 is 732 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2023. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christian Klein and I am the Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the Board to order. I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. So members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Venkat Holi. Here. Here. Daniel Burgadale. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam O'Blink. Here. Good evening to all of you. Here on behalf of the town, Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant. I'm here. Good to have you with us. Is there someone appearing on behalf of 189 Forest Street? Yes, hi. How are you? My name is Ilya. I'm one of the owners of 189 Forest Street. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. And on behalf of 212 Pleasant Street, is Aiken Headless tonight? She is. Yes, we're here. Great, thank you. Someone here on behalf of 1618 Plymouth Street, is this a Pashuto here? Yes, we're here. Okay, great, thank you. And on behalf of 106 Mountain Vernon Street, was Sean Snyder? Yes, we're here. Thank you. And I'm on behalf of 121 Park Avenue. Lena Krzysczykar. Yeah, this is Bala, I'm her husband, I'm here. Oh, hi. Great, thank you so much. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, signed into the law on July 16th, 2022. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2023 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain the quorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. And as chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotony, an Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony, province and commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. So I would like to start tonight's meeting. So very briefly, I am pleased to announce that the select board voted on March 6th to approve a well-credentialed member of our town to fill the open associate position on the board. I would like to introduce him to the board and ask him to briefly introduce himself. So this time I'd like to introduce Adam LeBlanc. Adam. Good evening. Yeah, so my name is Adam LeBlanc. I'm a resident over in East Arlington. I am a registered architect in the state of Massachusetts for about four years now. I work at a firm downtown that we focus on affordable and ugly housing in the state of Massachusetts. Grew up on the North Shore, been around this area for my whole life. So very vested interest in this town and looking forward to contributing to it. Wonderful. Well, on behalf of the board, welcome you to the board and truly appreciate your volunteer service to the town. So before opening tonight's hearings, here are some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves and to make their presentation to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. And at the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So with that, the first item on our agenda this evening is docket number 3731 189 4th Street. This is a continuance of a prior hearing and the applicant has filed a letter requesting to withdraw. So with that, I would introduce Ilya to explain what their intention is. Yes, good evening. How's everybody doing today? We are requesting to withdraw the doubt prejudice application. We have made a decision to pursue renovation by right. So that's why we're seeking to withdraw our application. Thank you. So just to be clear, so the intention is that you're going to be moving forward with renovations but none of the renovations would require a special permit from the Board of Appeals. That is correct. Great, thank you very much. Are there any questions from the board in this regard? Seeing none. I move to accept the request for withdrawal of the special permit application for 189 4th Street without prejudice. Second? Second. Any questions from the board on what the vote is? Seeing none, we'll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Holley? Aye. Mr. Riccadelli? Aye. And the chair votes aye. Submotion to withdraw on behalf of 189 4th Street. Is it accepted? Thank you very much for appearing this evening. Good luck with the renovations. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'm going to pass the baton over to Patrick Hanlon for the next item on our agenda, which is docket 3733 2 on 2 Pleasant Street. Pat, you're on mute. Thank you. I guess I can't say thank you, Mr. Chairman, because for the next few minutes, I am Mr. Chairman. The next case is from 212 Pleasant Street. We've received a letter from the applicant announcing her intention to withdraw. And the applicant is present. I'd like to call on her to reaffirm her intentions and say whatever she has to say about it before we do what we just did. Valley, are you here? I'm here. Thank you. So we are respectfully requesting that our application for a special permit for 212 Pleasant Street be withdrawn. Are there any questions from the board? Okay, seeing none. The chair will entertain a motion to accept the request to withdraw the application without prejudice. So moved. Mr. Chairman, Mr. DuPont, is there a second? Second. Seconded, I think Mr. Riccadelli. Do the roll. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Ms. Mr. Klein. I'm sorry, Mr. Klein is recused on this case, which is why I'm doing it. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. Holi. Aye. And Mr. Riccadelli, have I? Aye. And the chair votes aye and the motion is withdrawn. Before I turn this back to Mr. Klein, I should point out that Mr. Holi has reviewed the video of the proceeding and has filed the suitable affidavit under the mulling rule to enable him to vote on this application. So thank you, Mr. Holi. And the chair, the temporary expedient chair will turn it back over to the real chair, Mr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Can I make a quick request? Yeah. Because of the two votes we just made with D'Rarro, I just thought since there's been a good amount of neighborhood feedback, you could just quickly explain how those applicants may move forward, you know, without our board's approval. Oh, certainly. So in both those cases, the applicants that applied for a special permit, which in both cases was for a large addition. So it's an addition that's larger than 750 square feet outside the footprint of the house. And in both cases, there was opposition from the neighborhood in regards to those applications. And after further consideration, the applicants have decided not to pursue a special permit that does not mean that nothing will happen on those properties, but it does mean that they no longer would require a special permit for a large addition. So if the application was for an addition that was 740 square feet, that would not require a special permit from this board. And there are other things that would require a special permit, but in this case, my understanding from both the applicants is that they do intend to do renovations to those buildings, but just to an extent that they would not require a special permit from this board and they would be fully compliant with the requirements of the zoning bylaw. But thank you, Mr. Prick, Natalie, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Did I just add to that, that especially, and I have no idea what the intentions of either of these applicants are. So this is general and not related to their case, but people should understand that one of the options that one can have, rather than doing a large addition is to tear a structure down and to rebuild it. And for that, you don't need a special permit so that it's not just a matter that they could do something, but it's less than what they've already proposed. It's possible that if other, depending upon the zoning ordinance and various other things, it's possible that they could do more. So all this is, is they don't have the special permit to do what they asked to do, but it's impossible to predict really whether what will ultimately happen down the line, either because of what these applicants are, because of anybody who owns the property in the future and seeks to develop it in some other way. Well, thank you, Mr. Hanlon. And just to, in further than that as well, any application to the town is a public record and is kept on file at Inspectional Services and can be requested through the Open Records Law or by visiting Inspectional Services down on Maple Street. So with that, we have next item is item number four on our agenda, which is docket 3736, 1618 Plymouth Street. So if the applicant could please introduce themselves and I will bring up the record submitted to the board. So my name is Anthony Pesciuto. I am the applicant on 1618 Plymouth Street. We are looking to add a second driveway on our property. Our property is centered on the lot and we have sufficient amounts of space to the left and right to create two separate driveways and free up open space in the backyard. This is the application that was submitted to the town. Move ahead. Oops. There we go. So the image on the left is the current condition and the image on the right is the proposed condition. And so the intent is to demolish the existing garage, is that correct? Yes. And this portion of the driveway beyond what's indicated here. So this would remain, this would be added and then everything back here would be removed. So we're freeing up basically the whole backyard space in order to create a full backyard and create an open space in the backyard without having parking back there. Okay. I had a couple of questions on visiting the site. So this here on the plan is a fire hydrant which appears to be in the driveway. What is the intention with that? So I met with DPW and the intention was to actually relocate it. So wherever the piping is running, we'd relocate it to be about probably five feet to the right or five feet to the left mattering on where this piping is running. Okay. Also, so this, the right side property line, I believe the adjacent property is significantly lower. If there's a wall here. We do have a retaining wall at the moment. Okay. And has it, is it certified that it could take the loading of vehicles parked in that area? So my architect has proposed for us to actually drop the driveway down on that right side to be level with the adjacent lot. That way we do not have to have the retaining wall and it can really take on the load of what we're trying to accomplish. And the, are there any trees on that side of the property that would be removed as a part of that? There is a few dead trees that would have to be. But nothing living at the moment for trees. And has that been, has that information been discussed with the tree ward, the best of your knowledge? Okay. It has not. And whatever we, what we have discussed is whatever we need to propose to replace anything, even the dead trees that we would be removing, we have no problem replacing things in the rear of the lot. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I can't really see the dimensions all that well, but on the proposed driveway side to the right, what is the width between the building and the lot line at that narrowest point? That narrowest point is nine foot nine inches. And I've driven by a couple of times and I have to say to my eye, which is not necessarily accurate, it looks pretty narrow. And is there also going to be, there's supposed to be a buffer zone between the pavement, the paved surface and the adjoining property. Is that calculated in what you're showing us? It is. And could you explain what those dimensions are because you have to have a certain pavement with do you not for the driveway? And then you have to have a buffer zone. So what are the dimensions on those? So we actually proposed two feet of buffer zone from the right of the driveway. And I'm not entirely clear that that's sufficient. It may be three feet. I'm not sure. I don't know if you've confirmed that with the building department. I have. And I've actually done a few projects where the building department has given us the clearance for two feet off the right side. Or like, mattering on width. Okay, fair enough. And I noticed too, and I can't comment on whether or not the trees are living, but there are some fairly substantial trees toward the back of the parking area that you're showing. I don't know if they're in it or they're behind it. But just in driving by, I noticed that they're there. I don't know whether they're entirely on the property that you have or whether they're on the property next door. But that's something obviously that needs to be determined. Yep. So as of right now, my architect has proposed the drawings to the driveways to be extended a little bit further than what we actually need for Arlington code. So it's, we can shorten the driveway to be 52 feet from where the front of our lot sits. That way everything's up to code regarding the driveway and having sufficient amount of parking for each unit. With that being said, I think we have proposed about 60 feet deep on the drawings currently to give them that extra space, but we can reduce eight feet off of that proposed drawing. Right, and I think that the calculations that we've used in the past are dimensions from the, I think we've seen it's got to be 18 feet in length for the two parking spaces if I'm correct. So I don't know from what you're describing whether or not you can form with that. Yes. Okay, those are the questions I had, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Are there questions from the board? Not see any further questions from the board. No questions. Oh, I'll make the last one. I will now open this meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the 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. You'll be asked to give you our name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. And please remember to speak clearly. Anyone wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing, the chair will allow those wishing to speak for a first time to speak first. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or we have reached the time of the 8.15, the public comment period will be closed. Board staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. So if you would like to speak to this, please raise your hand. Several people with their hands raised. So the first name is Benjamin Moynihan. If you could give your name and address for the record. Good evening, everyone and members of the board. My name is Benjamin Moynihan. I live at Seven Plymouth Street in Arlington. I've been a resident of Seven Plymouth Street since 2012. And I greatly appreciate this opportunity to participate in this discussion about the proposed special permit for 1618 Plymouth Street. Before I raise my questions and comments for the board members, I would like to say that as a neighbor on Plymouth Street, which is a wonderful little neighborhood in Arlington, many of us were really thrilled by the renovation of this property. It had been, let's say, under attended for many years. And so the fact that folks wanted to spruce it up is a boon, I think, for all of us. That said, I do have a couple of concerns about this permit and I have one point of information, point of fact that I wanted to clarify. I believe in the original or earlier permit request when the folks that are renovating the property asked to build the extension on the back of the house that the proposal to remove the garage was already part of that plan. So that's not a new thing, I don't think. That's a question to the board. Do you guys know whether that's new or whether that was part of a previous plan? And I have a few other comments. I do not know the sequence on that. Okay. So the second thing is my own sense and I'm not expert in this, but there are large trees on either side of where the fire hydrant is located at the edge of the road. And my concern is that if you move the fire hydrant five feet to the left or five feet to the right, one would impinge on the root systems of those older trees. And Arlington has made a commitment to net zero by 2050, I believe. And we don't wanna lose any trees to sort of further hinder our pathway to a net zero on a related note. I'm not aware that any of the trees between the two properties are in fact dead. I'm not a tree expert. I do see them have leaves in the warmer months of the year. That doesn't mean that I know that they don't have dead limbs, but I don't believe that they are dead in the sense of no leaves at all and stuff is falling down any more than a natural tree would occasionally need trimming. And there are several trees between the two properties. I think there's about four or five major trees back there that provide significant shade in that area. And of course the trees on the road do as well. So we would not wanna lose any of them if at all possible. The other thing is that I'm not aware on Plymouth Street at least there are no other properties that have two driveways on either side of the properties. So in terms of the character of the property, and this is still appreciating the green space that's being created by removing the garage in the back, whether or not this special permit is granted that is greatly appreciated. But the two driveways, as the folks noted in their application, they are trying to make accommodation for they recognize that they will be creating more runoff by putting pavement there. So anyway, that's a concern. And I think that's all, I'll stop right there and I see several of my neighbors on the line as well. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Then I'll move next on the docket here is Howard Rudzinski. Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak and express my opinion, I'm Howard Rudzinski. I live at 11 and 13 Plymouth Street. So I'm a diagonal across one house over. I've been a resident in this property since 1999. And to echo what Ben said, we have a terrific street with terrific neighbors. And we are certainly grateful for the new owner and developer of this property and restoring and renewing it. That being said, I do have a couple of questions. I just want to understand, I also agree, I don't think those two trees that are in the driveway space are dead, they are large and they are older trees. Am I mistaken that the developer owner, you mentioned that you want to lower that side of the driveway, so it is at the same level as Andy and Betsy's property, immediately adjacent. So that would make a driveway on the right-hand side that would be significantly lower than the left-hand side. Did I not hear that? That was what you had indicated, yeah. Well, just think about that for a second. That doesn't pass the eyeball test. So you have one driveway on the left side that is higher than the other. Aside from the fact that none of us, and I own a two family, 1113 across, none of us have two driveways. And so would I like to have a driveway on the other side of my house for my tenants? Sure, I would, but I think it would change the character of the street, of the houses and of the neighbors. But beyond that, the eyeball test of if you look at it, I can't see how there would be two feet of space on the side of the house. It just doesn't pass the eyeball test. The driveway that you would have, depending upon how far that retaining wall goes over and is the property of 1618 versus a shared retaining wall with the adjacent property, there's no way that there is enough room to have two cars there and a separate driveway. It just doesn't look right. There is nothing about that that passes even an eyeball test, let alone a formal zoning rules test. And I personally object to it strenuously. I don't think it's a good idea. There's plenty of yard space in the back. Other neighbors have turnarounds. We certainly appreciate the desire of the developer to have yard space and that would make the property more marketable and to driveways as well and potentially increasing their own revenue from the sale and development of the property. But I don't think that that is the neighborhood's concern so much as keeping the character of the neighborhood and not trying to shoehorn a driveway into that side. It just doesn't pass the eyeball test and I would agree with Ben on the fire hydrant as well, possibly interrupting or intruding or ruining the root systems of two older growth trees and the two trees that are adjacent to Andy and Betsy's property in the driveway presently. I've been living here 20 years, they seem to blossom every year. There seem to be leaves on them every year. So again, I don't think this is a well-advised idea to put a driveway on that second side and I firmly object to it and object to this petition. Thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that. Next up is Steve Moore. Oh, yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I appreciate the comments of both Mr. Monaghan and Mr. Rudinsky. Rudinsky, I'm sorry. And about the trees in particular, which of course is always my primary concern, moving the fire hydrant anywhere near the large trees would of course disrupt the health of those trees because to put in a fire hydrant means you dig down deep and sever probably some main roots with the trees. So I'm not sure that that's not only not, my guessing it's not a good idea. It's not according to the town's bylaw that development cannot damage trees that are public owned property street trees as part of the process of development. Although I'm a little surprised here that the DPW was aligned with that approach because I think they kind of know this already, the tree warden, this employee of the DPW. Also with the trees that have been mentioned by the previous speakers, they are within the setbacks. They would require a tree warden to sign off. There has to be a tree plan created for their protection during construction. And if they are to be taken, there would be a significant related fee for that because they are protected trees as long as they're six inches of greater in diameter. At breast height, as to whether they're alive or not, that's something the tree warden would have to determine for the applicant. The trees also dead, but as one of the previous speakers said, sometimes it's just a question of poor trimming and maintenance, and that probably is something which can be easily remediated then. The trees, as I said, are protected on a bylaw, so. And just as a not related trees, the idea of putting driveways on both sides of the house in the neighborhood where two family houses are serviced by long driveways on one side and spaces in back, the look of a house with cars parked on both sides of it is quite a bit different. The look of a house of cars parked either behind it or on one side of it. And I am sympathetic to what I'm hearing from the neighbors saying it really is not with the character. It's gonna make quite a bunch of pavement in the side of the house. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next up is Ellen Kushner. Ms. Kushner, you're on mute. I have to unmute myself. Hi, I'm Ellen Kushner. I live at 30 Highland Ave. I've lived there since 1996. I'm also a residential architectural designer. So I wanted to just weigh in on this proposal. I echo what my neighbors have already said about the fact that I'm pleased to see that this house is being renovated and that some new construction is injecting some much needed care into this building. That said, Plymouth Street is a very short street with only a dozen houses that is not heavily trafficked and it's always been a street where kids have played in the street. And adding another driveway where people are gonna be pulling out and potentially causing more disruption and more danger to the children, I think is something that we really have to consider. I also echo the fact that there is no precedent on this street for two driveways on either side of a house. Every single house on this street has similar problems. There are only two single family houses on this block. So every other house is a two family house and they all have to grapple with juggling cars in the driveway. It's just a fact of life. I wanna speak about 22 Plymouth Street because that is the adjacent property. I know the owners also wanna speak, but that property slopes back, slopes quite precipitously from the sidewalk heading back toward the back of the property. So even if the new owner is proposed to lower the driveway and I do agree that it's going to look very strange to have driveways on either side of the street, one of which is significantly lower than the other, hard-scaping that area will definitely create a drainage problem in the sloping yard of the house at 22 Plymouth Street. So I don't think that this is a well-advised proposal and I too would like to object. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Betsy Block. Hi, I'm Andrew Pacro as Betsy's husband. We have lived here for 26 years. At 22 Plymouth Street. At 22 Plymouth Street. At next door property. Yes, and I'm a real estate appraiser for the past 35 years in the area. And a couple of major points we would like to make our, we think it's a very unfortunate idea. Can you hear me? Okay. There would be a significant reduction of our privacy, both this driveway running literally on the lot line of the property. There's no possible way to put an adequate buffer zone between this proposed driveway and our property. As noted on that original plot plan, the 9.9 feet is just inadequate. And that 9.9 feet does not consider those two large trees that are directly in that Bay Area. Those trees are 100% alive. We've lived here. We've had to deal with those trees. There is no way that those are dead trees at all. So I think there would be a significant reduction in our privacy and the appeal of our property and the marketability should we ever want to sell that property because the driveway would be literally looming right over our whole patio area. And it just wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing or particularly functional. I would also like to talk about the stone wall for a minute. Yes. So for the first 10, we've lived here for 26 years. For the first 10 years we lived here, the former owners had told us that we owned that stone wall plus six inches over into what is obviously not our property, but we were told it was so that we would have to pay for the removal of an actual dead tree, which we did. Then at that 10 year mark, we got the land surveyed and that told us that we owned half of the stone wall. So the fact that we're being told right now that we own none of the stone wall is, first of all, news to shocking news after 26 years. And second of all, that's a historic stone wall from when this land used to be farmland and we would be heartbroken to lose that stone wall. We feel very attached to it and feel it as a piece of history. When you started the meeting, sir, you talked about the history of this land and we very much feel that on our small but mighty property. And just a couple of other things. I would just note that there is no hardship to 16, 18 that they need the second driveway. As everyone's already pointed out, no one has a second driveway. They already have an existing two car garage. They could more than adequately park four cars on that side of the property. There's no need for it and there's no precedent for it. And as people have already pointed out, an extra driveway, children on the street, extra hazards. And the notion of moving the fire hydrant is also suspicious or whatever you want to say to us, moving it towards our property. Again, there's a very large tree there and we already have a fire hydrant on the other side of our property. So adding a second one directly in front of our property, again, I don't think is a well. Makes sense for that street. Yeah, it's not and it's just not a well thought out plan. So, but primarily I'm concerned about our privacy, the utility of our property and as well as the drainage notion that I just don't think the space is simply inadequate in size to accommodate all of these notions. And there's again, in no possible way to put an adequate buffer zone of any kind of vegetation because the stone wall is that space and those two very large trees, I would be shocked if the tree warden would allow those to be touched in any way. They're quite large and quite healthy. So... The last thing I would like to add is we built a patio. We completely landscaped our yard after having lived here for more than 20 years. We finally landscaped our yard and put in a beautiful patio. And this would completely encroach on that space that we waited for two decades to install, saved up, paid for, install. And we enjoy it tremendously. And that would definitely be ruined, to be honest. So... We object to the notion of a second driver. Can you tell me what the height of the wall is, approximately? The height of the wall from our side of the property? From your side. No, no. I would say like three feet. But it depends on which part of our lot because it's less near the street and then it is probably toward the back of our property toward our neighbor's house. Okay. Between two and four feet, you know, from front to back. Great, thank you very much. Thank you so much. Are there other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? Seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment on this hearing. And come back to the board. So, but we have in front of us is a request for a second driveway, a second driveway is allowed under Arlington zoning by-law. So long as there are certain findings that are made by the zoning board of appeals in regard to that request. So there's the standard findings that the board needs to make for any special permit. So is there requested to use allowed? Is there requested use essential or desirable to public convenience and welfare? Why the requested use will not create undue traffic ingestion or impair pedestrian safety? Why the requested use will not overload any public system? Why the requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the neighborhood? Why the requested use will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare? And why the requested use will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood? And then specific to the location of parking spaces, the board would need to find that the second driveway may be added in a manner that avoids an undue concentration of population, that the second driveway may be added in a manner that allows adequate provision of transportation and that the second driveway may be added in a manner that conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. Those are the questions that are before the board. The board did receive late today a memorandum from the Department of Planning and Community Development. I apologize, that came in at 5.30 this afternoon. I have not had a chance to look at it as of yet. It'll open on this, let's see if I can share this. So hopefully you are seeing a letter from the town of Arlington, that they have been seeking a second driveway, properties currently being remodeled, properties that are not part two district, conforming the bylaw lot size, frontage, other requirements, the proposal would convert the rear yard to approximately 2234 square feet of green open space. It's usable, so it's in the property, lot coverage would decrease to 26.8 to 22 under the proposal, would not increase the existing now conforming to some structure. Is a permitted use, it would provide a second driveway, create two parking districts, unclear whether adding a second curb cut along Plymouth Street would present a hazard to pedestrian bicycle or vehicular safety. Relocation of the fire hydrant would be required. Unclear whether adding a second curb cut along Plymouth Street would present a hazard for pedestrian bicycle and vehicular safety. It would not create a burden on municipal systems. The special regulation is the specific questions on the parking spaces. Staff note there's an existing tree in the right side yard where the driveway is proposed. The applicant may need to receive approval of the tree plan, which we've mentioned. No other property on Plymouth has two curb cuts or two driveways, although a lot coverage would decrease under the proposal, including a second driveway condition where much of the front yard of the property would be paved, which is discouraged for aesthetic reasons based on the drawings and dimensional details provided by the applicant, the staff is unable to evaluate whether the proposal for a second driveway conforms with the requirements of the zoning by-law. It's unclear whether the proposed design would detrimentally impact the neighborhood character of the district or the adjoining districts and number seven, the proposal would not cause any detrimental excesses. Staff note, however, the applicants claim that two driveways equals less shuffling of cars as more pedestrian safety runs counter to the modern planning understanding of the impact of increasing the supply of off-street parking. And then there's just an image of the from up above. Couple of pictures from the streets. You can see the driveway, you can see the number of trees here. Here's one of the adjacent street trees and then this is the lowered area that the last speaker had mentioned is the corner of their yard down below here. So the Department of Planning and Community Development maintains the proposal is consistent with the permit criteria that recommends the zoning board request revised drawings in a plan showing location, demands of proposed parking area and curb cut in compliance with the dimensional vegetated buffer requirements. And I know the current structure meets the minimum number of parking spots required by the zoning by-law recommend the applicant consider reconfiguring the existing parking area to provide more convenient access instead. So this is a letter prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development which they do for all special permit applications. So one thing to note is that for two family dwellings in the town of Arlington, the minimum required number of parking spaces is two. And so the applicant could very easily, the applicant is looking to provide twice what the minimum required parking is. It has been mentioned by several people including the recent memo that it would involve a significant amount of pavement at the front of the house, greatly reducing the amount of the front yard impacting the side yards and impacting the vegetation on that right-hand side. I would like to ask the applicant, really what the reason is for wanting to have a second driveway? Is it merely for the convenience of those living at the property or is there some other specific reason for needing to have a second driveway? So not only is it going to be convenient for that second driveway, but it realistically is for that open back space in the backyard. Yes, the garage would have been coming down but we would still be paving that whole entire backyard. So realistically, we do not have, we really only have about a 15 by 20 foot backyard space where with what we're proposing, we have about 50 by 42. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just what I, and I wondered if you could simply ask the applicant whether the reduction in the pavement that he's talking about, the large amount of pavement in the back is for the number of parking spaces that is currently proposed or whether which I gather is more than the zoning bylaw requires or is it to simply comply with the zoning? In other words, is this all due to the fact of, to what extent is that decrease in the amount of landscape space in the back due to over parking the house by measured by the both zoning bylaw requirement? So as of right now, we still would have four spots in the back of the house. We've in per se because of the way that they would have to clear the house in order to drive past for each unit side by side. Mr. Hanlon, does that answer your question? I think, I think, I mean, what I'm hearing is, is that it doesn't change from the, what is proposed now, is that correct? Yes. We would still have four spots prior to this proposal or if we get these proposed plans. Was the removal of the garage a requirement for any building permits or no? They were. It was, okay. Yes. Mr. Chair. Hi, so we, yes, was that Mr. LeBlanc? Yeah. Mr. LeBlanc. Just one question. I'm just looking through the special permit application and there's differences in the existing and proposed areas. And I'm just curious why there's a difference if this special permit is just for driveway because also the site plan that's provided on the application doesn't show any differences in building footprint. The footprint is, so the proposed drawings show the footprint as to what we extended through the building department without having to pursue a special permit and being within the bylaws as to what Arlington gives for the additional 725 square foot, is square feet through the building department. So the proposed drawing does show the extension off the back that we did extend eight feet for the property. That's why the garage is removed. Other further questions from the board? Well, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon? The early one was attempt to just follow up and understand better what the answer was to your question. But I guess I'd just like to focus on the three conditions that the three criteria that we have to find in order to allow this. And the way the zoning bylaw is stated is that if in order to be able to grant the extra driveway, we have to make a positive finding that the development is going to meet each of these criteria. And I think that undue concentration of population is probably not a matter of great concern. But the other two, adequate provision of transportation and conservation of the value of land and buildings have been very much put in question by the hearing. And on the basis of the record before us, the best I can say is that I'm highly uncertain either that it's possible with the best will in the world to preserve the trees that we have there. And I am not at this point able to make a positive finding that they are actually dead. And I certainly, so there's the whole, that whole part, which all ultimately goes to the question of preserving the land, pre-preserving the value of the lands nearby and so on, as well as other matters in the section 3.3 is something that I don't think we could make a finding on. There's just too much uncertainty. I'd like to have the tree warden have already seen something and weigh in on whether this is really possible to do. I'd like to hear more about moving the fire hydrant and whether the environmental aspects of that were considered as opposed to just the water aspects. All of those things are things that we need to know more about in order to make a positive finding. And with respect to the transportation, the staff has already indicated that they don't have enough information to advise us as to what kind of a positive finding to make. There have been some discussions about the children playing in the street, the absence of the sort of thing in any of the other houses and so on, all of which to some extent go to the question as to whether or not there would be some sort of an impairment of transportation. So I feel less strongly about that because there's been less said about it and much of it has been speculative, but it's very difficult at this point if we have a duty to make an affirmative finding that there won't be any interference with transportation. It's very difficult to look at what's in this record and find and see what it is that such a finding could be based on. So that gives rise to a whole, there's a whole bunch of uncertainty that's expressed in there and sort of a question. And I doubt that it's possible it's for anybody to answer these questions off the cuff. We really need to have people weighing in from the town. We need to have real consult consultations with the tree warden. And maybe you mean all of us, I'm sure most of us have gone out to look at this property and I certainly agree with Mr. DuPont that when you look at this space and you look at those trees and you look at the wall it's very difficult to see how you could do what it is the applicant would like to do. Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. DuPont. So I think, I'd agree with what Mr. Hanlon has just said and I think that the neighbors have been pretty comprehensive and covering all of the concerns that anybody might have. I would just point out and I'm not sure anyone has said this today but when I drove over there it was pretty obvious that that is sort of a congested and short street. I don't know what the actual width is but directly across from where that proposed driveway is and this puts maybe a fine point on it. There's actually a sign on a tree that says caution children. And I know from having my kids attend the high school for eight years, you know from one to the beginning of one to the end of the second that that's kind of a major cut through from Highland Avenue for kids going to school. And I think we've had the same discussion with the property where they were looking at the bottom of Highland Avenue to put a driveway in based upon a variance request at that time. But I think that the concerns are the same. You've got a lot of kids walking together talking not necessarily paying attention. And to me, you know this is not a place where somebody might expect to see a car coming from just based on the configuration that people have already noted having one driveway per property. And I just concerned about the sight lines the inattention and just the congestion in general if people are parking that you just can't see very well. So that's one of my main concerns is kids going back and forth. Just wanted to add that. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Are there comments from the board? Yes, sir. Mr. Piccadelli. You know, just reading the memo from the planning department. They, one concern they bring up is you know what the impact is to the neighborhood and to the character of the neighborhood. And you know, I live in East Arlington with a similar configuration of houses with driveways on one side. And sort of all the green space on the street is the front yards that are between the driveways. And though I don't think that one house would change the streetscape so much if one neighbor chose to do this and then all the neighbors chose to do this we'd have a lot of paved front yards along the street, which I do think does have a big impact on the sort of character of the neighborhood and how the street feels. So I'm just wanting to sort of add my two cents on that. Well, thank you. Okay. Anything further from the board? So that's... Oh, sorry, Mr. Blank. Sorry. I guess I just kind of wanted to go off a couple of points from Mr. Gupont on some of his observations. Also going back to the applicant saying that the driveway is intended to slope downward to go along the sloping line of the adjacent property. Thinking about, you know, backing out of a slope driveway and the sight lines when you're backing out of that is more difficult. You know, I have a flat driveway and I still have trouble pulling out. So there's that. And also just kind of thinking about this a little bit further too with the sloping. Just worried about the foundation of the actual building without really too much more knowledge or understanding of how much that grade change is based off of the information we're provided in the application. It's not sufficient enough for us to understand that, to make a finding. Thank you. So there are several comments that there are, you know, a lot of questions that we have that on the application that sort of would prevent us from being able to make the required findings. And it's not clear that, you know, clarifying those questions whether, you know, once those questions are clarified whether or not we would be able to make the findings or not is also a question. So I would, so I think the first question the board needs to decide is do we feel that we want to request that the applicant come back before us with additional information or does the board feel that it has sufficient information in order to render a decision? Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So based upon the comments that Mr. Hanlon made about the information that we don't have necessarily with regard to the tree warden and such, I tend to think that it may be up to the applicant to decide whether or not he would like to come back as much as it is whether we feel like we have enough information. I don't feel personally like I have enough information but I do think it's the prerogative of the applicant to say that he would like to obtain the information that's been referenced and come back or to just go forward. So I would probably think that we were gonna withdraw our special permit application just because we really want our neighbors to be happy. Our intention is to make this look as aesthetically pleasing as possible but with all of the setbacks that we've been receiving from our neighbors, I think we're gonna just withdraw our application altogether. Would you like us to vote to accept that withdrawal this evening? Yes, please. Okay. So then the applicant has requested that they be able to withdraw their application. And so this would, as we've done on the project cases that would require a vote at the board. So I move that the board accept the request to withdraw on behalf of the applicant for 16, 18 Plymouth streets. These are without prejudice. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Okay, so then a vote. So this is then a roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Rickidelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. And the chair votes aye. So the special permit application for 16, 18 Plymouth street has been withdrawn without prejudice. Our thanks to the applicant and our thanks to the neighbors for being present this evening. Thank you. Thank you all so, so much. This brings us from the city back to our agenda tonight. He just said item number five, which is docket 3735106 Mount Vernon street. So I could ask the applicant to introduce themselves and tell us what they are proposing. And just a question for the applicant if they have information to share or if I should share the application that the application. Thank you. I'll introduce, we won't all speak. I'll briefly introduce ourselves and then our architect, Jenna is on the line. Oh, perfect. Awesome. So she'll be sharing and speaking on our behalf. I just wanna briefly thank everyone for this opportunity. We're grateful to live in a community where we can have public face-to-face discussions, make decisions as a community. It's what we find to be really special about Arlington and we're grateful. We've lived here for the past 12 years. We actually lived in a condo across the street from our current home where we quickly established relationships and inevitably several years ago, purchased privately from a neighbor here by way of some much beloved neighbors that are essentially our surrogate parents. Today we have a six-year-old son and an eight-year-old daughter at Brackett. I get to be a room parent. My husband coaches soccer. We spent last Saturday at town hall celebrating Arlington Eats. During the day we've built careers centered in social support, arts, and education. My husband worked at ACMI for several years, which is how we became acquainted with the community. We fell in love with Mount Vernon and this neighborhood because it embodies the idyllic neighborhood that my husband grew up in and the one I longed for as a child myself. Working together with our neighbors in community, we allow access to our driveway to cut trees. We drop off flowers when there's broken wrists. We help with snow shoveling. We hosted a fundraiser for a neighbor up the street who kicked ass at the pet PMC last summer. We even hosted an apple cider party for neighbors with a small driveway because we love them and their boys truly like our own. My mom is no stranger to the neighborhood as well. I have no siblings and for many years it was just my mom and me and boy did she work hard so I could grow up and be the adult that I am. Simply put, married or not, my mother now 74 years old and feeling her age is my person and I'm lucky to be married to someone who feels the same responsibility to our aging parents that I do. I wanna care for her and I know the benefits of intergenerational housing and we support economic and social mobility and we love that we live in a town like Arlington that supports ADUs. My children thrive having my mother and someone this call can remember my mom slowly walking up and down Mount Vernon with a newborn followed by a newborn and a toddler to two children often with neighborhood friends in tow. When my mother decided to sell her home during the pandemic a neighbor a few streets over graciously opened up her home for her to live temporarily and we have another neighbor on Mount Vernon that will be housing her while they're away this summer. This type of generosity rarely exists and we're so grateful. Our family unit allows us to be fulfilled and the pandemic along with housing shortages and known scarcity have only propelled this decision. During this unique to us experience over the past day we've thought a lot about the values we want to embody as a family and bring to this experience as construction is not easy for anyone and we've decided our actions and behaviors will continue to be rooted in what we believe in community, character, care, communication and an open door policy. Life is short and we're grateful. We can make things work. We're grateful for everyone in our neighborhood, everyone because they teach us how to be better every day. Our architect Jenna is on the line. We are requesting an ADU. Our rear yard now is a full story below our existing first level. The new deck that we propose in our yard will create more usable space off the main level. The location of the garage in the back left corner still leaves space around for a neighborhood buffer. The driveway length currently fits three cars and we would have a new garage space and we plan to use the space above and below the deck responsibly and in the ethos of a good neighbor. So I am not an architect or an assessor so I'm gonna leave it to Jenna to ask questions and I thank you for the opportunity. Thank you very much. Jenna, do you need access to display? Hello, thank you. Okay, I think it's... Colleen, if you could make Jenna Ellison a co-host? I don't see her on my list. I have her on my list. She's my participant list. She's the third name right after you and I. You could share your screen if you wanted to just go through the plan. You're all set now. Awesome, well thank you. My name is Jenna Ellison. I work for Pegasus Design to Build. I'm a licensed architect in the state of Massachusetts and I work with a general contractor. So Pegasus sort of does it all. So we will be, we've been working with the Snyders now for about six months doing the design and getting everything ready to present to you guys. So I will share my screen here and walk you through the design. And if anyone has any questions, please let me know. So a few 3D images here of their existing house and the proposed addition. So as Bailey said, there's a pretty big grade change from the front of the house to the back of the house and they have a walkout basement currently. So our proposed addition has a first floor garage with a sort of hidden entry door to go up to the ADU. And then we're connecting the two structures by a shared deck. And right now they have to go out the side door down their driveway to use their backyard. So this will help them substantially be able to enjoy their outdoor space as well as have their mom on the same level as them so that she doesn't have to walk up and downstairs to see the kids and to participate in family activities. So as you can see here, this is sort of their existing driveway. I will show you the sort of site plan here which I think depicts it pretty well. So their driveway ends at the edge of their house right now. So to keep the ability to have three cars in the driveway and still be able to walk to their backyard, basically we have a distance here of a little over five and a half feet. So friends can come down the driveway and still hang out in the backyard without having to have a weird way around the house or anything like that. And then this has a little overhang here and their mom would be able to go upstairs to her space. So the two things that we are asking for relief on are the side yard setback and the rear yard setback. Because we're attaching these two with the deck, essentially we have to use the house setbacks versus having a detached garage where we could use the accessory setbacks. And just from understanding how they live and how in the next 20 years, Martha's going to be needing to get back and forth. We think it's very important to have the connection of the structures. And that's sort of where this sort of whole design came from that there's a shared space for them and their community to still be able to come to their yard as well as Martha having a little bit of her own privacy and her own space and keeping with the same context of a traditional style home with a gable roof and a pretty modest footprint here. So they have a nice sized garage on the first floor where they can store their outdoor things, her stairway up. So there would be four parking spaces, one would be in the garage. So potentially a hidden car and then two in the driveway would give some flexibility there. And then Martha's space, which is on the first floor level, which she can access from the street and then walk through if say, the stairs got too much for her or anything like that is at the same level as the main home. And she has a closet, a modest bathroom and an open living space with her kitchenette and washer dryer there. So she has a little bit of her own deck space. The family has their deck space there and a few other things to note. If we go by like average height of the grade, we could potentially basically what I'm thinking is if anything needs to be discussed with the neighbors, they're open to modifying any roof lines to help or modifying the deck, if any dimensions feel like they could be tweaked, we're very open to suggestions and everyone wants to live happily here and not cause any turmoil. So this is ideal for us and we would really like it attached, but we could potentially go the detached route if that needs to happen. So hopefully, I've explained enough and I can show more photos or anything like that if that will help with any questions. Thank you very much. So just for the general public though, essentially there are two applications that are being put forward for this property. One is a special permit or some of what they need, but they also are requesting a variance and so a variance under Massachusetts law is a very specific request. The criteria for it are set under state law and not under local by law and they are essentially, it is a request for a specific exemption from the local zoning code due to specific criteria which are established under state law. So the board will be discussing both of these, both of these aspects of it slightly differently. So just for general circumstances, that's sort of the way that that will happen. So the first question I had had, so the currently the house, the setback that's on the rear setback and what the left side setback, the house is currently compliant with both of those, is that correct? Say that again, the left side setback, yes, the existing homeless. Setback. Yeah, and then the right side is non-conforming at seven feet. Correct, yep, so this is the survey here. So that's correct, yep. So we would need a 10 foot side yard for the house and we're proposing a six foot here and we would need a 19 foot rear and we're proposing a little bit over nine. And then here, the uncovered deck, I believe can be five feet from the property line by right. So I believe that this one is closer, but should be okay with the uncovered deck. And then does the property currently have the required usable open space? So that is what we're going for the variance for. So, and also potentially could clarify this for me because I know in the bylaws it states to that it would be 25 by 25 for the usable open space, 25 feet by 25 feet. And right now we are proposing 19 feet by 27 feet and we can probably get there by removing deck, like I said, so that's sort of open for determination. And then I know in the bylaw it also states for new construction that it could be 20 by 20. So I wasn't sure if with this addition, if that's considered the new construction or because it's existing home, if it would be the 25 by 25. So, yeah, so this would be an alteration. So that would still be 25 being the minimum dimension. Okay. So yeah. So that was the variance application. Right, so there's really three things you're seeking in the variance. One is the usable open space. And then the other is related to the proposed ADU, the reduction in the side yard setback and the reduction in the rear yard setback. Correct. That's all three. Okay. Have you had any, so you're proposing to increase the impervious nature of the site? Have you pursued anything in regards to the stormwater retention or how that would be handled? Yep. So our foundation subcontractor is proposing to put a drywall in. So essentially we would retain any water that's coming off the roof on site and that would be designed and submitted with the bill improvement with the structural design and everything. Basically to be sufficient with the town's guidelines. Okay. I think those are the questions I have at the moment. Other questions from the board? Mr. Garmin. Mr. Hanlon. You may have to forgive me. I had to take a minute away from the screen and I probably missed an important question. I was, I've been sort of trying to figure out whether or not the end, and if so for what variance is actually needed. It's my understanding that we just sort of break it down. If this were just a garage, it could be placed up to what, six feet away from the property line and with the special exception, more than that as long as it was built with a certain amount. And under the zoning bylaw, if they had a garage and then you added an ADU to it, if it was not attached, then you could still do the same thing by right, not by asking our permission by right. It looks to me as if none of the borders here, the setbacks reach all the way to six feet. So that would not be a problem either. So the question then comes down to whether or not the deck makes a difference. And I know that it is the practice in Arlington to treat a deck that connects two buildings as if it makes them attached. Notice that the zoning bylaw itself in the ADU provision, doesn't talk about what is detached. It talks about what is attached. And there is a definition for attached, building in section two, which says that to be attached, a building has to have a common wall with another building, a common wall with another building. Now detached is, you would think would be the opposite, but there the definition is that it's detached if it has no physical connection with another building. But the ADU ordinance doesn't talk about detached. It only uses the concept attached. And that in turn has to do with the common wall. And I don't see how the deck here creates a common wall. So I'm not a hundred percent certain in my own mind that under the strict language of the zoning bylaw, that there actually is something that needs a variance for at least for these two things. And I'm gonna pause here and ask Ms. Ellison if she agrees with that. So it's interesting that you say that because at one point we did have an attached like common mudroom. And then we sort of actually reduced things and made the footprint a bit smaller. So that's interesting that you bring up the shared wall. I think it's up for interpretation of how you say that. I think in my head, when I'm attaching it with the deck, it acts as one. So that was sort of how I've been envisioning it, but yeah, there is no wall. So there is rally. I will say that I've talked to ISD about this. Their practice is to treat this as if it makes an attachment, but we're dealing with a new statute here, a one that was very strongly supported by town meeting and it went a long way towards creating a sort of a new public purpose in the zoning bylaw that we have to consider. And so I just wanna put that as a question because as we go through the factors on the variance, I want to at least have them back of our minds that we may want to have reserved for ourselves the question whether or not the variance is needed. Now there's still one other thing and that's the usable open space. And I can't, my eyes are even are 77 years old and I can't see this very well, but when I'm trying to figure out the proposed deck itself is usable open space, correct? At least ISD informs me that it is and that the stair up to it shouldn't disrupt the discontinuity. The bit of the portion there that is potentially usable open space is slanted on one side and it's a little hard to see whether there's a 25 foot square there. And so I would like if Mr. Ellison to say if the only question at this point is whether there's the minimum dimension of 25 feet. I haven't gotten to the question about whether if there is, there's enough, but I can't see whether the 25 foot square is there and I wonder if she could inform me about that. Good question. I have this in a software that I can do the measurement. I was under the impression that the usable open space had to be on the same level and that the deck covering would not count as that. But if it is the deck area could count because really this was the smallest dimension here. I believe if I could use this deck area that we could probably get it. Okay, I did get a sense from and we might wanna confirm this because I didn't ask specifically about being on the same level or not. But in general, a deck does count as usable open space and that could affect that your need to get a variance on that part as well. I'm not quite sure. Obviously if we're in a situation where you currently comply with the bylaw and you've introduced a new non-conformity that's something that we have a hard time dealing with by special permit. But the facts here seem to me to be squishy enough in terms of how to analyze all of this that I'd like us to at least everybody who's paying attention to this to keep this in mind. By the way, just the amazing thing is is that if it turns out that there's a 25 foot square we'll go from zero to 625 feet in a heartbeat because it's really an accident of it's not when you say there's zero open space it doesn't mean there's no open space it just means that there's a very technical requirement for us under the zoning bylaw that causes a discontinuity there. Chairman, those are the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. Hamlin. I think it is a very interesting question about including deck areas in most cases where that has come for the board in the past the deck is typically much closer to the ground level and doesn't have an open area that is a full height underneath it. And the criteria for usable open space does require that the majority of it be open to the sky. And so I'm kind of curious on the how the zoning enforcement officer would interpret it if it would include space under the deck or if it would include space over the deck in a situation like this. My understanding is that the special services has determined that to the question about whether these are attached or not the special services has made their determination that it is considered attached and therefore we are tasked with treating it as such. But it is a little odd that if you just remove the deck then it becomes, you know, obviously then it's no longer attached. It's a very different set of criteria. Are there other questions from the board? Mr. Chair. Mr. Holly. This project reminds me of another ADU we had probably sometime last year. The one question I had is there's windows on the left elevation and with the property line being so close, I'm not even looking at the views at this time. If it were a garage, there would be a different type of construction but with the, you know, with the bedroom and the living space above, there still is a type five construction based on the chart that was provided. So there is a limitation on the window, the amount of illustration there because of the proximity. Is that something Ms. Allison have any information on that aspect? So I believe if it's closer than five feet that we would need to do the special type of construction or the, what is it, type? Type of, yeah. Yeah. So I think that we were like giving us, us being at the six feet would mean that we would not have to. I thought it was 10 feet, but again, maybe you'll have to look into that. I believe it's closer than five, but I could be wrong, so. For unlimited, but there is a percentage even for a 10 feet, under 10 feet. For an unlimited, you're right, that more than 10 feet, but if you're under 10 feet, there is still a 25% limit, so. Okay. Right. Possibly. I can do that. I'm looking into that. Yeah. Figure that out, no problem. Right, as I, again, based on my recollection, they changed the type of construction that would allow, I guess, you know, with zero lot line or closer to FSD, but this being still a five-way might trigger that. Okay. I'll go with that. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions from the board? Mr. Turner. Mr. DuPont. So I would just start out by saying that I think that when we're looking at this new bylaw, the accessory dwelling unit, it doesn't necessarily mesh with other provisions that we have to take into account. And so I think it does make it difficult for us in terms of whether we are dealing with a variance versus not. And I believe, you know, I think I'd start out if I was looking at 5.9.2 in terms of the requirements, I think we can at least agree that it's not a large addition, right? Because it's not 750 square feet or more. So that sort of brings me down then to the last bullet point on that particular page where it says requirements. And it starts out saying an accessory dwelling unit may be located, et cetera. But then it says, if there is an accessory building, if I'm reading this correctly, if provided that, if such accessory building is located within six feet of a lot line, then such accessory dwelling shall be allowed only if we make a finding according to section 3.3. And then it outlines those things that we need to determine including whether it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the use of such accessory building as a private garage or other allowed use. So I realized that there's some discussion about well, if it was just a garage, then the requirements for the side and the rear yard setback would be much different. But right now we're sort of looking at this in terms of an accessory or a building. And so for me, the character of it is a little bit different if it's an accessory building that is not within the six feet of the lot line. The other consideration is that as I read this new portion of the bylaw, if somebody does say put in a garage and then determines after that's constructed that they want to now convert it and to add some accessory dwelling unit space, we still are faced with this making the determination if it's within six feet of the lot line as to whether or not it's more detrimental, et cetera. So it feels a little bit circular to me. So I think that the email from community development, planning department, I think that they suggested that there should be a conversation with the building department as to whether or not as a right they can do something there and that I guess, even if they said, yes, you can you can build your garage next to the lot line that still has to come back to us, I think for the determination for the special permit. So I just think it gets a little bit jumbled. That's all I'm saying. And I think we end up having to make that determination regardless of whether there's a variance. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. My understanding is that this isn't within six feet so that the proviso that's here that it should be allowed only if, you know the proviso is if such accessory building is located within six feet of a lot line. And I think it's not, but I may be mistaken that Zellison could clarify that. It looks to me like the closest it gets is six feet. That's correct. But my question, if I may is then if it's not within six feet, are we now having to talk about what the side yard setbacks have to be in order for it to conform? And I think that's a separate issue because then it gets into the question as to whether a variance is needed. I think so. I guess the question, if you presumably you couldn't just build a separate building that was six feet away that had no other reason and why it is that it could be that close. The thing that was true about the zone about the ADU by law is that they wanted to be able to have people put ADUs by right into garages that already existed. That was what they had in their head. And so many times they are already within six feet we're already up to six feet. So the way in which they've made a compromise on that was instead of making it by right all the way to the property line. They stopped at the six foot said you can do it by right if you don't go within six feet. Otherwise you have to get a special permit from us. And what we have to ask is whether or not the ADU makes it more intrusive than just a garage would be because you could already do the garage. Right. And so I think that if you don't go within six feet then it's not a special permit situation anymore. The proviso that's in that fifth bullet of 5.92 is presumes that there's some other justification for getting closer than the regular setback to the lot line. You couldn't, but that would be true here. And there's no particular reason why you have to do this in two stages and build the first garage and then add the ADU. So I think that they can actually go by right if this is not treated as an attached building and if it is treated as an attached building then they have to meet the normal requirements of the bylaw that they don't have a basis for going any closer than the 10 feet that otherwise is required. So to follow on that point then is this being characterized in the description that we just gave Mr. Hanlon as a garage which could be built in the location that is. It is both. It is both. It is a garage with an ADU on top of it. I'd rather small ADU actually but it's only two thirds of the maximum size of an ADU but it's a combined structure and it's just exactly that structure. This is sort of the opposite side of if you'll remember the Venner Road case that I think Mr. Cooley it was exactly the other way around. They wanted to go close and wanted to but also wanted to be attached and they eventually gave up on having a separate building and brought it back to where they wanted to be because they couldn't get closer that way. So if I may again, if that's the case and this structure could be built as a garage slash ADU we're still having to answer the question are we not about the usable open space? Yes, yes. If there's, if in fact, it seems to me that if in fact you're dealing with a situation where we are now in compliance and there's a new nonconformity because if there is some usable open space there's not enough or if we decide that there's not any because you don't meet the minimum requirements then you have introduced that and that would separately be a reason for a variant site is at least the way I look at it now. Any further Mr. Dupont? No, I would agree with what Mr. Hanlon just said. Okay. Mr. Riccadelli, I think you were speaking up earlier. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going down the same path that Mr. Dupont was going down. So I don't think I need to add much but I do think that it sort of comes down to if the building department thinks that the deck has this as one building then that may be sort of an issue with that six foot setback from the side yard. Thank you. Are there further questions or comments from the board at this time? Mr. Chair, so this is not a large addition because it's less than 750 is, wow, okay. And not including the garage, right? Because the garage does not count towards gross floor area. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I see nothing further from the board. The moment I will open up the hearing for public questions and comments. So again, public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Members of the public wish to speak, should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab and 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. 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. Anyone wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing, the chair will allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go first. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed or we have reached, I'm going to start to get a little late, aren't we? I try to go at least on 9.45. Public comment period will be closed and we'll do our best to display what things are being requested. So with that, we'll go ahead. A few hands up. So first is Mary O'Connor. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Mary Wynne Stanley O'Connor and I represent Edwin Schmidt and Gail Gull-Casian who own the property at 79th Situat Street immediately behind the applicants property and Scott and Virginia Tower who own the property at 110 Mount Vernon Street to the right of the property. I will address the variance issue first. I respectfully suggest that a variance is required here. As the board knows, the building inspector is responsible for interpreting the bylaw. And I think the connected deck makes this a situation where a variance is required under 5.3.13B because the deck is an integral part. So you have that issue as well. I also think that a variance is required because of the FAR and the usable open space issue that creating new additional non-conformities. I also note that the lot coverage issue was not addressed in the application and that would likewise raise an issue. If a variance is required, I've submitted a letter on behalf of my clients that lays out the law. Frankly, I would suggest that the applicants would not qualify for a variance. The standards for a variance are quite strict. There is nothing different about this particular lot than other lots in the neighborhood. It has to be something unique to this lot, soil shape or topography. And I understand the issue of intergenerational living but unfortunately, personal circumstances do not, as the board knows, constitute the type of hardship that is required to give a variance. So I would say that it is not likely that the board could find a variance here. With respect to the special permit request, some of the conditions that the board has to find under 3.3.3 is that relief is essential to the desire to the public convenience of welfare. This is a non-conforming lot that is going to be virtually entirely covered by building. And you must also find that what's being proposed will not impair the character or integrity of the district. And I would suggest to you that this is too much massing, too much on this small undersized lot. Though the neighbors are sympathetic to the situation of this applicant, this is out of a character for the neighborhood. And my clients do have a presentation they'd like to show and they are opposed to the grant of both the special permit and variance here. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. O'Connor. Next on the list is Galen White. I'm gonna put the video on. Hi there, good evening everyone. My name is Galen White and this is Karim Mims and we are the direct neighbors next door. If you're looking at 106, Mount Vernon were to the left at 102, Mount Vernon. We have been here for two years now and could not be more excited about this neighborhood. We have been welcomed with open arms by everyone and in particular by Bailey and Sean and their entire family. We wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and just want to give our support and say how amazed and just impressed with all that Bailey and Sean do for the neighborhood and for the families here and how welcoming and community oriented they are and how much of a huge part Martha has played to in their family and the life of their children and everyone here on the street. So we just wanna give our support and say that we are behind you. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Megan Burns. Hi, good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Megan Burns and this is Fred Hager. We live at 169 Mount Vernon Street and we have lived on the street for 10 years. We just want to comment that we are in support of Bailey and Sean and Marty in their effort to have this proposed ADU. We think it's extraordinarily important to have some flexibility and understanding that intergenerational living is extremely important for both the families with the young children as well as for the elder members of our community who are supporting our children. And I just wanna say that in a town like Arlington that is pro family and is very supportive, we would like to see something like this in our neighborhood supporting people who are great community members. And I will just add a personal note to say that I met Marty before I met Martha, excuse me, for the record before I met Sean and Bailey as she was caring for Sean and Bailey's older child who is the same age as our child. And I would love it if I could have my parents live close by in a similar manner because there's nothing more than having the support that you need and being able to use your property in a manner that makes sense for you and your family. So thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Thank you very much. Next on our list is Mr. Steve Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. As always, my particular focus is trees and what I can tell there are two very large trees at the back of this property on the fence line shared by the neighbor, I believe, and the applicants. I don't know if any of this work and from what I can tell, the answer is probably no, but I can't tell if any of the work is gonna impinge on the root zone of those trees. So that'd be my first question to be asked, Mr. Piedmont. Ms. Elson, do you address that question? I'm not positive on what, so basically there is one large tree that's in the fence line. So essentially we would be nine and a half feet away from that. So ideally we were not planning on touching any of the trees and keeping it as is and typically they'll protect the side so that no one runs anything into them. But I would need to consult with an arborist to determine if the nine feet is enough to protect the root system. Thank you, Mr. Moore. We were not planning on harming any trees or taking anything down. Okay. Mr. Chair, that's good news. And the addition of a tree protection plan, we're not planned, but just methods would be important because that looks like a substantial tree. And if it's, you know, it's basically a foot away from the tree for every inch of PBH and it looks like a pretty big tree. So, but it strikes me that a lot of this work is necessarily gonna serve that. I don't know, just something to keep in mind. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next on the list is Scott Tower. My name is Scott Tower. My name is Scott Tower and I am the, my wife and I, Ginger and I, right side of Butters to the property at 110 Mount Vernon Street. We've been here since 1985, that's 38 years. We also love the street and the neighborhood. And we have taken care of our property for all these 38 years. And we would like to state our opposition to application petition for the 106 ADO. I believe that that addition negatively impacts us, our quality of life and our property values. The lot sizes in our neighborhood are already less than non-conforming, less than 5,000 square feet. And if we were to be able to count the garage as space, it's almost like putting a house, almost two houses in a property that already can't handle one house. I mean, it's already not, it's only doesn't account for it. So we are worried also about, you know, a lot of things, but it sets a precedence where, you know, these lots are small and stuff. We worry about, well, on the left side of Butters it's going to block sunlight because it's a two-story addition. In addition, an HVAC system was not indicated in any of the drawings. If it's outside of the house, I don't know if it is. It's not a huge point, but an HVAC system can indeed be very noisy and disruptive. And I guess our biggest concern really is the deck. The deck is very big. It's on a property that grids down. So the deck is six feet above grade. And as such, it can loom over the property in the rear and the noise and the lights and the activity that can occur there will resonate to our side. And it is also, you know, less than six feet from our property. And I know it's a deck and that sort of supposedly doesn't apply, which I learned today, but it is awfully close to our property in raised. And as such, you know, there's no way. There's no way that we can essentially sort of... Have any privacy? Yeah, yeah, have any privacy from the, if there's any activity or anybody on the deck, we can't, there's nothing we can do as a butters to block their, you know, block them or have privacy in our own property. So those are sort of the key things. Other things are the indication that there is no effect on traffic. It feels like, you know, that's a small driveway already. We all have narrow driveways, we understand that, but they're too detached for all types of purposes, detached officially, your terminology, I don't know, but those properties are not, are, from my understanding, detached. And as such, managing cars in two detached properties is not a simple thing, which means that, you know, there's gonna have to be negotiation between these two detached properties to manage moving cars, which would, to us, probably mean that there'll be more on street parking. Mount Vernon Street is not a white street. There is a fire hydrant in front of their house. That means they're going to park in front of neighboring properties. And the street is narrow enough so that if there is side-by-side parking, larger vehicles will not be able to pass. So I do believe that there is a traffic issue that can be imposed by this property. Those are sort of like the main things. Hang on, let me make sure I don't- Air pollution, air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution. Yeah. So this is a permanent structure and what happens, you know, over time when it's not in law apartment, does that mean that it becomes a rental property? I don't know how well that works, but then it becomes also more challenging to difficult to manage cars. And then what happens to the deck with, you know, if it's a rental property, are they buddies? Are they not buddies? It's really, it's a permanent structure, which in the garage, which isn't counted, it's just a really big structure in a small lot with a big deck. And if they're considering that the area under the deck is open space, I don't know how that's all gonna work, but locked by the deck. And there's a garage, there's a back door from the basement to their backyard. And that's a three quarter door, which implies to me that if there were a deck there, a normal-heighted human being couldn't stand at least at the foundation end of that deck. So that whole deck thing is bothersome to us. And as such, we oppose this tradition. Oh, yeah. And, you know, the wood neighbors and all that, it's the permanent nature of the very large structure that we find a little, find offenses and concern in the deck as well. And I guess that's it for us. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you, Mr. Tower. Next is Edwin Schmidt. Good evening. Thank you for allowing us to speak. And we wonder if we could share some slides with you. Ralston, can we do that for them? You are all set. He's all set. All set, thank you. Let me get started and then we can share some slides. My name is Gail Gulkasian and I'm here with my husband Edwin Schmidt, who goes by Ned, but on the official documents he's Edwin. We bought our house at 79 Situit Street in 1990 and have lived here for the last 33 years, which is half our lives because we are also senior citizens. We raised our children here and hope to remain here for as long as we're able to in our retirement. Our property abuts the rear of the applicant's property so that our backyards face each other. Excuse me a moment. Can you all see the slides? Can not. Hmm. At the bottom of your Zoom screen, there should be a green button that says share screen. Yeah. Select that and then some of the images that pop up, select the one you want. How about now? Fortunately, no. Okay, all right, hold on. There we go. All right. We've accomplished task one. So we are the rear abutters to the applicant's property and we submitted a written opposition, which includes a lot of detail and goes over what we believe are specific defects in the application materials. Those are mostly related to the legal points already highlighted by attorneys. So you'll be happy to hear, I'm not gonna repeat those here, but it's in our document. But our general view is that the applications would overcrowd the small land and leave zero usable open space and really be devastating to a butter's use and enjoyment of their own properties, at least for us. And set a precedent for further overcrowding this neighborhood. The applicants are not seeking, I mean, we've talked about this a bit already. They're not seeking exemptions from just one rule or one setback, but substantial relief sort of all over the place. And so we've highlighted what we believe are all the issues. I admit that my understanding was that because all these buildings and decks would be attached that the setbacks applied to all of them. And I know that that's up for debate, but basically it's as close as, five feet, eight inches the deck is to the side property line. And for us, the building, the new proposed building would be 14 feet, rather than 19 feet, which is the setback area from the rear property line. I'm sorry, it would be 9.9 feet. So about half of the required setback. So we're not talking about a small amount, we're talking about a substantial change. And I wanna note that we are not really comfortable being here to oppose something our neighbors want for themselves. And we certainly take nothing away from all the good things that Bailey and Sean and Marty, I hope I can call them Marty, that do for the neighborhood and how well like they are by the neighbors and all that. And this is absolutely nothing personal and not to detract from any of that. This is about our property and our ability to enjoy the property and the neighborhood that we've lived in for the past 33 years. So I just wanna be perfectly clear that we're basically, we feel we're advocating for ourselves, our property and the neighborhood. And property values. And property values as well, that's right. And I also, I think it's been noted and I'm gonna note again that many people in the neighborhood, including us have added to their house to gain additional living space, but have done so without violating the zoning rules and without intruding on the interests of the people that live around them. I mean, we are very, very close to each other. And this shows how the slide that we show now shows how much of the lot will be consumed with driveway house, the proposed garage ADU and the proposed deck. And I just need to react to something that was stated by one of the board members earlier is having to look at, whether the ADU is tremendously more intrusive than a garage by virtue of being on the second floor. And I just have to state in the strongest of terms that it is, a one-story garage would not raise the issues that are of such tremendous concern to us in terms of being able to use our backyard. Anyone who's, I don't know if any board members have had an opportunity to visit our neighborhood, but if they have, they realize that the neighborhood is comprised of a number of very small lots. And we're all sort of on top of each other. We can practically pass the salt shaker across to the people that live next to us. And, but it's the space between the buildings that give us a sense of openness and a little bit of privacy. The lots are all non-conforming, less than the minimum of 6,000. Most surrounding 106 Mount Vernon are less than 5,000 square foot, including 106 and including 79 Situate Street where we live. Our backyards are small, but they are incredibly precious. We enjoy them a great deal. It's really the only yard space that we have. We don't have yard space on the side. We don't have usable yard space in the front. So the backyard is it. It's where we spend all of our outdoor time in all seasons, except for the one that we're just getting out of. And we feel that enforcement of the zoning rules is particularly critical when a neighborhood is this tight. The houses are very close together, but they're lined up with open space in between them, as I think I mentioned before. So we can see past the houses behind and in front of us to the other side of the next street. And this is a consistent pattern on Mount Vernon Street and on Situate Street. And unfortunately, this proposal would place a huge tall barrier across our backyard and destroy any sense of privacy that we have in the back of our house and block a lot of light and air and our current views of the sky and trees. It would block the space between the houses where we can now see across to the other side of Mount Vernon. And I have a couple of pictures to show you what I'm talking about. So this is currently our backyard. We still had a little bit of snow on the ground at the time. And as you can see both on the left and the right of 106 Mount Vernon, which is the blue house, we can see across to the other side of the street. And this is what it would look like with the new proposed building. It would completely block our ability to have a view that sense that we are part of a larger, you know, area and that we can see that space across the street on Mount Vernon Street. And we would be sort of blocked in by that huge structure which would be very close to our fence. And our fences as tall as it's supposed to be in our only 10, six feet. But you can see that the height of that building would just completely overtake our backyard. And this is from the second story of our house looking at the backyard. And there it is with the garage ADU. So it really will have a substantial impact on the outdoors space that we currently enjoy as it looks now. This shows you how the property would look. It actually is from 106 Mount Vernon and how much of the lot will be filled up with buildings and deck if this proposal goes forward. And it, I mean, it just, while this would be a perfectly fine plan on a bigger lot this is just represents a huge mass on a very small lot. And we will be the unfortunate rear butters who will be facing this big block. We also wanted to mention the flooding issue that has been previously mentioned. And I don't really understand how that's been addressed in the plans and whether it would be effective, but we are downhill from their property. Their property slopes down from front to back. And we do already get flooding. I mean, just a week or two ago when we had those heavy rains, we had flooding in our basement and in our backyard. And it seems that that is likely to increase if additional structures or non-porous land surfaces are added. And by my calculation or actually my husband's calculation, he's the numbers guy, the proposal calls for an additional 100 square feet of driveway plus the garage AGU with a 520 square foot footprint. So we're concerned that that additional amount of non-porous area could really worsen our problems with flooding. In addition, the driveway is lengthened only by about five feet, but it also goes past the back of the existing house. There's another 100 square feet of driveway there as well. Is there a lot more to your presentation? No, I think we're pretty much at the end. So I can turn it over to whoever's next. Thank you both very much. Thank you for hearing us. Thank you. Appreciate it. Certainly. Next on the list is identified as Cornell. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, please name an address for the record. Okay, my name is Andrew Cornell. I'm on a hundred situate street, which is up the road across Spring Ave from where Gail and Ned live. And I just want to express to the board that I'm very, very concerned about this project if it goes through increasing, basically taking over open space, which as people have mentioned is really at a premium in this neighborhood or in all of Arlington. It's just not correct and it's not right and it's not why people moved into this neighborhood. And I'm especially concerned with housing prices going up. People are going to be improving their houses, adding on to it. And I think this just sets a very, very dangerous precedent for all the reasons that those opposed to this have already brought up. Anything further? No, thank you. Great, thank you very much. Next on the list is Zoe Cronin. Yes, thank you. My name is Zoe Cronin and I live at 121 Mount Vernon Street, which is diagonal across the street from Bailey and Sean Snyder and hopefully seem to be Marty. So first I just wanted to say that the Snyder's were super welcoming test when we moved in six years ago. They couldn't be better neighbors and more beloved and more considerate towards everybody on the block and welcoming and inclusive. I feel really lucky to live on the block and I think it's something where it's a block where family comes first and that's really what's striking to me about what the Snyder's proposal is, which is for them to be able to take care of their mom. And when we talk about neighborhood character to me, that's what Mount Vernon Street is all about. And I applaud the Snyder's for what they're doing for their mom and I think it's really a beautiful and nice thing. And as far as the way it looks, to me it perfectly matches my vision of the character of the neighborhood and reflects our values. I just wanted to add that Marty is here three days a week anyway. So all of the discussion about whether extra people are moving in or extra people are gonna be parking, she's already here because she helped to raise the Snyder's to children the whole time that they were in babies and in preschool. So I just wanted to strongly support their application. Thank you so much. My neighbor's come over for connection. Next on our list is Liz Bombs. Bombsy, thank you. Bombsy, you're out there. No, that's totally fine. My name is Liz Bombsy. This is my wife Kate Herd. We live at 67 Newport Street. So just sort of two streets over on the same block basically as many of you. We want to echo the strong support of all the other folks who spoke already for the Snyder's project. We are now Arlington residents largely because Bailey and Sean introduced us to the wonderful community here. We've been here about five years now and we have been the beneficiary of the community support of the Snyder's who rallied hard for us when our younger child was diagnosed with a critical illness a couple of years ago. Marty especially was here multiple days a week bringing us food, picking up our kids at school. When we need backup, she's like a second grandmother in our house. We're both only children and we feel Bailey, we really, really want to support you in this because this is intergenerational living and what we sacrifice in space and living in Arlington, we make up in leaps and bounds in community and support and everything that goes along with family. So we really strongly support this project. Yeah, thank you. Thank you both. Next on the list is Julie Gibson. Hello, my name is Julie Gibson. I live at 12 Puritan Road. So I'm sort of a neighbor a few streets over but I've been following Bailey's journey here and just a few notes while I'm listening tonight is that I definitely understand that this is a dense town and I understand everybody's concerns but my understanding of, I've also followed the ADU as my eight-year-old dad has had many struggles of his own and I've sort of followed Bailey but my understanding of the ADU is that the new statute strongly was supported by town meetings specifically for the purpose of affordable housing and I think what no one has mentioned although it is specific to Bailey is that her mom was a public servant. She worked with special needs folks for many, many years, I don't know, 30 plus years. She's exactly, in my opinion, what ADUs were made for. So as I listened to this meeting, to me it sounds a lot about semantics, right? So if they can build a garage and then build an ADU by right, the question is really about deck access between the two houses and whether or not that becomes the quote, attached or detached. I mean, I think we're talking specifically in this case but I understand that it's bigger picture about whether it's unfortunate that the neighbors didn't just approach directly because they probably would have had a conversation about this but I think specifically we're talking with the semantics of whether or not the deck constitutes open space or because of its height, because of the topography of the lot, whether or not the height qualifies as open space or not open space and I don't know that any of us have an answer for that tonight. But to me, this is exactly what ADUs are meant for. They're meant for intergenerational living. They're meant for folks who need affordable housing. They're meant for folks who are assisting, people in the community to go on to be able to give back to the community and I think that's exactly what the Sniders do. I mean, you know, daily works at the Boys and Girls Club with inner city kids. I mean, this is like the exact situation that I could imagine ADU being specifically designed for and I think, you know, I just wanna echo that the same about Marty, their mom has already been there for eight, nine years with their kids many days a week. I don't think she parks in front of the fire hydrant. I think she's already parking in the driveway. They already park their cars in the driveway. So I don't imagine that this would be any sort of hindrance on traffic or any of that. All right, thank you very much. Next on the list is Paul Tannenbaum. I'm muted. Yeah, we can hear you. I'll put your freezing up a little bit. Hi, I'm Paul Tannenbaum. I live at one again. And your connection is can you hear me now muted? Yeah, it's just that the connection is freezing up a little bit. And we want to try turning off the video. Just to see if that keeps it. One of my members straight directly across. How's that? Try it again. So can you hear me now? Yeah, I can hear you now. Yes. OK, I've lived here since 1977. So I may be one of the longest residents of Arlington on this on this call. Look, I'm in support of what Bailey and their family is trying to do. And the prior presenter actually covered a lot of my points. I've been here through a lot of construction and there's other of us on this call right now who have done construction. I mean, my addition done many years ago, you know, was an addition of a bathroom and two bedrooms and a family room and in a full basement, finished basement. And others, you know, Jimmy Fahey is on the line. He's put on additions and there's been changes in the neighborhood and the lots have gotten smaller. Every one of us has mentioned earlier, has a small lot. And any change makes some impact on what you get to see and don't see. You know, so my yard is now smaller and my neighbors have compost bins too often behind me. And so, you know, when changes happen, you make changes. So we put up shrubs to provide the greenery to go forward. And and others, you know, there's going to be change and you can make it better for yourself even when your neighbors changes. And there's been discussion about noise, whether you have a deck and you have a party or you have people in your backyard and you have a party, you can end up with the same kind of noise factors. When I when I listen to the technical issues back and forth among the board members, it appears that there is a there's a at this. Oh, we're losing you again. So just the way it's been tonight, I just did it in my head just looking at the size of the of the deck. It was easily over 25 feet, if you just look at the dimensions. And then so the question is if the deck is open space, then it looked like quick math that the 25 foot square was going to be achieved. And and then the question is whether the deck connected deck. A deck connected to the house is a connection under the law. So I think the board has a few things to do that seem to be very straightforward. It's either going to be it's OK the way it's designed or it's not OK. And then the Snyder's will have to look at what it what adjustments need to be made. But I think the neighbors, all of us except change it, it's just what goes on. And I think it's a good idea. For better family, and I think it's a good idea for the community. Thanks. And you say one more thing. This is Marcy Paul's wife. I've been on watching everything. One thing I'll say about this deck because of the design of Marty of Sean and Bailey's house, the backyard because of the slope, the basements above ground. So for this family to have connection with each other, you have to have you almost have to have that deck. So Marty go in their front door, out the back on the deck to her building without having to use any stairs. That is critical. We are now in our 70s and we're very aware of the aging process. And I think it would be a big mistake to not have that deck. I think it's a very practical, brilliant idea for people who are aging who just need extra help. That's all I'm going to say right now. I think it's a good idea. Thank you. Lindsay Whitaker. Hi, thank you. I'm Lindsay Whitaker. This is my husband, Andy. We live at 137 Mount Vernon Street and owned this house for nearly 12 years. I want to point out that I'm actually a huge proponent of ADUs and intergenerational living. My mom grew up in an intergenerational house. It's super important and she speaks fondly of it. As did Andy, his grandmother lived in the house with him. And a year ago, my parents who are not local, my dad nearly died. He had sepsis. So I was driving back and forth to New York very frequently. Bailey and her family, including Marty, bent over backwards to help us, which shows what an asset they are to the community. I also want to be clear that according to my interpretation of current ADU laws in Arlington, the ADU cannot be rented out full stop. So I want to I know that kind of came up earlier as a question. So I want to make sure that that's very clear. This is not a building that can be rented out, sold separately or any of that. And lastly, you know, as as, you know, the the speaker before me pointed out, you know, part of living in community, part of a community is accepting change. And I understand that communities and neighborhoods change, right? Communities they need to adapt to the needs of its people. And moving forward, that's including intergenerational living, that's including being part of the sandwich generation. So I just want to say that we at 137, support Bailey and Sean and their variance proposal. Thank you. And I would just add to that. And this echoes what Julie had said that this change for change of sake isn't isn't automatically good. But the town meeting has already expressed the kind of change that it would like to see, which is why these ADU guidelines exist. And why, you know, that it would it would be a very fitting example for when any kind of variance along these lines should be approved. Great. Thank you very much. Next is Dan Porcini, Dan Porcini. Last try, Ms. Porcini. There we go. OK, here we go. Yes, my name is Diane Porcini. I live at 75 Cituit Street, which is behind the house we're talking about kind of the cross kitty corner. And I have a nice backyard, have lived here almost 60 years. And I am very worried about the new construction. We already have water coming from that property in heavy rainstorms because it's up higher than my land. And the house next door has had water problems. It also the privacy issue, this anonymous addition and deck looks right over into my yard. And I just not very comfortable with that at all. I understand all the wonderful things people have said about the people wanting to do this for their mother. But I have to consider the neighborhood and the neighbors and the people around. I'm elderly also. There's a lot of violations on the building and a lot of a lot of codes that I saw were not in in form. And also another thing, I don't know if anybody's mentioned the fire hazard being so close to all of these houses. That's something else I'm concerned about. And I just am not I'm not for this addition on that house at all. Right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next is Trish Boudreaux. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Trish Boudreaux, I am located at 94 Mount Vernon Street. Just a couple of doors down from from Sean and Bailey. And I wanted to express my support for this project as many on the phone have already spoke about. I actually met Marty before I met Sean and Bailey. I was walking with my daughter at the time and Marty was with Sean and Bailey's daughter, who's the same age as mine. And she introduced herself. And since then, you know, we've come to know Sean, Bailey and Marty very well over the last eight years. And I have been at Mount Vernon for just over ten years with my husband. And we'll we'll tell you that Sean and Bailey and Marty have only enhanced the neighborhood since I have moved in. I understand the neighborhood to be has always been an incredible neighborhood and community where there is a tremendous amount of families and diversity in within the neighborhood. And the neighborhood, my understanding, has changed. And over the last, you know, prior to ten years ago, and I feel like they have only added to the the culture and the in bringing the community back together again and making it where where neighbors do help one another. Sean and Bailey will literally help help their neighbors in any way that they can, whether that be setting up a swing set in the backyard to to snowing blowing snow. Marty has been there alongside so much as she's picked my daughter up from school along with Sean and Bailey's daughter. So, you know, I think inter intergenerational is so important in this community. I think it adds to the community and want to again, support want to say that I completely support this project for Sean and Bailey and Marty and and just want to thank you once again for the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you. Thank you. The last speaker on our list is has spoken before this be for a second time. So I would just ask that you brief again. It's got our OK. Yeah. Again, this is Scott Tower. There are a couple of issues that I thought I would like to bring up. There was an issue about not needing stairs to go between the two houses, but but because of the grade of the yard. The stairs stairs are unavoidable for one for one thing. There was also somewhere in some of the proposal documentation about the water usage, implying that there was only going to be a bathroom, but there's a bathroom in a kitchen. So and washer, dryer, I assume. So that's all all not accounted for. And in addition, you know, just the deck is going to be so raised that it's difficult. There's no way we can we can essentially isolate ourselves from from the neighbors. OK, so we are the we are the most impacted the rear and and the right and left side of butters. And I believe that that this deck will be intrusive on our property. And and as the structure will be, well, it is not fitting with the neighbors. Now we like, you know, we like Sean and Bailey and all the neighbors seem to, but that's different from from from a permanent structure that we all have to live with and sets a bad precedent for the rest of the neighborhood. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Tower. I had said that Mr. Tower was going to be the last person to to speak tonight. So I know another hand has gone up subsequently. But I do need to I had intended to end public discussion about twenty three minutes ago. So I do appreciate everyone's passion on this and all those speaking on both sides. So coming back to the board. I definitely are several, several issues we need to deserve to get to the heart of. And I think part of that, too, is determining where we have the information we need, where we would be looking for additional information. So the big I think the big question in front of is the is the variance question because the the rules for variance are very strict in terms of what we are allowed to to accept as a part of a variance application. And. There's I know that Mr. Mr. Hanlon has expressed. That's like a different interpretation on the usable open space. Just go back to to him. If you that you had a conversation with Inspectoral Services specifically about that question. It's really it's just an email exchange and the issue that has been raised about what the what Mike has told me is that decks usually count decks count as usable open space and that the stairs would not interrupt the continuity so that they wouldn't they wouldn't prevent you from having a 25 foot square 25 foot square. The question that arose tonight is, well, but does that make a difference? Maybe a deck that's more than a certain level high is treated would be treated differently. I've not had a discussion with him on that other than that existence of the stairs and therefore some element of height was implicit in the question that I asked. And then I would ask. Similar question of Ms. Ellison, if she had had a conversation with Inspectoral Services about the interpretation on usable open space. I was under the impression that the deck would not count after showing them the survey and our site plan. OK, so you had the conversation with Inspectoral Services and they indicated you would you would need a variance. So it wasn't Inspectoral Services, but it was. I think it was Rick Valerelli, OK, with me about meeting the variance as well as the special permit. So I had applied for the special permit for the setbacks, not realizing that it also triggers the variance for the usable open space, the 25 by 25. But I guess it's a little frustrating that also in the zoning it says that the 20 by 20 for a new product, you know, a new project would be passable, a new house construction. So, you know, there's obviously a bunch of different information that I was a little unclear of. OK. Had you investigated, looking at. What would be required to do the to try to keep the addition within the boundaries of the setbacks? So I mean, we could, but the garage below would essentially be unusable because of how the driveway works. They would be able to maneuver a car into it, which then sort of defeats the purpose of us having Marty on the same level. So you essentially have a ground level ADU that, you know, could be within their yard. Which is, you know, definitely a possibility. I think at this point, the homeowner and I, you know, are considering if this isn't attached, which is essentially just the deck, we could build this by right. But really, that isn't desirable to them. So I think at the end of the day, it's really going to be a question of, you know, the attached or not attached really does affect their lifestyle and then really does affect, you know, the usability of it. And, you know, if they're if that's worth it to them. So curious if you had the garage and you turned it sideways and put it against the back of the house, you could come down the driveway, do a hard ride into the garage at the lower level. And then with the ADU above would be at the main level of the house. But you would be away from the side yard and the rear yard setbacks. Yeah, I think that could definitely be a possibility. I think the drawbacks would be, again, their access to the yard and the light, you know, for them to access it, because then essentially they'd have to go through their their the mom's unit to get to back yard there. But yeah, I think that there definitely are possibilities for us to tweak things. And I think that we're definitely open to making adjustments that will, you know, make the board happy as well as the neighbors. Yeah, because my sense is that the board has some questions that we would need to get resolved from the zoning enforcement officer, specifically about the attached versus detached question and the usable open space question so that we have a very definitive determination from him. Mr. Chair, Mr. Holly, I want clarification or question here. I could be possibly wrong here. I'm looking at the district regulations table. And for R0, R1 and R2 districts for an accessory building greater than 80 square feet and private garages, the height maximum is 20 feet. Right now it's 24.1 feet is what I see on the side elevation. So that could change a few things. What would you suggest or not what you suggested? I meant with the whole deck and, you know. And 20 feet be from average grade. Because possibly big, yeah, slope there. I think it's 21.4 is as I see it right now on your drawings. Is that from the average grade? Yes, yeah. But again, if that were, we would be very OK with modifying it to get the 20 feet. So that would be the accessory. Yeah, right. So that would be if it was considered not attached, we'd also have to meet the 20 foot. So a small adjustment to that height would be minor. And right, if it is not considered, that is correct. Yes, yep. And we would be open to that. Thank you, Mr. Holly. Are there questions from the board, either for the applicant or questions that we think we would want to have with the with inspection services, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DuPont. So I realize how complex this can seem in trying to knit these various provisions together to come up with a reasonable solution. I mean, normally what we're looking for is the applicant to say, this is what we are proposing and then let us sort of apply the rules that we have with regard to the proposal. And I realize that this may be a little bit different. I do think that, you know, based upon what Miss O'Connor had said, I if I'm not misquoting her and if she's here, she can correct me. But it seemed to me like there was an indication on her part that the fact of the connection from the deck to the building would in fact mean that it would have to conform to the zoning setbacks. And Mr. Chairman, if I see that she's just checked in, could I clarify that with her? Was that the position that you enunciated? Yes, because that's the position of the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Champa, that they're interrelated and connected. Their integral part under I think was five point thirteen three B. So that was one of the issues. OK, so that clearly is something that I would like to get clarification on. The other thing is that I know we are talking about the deck and whether or not that's usable open space. And I was just looking at the definition and I don't know whether or not the deck is considered the roof because I know it says that it's roof that's less than or equal to 10 feet above the level of the lowest story used for dwelling purposes. So if that's what we are trying to determine, I think that that again, you know, needs to be figured out as well with the building department what they consider to be open space because I don't think that we were stumbling around a little bit when it comes to that question. And I think we do need to have some clarification. And then we have to see because I know I've looked at Miss O'Connor's letter and, you know, she intimated that the property, the usable open space was being reduced from 2,150 square feet to zero. And whatever the numbers actually are, I do think that we need to get clarification from the building department. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just want to be a little clearer on the to me, the issue about a task or unattached and so forth. And I think of basically getting a variance as a cliff that the applicant will just fall over if that's what is required because it seems to be extremely difficult, given the strict state rules that we have on big giving variances for being able to being able to really grapple with this. So it's important to do these things and just I just want to be clear that the section that Miss O'Connor cited, what it says is an accessory building attached to the principal building shall be considered as an integral part thereof and shall be subject front side and your rear yard requirements applicable to the principal building per section five point four point two. The question I originally raised is whether, in fact, it is attached to the principal building given the definition of an attached building in the zoning bylaw. And that's a question of law. That's not a question of judgment. It's what the zoning bylaw says. And we need to kind of work that out. But it's a very important thing because it relates because without that, you have to do something about the deck. The deck is what's creating the attachment. And I think that if you get into you need a zoning variance territory, it's quicksand and it's it's there's no exit from it. So these kinds of things seem very technical. I think one of the speakers indicated that and it is very technical, but very big things that matter to lots of people, sometimes turn on what seem like very, very small things that because of the law, they they make the difference between being able to do things and not. But I don't consider the section that that is what Connor cited is answering the question. It really is what poses the question. It's it's it's what happens if you decide that if you decide that it it it is attached, it tells you what the consequences. And the question is whether there's an article argument that we should be accepting to apply what I think is the plain language of the zoning by law, even though that has not been the way in which it is generally been interpreted, according to Mr. Mr. Chomper, that their their regular practice is to treat the deck as as as connecting buildings. And that's something that that just happens. And this case poses that very clearly because of the and the and we need to, I think, look carefully at whether at at what the language of the zoning by law says and what it means for us here. And it's always difficult to do that, especially in the light of a brand new program that has changed the purposes of the zoning by law to, among other things, include things like encouraging and gender intergenerational intergeneration uses and other kinds of uses as well. The 80 user have a separate set of purposes that are no less a part of the purpose of the zoning by law as the provisions in section one. But in any event, we need to we need to go there. And I think that there there has to be a conversation both with inspectional services to see what they think and how they how they address these issues and separately Ms. Ellison has to be working with with their clients and others to see what they can do to to somehow manage to get things done, given the interpretations that are going to be given this. So there's lots of work for everybody to do here. And this is not is not as as crystalline as many of the cases that we have before us. No, I think that's very well taken. I think that I would very strongly encourage the applicant to to speak with Infectional Services and to figure out what they can do short of needing a variance. Because the as has been stated several times the first question in whether or not a variance can be granted is is there something unique about the shape, soil and topography of the site, which is unique to that it is not general to the district. And I think that the very, very difficult case to make on this site where essentially every single lot is the same shape the same size and on the same side of the hill. And so I think that the best course for the applicant is to speak with Infectional Services and really sort of find out what what they can do short of needing a variance and the same the board can do the same with Infectional Services to sort of figure out exactly what their interpretation is on these questions so that the board is better it's better prepared and then I would recommend to the applicant that that we continue this hearing until our next scheduled hearing which I'm not mistaken April, Tuesday, April 11th calendar. Yeah, it would be Tuesday. Yeah, would the applicant be amenable to that? Yes, thank you. Are there any other questions at the board? Wants to raise at this time so that we're sure that we have responses ahead of the 11th. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I don't have them all in front of me but there are several other things that have been raised. Things like the floor area ratio and and other things which are tricky because in the table, like for example on maximum floor area in our one zone for a single family detached dwelling, there is no requirement that relates to to the floor area but other permitted structures do have a 30.35. We have in the Allen Street case treated the other permitted structures as really essentially part of the whole thing and the whole we've treated a garage in that case as being part of the single family detached dwelling and that all somewhat different issues but it's not an easy thing to do to figure out whether the 0.35 would apply in this case or not and the ADU by law itself suggests that the ADU is treated as that is to say if you have an ADU it's still a single family dwelling so we think the various other things that have been raised lot coverage and so forth we ought to at least work our way through and see what inspectional services think and also consider how they relate to the decisions we've already taken in related issues. All right then so then the board would need a motion to continue this hearing until Tuesday April 11th. So moved. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. I have a second. Thank you Mr. DuPont. Just make sure the applicant is in agreement with that so we would be continuing to Tuesday April 11th at 7.30. Thank you for the opportunity. Absolutely. Sorry I asked a quick question. Will there be a summary given to us on what the topics will be that we'll cover for the next meeting so I can sort of check off what I need clarity on. I can send you the list of things that I was going to go over with in spectral services. But I would encourage you to look at you know and to sort of figure out what you could do short of needing a variance. Okay sounds good. All right then a vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Mr. Topman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on one of those six, Mount Vernon Street. So thank you all very much for your participation and everything this evening. Thank you. This brings us to the next item on our agenda. I greatly appreciate the patience that the applicants for 121 Park Avenue. I could have the applicants introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. Yeah thank you Mr. Chairman then. And the board my name is Bala and my wife Lena was the one who made the application. I also have along with me Paul Miller who's our architect and he'll be walking us through the plan as far as the addition goes. We've lived in Park Avenue for the last four years and we moved from India, Singapore and then here. We really enjoy our life in Arlington and we love the neighborhood. When we bought the house we didn't realize how much we missed the space we have in the ground floor. So the addition that we intend to do is to add additional space where we plan to have a kitchen and a casual living space. We have a large lot at the back. It's about 12,000 square feet and the addition is for about 1,000 square feet and the variance request is primarily because it's about the 750 square feet as per the guideline. So that's what we are requesting the variance for and I highly appreciate everyone. Sorry to cut you off, Paul. It's a special permit. It is a special permit, yeah. So that's the request and we appreciate everyone staying back this late to go through it. So for that I'll hand it over to Paul for to go through the details. Mr. Miller, would you like to share your screen? Yes, please. So, Rawls, if you could go ahead and elevate him. Thank you very much. You're all set. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks to the chair and to the board for allowing us to present our project. I thought I would just quickly start with a broad overview to show where the house is that we're proposing the addition to. This is 121 Park Avenue here in the center of my screen. We're between the Water Tower uphill and Massachusetts Avenue downhill and we're proposing, as Bala explained, an addition off the rear of the house which will require a special permit under the large additions section of the bylaw. And I'm going to switch over to some drawings. Can everyone see my screen still? Thank you. So a couple of contextual photos that show the existing house. It's a two and a half story colonial house with a fairly generous backyard. As Bala already stated, it's a 12,000 square foot lot and we're proposing to add a roughly 1,000 foot addition off the back of the house. Existing first floor plan and I'm going to skip right over to the proposed first floor plan. This is the area here that comes off to the page left where we'll be adding the addition. And I'll show that in elevation as well. The front of the house is the right elevation here. There's no proposed change to the front elevation. The rear elevation is on the left side of the page and you can see the smaller volume in the foreground of this image is the addition. And a side elevation looking from the south, you can see the existing house at the right and the addition coming off of it to the left. There's a portion of the addition with a flat roof and there's a portion of the addition that has a pitch roof. And this is the elevation from the north. And those are all the drawings that we intended to show. I'm happy to answer any questions that the board or members of the public have about the project. Thank you very much. So the addition is just a single story addition, correct? That's correct. And then the right side setback, I think you have it listed as 11.7, but there's some portions that stick out that are bringing it down to 10 foot 3 and I just wanted to confirm that that was correct. That's correct. Yes, I've just pulled up the plot plan. Thanks for pointing that out. There's a small bump out on the right side of the drawing here. That's the north side of the addition that comes out an additional roughly a foot and a half and comes within 10.3 feet of the property line. And that's as close as it comes to the property line. Okay. And if I remember correctly, there are no significant trees in this area. Is that correct? That's correct. There's one small tree that is close to the existing house that we will be taking down. The property does have a number of beautiful large trees and those are all being maintained. And then I noticed when I was looking at the property, are you looking to stage the construction and access the rear? So it's a good question. There's a double gate at the front of the house here, roughly where, if you can see my mouse, the 11.8 foot dimension is shown on the plot plan. That's a double swinging gate that can open up to roughly 10 feet wide. There's a contractor who's already been involved with the pre-construction phasing and pricing of the project and they will be bringing all their equipment through that double gate through the side yard. Okay. And they're not concerned about the grade change and sort of the support of the soil with that low wall that's there now? They are not. Okay. And just to be clear, which low wall are you referring to? I thought there was a low wall just off the basically on the property line, but maybe it's just a slope. I'm not aware of a low wall there. Bala, is there a low wall on there? There's no low wall. There's a low wall running along this side of the property for a portion of it, maybe kind of like that, but we're not doing any work on that side of the property. Okay. Yeah, because I know that the adjacent house on the north side is significantly lower. It is. It's a change in topography only. Okay. And all of the, there's a fairly substantial shrubs on that side of the property and those are all to remain. Questions from the board? Mr. Chair. Yes, Sarah. I just had one question from Mr. Miller. So the, when we were looking at elevation, the flat portion of roof, that's a terrace, correct? Correct, yes. That will be a terrace with a walkout from an existing bedroom. Okay. So will that have guardrails and other stuff that we won't be seeing on the elevations right now maybe that developed yet? That's a good question. I believe we, there's a low parapet wall here. That's only a couple of feet high. And our intention is to put a very minimal, it's not designed yet, but some kind of minimal metal rail that brings it up to the required 36 inches above the deck surface. It will be something similar to what I'm sketching here. Got it. Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Mr. Chair. Mr. LeBlanc. I was wondering what any sustainability features are going to be part of the addition considering where the town of Arlington is going in terms of sustainable building practices, especially having the specialized code on the town meeting coming up. So just kind of curious of where this project might be going in that direction. Good question. Thanks for that. Something that's important to me as an architect, the work that I do, I feel that one of the ways that I can make a difference is by as a baseline making sure that all of my, the buildings that I design are as energy efficient and sustainable as possible. So for instance, in this building, we've proposed continuous exterior insulation and high quality air sealing techniques that we take it upon ourselves to help the contractor through in the construction process. The insulation spec for this house is two inches of continuous neural wool board on the walls, as well as three inches of continuous foam on the roof. So we are going above and beyond the current code insulating values at the walls. We've also, there are no current plans to install solar panels on the house, but part of the reason that we have a pitch roof here is for the future or the potential of a future solar array. It's pointed due south and it's a great pitch for mounting solar panels on. So that's not something that the client is committing to day one, but it's something they're very interested in in the future as their budget allows. And I guess just a follow up on that, what about HVAC systems? Thanks, good question. Yeah, this will use a mini split to heat and cool the addition. So all electric, we haven't gone into specifying appliances yet, but I always encourage my clients to consider all electric appliances in the kitchen as well. Because of the known environmental benefits. That's all. Oh, great. Thank you. Esmas Reel, can you go back to the Google street view? Yes. I think I'm, can you see it now or do I need to stop and reshare? I could do that. It's making me, yeah, I just have to choose one window at a time. Okay. How about now? Started. There it is. So on the right hand side, there's definitely a low wall in this photo from December 2022. I see it. Yes. So I just want to make sure that construction loading on that section of ground is not going to undermine the stability of that wall, which is likely non-engineered. So what I can tell you is that we had to file a stormwater permit application as part of this project and we needed to have test pits dug in the backyard. And so the contractors already brought a small excavator back there to do that digging and there were no issues. As far as I know, and I'm not a contractor, I'm not building the project, but as far as I know, there's no plan to bring any machinery heavier than that back to do the work. So they're not going to try to bring a cement truck to the rear yard, they're just going to pipe it from the front? Yes, I don't think there's any way a cement truck could fit back there. Yeah, and if that kind of staging became a problem, then we might choose to use cement blocks instead of a port-and-place wall. Other questions from the board? Head and get ready to open the public for public comment. Public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Those who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling by phone, please dial star nine. You'll be called upon by the host to ask to give your name and address given time for your questions and comments. All questions to be addressed through the chair, please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions or comments have been addressed or we've hit 11, oh, dear goodness. And the public comment period will be closed. So with that, they have very familiar hand, Mr. Steve Moore. Yes, overly familiar at this point, I'm sure, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Pete Martin Street. I also noted that wall and noticed various street map pictures that showed it and then showed it disappearing in other pictures. I didn't quite understand that either. So that is a good task. That wall, I believe, does exist. And as a practical matter, is this addition going to be poured on a slab or is it planned to have some sort of small basement? The plan is to have a basement underneath the kitchen area and a crawl space beneath the remainder of the addition, which will serve as a dining room, living room space. Okay, Mr. Chair, that it sounds like concrete or cement drop is required. Or like you said, maybe you would offer concrete blocks instead. But I just, as a practical matter, I just understand how much of the way I have the equipment is going to access the back of the lot. I saw there was a very large tree, but it sounds like the applicant is staying away from that side of the property. So that seems to not be an issue, which is wonderful to see, because that's a very large tree. But I just, I don't know, they're pretty close to that neighbor's big bush. That's all I'm thinking. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Any other members of the public wishing to address this evening? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close public comment. Do you believe we are in receipt of a memorandum on the Department of Planning and Community Development? Like it was one I just sent last night. So this is the memo from the Planning Department. Basic address of the Special Permit Criteria. The proposal includes addition with roof terrace, successful structure, minor changes to facade, homes of vicinity, included range of styles, design components, the style of the existing structure, adjacent homes neighborhood, which include contemporary style home on the abutting property, visual details, occluded facade articulation, wood cladding, metal roof, overall proposal would not generally impact the character of the neighborhood. In the opinion of the special services. And they had requested that the zoning board appeals request in north elevation, clarifying exterior materials for the bump out that is their request. I'm going to go ahead and stop sharing again and ask Mr. Miller if he could bring up his drawings again and just go to the north elevation. So just to clarify, so you have the vertical siding. And then the blank portion towards the end of the bump out, what exactly is that? We hadn't made a determination about what that would be, but it probably will have the same siding. It will have the same siding as the rest of the addition. The siding, it may not end up being vertical because of budget constraints on the project. Is that something that this board weighs in on, the orientation of the siding? Not usually, but we could certainly include a condition that the orientation of the if the board is so inclined that the orientation of the siding is, it can be either way. I think if you're looking to substantially change it to some substantially different material, that might be a question, but it's some more material, but just the different orientation, I don't think that would be an issue. No, if it were up to me, it would be exactly what we've shown here, but there are other constraints at play, specifically the budget that may require making it horizontal siding. But I'm happy to commit now to cladding the bump out in the same siding as the rest of the addition. Okay, other comments from the board? Mr. Chair, question siding, would this be painted to match the existing, Mr. Miller? So again, I originally was hoping that it would be natural wood. That was the intention from the beginning, that I felt that that material would fit well in the neighborhood, given that there's a sort of transition from colonial style homes to modern style homes, and it would be a nice complement to the existing horizontal white clapboard to have a kind of natural weathered wood look. But I think that, again, it may not be in the budget, unfortunately, and so in that case, it will end up being a painted clapboard. But we're committed to making this an aesthetically pleasing addition, both myself and the client, and we take into consideration what it looks like relative to their house and as well, relative to the neighboring properties as well, because we see it all as a composition together. So I think that at this point, we can't commit to a paint color or a finish just because it's still relatively early. We're still sorting out the budget. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. When we eventually, if we approve this, the first condition will be that it has to be constructed in accordance with the plans. And I guess I've never really understood that that would mean that details of this kind that are shown on the plans would be binding in somebody would if they had did some sort of engineering on it that had to get an amendment. I've never seen us come by and do the amendment, but I just wanted to be clear that I mean, I guess I'm not entirely clear now that with this subject has come up just what is binding in these plans and what is not. I thought that this was not, but I think to be corrected if that's wrong, that would make a difference in how hard we look at all the details of the plans. Yeah, so in my experience, I mean, we've there have been minor changes in color have come, you know, usually we don't know the color. So it's tough to sort of know the only times we've had people come back is if they we had one house where they added a small shed dormer on the front of their garage that wasn't on the plan set. It's more things like that. But when it sort of comes more to coloration and things like that, I think we have, you know, the obviously the plans don't indicate a color right now it just indicates that it's, you know, vertical tongue and groove wood siding. So, you know, if it's not vertical tongue and groove wood siding, that becomes a bit of a question, but we could just indicate that, you know, that it remain wood siding, or, you know, if we just, you know, indicate that the applicant has indicated that they may be changing the siding and, you know, the board expresses no interest, we could certainly do something like that as well. I just, I'd hate to get into a situation where in every case we have to explicitly say what the applicant is free to do, because then every once in a while we'll we'll forget something and then they'll be back before saying you didn't exclude it. So now we have to come back again. As far as I know, it has not generally been a problem. So, no, there's nothing to be fixed really, I hope. No, and I think there's, I think the in special services, I feel it does a good job interpreting our decisions. I'm not overly concerned about there as well. So this is a request for a large addition. So in addition to the standard seven questions that company a special permit, the board does need to find that the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. It needs to find that the dimensions and setbacks considered in relation to our dimensions and setbacks are considered in relation to a budding structures and uses, and that it's conforming with the purposes of the bylaw. And so in certainly in review of the plan review of the drawings that included and the discussions and the constructability in regards to the discussion in regards to some of the sustainability questions, I have no, I personally have no issue with finding the in favor of the criteria for the large addition. The only condition I would want to add would be typically with an addition like this, if you know that in the future the applicant could add a second floor by right. I think a part of this application is that it because it's a single story, it's a different type of project than it would be if it was multi-story. And so for that reason I would just want to include a condition that a second floor could not be added without the approval of the zoning board. Sounds fair to us. Are there any other conditions that members of the board would like to see should the board vote to approve this application? The board has three standard conditions, one of which Mr. Hanlon's already alluded to. The first is the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plan specification submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. Should we know deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals? Number two, the building inspector is hereby notified, he's to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures that anytime he determines that violations are present, the building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute non-criminal complaints, if necessary the building inspector may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and number three the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant and now the additional condition the second floor may not be added without the approval of the zoning board of appeals. Are there any further questions or concerns of the board? Seeing none, I would ask for a motion. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions plus the additional condition that regarding future changes that the chair has read into the record. Second. Mr. Hanlon, I think Mr. DuPont. Any questions from the board on what we are voting for? Seeing none. Yes, sorry. Okay. Nope. Then a roll call vote for the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Goodellie. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The motion is approved. So there's approval for the special permit for 121 Park Avenue with the three plus one conditions. So the board will write up a decision and will approve the final language at its next scheduled hearing which is Tuesday, April 11th. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the board. Really appreciate the time and the help here. Absolutely. Appreciate your patience. It's never fun going on last but thank you very much for sticking it out. Absolutely. Thank you, everyone. You're welcome. All right. So members of the board, hang on. So fast to jump off the call. We need to have a quorum to actually adjourn. So that's the critical part. So as I said up front, the 31st is still the last day we can hold a public meeting online. It has been sitting on the desk of the governor since last week. So hopefully she will sign it in the next day or so and we'll be able to keep going online. But the next scheduled hearing is the Tuesday, April 11th. So there are three new cases for that. We have just added two continuances to that evening. So there are five things now on for the 11th. And then Monday, April 17th is the next meeting for 10, 21, 10, 25 Mass Ave. If there are any outstanding questions, we do want to try to resolve them at that meeting. So spend some time going through the materials and we would want to try to wrap that one up. Because on Tuesday, April 25th, the plan is to start the comprehensive permanent hearing cycle for 10 Sunnyside Ave. And I have asked Mr. Hanlon if he would sort of take the reins on coordinating that hearing cycle. So he'll be taking that on. Mr. Chairman, could you repeat that date for 10 Sunnyside? Exactly us for the next next Tuesday, the 25th of April. Thank you. Thank you all. Anything further? Hi, members of the board. Thank you for sticking around. Thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Yarlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would especially like to thank, oh, got ahead of myself. Colleen Ralston and Marissa Lau for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings. It is my understanding that the recording made by ACMI will be available on DemandedACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zba at town.irondomaginton.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning 2 adjourn. Mr. Hanlon, would you like to make a motion to adjourn? Yeah, I couldn't. I missed the last sentence. So moved. I voted the board to adjourn. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Cadelli. Aye. Zoppen. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. Chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Good night. Good night everybody. Good night. Good night everybody. Good night.