 Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that members and participated officials are present. So from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. Steve Revlak. Here. And Sean O'Rourke is going to be joining us a few minutes late. From the town, Rick Valerelli and Vincent Lee, I believe are both here. Here. And Kelly Linema is here from the Department of Planning. Here. Okay. Is there the applicant here for 36 Surrey Road? We are. You are perfect. Thank you. And is the applicant here for 123 Westminster? Yes, we're here. Oh, wonderful. Thank you. And then appearing for the comprehensive permit for 1165. Mary O'Connor, you're here. Yes. Thank you. Paul, how ready I see is here. You Mr. Chairman. And Marty Nover is here from Bay Group. All right. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't find my unmute button. All right. Okay. So this meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020. This order suspended the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. This meeting will be 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 as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Some attendees are participating by computer audio or telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name, or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless you have any questions or comments. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. This chair reserved the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. So we're starting this evening with agenda item number two, which is the administrative item, the approval of minutes from the February 16th, 2021 public hearing. As this item relates to the operation of the board, the board will not take up any new business, nor will there be any introduction of new information on matters previously brought before the board. So the minutes were put together. By. Excuse me, Mr. Valarelli. I believe comments were received from myself and from Mr. Revillac. Are there any other comments? Our questions from members of the board. In regards to those minutes. Thank you. I think lots of shaking heads. With that in mind. May I have a motion to accept the minutes? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Second. Second, Mr. Hanlon. Okay. Running down the list. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. Tregon. Aye. I think those minutes are approved. This brings us to item three on the. Docket, which is docket number 3648 36 Sri Road. Turning to the first public hearing on tonight's agenda, some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce the agenda item, I will ask the participants to introduce themselves and to make their presentation to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting to public comment. So with that, if I may turn to the applicant for 36 Surrey Road, if you please introduce yourselves and tell us what you'd like to do. Hello, good evening. My name is Akash Shalindranath. And I am Sandhya Prabhu. We live at 36 Surrey Road. It's a beautiful house, it's a small house and we've lived there for, we've had it for about four years and we're looking to add an addition. It's a non-conforming lot. So we've requested a special permit to add an addition so that it gives us the ability to have an additional bathroom and some additional space. I'm sorry, I should introduce our architect, Isamu Kanda is with us. I am an economist and my wife's a financial trader. We would know nothing about the details about zoning and requirements. So Isamu is our support here to help us with those questions that you might have. Thank you. Hi, should I go ahead and share the drawings on the screen? Yes, please. So this is the existing site plan. Would you like us to present this a little bit? Sure. Okay, great, thank you. So yeah, the proposed addition is sort of shown in that shaded area. Again, this is a house we absolutely love to bits. We spent a year remodeling it when we bought it and we don't want to move. So this is the only way we figured out a way to add a second full bathroom and an additional space and downstairs when our folks visit us back from India and they can't really climb up and down the stairs. So we need some space downstairs. And I don't know what that that's the existing plans. So then that's the new basement. The basement new first floor. Yeah, and this is the proposed addition on the first floor with a bathroom and then the den and bedroom. And then there is a second floor. Yeah, the second floor would be a loft space that adjoins the existing house right at the stairs. And then does this space here is this open to below? Is that what this is? Yeah, it's open to below. Okay. And so. Assisting elevations. These are the proposed elevations. So the wall facing door adjacent neighbor has no openings whatsoever. It'll have a, Samu, I think it will have a window there, right? At the. Correct. Yeah. The design is modified a little bit. We have added a small window, extra window onto that side elevation. At the first floor level or second floor level on the first floor level. The first floor. Okay. And then what is the height of the total heights to the highest point of the new roof is about 32 feet. So this is sort of a departure from the look of the current house. So I was wondering if you could just speak a little bit of what you're driving this. Sure. So the existing house, it's a gable roof with dormers on the front and the back. So the side elevation is sort of like a book that's been sort of opening up. In adding a two-story addition onto this existing structure, our main goal just for the integrity of the roof and the sort of protection from the elements was to maintain a new roof line above the original roof so that we didn't have to interfere with any of the sort of intricate overhangs and sort of gable ends that are existing. So the logic being that if we sort of kept the heights high enough so we were above the existing roof, we could then maximize the proper sort of flashing protection that's needed. If I may just add, this is not an architectural thing, but just in the rare, which faces to the rare neighbor's house, there is a historic garage or a shed. And so there's nobody who lives there and we'd be facing that because it's south facing, it allows all the light to come and we're not infringing on anybody else's privacy, nor are we experiencing any privacy issues. Correct. Yeah, I mean, the existing facade has a certain sort of symmetry and logic from the front, from the street and we put a couple of iterations where we tried to mimic that or even extend that and it sort of threw the overall composition off balance and that's where we kind of landed with a sort of a, more of an abstract box. So we don't necessarily compete with the existing structure. And sort of color-wise, how does it? Color-wise, we're proposing the darker vertical siding that again, the existing house is a horizontal platform. So sort of complimenting that versus trying to sort of compete with it. And the idea is that this boxy volume recedes a bit when viewed from the street. Have you had an opportunity to discuss it with your adjacent neighbor on that side? Yeah, yes, I've shared all the documents once it was posted and I've had a conversation this morning as well. Then I have a, the only question I have is a question for Mr. Valarelli. Because I think we had something similar to this come up on a prior project in East Arlington where the addition comes out over the existing driveway. So it's, the area of the driveway that goes past the side of the addition obviously remains as it is. But the portion of the driveway that is now between the addition and the street is entirely within the front yard. And does that now no longer count as a parking space? Actually, Mr. Chairman, the pre-existing non-confirming front yard would be at the very front of that existing porch. Okay. So I'm sorry, go ahead. So I was gonna say, so essentially from the front edge of the, from the front of the porch to the street is what's considered the front yard in this case. That's correct. And that was similar to the case we had in one of the East Arlington requests. Okay. And in this case, obviously that's not large enough for a vehicle anyways. That's correct. That's consistent, correct. Okay. I'll go ahead and open up to questions from the board. Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering about the minimum width of the, excuse me, the minimum width of the driveway. Is that legal, Mr. Valorelli? So Mr. Mills, I have to have 18 feet in depth and seven and a half feet in an existing condition for a legal parking space. I believe I went over this with the applicant at the time. There were a couple of issues that were coming close to not making it. And I believe he does have a seven and a half by 18 may even have the required eight and a half by 18. Yeah, we have, we have 10. Correct. That's correct. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Other questions from the board, Mr. Revillac. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I took a, took a ride by over the weekend. And one of, like one of the questions I have is, you know, normally for, or for parking in a resident, in a residential, in an R1 or an R2 zone, where the side yard is used for parking, we require a vegetated buffer. Now the, what I can see the, you know, the existing driveway and it looks like there are some plants sticking, you know, sticking out of the snow. But is, is there an existing vegetated buffer on the, you know, the left side of the driveway as you face the, face the property from the street? May I, may I respond? Yes. Yes, there is. There are some evergreen shrubs. It's actually on our property, inside our property, but it acts as a buffer. Yeah, it's, it's throughout the length of the property line up until the shed, existing shed. Okay, thank you very much. And another question, and this might be for, this would be for Mr. Chilindranath. I hope I was at least close with that, or- Mr. Chilindranath. Oh, excellent. One of the things that I caught my attention about the, about the house was the facade underneath the front porch and the stairs. It's a little, it's a, looks sort of like a darker wood, very much of an emphasis on horizontal lines, kind of contemporary looking. And is that sort of what you were going after with the vertical, vertical paneling on the addition? Yeah, that's right. That's, those are Douglas fir wood. We, we left it, you know, looking natural with some sealant, and it's just aged that way. And we're going for something very similar on the proposed addition, but it'll have vertical, Isama, what do you call it, post? Vertical siding. Siding, yeah, sorry. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, overall I like it. It's one of the things I thought it helped do was to sort of de-emphasize the, the, the, you know the existing driveway and, you know maybe center that centers the building a little more on the lot. So it, it looks like, it, I, I, I like the, I like the, the proposed addition. I do have a little bit of a concern about, you know, the wall on the left side of the addition where, you know, the plan Mr. Klein showed before didn't have any windows, but I guess you are planning windows at least. So I'm on that side. Okay. That is all I have. Thank you. Can you answer my further questions from the board? No, I'm not. I just go quickly flip it back. So this is the, the memorandum prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development in regards to this project and just sort of quickly going through the criteria and the photographs, the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Community Development that proposal is consistent with the bylaw and recommend approval of the application. I will go back to the plan and I will, I will now open up the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments will only be taken as they relate to the matter at hand to be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted three minutes each. Additional time may be provided and the discretion of the chair provide time for questions to be addressed. Chair will ask members of the public who have identified themselves by logging in through Zoom, who wish to speak digitally, please raise their hand using the button on the participants 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. Your audio will be unmuted and you'll be asked to give your name and address. You'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions can be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the time allocated by the chair has ended, the public comment period will be closed. Board and staff will do our best to show the documents being discussed. So at this time, if there's anyone who wishes to speak to this application, if you could please go ahead and use the participants tab, raise your hand. It does not appear that there is anyone who wishes to speak to this matter. Going once, going twice. And then we'll close the public comment period on this hearing. And if I may, and this may be more directed to Mr. Varely, but in kind of going through this proposal with the potential builder, we did sort of think about structural ramifications of this addition as well. And so one idea which we sort of came up with was if this proposed footprint of the addition were to move back about a foot from where it's currently shown. So basically a foot further back from the front street that would put the rear corner of the addition at a more favorable location potentially relative to the original foundation. And so if we were still able to maintain all the required setbacks without increasing any of the existing non-conformities, we were curious whether that modification would be able to be considered. So I'm sorry, is this Mr. Kanda? Yes, it is. So that is something you'll have to address with the board tonight because what they're gonna approve or not approve is what's in front of them. Okay. So any change, you may ask the chair about that tonight. If it's enough, you may or may not let you go forward. But I don't have the authority to make any changes to a special permit application or a variance application. Okay. So essentially, are you asking to be able to shift the addition back so that the rear line of the addition aligns with the rear line of the house? We would move it about one foot back so that it actually misses that rear corner, which we discovered there's a bit of old plumbing that goes in through that sill. So rather than sort of try to compromise what's existing, we'd rather sort of get one step behind it and put in a new foundation just to minimize any structural considerations later. Okay. So the proposed, on the site plan right now, the proposed addition is slightly back or slightly forward of the rear line of the house. Correct. If I can find the, okay. So the new. So now it looks like it's offset by seven and three quarters in front of that. So you would be looking to move it to be four and a quarter on the opposite side? Roughly six inches actually. Six inches, okay. Yeah, so we can get a full foundation beyond the old foundation. And that does not impact the rear yard setback at all. Correct. Okay. It is still more setback than the original rear of the house based on the angle of the rear of the lot. Okay. And there's enough, then you'll maintain the 10 foot side yard setback. Correct. And then on the front, I think where it says 19 foot three, that would grow to 20 foot three. Any members of the board have an issue with putting that in as a condition? Seeing none. So the board has three standard conditions that we would impose on a special permit. One is that 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 should be no deviation during construction from the group plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals. This second is the building inspector is hereby notified that he's monitored the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time deems that the violations are present and the inspector of building shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw under provisions of chapter 40 section 21D and Institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the inspector of buildings may also approve an Institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grants are there. And then as we have discussed that the applicant shall shift the addition one foot to the rear such that it extends six inches to the rear and is maintained as a 20 foot, three front yard step back and a 10 foot side yard step back. Correct. Are there other conditions from the board? Any other questions or comments from the board? Okay. So where Mr. O'Rourke was not present for the start of this hearing, I'm going to ask Mr. Ford if you would be willing to serve as a voting member for the purposes of this special permit. May I have a motion in regards to the special permit? Sure. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the zoning board of appeal approve the special permit subject to the standard conditions read out earlier and the additional condition relating to the moving of the addition back by a foot. Second. That was Mr. Dupont for a second. Okay. Roll call vote on this. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Ford. And the chair votes aye. So the special permit is approved. It'll, at our next meeting or soon thereafter, we will have the final written decision that we'll vote on at that time at which point the decision will be permanent. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And if there's anyone waiting in the waiting room, I don't think so. Okay, the next item on the docket is docket number 3649123 West Minster Avenue. If the applicant can please introduce themselves. Hi, my name is Gustavo Pardo. Good evening. Hi. I'm Tina, half penny. Praise you both. What is it you folks would like to do? We want to build a greenhouse. It's a little greenhouse, but we've asked for permission with respect to the variance. Yeah. So we got a, we got a, I don't know how far should I go here. And should I tell a little bit of background of what we, what are we trying to do? Or should I bring up the drawings? Okay. So I did share a new set of drawings per your request yesterday, the day before yesterday. I hope you've done them. So this is the special application. And I believe this is the, the information you sent most recently. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we're trying to, we're planning to build a greenhouse in our property. Our property is a historical home. And, and it follows the guidelines for the historical commission. So we did start building the frame last year in September. And, and the historical commission told us that we needed to stop until we get approved from the historical commission. We did the whole process and they, and they approved it on December 17. There are some conditions in our site that it makes. The location for the greenhouse. To the location that we propose. So first we're in our, our terrain has a really high inclination. And it has a series of retaining walls. So we're going to, to provide some kind of flat surface, but there is no flat surface. In the front of the house. Another condition that we have is that the historical. It's not historical commission, historical. Yeah. Yeah. Historical commission. They don't allow any structure that covers the front of the house. So if you go to the next slide. And then if you go to the other side of the house, the location of the retaining walls. So the only location that we can build the green house. Is on that corner. If we move, if you move a little bit. Towards the top of the side. The pitch gets. It would be pretty hard for us to, to build it in that location. in the back of the house because we're at the end of the hill. So that's the only location that we could build our structure. So this is the proposed location, which is 12 feet off the front. Yeah, so it's 12 from the front and 2 6 from our neighbor. From your neighbor. So the greenhouse is 12 feet by 8 feet. It has no floor. It's on the ground. And the structure is a wood structure. The structure is a wood frame construction. It's temporary. And the walls are polycarbonate. And the height is 8 feet. That's what it's trying. It's going to be like 8-6 to the top. To the peak. It has like a roof. Well, we're going to put a little ridge across the top of it. So that'll be on the edges. But it's decorative. And you had said that the reason it could not go up in this area is lack of sunlight, is what you're saying? So there's a lot of conditions in the back. So we have a giant rock. And also, there is an existing shed in the back. And then after the shed, there is a small walkway. And from the walkway to the first fence, then you can see one of the images that I sent. I think the pitch is about probably four feet. There we go. So in this image, you can see in the back of the house, the shed. Yeah. And then from that point to the fence, it just goes all the way down. In fact, it's pretty dramatic in that location. And then is this area here? Is this a patio? Is that what this is? Yeah, that's a back patio. OK. And then I don't know if you know. Mr. Valarale may need to answer this question. So for a corner lot, the two sides that meet the street are both considered front yards. That's correct. One of the sides is the back. And one is the side. And I don't know if that has been established for this property. Do you know, Rick? I'm assuming that. Sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. You go ahead. I was going to say, I'm assuming that the side off of Westmoreland being tighter is considered the side. And the one coming off of Westminster being wider is considered the back. That's exactly right. Because the side coming off of Westmoreland would not qualify. It's too narrow. So in fact, then you have two front yards. OK. Mr. Chairman, one of the points that the Historical Commission said is that the entrance over Westmoreland is considering our main entrance. And we don't use the entrance over Westminster. I think since we've been here, we've probably used it twice, maybe once. Not even the mail uses it. There's a lot of steps. Yeah. So questions from the comments from the board? Mr. Chairman, I have one comment. Mr. Ford. Question, rather. How are you going to anchor it to the ground? I know you said it's different, but are you anchoring it in anyone? Yes, sir. So wind loads will be an issue since the structure is so light. So it will have four sun tubes following guidelines. And the frame has two two by fours pressure treated and is anchored to the sun tube. OK, great. That was it. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. DuPont. So I just wanted to have clarification as to what the classification of this building is, because under the bylaw, it's not a shed. And I don't think it's actually a greenhouse either, strictly speaking, because I think if I didn't misread it, greenhouse has more of a commercial connotation. And if anybody knows that, not to be true, please correct me. However, is this and maybe Mr. Valerelli can speak to this. Is this considered just an accessory structure on in an R one district? And therefore it's permissible as a right. To you're asking two questions, Mr. DuPont. So yes, it is considered an accessory structure. Couple of reasons. I guess we could say that it exceeds the seven feet in height. That's required to be a shed. To answer your second question, it would not be allowed by right because it's within the front yard setback to best my knowledge. I think like the chair said, it's 12 feet off the front lot line. I do not have the plot plan in front of me. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? That is correct. No, an accessory structure is not allowed in the front yard. There would have to be on the front yard setback as a minimum. So I was maybe misreading this as well, but in the dimensional reference for an R-win lot, it said accessory building and it said front. And I'm talking about the bylaws themselves. And I thought it said front 25 feet and then side six and rear six. So I realized that the rear is not involved in this, but I was wondering, because I think if we're granting a variance, we have to know specifically which section we are granting the variance from. And I just wanted to make sure that that was established clearly. Okay, I believe we're in section 5.3.13. Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Revolak. Yes, my interpretation was that this would be an accessory structure greater than 80 feet. And it is in the dimensional tables when we get to the, yeah, right there. So this would be considered an accessory building or a garage structure with a front yard set, required setback of 25 to the front, six to the side and six to the rear. That's what I was looking at. Mr. Revolak, is that, do you concur? It's the plot plan is saying R1. So if it in fact, it is an R1, yes, 25 feet. Okay. That's all. I just wanted to make sure that if we were to grant this, we're going to say that we're giving relief from these specific dimensional requirements. Okay. Are there other questions from the board? Seeing none, I will open this hearing to a public comment. So again, members of the public who wish to address the board will be granted three minutes each. If you wish to speak, you can digitally raise your hand using the button on the participants tab in the Zoom application. And if you're calling it by phone, you may dial star nine to indicate that you would like to speak. So if there's anyone who wishes to address this topic, this is 123, believe it's jumping with his hand up. Mr. Wiesner? Thank you, Mr. Revolak. Thank you. You're okay. Yes, please. Name and address of the record and... My name is Paul Wiesner. I live at 115 Westminster Ave. I'm the property owner of the property line nearest the greenhouse. So I just wanted to express my enthusiastic support for the greenhouse. And I really liked the structure and I enjoyed watching Gustavo and Tina build it with their children all over the summer. It was really a delight. And I was heartbroken when I heard there might be a problem. So that's all. Oh, thank you. Are there comments from the public? Going once, going twice? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close public comment. Okay, so back to the board. So this is an application for a variance. And as such, the criteria is different than it would be for a special permit. So the criteria for a variance are established in state law under chapter 40a. And there are four criteria and all four have to be met. And so the first one is the circumstances relating to soil condition, shape, topography, which especially affects the land or structure in question, but which do not affect generally the zoning district in which the land or structure is located that would substantiate the granting of a variance. And so this is the criteria. This is the statement from the applicant. I'll just go through the other ones and then we can discuss them together. So criteria number two is a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance related to the circumstances affecting the land or structure in question would involve a substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the partitioner. Number three is how desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and how desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning by law of the town of Arlington. Is Mr. Chairman? Yes, please, Mr. Hanlon. I don't have any difficulty with the first and the last two of the conditions. It seems to me that the problem here is related to the topography of the site and which makes it exceedingly difficult for the applicant to do what he wants to do consistently with the demands of historic preservation which was also an important policy. It also seems to me that there's no substantial detriment to the public good. It's a temporary structure. It's been approved by the historic commission. I'm persuaded by Mr. Wissner that it would be a favorable addition to the neighborhood. And for the same reason, I don't think that it would nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. So I skipped over number two which asked to describe how the literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve a substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. And I wanted to have something of a discussion there. Ordinarily, we would not rule that there is a substantial hardship merely because an applicant would be prevented from doing what the applicant wants to do. And I'm not really quite certain how we could articulate what the special hardship is other than that. And so I would welcome anyone who has a good theory about that. Members of the board, I also don't have a particular issue with the siting of it. I think it works. I think it's actually rather sort of attractive where it sits because the change in elevation it sort of sits up and it's a little bit, it feels like it's farther back than it is because of where it has been framed so far. But the variance is really there to allow you to do something that you couldn't do otherwise. And I'm sort of struck that if the unfortunate, the applicant really wanted to locate the greenhouse legally behind the 25 feet back and six feet off of the line, it does appear there's plenty of space up at the top of the site to do so, even though that area is currently a shed or currently a patio. And that it would be a hardship for the applicant to lose some of that space to the greenhouse. But would it be sufficiently substantial to support the granting of the variance? Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I actually sort of like that theory. Substantiality is sort of, varies somewhat with the circumstances. Building a major structure here might very well require a higher showing of substantiality than the kind of temporary structure that is envisioned. And so, in deciding what is substantial, I think that we have to take into account the context. And I think this is otherwise sufficiently in the public interest that I think I would be prepared to do that. We do have a number. Just to be specific, the nature of the problem is that in order to do something else, in order to comply, you have to essentially eliminate the patio area there. And it would be certainly a major impact on the value and livability of the house, which seems unjustified by the purpose to be obtained. The Department of Planning and Community Development issued a memorandum on this property. So in regards to the variance criteria, they agreed that there are limited areas where an accessory structure could be constructed without increasing or creating a non-conformity. Under criteria number two, the combined factors of site topography existing retaining walls, current siting of the principal structure and the requirements of the Historic District Commission restrict the applicant's ability to locate the accessible structure elsewhere on the property. The applicant is unable to both comply with the requirements of the Historic District Commission and those of the zoning bylaw. That the relief couldn't be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good. It was non-permanent to be easily removed in the future without damaging the property or harming adjacent properties. Furthermore, the District Commission has reviewed the proposal and deemed it appropriate for the site and it's just for context. And criteria four, a desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the purpose of intent. Proposal complies with definition purposes in the intent of the R1 single family zoning district. This additional photograph, so you can see here's the house that currently sits and this is the framing for the green house here on the side. Yeah, so I could do another better. And the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Community Development is that the Board of Appeals approve the application. So then the question before the Board is, does the application meet the requirements of the four criteria? Are there any further questions or comments from the Board on those being none? Mr. Hannell, would you recommend going point by point to the four points for findings or do you think we're fine just going straight to a vote? I think we're fine going straight for a vote. I would like to make a motion and state specifically that the finding on number two is the way and is sort of a combination of the way the planning department articulated it and the definition of substantial hardship that you submitted in your response to my original comment. Okay, unless there's further comments from the Board, I'll go ahead and have Mr. Hannell make his motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning Commission approve the variance in this case, finding specifically that number one is met for the reason stated in the Planning Commission for the Planning Commission report that number two is met for that reason and for the additional reason that in order to locate the greenhouse in an area in an area where it would be in literal compliance with the zoning ordinance would require either that would require the sacrifice of the patio area and other areas that are currently important for the use of the house. That third and fourth, this is subject to that this is without detriment to the public good and does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning law, again, for the reasons that are articulated by the planning department. And that would hold for, that's for both criteria is three and four. Yes. We have a motion in front. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Mr. O'Rourke has been with us this time. So I will go ahead and include him in the vote. So going down. Do you want me to abstain just to keep it consistent? That's fine. You were certainly here before the start. So thank you for that. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Sorry, Mr. O'Rourke, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Chair votes aye. The motion is approved. So the board will prepare a final written decision to be voted on by the board. At the earliest next meeting. And at that point, the decision will be final. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, this is one question. So we cannot do anything until, until next vote. Mr. Vellorelli. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. They can't proceed until the decision is written. Okay. And that will be. So we're anticipating that. So we have a meeting scheduled for March 11th. So we're anticipating that we would vote on the decision at that point. Okay. So we're anticipating that we would vote on the decision at that point. Okay. Let's see here. Do I have another. Another lawyer. Now March 11th is the next scheduled meeting of the. Of the board. And I think after Mr. Chairman. Yep. I. I believe that this will. We'll be ready by March 11th. Okay. I do know that Mr. Vellorelli can comment on this. There's, there's a period after that vote. Where the decision has to be filed as well. And so you have to just sort of wait for that process to take its chords, but it's relatively quick. That's correct. Mr. Hammond. So Gustavo, you are realist of me looking at April 11th to be on the safe side. Possibly a little bit before. I'm sorry, you say April 11th. Yes. A little bit before. Okay. Thank you. So we cannot do anything in the structure until I put 11. That's correct. Hey. Thank you all agenda. Let's bring up. Socket item number five. Which is a comprehensive permit for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. Some want to review the ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. This evening's discussion will focus on architectural and site layout. The submitted documents are available as an attachment to the posted agenda. I'll ask the applicants to introduce themselves. Make a short presentation to the board. A fuller introduction was made at the January fifth hearing. And need not be fully repeated at this time. Members of the board will then have an opportunity to ask questions. They have on the information that has been presented. And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. So with that. Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board. Good evening. As previously mentioned at the January hearing. This project was designed to incorporate the goals and objectives of the master plan. The town's housing production plan. The open space and recreation plan. And the Millbrook corridor study. You'll hear about that tonight. Since that meeting. I have supplied. The board with a letter dated February 16th. 2021 addressing certain. Information that was requested by members of the board. And the public. And that included shadow studies, tree locations, Ryder street issues and the like. This evening. Joel Bargman of BKNA. I have a question. I'm going to go to the board for a little bit of this discussion. On the part of. No concrete. About some concrete street issues and the like. This evening. Joel Bargman of BKNA architects will review the design. And provide information as to. The site and architectural design and Kyle. Zik will address the landscape designed for the site. Specifically the subject of writer, brook. Pedestrian bicycle and vehicle access. The riverfront aspects of the and the riverfront aspects of the project will not be addressed as these subjects are slated for subsequent hearings. So I'd like to introduce Mr. Bergman who's the lead architect on this project. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just sharing the screen and checking to see if you can see that now. We can. There's a way to make it. Put it into more of the presenter mode, I think. There we go. Thank you for having us. I appreciate the opportunity. As you requested, I'll try not to repeat what we discussed last time. I have. Good notes we think from our team and we put together a presentation to address the particular questions that were raised and fill in the blanks. Just as a summary of the project. Again, it's a total of 140 381,000 square feet. The residential portion of that is 107,000 square feet. And then there's two levels of garage. You'll see on the site plan that 90 plus percent of the parking is in the garage. We have 11 surface spaces in 124 garage spaces for a total of 135 spaces on site. And that is a topic I'd like to discuss later in the proposal presentation tonight to show you how we're parking those and and counting those. The breakup of the units had been asked for the last meeting. 31 studios. 56 one bedrooms. 32 bedrooms. And 13 three bedroom apartments for a total of 130 apartments. Of which 33 or a four affordable. 97 or market rate. This is in the category of housekeeping a little bit. I think there was a question and maybe a lack of clarity on our exhibit last time. The yellow area is the site area. We're looking at an aerial view. That's the site area for the 40 be object. The ownership owns work bar, which is this site, not in yellow, but that's not part of the application to the zoning board of appeals. The whole sidebar is showing is maybe I didn't explain it that well last time is the applicant owns half of. Rider Street as it extends up to Forest Street from the Rider Street extension that comes into the site. Just for clarity. This is a diagram of the entire. Partial. And then you can see this light blue line is the. Subdivision of the parcel for work bar that's been removed. The reason we're showing this overall diagram is the red line indicates the. The middle complex and those red lines are important because some of the topics that will come up, particularly next week with regards to wetlands. Are different for sites that are mill sites because obviously they were built in proximity to wetlands ponds. And so the state regulations have addressed that and this exhibit is really to make clear. What portion of the site. Is red is the. No complex site and then the line that extends out. The other portions of the site that are on, including the extension out to. That's an aerial photograph that just shows that same map with the current site conditions. We were asked at the last meeting. To sort of go through the site plan, which I did and I won't repeat that, but then to just give a quick overview for. Any members that are new, the. One entry is between a work bar and what's called building to. Comes off of Mass Ave. Call that the Mass Ave connector was into a courtyard and you can see the 11 spaces that are surface spaces. Are these spaces in the courtyard. All other spaces are underneath the building. What that. Plan does is it. Increases the in the previous area of the site. And by putting the parking underneath the building, we're able to increase green space on the site by 18,631 square feet or approximately 72% of the green space that's there. Is increased by that amount of square footage. You see on the overall site plan. There is some way all work and that that has to do with birding existing runoff from the parking lot to the north and. Kyle zik the landscape architect and bowler our civil engineer will get into that topic in great detail next week. At the next session, sorry. To clarify access we have traffic coming in from Massachusetts have on the portion that's owned by the applicant showed in that initial map on. In the Hyundai dealership and the. Butters property the attorney's office. That's entry in your widening the road between building to explain and work. So that's a two way. Traffic over the bridge in this yellow area. The drop off and then one way traffic out writer street and back forest. Traffic can exit out and to Quinn road in this direction as well. The traffic comes in only off of mad Sam. What's interesting is that we talked in great deal about the Millbrook last time and I didn't really talk that much about circulation path runs along Millbrook. You can see that this is the writer street extension that connects into writer street and then out to forest. Here's our main courtyard. And on the right is the bridge. This happens to be most accessible from a accessibility from an MA a B perspective. Our path along the Millbrook is flat and trolled. Whereas you can see in the aspect of the grade starts to go up in this direction. So one of the advantages of improving this walkway is not only to connect to the neighborhood and to enhance the stormwater management at the edge of the Millbrook but it's also provides us our accessible path. This is a view for pedestrians of the project. I mentioned the entry into the site. And right now I was showing this pathway on the right. This is a view coming down that road on this happens to be an handicapped accessible path. The buildings within the complex work are new buildings, building one are all on an accessible path system with grades that comply with the MA a B requirements. The entry road is now made wider and I didn't really show this drawing last time. Currently it's it's in 15 feet wide next down to 10 feet at the bridge and it's 10 foot for clearance so it's it's obviously not abusive to emergency vehicle access. So the plan is to remove this portion of the object, widen out that road to 22 feet and have clear unobstructed overhead condition, get into and out of the site for fire place and empty vehicles. I'm not going to dwell on this I just want you to know that if there were some questions about site history. We do have a chapter and can talk about the site history if any questions come up, but in the interest of time I'll jump over that would like to review existing questions because there was some discussion, especially in the q amp a section open discussion after our presentation about the buildings that are being maintained or stored versus not. This is the work bar building. This is the message way in building two is the three story wood building building one is the brick building and the engine room and building three four and five, I mean three and five or these your portions. I'd like to just walk around the site and explain properties. The big picture is that five of the older or the historic buildings in the complex have been or will be preserved and adaptively read reused in this project when it's all finished. There are three smaller buildings and the back portion of the engine room, they're being removed and also a relatively nine this group 20th century infill that's being removed and I wanted to make sure that we're clear what's being kept. This is building one. This is being restored the ground floor is actually got new windows, new windows are in the building ready to be installed that match these ground floor windows. Building one will receive new windows brick treatment and interior restoration but there will not be a major change to the outside of the building that's a really a pure on restoration project. And on to building one which is the building on the right and elements to the left of that dashed line are being removed there's a smooth voting doc that represents an accessibility issue because that and a portion of the floor that goes into the building is raised three and a half feet entering that area, not accessible. You can see there's some new additions on the backside that are garage and utilitarian in nature, just this portion comes off. I mentioned that building one is restored. And it's restored to this is the white line where the building is being removed becomes the new entry to the project and then the new amenity space and apartment building is behind that. Okay, here's the corner. I mean, I jumped a little bit fast. This goes up. This is the corner. This point so this 20th century garage is one of the elements that is being taken down. It's not a historic value obviously that 20th century garage, it's into the back of the garage structures, then adapted over time with overhead doors. Another view of those two structures one garage is building five. These two structures are being taken down, along with the 20th century. At this point where the slide runs off. The right is all interior garage space. Nothing of historic value. In fact, there aren't windows. And it's in fairly poor condition. This is the end of this building so I just I've just watched you on a key plan around the site to this corner. This is the engine, which is an important space to the complex and is a two story space actually inside. It's quite a nice room. It's been adapted the windows have been filled in wall has been painted. And as some merit you can see it's the one building that has big windows as architectural detail. So this portion of the building is being stored. And my point is that we're taking off some of the buildings that don't really have a value from a development side, or historical side, and focusing our energies on restoring the buildings really have value, and can add value not only to the complex to the public way that we discussed in detail at the last session this sort of public access park comes along the new Millbrook walkway. And the engine room is on your right you can see the beautiful windows that were there that were covered in, and then the wall is painted over so we're going to do some work to restore that building. And then we're taking out this portion of the garage, and that will be replaced the new link, and then the apartment building seen back another 50 feet from that. This is to show the engine room building and the public access base in the green space that's created by elimination of this moment, that really is not of use to the development. Further it obscures two floors of windows in the beautiful corner of building one. So it's removal enhances building one. I do want to talk about building to and a little bit greater detail because it was discussion about building to building to is the one on the south side of Millbrook it's a three story building. It's in extremely poor condition this is backside above the Millbrook. You can see the windows are rotted the sightings coming off it's in condition. It's been added on to over time. This is an addition for a garage was added over the Millbrook and I'll discuss what that's caused. One second. You can see there's a operee of Rick aluminum sighting architectural intrusions on the fabric of that building so we have corrugated metal we have hollow metal doors. A lot of different things have happened. This building over time. What we're proposing to do is remove exactly this section so that that opens up the Millbrook and allows that like access and private access through there to the to the new courtyards I showed in that last slide. This is sort of subtraction mean us a substantial addition to the project. Moreover, in the building is built over the Millbrook. What we found is the foundations of this building are an extremely poor condition. There are two reasons for it. One is the moisture that gets trapped by the fact that buildings built over the Millbrook. And then to the fact that the building was originally designed to be lower than the current site grades current site grades are three feet above the existing foundation. Over the many, many years that this grade has been raised on snow and water have collected in that area and this foundation is an extremely poor condition. The grade number is in very poor condition and we would really need to be taken out and replaced on the new building fits in the footprint of the old one but it fills in that edge. It's rid of this sort of odd condition which is actually not that safe of a condition makes it difficult to get in but the big problem for us is it's created the weather problem for the foundation. Inside building to ceiling heights are below what's allowed by code this is a not a six foot eight door which is the minimum door height that's allowed to six foot four or height. The bottom of the beams is about six foot eight. You can see the space is used for storage and other types of functions, but the structure is very lightweight. Use this building would require it to be rebuilt because the code simply would not allow a habitable space with these low ceiling heights if we renovated it. And the renovations that would be required for this building would total more than 30% of the assessed value of the building which would trigger for code upgrade and compliance. We have a bit of a catch 22 with this building and that summary are in length I should say is the reasons for why building to was slated to be rebuilt on the existing footprint. We were asked on numerous occasions to present shadow studies. We have shadow studies for spring. This is the March 21 spring equinox. So 9am blue shadows are shadows created by the new construction black dark gray or the shadows that are existing. Today. Really the only shadows that sent themselves in the direction of a butters that are residential butters are those in the morning and the sun's on the east side of the building and the shadows are projected on the west side. And even late afternoon there's very minimal shadow you can see in the lower right court portion very minimal shadow cast on the auto detailing line that's next door to building to which is where my cursor is. The summer conditions. Obviously much better because the sun is in higher point, although at 6pm now going later in the day on because trying to give a worst case for a late afternoon early evening sun again there's some shadow cast building to that new shadow on any shadow on the butter is an existing shadow from where cast by building to today. October. Just missed the industrial building on the edge of lighter street. And then you can see it there's shadow cast into the parking lots but again not nothing to a butter properties. December. You know at this point at 9am on December 21, the shadow the sun is very low in the sky and shadow cast does it. The edge of writer street fully in the morning, then by 10 o'clock that shed the sun is high enough in the sky that it comes back. And 12 noon have relatively destructive shadows and then in the afternoon. The sun sets around four on this day so we took three o'clock and virtually. That time the sun again is very flat. And that's a strong shadow across the parking lot. I'm very quickly here we were asked to what are the amenities inside the building. As you go in the building there is a conference area for leasing is very nice package areas. The complex is really designed for getting all those packages in those vehicles out of the way of daily traffic and presenting traffic jam so we have a vehicle drop off for FedEx ups and a place for them, bring their packages in without coming into the lobby and make that trip really quickly. We have a lobby that's sort of an interesting combination of new and old, you have very strong connections of the lobby or outdoor spaces, the building is a combination of industrial past and taking advantage of woods and woodworking in sort of homage to the Schwab mill working opening that was there after the piano case factory left. This is a paradigm image of what we can do to the engine room and shows why we excited about focusing energy on an engine room which is a two story space. We're looking for artifacts to display and enhance in the lobby. So again that many space will include some activity spaces for residents and a full gym. It's again a combination of new and old that we think is conducive to the property. The property is called episodic industrial architecture and in other words, industrial architecture evolves over time. This is the private courtyard I've shown you all the public courtyards is the amenity courtyard that connects to the main lobby and really sort of shows you that episodic architecture is continuing on with our new project that we have building one existing historic building you have a connector element that's corrugated aluminum. We have a new building and each one is treated a little bit differently. And that brings me close to the end where you had wondered what the materials were on the building. And we'll go around the building very quickly. This is the corner where we enter the parking garage. So it's the westerly corner of building for this is building one the brick building. That's our entry. So we have a combination of different fiber cement panels to high quality, very durable and maintainable. We have high density wood fiber cement that defines base of the building for the amenity spaces located. This is a blow up of the entry portion of the building and you can see where the wood portion of the building is where some of the metal and fiber cement panels are the entry men. So we go up three stories and have a little reveal and a fifth four story residential on the two story garage, sort of set back with a man sard type treatment on the roof. That's the dark fiber cement similar treatment, the rear of the building again fiber cement siding that connector building that I showed is this ribbed metal. And it's that sense of episodes of architecture over time, different buildings or different materials and make interesting architectural connections including building want to is a different color is a different window style and different treatment of the fiber cement. So it's hard to present this what we've done on other projects is have physical samples that we would be happy to leave at Jennifer's office, or any other office in town and we could have these eight and half by 11 drawings and anybody that wanted to see the physical samples from the board could go and see those physical samples. I mentioned in the beginning I'll do bike storage. We have an amenity bike room that has 42 bikes have a garage bike room that's drawing 72 bikes. And this is a total of 114 bike spaces in the garage have outside racks for 22 spaces. What we are proposing is to use this bike system which is in a project of ours nearby it's a stacking system that allows us to get more bikes per square foot. It's a very popular system because these acts very easy to load bikes on to, and the minute bike room includes lower right image bike repair facility. And to mention that we are showing 114 bike spaces. Those bike spaces matched the true definition of a bike space per the zoning ordinance or the planning requirements for Arlington. We would only be showing 44 bike spaces so this is one of the waiver requests that we're seeking. If we didn't do the stacking system here we also do this vertical stacking system. We haven't counted in in our space but the residents have two options, a certain number of spaces in the garage will have storage bins over the parking spaces. A certain number of spaces may have storage. So that folks that have a garage space and choose to additionally have their spaces that we have not counted in the bike space but lots of people like to have the bike stored where they park their cars so if they go out on Lexington or Lincoln or occurred and ride back in, it's easy to load the bike up. Sustainable design and closing the site gets some significant credits and we understand that we will be doing a lead checklist as part of the submission for a building permit. But we have a very sustainable site from the making the Destrian and the access to public transportation on either the bike path to a life or the bus traffic to a life. Some of the principles that the project is looking at and included in the package you have are the closure of the building, not only the insulated enclosure which is continuous exterior insulation. The excessive amount of daylight we are maxing out the amount of windows that we can get with the new energy code really enhance the day lighting for apartments and many space. And we have the excellent mechanical ventilation which, as you can imagine is important in the post pandemic era will be utilizing low emitting materials throughout that envelope. The main principle is to target a low carbon footprint. I am achieving the prescriptive savings that we can achieve through the new energy code, and we will have an energy model that's submitted with the ISD submission to the building department. Our water use is hugely important. I'll show you a chart in how we're planning to really bring this factor down, not only in the building but on landscaping with either having no irrigation or very high management of irrigation system. It will be some easy charging stations in the garage as well, addition to the bike storage. I'm not going to go through all the strategies but the indoor water use that I mentioned I would come back to between the low flow and the low flush plumbing fixtures. I'm going to go back to between the 35% reduction in potable water use. We will have an active construction management waste. This management plan for a great deal of waste materials generated in the construction process. So that's very important plan as part of the construction management plan. So that's the connectivity rainwater management, and we'll talk more about rainwater management next week, next session. As I mentioned, we have a high performance building envelope with continuous exterior insulation and roof insulation. So we're really targeting a low energy and light carbon footprint. I'm just showing sort of what our target will be for where we're trying to achieve that 35% reduction in water usage. And in site selection, site design strategies, we have a really depth of potential credits that will be applied to that checklist that I mentioned we understand we will apply with our building permit, including the stormwater design quality control removal of solids heat island effect and items that will get into in greater detail with our site discussion so appreciate being able to get into detail. And with that I will stop the share and open it to questions and other comments you might have. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions I'd like to go through quickly and then turn it over to the others on the board. The existing chimney that's in the near where the engine room is, is that being maintained or is that chimney going away. Jimmy is not being maintained. Could not tell if it was attached to the building or not but it's farther back. It's not attached to the engine room it's attached to one of the subsequent the garage is behind us. It's very poor condition it's, it would need a tremendous amount of work to be brought up to seismic code requirements and it's sort of in the way of our project but we have had it looked at by two structural engineers because we wanted to be sure about its condition and it's not attached to the engine room. So what portions of the site are open for the public to go through and which parts are private. Let me go back to that screen share here and get back to the top. Walkway connects to Ryder Street. So this walkway along Ryder Street's public access. Along the Millbrook. The main courtyard continues that's open to the public. And then we're removing that portion I mentioned the corner building to, which allows us to extend the walkway. And this is all area is all open to the Millbrook. What is not open to the public is this rear amenity space. This is the lobby and this is the amenity courtyard purposefully put that there because the building provides privacy for the residents but the noise that's in there is shielded from the butters by distance and by the building so that was a purpose for putting our private space there. What's green here is all public and I will just go back to the rendering and make sure I cover that. So this is coming through between building one and building two. That's the public access. And this is the one garden. And that's the second garden. That's the Millbrook pathway. And the pathway. It appears a pathway so essentially ends at that point because there's no connection as of yet with the adjacent property owner. And we understand the. Valentine's anxious to make other connections so. We're hoping it'll develop over time. So, of the, if you could go. Sorry, if I can have you. I didn't mean to get out. Sorry. If you go back to the rule you're playing with the red boundary and the green boundary for the property. So the, the landowner. Obviously owns these properties. Do they own any of the adjacent parcels, or they under different ownership. Okay. They own the work bar of parcel. Right. Okay. The for work bar. So we're the work bar presently has these two sort of diagonal structures that go out across the. The river there. What are those. That's correct. Yes. I think we show those. What are they? Are they just struts. No, they actually utilities, the utilities are all on the, the. North side of Millbrook so that that building's always connected. Over that way that those are not new, those are existing. And those have been there. Yeah, no, I do they were there. I wasn't quite sure what their purpose was. Yeah, unfortunately, that's the utility. And the, on the site plan, it looked like there might be some kind of a wider piece going across. That wider white stretch there, or is that just where they're, is that. Something long across. There's a little structure there right now. That's existing. The new pieces this gray square here. Which is the new bridge. And then the, the first floor cladding for building two. Is that, are you looking to do that with the, again, with the cementitious siding, or is that, are you looking at doing that in metal? Yeah, the first floor of building two is the cementitious, although there is a masonry base that comes down here. That's a good point. These are not cementitious. These are. Those are either. So high density fiber cement or metal columns. And those, because that wouldn't be. Just sort of from a. So I'm sort of a. You know, a tectonic perspective, it sort of feels. You know, very modern in a way that the rest of the site isn't. And it sort of feels a little bit, a little bit of a high, high degree of, of a juxtaposition against the, you know, the older brick. That used to be that, you know, is in the surrounding buildings and. You know, I think that the cladding on the upper floors does a good job of going back to the cladding that, you know, is on that existing building today. I'm just. Just to encourage you to think a little bit more about sort of that, that metal cladding and whether that. Is sort of the appropriate appearance or not. Yeah. Okay. That's a valid point. We'll certainly take a look. I didn't, didn't really mention that one of the reasons we have that arcade. I mean, I think it softens up that edge nicely, but it's also that provides the accessible path. So, you know, I think that's a good point for the, for the, the, the rear entry to the building and the fire stairs and the things on the building so that we're able to get this. I like the feature is just the, it's the cladding. It's the only. Yeah. Okay. Let's point will take him. Thank you. And then the only other question I think you've, that sort of half addressed it too is in, in regards to the bike storage. Yeah. So the Arlington. Doning by law requires that bike storage not be required. To lift the bicycles into the. Whatever location, but I believe you had said that you are providing the required number of spaces. At floor level and it's only additional spaces that are going to require lifting. No, I'm sorry. I didn't. I said that worry. Even with the lifted. Stations, we are providing 114. Like. Spaces and. We're not meeting the code requirement. The. For bike parking. So that's one of the waiver requests. Okay. But I will say that. I know you have the regulation. That project I showed as a. Project of ours. Almost everything we do is two story bikes and. It's very popular in it. The bikes are so light. We really have not had complaints on that system. But I did have the picture showing the vertical option, which is. Allows you to get more bikes in. That is an easier system than the stacking, although. You know, you can do that. You can find. Folks like the stacking quite well. You can do a vertical stacking as well. Okay. And what, what is the. The requirement under code. For numbers. 1.5 per apartment, which would be 195 bicycles. So it's, it's a. It would be required. Given the number of bikes and in the square footage that's required. For each bike. Very good. Thank you. Other members of the board. Mr. Revillac. Just a few questions regarding bicycle parking. The fixtures. Or the racks that you showed the, you know. You know, You can see it. Over under how high is a, how high is the top. Level. The. You can see it's a handle bar height. Okay. Lower. So it's three and a half feet. Now we're you considering any devoting any spaces for larger bicycles, such as cargo bikes. In the building so that if we wanted to have cargo bikes, there's. There is a end space in each. Of our. Either the bike and any bike room of the guard. Garage bike room where you could have a cargo bike. Okay. And finally, what about facilities for charging electric bikes? It's another. Quickly developing target. We could definitely have those. My, my experience has been on. Our projects that folks don't like to charge the bikes. In the bike room, because it's too easy to get that battery removed. So I, my experience at least has been people take the bike charger. Up to their apartment and. At least on the, you know, on the, on the ones where the battery is easily removable. You know, you can use it on the, on the power assisted bikes, not the power run bikes. That's the norm. I guess if it's a power run bike. And not a power assist, then you would have a secure battery. And we could have some indy stations. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bargman. Members of the board. Mr. Mills. Yes, Mr. Jim. I had a question about the main power that we're talking about. Is there a main furnace or an energy efficient furnace? Is that true, sir? Are you referring to the, the apartments? Yes. The, there isn't actually a furnace. In the apartments. What we're using is. High efficiency. Hot water heaters. Generate instant hot. So they're not running constantly. They're only on demand. And then that on demand system produces. A high intensity. Heat stream that goes to a coil in that coil. Then heats the air. So we only are. Doing the furnace is only on when it's on demand. And then we're using water, which is. Holds its heat longer than air. So it's not really a furnace. It's a. You know, a fluid, which is a more high efficiency. Tech furnace. So your root source of power than is electrical. Heating this all up. The main source for that system would be gas. For the instant hot water here. They don't make a good instant hot water electric yet. Okay. I do believe, Mr. Chairman. There are some new zoning regulations coming out. Of all fossil fuel regulation. Is that true? I think we're still waiting on the attorney general. Mr. Chairman. Oh, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I guess I was the one who primarily presented this to Tom meeting. What we have is a home rule petition. So the bylaw that passed Tom meeting approved in. In November. Is subject to. Authorization by the legislature. And can't go forward and be legally binding until. Unless and until that happens and we're working with our legislative delegates. So we're now. Our delegation to. To secure that, that approval. You may remember that the bylaw. And the home rule petition were both the product. Of the clean energy future commission. Which has been designing a net zero. Policy for the, for the town. And that was adopted now. And this was one of the first items that they endorsed. And as you know, Tom meeting endorsed as well. So I think right now you can say that, that it is not, not a legal requirement. Wasn't a legal requirement before this application was filed. We'll be a legal requirement if we succeed in obtaining the legislation that we are seeking, which is really essentially to avoid state preemption. And that is the policy of the city. And so underlying it is a power is a policy of the town. As part of its reaction to the challenge of climate change. And if, and to the extent to which the applicant. Seeks to align its own. Its own proposals. With the policies that the town is working to deal with climate change. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good subject matter that they might want to look into as well. I will point out that the ordinance or the bylaw that was enacted. I had an exemption for hot water heater in large buildings like this so that. The only thing it would have affected. Is the. Is. Eating and cooling. Thank you. Any further, Mr. Mills. Any other comments? Any other comments? Any other members of the board. Seeing none. I just wanted to. Just invite. Marty Nova from beta. If you have any. Questions in particular. Hi, Mr. Chairman. I don't, I don't have any questions right now. I'm really, it was really nice presentation. It was nice to see. The project and. It was really, really nice presentation. So. And like, like we were in the process of reviewing it and. We'll be prepared next time to talk about the, the traffic. And then after that, the civil and the storm water. So. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll also turn to. I don't know if yourself or on behalf of your department, if you have any questions you would. Wanted to put forward. And just to make sure I've covered everybody. Mr. I don't know if you have any questions. No questions. Mr. Chairman. This is Jenny rate. I don't have any further comments or questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. I believe there are other. Chairman. Ms. Captain has our hearing up, I think. Get to her in just a second. So, Ms. I don't know if you have any questions. On behalf of the conservation commission. I am. Then I will recognize Susan chapter, who is the chair of the garland conservation commission. Thank you very much. I appreciate the presentation. I just wanted to say that the conservation commission is looking forward to assisting the ZBA. I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And advising on some of the issues. I know we didn't talk about wetlands or stormwater tonight. However, some of the materials that. We're posted on Novus agenda. Do address these, these items and. The commission. Would. The appropriate. Meeting. Be responding to them. I just wanted to raise one or two. I just wanted to make sure that we're on the same page and no, they might be coming. One has to do with the requested waiver of the applicant. To. To the local bylaw for writer Brooke as a jurisdictional intermittent stream under the local bylaw and the wetlands protection act. That's something that the commission will. Would like to comment on. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the stormwater systems. The conservation commission. Has been through, through our advocacy towards. Improving flood control. Requiring of large projects. To use the NOAA. 14 plus precipitation data. To size stormwater. Management systems. I just wanted to put that out there also as a. And the other item. I wanted to talk about is we did have the opportunity of having a working session with the applicant, which we appreciated this happened in 2020. With the conservation commission. We made a recommendation there. That the pedestrian pathway that's along. The greenway next to it. Vegetation. We made a recommendation that we flipped. That the greenway and the vegetation be closer to the brook. To be protective of the resource area. And also as a better habitat. Small habitat area. And the pedestrian area be pushed. Back a little further away. That was a recommendation by the commission. Mr. Klein, Mr. Chapnick, we did get the message that the commission would like us to use the NOAA data in the stormwater analysis. And we, the engineers are using that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. All right. With that. I will now open the meeting for public comment. And I will now move to the meeting. The meeting will be held in a manner at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. To provide for an orderly flow to the meeting. The chair will limit individuals. Public speakers to three minutes each. And use their time to provide comment related to topics. Discuss the hearing. The chair may grant additional time to allow answers for questions. Please note that there are multiple hearings scheduled for this project. And each hearing will have an opportunity for public comment. To be reviewed by the board and included in the record. The procedure for a question to speak will be the same as for previous hearings. Please select the raise hand. Feature from the participants tab on zoom, or that I'll star nine on your phone to indicate you would like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by name and address. You'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps us to generate an accurate set of minutes. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time has been expended, the public comment period for this evening's hearing will be closed. As noted previously, there will be multiple hearings scheduled for this project. And each hearing will have an opportunity for public comment. And the board and staff and the applicant will do our best to show documents being discussed. If you'd like to have a specific document pulled up during your comments, please ask us to do so. I will go ahead. I'm going to go ahead and lower your hand. So if you would. Like to, um, To address the board this evening, um, from the participants tab, please go ahead and use the raise hand feature or style, not star nine. If you're on the phone. That's a Viet. I don't see anyone looking to address the board this evening. Leave a little extra time here for people. I'll scan through the pages here in case somebody's waving in their camera, but I don't see anybody waving in front of their camera either. Uh, Ms. LaRoyer. Hi. Um, I didn't see the, um, raise hand option on the participant. Panel. But, um, so my question was actually, do you have a schedule published yet of what topics are going to be, uh, discussed at which dates? That is our very next topic. Oh, okay. I'm very interested in the traffic and, um, Issues and just want to be prepared for that. Absolutely. Just a question, Pat, if you look on the participants tab, do you, is there a race hand feature there? Um, I'm a co-host, so I can't actually see. Yeah, I can't. I can't see it. I can't see it. I can't see it. I can't see it. Oh, more. Mr. Revillac has raised a hand. I don't see it. It's on the bottom left of the participants. If you open up your participants and make it a, um, a list on the right side of your screen, the raised hand is on the bottom left. Okay. And that's how I do it. Okay. I don't see it. I don't see it. It's not actually it. It may be just the way I've, I've set up the view, but no. You have to click on participants first. I did do that. There should be on the, I've got it on the right hand side. I have mutely on one side and invite on the other. Once you open up the participants, it opens up a side bar and it does a raise hand. Yes. No, go slower, go faster. Okay. I think that's it. I haven't raised hand either. I have the same thing as Paul. Members of public who wish to speak, if you want to turn on your camera and wave, we will keep an eye out for you. If you're having trouble finding a. One last pass through here, looking through pictures. Seeing none. I will go ahead and close public comment. For this evening. I'll go ahead and share. So this, we had a meeting with the applicant. You can see the list of attendees here to discuss the process. So we are currently here at February 23rd, which is the hearing on architectural and site design, which we've just completed. The board has a conference, there's not the board, but those organizing the hearings, we have a discussion coming up to prepare for the March 16th hearing. So the next public hearing will be Tuesday, March 16th, where we will be just at 730 PM, where we'll be discussing the traffic impact assessment and the peer review comments, the traffic impact assessment. Mr. Valarelli, do you know if we have any other hearings scheduled for that evening? We don't, our next hearing is actually March 9th, a residential matter. Okay. So I think we're okay that evening, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So the next public hearing on 1165R Mass Ave will be on March 16th, and then the following hearing will be on Tuesday, March 23rd, also at 730 PM, where we'll be discussing stormwater wetlands, riverfront aspects of the project, excuse me, with emphasis on Ryder Brook and the historic mill. And then after that, the next scheduled hearing is Tuesday, April 13th, where the board will review potential updates to previously discuss the aspects of the project. And just for those who are following on the website, we understand that the zoning boards website on this project is out of date. We are working with our peer review consultants at Beta Group to institute a document management program so that we will have that updated in time for our next hearing. So the agenda. Are there any other preparatory discussions on this before we adjourn for the evening? Mr. Chairman, I assume we will discuss the landscaping at the March 23rd hearing. Yes, please. Okay. Okay, with that, may I have a motion to adjourn to March 16th? Mr. Chair, do we? So we'll continue to March 16th. Second? Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Revillac. Before motion to adjourn, do we need a motion to continue? We are doing that right now. Oh, okay. May I accept that as a second to the motion to continue? Yes, yes, you may. I will do a roll call for the board. Mr. Dupont, Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. And then the chair votes aye. We are continued on this until Tuesday, March 16th at 7.30 PM. Thank you. Thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience through the meeting. I especially wish to thank Rufal Aureli and Vincent Lee for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. And as our understanding, the recordings made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days. I would also like to thank members of staff at the Department of Planning and Community Development for their assistance in preparing for this subsequent hearings. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, may I ask for a motion to adjourn? Don't move. Don't move by Mr. Hanlon. Second? Second. Second, thank Mr. Mills. To a voice vote of the board, all those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say nay. The ayes have it, we are adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very much. Thank you, good night. Thank you, good night, guys. Good night, everyone. Good night.