 It is 734 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12th, 2022. This is the April 12th meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. So good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. From the zoning board of appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. I'm a member of the zoning board of appeals. And I'm the chair of the zoning board of appeals. I'm the chair of the zoning board of appeals. Okay. Patrick handling. I'm here and hoping that's green chair could be turned on for me anytime soon. Oh. I got that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Kevin Mills. Here. You're Dana, Wicker, deli. Here. Good to see you. Elaine Hoffman. Yeah. Good to see you. He'll be a little late, but we'll be joining us. Okay, perfect. And then from the town, we have with us Rick Velarelli, he's our board administrator. Good evening. Good evening. And I don't know, is Vinny joining us tonight? He is. I am. Oh, there you are. Vincent Lee, good to see you as well. And then checking in for the hearings we have this evening, appearing for four or six River Street. Dennis Lasko. Here. Good to see you on behalf of 88 Glenburn Road, Brent and Navel. We are here. Good to see you. Appearing for 18 Brantwood Road, Anthony Jaffee. No, this is Keith Miller on the architect on the project. I'll be representing that project. Perfect. Thank you very much. And then for 44 Edmund Road, James Seifer. Or not. Is there anyone appearing for 44 Edmund Road? Mr. Chairman, they continued because they have an additional request that will be coming up May 10th. Okay. So they're going for five, 10, all right. So, did we continue them to May 10th at the last hearing or did we continue them to tonight? We did not. They realized that their request was much more complicated than the original request that needed more permission from the board to move forward with what they had proposed. Okay. I'm going to do a redesign. Okay. All right. And joining us now is the St. Cothole, good to see you. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures signed into law on February 15th, 2022. This act includes an extension until July 15th, 2022 of the remote meeting provision of Governor Baker's Mark 12, 2020. Executive orders to spending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access 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 app with online telephone access is listed on the agenda approach 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 phone. 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 that please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website, unless 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, excuse me, discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as Monotomy in Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges 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 we are starting this evening with an administrative item, the approval of written decision. The item relates to the operation of the board as such will be conducted with, excuse me, without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. And after introducing the item, I will invite members of the board to provide any comments, questions, or motions they may have. If members wish to engage in discussion with other members, please do so through the chair, taking care to identify yourself for the record. So this brings us on our agenda into item number two, the approval of the decision for 108 Pleasant Street. This was a special permit that was granted with conditions. The written decision was prepared by Mr. Hanlon and distributed to the board for comments. I know Mr. Mills had submitted some comments. I had submitted some comments. Are there any further comments to submit in regards to this decision? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. And the Mr. Riccardelli had comments relating to the signature lines in the front end, which also applied in the back. So those have been corrected. So noted, thank you. And were those included in the updated version that went out this afternoon? No, they were not. They're subsequent to that, okay. They were not. They just, they get the right, the members of the board in one case and get the right suffix in the other, but they're purely administrative and on substantive items. Perfect. With that, may I have a motion to approve the written decision for 108 Pleasant Street? Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the written decision in 108 Pleasant Street with the, that was distributed earlier with the amendment that I alerted the board to a few moments ago. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second on that? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So we'll do a roll call vote of the board members who were involved in that decision. Roger DuPont. Aye. Patrick Hanlon. Aye. Kevin Mills. Aye. Daniel Riccardelli. Aye. And chair votes aye. That decision is approved. Thank you all very much. We are now turning to anything else? Just wanted to make a brief note that the next meeting of the board will be in two weeks on April 26th and the intent is to review policies and procedures of the board. And I think we'll also do the election of officers at that meeting. I think I had originally discussed doing it possibly tonight but it's not on the agenda. I forgot to include it on the agenda so we'll do it in two weeks. So now turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda, some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves for themselves, make their presentation to the board. I'll then request members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal and after the board's questions have been answered I'll open the meeting to public comment. At the conclusion of public comment the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. With that we'll move to item number three which is docket number 368946 River Street. This is a continuance of a request for a special permit. And with that I will ask Mr. Brown and Mr. Lascoe to proceed. Mr. Chairman, if I could Rick Valerelli administrator. Yes, Rick. So Mr. Lascoe informed me today that the plans took a while to prepare. He is prepared to go forward with his architect and present to the board what the redesign came up with. Okay, thank you. Does anyone from the board have any concerns about proceeding with in this fashion? Seeing none, please proceed. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, is there a need to recap any of the kind of introductory information I brought to the board in the last meeting or should we just proceed where we left off? Okay, great. Then I believe Mr. Valerelli has already given why the Brown screen share permission. And he's gonna share some updated images. And if those are satisfactory to the board, we'll submit the actual plans per se subsequent to that. Hopefully that can be administratively approved. Okay. All right, hello, good evening. Chair, board members. Let me see if this screen share is working again on Wiley Brown, the architect for four to six River Street. Nice to see you guys again. Where is, okay, yes, it looks like it will allow me to share. Let me just be sure I share the right one here. Okay. Do you see that? We do. Okay. Let me get it in presentation mode. Okay, you still see it? Yep. All right. Okay. So I did, I, you know, left a few slides from the previous meeting in here just to kind of get people a reminder of where we were at. Sorry. I'm fixing my screen so I can see the board members here in the screen as well. Okay. So, you know, we're adding the half floor to the existing building. Here's the river street. In context with, with the neighbors, which are all wood frame buildings as opposed to itself, which is, which is brick, two and a half story. You know, again, just kind of revealing that the neighbors buildings. And we left off here at, at, at this. Not necessarily this slide. But this idea here with, with the, the two necessary sticking out and these kind of frames that would, would come out to the street. And we were asked to, to further kind of explain that. There was a concern of it being too imposing. So we, we took this image here that kind of shows the existing in context with the buildings and created a, a, to scale rendering for it. The first option we put in was, was a setback for the building. Which was requested by one of the board members. I don't remember who. And, and, and, you know, set the piece here with the frame setback to be flush with the, the front of the existing brick. And then we made the, the option kind of our preferred option, which is to, to bring the frames out, even to the porch. But again, it's still supposed to be light and open and airy. And it's just kind of like a pergola that creates shade and allows some, some green to grow up. But, you know, the idea is not to be very imposing, be very light. It's an open terrace. And I think the image does most of the speaking for itself. And so I, I guess that's, that's what we prepared. And we're glad to hear your comments and thoughts. Certainly. Do you. So at this point, you've done the two renderings, but you don't have as you had said before, you don't have specific drawings. Related for the, for these images. No, we don't, we don't, no specific drawings. I mean, they basically would refer to the original drawings just as much. It's just a matter of the spacing of those, those frames. And nothing has changed except for essentially, you know, We did, I think we discussed this before, like if the frames are a little denser back here and they get less dense as they come forward. But other than that, there really hasn't been, you know, the number and the spacing of the frames and that will be, we can, we'll certainly update that after we get a, get a decision on which, which way to go forward. Okay. And in terms of the spacing on the frame, so the frames that are closest to the street, what's the approximate spacing? It's about two and a half feet at the moment. So they, they range, they go from about two and a half feet. And then as you step closer to the building, they drop down to about six, eight inches. That's the gap between the essentially the, the four inch or the three and a half inch wide. Questions from the board. Mr. Chairman. Mr. So I know I had spoken up about. Sort of the massing of, of that pergola structure at the last time we met. And I think that these images are really helpful. And thank you for taking our time. Thank you. I personally, I'm not going to push you one way or the other, but I do think that it's really helpful to see the wider spacing at the, at the street. It doesn't feel as imposing as we could have imagined it. So I think that this is a big improvement from my perspective. Thank you. Other questions from the board. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yeah. Can we go back to the first option where we back the frames off? Thank you. I do say I appreciate the spacing. It does help. Any further. Questions from the board. None at the moment. I will go ahead and 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 the board. Members of public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asked that those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing. Please be patient and allow those wishes to speak for the first time to go ahead of them. Members of public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab. In the zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You will be called upon by the meeting host. Ask to give your name. And address and given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed. With that, I will open this hearing for public comment. Are there any public questions or comments regarding four, six river street. Going once. Going twice. None. I will go ahead and close public comment. At this point, I think the board has a couple of different things we can do. So. The request. Is for a special permit. And. It's, it's. It's principally coming before us because the applicant has no usable open space is the, is what's. And driving the initial. Request. And because they are increasing the gross floor area. They are required to increase the usable open space, but there. There is currently no usable open space. And so the board. The board needs to make a determination of whether the proposed. Addition at the attic level and the reconfiguration of the front, whether this is more detrimental to the. Neighborhood or not. Along with the special permit cat. Excuse me, the special permit requirements of the. As stated in the bylaws and in the. In the state law. So. I think the board, we can do one of two things at this point. If we would like to give the applicant specific direction. On. On one or the other and ask them to complete the drawings and return to the. To the board, we can do that. Or if the board is comfortable. Using a rendering as a basis for a decision, we can. We can proceed along those lines as well. So I would like to. To hear from the board, both in terms of which of the. The two options, option A, which ends the frames at the edge of the existing building. Or option B, which brings the frames forward over the. The existing porch extension. And then whether the members of the board field that. We have enough information to make a decision at this time, or whether we feel we need to get. A more firm documentation before we can reach a decision. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if Mr. Valerie could provide some advice here. The question I have is whether if we say that we're approving this subject to the usual condition that is consistent with the final plans. We would have to say, and in it. In a that are a different condition. That it would be have to be consistent with those plans. Either not saying more and giving the applicant discretion or saying. Consistent with the rendering labeled option B or option A. And my question is suppose we did say option B. I'm saying that just because that's what's on my screen. I'm not sure that's what's going on with that. I think we're going to need to get to the inspectional services. And they have that. And nothing more. Is that going to be enough for them to go on in enforcing it? Or do they need something that's more specific? Because ultimately the, the question is really whether we need to delay this for another two weeks in order to get something that's properly enforceable or whether. This would be good enough. And I'm Mr. Good morning. Great. Great question, Mr. Hamlin. So the. And special services. We'll only look at the attic space. As a story. Or a half story. So if the attic space meets the criteria of a half story. Regardless of the design. And what it looks like aesthetically. It meets the definition of a half story. So therefore it will look no further. And we'll only look for the board's decision to grant the special permit based on the lack of usable open space. Nothing more. So if we have, Mr. Chairman. If I could get a clarification, if we put a condition on this that requires the applicant to use option A or option B. You're saying that ISD would not enforce that condition. Is that a question for me, Mr. Chairman? Yes. Absolutely. So every condition on the special permit. Is enforced. In fact, it's written on the building permit card. The identification of the case. Docket number. Must meet the conditions of said case. And so forward. And one step further, the applicant knows that going in. That it was a special condition. And so it was a special permit of variance. And he has to adhere to the conditions. So Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Valerie, Mr. Valerie, they could tell us whether. If, whether if we just said the, whether it was the final plans he has. Plus option B. Whether that's enough or whether we, he needs something more specific from us. Mr. Chairman, can I answer that? Yes, please. Okay. So the applicant and his contractor to make sure. That every condition imposed on the. Special permanent or variance is met. If it's not, then they have to adjust the project so it conforms to what was given as permission initially. We cannot, for lack of a better term, baby, sit this. We can only one the applicant that he was given permission. And so we have to make sure that all those conditions were met. And so there were a bunch of conditions. That exists. And it's up to him to meet those conditions. And during inspection, those conditions will be looked at. And we will do our special services will do their best. To make sure all those conditions were met. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. So I just want to reiterate. I just want to point out that in regard to the determination of a half story. That really only relates to the space that we see that is enclosed and has nothing really to do with the pergola structure itself. Is that accurate? So the special permit that's being requested is for. Permission to construct the addition. And then the board is able to. In fact, There is no comment on that. You know, certain features because we are a lot. We are charged with. Applying the residential design guidelines. Right. The project. So if I may then going back to Mr. Velary's initial comment. Really again, the determination of half story is really what we see. That's enclosed where you see those two skylights. Everything that is not enclosed is not included in the calculation for grocery area. Okay. And I may be sort of gilding a lily here a little bit, but I just want to make sure that, you know, in relation to Mr. I have a question. If we vote for option a which steps those supporting those members back from the edge of the building. What exactly is describing that so that inspectional services can look at that and say, well, you know, it's this is option a and you can only go thus far toward the edge of the building I just want to make sure that whichever we might choose, there's enough information in what we give as a decision so that inspectional services doesn't have to babysit so they can say oh okay well you know and if we had the plans the elevations that we were talking about earlier. That would be clear, but since we're really dealing with, you know, a picture. I'm not sure and I defer to the architects on the board. I defer to you guys as far as whether or not saying option a is enough information, you know, that's all. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Certainly from the discussion it does sound like if the board was to pick option a or option B, it would certainly be prudent of the board to request that the applicant revise the drawings that are submit the formal submission to the board before the board final vote. Just to confirm just to confirm that that the drawings that are submitted that they are in keeping with the what the board is requesting just to make sure that we're on the same on the same page before we before we issue a permit. I'm certainly happy to submit modified plans. And that is our intent. I guess my only question would be is there is there a mechanism we can set up that's a more kind of like administrative check of the plans that doesn't require waiting the two weeks for the next meeting could we I don't know if there's a representative of the board that could take a take a look at the plans and confirm that they meet the requirement. I would ask Mr. Hanlon if the board was to say you know the board issues a special permit and one of the conditions is that a member of the board shall review the submitted the plans to be submitted for to confirm that they align with the option provided in rendering form at the hearing. Do you think that is something that could be included as a condition or do you think that that's possibly outside our scope. I haven't actually seen us do that before. We have done things where that people have had administrative review other than the board like for example under some circumstances the director of planning has that kind of discretion so it's not like it's totally strange but I must say that if we're dealing with just two weeks I feel really I feel somewhat uncomfortable innovating on procedure here and although I do think that well I don't know if it would make sense I do think that it would be possible to just defer deliberation on this and have some have one of the members of the board preferably one of the architects review this and may and and if the architect thought that more member thought that it was consistent with the intent of the board it could so advise us and we could deal with this administratively without having to do to go through the rigmarole of a hearing but I don't really feel very comfortable sort of delegating that final administrative review I'm not sure that it would not be I'm not sure that it would be unlawful but I am not sure that it would be entirely lawful and whether it's lawful or not I'm not sure that it's sufficiently specific to avoid questions later on so I may feel differently about this if we were talking about a longer day delay but really it's quite quite short and you know frankly if the applicant had decided to give us the plans that incorporated these two ideas today which he had a whole month to do the we we could deal with this tonight and not have had the discussion that took up the last 10 minutes Mr. Chairman I'm very sympathetic to the applicant wanting to move on but I'm really hesitant to go ahead as he's indicated and have this kind of off page review and sign off I think it's a slippery slope and a precedent we could be sorry we've started I think other people could start coming in and asking for such steps to be taken on their projects and I think it could begin a chaotic process I think we should stay with what we are it's only two weeks as Mr. Hamlin said if they had the prince we could vote now Thank you Mr. Mills Mr. Brown how long would it take to provide the board with a revised set of drawings Well the question this point is it's been a bit confusing because are you asking it to provide multiple sets of drawings or can I provide one set and you give a yay or a nay on that and that's kind of what as last week we discussed multiple variations producing multiple sets of drawings the question is kind of a packed question the board would give you direction this evening as to whether to proceed with option A or option B and then given that direction this evening how long would it take to prepare a revised set of drawings I could certainly have those in the next two weeks for sure Mr. Chairman Yes Mr. Dupont I'm not sure about giving direction for option A or option B I'd like to see them both I think it's time to vote and again I don't think it's really that big of a question but as long as we're going to get additional information I'd like to see because I assume that those plans are just a very you know small a small adjustment from one to the other from option A to B so I'd prefer to see both of those for a question so I wouldn't imagine it would take up too much time but again I'd rather see both Thank you Sorry Mr. Chairman I had one question Not to deviate from the option I know that the usable open space calculation is the reason for the special permit Would the enclosed first floor first floor enclose the front yard setback I think we lost you there for a minute Sorry give me one second Can you hear me now? My question is that the enclosed first second floor enclosure would that encroach in the front yard setback So that I believe is already enclosed and they're just okay so it was an existing non-conform So the board needs to decide how we want to proceed on this Personally I'm comfortable picking an option and asking the applicant to proceed and Mr. Dupont has asked that we receive documentation on both options to review before proceeding I'd like to hear from other board members what their sense is on that if they feel that they would be able to proceed with selecting an option this evening and moving forward or if we should ask to receive both the sets of drawings I concurred Mr. Dupont I mean you draw option B and then you take two ribs out it's all like we're working with pencils and paper and erases here it's all computers it's a very simple change in the design take minutes to present both options as far as I can determine So I agree Mr. Dupont we should have both the review and then we can vote at that time Any further comment from the board? Seeing none then I think it sounds like Mr. Dupont will proceed with B to request the applicant to provide plans and plans and elevations for both options A and option B to be submitted to the board prior to the April 26 hearing for the board to review and I think we would ask if it's possible if option A and option B can be provided to the board for the record So with that I think we would with that request I think I would ask the applicant if they would be willing to agree to a continuance until April 26 that's 7.30 If that's what we need to do can we make those plans happen? Mr. Chairman I do have a dog in this race which is that my preference is option B Is there a way I can kind of take that into account here beyond the board I guess I'm asking like my question to the board is not so much what the preference of the board is although I respect the opinion of all the members so much as is my preference approvable and if not I'm happy to go with option A the other one with all due respect I don't think there is any there certainly isn't any legal reason that you would not feel that you could not construct out that way the question is in the board's findings that the board needs to be able to find that it's not more detrimental whereas this is coming quite a bit forward that's part of the board's decision as to whether or not to approve the special permit I think the board is aware that your preference as the owner is to proceed with option B and that option A was prepared specifically at the request of the board as was the change in density of the frames in option B Mr. Chairman two points really one is that Mr. Lasko does have the point that the issue before us is not which option we prefer that's not a decision that the law gives us the question is really whether either of these things would be more detrimental to the neighborhood the answer could be that while we sort of like option B better A and B both would meet the detrimental to the neighborhood standard and it's up to Mr. Lasko which he wants to pick I don't know that we can actually commit ourselves without the plans actually to seeing that but we should realize that our discretion here is quite limited and that the choice Mr. Lasko can really say if he wants to he's shown us both of these things he's heard what we have to say he's got a strong position one way or the other and my second point is that we haven't really given him a chance to make that argument yet and tell us why he prefers one rather than the other but in the end of the day he can decide what he wants to present to us it's the standard that the law gives us to apply so I'm feeling a little uncomfortable that we're beginning to be architects for this project rather than a board that is applying a law to it and so I think I think Mr. Lasko is right we're not really in a position to tell him do A and not B and he has to make up his mind how important he thinks this issue will be to us and we won't know ourselves until we begin deliberating on it but it may very well be that what we ought to do now is spend at least a moment or two having Mr. Lasko explain to us why it is that he does have the preference he does and in particular why he thinks that if we are concerned about the imposing nature of the building as potentially being a detriment to the neighborhood why he feels that that's not the case I think that's a good point thank you Mr. Hanlon Mr. Lasko can you talk to us about your preferences in regards to the two options yeah and I'll kind of start and I'll have Mr. Brown come in with architectural theory that supports it I just like it better I think the board's suggestion to increase the spacing was a great one and I actually like this option better than our original submission but I think the continuity that this provides between the top structure and the additional and the front massing makes this it makes it less when you when you drive through New England you see a lot of architecture architect I use that term loosely that was done before zoning boards and before design guidelines and it looks like it was just like match boxes glue stick together and I really didn't want that for my home and that's why I engaged Mr. Brown services and this better achieves that brief of less disruption less disruptive lines cleaner lines that look planned that was the goal here and I'll let Mr. Brown translate that into architectural theory I don't know if I can do much better actually but it's not so much about theory as it is about this idea that was written in the town design guidelines about modernism being these interlocking masses and so it's trying to complete the perception of mass while keeping a lightness and a clear change of what's going on there and so I mean the question that I would generally ask is that really any less imposing than this kind of light pergola that basically sits there maybe it's a few feet forward but I mean the proportions are much slimmer the proportions are tighter and so it actually I find the orange building or the kind of brownish one to the left is a bit more kind of you feel it's that really high roof much more imposingly than this light one where it's clearly open it's a green space it's a connection between the street and the garden up there so you can call down and be like oh hey how you doing Bob as he walks by in the morning so it's a much more it's a semi-public private space and so that's where the ask that was given a month ago and we did this was a concern about the feeling imposing and I mean really we can go right back to what has been submitted which is this and it's not that much different and if you'd like me to like pencil in there even this evening a couple dimensions that you can vote and confirm I'll gladly put those dimensions in there and we can say okay in special services call those dimensions but I think that the change from what has actually been submitted to what we're showing is just showing it in context with the other neighbors so you can see that it's not as imposing so this is where I wonder if it's not really about the rendering it's just actually just backing it up it's very much in line with what was proposed so I think like asking to to get the specific I mean are you asking to put a drawing with every single specific dimension placed on there and then you can hold to it or is it the spirit of the idea of really providing a you know not so imposing public outdoor space that softens this desire to maintain these two interlocking volumes I think that I just want to remind the board that we are dealing here with a zero to a greater zero degree of open space which we have a long series of precedents of having very minimal review now obviously if this was we thought this was seriously detrimental we have to do what the law requires us to do and I just want to say that when it comes to voting on this I think that this is much that there was substance to the argument made last time that it was too imposing that both of these options have addressed that and I personally would be not be able to find either one of the more detrimental to the neighborhood Mr. Chairman. I just want to echo what Mr. Hamlin just mentioned I mean I think I was the one who spoke up most about just the concern about it being potentially too imposing at the street I think I think the architect and the applicant have done a great job addressing that concern and if we were to vote tonight I think both would be acceptable. So if the board was so I think that for me the issue is just to make sure that the board has an accurate record that they can refer back to and that having you know the question of is the rendering sufficient for for that record does it provide enough information for us going forward if somebody's you know feels that it was not built to the plans do we have enough information here to say oh you know yes it was yes no it wasn't and so I agree with the discussion that you know it really is incumbent on the the owner to provide the drawings for the option that that he prefers and that is what he would like to see for his property and then it is the the board needs to make its final decision and that the board's decision is really based on the nature of the request which is for the additional gross floor area and then the determination is just is what is being provided by the applicant that doesn't meet the criteria for a special permit and I I would certainly agree with my colleagues that you know both of these options appeared you know significantly better than what we had had seen prior and I think certainly either would be would be fine I do find myself somewhat surprised that I'm finding I'm preferring option B over option A when I think I was one who had actually requested option I mean Mr. Mr. Chair I'd be happy to if you wanted to write in a contingency such as the spacing between them has to have a minimum of 2.5 feet or something of that that has a level of specificity that we can we can immediately put into the drawings but based off the what the the plans that were submitted simply you know put in some dimensional requirements that we can write very clearly right now and Mr. the inspector whose name I can't recall Varely can actually enforce. Mr. Chairman Mr. Mills. Yeah a couple of comments one is we have played architect once in a while but we've asked individuals to modify their design like moving their dormers back from the front of the house you know so the streetscape wasn't so imposing or aligning the windows with the current windows to keep it more orderly looking that's one comment my second comment is has the applicant review the designs with his neighbors and what are their feelings they have a preference Mr. Chairman I was under the impression that the neighbors that this the purpose of this hearing was open to public comment of my neighbors and and beyond they are aware in general that I'm doing this and my neighbors in the in that Brown House had intended to come to the last meeting David Kern and his wife and I had intended to come to the last meeting they couldn't make it in support of this but no I have not received reviewed specific plans and you know details such as pergola pergola spacing and where they go with my neighbors and there's there's certainly no requirement to do so so I'm not sure that's the additional question. Any further questions on the board if not I think I am going I would recommend to the board that we request that the applicant revised the drawing set that was provided at the prior hearing per the preferred option here and that until April 26 hearing at which time we can we can just have a quick review and vote on the drawings that are provided to us that we're we're certain that the the record is as tight as it can be chairman so moved thank you Mr. Hanlon to have a second on that thank you Mr. Dupont and so just to confirm with the board this is a motion to continue the special permit hearing for 46 River Street until Tuesday April 26 at 7.30 p.m. with the request that the applicant revised their drawing set provided at the prior hearing per their favorite option that has been presented this evening so with that vote of roll call vote of the board Mr. Dupont hi Mr. Hanlon hi Mr. Mills hi Riccadelli hi and the chair votes I so we are continued on 46 River Street until excuse me April 26 at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Brown thank you both very much thank you all have a good evening thank you you as well that will return to our agenda for this evening the next item on our docket is item number four docket number three six nine two eighty Glenburn Road that I would introduce Mr. Nagel and explain what you would like to do hi thank you very much Mr. Chairman this is Brendan Nagel and this is my wife Hillary Richard we also have our architect Sally DeGanne on the call today thank you very much for hearing us today we are a family of five living on Glenburn Road we've lived in this home for 12 years and we love the town we love Arlington we're very happy to be raising our family here we have three children at the bracket school and we want to keep our family here in Arlington and that is necessitating a remodel we are doing a fairly typical Arlington remodel where we're just bumping out the back of the home adding a few rooms on the first floor and a bedroom on the second floor the design is consistent with the looks in the neighborhood and with other remodels that we've seen done in the neighborhood and on our street from the front of the home there's really only a minimal change in the street view just adding a small roof over the existing steps other than that there is just one change to one window in the front of the home we're not disturbing any of the trees and in fact we told all of the neighbors behind us to the left to the right across the street about what's going on and we received overwhelming support in fact there are 13 letters uploaded on the Novus website also the department of planning and community development has put a letter in that recommends the approval of our request for a special permit if you would like us to go over the plans and look I would turn that over to our architect but with that I'll see if you have any questions for us thank you good to go ahead and just share the package that you had submitted so these are images of the house from the front this is an image of the neighborhood with a budding property I believe if I'm correct it's this house here is that correct that's correct yeah I hear existing and proposed basements showing the rear first floor again so this porch is proposed to be removed this portion added to the house and then a new deck at the very rear the second floor level this portion of the first floor is covered and then this is the extension at the second floor level so from the front there's very very little difference just the entrance piece and the window above the entry there's a rear elevation there and then the greater changes on the is from the side view you can see that it's extending back towards towards the rear of the property just want to go briefly back so this is the site plan so currently the left side setback is at 4.6 feet and the extension the house is slightly turned in relation to the side lot line so it's actually moving farther away so it's at 4.7 feet at the back corner excuse me of the house and then the deck continuing along that line as well and then the opposite property line the right side line although the front of the house is not conforming addition is well within the conforming distances and there's no issues with the with the depth of the rear yard and I believe the back that the none of the even though they do have sort of a largest rear yard it does not count as usable open space I believe primarily because of the pitch of the rear yard the application this chairman smells can we go back to the dimensional screen I do believe the right side clearance actually increased if we go to the table number 13 right side yard depth goes from 9.7 to 10.2 I'm wondering how that happened as the applicant is there any change to this one single story bump out on the right hand side or is that remaining as is that is remaining as is okay I think that's just an error in the table and just want to get clear on that okay and then the other question I had had when I was reviewing the application so on this page it's the existing gross floor areas listed as 2519 increasing to 4030 and then on this page it's 1720 extending to 2637 I would just ask the architect if they could confirm which set of numbers is correct am I actually on you are welcome this table the total gross floor area is calculated I think differently from one area to the next well do you know which is calculated for the formula in the local zoning bylaw well when we fill out this form you plug in the numbers and it fills it out automatically um is that what I think I know it may transfer it from page there's some things that do transfer I believe but I think um doesn't do calculations so the question is just what is the actual would you mind repeating the question or showing us the two different so on this page here line three is the existing gross floor area which is listed as 2519 and then on line five the proposed gross floor area is listed as 4030 square feet and then when we go to this the subsequent page where we're doing the calculation of the gross floor area the existing only total 1720 and the proposed is 2637 I think the answer is probably something like what we're looking at right now is just the first and second floor and page that you showed before since those numbers are higher I believe that it would include basement space okay Mr. Rallarelli do you have any concerns about us proceeding with the not knowing the very specific GFA because I think for this application I don't think it matters that it is known that the property is being increased by greater than 750 square feet that's true Mr. Chairman so for some reason the calculations ask you to compute the area that's above five feet for GFA purposes it's confusing and it really shouldn't so I think the applicant is absolutely right in her determination in her calculations that she included because the application asked her to to include anything above five feet in the GFA when in fact the property is seven feet and above where was that reference to five feet and above it is on the application somewhere I'm sorry I don't see it here I think the bottom line to this request is simply that they are requesting an addition that exceeds 750 square feet okay there's an error in our forms I want to make sure that we address that it was unusual and I can send you more specifics tomorrow in an email that would be fantastic Mr. Chairman if I may there was a crossover between the older application and the newer application and I I'm scanning it as we speak but maybe we can follow up with this at a later date okay perfect so are there questions on the board in regards to request Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I just want to be clear the staffing excuse me the planning department's report states that there is a small extension of 0.1 feet on the left side yard setback from 4.6 to 4.7 is that the one that we decided a few moments ago is in fact not the case and that there isn't a diminution of the setback it's not the setback is getting larger and not getting smaller so the building is canted as the building goes back it can't get away from the property line so the distance is getting along the wider so the staff report is an error on that right it says that it's extending the nonconformity on the left and actually it's reducing the nonconformity that is it's definitely it is not an intensification of the existing nonconformity and as we had reviewed before the portion on the right hand side and towards the rear are both outside of setbacks so there's there are no new nonconformities it's just the existing nonconformity that's being maintained or diminished probably with all of these letters Mr. Chairman finding no detriment would have been relatively easy in this case but it's nice not to have to deal with that absolutely are there any further questions Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon Mr. Dupont I know we start sounding alike we've all been together so I guess I just wanted because I'm not sure that it matters exactly where that 2,500 square foot number came up and I would just again point to the planning department's memo and that says that it's increasing square footage from 1720 to 2637 and as you've already pointed out it's an increase of more than 750 square feet but we're comfortable are we not just using that to the 2637 I mean I feel like that seems right intuitively looking at the size of the house and I guess I'd ask the applicant or the applicant's architect whether or not that's their understanding the 1720 that is our understanding based on the one reading of the code and how we calculate it yes okay thanks any further questions from the board you know with that I will go ahead I would like to open this hearing for public comment at this time as we have said before public comment is taken as it relates to the matter of hand should be directed to the board members public wish to speak you can use the raise hand feature under the participant tab in zoom or if you're calling it by phone you can dial number nine and with that we have Mr. Moore yes thank you Mr. Chairman Steve Moore Piedmont street I have a couple of questions for the applicant about the project the first one would be there's a significant slope in the rear portion of the property is that found under is there or is that just a typical edge slope direct that to the applicant so I'm not sure exactly where you're referring to there is not there's a there's actually a play structure in the backyard it's relatively flat basically the backyard has like three tiers there's a flat section with a play structure in the very back then in the middle section there's just a nice lawn with a tree and then there's the lower section which is where the where the porch is the place where you see the topo lines closest together in the drawing that we're looking at sort of to the right of the tree this is like maybe a ten eight or ten foot garden it is on a steeper slope we've observed no ledge in the time that we've lived here does that answer your question yes Mr. Chairman yes it does I was looking at the topo lines it looked like there was quite a slope and when I heard the use of the space was not that wasn't able to be counted because of the slope I was wondering about the construction impact if there had been ledge there okay well thank you that's the first question the second one is how how is the applicant planning to access the rear of the house for construction they're very narrow setbacks here and it's a relatively significant project how's they going to do that so the driveway on the right side of the home has an existing staircase that we are planning on actually building a ramp over and then in the picture that you're looking at here you see the car on the right and then we're going to be removing that fence line all of the work is going to be done on our property okay Mr. Chairman that's helpful the reason I'm asking these sorts of questions is I see there's the large tree in back which you implied you're going to be protecting and not impacting with this construction which I applaud I'm a member of the tree committee and this is a significant tree I think it's at 46 inch diameter oak so that's a significant mature tree and I would suggest as I think saw that a tree plan I think a tree plan is going to be required I'm not completely sure the only tree warden can help you with that the only reason I bring up a tree plan is that tree is going to require some significant protections during the construction and I think he can recommend what to do I also noted there's two small trees one in front of your house nearby that have just recently been planted by the town on the public way and you're going to have to significantly protect those two because those are much more fragile being the small size that they are and I don't know if the way you're going to access the rear of the house for the construction has implications particularly for those trees but I would suggest you get with the tree warden to figure out how to protect them particularly that tree in back which is magnificent by the way thank you very much Mr. Chairman thank you Mr. Moore I'd just like to make a quick comment that I echo all of your comments Mr. Moore in the contractors have been bidding our project we give similar directions to what you're saying and we have money built into the bids to protect those trees we love that tree in the backyard we wouldn't be doing the remodel if we had to disturb the tree thank you Mr. Moore thank you are there any other members of the public wish to speak on this matter I'm just to echo as Mr. Nagle had mentioned before the board is in receipt of 13 letters of support from neighbors both abutting and nearby seeing none I'll go ahead and close public comment for this evening so So then there were requests for the board. It's a request for a special permit. Because the. A large addition in excess of 750 square feet. We reviewed the plans. There's a lot of. Very public. Very. Excuse me. Positive. Comment public comment. We have the comment from Mr. Moore as well in regards to the. The protection of the trees. Are there. Any. Further questions or comments from the board. Mr. Chairman. Mills. Can I address a question to Mr. Valorelli, please? Certainly, Mr. Mills. Mr. Valorelli, isn't it true if they're seeking. A building permit. That the tree warden is involved automatically. Mr. Valorelli. Yeah. I'm with you. Trying to get on video. Correct. Mr. Mills. So the building commissioner has now made every project. Of any scope. Necessary to be signed off by the tree one. So it's part of the permit package. No matter what you're doing. It has to be approved by the tree one and nine out of 10 times. It will come back as no enforcement necessary. It will come back as no enforcement necessary. But I stated before many times on many of these hearings. The building commissioner has that base covered. So to be. So to be clear. If someone's seeking a permit, the tree warden is going to go out and inspect the area. Absolutely. Unless the applicant can convince the tree warden that it's not necessary in any event. His signature is necessary on any project with any sizeable requirement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Valarale. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Valarale. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Yes, sir. Just one of the things that. Mr. More though is, is, is very helpful on it. It's one thing to consult the tree warden. Because you have to and because you need to have the tree warden sign off. But the tree warden also serves a different function and that is the same thing. And I think it's a good idea to do the right thing. And who may need to get that advice at a point when it can be appropriately followed. And I think that sounds to me as if it's the precisely the sort of thing that Mr. Moore is encouraging and that the applicant would, would welcome. And so I don't know that we need to put in a condition about consulting and getting a tree plan and anything like that. The law would say that, that the tree is, is helpful. So sometimes you don't know what you need to do, but to protect some of these trees until an expert tells you in the town has that resource. And when you see the possibility that it might be needed, it's very helpful to bring that to the attention of the applicant. Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I've gotten lost in where we are in the proceeding. I just want to say that because this is a special permit for a large addition. We have to make a finding under. Section six. For getting suddenly it's 5.4 for something or other six. Which is that it would be in harmony. With the other structures and uses in the neighborhood. And that in making that determination, we have to consider among other things, the proposed alteration or additions, dimensions and setbacks in relationship to a budding structures. And the uses and it's conformity to the purposes of the bylaw. So just focusing on that part of it. I just wanted to say that from what I've heard, I don't think it would be difficult for the board to make that finding. I think it would be difficult for the board to make that decision. Obviously there's a very narrow space between this. This property and, and the next door. Properties. And so that raises a possibility. Of the kind of encroachment that this bylaw was, it was intended to avoid. And by putting this in the backyard in the way that they've done. And for the reasons that it really stated in the staff report. I think that it's important to make sure that we have a, a specific impact. And I think that the correspondence we've received sort of indicates. That that is, is something that fits into the harmony of the neighborhood. But I just wanted to say that effect on the, on the record, because it's not. It's not in terms exactly the same as we need to do for every special permit. And it's important to address not just the general factors and 3.3. But it's also important to make sure that we have a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, I'm going to put together a recommended vote. I would in a motion there are late to discuss conditions with the board there are three standard conditions, which the board includes on all of its reviews the first is that the plants specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zone and board of appeals. Number two is building inspectors hereby notify that he's monitored the site and to proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time. There's a determination 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 21 D of the Massachusetts general law and institute non criminal complaints. The building inspector may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and standard condition number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. As some of the optional conditions the board has adopted in the past. As that the that we include that the applicant is to provide a revised and signed dimensional and parking information open space gross floor area sheets correcting any deficiencies discussed at the hearing to the special services department for review. That's just to make sure that the paper work is all cleared in regards to the change in the gross floor area of the house so that we're the special services is clear as to what those numbers are. And then we had discussed the possibility of putting any condition to work guards to consultation with the town engineer and the tree warden and this Mr. Valarale has noted. Since the time that we have included these in the past, the procedures now and ISD do include a direct review by those those entities so those conditions are not required. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hamlin. In my view, all the condition on the trees. I would feel more comfortable. If we continue to use belt and suspenders for a little while for a little while. As the chairman knows from another hat that he wears. There is a proposal for increase from the tree committee for increasing the protection and and some dissatisfaction they have seen and the way the current bylaw is been working. And I would just like to be able to until that is all dealt with and and if there is a need to any additional to anything in the bylaw that that it's all done. And at that point maybe we can consider getting rid of the suspenders although given my waistline it's more the belt but the either way I think that that it doesn't do any harm to put the standard condition on that in there while this is still going on. That that were reads as the border quest of the applicant work with the tree warden to address compliance with the town's tree protection and preservation bylaw. That's great. That would be one, two, three, four, five conditions, three standards, plus the one about the, the dimensional information she and the other one about the working with the tree warden. Are there any other proposed conditions from the board. Seeing none may I have the emotion please. Mr chairman. I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions and the two additional ones that have just been read into the record. Thank you Mr. Hamlin do I have a second on that. Second. So this is a vote of the board to approve a special permit for 88 Glenburn Road with a total of five conditions. I will do a roll call vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Mr. Hamlin. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Rick Adele. Hi. The chair votes I that motion is approved. The special permit is approved with as conditioned. So the board will prepare a final written decision to be voted on at a subsequent meeting. And the applicant can go ahead and speak with Mr. Valerelli about next steps. Thank you all so much. Mr. Chair board we really appreciate your time and your affirmative vote. Thank you very much. Good luck. Good luck. Brings us to the next item on our agenda, which is item number five docket 3691 18 Brentwood Road. So with that, I believe the architect Keith Miller is here representing the applicant on this application. Yes, I am. Good evening. Good evening. Chairman members of the board. My name is Keith Miller from Miller design and I'm here representing the solid family at 18 Brentwood Road and their request for a special permit for insufficient open space. They're home pursuant of section 8.1.3 B of the Arlington zoning ordinance for the R1 zoning district. The family purchased the property a year ago. It was very dated with original windows and interior finishes. The upstairs bathroom was located in the eaves with ceiling heights ranging from three feet to six and a half feet. The primary purpose of the new dormer is to create a modern code compliant bathroom with code compliant ceiling heights. The proposed design removes the existing small low ceiling tip style dormer and replaces it with the zoning compliant shed style dormer matching the existing dormer on the opposite side of the house. The design compliance came under the definition of open spaces the existing non conforming lot is small on a steep incline and lacking any space that could be used for the for the space square requirements, leaving the property with zero open space, the new 86 gross square feet of bathroom dormer space therefore requires your approval. I want to note that I saw the town's notes regarding the half story. It is not listed but the existing story has a total of 1437 square feet under the roof. And 469 square feet of that is the seven foot requirement so it is indeed more than half and the total under the roof does not include the attached garage roof, as it's a low roof and it is no connection to it from the second floor. We are asking the zoning board of appeals to grant us a special permit allowing us to build the storm or addition as proposed is our belief that the proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and not detrimental to the community. Thank you. Thank you sir. I'm going to go ahead and share the drawings here. So this is the, the site plan for the properties as you can see there is no point on this property where there's a 25 by 25 square foot area which would comply with the open space provision so it's pre existing non conforming having zero usable open space. About the house. And so this is that existing floor plan on the second on the upper floor so they currently have a small dormer on this side, which I believe is a hip dormer. The intention is to replace that with a shed dormer is the architect that said that matches one on the opposite side. So, here's the existing elevations on on the lower one you can see the shed dormer to the right. That's existing and to the left you can see the hip dormer that's to be removed. This is again a similar plan so you can see that the, there's a new dormer added on the opposite side that matches the existing right national sheets, and then the upper just read that the upper floor is that it says for 69. 86 square feet of additional space. Which is well below the area of the floor below. Are there questions from the board regards to this application. Seeing any that will go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. Questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand should be directed to the board. If you wish to speak can raise your hand by using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application or if you're dialing in by phone you may dial star nine. And with that. Number of the public Mr more. Yes, thank you Mr chairman Steve more people on street. I want to applaud Mr handles comments on earlier case is spot on in terms of the issues to do with trees. Yes, the, the bylaw is going to be in front of town meeting again this year because of changes we have found we must, must request. I am continuing to participate in these meetings even though we have made some progress like the addition of the tree. Check off on the checklist itself in the building permit issue. Even in spite of that. We are making not great progress on the pre canopy mistakes are continuing to be made relative to development, redevelopment and following of the rules and the bylaws. So, this is why I continue to participate here and we'll continue to offer advice to applicants, just as Mr handling mentioned, they may not know what they don't know. And the tree warden will help them and I am encouraging. So, thank you for your patience. Is more do you have anything particular to this application. No, I do not, Mr. Thank you Mr more. I cut my own self off. No, I do not. Thank you sir. Are there any other public questions or comments as they relate to this application going once going twice. Go ahead and close public comment on this hearing. The application before the board's fairly straightforward it's for removing an existing small door. Small hip dormer replacing with a larger shed dormer in keeping with the size scale and proportions of the of an existing shed dormer on the opposite side of the house. Any questions or comments from the board. Mr chairman. So, this is one of our typical zero goes to a greater degree of zero cases that we have a long standing history of approving and mostly that has been based on the notion that when you win the only issue that you have before you has is that it's highly unlikely that there's a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. It seems to me to be right in the core of that presumption. And I don't see how there's a, it's conceivable that there might have been but in this particular case. There is no reason I don't think to depart from our usual precedent on this and so I will be a support. Mr handman. Mr chairman. Mr. Goodellie please. I see a note on the memo from the planning department that this homeless list on the Arlington is sort of inventory of historically architecture significant structures. Is there a separate approval that is needed from them for this job. We can reference that to Mr Miller. Yeah, so if you actually if you look at the drawings there's a there's a calculation on each of the elevation sheets are the town of Arlington, and if Mr Valerelli is still on you can acknowledge this requires that if there's less than 25% of a change including swapping out old windows for new windows that you need to present it to the board and that is under the jurisdiction of the building commissioner. So my drawings ascertain whether or not that 25% threshold is met, and then send it on to historic or prove it as is. So my drawings do note the percentages of the various elevations that are changing they're well below 25%. There's a little chart there on the right hand side that shows existing spaces and areas of change. No problem. Thank you. Are there any other further questions from the board hearing and seeing none should the board vote to approve this application. I would recommend that we include our three standard conditions which were read for the prior hearing. Any other conditions that members the board would want to impose on this application seeing and hearing none. Chair would ask for a motion. Chairman. I moved that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions. Have a second second. Any further questions from the board on what the vote includes. Seeing and hearing none. I will roll call vote of the members of the board. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rickidelli. Hi. The chair votes aye. Motion to approve the special permit for 18 Brentwood Road with the three stated conditions is approved. The board will prepare a final written decision to be voted on by the board at a subsequent hearing. And the applicant can go ahead and discuss next steps with Mr. Valarelli. Thank you very much for your time this evening gentlemen I'm going to be seeing a lot more of you have three of the project with the exact same condition. Not the dormer not the dormer but the zero. I'll be back next week and then two more following up on that. This might not be the right form. I have one quick question of what do my clients asked me about the item. They were somewhat taken aback by the 25 by 25 foot square for existing houses. Yep. I wonder why new houses had to read a read a lesser requirement than a house that had already been there and I didn't really have a good answer for them for that. Mr. Hanlon can help correct me if I'm. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I wanted to add it at the request of town meeting a few years back because there were a number of projects where rather than including surface parking there were the parking was being put underneath. And so there was. You know sort of a very steep drop off from the edge of the dry edge of the sidewalk down into the basement for parking and so to try to. They couldn't pull the house. They couldn't move the house in a way that would allow them to provide the usable open space and to have parking on the site. And so the town voted to decrease that for new construction in an attempt to try to encourage more at grade parking. All right, that's a good answer. I can give that to them and leave them of their worries. But they are they are by far not alone in having zero usable open space. Yes. No, I understand. All right. Thank you again very much for your time this evening gentlemen. You're very welcome. Thank you. So this brings us to the next item on our agenda, which is item number six stock at 3688 44 Edmond Road. This was noted earlier. We're going to the applicants requested further continuance on this application to make a series of changes. Mr. Valaralee had they were in my right that they are requesting and a continuance to believe you said may 10. Mr. Chairman. Okay, so with that, I would motion that we continue a special permit hearing for 44 Edmond Road until Tuesday, May 10 at 730 p.m. Seconded. And then we'll do vote of members present. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mills. Hi. Hi. Ms. Hoffman. Hi. And Mr. Holly. Hi. Sorry. Chair votes I so we are continued on 44 Edmond Road. So then with that. So next we have a hearing schedule for meeting settled for Tuesday, April 26 at 730 p.m. and which is two weeks. We will be having a return of four and six four to six River Street as we had discussed earlier this evening. And then I had wanted to spend some time reviewing the ZBA's policies and procedures and hold an election for board officers. So I'm going to go through the ZBA's policy rules and regulations are on the ZBA website. So I encourage you all to pull those down and take a read through them in the next two weeks and see if there's anything that you you think may be confusing or could use a little bit of polish or if you have any questions on anything so we can have that conversation next time. So we have a conversation with the, with the building inspector in regards to policies and procedures for how the board interacts with inspection services so we can have some more information on that. At that meeting as well. And then the board has two officers that we elect we have a chair, which seat I currently have, and Mr. Hanlon is our vice chair. And so if anyone is interested in running for these positions. You know, we certainly bring that up at the next hearing. And then after the meeting on the 26th, we'll have a meeting on May 10. If we're not included, we will have a 44 Edmond road and Mr. Valraeli are there other hearings on the docket for the 10th at this point. Mr. Chairman, we have minor in nature I believe one large addition, maybe a usable open space but I think the board if they could plan on for hearings that night would be safe to say. Okay. Perfect. Any further business to the board. Seeing none I thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, especially wish to thank Rick Valaralee Vincent Lee, and Marcella of their assistance and preparing for and hosting our online meeting. Please note the purpose of the boards recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of proceedings it's our understanding that recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI dot TV within the coming days. If you have any comments or recommendations please send them via email to zba at town at Arlington dot ma dot us that email address was also listed on the ZBA website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Your hand. We'll have a second. We'll call vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Hi. Hello. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Hi. Hoffman. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. And the chair votes aye. The board is adjourned. Thank you all very much. Good night everybody. Good night everyone. Good night. Good night everyone. Thank you. Good night. Good night.