint that you started with if in addition to the dormer there's some other addition that changes the footprint then usable open space potentially bites at that point we have to make a a determination that it isn't worse than the existing nonconformity I think ordinarily we do that but from the point of view of somebody who wants to do something with this house you've gone from being able to do something as a matter of right or effectively as a matter of right and having to go through our process which causes both cost and delay so it does seem to me that that that while only some of our cases actually involve that not the not by any means the majority actually a fairly small minority in those cases this is a potential problem and and there's uncertainty as to what we'll do with this this board has taken a certain view to it but you know in five or ten years we've got different people with different attitudes say it it it may not be entirely the same as what we're doing here what troubles me about usable open spaces all of the dimensional requirements that are put in and which are the things that make it something other than just open space and maybe if you sort of said okay well a usable open space doesn't include the driveway you could that would make some sense although I must say that when I walk down my street and see people playing near their houses they're most often on the driveway shooting baskets and rather than in the in the yard doing picnics or washing their laundry but you know when you look at the statute and if you take the reason for the usable open space requirement at face value we assume that what we say the purpose is is is what the purpose really is and that this isn't just sort of a gentleman's way of putting in additional control on building size it's supposed to be the part of the lot that's designed and developed for outdoor use by the occupants of the lot for recreation including swimming pools and tennis courts or similar facilities or for garden or household service activities like clothes drying and or gardening and that sort of thing and all of those are things that are relevant for the are essentially protecting the owner of the property we have other rules that are designed to protect people who are adjacent to the property or people in the neighborhood but usable open space it has the peculiar definition that it has because it's focused on protecting the person who owns the property and yet most often this is when it becomes relevant at all it becomes relevant because the person who owns the property really wants to do something else they want to that they may want to use their their yard in a way that's inconsistent with the usable open space requirements and so on and it makes me sort of wonder whether whether the kind of work that this concept is doing is something that is worth putting still another restriction on or whether if we really are interested primarily in protecting the interests of the neighborhood and the butters we why aren't the other why aren't the other things that we we have including landscaped open space sufficient sufficient to do that and and at that point we don't need to be paternalistic about it and we can let people use their houses the way the way that makes most the most sense to them rather than having something the town has figured out that they really want people people to have this isn't like a hidden defect or anything that you need disclosure on everybody can see what kind of space they have and decide whether that's attractive attractive to them I know that when we moved here a few years ago and we lived in duplex with what most people would say is a fairly limited amount of open space my wife almost refused to buy it because there was much too much at our age we didn't want to take care of a yard and so the less yard we had the better that isn't the attitude we had when we had young children but you know people are different and that's make way against having this concept in any event I don't think that it's that it would make that it would be a if we didn't have this to work with I don't think it would complicate our lives particularly in other words it's it's not one of those things that that we need this in order to make the regime that we enforce work it if anything it tends to count in the other the other way the other members think it's hopman um I I find myself a little puzzled but by the whole topic it's I on the one here especially following the hearing we just had because I agree with what everyone has said that the usable open space the the way it's defined is so restrictive um and as mr. Hamlin was just saying it it's specific to um you know the needs of the occupant as opposed to the neighbors but I will say that you know in some cases it seems like the the setbacks aren't always sufficient from the view of the neighbors necessarily in in it seems like sometimes adjacent property owners are concerned about the size of the additions beyond just the setbacks and in some rare cases potentially usable open space um could be an important factor there and it seemed like it would have been even potentially in tonight's hearing if not for the slope um and I don't know I don't know if that's an valuable point even to be dwelling on but um it does seem like it's capturing something that that's maybe a little bit elusive to capture um I'm curious if anyone else kind of can pick up what I'm getting at here like everyone was very concerned about the drainage impacts the sunlight impacts and there's not actually a single factor um that we can rely on um to sort of guarantee that those will function appropriately for adjacent sites does that make sense mr. chairman yes sir um I think you mean I from James's point of view this isn't necessarily the best night to have brought this before us but when I think of the other hearing it's a really good example of of how this all works the the thing that primarily protects the butters the butters is the provision on large additions and we'll go through all of the right considerations as we as we examine that in light of whatever the applicant provides to us and that is specifically designed to deal with the situation where you meet the setbacks and nevertheless for some reason it's not enough um and and so we have that that does that um now many of the other things with the sun and that sort of thing are either not affected by usable open space or if they are it's more or less arbitrary in other words the usable open space as a concept isn't designed to get at those things now it does mean that we have to exercise our judgment in light of the material of whatever is there but you know I'd rather sort of exercise my judgment the way the the statute says that we should do then use a concept uh that then to use a concept that isn't really designed for this but that may under certain circumstances fit into the overall feel of the case and I'll say that I was had a great deal of concern in the other case about whether or not they met the usable open space requirement and whether whether but that was a sort of a rule of law sort of thing if we have as long as we have it it's our job to enforce it uh and if the tabulations aren't right and if if we we're not following the right procedure because we need to make a section six finding or whatever and we need to make sure that we do that in the right way but that doesn't go to ultimately to whether or not we actually need it and at least in the way I look at the other case I look primarily at the large addition provision and get from that the criteria that I think that we need in order to deal with that kind of situation and I think that comes up generally the zoning this this zoning bylaw you know covers over every possibility and so thickly that loopholes have a hard time developing and there's always some other some other thing to use but in any event in that particular case I was impressed as I was going through that while I cared about usable open space when I got to what the neighbors were really caring about they weren't caring about usable open space at all they were caring about how close it was how big the house was and how close it was to the to the side and and and all of that and that's what we would normally have in that kind of a case in a large addition case that's what the statute asked them to be talking about and that's what they were talking about and what we will consider Rick what is what is your sense on on this Mr. Chairman I my opinion is it's a safe god and rare instances that will make an impact and a lot of instances it won't it's just a safe god going forward in the future wherever but everybody's concerned about the size of houses so on so forth and it's not getting any slower out there so I think you guys are correct in your assumption that generally it doesn't matter but sometimes it does and that that one time may make a difference just the opinion of ISD well you have a lot more experience in this than we do so very very appreciated Mr. Chairman just to maybe build on what Elaine was mentioning one thing that I noticed and I've been on the board less time than many of you you guys have different examples or experience but it's just so rare that we have a property that has a rectangular lot where it's easily applied that there's you know a clear defined backyard and side yards and front yard quite often they're really uniquely shaped lots like the one we saw today was about the strangest lot I've seen and so what I've noticed that the usable open space does is if we were to if a developer for instance were to design a building to the zoning envelope i.e. just taking every offset backyard rear yard side yard and just extruding the building straight up this pushes that with these unique shaped lots to actually define a more open area somewhere and I know it's just five feet but 20 feet when there's a house right on the lot line feels pretty close so you know maybe as Rick said it feels like even though it's it's redundant and it may not make a difference many of the times in the times where we have evaluated this it's been because someone's building as big as they can without much guardrails and this is the thing that we've been using to sort of push push back on those proposals and make sure that as Mr. Hanlon said we're enforcing this piece of the zoning bylaw as well Brad or any thoughts I I swore I wasn't going to say anything but because I think Ms. Hoffman asked the question I I was sort of keeping up with her I thought that what she had to say about you know it was sort of like an intangible aesthetic argument that I thought that she was making and I think everybody's right I mean we don't probably employ this analysis all that much and it probably doesn't affect all that much but when I've ever read the whole open space landscaped open space usable open space I've always thought that it was there really for some sort of sense of aesthetics and maybe that's not our job but that's the way I've always felt about it and so I don't think it's a bad thing to have it and you know and I don't think it would be catastrophic not to have it but I don't know I'm maybe just set in my ways so that's how it seems to me Mr. Chairman yes sir I just wonder and I'm I'm guessing we don't get the answer to that tonight but I am impressed by the fact that Medford that follows more or less us in our definition of usable open space it doesn't apply it to one in two family uses and I just wonder how satisfied they are with that today is it to is there any feeling on their side that they really ought to be more like Arlington still because they yeah because this doesn't doesn't quite do it for them I mean this feeling that there's a there's a certain stickiness that's here is that whatever you have you would just assume have rather than change and I guess they're probably my guess is they're not probably any more eager to imitate them than we are eager to imitate them but but still you know there is a laboratory experiment there's a neighboring jurisdiction which in some ways is similar that doesn't have this even though they accept the general concept and it would be useful I think for the ARV to have a better understanding of what Medford thinks of its own rules. James you didn't happen to talk to anyone in Medford about this did you? No I didn't. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Moore? Are you going to take public comment on this? Um good yeah whatever we're doing has no you know we're just providing information to Mr. Fleming as he makes his decision but um if you would like to if you have a comment sure we'll take that. Okay well thank you I appreciate the time I do have a comment um I I think I think I see the usable open space rule as a tool um much like much like the way a screwdriver is designed to screw in screws but screwdrivers are used to pry open doors they're used to drift they're used for many other purposes that aren't screwing in screws and and I just I think that just as I believe it was Ms. Hamilton I had to say I think she was on the set it um it's something which the board employs from time to time to get at something that may not be the letter of law the regulation is written but rather sort of the spirit and what the spirit what the spirit allows I mean the idea that that a property owner has the their rights and their interests are paramount as opposed to the the community around it well but that's true property rights doesn't allow you to do what you want with your property however I think what what you and the other the boards in town are trying to do is balance between the uh the the property rights of individuals and the property rights or or the rights I guess of a community and open space although it's for the use of the property owner is also ends up being for the the visual use and the aesthetic use and the balance use of the community around that property as was as was discussed in in the docket tonight um so again I I'm just I'm echoing sort of what's already been said which is it's not something necessarily you will will rule on directly but having it in your toolbox having it is something that makes cases come before you for for your you know balance and reason judgment having the cases come before you is not a bad thing I think it allows things to get aired that should get aired even though the point of the open space regulation directly isn't always the thing at at item it is something that allows the discussion to get going and and get wrapped around sort of the needs of the community around so I think that balance that that it allows you to get at with your meetings I think it's important so I would I would suggest that it's removal by Mr. Fleming's you know potential motion here decreases the availability of the tools and the flexibility which your group and your board currently has thank you for putting up with my you know I absolutely appreciate your perspective on that because it it is interesting because it's one of the things that we sometimes consider as the residential design guidelines and the residential design guidelines only come in if somebody has a special permit or a variance request and you know if we don't have that to force it then you know if somebody doesn't need to consider the residential design guidelines at all they can do it by right not that we have ever pushed very hard because the residential design guidelines but it's certainly something that we are allowed to do and this time is going by there's more acceptance of those guidelines and use of them I've heard more and more reference over the past two years has gone by so I think it's a good thing yeah I don't want to belabor this particularly but you know if the residential guidelines are good to have then they ought to we ought to be able to figure out a way of applying them but the notion that they should or shouldn't apply depending upon whether you can come up with 25 foot square patch seems arbitrary and capricious to me and I don't think that's a good way to organize a government. So James have we given you any clarity whatsoever? I thought we were out of board members and then Roger spoke and I can't see you all once again one thing I do one thing I do want to get your your collective take on is the notion of how useful open-case provides a additional what's the word an additional form of a setback from one neighbor taking this at this case as an example yeah so I could build an addition over here and be in compliance this neighbor may not be very happy about that but I can do this by right I could also put it over here and make this neighbor happy and both of those cases I can do by right so in a case like this to some extent it doesn't really help you it only helps you when you're forcing someone to go through this because they don't have enough or they would otherwise become run into a variance and this this addition unless it's what is it 50 percent or seven whatever it is the partition provision you'll only see that if it's 750 square feet or larger or 50 percent they're granted this example doesn't have that but yeah but to some extent you the neighbors may not like it but there won't be an avenue for them to go down it to go and air their grievances unless they your property happens to be nonconforming right I mean in this case too they could you know add five feet onto the back of the entire house and still be compatible or make their addition 10 by 20 and still be compatible it does sort of enforce a little bit of extra dimension somewhere in the around the house right but you're guaranteed that at least one neighbor has the possibility of being upset by what you're doing you're not and in that case you're you're like I mean maybe I guess maybe that you could argue that that's something but you know which neighbor maybe it's the number you like less or maybe it's the number you like more yeah any other feedback in general I think that's I think that's about as much as you're going to get out of us at this hour it's late so so the takeaways that I'm hearing are probably useful limited situations it depends on the case that you run into is that fair to say I think so I think so and I think it would be interesting to know what medford's experience is with like I mean I don't even know that like you know it's possible that they've never had it for residential but if they made the change I'm curious what what they did and why they did it but that may not be something that's easily researchable or understandable okay I think I can put in a hopefully they'll take their message from random outsider yeah so your recommendation would be to learn more about what medford if they've just kept it for the same for however many decades or if they've made the conscious choice to make it this way yeah I think it's just it's curious that they they did it that way so I'm you know half of it is an academic curiosity and half of it is you know what it what is the policy implication yeah okay that's useful be back anything else from anyone right thank you very much no you're welcome thank you and then as far as other things that may come up zoning wise all the you know James's proposal is a citizen article I have no idea what's been filed for citizens but I think tomorrow it's the application deadline so um we will you know as soon as the select board gets around to putting together their list which will probably be in about two three weeks we'll see what else is what else made the cut uh mr chairman yes I had the pleasure of ending the meeting last night and uh you you do need to be aware there are a couple of things they've decided not to move forward oh okay I think there were perhaps two at least one maybe two and so check check on that it's okay it's really important thank you for that I'll definitely check in with them um next on our agenda was about the hybrid meeting dry ground session so I've been trying to sort of coordinate a bunch of different people it looks like Monday February 13th at 4 p.m to see if that worked for everybody and so it would be in the town hall annex or at home would be a good to split us up a little bit but that would be the date and time so Monday February 13th at 4 that'll work for me excellent so great you as well wonderful so unfortunately we have to put it on the town calendar um because it is technically a meeting so we have to put that so rick if I could put that on you yes I'm sorry I'm sorry ask mr. more what are you available at that time as well no I've already been through the hybrid dry run with my own committee it went very well as long as you have someone who knows the system you don't have no problem you don't need my help that is okay I appreciate the offer though so I laid you said you could make it but probably remote yes exactly perfect mr. chairman I was only going to add that if you need to know the system if that's their technical expertise requirements if you're on site in person I'm not the guy so again I would I would suggest that uh one person be designated as the the technical person and other than the chair because there is some work that has to be done that one no committee I mean all right so I will let everyone know everyone at the town know that that date works for us we'll keep that then update on the zoning assistant position so town meeting had voted to allow an expanded zoning assistant position and we had been looking through the fall we had a few candidates who we interviewed remotely and then we had an in-person interview with somebody the last week of December who we made an offer to my understanding is that they have they are in negotiations now with the town to uh take up the position so we will be having a new zoning assistant I feel always really awkward talking about this with with rick because we're it's sort of we're getting rick's replacement but uh really rick has rick has served us so well for so long I hate to hate to see him go in any fashion now thank you mr chairman I'm indifferent about the whole thing I'm probably the least informed about uh somebody taking over my position don't even I haven't even met the person I I just requested that if this thing does go down I need time to train him I mean yeah not rocket science but there's a lot to it as far as dates and what has to be done and absolutely quite honestly without the help of my wife I couldn't even get those notices out um so yeah um we will uh stay posted perfect I'll be here for the next few anyway absolutely thank you mr chairman mr handlin just wanted to point out that just just just to say that the last time we actually did have a zoning assistant mr valer at the came to our meetings anyway so it doesn't necessarily mean that this is like thanks mr handlin I appreciate all right and then the last piece here just our calendar where we'll be together again in two nights to talk about the 40b uh traffic and architectural there was that big slew of documents that got got dropped um last night uh thanks to to vin and rick for getting those up on the town's web on the at least to attach to the agenda we did have to try to reduce the size on a bunch of those files and I think we got them all to the point where they're they're up and I know marisa was working on getting them up onto the town's website this evening so hopefully all that stuff will be up and posted um I've only seen one piece of public comment um that's come in so far for the next meeting but uh no problem will be a couple others trickling in um and we'll keep moving forward mr chairman before you break any off on apology uh oh for having rudely mangled elaine hoffman Hamilton briefly and uh I was curiously trying to see find her name because I knew I was saying it wrong so I apologize no problem I appreciated that uh people seemed to pick up what I was saying even though I was sort of babbling so no no it was good thank you um and then just on our calendar it looks like to the after the 26th the next is February 9 which is another Thursday night comprehensive permanent hearing we are trying to keep February 14th clear it looks like we are safe for that now so February 14 we will not be meeting we'll be meeting again on the 23rd so the next three hearings will all be for 40 b and then we're back on the 28th for regular stuff all right anything else thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the arlington zoning board of appeals I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting I especially like to thank rick valerally vincenly kelly line of marisa allow for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings it is our understanding that the recording 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 zba at town.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 mr hanlon so moved thank you second thanks dupont vote of the board to adjourn mr dupont hi hanlon hi mr holly hi mr rickadelli hi mr hopman hi and the chair votes aye we are adjourned thank you all very much