 All right. Well, it is 635 p.m. on Tuesday, October 12th, 2021. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd like to call this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. First members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Mr. O'Rourke is delayed. He won't be able to join us until a little later. President, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And Mr. Ford is traveling today, so he will not be with us. Town officials. Rick Pallarelli. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. President Lee, I believe he's transferring locations at the moment. And I don't think Kelly Lanema is joining us tonight. I'd like to confirm people are there's someone present to present 1416 Edgerton Road. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to confirm the possibility that they would not be able to attend this evening, so I just want to confirm. Mr. Chairman, I left off with the applicant that if he checked in as attending, then we'll forward with his presentation. Okay. If he did not, then he had a death in the family and would like to continue to October 26. Okay. So he won't be here this evening. We'll continue when we get to that. It's someone here appearing on behalf of 18 herd road. Gregory Jacobs. Yes, Joseph Luna, his architect. Perfect. On behalf of 125 127 Webster Street, Mr. McKenna present. Yes. Good evening. On behalf of 43 Fox Meadow Lane, Benjamin Hathaway. Present. Thank you. On behalf of 25 Ottawa Road, Brian Grady. We're here 24. Thank you. This open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16, 2021. This includes an extension until April 1, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all public meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access of access is afforded. So please 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 app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website. I didn't find 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 reporting. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. The reporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. Here as the zoning board of appeals discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington formerly known as monotomy and Algonquin word meaning swift waters the board here by acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony province and Commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline to the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. And that's the first time on our agenda. The second item is the approval of the decision for 53 Marathon Street. I'm going to hold that until later in the hearing until Mr. O'Rourke is able to join us. So that brings us to item number three on the docket. I'm now turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda. Here are some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announced each agenda item I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will then request members of the board ask what we have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered I will open the meeting for public comment. So item three on our docket, on our agenda for this evening is docket number 366 1416 Edgerton Road. So Mr. Valorelli you had noted earlier that due to a death in the family they have requested a continuance. That's correct Mr. Chairman he was going to try to make it but I do not see him present at this time. Okay. And so you had said we would be continuing to October 26. That's correct. So may I have a motion to continue 1416 Edgerton Road until October 26 at 7.30pm. So moved. Thank you Mr. DuPont. Second. Thank you Mr. Mills. Vote of the board Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Chair votes said. Aye. So we are continued on 14, 16 Edgerton Road, behind us to number four on our agenda, which is docket 3667 18 herd road occurring for the applicant. Mr. Joseph. Yes. You do you hear me, sir? single-family house with an open porch. House is currently conforming to setback. However, what we are planning on doing now is taking down the existing open porch and adding a 37 square foot mudroom and a new covered porch, which puts us into the front yard setback. We've submitted drawings showing the extent of the addition, which is roughly 92 inches wide and projecting out from the face of the house a total of eight and a half feet, four foot six for the projecting mudroom and additional four foot open porch. We are providing a better proportion from entry into the house. And we believe that there is no detriment to the neighborhood or the house itself as it's in context with the colonial style. The house remains a single-family house. And we don't, we believe that release from the zoning bylaws is warranted for this proposed project. So I can't hear you. I'm just gonna quickly bring this up on the screen. Yep. So this is the site plan. So it's just this addition here at the front of the mudroom with steps. And the projecting porch. That's the existing. Oh, and the projecting porch, right. So this is the existing condition. That's the existing condition. And then this is the, yeah. Right. So again, four and a half feet. And then that should be the proposed, the mudroom and the. Right. And a wider proportion. So it's in more, it's in better scale with the house. Side elevations. And that's the front elevation. Right. Are there any questions from the board? Mr. Chair, Steve Rovellar. Rovellar. So, yes, this is just sort, this is a basic one. You know, the permit was advertised as a, or this hearing was advertised as a special permit under 539A, but the application materials include a request for a variance. So is, is this a special permit or a request or a variance request? Well, my understanding is that we are within the, within the front yard setback. So we will, we need to have variance relief for that, not just a special permit. I would just ask Mr. Vellarelli to clarify that. Right. So Mr. Rovellar, that's a great question. So at face value, this looks like a variance. When a lot of applicants don't realize is they made an exception for projections into minimum yards because so many people wanted large investables. So they put a caveat, if you will, in there and made it a special permit under its own special section, projections into minimum yards. But if you didn't, if you didn't look further into the zoning bylaw, you would take it as a variance. So it was advertised correctly, the applicant filled out the wrong application. So in other words, it is a special permit. It is a special permit. Thank you for their clarification, Mr. Vellarelli. You're welcome. Any further questions from the board? And I'm gonna stop the share on this. And I guess I'm now gonna open the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asked that those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing to please be patient and allow those waiting to speak for the first time to go ahead with them. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host and you'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed public comment period will be closed for this particular hearing. And the board and staff will do our best to show any documents requested. So with that, we have a phone in number ending in 644. Yeah, this is Steve Moore. I'm at Piedmont Street. I'm sorry I have to call in by phone tonight. I can't do the Zoom and I have no access to any of the documents that you're referring to. So I'm gonna ask you a favor, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm a member of the Arlington Tree Committee and I can't actually find this address on Google Maps. So I'm going to have to ask you, sir, if you could tell me if there are any trees in front of this property that are gonna be affected by the extension of the steps or the creation of the mud room? There's a street tree that is beyond far beyond this area. I don't think there are any other trees in the front yard, Mr. Luna, are there? No, there's only low shrubs. Okay. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the applicant to make sure that when they do the creation of the steps or whatever's going on there, they use the correct tree protection for the street tree. So any construction equipment or materials are not damaging the critical root zone. Okay. If there's any interest, I mean, if there's any question about the information of what that is or how far out one has to go, it's available from the tree warden in town, Tim LaQuieve. It's also, I believe, on the DPW website. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Anything further? Nope, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other public questions or comments? Nice. None, so I will close the public comment for this hearing. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more question? I'm sorry, Steve Moore again. Yes, Mr. Moore. Well, the reason I'm bringing it up is I don't know how on the phone to put my hand down and how to put it out. So tell me how to put it down. That is a question I can't answer, but I can do it for you. Okay, because if I have multiple comments tonight, you're gonna have to do that every time. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, certainly. It's a further discussion from the board. So the board typically attaches three conditions to special permits. The first one reads the final plans and specifications approved by the board for this permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There shall be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Condition number two, the building inspector is hereby notified that he is to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he determines that violations are present and the inspector of buildings shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw under the provisions of chapter 40, section 21D and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the inspector of buildings may also approve an Institute of Appropriate Criminal Action also in accordance with section 3.1. And condition number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. As we have done on several cases recently where there have been requests for front yard additions of this type, I would like to propose adding a fourth condition, which would read the area of the new porch and enclosed entry is not to be considered within the foundation wall of the building. The purpose for this condition is the town bylaws treat the front building line differently than the front of other things. And so we just want to make it very clear that as far as this grant is concerned, the existing front of the house is considered the front of the building going forward. Yes, the foundation that's supported the small little entrance vestibules at the crawl space is no extension of the basement. No. Yep. Perfect. Not a problem. Anything further from the board? Mr. Rebelack. Mr. Chair, I would propose a condition that the covered part of the porch, the open part of it remain unenclosed. Imperpetuity, that's fine. Or. And that's the fourth one projection of the faces of the new building. Perfect, the open portion of the porch shall remain unenclosed. Okay. Imperpetuity. And then Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. DuPont. So I just forget, are we just leaving the question of street tree protection up to sort of the normal process or do we ever need to mention that? We typically avoid putting in conditions for somebody to follow standard procedures. We have in the past though and say something along the lines of the board notes that the applicant is to consult. We could put something along those lines. You can put a note that my client will comply with all applicable requirements of the Department of Public Works. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman. Yes. Just wanted to point out that the threshold for doing something with respect to drawing people's attention to the tree issues is getting to be low enough that we may want to consider going forward whether or not that should be put into the standard condition so that we don't have to adjust them each time. That's a very good point. So Mr. Revillac, I'm putting it down as the ZBA notes the applicant is to consult with the tree warden before construction begins. That's efficient. I think so. Mr. DuPont should weigh in though. I think you're probably Mr. DuPont, sorry. That's okay. Just what he said. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I can offer a comment that may help now and in the future. Yes, please. So the building commissioner has revised the residential building permit application to include a sign off from the tree warden regardless of whether there is tree issues or not. So that sign off sheet is included as part of every residential building permit application. They have to contact the tree warden whether trees are involved or not. So going forward, the tree issue is covered, if you will. And that application, if the members are interested in seeing it, it is online and a more updated application is at inspectional services. Oh, great. Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment as a member of the tree committee? No. I'm sorry. Mr. Moore. Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. That is excellent news. I believe this is one of the items to come up at our meeting tomorrow night. And so I will definitely make sure it comes up that that is excellent. It's something we've been working towards or hoping towards anyway for quite a while. So that will probably minimize my comments tonight, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. So with that in mind, we have our three standard conditions and we have the three additional conditions. Is there anything, excuse me, anything further from the board? Seeing none, may I have a motion please? Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I move that the application before us for 18 herd road be approved subject to the three standard conditions and the three additional conditions that have just been read. One of them having to do with the open part remaining unenclosed and perpetuity, a second one that the area of the new porch is not considered within the foundation, the wall of the building and the final one relating to the tree protection of the tree. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. A vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revolac. Aye. The chair votes aye. The motion for 18 herd road is approved with the six conditions. Very good. When should we expect the written decision? Mr. Hanlon? We're meeting again on the 20th. Are we taking up written decisions then? I was going to recommend maybe the 26th. The 26th was fine. It was two weeks. So we'll vote on the final language of the decision on the 26th. On the 26th. Yeah. Okay, very good. I thank the board for its time and thank you for approving. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, so this time, Mr. Revolac is with us. So I am going to return back to docket item number two, which is the approval of the decision for 53 Marathon Street, which is the decision prepared by Mr. Hanlon. It was submitted to the board last week for review and comments were taken back. Were there any additional comments in regards to 53 Marathon? I see none. With that, I would move to approve the final decision for 53 Marathon Street as amended. Second. Have a second. I just did. Second. Thank you. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rorowork. Aye. Thank you, sir. And the chair votes aye. So the final decision for 53 Marathon Street is approved. Mr. Rorock, I appreciate you calling in for that. You are relieved for the rest of the evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brings us up to item number five on our agenda, docket number 3668125127 Webster Street. Mr. McKenna. Yes. So proceed. So basically we're going for, we want to raise the, we have a two family and we want to raise the roof to be able to allow my son and my future daughter in law to be able to have a little living space up there, particularly a second bathroom and the staircase needs a headroom. So the walls have to go up in order to get those two and basically some living space up there as well. How much more of this nice to do. Yeah, this is the, existing attic floor plan and this is the proposed attic floor plan, roof plan framing section, these are the existing elevations and these are the proposed elevations. So I think the first question that has come up is about the size of the space that is being proposed for the attic floor level. I believe it's an excess of 50% of the floor below. Is that correct? That is correct. But it already was in non-compliance beforehand. The attic area up there, they have written down up there. Anyway, so it's basically another 30 something square feet of space above what was already a non-compliance from its existing place. The other thing- Is that the building department convention? I'm sorry, what? I was asking Mr. Valerelli if the building department had come to the same conclusion. Correct. Well, Mr. Chairman, the applicant is asking for the attic space to clearly be greater than seven feet in height by definition in more than 50%. So what the applicant is asking for is in fact the third story by definition. Is the applicant has said that he's only adding 30 square feet, but it looks like considerably more than that? Yeah, it's just looking. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, go ahead. I was gonna say, do you have a figure for how much space is being added or what the original space is? I do. So according to the application, the existing space, seven foot in higher is 1,084. The additional space to be added to that is an additional 234 square feet. So the total space in the attic will now be 1,318 square feet. The area of the floor below is 1,800 square feet. So just rough calculations, is that 75% or 80%? I'm not sure, but clearly more than 50%. Okay. But in its current existing condition, it is already in excess of 50%. According to the applicant, Mr. Chairman, but the building department has no way in knowing that. Okay. Are there specific questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Hanlon. I gather from the memorandum of the planning department that there hasn't been a statement filed that explains why it is that the applicant believes that this would qualify for a variance, which I gather is one of the things that's being asked for under the pretty strict standards that we have to administer because they're in the state law and we have very little discretion. And I wonder if the applicant is prepared at this point to provide us with an explanation of why he feels he meets those standards. One is the new accessory dwelling unit, which basically this is going to become a place for my son in the future to draw a lot of live. And my understanding is that that does not count against the square footage numbers. The utility area in the front is going to be unheated space. And that's where you lose a lot of the attic livable floor space. And also the variance, the plan that we have constructed also accounts for environmental factors and sustainability factors like model building, which allow for proper insulation and solar arrays on the roof. So the variance is being sought to also meet spec rather than doing this in a way that doesn't need a variance that doesn't allow for these more environmentally friendly elements that are in the plans. Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so one of the things that I'd like to get clear in my head, and again, this is, I'm going to ask the question, is this, you know, this was advertised as a special permit, but is it really that or a variance? Actually, I take it back. It was actually advertised as a variance, but is it a variance or a special permit? I mean, and I think the, I welcome feedback if feedback from other board members on this, but to me, the real question is, are we dealing with a preexisting nonconformity or not? And, you know, by preexisting nonconformity, meaning that, you know, the applicant, you know, if the applicant can provide drawings from an architect, showing that the existing third floor has greater than 50% of the floor area of the second floor at a height of less than seven feet is measured from the floor to the bottom of the rafters, then we can, you know, if it's already a nonconforming third floor, then, you know, what we're dealing with is an alteration to a nonconforming structure. If the second floor happens to be conforming, then we're, you know, looking at a variance. And as Mr. Hanlon indicated, there are two completely different sets of criteria. So like it's, although this is, you know, list advertised as a variance, the application has the, you know, it has the special permit criteria, you know, in the question and answer section. So I, for myself, I feel a need to get some clarity on that. This is something we are unclear on, I think, and would have been unclear on. That's, we have been told both that it's a special permit and a variance. And I think, do our drawings show the square footage they're currently? So this, these are architectural drawings that do show the current, what I think is a nonconforming space that already exists. It definitely was. So. But they cost the rules of change too, because the rules used to be different for what was conforming space. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I wanna, I have, I have been, actually I can't see you, but I can see the statute. And I just want to bring home to the applicant what the criteria are for getting a variance. The variance has to, the board would have to find that owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or the topography of the land and structures, and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which the application is located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner or appellant. And that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and, and so on. And the hard part is all is this business about soil conditions, shape or topography of the land and structures. Variance is not a thing that we are able to grant just because it would be a good idea to authorize the use that's and, and we don't even have authority under state law to vary from this. So, and we use, and we don't vary from it. So if this is a variance on the basis of what we've been told so far, it's extremely unlikely that we would have the discretion to grant it. And so Mr. Repelak is pointing at a solution, which to my way of thinking at least, and the colleagues may disagree with this, but to my way of thinking, the only potential solution is if this is a special, if this is a special permit. If it is, I wonder if anyone has a view as to whether we, as to what to make of the fact that this proposal would extend the non-conformity or at least in a way it would extend the non-conformity. And I wonder what the theory would be that it would not do that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So first of all, I want to say that I sympathize with the applicants because I think that, can you hear me? You can. Yeah, okay. So I sympathize because I think reading the bylaws is not always an easy task. And as I was trying to get a handle on this, I went to look at the definitions of story and half story. And so in sort of my experience with the board, we've looked at building on the attic or third floor. You know, we've dealt with it, I think, in terms of what's habitable. And that's to my mind where the 50% figure comes in, 50% or less under seven feet. And when I look at the definition of story in the bylaw, it says an attic is not deemed a story if unfinished and not used for human occupancy. So I guess the first question is, is anyone occupying the third floor at present? No, not at present. No. It is a teenager. It has been occupied. This is a family of 14 that built this house. So they occupied. So then when we look at the district it's in and it's the maximum would be two and a half stories. What I tend to feel when I'm considering this, and I can be persuaded differently, I guess, but is that the fact that it's there and it's present form and it may have more than 50% at seven feet or above is in some ways, to my thinking, not the issue because it's not habitable or it's inhabited at the moment. And so then what happens is you're talking about converting it to habitable space. And that's where to me the half story definition comes in with the 50% or less under the seven feet or under. And so that's where I run into the difficulty in trying to interpret this because I do think that I have no idea how many places in town have this same sort of circumstance where you have more than 50% seven feet or above. And I think that the intent of the bylaws to keep these buildings to two and a half stories. And so that's one of the circumstances that I think we certainly find that in the definition of the variance or it's one of the criteria in the variance, the purpose of the bylaw and it may well be we would consider that for the special permit. So I share some confusion about this under these particular circumstances, but I do think when you're going from unoccupied to occupied, we have to take into account what the bylaw says with regard to the district. And to my way of thinking, it's the 50% or under at the seven feet or above. And so that's kind of my lens for looking at this. I just wanted to share that. So actually one, I sort of have a follow-up question and one of another way of looking at it, not to muddy the waters too much, 40A section six. Yes, the accept clause, you know, I had it here. Yeah, so to any alteration of a structure begun after the first notice of said public hearing to provide for its use for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a substantially greater extent except where alteration, reconstruction, extension or structural change to a single or two family residential structural, residential structure does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure. And there's the second one, which is basically actually hold up, let me, I'm getting ahead of myself but they, yeah, let me read this again. I hate that paragraph. Could I just say? Nope. Basically, and I was gonna say but basically there is something in that section and I'll have to go read it again but whether it is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that's, you know, possibly another, you know, standard. Mr. Chairman, if I could follow up on that a second. Yeah, Mr. Hanley, it's easier to look at the bylaw because it doesn't, the text doesn't run together as much as it does in state law. So there are two potentially relevant provisions. One is that alteration, reconstruction, extension or structural change to a single or two family residential structure that is completely within the existing foundation walls does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure. And that at least arguably applies here since everything is within the existing foundation walls. Secondly is even if that doesn't apply maybe the second paragraph B in 8.1.3 does. No alteration, reconstruction, extension or structural change to a single or two family residential structure that increases the non-conforming nature of said structure shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the Board of Appeals that the proposed alteration, reconstruction, extension or structural change will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And if that applies, if A applies then this is not an increase in the non-conforming nature at all. If B applies then there still is a special permit that is relevant here. But our job would be simply to find that the change would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And if that's what the standard is at least we're able to talk about the right things here in order to figure out whether to approve it. Thank you for bailing me out, Mr. Hanlon. Yes. Yeah, my sense is this in a lot of ways this really hangs on the determination as to whether the existing attic floor is over 50% of the floor below. And if it is already it's a pre-existing non-conforming in regards to it being a two and a half story building. And if that's the case then I think that the further extension of that would be governed by the 813B which is the second one that Mr. Hanlon read. But if the existing attic area is less than 50% of the floor below then it would be a new non-conformity which would be a variance request. So certainly we have the drawings submitted by the applicant stating that the existing floor is more than 50% of the floor below but we don't have a specific drawing that sort of demonstrates that. You can, Mr. Chairman, you can do the math. It's the width of the house and then the 10, 12 pitch of the roof and you come up with how far in seven feet comes on the walls and that's how you figure out and it's over 50% because I believe at the time the house was built it was seven foot something it was obviously more. And I think they also stretched it because like I said, the original family that owned this house it was a family of 14 I don't think it was 14 children but so they clearly were using that space as a living space at the time the house was built. And the other question that I have is the new accessory dwelling unit thing does that negate some of this? So it does not understand and it was approved by the AG last week. So we're still getting up to speed on what it means and what it implies but my understanding is that it doesn't change the building envelope requirements. You're still required to meet the requirements that are in the building code. Just the exception is that you are now allowed to in the case of a two family, you're allowed to add additional units that meet the criteria for an accessory dwelling unit. And I'm not up to speed yet at all on what the requirements are for ADUs nor how they would be approved. Mr. Chairman, just at the outset the ADU, it would be a by right if it's allowed at all. And so coming before us would be sort of premature at this point if the ADU ordinance actually applied. But I think that the chair is correct that the ADU really addressed use more than addressed more than it addressed and did not address the conformity of structures and lots. So if you have a problem there then that the ADU doesn't help you. Right. So it's currently a two family house and a two family zone. If there was an ADU added, it would under town bylaws, it would remain a two family house. As far as zoning is concerned, but under state law it becomes a three unit structure which is no longer governed by the residential building code. It's governed by the commercial building code. And so there would be additional requirements to comply with the commercial code. And Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. The provision that in 8.1.3 that I just read it only applies to one and two family dwellings. So it gets you into an interesting conundrum because from our point of view it would still be a two family dwelling but the state says not. Absolutely. Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. That was more of a curiosity. Our current designs don't actually, and there's nothing about it being a separate unit. The current design is not a separate apartment just to clarify on that front. It's just extended living space for the second floor. We're just curious. Oh, okay. Okay. No, the second floor does have that sort of entertainment area that looks like it could be converted to a kitchen but it's sort of like the moment not designated as such. And obviously the third floor does not have two means of egress and all the other requirements. So Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm not trying to think about how to go forward with this. We are now sort of doing a lot of outside the envelope thinking in real time on this. And I'm wondering, I mean, the very first thing that we need in order to, we just sort of break it into two parts as I think the chair previously did. If in fact, this is already under the bylaw a three story house because we've exceeded the half story limitation, then we're being asked to basically approve a three family house and a two family district and that would require a variance and it would be highly unlikely that the board even if it wished to do so would be able to grant such a thing. On the other hand, if it's a non-conforming use and presumably a prior non-conforming use, then we think at least that we have some provisions that may apply to a single or two family dwelling that would enable us at least to consider the kinds of arguments that the applicant is making as to why it is that this should be approved. The threshold determination we need here is whether or not the building is now in non-conformity whether it's already as far as the zoning ordinance is concerned, a non-conforming use or a non-conforming structure. And I don't feel comfortable doing that on the basis of sort of doing the math in our heads. It seems to me that if we're going to embark on something that sort of is an untested voyage that at the very least we ought to have the application that clearly shows what the actual situation is before us. We shouldn't be sort of doing a back of the envelope in real-time conversation about it or calculation about it. I think that if the applicant wishes to pursue and to go in this direction that we at least need to have a showing as to why it is that a special permit under 8.1.3 and section six of the state law why it is that would be applicable. And we don't have an application that actually does that. And I'm wondering whether, I mean, it seems to me the right way to proceed at least is to get the basic papers in and maybe to be able to continue this until the 26th if that's enough time so that we actually have a record before us that we can relate to. And then we can see what it is that also would give us an opportunity to work out what the legal framework is that we think is applicable assuming that this is a non-conforming use. But at this point on knowing what we know now I feel pretty uncomfortable going forward to make all this up as I go along because it's just like with Indiana Jones where he makes it up as he goes along and gets into trouble eventually and I'd like to try to avoid that. No, I understood. Mr. Rivleck. Just one comment and then one question. The comment is although regarding the just doing the calculations based on the slope of the roof that doesn't quite follow the definition that we use to measure ceiling height for a half story. So it's the distance from the finished floor to the bottom of the, basically the bottom of the rafters rather than to the surface of the roof or roof for the underside of the sheathing and without knowing how there's not enough, I don't think there's enough information on the plans to do that. My question, this is for the applicant. Did you receive a copy of the planning department's memorandum for this docket? I'm not sure what that is. Yeah, we're unclear about what you're asking. Okay. I'll explain and perhaps Ms. I will bring it up in a second here. Yeah, so basically the dockets that appear before us our planning department also reviews them and they generally provide a memo with their opinion on the project and also areas where they suggest that we as a board focus on. So this is the one for this docket. We have not received that. Okay. It's attached to the agenda for tonight. Go ahead. Where did we get the agenda? Was that in agreement? I didn't get it. Was that something that we should have received from the planning department? So typically it's attached to the agenda. Yeah, either one of those things. All I got was a piece of paper that told me the time and the 27 digit number for getting. Yeah. Rick, can you go ahead and email this to them? Sure, Bruce, I'll do that right now. Mr. Revelec, was there a specific thing in here that you had wanted to reference? Nothing specific. Just more to just bring to the applicant's attention some of the questions that the planning department raised. They're effectively, I think they're at the bottom, but they also had questions about the dimensions and whether the building was in compliance with the definition of half-story. Okay. Mr. Chairman, in looking at that, one thing that the applicant will want to keep in mind is that the planning department memorandum is based on the assumption that what the applicant needs is a variance and we have at least been discussing the possibility that there's another way to proceed and the planning department didn't know about that. So when you read this, there will be things in there that are surprising because they wouldn't have written it quite the same way if they were reacting to the conversation we've had tonight. But if you just look at the specifics, the facts, the questions they have about the various filings and so forth, that's important information that would need to be corrected. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So, and I would like to refer, if you can scroll down to the bottom where it has the variance criteria, you had them there a moment ago. Is that right? Maybe it's up a little bit. Okay. So there's a section in there and I apologize because I lost it. I saw it at some point where it might be on the front page if you would. Yeah, so in the last bullet, it says that the applicant's completed forms for a special permit. However, the request to create the non-conforming third floor cannot be accommodated through a special permit. And I think that that's what's sort of troubling everyone is characterization of this non-conformity on the third floor because I too am unclear. I mean, I think that the variance, if the applicant looks at the criteria, you'll see that it's actually quite difficult to satisfy those four criteria. And then I think however, the planning department has given us a sense of what they're thinking by saying that it would be a non-conforming third floor. And that's part of what I know I have to ponder when it comes to how to treat this, even if we go through 8.1.3. So I just wanted to draw the applicant's attention to that portion of the current memo from the planning department. And then, you know, see if we can address that in the next meeting appropriately. That's it. Thank you. Would it, yes, please? Yeah, I guess I just wanted to clarify and make sure that we are over here on the same page because we did get a last, we got sort of a last minute suggestion to fill out the variance. Be hopeful about the special permit criteria. And so I guess just when we're looking at what we're trying to do, you know, there are neighbors around us that have almost identical projects to what we're trying to figure out how to do. So I think that's just what we're, we want to make sure that the next meeting has a full understanding of what we're doing. Okay. So the bylaw was changed within the last couple of years. So it used to be that the calculation was done at an elevation of seven foot three instead of seven foot zero. And it basically created a condition where you could, because the ceiling height only had to be seven feet under state code, it created a condition where you could actually create a lot more volume under the roof and be both in conformance with the building code and the state code, but it did not conform with what the intent was of a two and a half story. And so there have been a couple of revisions to the bylaws to lower that and to also to set some criterias on what roof slopes are allowable. And so some of those that appeared to really be almost the entire third floor raised up under back to back shed dormers. That's not the intent of the two and a half story zoning and the town is actively trying to get away from that wholesale appearance and really sort of try to make it appear more like two and a half stories rather than a full three. I missed the chairman. The planning Bob and memo was sent to Mr. McConner. We should have it in his email. Thank you. At this point, I would like to open the meeting for public comment if there is comment on this project. So if there's any members of the public who would wish to comment on this hearing, you can raise your hand using the raise hand each button on the participants tab or if you're on phone, you can dial star nine. Is there any who wish to comment on this application going once going twice being none. They're gonna close the public comment period for this hearing. So certainly from the discussion from the board it sounds like there's a desire to continue this most likely until the 26th and there are certain things that we would like to clarify. I think the most critical is to get using the definition in the zoning bylaws get an accurate measurement for what the existing area is on the attic floor between the finished floor and the underside of the existing roof structure to determine what that area actually is because that will determine if it's existing it's over 50% then it's a preexisting non-conformity and then we treat that differently than if it's under 50% which would be conforming. So I would ask the applicant if they could work with Mr. Valerelli to come up with a figure for the existing area of the attic floor because that will really be the determinant for how the board needs to proceed. And then I had a couple of other comments I had just wanted to pass along as well. Go ahead, I'm gonna bring back up the package. So on the proposed elevations. So there's not a lot of alignment between what's going on on the third floor and the second floor. I don't know if there's any way to make the windows feel less out of alignment. I know this window here is over a restaurant. I'm sorry, that actually is going to line up with the other two. He just brought that way. Okay. And the stairway window, the tall one on the other side. That one also lines up. I mean, the stair goes straight up the window is going to go straight up. Perfect. Exactly what I was going to mention. There's also, there's a door that is up about four feet. That actually was a previous, we're gonna, that was for, if we had a rental unit they were gonna exit through that door. We ended up not renting anything. It just as a fan, we are just a multi-generational family in the house. Okay. We're gonna use the other exit. So that actually is gonna go away and just become a window. Okay. I wanna make sure nobody accidentally fell out. No, it's screwed shut. There's a couch in front of it. Excellent. There's a parking space between that door and the street. But that's a, which is basically a front yard parking space but I think it's pre-existing. So that's not under our jurisdiction. We basically have five parking spots up there. Okay. And then I think, so we would wanna have, we would wanna basically can, so what we discussed, we discussed the windows, we discussed that door, we discussed getting an accurate measurement of the third floor area and then just updating the information sheets, both the dimensional sheets and the zoning compliance sheet just so that all those numbers are current and up to date. Yeah, I believe all those are all set, but... Yeah, from my understanding, the only thing that we're missing is the original existing livable floor space on the third floor. And then also we do have the form 8.13 for the special permit as well. So I'm not sure, and we'll just make sure that that's in the file since we got told to switch to the variants, but well, it sounds like that's what you should... Yeah, I think you have both. I turned in both. So I turned in the special permit first and then I just turned in the variants. So you have all the forms for both things. Just in case any of the numbers change as a result of measuring the upper floor. Right. The net revision would just carry through. Is there anything else that the board would want the applicant to consider ahead of coming back? Seeing none. I have a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I move with the applicant's consent, I guess, to continue this hearing until a date certain of October 26th at 7.30 or soon thereafter, as it can be heard. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second on that? That's a... Second. Second, thank you, Mr. Mills. Is that acceptable to the applicant to continue to the 26th? Yes. Yes, can I just... So basically the main thing to focus on is just getting that existing number correct in order to try and move to the special permitting or find a way to the variants or just figuring out whether or not the... Which applies working with Mr. Varelli. Correct, Valerelli. Yeah, exactly. That's really sort of the critical thing. So we know exactly what we're deciding on. Okay, all right. Yeah, I just want to make sure we were clear. Appreciate that. With your permission, I'll send Mr. McKenna a list of what the board is looking for. I'll copy you want it just to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I think I have it. Okay, perfect. We don't take any more time from the hearing tonight. So Mr. McKenna, just look for your email. I'll recap that for you. All right, thank you. Okay, and then just need the board to vote on the continuance motion. So Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revillac? Aye. The chair votes aye. We are continued on 125, 127th Webster Street. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. We will see you soon again. Thank you guys. This brings us to item number six on our agenda docket number 366943 Fox Meadow Lane. And Benjamin Hathaway, I believe is here. Present. Please tell us what you would like to do. Yeah, so I'm seeking a special permit in accordance with section 5.39. Again, projections into minimum yards. Similar to Mr. Luna's request, I'm looking to construct an addition of a front porch extending the width of the to be renovated house. I'm on a corner lot in an R0 zoning district. I am looking to build a couple of covered decks and a foyer, approximately 189 square feet in size. And that, you know, puts us into the front yard setback, you know, reducing it from the current 25.6 feet to 20.3 feet. You know, the purpose of the project is to improve the convenience, the safety and the aesthetic of the to be renovated structure. And I brought my architect along with and he can comment on some of the aesthetics if you folks feel it's necessary. Sure. Mr. Preston would like to go ahead. Hi there, can you hear me? I can, would you like me to bring up the drawings? Sorry, you want me to bring them up or you have a copy? I have them here. Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. And do you have the existing photographs in the beginning? Let's start with, I have the application. There should be existing plans as well. I do not have photographs. Mr. Chairman, the, there are a couple of photographs attached to the planning department memo. If that's at all helpful. I suppose I could describe it. Oh, okay. Go ahead and open that and share and then share the memo. Nice photos. There should be some photos the existing home. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, you're breaking up quite a bit. In the corner. These are the photographs we have of the project. Mr. Preston would like to continue. So the bottom and top photographs show the existing stairway coming up to the front door, front entrance. Currently, there's no mud room. You enter in a typical standard house, stairs straight up living room off to the left. And so this addition on the front of the house will give them more living space. What we're calling a mud room to then come up the side stair if you can flip back to the proposed. That's good. The plan on the right shows new stair up from the left side of the existing house up to a new deck. And the front door is now perpendicular to the street instead of parallel. And you walk into that new first floor expansion into the house. And then off to the right side is a new raised deck flush with the deck on the left side. And could you flip to the perspectives once more? And you can see their perspective on the left side roof covering everything uniform. Do you want me to describe the second floor addition as well or just the front porch? I think just the front porch, I believe it's the only piece that is before us. So I think that that's all we need. Okay, great. All right, thank you very much. You're welcome. I'm going to go ahead and stop the chair on this. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Seeing none. I will quickly open the hearing for public comment. Again, as in the past, if you're interested in commenting, please use the raised hand button under the participant tab or if you're dialing in dial star nine only once going twice. Seeing none, I will close the public comment hearing for this hearing. So I think this is a very nice proposal. We have for conditions, for approval, I think that we have the standard three that we had read before. I would also want to add the one that I had presented for Herd Road, but also the one that Mr. Revlak had prepared for Herd Road in regards to keeping the existing foundation wall of the house remains the what's considered the foundation wall as far as the bylaw is concerned and that the unenclosed porches are not to be enclosed. Sir, any other discussion from the board? Perfect, thank you. One question, Mr. Chairman. We've made some small modifications to the foundation footprint in the back that would not impact any of the setbacks or have to come before this committee. Is it okay if we submit plans where the front footprint which is before this committee remains exactly the same but there's some modification to the back. That doesn't pose an issue for me, Mr. Valarelli. Does that impact our decision at all? Mr. Chairman, the back addition is by right. Okay, commission at all. Okay. For clarifying. Anything further from the board? With that in mind, may I have a motion? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move approval of the Fair Metal Road application with the three standard conditions and the two additional conditions that have been read into the record. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Any questions? Okay, all those in favor, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revlach. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is approved with the stated five conditions. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Congratulations. Appreciate it. Thank you. Again, with the written confirmation, can I expect to receive that at the same time as Mr. Luna on the 26th? Mr. Hanlon. It's my practice to try and as the board knows, I do not always succeed in getting the decisions written and presented to the board at the hearing after the one in which the initial vote is taken. So I'm expecting to get this one before you on the 26th. Excellent, thank you so much. I appreciate it. The next item on our agenda, item number seven is docket 3671, 24 Ottawa Road. Brian Brie, I believe is here. Good evening. Thank you for your patience through all this. Please tell us what you would like to do. First of all, thanks to the committee for your careful consideration on these here. And Mr. Chairman, would you be able to continue sharing your screen as you've been doing so we could run through this as you wish on this. Okay, great. So the job that we're seeking relief for, it's a, we're in the R1 district, we have a single story open porch that we're hoping to raise and use that footprint, keep that front yard set back at 23.9, but extend it to the sides of the home and go up for a second story addition on top of that. And in addition, we're looking to add a mudroom that does exceed the 25 square feet. The issues are that we're seeking a special permit for. One is usable open space and the other one is the lot coverage. The reason we're seeking this relief, we have a growing family. Our third child is currently sleeping in our room. We've outgrown the dwelling and we have a tiny plot that is non-conforming, in many ways, three of the four sides, the side yard setbacks are non-conforming. Our open space is non-conforming. Our front, it's a small lot. We love it here. We have a real sense of community and we care for the people around us and these families and kids that are the same age as our kids and we really wanna stay, but we've outgrown our space. And there are allergies in the family. We're looking to have a mudroom that fits our three kids. The 25 square feet doesn't really allow, if it's three and a half feet off the foundation, while it doesn't really allow a full-size door to even open and we have three kids who are trying to fit in a space or looking for a slightly larger mudroom than the 25 square feet that would be by rights. Yeah, so we have allergies in the family and dirty shoes and pollen on jackets in our living room space. We're looking to try and isolate that into a mudroom. A lot of care was put into creating a design to really optimize adding some more beauty, keeping the aesthetic of the existing streetscape, but also adding just some more space with this enclosed mudroom that would be flush with the neighbors and the sort of rhythm of the street as planning has weighed in about, it would not be exceeding what the current setbacks are along our street and the foundation line, right? And then we'd be doing some foundational plantings and landscaping, adding a new walkway trying to beautify the space. And again, the 23.9 at the corner, the front left corner, the existing front yard setback that is slightly non-conforming. We would be maintaining that if we go to the sides of the house, but it would just be going into the front yard setback further non-conforming with the mudroom itself. And I saw planning did weigh in. They brought up some good points that it does maintain the consistency of the rhythm with the other structures on Ottawa in terms of massing and appearance, it would remain similar to the existing structures. There was a point, the plans that we submitted did have shutters and there was a point in the planning that that would add some aesthetics because it had shutters. We did decide not to go with shutters because both sides adjacent don't have shutters directly across the street don't have shutters and we would like to not have that. And I don't know if the existing plans, I heard the caveats, once the plan is in, that that is sort of as, all right, so they don't have shutters, okay. All right, great. There was something in the planning report that shutters to be consistent anyway, so those plans don't, so thank you. And also it's stated in the planning report that the abutting structures have patios and porches that are similarly sized to the proposed mudroom. There was a point in the planning memo that it said not required by zoning, but to explore other roofline options which we did. We looked at the residential design guidelines, the principle B3 and we went back to our architect, we went back to our general contractor and explored that to maintain the front main ridge line rather than do the hip roof. It would actually result in something we think that would look overly boxy and be less aesthetically pleasing. There's a lot of complexity to the structures in our neighborhood and I wanna go with that sort of cadence of complexity and that hip roof we think would add some design features that were positive. And also the expense, we would be adding more steel beams to create a structure like that and it very quickly gets very expensive to do that. So for multiple reasons, after some consideration, we're hoping to not be away with the hip roof as it was suggested we consider by planning. And I think that's the job questions. Thank you so very much. No, there was a question earlier about the lot coverage and whether or not it appears from the documents or submitted, it appears that the currently, the property is in conformance with lot coverage and after it will be out of conformance. And I had spoken with Mr. Valarelli immediately before the hearing, I'm gonna brush those numbers. So I just wanted to go back to Mr. Valarelli because I believe you had rerun the numbers on that. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. So as the lot stands, the lot coverage is 22%. With the small addition, including the duster bill if granted by the board, the lot coverage will still only be 25%. There is no preexisting non-conforming situation with respect to lot coverage it's conforming now and it will be if the board chooses to permit the structure. Perfect, thank you. So with that, it really is just a question of the addition of the mudroom and the porches at the, excuse me, the mudroom and the steps at the front. Are there questions from the board? Mr. Revlak. The increase in lot coverage, that is only from the mudroom. Is that correct? Valarelli? Mr. Revlak, so no, there's two small little wings to the left and right of the existing porch. Oh, okay, okay. Seven and a half feet by four feet, something like that. Three feet by 7.5 feet times two, 46 feet plus the vestibule and additional 63. So they're going from an area of 850 square feet which includes the structure in the porch to an area of 959 square feet which includes the little addition on the wings left and right in the mudroom. Thank you, Mr. Valarelli. That was the only question I had. Thank you, Mr. Revlak. Any further questions from the board? With that, I'm going to open the hearing for public comment. As before, you would raise your hand. If you'd like to raise your hand, please use the button on the participant tab. And if you are dialing in by the phone, please use star nine to indicate you would like to speak. The first on the list is David Petterman. Hi, thanks for letting us come and talk as well. We're across the street neighbors of Brian and Denise, amazing family, amazing kids would really love to keep them in the neighborhood. We actually built a new construction home right across the street at 25. And we think the changes that they're proposing not only help continue to enhance the features of the neighborhood but also match a lot of the renovations that are occurring. One of our other neighbors down the street recently did a renovation, new windows, new addition in the back. So I do think it's in keeping with the neighborhood. There's not really anything out of the ordinary from my perspective, obviously, as a layman here. But I really think it would add value and character and match very well with everything that's going on on the street. Thank you. Next, St. J. Newton, good evening, sir. Good evening. I'll keep my remarks short. St. J. Newton, I live at 32 Ottawa Road, just down the street. And really we just echo a lot of what Dave just said. And I hope you'll vote favorably for their special permit this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is Alex Kieft. Yes, Kieft. We live adjacent to, yes. Kieft, thank you. Alex Kieft. We live at 66 Iroquois Road, which is directly adjacent on the left of the property. And we also support the proposed plans. We've reviewed it in detail. Thanks to Brian and Denise for sharing those with us and feel that it would be a consistent and positive change to the neighborhood. Thank you very much. Brian, Kate. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just gonna echo what everyone else said. We are direct neighbors to Brian and Denise on the other side and we've also reviewed the plans and we believe this will be a functional improvement for their family as well as an aesthetic improvement for the structure and for the neighborhood. It's very consistent. So we have no objections at all and hope that you move to approve. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further? Being none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment for this hearing. This is a very straightforward, very simple, very good proposal. I don't think we can condition necessarily that they have to keep the house color because it is a really nice house color, but otherwise we have our three standard conditions, which we would attach that we read at the beginning. And I would also want to add the condition that I had before about the, to the area of the new stair and entry vestibules not to be considered within the foundation wall, the buildings. So that would set the foundation wall at the front of the major addition that coincides with the position of the existing porch. Are there any other discussion from the board? Seeing none, I have a motion please. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions and the fourth condition that the chairman just read into the record. Second. Second, thank you, Mr. Dupont. Vote of the board. Those in favor, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revolac. Aye. The chair votes aye. We are approved for 24 Ottawa Road that is submitted with the four stated conditions. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. And thanks for all the support, everyone. Well. And next up on our agenda is just a review of our upcoming meetings and milestones for the board and for those who are interested in joining us. So we had our regular hearing this evening. Let's bring that up, actually. So we had our two hearings or hearing tonight. The draft decision for Thorndike Place then was going to be try to work on that evening. So over the weekend, myself, Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Revolac each took a third of the previously submitted draft and tried to just make it a little bit easier to read, clarify the numbers, clarify the layout just to try to address the concerns that were raised last time. But because of the public meeting law none of us are allowed to actually recombine it. So it was submitted back to the town. So they're taking care of that and they will get that posted up onto the town's website with the revised draft decision. And our hearings for our next, the next meeting of the board is a continuation of Thorndike Place on Wednesday, October 20th at 6.30 p.m. And then on Thursday, October 21st, the following day is to close the public hearing for Thorndike Place. So we will be voting to close the public hearing at the end of the meeting on the 20th. Then Tuesday, October 26th, we have hearings for five Cheviot Road and 43 Cutter Hill Road. We'll also have continuations for 1416 Edgerton Road and 125-127 Webster Street and Mr. Valerelli, are there any other hearings for that evening? We may have one more, Mr. Chairman. I'm waiting for a completed package. Okay. I think there possibly could be three. Okay, is there still time to advertise for that? The advertisement was done ahead of time. Oh, it was, okay. We were just trying to back into more documentation to support it. Got it, thank you. Thank you. The Thursday, October 28th is the first deliberation meeting for Thorndike Place. And then November 9th, possible date. And then November 23rd is the date that we had agreed with the applicant that we would try to have our final vote excuse me, on the decision for Thorndike Place, if not before. Those are our upcoming dates. And then that is the end of our meeting. Thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. We appreciate everyone's patience throughout this meeting. Special wish to thank Rick Valerelli and Vincent Lee for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. And to Kelly Lanema for preparing the Department of Planning and Community Development Memorandum. Please note the purpose of the board's recording this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings. It is our understanding the recording made by ACMI will be made available on demand at ACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zdaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a moment. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. A quick question. I couldn't get to my mute button in time to turn it off. Did you say the meeting on the 20th begins at 6.30, not 7.30? That is a very good question. Is it sounded odd to me when I read it? So let me check my calendar. I know tonight's was 6.30 and I know that you've been trying to work an awful lot into your schedule. I just didn't know if that was also a 30. You are correct. That was an error. That is at 7.30 PM. Thank you so much for cutting that out. Thank you. The Wednesday, October 20th is 7.30 PM continuation of Throne by Place. And then with that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Yeah, Mr. Hanlon. Not even nine o'clock yet. No. Anybody want a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. It'll get to be nine sooner or later. Voting to adjourn, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. The chair votes aye. The board is adjourned. Thank you all very much for everything that you say. Good night, guys. Good night. Good day, guys. Good day, everybody. Good job.