 ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help. It is Tuesday, April 9th at 7.34 p.m. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals and I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. First, I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Patrick Hamlin, well, Patrick, you're on mute. Here. Thank you. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam Leblanc. Here. Thank you. Just for the record, I would note that Roger Dupont, Venkat Hawley, and Dana Wrikadelli all have conflicts this evening and are unable to join us. From the town, Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant is away tonight as well. So she is not joining us. Then going down our docket, for docket 3779, Nine Morton Road, Kate and Anthony Gregorio. Yes, here. Good to see you. For docket 3781, 165 Franklin Street, Kristin Germano, and Gregory Salinascus. Here. Here. Great, good to have you with us. And for docket 3788, 70 Robbins Road. We have Andrew and Janet Sparks. Are they here or is a representative for them here? Come back to them. We are hearing. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act. Let's just map it in my video. Oops, sorry about that. This open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29th, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2025, the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to promote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording and we ask you to please maintain the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. So we're going to start this meeting, item two on our agenda is docket number 3779, Nine Morton Road. So introduce Mr. Gregorio and if you could give us an update on the project. Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, good evening and thanks for making the time. I'm joining tonight with the hopes of withdrawing our application. We just realized through the process how complex and costly the project would be. And so we decided to put it on pause and may revisit down the road, but I appreciate the time. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board in regards to the request? Seeing none, the chair would accept a motion to withdraw docket number 3779, Nine Morton Road without prejudice. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the, I think the way to do this is to, I move that the board accept the request to withdraw from the applicant in the case that the chair just named into the record. Thank you very much. Second. Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. So this is a motion to accept the request to withdraw for docket 3779, Nine Morton Road without prejudice. So a roll call vote of the board. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So that docket is withdrawn. Thank you very much for coming before us tonight and good luck with the future planning. Thanks so much for your time. You're very welcome. Thank you. This brings us to item three on our agenda, which is docket 3781, 165 Franklin Street. It's a continuance of a prior hearing. I could go ahead and ask the applicants to reintroduce themselves and tell us where they are in the process. And I need to find Mr. Grisling and give him permission to share. Okay, all set. Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for having us again. I'm Christian Germano. I'm the owner of 165 Franklin and I'm here with my GC Greg Salanskis. Hello. Good evening to you. It's there. Based on our last conversation, we've made some revisions and adjustments to the plan. And I'm gonna hand it over to Jim. Just to let you know, I also did reach out to the neighbors as suggested this week. I was on site. I gave them a couple of hours, a window, but I didn't hear from anyone. And I also gave them my phone number, but I didn't hear back from anyone. Thank you for that. All right. Good evening. I'm James Risling of LR Designs. We would like to show you the changes that we've made to the project based on the feedback we received over the last few hearings. I think the story is best told by looking at the elevations. So we had already made the addition, the proposed addition more compact, reducing the proposed footprint and increasing the side and rear yards. I'll go back to the site plan for that. So this is our more compact footprint, the increased side yard, increased rear yard. Since then, we've reduced the height of the ridge of the addition to 27 feet four inches above the average grade at the curb, which is almost eight feet below the allowed building height. And that brings us down to a low one and one and three-quarter story structure as the building tapers back. We understood that was one of the major concerns of the previous proposal, which is in the center of the screen in which the two-story rear addition continued through the depth of the building. Now we're presenting a development with some hierarchy from the front house to the kitchen L to a connector, which may read as a barn and then a small back house. We'd like to, again, talk about density of the site. Our lot is 11,088 square feet, which is almost two times the required 6,000 square feet in the R2 zone. And it should be noted that only a few of the lots conform within this block. The others range from 5,700 to 3,600 square feet, having both single and two family homes on them. So part of our argument is we really almost have a double lot here. And also might be noted that our proposed site coverage of 3,125 square feet or 28.5%, which is below the allowed 35% site coverage is only 28.5% of 11,088 square feet. Numbers 169 and number 171 has a site coverage of 2,956 square feet or 30% of their 9,900 square foot lot. So just to keep that into perspective, that's a delta of 196 square feet on a lot that is 1,188 square feet larger. I also want to restate that the existing house has been assessed by the Arlington Assessor's Office as a two family since the mid-60s. And I know that that's not really a concern of this board because it is a conforming use, but I think it was brought up to sort of muddy, make the development look excessive. The current two family consisted of a three bedroom with two baths and a two bedroom with one bath. So that's a total of five bedrooms in the existing house. Our proposal over the two units is to have a four bedroom unit with three and a half baths and a three bedroom unit with three and a half baths, which is an increase of two bedrooms on the site. And it's our opinion that it doesn't seem that the addition of two bedrooms within the two units, which will be of high end construction would alter the traffic patterns or the safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In fact, it's our vision that this would attract families that would intend to stay in their home for a rather a long time. I think I would like to maybe open it up to Kristen to maybe speak to the quality of your projects and what people can expect when the landscape and everything else is in place. Thanks, Jim. I appreciate that. I do not feel, I know that I do really need high end quality. I put the best products in. I did have to go through the historical board so that only cemented the high end quality and products that I have to use, but I don't do anything cheap. I want it to look beautiful. I want it to fit in. I'm really dedicated to this being a historical property and doing it properly. I think my neighbors and the community right around will really find it to be a well done and beautiful property when it's finished. And I do it all the way to the end. The landscaping, there'll be all new plantings, there'll be trees added. I think everyone will be pleased in the end. Great, well, thank you for both. Mr. Riesling, if you wouldn't mind just taking us through the floor plans. Sure. Thanks, Rich. Have you seen the elevations now? Yep. So in the front unit, there's an entry hall with an officer den, which is a feature that many of Mr. Mano's buyers are looking for these days. Living in kitchen, dining area, which is sort of an open concept. Mudroom to their one car garage. The rear unit enters here. Unfortunately, I'm not showing my door to the garage, but that would have a connection to the garage, a little mud area, then a living dining area and kitchen on the ground floor or first floor. The second floor of the front unit has three bedrooms, a primary and two bedrooms. And then the back unit has an en suite, two more bedrooms, and then an office at the top of the stairs. The front unit would also take advantage of the existing half story under the eaves with the addition of a new dormer towards the rear of the building. And then the plans are enlarged here for more detail. And then could you show us the four elevations as well? Sure, sure. So the top row are the currently proposed, so we have the restored front elevation, which is garnered the approval of historical, as well as the side elevation. They do take into consideration all elevations. The rear, or rather as it steps back, again to the kitchen now, the garage piece and then the rear house. The left side, we are also stepping down with some relief and then the rear elevation. We've brought the ridge down to 27, it says 27, three and three quarters, which is just a function of AutoCAD, but it would be 27 feet, four inches. And that's measured to the average grade at the curb, which is the proper way to assess the average grade of this site, since it's nearly flat. That puts an eve at 18 foot six inches off the ground. Our previous proposal, we had a ridge of 31 feet three inches with an eve at 22, four inches. All right, thank you. Could you speak a little bit to, I know one of the primary discussions we had had last time, we were really looking to reduce, you know, reduce the height of the unit towards the rear and you have brought it down somewhat and you had addressed the program briefly, but did you look more extensively at all at making the rear unit smaller, as opposed to larger in a number of rooms in the front unit? This program is a necessity for Mr. Mano to make the project work. So the size of the unit is rather important. But we did bring down the size, Jen. Yeah, we eliminated a bedroom in the attic and we reduced the height fully, so. These are meant to be family homes. I have sold, I have worked in the last few years and I've had a few developments and I do sell my own properties and the feedback, I'm always listening to the clients, what they need, what they want and three bedrooms, that's a minimum in an office space. It's just necessary to sell these. They need that third bedroom, preferably a fourth, but it being three in the back will actually make it more difficult to sell. Okay. Are there additional questions from the board? We can come back to the board for additional comments. What was that in mind? We'll go ahead and open the meeting for public comment. So the public questions and comments are 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. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the reactions tab and the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair given asked for your name and address of the record and given time for questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. And for anyone wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing, the chair will allow those wishing to speak for the first time to be called upon first. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time has ended, the public comment period will be closed and the board will do its best to show the documents being discussed. It is 7.54. So why don't we plant to go till 8.30 and see if we need additional time at that point. So with that, we have a hand raised. It is Ben Mangrum. Yes, hi. My name is Ben Mangrum. I'm at 37 Hamlet Street, which is an abutting property to 165 Franklin Street and my wife Ashle is also here. So I just have a few comments about this proposal. So the first is when I checked this morning on the town website, I didn't see this current proposed plan as part of the meeting agenda. So I'm just now seeing these plans for the first time and I haven't had the day to develop a fully fleshed out response to them. So it would be nice to have more time to more fully assess the proposal. But from what I can tell based on what I've just seen, the first point I wanna make is that it seems to be just a very modest revision to the proposal that we considered a month ago. And just as was the case with that proposal, I don't see how this is more harmonious with the surrounding properties and with the neighborhood than the last proposal. So we're still talking about two homes on one lot as opposed to a multifamily single structure. And so I think that that's not consistent with the surrounding homes. Thinking about one lot as a double lot, I mean, that's a function of the lot I realized, but that's not a justification for building two homes on one lot as opposed to a single structure that's multifamily as is the case in the nearby properties. And the height at the back of the lot is also not conforming with surrounding uses. So that's another reason in which this seems inconsistent with the bylaws for approving a large addition. The other point I wanna just make is that because the property was already zoned as a two family and already had two kitchens, so on and so forth, expanding doesn't actually add density, it just adds square footage and those are not quite the same. So while Arlington wants to increase density, allow more people to move here, this doesn't actually do that for that reason, it just allows for larger homes and more expensive homes. And just to respond to Mr. Mano's invitation to have a conversation, I apologize I didn't reach out. I got a note when I got home from work on Thursday in my mailbox asking the next day on Friday, last Friday to come during the workday. So I'm just not able to take off work with less than 24 hours notice, but I'd be happy to send an email and have a dialogue. I'm assuming the plans were already made prior to that invitation, but again, I do appreciate reaching out. So that's all I have to say for now. I may circle back at the end of the conversation after my other neighbor speak, but thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mangrum. I would note, I was just looking on the agenda and the plans for tonight definitely are there and I'm pretty sure they've been there before. They're just at the very, very bottom of the list. So it's possible that- I may have, but that may be my fault. I apologize if that's the case. Okay, no worries. Next on the list is Dan Ledger. Hey there, this is Dan Ledger, my wife Lauren. We live right next door at 169 Franklin Street. I think Mr. Mangrum did a very eloquent statement and that was kind of exactly what I was gonna say. This seems to, I think the big point of contention last time was just the height of the structure in the back of the lot and it seems to be very, we've added some dormers, but that hasn't changed much. And so I think it seems like we're sort of in the same place we were a month ago. And we'd also welcome a conversation. We didn't receive any outreach. Our front door is a little hidden because we're on the bottom floor here. So it's not always easy to find a front door, but we didn't receive any outreach about this. And otherwise we would love to have a conversation about it. Anything you wanna add? It's interesting because I would say that among the neighbors I've talked to and among the person I live with here, I have been a little bit more positive about the plans going on that I really like how it looks from the front and I'm excited for something to be rebuilt here. But this plan, seeing it today made me feel really, like no one had been listened to during the last meeting because it does seem so similar to what we saw last month. We, as Dan said, would welcome a chance to have a conversation with the homeowner and tour our house. You mentioned that you wanted to build houses that people have lived in for want to live in for a long time. And we've been in our house for almost 16 years, we have raised two kids here and our neighbor upstairs has been here almost as long as we have. And we have smaller places. Ours is just one floor and the backside of it is just one story, which as I mentioned last month was really helpful to our neighbors who had opinions about it too. So we'd welcome a chance to let you see how this has worked out for us here. Thanks. Thank you. Next on our list is John Donnelly. Yes, good evening and thanks. I'm at 41 Hamlet Street, I'm one of the abutters. And let me just get this out of the way that I did not receive a note nor would I probably have been able to go with one day's notice. But I would be willing to talk about what this lot should look like and what the neighborhood would like it to look like. And I'm willing to talk anytime, I just didn't get a note. So I would go back to my zoning bylaw argument that this house does not fit in this neighborhood. And I think we talked about this the last time a month ago and we said that all of the mass all the way up Franklin both towards parallel and going the other way are two family homes. One house, two families live it in. Not two homes with two families. And this to me is not a two family house, it's two homes. And I don't think that fits in this neighborhood at all. And I think that has to be a big concern for the zoning board that it simply does not fit. I'd also like to look at some of the numbers and I'm looking at the total gross area and the total gross floor. And I think the numbers aren't quite right because I'm getting 200 feet less than the attic but they're saying it's 293 feet. And I can't come up with the other 93 feet. And that's a small point but the numbers don't seem to be right to me. I could be wrong, but yeah. And also to get to the point of where families stay in a home for a long time. I think everybody on this call, hopes that we can stay in this neighborhood for a long time. I've been here 30 years and that's a long time. I hope to stay here forever, but I don't know. I mean, I know my neighbors are extremely stressed out about having to attend these meetings once a month and granted the board is great to deal with you. Thanks for listening and all of that. I'm proud to be a citizen of Arlington but this can't go on forever and I'd like it at least to have some more discussions and make it fit in with the neighborhood. I'm sorry, but this is a builder and I'm not concerned about them making money or anything else, which is what they're gonna do. They're gonna make money and they're gonna go away. And then we're gonna be stuck with this colossus in the backyard that's 27 feet high, which does not fit again. So I really want this house to be like the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. Let's have a mass, let's have two families living in it. And if they can't make it work, then get somebody else in that can make it work. And so I'm getting a little frustrated because it's very stressful for all of my neighbors who I've known them all for a long time. It's a great neighborhood, I love them all. And I just feel that this is not any different. As Lauren said, it's not a heck of a lot different than it was last month. So I'm getting a little fed up with these plans, with the two homes, with the height of the structure. So I'd just like to thank you again for listening and that's all for me. Thank you, appreciate it. So next up is Ushwalsh's stuff. Can I ask you a question? Hey everyone, I'm Ushwalsh Resta. I live on 134 Webster Street, directly behind the property in question here. I really want to echo the sentiments that was just expressed in terms of the changes that have been proposed right now in this new proposal. I think the fact that we're still gonna, the proposal still has two stories in the back unit. There's not changed the experience at all for us from what I had explained last week, in terms of having this property right behind our yard. The openness of the view that we have right now would be taken away. And I am also kind of, I also second the sentiment that it is kind of difficult to make these meetings every month. So the fact that the proposal has two units that is not in, it doesn't really fit with the rest of the properties in the neighborhood. The fact that the open views that our kids and the families enjoying the neighborhood would be taken away by the two-story building at the back and the open view that we currently enjoy would be gone are some of the points I wanted to make. And I do also want to emphasize the fact that the plan does not take into account the two stories that we have emphasized in our last meeting. So those are the points I wanted to make to the board. And thank you for giving me this chance to talk about this. Thank you. Next on our list is Diana Abterova. Hi, how are you? Can you guys hear me? We can, yes. Great. So I, you know, I have a just, I think echo. If I could just ask you to reiterate your name and address of the record, sorry. Yes, so Diana Abterova, I live at 45 Hamlet Street right behind the property, one of the smaller lots. And I feel like I echo pretty much all the concerns, you know, other people have. I agree that the plan did not really change much. I think, you know, in my view, the height of the building is probably the thing which concerns me the most because our lots are very small and the size of the property is just too big. So I think it really needs to fit with the sizes of other homes. And I feel like, you know, the plan needs to change accordingly to that. So thank you so much. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address the board at this time? If not, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, but I just want to close, excuse me, not close public hearing, but close public comment period for this hearing, which would, so this would be your last opportunity if you wish to speak to this item this evening. Seeing none, I will go ahead then and close the public comment period. Okay, so what the board has before it, so this is a request for a large addition under 542B sub six, which is any addition over 750 square feet outside of the existing foundation requires findings by the board. And those findings are that the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. We are to consider the dimensions and the setbacks in relation to abutting structures and uses and we are to consider conformity with the purposes of the bylaw. And in addressing those findings, we are to use the standard findings for a special permit, which would be that the requested use is allowed or allowed by a special permit in the district, that the requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. We need to find that the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety. We need to find the requested use will not overload any public system. Let's find that the special regulations, the requested use are fulfilled. We would need to be able to state why the requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the neighborhood, why the requested use will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, and why the requested use will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood. Those are the findings that are required by the board. So certainly the sentiment from the butters and what I had first noticed when I saw the revised plans is we had talked very extensively last time about making the back part of the property as low as possible, preferably going to a single story. And what we have here, we've reduced the ridge height. We may have reduced the floor to floor slightly, but it is still essentially a two-story or close to two-story structure. And I had asked previously about that and about the size and sort of reducing the program and you had stated that the program was necessary in order for the project to go forward, which I assume would imply that in order for the project to be profitable, it would need a program like this in order for the units to bring in enough funds to cover the cost of the land acquisition and the new construction. Is that a fair characterization? It is. It is, Mr. Chair. It may not be appropriate. Could I please show some photos from the site at this point? Sure. That I think will address some of these concerns. Okay. Are you seeing the image on my screen? No, we're just seeing, we still have the old plans. All right, fine. I will do a change here. Okay, you should be seeing Franklin Street right now. Yes, we do. Down to the intersection of Hamlet. These are some of the two families on Franklin. There's a home there with an extension. This is Hamlet Street and Hamlet Street is a quite lovely little pocket of two and a half or two and a third story houses on smaller lots. This is the intersection of Franklin and Hamlet. These are the two families. This is Webster Street, the new town homes, the other two family homes. Again, Webster, all two, two and a half stories in height. If we go, oops, I had some more. I have some from the interior of the site. So all the homes abutting the site are two and a half stories, you know, maybe, you know, even the nice little homes on Hamlet Street appear to have a habitable attic. And this is the step down that it sounds like everybody desires. But even here is a good facsimile. You could see the distance between the buildings is comfortable and it does allow the step down to work. Another home on Franklin Street. So we're not seeing other than 169, 171, many other properties that immediately abut this that step down to one story. And in fact, our almost two story will still be lower than those homes that are abutting our lot. So I just, I wanted to, you know, present again where we're coming from in terms of the building height and that we have already reduced the unit from our original proposal and we've already reduced the height. It may seem insignificant, but we're quite a deal different from where we were when we started. Just to add to that, Jim, I think it's hard for people that aren't architects who actually see in the picture, you know, that's what is it, eight feet that we've taken off. You know, I think it's hard to see that and recognize that in the drawings. Yeah, no, I understand that. I understand that. And if, yeah, so that's it, Mr. Chair, that's all I wanted to share. Okay, thank you. Any other questions and comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I have to say that I just, I'm to some extent is sympathetic with the applicant. There's a lot of indications that, you know, conformity with dimensions and so forth, as Mr. Risling pointed out early on. But over the course of the issue here is really not something that's easily reducible to arithmetic. And I think actually that if this were just a regular special exception with no special regulation attached to it, I think that Mr. Risling and the applicant might have quite a bit stronger case. But the provision that we're dealing with on large additions is put there to address a situation in which the numbers work, that the application doesn't violate the bylaw in any way. But nevertheless, because the neighborhood is already built out, there's a special concern with harmoniousness that doesn't necessarily exist in every case where the concept of interfering with the character at the neighborhood is somewhat broader than that. So there's a kind of what I like to think of as a thumb on the scale with large additions that it's especially important to pay attention with the way in which a new proposal works with the existing neighborhood. And it's certainly not sameness. If you look at this particular block, the houses on Hamlin Street are quite a lot different from the ones on Franklin Street. There's a mix in terms of whether they're a single family or two family, and I'm not that hung up on that. I think it was Mr. Donley who pointed out that he'd be happy actually if you had a genuine two family house, which like the ones where you have upstairs and downstairs, here he thinks that this looks a lot more like two barely joined one family houses. And I think it does underscore the way in which it's not a question of what the density is, density of two is appropriate in our two zone. It really is how that density is achieved and whether that's achieved in a way that is specifically harmonious with the neighborhood as it has built out. And I think where I was at the last hearing and I was persuaded by pretty much by Lauren Ledger's approach to this, I thought that something that would make this look a little bit more like the house that was immediately next door on a similar lot with a similar kind of configuration that something that looked more like that, I mean substantially more like that. If you remember, I made a comment at the very end encouraging the applicant to try to do something substantial in order to make it fit in and was pretty clear on where I at least thought fitting in what that would mean in this situation. And I get it that the applicant doesn't seem to think that pencils out and I'm sure that they're right, that given their plan and what they're proposing to do, it may not pencil out. And I don't really think there's a whole lot more to say sometimes when you're in a situation where one party and another party disagree, they disagree because they have to because there's no overlap in their interests and that may be the situation here. But I'm persuaded that the proposal that we have before us is not a big enough step towards what we signaled would be what would be needed in order for us to find that this is harmonious. I think that they've done what they can and I don't blame them at all for not going further than they did. But to me, they didn't get over the line towards being able to find that this is approvable and consequently, I'm inclined to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Handlin. Other members of the board? Mr. Jack. Mr. LeBlanc. I agree with Mr. Handlin in terms of where we were last month and my recollection of the discussion and maybe where we thought we should go. I was in agreement with Mr. Handlin that it seemed like the adjacent properties set a good example, I think, for how to approach a lot like this in a neighborhood like this. And I think what we have before us tonight, I appreciate the applicant and the architect taking a look at it and really trying to pare this down. I know it's not easy to try and balance everything that I'm sure they have to balance in order to make this work and that they tried something to give back to us through review. So I appreciate that. I think, I apologize when we go on a little rant here, but I think one thing that I've noticed a lot around town is this idea to jam townhouses into these masses that don't really befit townhouses. And I feel like this is just another example of that around town. And as Mr. Handlin was kind of alluding to, there's a different housing style that all of the abutting properties are, which is duplexes. Now, obviously I don't know a whole lot about everything that the different pressures and stuff like that going on with this project, but I think that that might fit kind of what is going on with this lot. And I think maybe my last point here is, I think what we're dealing with is a perception of perception of mass and kind of what Mr. Handlin was alluding to there a little bit before of, we're keeping the same amount, it's still a two unit place, but we're creating a wall basically along the whole length of the lot and that it gets perceived very differently than the rest of the neighborhood, which are these still two family or some townhouse units around that are just more reculinear in fashion and fit in with just what is the neighborhood. I think it's a little unfortunate situation of this lot is quite a bit different than the rest of the neighborhood. So it's getting some constrictions of course upon it, but I think the lot still needs to react to the neighborhood itself. And would it be possible to go back to the drawing board once more? It is difficult because this is historic. So we really can't touch that mass in the front and alter it. So it does pose a challenge for us. Yeah, and that historic point is a valid one in that they would like to understand the massing of the building so that the historical house could be read. Yeah, like I was saying, I don't underestimate the other different interests that are going on here. There's a lot and there's a lot to try and solve for and that difficulty is not lost on me. I know that there's a lot to try and solve here, but... Historic was happy with the first plan. So to keep going back, it's a challenge to say the least. But historic, they're good for bringing back the historic character of the house, but which is a great thing that I'm glad you were willing to do and do that. But now I think we're at the other level of it where, okay, we're gonna get this house that's gonna bring back the historical nature of it, but now we also need to make sure it still fits and goes with the rest of the neighborhood. I agree. Thank you, Adam. Mr. Chair. Ms. Hoffman. I just wanted to chime in that I think I'm very much on the same page as Mr. Hamlin and Mr. LeBlanc. I think I just wanna bring us back to the gross area calculations because I'm very sympathetic to this idea that there are currently two bedroom and a three bedroom and you're only really looking to add two bedrooms total, which that alone feels extremely reasonable. But the delta in area is very, very significant even though you're just adding one bedroom because there are, and I know that, try to keep the architect in me contained, but I know I'm just talking about kind of ancillary spaces here, but there are very large closets and you are adding quite a few number of bathrooms. So I don't know if there's significant area that could be picked up there, but I think it's going from currently three bathrooms to seven and there are quite a few large walk-in closets. So I don't know if it's those supporting spaces that are leading to the dramatic increase or helping to contribute to the dramatic increase in gross square footage, but I like the idea of going back to the drawing board and just seeing where there may be opportunities to tighten it up a little bit. Particularly in section. Thank you for that. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm going back to the drawing board. Since I come to these meetings twice a month anyway, I can't really complain, but we've been here quite a long time on this case. And I don't think it's likely that baby steps will do it. And if the applicant is able, the applicant knows the, by now the applicant knows the picture and it also knows what they can do and what they can't do in order to come up with a project that they can live with economically. And I'm perfectly happy to go along with giving them a continuance and giving them another shot at it, but I really would expect that if that happened, that we'd look at something that's really basically a best and final offer that would be significantly different from what we have now. If it's just trying to, I mean, with all due respect, trying to cut back on a closet here and a closet there and trim a little bit from the way the project looks, I don't think that that's going to cut it. I think that something that is a major step in favor of what I've described earlier as harmonious is necessary in order to make going back to the drawing board with our time and with the applicant's time. And I hope that now that the conversation with the neighbors can begin earlier at this point so that it's worked out in a kind of partnership to at least have people involved in what's going on and get feedback during the course of the process. So I just wanna make sure that if we're going forward with still another hearing, or not another hearing, but another session to this hearing, another evening where we get to have a pleasant conversation with one another and this has been a perfectly amicable conversation the whole way given that people have strong feelings about all of this, I think that's to everyone's credit. But if we do wanna go another time and have another conversation, I think that we need to look at a fairly large step towards coming to a resolution. Thank you for that. I wanna go back briefly to the slide here. So this here is the sort of showing the black outline is the existing house on the property. The red is showing the current proposed addition and the blue is where it was initially. And I do appreciate the reduction in plan that this shows. But I think you can tell from the property behind the two-story portion ends at the break where the building sort of turns in the back and the back attached portion is a single story and then there's space and then there's a separate detached one-story garage and it's a really different appearance than a two or as you would say 1.75 extension all the way to the rear. It's a much different presentation and has a lot more volume than anything else in the neighborhood in terms of the ground cover and the height of the project. And to go back to one of Mr. Hanlon's initial points who we had sort of given a fairly strong charge at the end of last session where we really wanted to see something different, something that was a single story, something that was significantly smaller. And so I would really ask the applicant if they could really sort of address that question of what was the process of looking at where they were last time and considering what they were gonna present this time and what their sense was in terms of reducing the program and reducing the size, because as Mr. Hanlon says, if we can come out of this meeting and decide that you would like to take one more pass at this and you can make a dramatic change to the bulk of the building that is towards the center in the rear of the lot, then that's something that could be worth considering. But if you have already looked in this and this is really as far as you can push this process, then it's probably time for the board to just go ahead and vote. I'm not the architect. Okay. Jim. Well, I... What do you suggest? I mean, we have to discuss obviously. I understand what they're looking for. I mean, I... Mm-hmm. I believe I do too. And I regret that it's taken this additional hearing to get there. I think we can definitely look at the supporting spaces as Elaine suggested. I think we could address the parking differently to reduce the mass of the building. Something that we thought was nice, a nice feature maybe is really binding us up. I mean, I think although the house next door is almost a twin, I do think their front footprint and kitchen aisle are a little bit bigger. And I think their rear addition is wider than what we were proposing, but that that's just minor. I mean, I think if certain dimensions allow for certain spaces and I think our kitchen aisle is maybe under 16 feet. So it's hard to do two rooms across the kitchen aisle. But that again is minor and that's my problem to solve it. I don't know that we can... I mean, if we can get it to look like a single house is probably very difficult because of what the direction we receive from historical, but I do think we could step it down much more and really maybe... And Kristen, I'll have to work with you on your end of it to see what we can do there, that rear unit. Because originally the building was a two family with one tenant on the first floor and a separate tenant on the second and attic floor. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And so this is really changing it to a duplex where they're side by side. Right, well, I mean, I know there's little... There's some empathy about the cost of the project but to restore the front house, the house has to have a little more cache and people don't necessarily want to be on top of each other. And that was the buyer we were approaching. And maybe that's misguided, but that was our approach. You know, typically when I do a project, and obviously this is my first historic project in Arlington and I know the money doesn't make a difference but the money does make a difference as far as it's gonna cost a lot more because it's historic. And the windows I have to purchase and everything. So it's substantially more. So trying to balance all that out and not go bankrupt while doing it. Of course I want to make a profit but I'm trying to create something beautiful too. It's not that I don't care. I love historic homes. I love restoring. This really interests me. I want to do it properly but I don't want to go bankrupt while doing it either. So I know money's not an issue with the board but it does come into play here because it is historic. It's not the typical two family that I would do a gut renovation on and add on and so forth and it's quite different. I'm understandable. I know from the initial plan, there was a small side addition that you're removing. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. What was the reason for removing that? It's not historical. It was an addition. Oh, it's not historical. Correct. Okay. So given our discussion, do you think it's that should we give you the extra time to come up with another iteration that you'll be able to do something that's significantly different from what we have seen that will address the concerns? The only way I can see changing it substantially and I don't know if you agree, Jim would be possibly removing the garages which I thought was a nice thing to have but to move that out, maybe we could make it look smaller that way, Jim. You'd have to chime in here. I think so. I think that would help us with the massing as we go deeper into the site. So for the board, would the board be amenable to a request for continuance? Mr. Chairman. Given the, that we were at, Mr. Hanlon? So I expressed some, I think that Mr. Mano and Mr. Rizzling, they understand what they understand it and they know and they don't think it's a waste of their time. And so if it's not a waste of their time, it's not a waste of mine either and I'd be willing to support a continuance on the understanding that they would make the kinds of movements we've been discussing for the next last 10 or 15 minutes. I agree with that as well. So looking at the board's calendar, we do have hearings May 14th and May 28th. Would either of those dates be within your timeframe? I think so, yes, either date would work. I think Kristen would like me to hustle and get ready for the 14th, so. I didn't say that, Jim. Okay, so then the board would be, so we'll look at a motion to continue in special permit hearing 165 Franklin Street to Tuesday, May 14th, 2024 at 7.30 PM. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. So just to the neighbors and the butters, I know many of you had expressed frustration at the continuance as we do understand your concerns about the length of the process and attending these hearings. I hope that you'll accept our indulgence to go one more session on the hope that we can come to something that really addresses the concerns that the neighbors have expressed and that the board has, for the most part, taken and absorbed into our findings as well. So with that, what the board has in front of it is a motion to continue the special permit hearing for 165 Franklin Street to Tuesday, May 14th, 2024 at 7.30 PM. So a roll call vote of the board. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on 165 Franklin Street. Thank you all very much. And we look forward to seeing what you've come forward with at the next session. Thank you for your time. And thank you to all the neighbors as well. Okay. Next on our docket, item number four, docket 378870 Robbins Road. Or the Andrew and Janet Sparks available. Or there is anyone here in support of this application? Anyone here in support of application for 70 Robbins Road, docket 3788. Hi, this is Dan Connell. I live, I'm in a butter. I live in St. Paul Robbins Road. I know the family is home. I saw them earlier today, but I'm not sure why they're not here. I don't really know much about the project other than what's on the website. And I was curious to find out what their, I mean, I guess I know what their plan is. But I don't know what happens now if they don't show up. That's a very good question is not happened to us before. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I think that it would be a little bit too draconian for us just to deny it out of hand. And so it seems to me that probably the best thing to do is to defer this for until the next reasonable hearing. We've got a pretty heavy one, I think, coming up on the 30th, I guess is what it is. And so maybe we should send this off to the first hearing in May and then we can work with the applicant to find out whether they've, I mean, what happened and make sure this doesn't happen again. So I think that probably the best thing to do is to keep it on the docket and give them another shot at it in a couple of weeks or a little longer given our calendar. Since we do have members of the community here, I think we have technically opened the hearings. So I will do just a short public comment because I know there are probably people with questions and I apologize that we probably are very unable to address any of your questions. But if there are members of the public who have questions at this time, you can use the raise hand feature in the reactions tab or if you're on telephone, you can dial star nine. With that, Joe Tully has his hand raised. Thanks, Christian. I didn't have an opportunity to go to the website so if it can be done in 30 seconds or less, could someone just enlighten those of us who may not dispute on what the project entails? Absolutely, plan set, that's the one. Actually, this is Dan Connell again. I did look at the plans and basically the idea, Joe, was that they were gonna enclose about three quarters of their front porch, stain footprint, but they were gonna enclose it. So it's part of the house basically. It's not a porch anymore. It's finally loaded. So this is the front page. So this is what they're proposing to do with their house. This is the existing photo. So stairs on the right side of the front porch, front porch spans the front of the house. They are looking to essentially remove that existing front porch and replace it with some slightly wider steps and an enclosed portion on the left-hand side. Similar to what they had found at number 42, Robbins Road has something similar to that. And then the plan, so the existing first floor, this is their existing front porch. They are looking to enclose this portion of the front porch and convert it into part of their living room. And that is the full scope of what they were requesting. And under our bylaws section 539D, the enclosing of an area of a porch that is within a setback can only be done by special permit, which is the reason that they were initially before us. Thank you. Yo, you're welcome. I'm seeing no other hands. I'll go ahead and close that again. So I guess we will have a motion to continue. It was advertised as a variance for 70 Robbins Road. It'll be continued to Tuesday, May 14th, 2024 at 7.30 p.m. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Handlin. Second. Thank you, Mr. Blank. So motion to continue the variance hearing, 70 Robbins Road to Tuesday, May 14th, 2024 at 7.30 p.m. So roll call vote of the board, Mr. Handlin. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. Little Blank. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on 70 Robbins Road. Thank you, everyone for coming out for this hearing. Apologies that we are unable to do more in regards to this property this evening, but we will take it up again on May 14th. That is the end of the items on our agenda this evening. So for the board, our next scheduled hearing is Tuesday, April 30th. I believe we have four new items that are appearing on that evening. That will also be the elections for the board. So if there's anyone who is interested in taking a turn as the chair or the vice chair, please consider that. And if you have any questions about those positions, you can always ask Pat and I about them. And we will have elections for those positions coming up on the 30th. And then thereafter May 14th and May 28th are two May dates and obviously we've just continued two things onto the May 14th date. That's what we have coming up. So having no other business this evening, I would like to thank you all for your participation. It's a nice meeting on the Earrington zoning board of appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I especially like to thank Colleen Ralston and Special Services and the legal department for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings. It's our understanding that 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 zbaatown.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the ZBA website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a move into adjourn. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Second. Thank you, Mr. Blank. The roll call vote of the board to adjourn, Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Ms. Phillip Blank. Aye. The chair votes aye. The board is adjourned. Thank you all very much for being here this evening and I will see you in a few weeks. Good night. Good night. Take care, everybody. ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help.