 Alrighty, well it is 731 PM on Tuesday, June 28th, 2022. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein and I am the Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I am calling this meeting of the Board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Handlin. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Annua Rickardelli. Here. Now, Lane Hoffman. Here. And Mr. Hawley is unable to join us this evening. On behalf of the town, we have Rick Ballarelli, our Board's administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Mr. Lee is on vacation this week. And just checking that we have folks here for our hearings. On behalf of 82 Grandview Road, a Mickelson's available. Yes, we're here. Perfect, thank you. Making a video list. For Venner Road, she told Chahuri. Yes, I'm here. Wonderful. And for 3840 Newport Street. Brandon Wilkakis. Here. Good to have you. Before we begin briefly, so unfortunately I found out rather late that Mr. Hawley was unable to join us tonight. So there were five of us present for our last hearing on Newport Street. And so because there's now only four of us, any decision on Newport Street is going to require a unanimous vote of the Board. And so I just wanted to bring that quickly to the attention of the applicant for Newport Street to see if you did want to proceed this evening or if you wanted to have us hear, sort of review the changes and then continue to the next hearing or if you wanted to just continue straight on. But just because we only have four members available to vote on this, I just wanted to bring this to your attention early so that in case you had wanted to continue to a different evening, then we wouldn't keep you around all night. Well, I mean, I want to show you what we came back with from the architect. So I guess you want me to go forward. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And with that, 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 with the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions to the open meeting law which suspended the requirements to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location for their all members of public bodies that 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 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 reported and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some of the 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 you to please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials have been provided and members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. And as chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. Tonight we have no administrative items but we do have three continued hearings. So moving to our agenda, item number two is docket 369682 Grandview Road. So I would ask just a couple of quick rules for conductings on any business. After I announced the agenda item, I'll ask the applicant to introduce themselves to make their presentations to the board and 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 for public comment. And at the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So with that, if I could have the applicant for 82 Grandview Road, go ahead and introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. Yeah, hi folks. We're Kate and Chad Mickelson at 82 Grandview Road. We're applying for a permit to build a front porch on our house along approximately like two thirds of the front. And that's, that's the application. And that's, that's the application that we're making. We do have our architect, Dan Ozick, is also on the call who can provide more details about the proposal. Thank you. Do you want to, want to, do you have drawings you'd like to share? Well, so it's all in the packet. Did you, does anyone have that available to share or should I share that right away if you like? Yeah, that's great. Okay. So I think as you can see in the quick rendering, that's on the front of this set of drawings, the idea is to just add a front porch, a covered front porch to the front of the house. The idea here is that we've tried to be respectful of the scale of the street. We're not, we're trying not to get too big. We're not wrapping anything around. We're just kind of keeping it to about, like Chad said, about two thirds of the front of the home. And it's just a single story addition. The idea being to provide a place to be outdoors, to add to the streetscape to be a place that offers covered entry to the front of the front door. And, and that, that's really the gist of it. The footprint is right now as designed, it is about eight feet deep and about just under 18 feet wide. And it, the front, the front setback does get to be less than 25 feet with this addition. I believe it is at like 21 something with this addition. So, so with that, we, we obviously needed to apply. Or for, for this special permit, but there isn't anything in what we are proposing that, that doesn't fall under in our understanding under sort of what has been in the past allowed under the special permit for this kind of front entry. Thank you. The rest of the package is mostly just construction details. It is just construction details. Yes. Right. So it's, yes, it's, it's just under 21 feet. Yeah. So this is the existing home. And then this is the location of the proposed addition and the driveway on this side is unaffected. Correct. Is there, are there any features or structures in this back area of the lot? No, it's, it's just a grass open backyard. This, that the shed is where it's indicated, but beyond that, it, it's open. Okay. The reason I was asking is that it's where the front yard was originally over 25 feet. The portion of the front yard contributed to usable open space as did the portion of the rear yard. So I just wanted to, now that the front yard will not be contributing to usable open space anymore, I just wanted to confirm that there was sufficient area in the rear to still meet that requirement. I believe there is. And then this is just the briefly the same into the lot coverage remains under 35%. The front yard setback goes from 29.2 down to 20.7, which is allowed via special permit and a determination of no greater detriment. The left side and the right side setbacks are both remaining exactly as they are. The rear yard is unchanged. The height of the structure doesn't change. I think the house essentially remains the same. Yeah, the gross floor area, my understanding is a covered front porch does not contribute to it. And since we didn't. We still have a 25 foot by 25 foot area in the back. My understanding was that we were okay. Are there questions from members of the board? None. I would like to bring the board and the public's attention. So we did receive late this afternoon. Several letters in support of the application. I can just quickly share. There's this letter here. I'm going to go to the front porch. I'm going to go to the front porch. The plan is to build a front covered porch. We received the permission for special permit to build a porch that exceeds the current maximum size limits and distance from the road for the current zoning bylaws. We feel the plans and drawings indicate this will be done in a tasteful manner and does not pose any adverse effects on traffic safety or other aspects of neighborhood. We live around the corner from our friends and neighbors. We are very excited to be here. We love only to see others have similar opportunities. I hope you'll grant the special permit. One letter. Second letter. They haven't been in a neighbor since they lived on hall floor now, prior to moving around the corner to Grandview. They are seeking a variance to add a front porch to their home. to the park or through the neighborhood. It's one of the things that brings neighborhoods together. The small front porch where my kids and I often sit to watch the world go by and enjoy immensely. Wish more neighbors would have one so we could get to know all our neighbors. Port itself fits right in with the home's design and it's similar to ones that are on many homes in the Heights, including many homes on Situat, Newport, Highland, et cetera. Overall, it'll be a great addition to the neighborhood. I look forward to sharing a lemonade with them when it is finished. Third, here I'm writing this letter in response to the petition seeking permission to all the property at 82 Grandview Road. Name is Heidi Frank and I live at 77 Grandview Road since June 2006. I've lived across the street from the Nicholson since they moved in soon after we did in 2007. Boys have been considered neighbors. We've become close friends. They've shown me the drawings for their front porch and want to add to their house. The drawings are beautiful. The porch will be a wonderful addition to their home and the neighborhood and will offer a spot for neighbors to sit and visit. And I hope you'll grant the permission to have the porch built. So those are the three letters and I apologize. Those all came in very late this afternoon. And so I just wanted to make sure that those were a part of the record. Are there just last check? Are there questions from the members of the board? Seeing none. I just want to make sure that my name is Patty McLaughlin and I live next door before both. You are 20 seconds early. Okay, great. I will now open the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asks those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing. Please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead of them. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host. You'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions should be addressed through the chair and please remember to speak clearly. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed. The board and staff will do our best to show any documents that they have any question or wishes to see. So with that, I will turn to the first grade stand which is Ms. McLaughlin. So if you just give us your name and address of the record. Patty McLaughlin and John McLaughlin are here. We live at 86 Grandview Road. We live next door to Chad and Kate. Excuse me. Did you say something? Good evening. Thank you. Sorry to butt in a minute ago, but I thought you were going to vote and I wanted to, to our opinions were heard. The letters from the people on Hawthorne Street, you know, they're very nice, but they do live on Hawthorne Street. We live directly next door to Chad and Kate. And I keep hearing from I think it's Dana, the architect that she thinks when you are talking, you're saying, I think that this is okay. I think this is okay. I'd like to know for a fact that it's all okay, that it's not just an opinion. And I feel very strongly that with the porch coming out, it's Grandview Road is now a main street for the children that go to Brackett School to and from. There's a lot of traffic that's come by here. I feel like it's going to be blocking the street view. And I also feel as if it's going to set our house back. And when you're not opened, you are more susceptible to crime and to breaking in entrants. And being senior citizens, that's a concern of ours. I also feel that the owners that previously lived there had very built many things with different permits, that the house is extremely large now compared to other houses that are in the neighborhood. I just don't know what the difference between a porch and a deck is because there is a deck in the back of the house and the porch in the front of the house. I've been told by Kate that there's going to be a light and a fan on there. So that's more than just for protection going into the house from the reins of the elements. There certainly is a smaller house, a smaller porch that can be built if you're looking for protection from the elements going in and out of the house. I don't know, John, what were you going to say? John McLaughlin. Yeah, John McLaughlin, 86th Grandview Road. I have a couple of comments. I happen to not believe the floor area ratio and the coverage ratios are accurate for that building. That building is three times close to what it originally was and they had to come through the zoning board of appeals to get those permits. There's also two rear decks on that property and a patio green area taking up a big chunk of the open area. That's not being shown on this property or any of the renderings. Also, the renderings that came through on this thing, they're given direct front views. They're not showing the side views how it impacts our house or Mr. Bryant's on the other side. Basically, there's not going to be any view going down the street. We are already, the house, I believe, already is 45 feet, give or take, and length on our side and then the decks go out another 20 feet. It's a very big house. We were not against them putting a small overhang for rain and getting into the house, but this thing was just dwarfed to an unbelievable position on it and the people that are sending letters don't live here. They live around the street. We live here. We know there's not enough parking. If they have any guests in that thing, struggle for parking now in front of a house. The word streetscape has been used by the architect. I help in the real estate industry. Streetscape usually is mentioned with both residential and commercial uses, not singularly, but combined. We don't want more traffic here. We don't want more visitors. If they're walking from the streets around to Chad's house, that's one thing, but if they're coming parking, that's a whole different other thing. There's a tree in the front of the house, which is not shown other than a fall view that gives you the illusion you can see through the tree and it's not blocking anything. If you go and look at the tree now, it's full blown. It's as high as the telephone wires. It's about 25 feet, and then they're going to come off this house. I'm going to say 10 feet, actually it's closer to 11. When you look at the gutters and the hangers, it's going to come off into that. There's just no way you'll see down the street, either us or the Brian's. The last thing is, even if it's approved, which I hope it isn't, there's going to be runoff from this roof line. There's no indication where it's going. If it's going into the driveway, our driveways, the pitch goes down. It's going to be puddling in the rear where the driveway is for both of us. That's not even being shown there. I know Charlie Bryant, if Waterman is still on, he's not crazy about the conversations I've been having with any runoff going in his direction. There's a whole bunch of other stuff here I could pick apart if given time. I did want to try to address some of the questions that have been raised. The question is to whether this can be permitted. It's 539A is the section in the zoning bylaw, which allows the addition of a porch on the front of a building by special permit. It is something that can be reviewed, but as a special permit, it's something that can be conditioned. It is the porch where it has a floor and it has a roof structure, but it's open on the sides. If the applicant was looking in the future to enclose that, that would require coming back to the zoning board of appeals. They cannot do that by right. They would have to get a separate permit for that. Those are the two. Can I ask you a question? How many decks are all out? Is there a limited deck? You haven't seen the pictures of the rear of that house. It's a nice house. I'm not here to disparage it. They've done a nice job and they keep it well, but enough is enough. This thing is just going over the top. If you have pictures of that, I intensely think the architect left them out so you wouldn't have those understandings of what's physically there, including the brick patio area that's got to be 20 by 20 in the open yard area. This building and house is much bigger than you believe it to be. Do you have any further quick questions? Otherwise, I was going to go to the next person on the list. I just have one other question about the screens. If somebody wants to put screens, is that considered an enclosed structure and they'd have to come back to the zoning board to put screens on it? I believe the term in the zoning bylaw is open to the weather. So if it was screened, that would still be considered open to the weather. But if it was, if there were storm windows or anything like that, that would not be considered open to the weather. So you can sit out there at 10, 11 o'clock at night, have the lights, have the fans. Basically, they're going to move the entertainment from the rear to the front of the house. I mean, how they use their property is not under the jurisdiction of the property. Well, that's why I'm on the zoning with you. I think the house is bigger, and I don't believe it's under the 35% coverage. Is there an author survey for this thing? I mean, ASPB will plan accompanying the application so you can verify some of this stuff. So we do have the plans. Yep, it's a certified plan. So they are signed and sealed. Okay, and they're warm and thin. They're under the 35% threshold. That is correct. And what about the building itself? I mean, it's not... It's not an ASPB plan, is it? That house is bigger than that 2,900 square feet. I know it for sure. Yeah, I mean, the bulk of the existing house is not under a purview, except as it relates to whether this is overly sized. There's not a specific number above which or below the board can act. Certainly if there are any questions about compliance with any of the numerical values, that is something that the Special Services Department would review as a part of their process. And certainly if there were issues that were not flagged during this hearing or were not brought to the attention in the drawings themselves, that those would be reviewed by Infectional Services. And it's a possibility they may need to come back to the board in the future if there is an issue. So you're going to approve it without verification. Is the architect who's on here, is she going to warrant that those square footages are accurate? Yeah, we're going to avoid this. Let me just... We don't want to keep going on this, going back and back, because they're not ready. We've been ready for three weeks. We just found out about this, by the way, three weeks ago, like 12 days in front of the meeting. We got a letter that was incorrect, a lot of typos. We had no time to really look at what was going on. So I'm looking for some warranties from the architect, because I don't believe that the information on the app is accurate. Okay. Certainly something the board can discuss how they would want to approach that. And that's certainly something that the board can condition with Inspectional Services. Or if the board feels that they're not prepared to make a decision based on the information they have on hand, the board can request a continuance to a date certain to receive additional information. But that's the discussion of the board. Another thing is we're against the application. I understand any other about it on the other side. Mr. Bryant is on the record. I mean, it's the last meeting that they were also against it. Okay. I know that there were several people who had asked the board what was happening with that case when we had indicated that we were planning to continue to this evening. And so certainly that can be... No, it wasn't about a continuance. It was specifically stated both direct the butters were not for the permit, the application. And that's on the record. You tape these, I believe. Mr. Bryant Stoato, who's one of the trustees of the House, was on the record at that meeting as well. All right, with that, I would like to move on to the next speaker, which is Holly McLaughlin. Hello, I'm Holly McLaughlin of 83 Granview Road, which is separate from 86 Granview Road. And a couple of concerns that I have with the proposal. The first one is related to potential noise impacts due to the deck. My house is diagonally across the street. And all three of my bedrooms would be facing the addition where there is additional seating, you know, fan lighting that would have potential for additional noise in the neighborhood and impacts to the internal inside of my house and any impacts to the bedroom space there. So that's one of my main concerns. The other is related to the previous additions that I don't think was mentioned, but in addition to, you know, the large addition that was put on, I believe it was in 1996, that also did require a special permit. So the precedent that's being set by allowing multiple special permits on one site, I think really needs to be considered as well. Thank you. Anything further? That's it. Thank you very much. Are there other members of the public who wish to address the board for this evening's hearing? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment for this evening's hearing. Mr. Vellerally, you may not know. Do you know any of the specifics of any of the prior special permits that were issued on this property? Not at all, Mr. Chairman, but I do have that on record. So then I will return this back to the board. So what we have before us is an application for a front porch, which would cover about two thirds the front of the house to a depth of a little over around eight feet. The applicant has submitted three letters from people in the neighborhood who are in favor. We've heard directly from a butter and across the street neighbor who are not in favor of the project. There are certainly there are questions on this that the board cannot answer in regards to what the permitting history is necessarily on this building or the validity or the exactness of the submitted floor area and lot coverage and things like that. Those are all numbers that were submitted on documents that are signed and sealed by a registered design professional. So I think the board should take that into account. I think also the board should consider whether there are if there are questions that are are things that they're comfortable with the inspection services delving into then we can put that as a condition. But if there are concerns the board has that might that they would want additional information before proceeding we can certainly request that and move forward in that fashion as well. The next meeting of the board is July 12th. Mr. Chairman. It's not too too far off. Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if Mr. Valerelli can help us. It says supposed to turned out that the at the lot coverage ratio was an error and or that the size of the building the gross square footage was in error. Those are two different things. I wonder if he could tell us in what way that would apply to our consideration of special permit for the extension into the front yard that we have before us. I can sort of see how the question of what coverage might or might not apply. I'm a little less understanding of why it is that the size of the houses is particularly wrong. Mr. Hanlon, I believe we had a and forgive me with in special services just deals with so many. I think we do look at all the possibilities that the applicant may need additional relief while they are in front of the board for the projections. We believe again it would be under review that the lot coverage is okay and the open space is okay. If we find during typical plan review that it is not, they would have to reappear before the board. The open decks that are out back do count as open space. That doesn't impact that at all. It's like they don't exist with that respect. So to answer your question, if by chance there are some inaccuracies or ISD initially missed something for the application, they would have to come back to the board. All things being equal, if the information is correct that was presented, then the board has in front of them a decision to make with respect to the projection into minimum yard, nothing more. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So if I understand you correctly, Mr. Valerelli, whether or not the board should act favorably on this application, you will be reviewing lot coverage and review and usable open space, which is related to the gross floor area. And anything, obviously if we don't approve it, it never gets to you. But if we do approve it, then you will be reviewing all of those things independently. Is that right? That's correct Mr. Hanlon. Those things that you mentioned and too many, many more to even mention. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. Other members of the board? Mr. Chair. What's up, ma'am? I have a question perhaps for the architects about the, and this is in relation to the one of the last questions that was asked about light pollution. It just, it looked like there were maybe just a few recessed can fixtures that perhaps wouldn't necessarily cause a significant light pollution issue outside the area of the porch. And I'm just wondering if that's something that can be commented on for the butters. Sure, I'm happy to speak to that. So the plans basically show two recessed cans and then one regular front door sort of fixture similar to I believe something that's already in place. From the perspective of actually there is not one in place. Forgive me. But so it would have a light fixture to the left of the door to allow for seeing where your key is going into the keyhole. And then a couple of recessed light fixtures that are basically tucked under that perimeter beam that encloses, you know, that holds up the roof of that porch. The expectation is that the light will largely stay within the porch area, frankly. And I know that there seem to be some concern about a fan. It is just a ceiling fan. There's just an outdoor really not loud ceiling fan that we are intending that we have put in the design just to move some air around on a hot night. Nothing really much more than that. Does that answer the question? Yes, thank you. Would I be able to clarify my comment related to that? Just a minute, please. Ms. Othek, I just wanted to follow up with you. Are any of those lights proposed to be on motion sensors? No, they're all switched. Okay, I'll switch. So, Ms. McLaughlin, usually, you know, with the public comment period is closed, it's closed, but you did want to clarify a point that you had previously made, so I will allow it. Okay, thank you. So, I believe that question was related to my comment on potential impacts to the bedrooms at my house. And it really is not related to the light pollution or related to noise regarding the fan. It's the fact that there's a seating area which allows people to congregate, talk, laugh, have music playing, so it's more than noise related to that, which, you know, having it on the front of the house rather than a deck on the rear of the house, which allows for distance, the building itself to maintain noise in the back, that's the concern. Not the light from the light fixtures or the noise from the fan. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that. The questions, comments from the board? Mr. Chair. Mr. Riccadelli. I'd also like to ask a question of the architect, because I think one thing that was also mentioned by the butters is that there's a concern about water, but it looks like from the drawings there'll be gutters and I assume downspouts and you guys will be managing that as part of this project. Yeah. Could you please clarify? Absolutely. The intent is to manage that actually on the front lawn of this property. There, you know, the downspout is indicated it would be coming down basically on the front of the looking at the house left hand side of the porch. So it's very much central to the property. It's not really on either side of the driveway or even the a butter on the other side. It really is kind of central to the property. And I did also want to sort of clarify that I do have photos of that show the house kind of at a skew and also facing forward. It's in my letter that shows the space that there is between the front of the house and that tree that was mentioned. So there is a little bit of space there. It's not like it's shutting that whole area down. And the idea would be for any water that would come off of that roof that it would effectively be handled in that front yard area. It's all pervious. It's all just lawn. Thank you. That's very helpful. Yeah. You can further from the board. Yeah. So the question before the board says there are requests for a special permit to construct a porch on the front of the dwelling that would encroach within the front yard setback. This is something that is allowed under our zoning bylaws under section five three nine a but it does require a determination by the zoning board of appeals that it is not more detrimental and it requires the application of the special permit requirements that the are in our town bylaws but is more specifically under state law. So should the board vote this evening on an approval for this application are there specific conditions that the board would be seeking to impose. There are three standard conditions that the board imposes on all applications which I'll just read into the this evening's record. So those three the first is that plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Standard condition number two is the building inspectors hereby notify the monitor of the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures that any time determines the violations are present the building inspector shall proceed under section three point one 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 three point one and standard condition number three is that the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant on similar projects in the past the board has included conditions regarding the addition of a porch in the front of the house doesn't change the location of the foundation wall and that the enclosure of the porch shall require the an additional special permit both of those have now been added to the zoning bylaws by the last session of town meetings so those two conditions are no longer necessary they are included in the zoning bylaw there were specific comments in relation to sort of sight lines the possibility of there being noise on the street and then there were numerous concerns about the the overall size of the house in relation to the size of the property and the way that the house faces the rear of the property so I don't know if there's there are conditions that the member of the board feels to be appropriate in regards to those questions seeing none unless there are any further questions from the board I would ask for a motion in regards to this application Mr. Hanlon I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions that chair just written Mr. Hanlon second seconded by Mr. DuPont what the board has before it is a motion to approve a special permit for 82 brand view road with the stated conditions the motion made by Mr. Hanlon seconded by Mr. DuPont are there any questions from the board in regards to what we are voting on seeing none would ask for a roll call vote of the members Mr. DuPont I for Hanlon I Mills I Riccadelli I chair votes I that motion is approved and the special permit is approved for 82 grand view road with the stated three conditions thank you all very much brings us to the next item on our agenda which is number 30 Venner Road it's docket number 3697 this was previously heard by the board at our second main meeting whose date is slipping my mind at the moment and at that time the board had requested that the applicant come back to the board with some modifications to not encroach into the side yard setback and so those drawings were submit to the board along with a revised plot plan and those are available through Novus and with that I would ask the home owner to address the board tell us what they're doing and in the meantime I will be pulling up the revised package thank you thank you Mr. Klein we had an extensive discussion about this application back in May I'm sorry my husband is traveling today and I'm here on behalf of him this is for this application is for an ADU for his mother 70 year old mother 72 so we heard what the board had to say last time and you went back and worked with our architect especially Mr. Hanlon I thank you for your suggestion we did work with him to change the six feet setback on the left hand side to 10 feet and there was another gentleman who was on the call who also mentioned about two egresses the plot not having two egresses the new addition and I think we worked in that as well into our plan I mean most of it is the same we are you know we were we are moving the kitchen a little bit from where it was before to to towards the front yard and we are maintaining 10 feet from the left hand side and it does have an egress in the backyard as was suggested on the call last month would love to hear what the board thinks about this new plan and I'm happy to take any questions thank you very much so this is the revised site plan yes and I think the other one is the the design of the actual how we have changed it from six feet to 10 feet on the left hand side and just to remind people this is the lots a little bit different in that it is a through lot so it does have two front yards is a front yard facing Venner Road which is the main front but it also backs up against Frontage Road which is the route to access road along the what would otherwise be the rear of the property so the rear is technically another front so this property has two front yards and two side yards and so the setback at the front and the required setback for the front yard is 25 feet the existing houses at 24 feet so that's a non-conformity and along the the other front yard instead of being 25 feet it's currently nine feet and that's a pre-existing condition and the two side lot lines are currently correct so there's no non-conformity in regards to the existing side yard setbacks so this is the proposed revision so this is this portion here is the addition there's a rear egress a front egress from the structure there's a small kitchen bedroom and a small bathroom that otherwise it's connected through this door to the main house and so the this is wherein typically in an R1 district you would not be allowed to have two units on the property this is being developed as an accessory dwelling unit it's 408 square feet which is well within the limits for an accessible dwelling unit this is the first floor plan this is just an enlarged plan at the back which also includes a porch and so this porch will extend into the side yard setback which under section 5.3.9 b is allowed as long as it does not exceed five feet in depth and it is nowhere near that depth so that's not an issue is the existing left side elevation this is the proposed left side elevation so as we had seen before the intent is to construct a deck over the single story addition for the accessory dwelling unit section through this is a second floor plan of both the proposed deck and the existing home that would have structural detailing for the deck give me the existing front elevation and the proposed front elevation showing the addition with the deck on top it's the set so with that are there questions from the board not see any questions from the board I just had to make a comment that I appreciate the petitioner altering the designs to bring it into conformance with our suggestions Mr. Handler made some great suggestions and I think it's a handsome addition I think it's a very efficient use of the property and that's all I have to add thank you thank you Mr. Mills anything else from the board seeing none with that I will open this hearing for public comment as noted before public comment should relate to the matter of hand be directed to the board for the purposes of our decision you would like to speak please you may digitally raise your hand using the available button on the zoom participants tab or down in and start down if you're for calling in this point I do not see anyone with a hand raised we did receive some we did I can't recall who received public comment in the first hearing or not but seeing no public comment for this hearing I will close the public comment for this hearing so what the board has in front of it it's a request for a special permit so this is required primarily because of the condition at the rear of the lot so the existing setback is nine feet at the pool at the between the building and the the second front lot line the addition is proposed to be only six feet back this is something that the board can approve under section eight one three B of our zoning bylaws with a determination that the chain that they proposed a extension of the existing non-conformity is not more detrimental than the existing condition as I mentioned before the extension of the porch of the new proposed deck that would extend into the right side setback that can be allowed by right under section five three nine B as long as it's under five feet and it's currently I believe that number is three foot one so that's not an issue the front yard setback the front yard there's no change and the left side setback of 10 feet required setback of 10 feet is being is being followed we have the three standard conditions that the board typically imposes which I would if the board was to vote to approve this I would request that the board include that in the deliberations I would also ask the applicant to provide a revised dimensional and parking information and open space gross floor area sheets correcting the changes due to the the different size and layout of the proposal that's just a part of the it was part of the original application it didn't come through with the revision but that's information that the inspector services will need when they do their final review of the project so I would ask that we include that as well are there any other conditions that the board would like to recommend for this project I am seeing none with that unless there are any further questions I would ask for a motion chairman Mr. Hanlon I move that the application be approved with the three standard conditions the additional condition relating to record keeping that the chairman has read into the record thank you Mr. Hanlon may I have a second second thank Mr. Duquant the motion before the board is a motion to approve the special permit for 30th and a road with these standard three conditions the one additional condition I did want to confirm just quickly with Mr. Valarelli that I believe that the accessory dwelling unit is allowed by right and the board does not specifically need to vote on that is that correct that is correct Mr. Chairman perfect thank you I believe this is the first vote on an accessory dwelling unit so I want to make sure I get that correct so with that I will pick a vote of the board Mr. Duquant I Mr. Hanlon I Mr. Mills I Mr. Riccadelli I and the chair votes I that approved motion so the special permit for 30th and a road is approved with these stated four conditions congratulations and thank you very much thank you very much good luck this brings us to the next item on our Shanda this is docket number 3 700 38 40 Newport street this is now and who had appeared before the board at the prior hearing and and had the board had requested some adjustments some were in regards to some setback issues and some roof slope issues and there were some other discussion in regards to the proposal the applicant has submitted some revised materials which are available on the on the town's website I know they did get posted late I apologize I did not realize when I had sent them to Mr. Lee that he was on vacation but those have been posted to the the board's website or excuse me to Nova's agenda specifically for this hearing so with that and then I would just reiterate for the the applicant and for the board at the previous hearing there were five members present who heard the first part of this hearing one of those members Mr. Holly is was unavailable this evening we did not know in time to ask one of our other board members to become acquainted with the project and so at this stage there are only four members who can vote and under state law it must be unanimous vote of the four members present so with that said Mr. Chairman I believe that's me who is excused from this particular matter it is yourself and Ms. Hoffman on the chance that we don't that we do continue beyond this evening and it would become appropriate for one of the other of you to take advantage of the mulling rule and become acquainted with the with the project I would would ask if you wouldn't mind staying on the hearing even though otherwise not so thank you I appreciate that from both of you with that I will turn to the applicant and I will go ahead and display the revised documents good evening members of the board so we were heard a couple weeks ago and there was some recommendations made by the board and I went back to the architect and had them redesign the roof structure of the addition this is an addition on a hip style roof which has some limitations but so we we dropped the slope to two over 12 which we brought that exterior wall before it was it was very boxy and I even you know the board mentioned that it was boxy now the the roof has a nice slope to it we brought that exterior wall on the gray street side down to seven six which is the smallest we could do with the five foot fire window and the two foot fall protection for a child so they don't fall out and then we took the the other side of the blueprint still showed a four inch overhang on the other side of the home which was a butting to the neighbor which was was incorrect and that was removed and there were some other clerical issues issues that were corrected so this is kind of what we came back with with the board's recommendations I'm just putting it before the board to see if there's any other comments and and such okay thank you so this is the the attic floor plan as the the applicant noted on the left hand side here the exterior wall of the proposed attic floor aligns with the outside wall of the building and on the other side as was proposed earlier it would overhang beyond the floor below correct this is the roof plan so just one question on the roof plan here it's shown that the the ridge line is in alignment with the with the center of the roof correct but in the elevation it's not because otherwise the so I'm just trying to figure out which is correct it will be in line with the roof I mean what's our in line with the point I believe that's excuse me and then this is the view from Gray Street the right side view this is the view the rear view you can see the overhang a little more clearly here it doesn't really you can't really see but the there's a lower one foot overhang from the dining room on the first floor as well so kind of it matches to that with the eye you really can't see from the street because the bushes are very high but when you're inside the yard you can it kind of it plays nice with the eye they also add a cloudboard instead of the shingles because it looked you know really you know just one kind of blob and they were trying to break up the look of it and I think that works pretty I like the look of the cloudboard better than the shingles and then the pitch roof it all kind of plays together I I think it's an improvement I hope the board agrees thank you so again here's the other side this was the the downhill side again so this is now this surface this wall surface is aligned with this surface up above correct this is the small bump out over the stair does it extend beyond the bridge or is that just I think it's just a computer I don't it probably couldn't for I think water and stuff right and then this is the section showing the beam so essentially the proposed ridge beam would be above the height of the existence would be basically the bottom would be at the height of the existing gable excuse me not cable the existing ridge and then the walls be coming down um are there questions from the board excuse me Mr Chairman if you go back up two views I think the rear view the ridgelines lined up yeah it doesn't it seem so there it does curious the um I just looked at the um with the framing plan on the last page and it's it looks like it's centered with the you know the old one yeah Mr Chairman can we take a look at the front view I'd like to take a look at the slopes of the roofs and see if they're parallel or not these the small you know you get the left side slope roof then the one under it are they similar pitches are slightly different so the the notation indicates they are both two and twelve okay there would be parallel just easier on the eye if they're parallel no absolutely it does look like a significant improvement in the design thank you are there questions from the board wanted to question here Mr Chairman yes sir didn't one part of your another have a comment on the size of a windows can we take a look at them again didn't seem to be a problem to me I'm just wondering why somebody would have an issue with it so there's a there was a a question raised by um the planning committee believe the planning uh just in regards to sort of the that the windows are very different from the windows on the floor below I'm I personally am concerned that the windows are oversized that there are they're larger than are required by code and I would you know I would like to see if there was a way to bring this little bit lower but I believe that that was the question that was raised by the by the planning department was this was related most they had two questions one was already been addressed which was the amount of space between the top of the window and the underside of the eve and that has been reduced uh by by the roof pitch and then the other question was sort of the way that those windows relate to the windows on the floor below and I think it's it becomes more of an issue if the eve line is removed between between the you know if the if the eve breaks so that the wall is continuous then it's it's a little bit more obvious but if the break of the eve line remains then it becomes a little bit easier that sort of separates it a little bit better I'm okay I had wanted to so I do have some concerns still about how this building relates to the recommendations from the residential design guidelines and so the design guidelines are were approved by the town and they sort of helped to uh direct how to consider doing residential development in Narlington and trying to sort of keep in line with the the way that the things are currently developed but also to allow flexibility for homeowners to make modifications to their homes for developers to add new infill properties and so principle c1 specifically deals with dormers and other roof elements and there are some very specific things that it is looking to encourage and to discourage so on the discouraging side I think that this this that this application does that they're the windows are not undersized the dormer is not significantly larger it's not more than half the width of the roof but in terms of the things that the excuse me the guidelines are trying to encourage I'm a little bit concerned because the dorm the the recommendation is that the dormer should be a detail on the roof rather than the dominant feature I'm a little concerned that basically having a dormer that's so tall and so high above the ridge line is is really creating something that that doesn't necessarily fall within what the guideline is recommending and the that dormers are there's also recommendation that gable dormers should be set back from the edge of the roof and on one side it's it is set back from the edge of the roof but on the other side it actually is not it's overhanging and so I'm concerned about the appearance of that overhang and again sort of the continuation of the of the Eve line and then lining up with elements in the wall below so I know that the applicant has said that the reason that they're overhanging the addition on the attic floor is to sort of align with the the bump out on the first floor but that bump out doesn't it continue onto the second floor and it's not the same size and shape as the bump out on the lower floor and I had wanted to to ask the applicant if they had looked at keeping the width of the addition the same width of the house and whether there was a specific reason that they needed that additional space in order for the the work on the attic floor to be functional or if it was just a desire to have a little more space on that upper level it's pretty much square footage if you look at the the plans the bedroom on the left where because initially we thought we could go out further on that left side and now that's to the building edge if you look at the I don't know what you call it like a bird's eye view for the plans it's a one dot three that bedroom is tiny you know and it's I mean it's basically I don't think any adult is going to want to live in there but it's you know a kid's bedroom and that's what the whole purpose is but so we're trying to get some square footage it's from what the architect was telling me is it's with these hip roofs it's really hard to get any square footage in there because all the angles and the only way to do it is to take the whole roof off and do one whole side of the house but then that gets extremely expensive so that's that's why we did the overhang and at first I was having a hard about it but with that one foot overhang from the dining room downstairs when I sat there and looked I actually went back over to the house after we had that meeting and and looked at that visualize that overhang and everything and it's not symmetrical it doesn't line up but it does have that same feature so it does play with the eye and I mean that's I mean it's just the overhang is definitely to get some square footage out of it I mean we're trying to get a bathroom in there as well as a you know a bedroom that's livable I mean as you can see the one on the left is it's really tight hip roof also contributes to how it doesn't totally conform to the recommended guidelines because if you look at your pictures of the recommended guidelines they are more conventional straight roofs not a hip roof is this so they really don't have the option to conform to those guidelines without removing the entire roof which is prohibitive also wanted to just so we had this there was a brief discussion last time about sort of two different things one was about trying to lower the roof so that's what sort of these red lines here represent was you know is there a way to bring the roof line down to a line with the existing with the existing height of the gable and as the applicant has said they're having a trouble fitting the windows 24 inches below the window and fitting the excuse me and then getting the two versus the two and 12 slope so another idea that I that I believe we had mentioned last time is sort of this idea here in blue which excuse me so stay is the possibility here of doing put the side addition rather than being a shed coming off the main is doing it as a gable roof coming you know facing the side and I wasn't sure if that was something that the applicant had considered as a way to try and you know gain that the height they're looking for but still try to maintain the existing line of the ridge yeah I just so I guess you're saying that blue thing would be straight across to the side of the house right right they'd have to it goes down to the right you'd have a ridge that's perpendicular to the bridge you have now with with the to the gable facing the sides rather than the front and back yeah I mean just as a look of I mean to the eye it's kind of going against you know the roof is kind of left to right if you're facing the house and now you're kind of going to have these I don't know how it's going to look you know so you'd have that same side gable on both left and right you'd have I think yeah yeah you have to you'd have to cut the but then you couldn't then the hips come up over that right so how would you have to the hip through so you'd have the hip coming up you'd have the main ridge line still and then this would tie in with that ridge line up I'm the the the thing that I'm having trouble with is this sitting up way high over the top of the existing ridge it's just to me it's a very I mean that that has to do with the 2 to 12 we dropped that exterior wall down as far as we could but we had to raise up that center beam like an inch and a half I think to get that 2 to 12 I don't know if that's something something you guys can a vote on not to have the two and 12 or is that something that's set in stone or so the two and 12 would require a variance yes we can't do that unfortunately we can't do that but let me so go back to the board are there see if they're if the what the board sort of feels in regards to the the ridge height Mr. Chairman Mills I do see your concern about the ridge height being higher than the existing but it is set back significantly far and from a streetscape view I don't think you're really going to see it I don't think it's going to be that imposing if you will I mean if it was coming all the way out to the front peak and look kind of silly I guess but I think you know it's set back how many feet from the front um if I safe to say if this is 16th if it's the addition on the right hand side is 16 feet front to back so it's probably that same dimension going to the front of the house so I think from the streetscape it's really not going to be that noticeable I don't know if the side view how it's going to look but I was just sitting on the porch across the street I don't think you're going to notice that additional height if you will just my two cents yeah Mr. Chairman Mr. Goodellie I think I agree with your concern but I'm also very sympathetic to the applicant that they are you know trying to make the most out of the space um I think I think your initial point about the bump out of the dormer there's slightly more concerning to me than the height of the top just because I think it may feel slightly imposing from the street even though I know that there's some screening with bushes and other things at the street end Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon is it within our authority to I mean assuming that in order to mitigate the impact of some of the mass here that screening is value could we could it be a condition of the application that some suitable screening is maintained I mean the screening of the the bushes in front of the house right now well there's sort of more than bushes but the they essentially make the house from at least the sidewalk practically invisible unless you walk around towards the back and I was just thinking that if the problem is what happens when those trees go because they may eventually there's nothing that's kind of required them to stay there then we shouldn't be relying on the impact that of the effect that they have on the overall approach but if a condition could be that screen suitable screening is maintained and that we're properly you know done in order to specify what it is I think that the screening that's currently there is not a popular tree at this point but that might enable us to just sort of assume well there will be the screening and that will be what what addresses Mr. McDowell's I personally love the bushes the private bushes I mean I don't they've got to be 14 feet tall and they're not going anywhere I just had my guy clean the yard and everything and trim them but they're not going anywhere no they've been there at least 25 they have to be I love them it provides a lot of peace in the yard you can sit in the back yard and some you know the cars don't even bother and gray streets are pretty busy street but you don't get me with the bushes it's it's pretty peaceful so good okay further from the board we do have otherwise I was going to open for public comment okay so again the board takes public comment as it relates to the matter of hands and this intended to assist the board with reaching decision and so with that we only have one person in the public with us this evening so Mr. Moore yes thank you Mr. Chairman Steve Moore people on street I've been having a lot of trouble with my camera tonight so the colors and stuff have been all quite weird I apologize for that the only comment I have to make is I appreciated your you Mr. Chairman the suggestions you were making on the roof line and the dormer I had been one of the ones that had concerns about the window sizes as well and I will just repeat the comment I made last time which was the bushes are wonderful and it's great to hear that Mr. Localis is wanting to maintain them forever but they are incominent and they are Mr. Localis may not be the owner beyond 10 years and the large building is still be there if some other sizes you take them there my big concern is that this is a corner lot and this is a very bulky building now with that sort of roof line and addition and I don't know quite how to cure that exactly but it's I just personally have found it not fitting it would be helpful if a projection of what the amended building would look like within the context of the neighborhood could help whether or not this really works or doesn't thank you thank you Mr. Moore any other public comment Ms. Ozyk? All right I'm just lurking I can't help it I'm sorry but I did want to make I have to ask a name and address sorry Dana Ozyk 28 8 Park Street not a neighbor at all but I have a comment about the windows I think that you could look into the idea of casement windows they give you egress and a smaller size so it might be enough to address some of these questions about roof height having still that two foot under sill and all that I just want it as an option it's an idea if that's what's pushing the roof up it just might be something to think about and I'm going to excuse myself now thank you thank you any other public comment seeing none I'll go ahead and close public comment for this evening so the matter the board has before this is an application for a special permit the reason that this is coming before the board has to do with not with any if anything we've been necessarily discussing but it has to do with the fact that the I believe the property has zero usable open space and because this is an increase in the gross floor area there is a required increase in the amount of usable open space that is required that cannot be provided on the property so this is an existing non-conformity which is going to be intensified by the addition of the space on the attic floor and therefore it needs a determination by the zoning board of appeals that it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and the board also would apply the criteria for a special permit in making that determination I had not brought it up before but I did want to share the report from planning board excuse me that's planning board the Department of Planning and Community Development so they had looked at the property so they had in their review of that criteria obviously the request of use is appropriate additional space lease of public convenience welfare it will not change the traffic congestion or public safety it will not be a burden on the municipal system in terms of special regulations the special regulation specifically that would come up here is the 819 excuse me 813 B which is the extension of existing of a preexisting nonconformity then criteria six is really this question of the character of the district I don't think there's any question in regards to the health morals or welfare but the question is really sort of how the proposed addition fits in with the integrity and character of the district so the what the what was said by the planning department the homes and the immediate vicinity of the property or two family structures large dormers and a variety of styles are common feature of the neighborhood especially along Newport and Highland the addition includes two large dormers and a small dormer for the stairwell along with other interior renovations to increase the living area in the lower unit proposed change in building height and roof lines will increase the structures massing and scale the applicant is encouraged to explore other designs that would make the dormer a less dominant feature of the roof and better match the existing roof type and pitch as well as the style of the existing house the applicant may also consider the potential for minor adjustments to the location and size of the dormer windows to better align and order them with the window pattern on the lower levels and then the criteria seven that detrimental use doesn't apply so there was that's about the the hedge so this is looking from down lower down on Newport Street this is the so the end of the hedge but this gives you a good sense as to the the size of the hedge in relation to the house so that anything that happens at the roof level will be very much visible above the top of the the existing hedgerow that's there and this is looking from pretty much the corner of gray and highland so you just can't see the bump out that exists here on the first floor but it's down here and then the they recommended the applicant adjust the slope which the applicant has done so I just wanted briefly review that so I think what the the what the board has in front of it is really this decision as to whether this addition is sort of in keeping with the sort of the stylistically the the neighborhood and adjacent buildings as it would relate to criteria six for a special permit and the the town has provided the the residential design guidelines to assist the board in sort of making that determination as before I do have reservations about about this application and specifically about the way that this the way that this addition sits on the roof there's there's sort of the two sides to it one is the width of it I find it very disturbing that it overhangs the floor below which is really not in keeping with what a dormer is supposed to be it I understand that there is a bump out farther down the building but it's not nearly as wide and that making this change is really sort of this the strange juxtaposition going from floor to floor so I would feel much more comfortable if the side wall of the third floor was continuous with the floor with the in the same plane as the side wall below which I think could be accomplished by moving the the closet so that the two bedrooms on either side are more similar to each other I think that that could be done in a way that would would sort of alleviate that and that would allow the e-line to remain along which would help to separate the floor above from the floor below and really sort of help make contain it to make it feel much more like a like a dormer rather than you know an additional piece that's coming off the roof I'm so you're saying if the overhang wasn't there you would be happy with that I I would it would be much more comfortable if that was not overhanging on the right hand side yeah I would also be much more comfortable if the if the height was different but there are certainly other opinions on the board and this is sort of part of the what I wanted to sort of with the looting to sort of at the start is that at this point you need a vote of four members of the board if we were to try to vote tonight and with the way the drawings are currently I don't think I could support it so I'm not sure if there's a way that the board could draft a decision a recommended or if we should go ahead and continue Mr. Chair I'd be willing to to put that exterior wall flush with the building if that would you know you know help for the board feel this is appropriate thank you I do very much appreciate that with that how do members of the board feel in regards to the the height of the addition you know that the height of the the height of the addition is being driven by the the fact that there are you know that the windows because they're double hung they open the acquired open space is 20 inches wide by 24 inches tall at 5.7 square feet in order to get a fireman in and out and obviously with the double hung window you need twice that in the height of the window in order to accommodate a different window type would allow you to make that smaller but then the you know becomes an issue that now you know what is the height of the building on the on that also goes against the spirit of the ordinance which states that they want the same style of windows not exactly what you want them you know right right but if you're also if I might if you're cutting down the width of the area yep floor taking that foot and a half off and you're bringing the roof line down foot and a half you're impacting the usable space within the enclosure so it's almost one of these things you can have it both ways yeah so he said so one just one request affects the other absolutely absolutely I mean certainly in most houses you know in most applications we see that the height at the exterior wall is not seven foot six it's more like six foot eight six foot seven so it's really sort of bringing that scale down so this is you know is significantly taller at the exterior wall than a lot of other applications we see um which I think is part of what I'm you know having having difficulty reconciling and that's that two to twelve slope I mean I don't know I'm not even sure why they have that in there because I've seen a lot of dormers just driving around lately thinking about this that are flat roof I don't know if that's something new they put in but it prohibits certain design things like that because then we could go you know lower on that I just don't I don't I don't know what the slope is all about also you're not upsetting the existing hips yeah much as possible and and to make it work square footage wise and without existing as much of the exist damaging as much of the existing roof if there are certain constraints built in right you have to kind of work around and if it's all about like you said the usable yard space as it's not 25 square feet of a straight shot on the yard we are trying to fit this into a box that it doesn't give us a lot of room no absolutely absolutely Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I just wanted to go on record that I sort of agreed with what Mr. Mills and Gidelly said earlier obviously there's some concern here and the question is really how big a concern it is and whether it could be mitigated in some way I think that the Africans agreement with respect to the overhang is a big step forward and the question ultimately is to what extent we are prepared to push this in light of the difficulties that we're coming up on and accommodating the next step I think it's it might be time at least it would be time if it was all by myself to sort of stop and take a look at this and figure out what could be done to implement the proposal that's already been made and to see what else could be done to accommodate the chair's concern and the concern that they've been expressed with others as well and then and then take a look at something to approve and if we did that if we had to continue to be African we're agreeable to that we could do it next time where you wouldn't necessarily need anything out of the spoke I have to say that there's one the concern that Mr. Neone mentioned is one that I have that hasn't been mentioned before until very recently we basically have treated basically going from zero to a greater degree of zero in terms of open space as if it didn't propose any issue at all and recently and I was a big part of the reason why we did this we haven't really looked at it formally in quite the same way but I thought that the results that we have been traditionally getting by essentially taking a fairly loose approach to cases where this is the only thing that is that our jurisdiction gains on was the right policy to have and when you really get right down to it when the African has done the best again and we have non-enforceable residential design guidelines and if the kind of increase in non-conformity that we have here eventually it seems to me that whatever happens will be suboptimal from somebody's point of view and if we took a little bit more time and we said this is our best shot we can then go up and down on whether it's approvable and take it from there but I don't feel very comfortable doing it tonight on the basis of the discussion that we've already had I don't see it clearly enough in my mind to be sure that and that this is the best that can be done thank you thank you thank you so the Mr. Hamlin is making a suggestion that we might do well by asking the applicant for continuance to other members of the board agree but I just want to say like so I've tried to do you know I came back with a new plan and I agreed tonight to you know push that side in to please the board but I don't know what else I could do to make it any better yeah that's my thing you know I mean I'm willing to put a condition on the special permit that that exterior wall on Gray Street is flushed with the building and we've got the pitch roof now and I think it I think it looks a lot better than I used to would the board be comfortable with a voting on an application whereby we have conditions in regards to the location of the side wall that is not reflected in the drawings or just the board would the board prefer to have provides the drawings and then vote on the final drawings Mr Chairman Mr Hanlon I we basically have been attempting to make sure that the way we have our final drawings condition that actually refers to the final drawings that are before us and just as a matter of form from the point of view of writing these opinions I think that we should not allow ourselves to get into the habit of trying to say the final conditions except for the provisions of condition four which then without going modify the final conditions I think that ultimately that is going to cause confusion at some point and that we ought to avoid doing Mr Chairman Mr Mills yes I agree with Patrick I'm very sympathetic to the applicant wanting to move on and everything that's a relatively simple thing but I think making a condition that drawing is going to conform to some future specification would lead us to have a can of worms open constantly people always be pointing back to that exception and uniformity in our decisions is important if Mr Hamlin has done a great job policing that and I think we should keep it that way thank you thank you Mr Leonie can I ask when the next meeting is of the commissioners it is uh July 12th we asked my Mr Wilkes city can have his plans ready by then oh absolutely yeah I'll I'll go over the architect again and I'll just have them push that side in on the gray street side just like we did on the other side so I think if you could pull the pull that side in keep the keep the the eveline of the roof continuous in front of the you know so that the existing eveline of the roof main is maintained I'm sorry I don't know what it basically basically so that the when you look at the side of the house yeah the line of the gutter and the edge of the roof should continue across the front it should continue along the full length of the house rather than stopping on both sides of the dormer I guess I don't what page would that be on the plans let me see if I can not really well drawn on either one if you look at 2.8 2.3 yep you could to where the door so you have the dormer with the clavards and then it looks like there's a section a small section of roof at the very bottom of the dormer and the gutter line goes across and then you have the the wall below that that's shingled with the windows right so I think if you saying you want to see a gutter there I want to if you keep that because there's no there's a pretty wide overhang on the roof so if you maintain that line of roof across there on both sides keep the dormer the width of the house and whatever you can do with the the height of the roof you know obviously you can only do what you can do for the height I think if we can make those adjustments then I think we're I think I see what you're saying there's like a line of shingles it looks like there's a line of shingles underneath the clavboard and then below that's the gutter so you want to have like a line of shingles and a gutter right there on both sides yeah so if you look at like A2 which is the west elevation the the front elevation facing onto Newport that existing front dormer that you have you can see it sort of looks like it comes up out of the roof rather than being a part of the wall below it's sort of that appearance that we're okay and that that's that's in the in the uh in the guideline so we'd be doing that we would be staying back you know we would be staying within the the width of the house with so basically I'll just tell me I could like stay stay in the width of the house yeah okay if I might on A2 on the right you see how the gutter line extends beyond the wall a little bit yeah on the right side he wants to see that on the left side as well yeah so I just want the so basically what we don't want is like a section of wall that's three stories tall you know you can have you have a two-story wall and then you see the roof go by without the overhang I don't think it would be that way right right you wouldn't need to put that way some people sometimes cut it and it just looks wrong so we just want to make sure it how do you mean cut it though so some sometimes you'll see in a dormer where rather than keep that section of roof going across they'll cut it out and the wall itself just oh I see what you're saying so it would the gutter would stop and then start again exactly it looks much nicer if it's continuous because then it's really it's a dormer it's not just an extension of the house okay you keep the skirt exactly are there any other comments from the board just one more comment as far as we're doing the drawings all the peeks should line up front and back oh I see what you're saying yeah don't talk mind a drawer correction thank you sir chairman I just wanted to say that I agree with you I think if it was within that the line of the house below I would look comfortable voting for that and I was just you know looking at Google Earth and I'm noticing that a street I'm sorry the rehouse is down I think it's number 22 Newport Street has a very similar condition to that so I think there's precedent in the neighborhood for that same condition okay I'll take a look for that so with that I think would the applicant be willing to entertain a continuance to Tuesday July 12th at 730 yes I would and I'll have I'll have that exterior wall pushed in with the new plans for you folks perfect with that then may I have a motion on the board to continue the special permit hearing for 3840 Newport Street to July to Tuesday July 12th at 730 p.m Mr. Chairman yes Mr. Hanlon so moved thank you sir and may I have a second second thank you Mr. Mills so there's a vote of the board to continue the special permit hearing for 3840 Newport Street to Tuesday July 12th at 730 p.m so a vote of members present Mr. Hanlon hi Mr. Mills hi Mr. DuPont I'm not sure I'm involved in this am I because I'm not part of the year I think you can vote to continue then I Mr. Riccadelli hi Ms. Hoffman hi and the chair votes aye so we are continued I would ask Mr. DuPont and Ms. Hoffman if one of one of the other of you would be willing to review the prior hearing and sign us and basically do the follow the moll and roll to allow you to vote at the subsequent at the July 12th hearing are both of you available that night I am Carter do you want to go ahead and do that yeah I'm happy to do it unless Ms. Hoffman wishes to do it herself I don't want to assume anything no I think it's appropriate that you do it okay we'll do it great thank you all very much so we we are continued on Newport Street I really appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the board on some of these details and thank you very much look forward to I appreciate the members of the bullets time thank you so much sorry that I dropped in a few seconds late no you were in and out I'm not quite sure what happened there John yeah I know thank you I'll have a good forth at July okay so the next meeting of the board will be Tuesday July 12th at 7 30 we will hopefully complete Newport Street and we have a new case which is 79 Ronald Road and I believe Mr. Valarelli has submitted that it has circulated that to the board we should have that in front of us yep and with that I believe that is everything we have on our agenda for tonight so I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting I'd like to thank Mr. Valarelli Mr. Lee, Ms. Lanema and Ms. Laufe for their assistance and for preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note the purpose of the board's recording of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings and does our understanding the recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days if anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zbaatowns.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zoning board of the appeals website and to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon Mr. Moop Sir, may I have a second Second Mr. DuPont Mr. Chairman Mr. Moore Before you vote on that motion I'd like to query as to whether or not Mr. Hanlon had any intent when he was flipping the knife the way he was to communicate something in particular What was that? Was that a knife you were flipping, Mr. Hanlon? It was not a knife I was flipping It looked with a background like I thought I just wanted to make sure you I think it was the thing that one uses to clean the the a keyboard All right Thank you, sir I just wanted to clear that You know I do I do get excited at some of these meetings but so far not that Thank you, Mr. Chairman I'll vote at the board to adjourn Mr. DuPont Hi Mr. Hanlon Hi Mills Hi Mr. Hanlon Hi Hoffman Hi And the chair votes aye The board is adjourned Thank you all so much Happy 4th Happy 4th Happy 4th Happy 4th Happy 4th