 It is Tuesday, April 11th at 733 p.m. Good evening. 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. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the zoning board of appeals Roger Dupont here. Patrick Hanlon here. Then get holy here. Dino Rickardelli here. Elaine Hoffman here. And Adam will blank. Have I saw you a minute ago? Oh, you're there you're thank you. Assisting us from the town, we have calling Ralston the zoning assistant. Here. Good evening. We're peering on behalf of 106 Mount Vernon Street. We have very Winston Leo Connor. Pairing for 39 Sunnyside Avenue. Brendan Rock and Caitlin Santa Cruz. Yeah, we're here. Perfect. Thank you. And also I'm Diane Miller, the architect representing Caitlin. Perfect. Thank you. Peering on behalf of 90 Brandwood Road. Thank you. I'm here. Rainey's here. John was unable to make it. He had. And I'm Alan mayor of the argument. Thank you. Mr. Klein chairman Klein. I'm not appearing for the applicant. I'm appearing for the butters on. Oh, thank you for that clarification. Sean Snyder is here. I do see him. Yep. And then appearing on behalf of 11 Pine Ridge road, Amanda and Matthew Edwards. Here. Perfect. Thank you. So 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 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Bakers, March 12th, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at a meeting location. So long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings, public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website, unless otherwise noted. And the public is encouraged to follow along using the agenda. Chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the industry promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotomy and Algonquin word meetings with waters. The board here by acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony province and Commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. So the first item on our agenda, just the items two and three, both are administrative items. So I will go ahead and hold those until the end so we can move along to the public hearings. Before opening public hearings, here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announced the agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will then request that members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. And at the conclusion of public comment, the board would deliberate and vote on the matter. So with that, I also request because we do have a large number of people on if you are not currently the speaker, I ask you if you would please mute your line just to help keep the extraneous noise down. Appreciate that. Thank you. So with that, we move on to item four on our docket, which is excuse me on our agenda, which is docket number three, seven, three, five, one of six, this is the continuance from a prior hearing. I would ask the applicant to identify themselves and let us know what has changed in the next two weeks. Hi, Christian. Thank you. First of all, I would just like to say thank you to the zoning board. I know last time we met, we were able to kind of hop off of the call after a long meeting. And I appreciate that you all had to continue on with the meeting and also pursue some research in the following weeks. Yeah, not much has changed on our end are architect Jenna Ellison's here. So she can answer any questions that pertains to the build itself. Thank you. Great. Thank you. So at the conclusion of the last meeting, there were several questions that the board had in regards specifically to the zoning by law and how they would apply to this property. They're questions that needed to be addressed by the zoning official for the town of Arlington, who is also the building inspector. So I had proposed those questions to him. And he had responded back and the responses was shared with the applicants, but I'll go ahead and share them here as well. Let's see if I can do the best way to do this here. Everybody gets to look at my mail. So on the question of usable open space, there is an open area of 25 feet by 25 feet, which is partly on the ground and partly on the deck. And as is the practice of the inspectional services department that is considered compliant. So the addition of the the deck. In the opinion of the inspectional service, excuse me, if the zoning official, that does not create a new non-transformity attached versus detached. This addition proposed for this project constitutes an attached building. Although the proposed condition falls between the two definitions in the bylaw. It is not connected by a wall, but it is still physically connected. There is more of a connection than an absence of a connection. Inspecial services is bound by the regulations of the town of Arlington, by the zoning bylaw. And in this situation, the zoning bylaw provides conflicting definitions. The proposed structure does not meet the zoning bylaw definition of attached or detached. And this office was left with no option, but to refer the matter to the zoning board of appeals. And then next is the question on setbacks. So if it's considered an attached building, the addition is not considered an accessory structure. And it must comply with the setbacks. And then the next question is, if it's considered an attached building, the addition is not considered an accessory structure. And it must comply with the setback requirements for the primary structure. If the board was to determine the structures are detached, then the proposed accessory building would follow the setback requirements for an accessory building. Under building height. As an attached building, the addition is not considered an accessory structure and must comply with the height requirements for the primary structure. If the board was to determine. The structures are detached. Then the proposed accessory building would follow the height follow the height requirements for an accessory building and for floor area ratio as an attached building the addition is not considered an accessory structure and floor area ratio is not a consideration. If the board was to determine the structures are detached, then the proposed accessory building would follow the requirements for an accessory building. I hope that helps to clarify some of the issues that are booked for us today. Go ahead and stop that. So what we have before us and I don't know. Miss Ellison if you have the documentation on this that you would be able to share. Are you looking to look at the plans right now or look at the plans please. So I will share that you see this indeed. So I think this is the plan that we've been looking at. Perfect. So the, the, the primary, the first question that the board needs to make a determination on is this question of, is it attached or is it detached. The definition for an attached dwelling requires that it share a wall. The requirement for a detached dwelling is that it have no connection at all. But here we are connected by a deck. And so, I think it's a it's a, this is sort of the critical question as to how we proceed with the rest of the rest of the review of this project is do we is it is the proposed building which is a garage with an ad you above is that an accessory structure, or is it a part of the existing house by means of being connected by the deck at the upper level. Mr chairman. Mr handlin. I'm looking at this one of the ways we can think about it is, if you were going to do a Venn diagram of this you would see that part of the space is taken up by attached part is taken up by detached and there's a space in the middle. And that's what happened because of the way of the so called conflicting definite definitions. So there's really a third category here that's not attached. And not attached includes detached, but it also includes some things that are not detached. And one way of approaching the problem is, is to assume that the zoning ordinance when it uses the word attached defines it the way it's defined in the bylaw. When it uses the word detached, it defines it the way it's used in the bylaw. And so then you have to see which, which word is being used and detached is used a lot in the bylaw. It always uses single family detached so they, they're not shy about using that word in the ad you ordinance they don't use that word they only talk about attached. It's a principle that until you're forced to deal with what's in that middle you just follow the definition that the bylaw gives to the particular word that the bylaw uses, then that may shed light on on whether, in this case whether it's attached or not. You have to find out that it's either attached or detached. It clearly is not detached within the meaning of the bylaw. And it, but it clearly is not attached within the meaning of the bylaw either. So that leaves you with the question of what do you do when something falls in that forgotten middle. And it seems to me that the way I will look at it I at this point and this doesn't answer all the questions. The way I tend to look at it is that if the if the bylaw uses the word attached, it means attached. And it has to have a wall if it uses the word detached. It means it just has to be physically connected. And you look at the word that the bylaw actually uses in the first place and you only try to deal with whether it's more like this or more like that. In cases where you where you can't avoid it by just looking at the plain language of the bylaw. So that at least gives you another way of looking at it that doesn't that at least provides a way of reconciling a lot of the differences between the two definitions. So going by that interpretation. Which side do you do you think this fall also. I think that it falls on that. I think that the provision that matters is the provision in the in the ADU bylaw and also in the present provision that I don't immediately have before me that says that when it is attached, you will follow all of the the side to all of the dimensional requirements for the for the principal building. Both of those use only the word attached. And so I would interpret them as as meaning attached within the meaning of the bylaw, which is they share a wall. That would be true even though the definition of that that would be true even though they're they're physically connected and you would not be able to say they are not detached because the two definitions don't don't cleanly match each other. They're coming from other members of the board. Mr. sure. It's often. I believe inclined to agree in that they're the fact that they do not share a wall. Seems to be to me in some ways the primary consideration here. Mr. chair. I have one, probably a question or an issue here. If this was a bigger lot and probably a hypothetical question here but if it were a bigger lot to detached buildings connected through a skybridge of some car some kind. And to me it's a connection. It's to me it's not attached the way I'm seeing it. But again, I'm not strictly speaking definition wise but could that open up to misinterpretation there to a connector versus a attached portion, you know, Mr chairman. I'm told that that exact situation happened. It was presented in the case before the ARB some time ago, where an applicant was claiming that a two buildings, one of which was all residential, and one of which was all commercial were mixed use because they had a skyway between the two of them. And then they therefore constituted only one building. And that was resolved and or was abandoned I believe by the applicant after a considerable controversy but the situation that Mr. Holy raises is a situation that comes up and it comes up as a result of the potential overreading of the word of the literal meaning of the word detached obviously with the definition of attach where they had to share a wall that wouldn't that issue would not have arisen. Other thoughts. Mr chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I tend to agree with the analysis so far. And I, I look at it, and I guess I have a couple of questions from the plan. So this building itself is entirely in the backyard is that correct. It is within the backyard yes. And so, and so then in terms of the accessory structure. I think that we would need in terms of setbacks I just had it up I apologize I kind of lost it but we're, what are we dealing with terms of the setback backs, strictly speaking and I'm not even talking about a garage here I'm just talking about an accessory structure. So we're talking about six feet side and six feet rear. I am. And I'm, I'm navigating that. So that's on page five to five dash 15. Yeah. Just landed there. Yeah, so the minimum requirement setback for an accessory building and garage structure it's 25 feet from the front, six from the side, six from the rear. And because the plan itself I think I can see it it's just a little small. So do we meet those, certainly the 25 feet obviously, but to the side is the smallest dimension. Six feet to the side. It is. Okay. And then it's clearly more than that toward the rear. It is nine. Nine foot nine. Okay. And then we come up and I'm just trying to frame this to be able to process this aside from the question of definition of attached and detached, because there's also 5.4.27 section seven. And that provides a little bit different guidance in terms of setbacks right for garages. Correct. And so, and that's dependent upon the construction type. Correct, because you would be encroaching so close to the side lot line. The construction needs to be fireproof, so it can no longer be wood frame and it has to be as both garages you see or would be concrete block. So if we were looking at this 5.4.27, then, and they met the type one into construction, etc. Then you could be zero zero right so a garage could be constructed without regard to the setbacks as long as it meets the construction type. If it was garage by itself. Yeah. So, so if it was, and I know that now we sort of, we kind of start swerving back into attached and detached. We have that conversation but the other question I think I have is that I know that in the email you sent after your discussion with Mike Champa, you know there was some reference to the. The fact of the open space, including the deck. Yeah, so, so the placement of the building, which the ADU building right now leaves the open space intact is that also accurate. So we would need your dimensional verification that that is the case. Is 25 feet the way it's drawn right now it's a very good question as to whether they do in fact have 25 feet by 25 feet, as it's drawn. If they were to, you know, if they were to. If the project did not include usable open space that was a minimum 25 feet by 25 feet, then that would be a new non conformity requiring a variance. Right and that was actually what I was leading to. So the question as to whether or not as presented. There is a need for a variance and if as you're saying it needs to be clarified. I think we have, we absolutely have to do that. And those are sort of my questions that's what I wanted to know to help me sort of process this a little bit further. So with the deck area in being included for the usable open space we do have the 25 by 25. And I could either like scale it off the survey or put the dimensions on this, or have the survey or do it if that's the way we would just need final verification that that, in fact that does exist. Okay. So from the discussion before the board the board is to have the opinion that these these are in fact to structures that are connected by a deck but that does not mean that they are attached per se. That is the definition of the bylaw so in that case we would need to consider them as two separate structures for the conversation going forward it is everyone in agreement on that that that's what the board is considering. Yes, for me. Yeah. Okay. So in that case. I'll go back to the questions that I had earlier. So this, the setbacks for the required accessory dwelling unit. As an accessory structure it now falls under a different category than the main building so it has to be at least six feet from the side lot line and six feet from the rear lot line. Which is what is proposed here. And these really 25 from the front which it obviously is it needs to be located in the rear yard, which it is the next question. Then is the question of building height. And in the table of dimensions. For max for in the residential districts maximum height in the R zero R one that for a single family detached dwelling it's 35 feet for other permitted structure. And also listed as 35 feet, but I wasn't sure if there was a different height in the R one specific, so that but an accessory structure, greater than 80 square feet and private garages which is what this would be, because it's not, it's not an other primary structure. The maximum building height is 20 feet with a maximum height of two stories. So we would need to that would need to be verified that the building is no higher than 20 feet. So we are planning to reduce the pitch of the roof to make sure that the height is 20 feet from the average grade. So if you have those documents, I can show you right here. So by changing the pitch from a seven to a six. We would reduce it by a foot. Which would conform. Okay, but would not change the height of the walls. It would just change the height of the range. Yep. Yep. So we're planning to do that. Okay. And what's the, what's the interior height of the apartment. We have nine foot six for the wall height. And then a little bit lower where the pitch of the roof comes down. So eight, eight foot wall here. And what's the height of the garage. I believe it's seven foot four. I don't have a dimension on there but basically trying to match the basement level. So that basically the decks have to, you know, the deck has to connect the two floors. And then just trying to give a little bit more height. And then the floor area ratio is an attached building in addition. So FAR does apply. So the way that. So, but there's not an FAR related to garages to accessory structures, excuse me, and not to single family detached either. So FAR is not a consideration. And what is the floor area of the proposed building. So the ADU I believe is 520 square feet. This is not an addition. So it is not considered a large addition because it does not increasing the gross floor area of a building because it is a separate structure. It is considered as a request for an accessory dwelling unit. If it is within crawling through my copy of that. Welling units. Accessory building accessory dwelling unit may be located in an accessory building, which accessory building shall not constitute a principal or main building by the incorporation of the accessory dwelling unit. But if such accessory building is located within six feet of a lot line, then such accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed only if the board of appeal, acting pursuant to section three, three grants a special permit upon its finding. The creation of such accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the use of such accessory building as a private garage or other allowed use. So the board does not need to make a separate finding on the accessory dwelling unit because it is not within six feet of the side lot line. And then back to the to the deck itself. Mr Chairman. Mr. Dupont, just before we go there in terms of the actual accessory dwelling unit provision. Yeah, I just want to confirm because it's it gives the maximum of 900 square feet or one half of the floor area the principal dwelling, whichever is less or smaller. So I just want to confirm that the proposed, you know, space for that dwelling unit is in fact within those parameters. So the existing gross floor area is listed as 1,980 square feet. Okay, so we're well within that. Okay, we are well within that. Okay, thanks. Just to confirm with Miss Allison that proposed gross floor area on the on the dimensional information sheet that that is basically the summation of the existing building plus the accessory building correct. There's not a separate addition to the main building. Yep. And that is basically doesn't include on the garage space but partial of the entry and then they did. Okay. Yep. So this is section 532 gross floor area. So for the purposes by a lot of following areas of buildings are to be included in the calculation of gross floor area, which includes parking garage, except as excluded below, and it is excluded areas used for accessory parking, or including purposes. So, going back and forth with that. The garage area that is the area of the garage that is used for parking is not included in the calculation so the area that's dedicated to the stair for accessing the second floor would need to be included in the calculation of gross floor area. So it would not be included in the calculation for the accessory dwelling unit because it's not a part of the unit. And then just going back to the question of decks. So projections into minimum yards is section 539 unenclosed steps decks and the like which do not project more than 10 feet in the front yard, or more than five feet in the front yard on the line of the foundation wall may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district in which the structure is built. Unenclosed steps deck and the light which do not project more than 10 feet into the required rear yard and are not closer to the lot line than half the size of the required yard may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district. So whether porches decks steps and landings in the required setback are not considered to be within the foundation wall may not be enclosed extended or built upon except by special permit. So with that, the proposed backs as indicated here. The required side yard setback is five feet. Excuse me is 10 feet. So half that distance would be five feet so the deck needs to be set five feet for the side yard line, and then the required rear yards that back would normally be 25 feet but because the lot is shallower. So that distance is 19 feet. And so half of that being nine and a half feet in the deck is is 14 feet so it is not closer than half the required rear yard. So, the reason I go through all that now is a lot of this now with the determination that this is not an attached structure. A lot of this is allowable by right under the zoning bylaw. Just sort of going through determine exactly what at this stage what aspects of this project are we required to make a finding upon. Mr Chairman. Mr handlin. I have a sort of a question on FAR to to go back to there isn't any separate FAR requirement for the accessory structure. And, and for the single family either right. So, that's the reason why it is that we treat this as a non as zero. I guess the other question has to do with lot coverage and the tabulation that we've seen the light coverage under the proposal is not is left blank. And that's an issue that has been raised by the butters and I haven't looked up to see exactly what the lot coverage is what is required. I did look it up but I don't have it on my screen. 35% is the maximum. And but we, I guess I don't know what the, they say that Mr. Miss Ellison can probably clear this up as I recall it said that the current lot coverage is 17% and it looks like that shouldn't get up to 35% with the new structure but I'm not sure whether that in and would like to have a calculation of that. Yep. Um, so I just didn't remember to fill that in, but so right now, the law is 4731 square feet. Um, so 35% of that would be 1656 square feet. And our addition or the ADU plus the decks and the dwelling are 1678 square feet so we're 35.46%. So we could very easily get that down to the 35% allowed. Then reviewing the, some of the comments that we had last time. There were concerns by the fighting neighbor on the right side of the property which is the side that the deck is closest to about the proximity of the deck to that side yard, and would certainly, I think it would be, if you were to be looking to take area out of the deck that that would be a be a place you may want to look for that. And then I know that some of the downhill neighbors were specifically concerned a about the height of the accessory dwelling unit and garage piece, particularly because it is uphill from them. And the height that it has is exaggerated by the change in elevation. And they're also very concerned about the flow of water from this property that currently heads in their direction. I know that the proposal here is to add up at a dry well to attract some of the, some of the water. It would be very appropriate to, to maybe explore that a little bit further to figure out if there's a, there's a better way to contain the water to really sort of keep it within the property, especially coming down the driveway. And then, I don't know if you have a landscaping plan but do you have any, I know the driveway is being expanded. Is there a plan specifically for a buffer between the driveway and the adjacent property. We don't have one right now on. I know that the homeowner currently has like raised flower beds and things like that around that side of the property which they'll probably move on, you know into the yard. But they're open to, you know, considering what that vegetation will look like in order to capture some of the water before it has a chance to go into anyone else's property. So the parking bylaws, the parking section of the zoning bylaws do require that there if there's park side yard parking that there be a buffer. It is slim on details as to what that first should entail. But it should be included. Okay. Are there any further questions or comments from the board at this time. Okay. With that. In a minute I will be opening the meeting for public comment public questions and comments were 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 public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. If there's a 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 those. You will be called upon by the meeting host you'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair and please remember to speak clearly. Anyone wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing the chair will allow those wishing to speak for the first time to speak first. And once all public questions or comments have been addressed, or we have reached the hour I will say of 845. The public comment period will be closed board and staff with our best to show documents being discussed. I do ask if you're, if you're addressing the board. If there are repetitive comments if you could just clarify those quickly. In the interest of time we do have three additional hearings to go through this evening. And we did have extensive public comment at the prior hearing. With that I will go ahead and open the public comment period if there's anyone who wishes to address the board see me dials. If you're on the phone at star nine and otherwise it is using the raise hand feature of the participant tab. The chair will recognize Mary when Stanley O'Connor. Thank you Mr chair members of the board. I represent the owners of 79 situate street 110 Mount Vernon Street, who were at the last hearing more on this call. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of attached and detached and it has been my experience, appearing before this board and actually being a member of that of your board, that the building inspectors through the years have viewed a deck in this nature as an attached on and I think 5.3 point 13 applies integral is important. And if you look at this deck, and you look at how it connects with the properties, I would suggest you, it is attached. Now, my clients were never never saw the plans until they were posted. And I reached out to Miss Ellison to talk to her. About this because you know it's the practice. Generally in this town that we meet with the butters and we try to reach some consensus if we can but I didn't get a call back. That's important because my clients are very concerned about this project. And there are a number of issues. The accessory dwelling unit provision says that it provides for the orderly expansion of the tax base, without detracting from existing character from the existing character of the effective neighborhood. And my clients believe that this doesn't fact detract. I would also suggest you that the island and residential design guidelines provide that significant additions such as this should be oriented and located in a way that is consistent with the neighborhood. This idea should reinforce the existing spacing between houses and provide enough privacy between the neighborhoods. That is not what is occurring here. And why it's important that the butters that the applicant sit down with your butters is because whether you are bored grants this, or whether the building inspector grants a building permit because you think relief is not going to is not necessary. That's not going to end it here for my clients they're going to take the next step and appeal. So it makes some sense I would suggest that the applicants and the architect sit down with the butters. There are several others on this call that likewise are opposed to it and I think we'll speak and come up with something that is respectful of the other neighbors. Because the appellate process is a very long and costly process. So that's not we're not saying that and threatening that it was saying that because they need to preserve their rights as well. They are amenable to sitting down and engaging in a earnest discussion about how to accomplish what they want to do. Provided it is respectful of those around. So that that would be what I would be saying on behalf of my clients here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Mr. Steve Moore. Thank you Mr. Steve Moore Piedmont Street. I was in attendance at the last meeting where there was a lot of discussion. And I read a lot of the additional documentation and letters and such. I am heartened at the relative balance between the people who support this and support the applicants, particularly because there's been so much community in this neighborhood, as well as the people who are against being reasonable in stating their reasons why they're not doing this approach. And clearly, we've heard a lot tonight about how a lot of this dances on the edge of the zoning law. Laws relative to the deck, open space, how ADUs, which is a very new one and only can fit into small, non conforming lots, particularly one less than 5000 square feet. And I'm just thinking from a neutral perspective since I'm not in a butter and I'm not a neighbor. I would suggest that perhaps the applicants might want to consider compromise based on the input that they've received at the meetings and with the body of documentation, perhaps to build the ad you only on one story and give up the garage space now I know that's not desirable necessarily in the participants parts. However, I think a compromise probably is in order. I don't be the attorney that just spoke of course, talked about further action and whether or not that that would come to pass I really have no idea however. I think this work would be to have more of a compromise approach between the various interested parties which include the neighbors. I am surprised to good neighbor agreement didn't go out maybe it's too early in the process for that and I think a lot of this might have been, might have been mitigated by being a little more proactive and talking to the butters. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Next on the list is ginger tower. Yeah. Yeah, it says the Scott tower ginger's husband. We are the right side of butters at 110 Mount Vernon Street I'm going to read it just a little short statement because I'm not all that great about ad living here. On a lot that already does not meet Ellington's minimum lot size requirements, there will be two large two story buildings, a three bedroom main house in a full size apartment on an oversized garage with a deck who square footage exceeds another 370 square feet. The footprint of the garage in apartment will be more than 75% that of the main house, all of which runs to the edges of a budding properties on all sides. The 106 Mount Vernon Street proposal runs to the edge of every zoning limit. The majority of the 106 Mount Vernon lot will be consumed by building or deck will substantially block existing sight lines and eliminate a butter privacy noise in light from a deck that will sit eight feet or more above grade will reflect reflect directly into a budding properties. Okay, and in terms and then then from based on what I've heard here. The stairs from the deck, essentially interrupt contiguous space. And as such, there is no 25 by 25 open space. The other thing that I got from the discussion earlier was that the building height has a maximum of 20 feet. And that's sort of based on the average grade of the property, but the average grade of the, you know, the average grade of the garage. And that height will still be exceeded, even with what I'm guessing is and I don't have the new plans, but we'll also exceed that 20 foot requirement and that's, that's all I had to say, thank you very much. Thank you. Next on the list of identified as Edwin Schmidt. Hi, this is Edwin Schmidt's wife gale location I am the, we're the rear butters. And I'm not going to repeat everything that's in the materials we've already submitted or that I stated at the last meeting but I would like to say, sorry, can I just confirm that just the street address I apologize 70 79 situate street. Thank you. Right behind the property. Um, I just would like to say a couple of general comment and a specific question for the board. What my comment is that it, I want to just go on the record that we certainly have no objection to an AGU and to the applicant's mother, getting living space on the property. The way that this is designed, it is just destroys are the back of our house and our ability, our sight lines are light air views. You know, we have a small, very small yard like everyone else in the neighborhood, and we enjoy it a great deal. And you know we eat out there and good weather we, you know, garden out there we entertain. Basically, this will just completely overrun my backyard, I have no privacy. It will be right behind my fence above my fence substantially above my fence will be a huge deck that will essentially elevate the backyard well above fence height, and a building that will be from our perspective down below 24 feet high just blocking the rest of my backyard. Um, and so it's really just devastating to us to our enjoyment of the of the property. And, and moreover, I think it's going to set a precedent that the spaces between houses which are the only open space in this very tight neighborhood are just going to be blocked by two story buildings if this is the new rule and I think that's really unfortunate for the, for the neighborhood flooding is a huge issue for us I'm not content with a dry well, because we already get a lot of water draining from that property into ours. And I think between the new building the extended driveway, and the fact that this deck will basically mean that nothing's going to grow under it. All those factors are going to lead to substantially more flooding and and we already have a problem with flooding so I really am very concerned about that issue. Um, so, all in all, you know those are kind of my general comments that I would like the board to be aware of. But I do have one specific question if I may pose it about the open usable space definition in the bylaw, which one of the requirements in addition to the 25 feet minimum in both directions is that it's deemed usable only if at least 75% of the area has a grade of less than 8% and somehow that requirement does not seem consistent to me with adding up a piece of yard and a piece of wood that are, you know, eight feet apart, more whatever it is. If you can't have a grade of more than 8%. How can you, how can you add to completely separate areas that are that disparate in height. So that's a question that I have. And those are my only comments with moment thank you. Thank you I appreciate that. The next question on our list is Sean Snyder. Thank you. Yeah I just wanted to comment on a couple of things that came up. I know it's obvious but I need your address for the record. Oh sorry 106 Mount Vernon Street. A couple things that came up in regard to Mary suggested that she called Jenna, our architect. There we've no, no knowledge of that so maybe she didn't leave a message and that's her prerogative. The neighbors did not approach us. They chose to hire a lawyer to do that for them. We are very approachable people we have made it. I mean I think we've talked last time about how welcoming we aim to be and I don't think I've ever done anything to counter that. So I just wanted to go around and talk to all the neighbors. There was a moment last fall, when we're in the process of doing this when we admittedly had a much larger and uglier build that Jenna was deterring us from doing but we were trying to like you know maximize everything. And she talks sense into us me specifically. And we ended up with this really what we thought was a great project. When we were meeting, we met ginger on the front porch, my mother-in-law met with gender on the front porch and showed her the plans, and back in the fall. So, then this forget the timeline exactly but when we started this process I think a few months ago, more earnestly, we walked around and talked to all the abutting neighbors that were available. I think Miss Pocchini was not home or didn't answer the door when my wife walked around. We talked to some neighbors we didn't know. We talked to Karim and Galen who are our other side of budding neighbors who would arguably be more impacted by this than anybody and they are in support of it. So to say that we haven't done the good neighbor thing and reached out I think is, I just wanted to defend myself and my family for that because I don't think that's true at all. I'd also like to point out that our abutting neighbors have a garage, have an addition, and have a deck. And this is the abutting neighbors, the towers who have been on the call. I remember when we first moved into this house or early when we moved into this house, Ginger was talking about how she regretted not putting a second floor on her deck. Sorry, not her deck, a second floor on her addition. And, you know, was kind of prompting us for like advice and like kind of suggesting things that we might want to consider when we inevitably do this things that they knew we were going to do when we moved in. We've also known them for about 12 years because we used to live across the street. And I would like to think we were good neighbors then and they were great neighbors to us too, you know, we had a really solid community. And it's really just kind of sad to me that this has come to this point of people not talking to each other. There also this is a little bit for context and I don't know if this applies in the same way it does for real estate comps, but on situate street across from gala med. There is a whole string of houses with multi story decks that loom large over their neighbors in the back on Newport Street, some of them are our friends that live over on Newport Street. And I don't think that's it's not a problem. It's, you know, a cozy yard and they also, you know, bought that that house knowing that the, the deck was there and that, you know, the property sloped everything everything was kind of, you know, known at that point. And I also believe last session, Mary, our neighbor's lawyer was saying that we did not count as a hardship because of the topography of our yard. So I'm wondering why the neighbors who may be geographically downhill from us are proposing this as it might be a hardship to them. I think there are a lot of things that have been established already throughout this neighborhood. We're really not trying to do anything crazy or new, we're trying to follow the bylaws as as they are set. We're trying to, you know, identify setbacks as best we can. And I think we've done that and our architect Jenna is great with us so I appreciate all of her support and navigating this process. And this is a final note. I mean, I know that this neighborhood is notoriously wet. I mean, we live next to spring street. So, I think there's a reason that the street is called spring street. And I, I just am curious why all of a sudden we are being accused of flooding people's basements. If there is something outside of the dry well that needs to be navigated, I think, you know, yeah, we could talk about that, but I don't know why this is all so very accusatory. And I agree with anybody else who came up and talked and said that this would be great to work out as neighbors. And I wish we had had that all of branch extended earlier. So thank you. Thank you. And So it is 835 gift. 10 minutes remaining. We have Edwin Schmidt for a second time. I will be very brief, but I just want to respond to what Sean said, because I feel a need to defend myself. It's absolutely true that Bailey came by in November and told us that they were going to be building an ADU. She also said, and I wrote it down at the time that it was going to be 300 square feet. It will be tucked in behind our garage and she didn't think we would notice it or be affected by it. And nothing was stated about the deck. And that was in November. And the next thing I heard was when this was posted on the town website. So this is not something that I was aware of in terms of the massive scope of this particular project. And we are not claiming that it's a hardship to be downhill. It's a fact that if the property that's right behind us and uphill paves over and builds on their property that it's going to flood into into our lot. I'm not claiming that that's a hardship within the zoning statute. It's just a fact in terms of how the land is sloped. And yeah, there are some, there are some houses that have a high deck. I agree with Sean on that. But there is no property in the neighborhood that has a high deck. And also a two story large building that is, you know, takes up half of your backyard that the deck doesn't take up. And I have no objection to a garage sized building, which is kind of what I had bought this plan might be. This is very, very different in terms of what's being constructed on the lot and how it impacts the neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. And then we have ginger tower. Yeah, so, so I was just going to agree with Ned and Gail in terms of there was no sit down with us going over the details of the plans we were told that they were going to that they were going to be doing some sort of an addition. No details regarding that were presented to us in any detail. Yes. Marty did try to talk to ginger. We were, we were on our way out at the time. And as such, you know, we're around all the time, all the time. And no one came by and sat down and said, This is this exactly is what we are proposing that did not happen. May I also say my name is ginger tower 110 Movern Street. Marty did show me or tried to show me plans, but it was not these plans. And at that time, the wind was whipping around. She couldn't find the page she or pages. She wanted to show me she I think she was a little anxious about showing me the plans, but it would. It was not these plants. I saw these plants. And, and may I say, we all agree that Marty is a lovely person and upstanding citizen devoted to her family and has many supporters. It is important to note that her supporters, except for one, are not a butters. Therefore this permanent oversized garage with an apartment above the garage and an enormous step. No impact on their homes and the enjoyment of their yards. For instance, privacy, open air space sunlight in shadows. We read lead a very quiet life, not that everybody has, we expect to leave quiet life like we do, but we are very quiet. And we've been very, very accepting of everyone in this neighborhood. I think everyone in this neighborhood has been accepting of everyone else this never been to my knowledge, a problem before. Thank you. Thank you to both. People who have their hands raised it just spoke a second ago so I'll go ahead and go their hands. Are there any further rooms the public who wish to address this hearing once going twice. Okay, the public comment period for this hearing will be closed. I think everyone who who spoke on on this topic. So with that board. Now needs to go back and discuss this further. So, taking a very sort of dry look at this. If the board is of the position that this is a detached accessory unit or an accessory building with an accessory dwelling unit. That is six feet off the side yard line six feet off the rear lot line, at least, and no taller than 20 feet. And it doesn't increase the overall lot coverage beyond 35%. If it is a detached structure, then it is a by right proposal. Even though the lot is not conforming this is not adding any new this is not changing the nature of any nonconformity and it is not incur it is not increasing the nature of any nonconformity is not creating any new nonconformity according to the interpretation of usable open space that is provided by the zoning official that said, you know, the questions are raised about the, you know, and that we had we discussed this briefly last time as well, as to whether we're comfortable saying that usable open space can be at two completely different levels, as it is in this case. I think that's something that the board should should consider we should and then we do need to determine what our senses on on the proposed accessory structure. And then if there is a determination that's I mean I think the determination that needs to be made by the board is that that this is not and not an attached structure. The question then becomes if the board was made a determination, can they attach conditions to such a determination, which I'm uncertain how we would go about doing that, but would certainly like to hear from other board members how we might do that. And then the other thing that as was recommended is, you know, is would is there still an opportunity for the proponents, the applicants to consider some of the comments that have been made over the past two sessions by their abutting neighbors to scale anything down or back in order to try to alleviate some of their concerns or are we at the point now where we're really just being asked to make a decision. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. In some ways I think that we're less the application before us is for a variance on the assumption that a number of provisions of the zoning bylaw are are are violated and you need variance for them and and there's also at least technically a an application for a special permit regarding usable open space but I suppose that we probably need to deal with that in some way. But actually, in some respects, we know that the application before us either hasn't been shown yet to be fully compliant. Like for example, we don't have a we don't have a calculation of what the total we do have a determination about the 25 square 25 feet, but we don't have something that tells us whether it's over 30% or not. We know that a lot coverage, they're a little over and they have to do something to cut back that big back a little bit. And I wonder whether a way of addressing this is not is basically to say, hey, to make the decision on whether this is attached or not attached. My preferred way of saying it. And then and then only make that determination. For the rest, once Mr. Chomp and his fellows have that, they can do what we just did in the beginning of this to go through the other things. They may have more time to do it and more information in front of them. And if they have the guidance that they should view this as not attached structure, maybe that's that's enough issues like whether the the issue that I believe Mrs. Tower raised about the about what average grade of what is something that they could do and all of those things are difficult things for us to do ultimately in support of a conclusion that we don't have any jurisdiction. And so if we don't have jurisdiction, I was thinking maybe being parsimonious about this and only making the decision that we have to make and letting inspectional services deal with the other things might be the best way to deal with this. Because otherwise I feel uncomfortable dismissing this for lack of jurisdiction as long as I know the plans before us are admitted not to be exactly compliant. And and we've never seen the plan. We will never have seen the plans that are the ones they really intend to go with. So that that's one point is to try to say less rather than more and give more and leave more open to Mr. to inspectional services to to work out the implications for that they may that may turn out that there's a finding there that we need to look at and may have to come back to us in some way and we can deal with with waving fees or whatever is necessary in order to make that not unnecessarily burden but I I feel that Mr. Champa focusing on it and knowing he starting with the the the premise that we've given him is apt to do a better job than than we will do based on on just the hearing tonight. Secondly, I do think that that if we if we did hold this to ourselves and maybe maybe it would be desirable I don't think that there's any point at this point to have more of a hearing but there might be a reason to close the hearing and defer and defer judgment until we have a chance to look at this more but I am attracted to the notion there's one of the things that's really sad about this case is a neighborhood that everybody has praised for its community and the way in which people get along and are mutually supportive of each other have given rise to the not so much bitter but disappointed on all sides feelings about one another and everyone feels themselves hurt so Connor is quite right that that if something isn't done to breach all of this and come up to some sort of a compromise that people are at the very least likely on both sides to be looking for an expensive time in court and and it just seems to me that that standing on your rights is not going to is not going to be good for the community and it may not be good ultimately for the individuals involved so no matter what we do I hope they start talking and talk in a way that continues to be amicable and respectful of the community that they have enjoyed and they'd like to continue to enjoy but with the notion that there may be a possibility of some of the things that are going to happen that are going to happen that are going to give and take care that that can make can make life better for everyone thank you Mr. Hamlin Mr. Chairman Mr. DuPont so if I can over simplify Mr. Hamlin's comment I mean it sounds like the thinking is then we might have the opportunity to allow inspectional services to take a further look at it is that what I think Mr. Hamlin was saying if I can ask him well yeah if we say that it's not attached yes I think that's right I mean that would take away the major reason why it is before us but if we say it's not attached it's still violates this provision or that provision then we're back where we started and presumably he could do that there ought to be some way of smoothing out the inconveniences of doing that but at this point that's really the best we can do because if we say it's not attached the applicant will go back to ISD and ISD will either issue the permit or they won't have anything to do with it and if they come up with something new then they come up with something new yeah because when I was trying to put this into context it almost felt to me as if it was an appeal of a denial by our decision by the building inspector it kind of felt like that and I think in fairness to the butters to the section of the bylaw 5.313 and I presume that you're referring to be where it says an accessory building attached to the principal building shall be considered yes so that's the distinction right it's it's sort of the viewpoint from your perspective that it is attached and then the question from our point of view as to whether it's attached so not to oversimplify again but I just wanted to clarify that that's where you are coming from correct okay thanks a lot if I may suggest that perhaps putting this over for a couple of weeks to give the applicant and the butters an opportunity to meet to try to work out perhaps come to some terms would probably be more productive I don't know if the applicants amenable to that I did leave a message for Miss Ellison when I called so that would be my suggestion other thoughts from the board so to Mr. Hamlet's point I think it's and Mr. Dupont as well I think you know it's worthwhile for the board to solidify its determination in regards to whether it's attached or detached in its opinion and then that will sort of allow the conversation to move forward and remove this question that is sort of lingering over everything else and then beyond that is that sort of allows the conversation to move forward knowing exactly what what the sort of the guidelines in the what part of the zoning bylaw does apply to what we're discussing and how that's to be interpreted and then the we can ask the applicants to you know at that point the board's this Mr. Hamlet point out the board still doesn't have final documentation from the applicants so you know we would continue the applicants can either amend their plans to become compliant and then request to withdraw their special permit request or if they have a further need to for a special permit then they can come back before the board again but as has been expressed it would be a good opportunity for the applicants and their and their architect to sort of consider some of the comments they've heard over the last couple of sessions and to possibly sit down with some of their neighbors to better clarify sort of what the issues are and how those might be addressed and in an amicable way but for the purposes I think of this evening to Mr. Hamlet's point I think it's probably best that we limit the scope of our determinations to the question of attached versus detached and then refer it back to inspectional services and back to the applicant to determine how they want to proceed are there any further questions from the board in that regard Mr. Sherman so I do have a question about the sequence of doing it that way and perhaps it is the better way to do it but I mean if we were to say detached or attached I mean that's one of the arguments that the butters are making and I wonder if that undercuts the opportunity for the parties to get together and talk and make a call for inspectional services and say this is what we think but I didn't want to undercut the possibility of having fruitful discussions among the butters and the applicant so I'm not sure what other members of the board think about that but I'm just thinking that maybe we should stay that determination on our part as far as communicating with the inspectional services you know perhaps that's not the better way but I do have a concern that if we say it's one thing or the other then that may undercut the conversations that might be beneficial Mr. Chairman so I certainly take I wonder though I mean it seems to me that that if I were sort of representing one side or another I'd be looking now and saying that the board is generally inclined towards the view of saying that that this is not attached and the real risk is that that will be thrown at some point because obviously it's a close question there's you people can take a view of it in different ways and that provides the uncertainty that gets resolved by saying let's come to an agreement without let's come to an agreement without without having to force the question and my preference would be to be clear on where we stand on this I think that under the circumstances it does it is fairly clear and Ms. O'Connor can explain to her clients what the risks are but at this point I think I'm not sure that offering sort of a glimmer of a hold that we would suddenly change position from where we are tonight is necessarily productive of a useful conversation among the interested parties I think it's really the risk that not only the risk that maybe that we wouldn't be upheld on appeal but also the risk of having to go through all of the costs and inconvenience and anguish that litigation would do I would certainly be willing to give up a lot of being right in order to avoid that hassle and hope that and I'm sure that Ms. O'Connor would agree with that but I think that it's helpful in moving things forward to give a clearer direction to ISD because that gives you an ability to begin going forward and make this a little bit more concrete but I think in some ways you'll end up pretty much the same place either way I think I do know that the applicant has his hand raised and I will go ahead and recognize Mr. Cider and as to the purposes raising his hand. I guess a couple things to think about I genuinely appreciate the perspective that you all are taking as far as maintaining the community and support there so thank you for that I think that is a value that we hold very dearly with all of our actions and deeds I think we can probably figure something out that said I think we could probably shave some space off the deck I don't know how much room for navigating we have on the unit itself because I think there's a certain level of space that my mother-in-law deserves and as we heard last time we met 500 square feet kept on being referred to as a small ADU I don't think we're doing anything that's too overreaching in what we're requesting again if these requests came to us prior to the first zoning meeting I think we would have been more amenable to talking about them directly but once you get a letter from a lawyer before somebody talks to you you get a little you know defensive maybe so things to consider I'm happy to talk to our neighbors like I said I think we can shave a little bit off the deck I don't know if that will necessarily achieve what they are looking for but we're happy to talk about it and navigate through the process and hopefully maintain relationships thank you Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon just in sort of thinking what the overall risk is I'd like to just remind everyone of what the chair said at the last hearing that if in fact we're wrong about this being attached it should be viewed as if excuse me wrong about it being not attached and we should view it as an attached structure and it is clear that variance will be necessary and it is highly unlikely that the board would be able to grant it because as the chair pointed out last time there's nothing unique about this about the shape of this property and how it fits within the first of the criteria of the zoning bylaw so you know we are not going to have the final word on that necessarily and that is something that when people begin to tote up risks on either side it's you know if everybody relies on their rights and we are right that it is attached then Mr. Snyder maybe headed for a big win if we are wrong he's probably headed for a big loss and the same thing is sort of the compliment on the other side so there's plenty of reason for people to whether there's lawyers involved and not you're likely to come up with something that individually is better for each for you and for your neighbors and it's and you're likely to avoid a tremendous risk and expense and maybe looking at it the way you would have looked at it before even though there's water that's gone over the dam since then it's just I hate to see the situation come up with winners and losers and unfortunately I think that bylaw is set up that if we had to just rely on the inspection services ultimately a court has to rely on winners and losers it really is a winner take all situation that is not going to make this neighborhood live up to the standards that it says for itself so far okay so for this evening um so the board could so we have before us a variance in a special permit application and we're sort of taking the stand that we're um either appealing the decision to the building expectors to clarify our interpretation of something that the building inspector has determined is um not clear in the zoning bylaw and so we're essentially issuing they will be considered sort of a guiding opinion um to be used to further the discussion on this project so um I think then I have I have a brief statement that I wrote um which I think we could take as a motion for the board um and should the board approve it then I think we would request of the applicant a continuance um to a date certain uh which will allow them an opportunity to uh to speak with their um with their architect for their for them and the architect to speak with the building inspector but also um as has been expressed several times to allow the applicant some time to to possibly confer with the neighbors and to see if there are some places where this um where the needs of everyone sort of align and we can uh possibly come forward with a with a proposal that um uh everyone can feel a lot more comfortable with um so with that um the statement I wrote is upon review of the definitions for detached building and attached building the board determines that in this circumstance the two buildings connected by an open deck are to be considered detached and um I think we could then you know further request that the applicant review the plans in light of this determination Mr. Chairman yeah uh in a second I'll be happy to move that but I would strongly prefer to have the words not attached used rather than detached okay not attached is not defined in the bylaw and detached is and you need to maintain the distinction oh okay with that amendment I I move that we adopt the chairman's statement second thank you both okay so what the board has in front of this um we have a vote to um vote on the determination of a definition a better term um which will be issued by vote of the board uh the motion was made by Mr. Hanlon Mr. DuPont um and so the the statement reads upon review of the definitions for detached building and attached building the board determines that in this circumstance the two buildings connected by an open deck are to be considered not attached further um request that the applicant review the plans in light of this determination um we have a vote of the board um so a vote of yes is a vote in favor of that um of that statement and a vote of no would be in opposition to that statement so then we'll call vote of the board Mr. DuPont I Mr. Hanlon I I oops thank you um Mr. Holly I Mr. Ms. Hoffman I thank you and Mr. LeBlanc I so that um in favor of that statement um with that I would um with the applicant's permission request that we um continue this hearing um and we could continue to the there are several hearings on the schedule for the 25th we could continue to the 25th um the next meeting would be May 9th so either of those dates um any more in favor there's a question for Mr. Snyder and Ms. Ellis in this they how long they would like to continue it's for do we have the option to withdraw our application you do have the option to request a request withdraw as well I just don't know if you want to leave your options open at this point or if you want to go ahead and withdraw at this stage and refile so I think um after talking to my client and you know understanding that they're living next to these neighbors for the next however many years um you know we all like to get on the same page and um I think I can speak for this um family and say that we'd like to withdraw it and um redesign knowing um if we do have this a deck um it would not be an attached structure um so we can meet the um requirements for that and then have a open discussion with the neighbors to make sure everyone's comfortable with it before going back to the building okay um Mr. Snyder do you have an agreement with that? yeah yes yes okay so that is a request from the applicant to withdraw um the application for a special permit uh for 106 Mount Vernon Street Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I understand that to be withdrawing the application for variance as well uh yes thank you and so I guess I just want to clarify a few points um that um we could potentially reduce the size of the deck um or detach the structures all together with no deck um like fully detached um and both of those would be considered by right and not attached and then the structure of the um garage and ADU as long as it meets the accessory dimensions which we've defined with the height and the setbacks that that would also be considered by right with or without the deck is sort of I just want to be clear yeah I mean that that should be correct if it's substantially you know obviously would not be the same conditions as is shown today but sort of that condition where the two structures are completely independent and they are just connected by an unenclosed structure um I think that what we're deter what our determination is is that that should be considered to be not attached okay great okay so uh I moved that the board accept the withdrawal of the special permit and variance requests for 106 Mount Vernon street to be issued without prejudice second that mr. Handler mr. Dupont sorry that was pat okay so a roll call vote of the board on the motion to withdraw mr. Dupont I mr. Handlin I mr. Holley I mr. Rickardlli I Topman I mr. Bill Blank I and the chair votes I so the applications for 106 Mount Vernon street are withdrawn uh thank you all very much for your participation tonight I appreciate everyone's participation thank you thank you all and thank you for your patience too okay so this brings the next item on our agenda which is item number five docket 3738 39 sunny side avenue um so I could ask the applicant to go ahead and introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do and believe that the Diane Miller is their architect so Colleen if you wouldn't mind giving her co-hosting privileges please proceed thank you good evening mr. Chairman and members of the board we are here tonight to apply for one special permit for usable open space um so in this situation we do not have the minimum lot area with 25 foot dimensions in both directions in order for it to be eligible for the calculation that is consistent with most of the homes on sunny side which is its own separate district within the R2 zoning district what we would like to do is we are requesting permission to build a rear addition that's 384 square feet total so that is 102 square feet on the first floor and 282 square feet on the second floor um this addition would increase the gross floor area of our property of the home from 1239 to 1623 square feet so it is still a pretty modestly sized home as are many of the homes on sunny side uh the goal is to expand the small play room that they have on the first floor on the back of the house right now and they get a little bit bigger at a half bathroom on that first floor and um really most importantly the thing that's driving this project is that they need to have a third bedroom they have two small children um and they have two bedrooms so they would like to have that third bedroom so that their children can each have their own room um and that's the purpose of this project the lot coverage does increase from 24 percent to 28.2 which is still below the 35 percent allowed so fairly significantly below that um and also worth noting the proposed addition is over an existing basement level driveway which would remain as such um the addition will be supported on posts and there will still be driveway and parking beneath it um so it only changes the landscape open space by five square feet and that's just due to the reconstruction of the squares and it takes up a little bit more space but essentially it's the same landscape open space situation that we have currently um furthermore the intention is to replace that asphalt driveway with pervious pavers so we will actually be improving the um permeable surfaces and this is something that was discussed and already approved by conservation uh back in February February 16 we did submit to the board a petition that was signed by the neighbors including their immediate butters who were in support of this project um it's also worth noting several of the other neighbors have very similar rear additions uh all of these duplex homes on sunny side are very similar and many of them have done similar rear additions um it has no impact whatsoever on the front of the home and we feel that it is consistent with the scale and the massing and the character of the neighborhood and therefore not substantially detrimental thank you thank you um in the in the project review by the conservation commission did they have any other comments that would be relevant not that I'm aware of I notice that Brendan is on now instead of Caitlin Brendan was there anything else that you can think of from conservation that had a relevance to this um no not that I can think of Dan and thank you for covering that really nicely um just the just the driveway having the required pavers was the biggest um ask from them um and they felt comfortable with the project so um we were able to get that approved which is great um I did note that the um so in this neighborhood there are essentially houses with zero lot line on one side that are um duplex houses but they're not on single property they're on I believe on split property is that correct so the butter actually has a window on the property line facing what will be the new addition um and so and but you're I believe you're going to a foot and a half away from that window um on your side are there any are there any specific requirements from fire codes that you're aware of that you need to be um considered in that case I don't believe there are because it's a two family but if there was something that like Jampa required of us then we would certainly be willing to accommodate that but I believe it's essentially treated from a code perspective as a two family home okay um and that the window on the abutting structure isn't required for egress for any reason it looks like it's I think it's in a sun room or something like that okay are there questions from the board Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon last fall we had a case ultimately Mr. Fleming's case was what prompted it but there had been a decision administratively by ISD that in general the kind of case where you have zero open space to begin with and zero open space afterwards and you're not actually changing anything other than the gross floor area but something that could be done because there was no ISD would find no substantial impact in those cases so we wouldn't have to decide whether or not they were more detrimental and I was wondering if there's any explanation for why it is that this case was sent to us what is it that makes this different from the cases that were covered by the decision last fall I mean certainly I have no notice from the inspectional services that there is concern that there may be a significant impact from this you know as we all know that basically the way this is supposed to work is that they will start by making a determination of whether it's a significant extension and then we get to decide whether or not that has a substantial additional impact and that first it's desirable in these cases not to have them come to us if they don't have to and again we previously I thought we're at a point where those kinds of zero to a greater amount of zero wouldn't come to us which would save us a lot of time and I guess I don't really understand what it is that makes this different from that that we should be looking at if there's nothing you know I guess that all we can have is a further conversation to see just what the guiding principle what the guiding principle is here but I thought we weren't going to be seeing these cases anymore I asked the applicant and their architect did the inspectional services give a specific explanation as to why a special permit was required no I have done in the past my office has done other projects like this where it's a zero to a zero and they've always come through this process so I was not aware personally that there was a change in that policy but I mean we're okay with if it's something that you're saying is now a by right you know that the special permit is not needed I'm fine with that as well well they do need to make the finding right and in the absence I guess in the absence of they're having made a finding that we make the finding I guess we could do that yeah because essentially this comes out of a decision by this I believe it was Supreme Judicial Court the Belalta of the Brookline decision from a year or two ago which clarified the parameters of a section under state code in regards to pre-existing non-conforming building and structure is that allows the zoning official to make an initial determination that if there's an existing non-conformity and it is being extended altered or reconstructed then there's if they make a determination that it is not significant then it can be approved by right and then otherwise it has to go before the zoning board for determination that it is not significantly more detrimental and so we've the cases that have come before us we've always sort of taken the approach that the department forwarding it to us that they have made the determination that is not insignificant and therefore the board needs to make a determination but the only determination under the by-law that the board is allowed to make is under 813b is no alteration construction excuse me no alteration reconstruction extension or structural change to a single or two-family residential structure that increases the non-conforming nature of said structure shall be permitted unless there's a finding by the board of appeals that the proposed alteration reconstruction extension or structural change will not be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood so I think that is what would be the question before us this evening are there any further questions from the board if not I will go ahead and open for public comment on this hearing as stated before the purpose of public comment is to provide information and commentary to the board as it relates to the matter at hand if you would like to speak you may raise your hand using the raise hand button on the participants tab if you're dialing in on the phone you may dial star 9 are there any members of the public who wish to address this application seeing none Mr. Moore you got yourself in in just in time well I apologize Mr. Chair I would look at documents to figure this out exactly about my question I think based on what I saw online there's a very large tree in front of this house is that correct Mr. Chair I would prefer that question to the applicant is there a large tree in front of the house yeah there's a very large tree yes thank you thank you the reason I'm speaking at all is that to do the work that you're talking about I don't know about accessing the back of the property to do the work but this is a very significant tree at least looks like there are also some large street trees and I would I assume the tree is going to remain because I'm behind the house and if that is true you're going to have to do some pretty significant protection of the critical root zone I'm just giving you a heads up and you'll lead on to the tree warden about probably how to do that best or look on the website I don't believe this tree is unnecessarily a setback you will have to protect it to not during the process of the construction perhaps you're welcome I would note that these houses have actually essentially both functions of the back alleyway behind the house so I believe the construction activities can take place from the rear without impacting the front of the structure that's excellent news Mr. Chair I was trying to figure this out that's why you got that almost mistaken so okay then probably it's my concern thank you Mr. Chair you're welcome with that seeing no other public comment on this I'll go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing with that then returning back to the board so what we have before us is what amounts to a section 6 determination which the board typically does by reviewing the special permit requirements as put forward in section 3-3 and under section 813B so the question is the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit within the district this isn't allowed use and the special permit is not required the requested use is essential or desirable to public convenience and welfare and the application of a house to allow it to remain livable for the occupants of the house it doesn't detract from the neighborhood in general requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety again it has no impact on either of those it does not change the ownership structure of the building requested use will not overload any public system this does not change any of the utilities that are required for this property requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the neighborhood this is a standard addition that you see on several of these houses and is fully to the rear of the house it is not primarily within the public view as was noted they did go before the conservation commission as this is within the 200 foot riverfront zone they have received approval from that board for the project they have proposed requested use is not detrimental to the public health or welfare requested use will not cause excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood and then the final thing that the board would be defined is that the increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition so those are the findings that the board needs to make I believe that this application certainly meets those requirements and would ask the board if there are any conditions that the board would wish to impose I would note that the board does have three standard conditions that it imposes when it issues a determination the first is that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief there should be no deviation during construction from proof plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals number two the building inspector is hereby notified that they are to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures that at any time they determine that violations are present under 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 an institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and number three the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant are there any additional conditions the board deems necessary seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman Mr. Handlin so moved that is a motion to approve the I guess we wouldn't say it's a motion to approve this special permit but it's a a motion to determine that the proposed addition does not constitute the official language there this is more detrimental yes I ultimately if we have conditions we have to have a special permit for the conditions to go on so notwithstanding my personal view that we didn't need to hear this at all but it was pleasant talking to everyone that we ought to just grant the special permit with the conditions that we have and hope we can maybe spread the word more that this has to be taken up with ISD because you can get out of talking with us if you want to on a lot of these cases and that's probably that's not probably good for us except in a way but it's good for you I mean the other thing the board could do is the board could we could spread the three conditions and just make the section 6 determination well we could always do we could do that in all of those cases right in some ways but you know I would be just reluctant to invent a new thing at this point this is like many other cases we add well I'm going to write the opinion and I'd like to be able to use the old forms perfect okay so then this is a motion to approve the special permit request for 39 sunny side avenue with the standard three conditions let's go forward by Mr. Hanlon do we have a second second so vote of the board excuse me the voting members of the board Mr. Dupont Mr. Hanlon Mr. Holley Mr. Riccadelli I and the chair votes I so that is approved thank you all very much thank you very much this thank you everyone you're quite welcome this is item 6 on our agenda .373990 Brantwood Road if I could ask the applicant and their architect to introduce themselves and I see Mr. Mayer is already a co-host so you folks are good to go hi I'm Rainie and my husband John he's unfortunately it's like the one night he was not able to be here but we've been in Arlington for over 10 years my daughter just graduated last year from high school and our son is in ninth grade we love our neighborhood we love the house we know the former owner was here for over 50 years and we promised him we would never touch the dark room like we leave the original wood and we just really love the house so that said it is over 100 years old and our family is growing so just as they get older no more children but you know like having a half bath downstairs is something we'd love to solve for and I'm an artist we'd love to have an artist studio so that's what we went to Allen he specializes in working with older homes and keeping the integrity of the original plan so without further ado he can do a better job of describing it thank you Rainie and thank you to the board and without further ado I'm going to share my screen and walk you through the project and what we're asking for so 90 Brent Wood is right over here near spy pond and the tricky thing about it when you look in is that you're we're right on the curve of a street and our house is you know the location of the house and the relationship to the street is unlike any other in terms of having the curve and the distance in this case shrinking it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure that's that is within the front yard setback and our plan will be extending that non-conformity a small amount and the addition itself and for that we're asking for a variance and then the additional square feet is just over 750 square feet and had we not been asking for a variance we would have massage the building to get it under so we could have avoided a special permit but in any way we thought we would ask for the special permit so that we didn't have to massage but that is possible this is the existing house and over here is an existing porch covered porch that's 14.4 feet the house itself is 16.3 feet away from the property line and as I said this is the porch we would be taking out and we would be extending slightly we're also pushing it back a little bit and this is the proposed and it would go from 14.4 to 13.7 because we're coming out a little bit further I'll just walk you through first what the house looks like and I'll say we just met a week ago with the historic commission because we are within a historic district and I had full approval and support I think there is one set of windows we had six over ones and they asked us to change them to six over sixes but other than that the plans were approved and keeping with the architecture and the district this is the side view of the house front and this is the porch which we would be taking out and you can sort of see its relationship a lack of relationship to the porch and then wrapping around the backside of the house these are this is the existing basement plan showing where the porch currently is with the proposed addition shown and then this is sort of going from existing to proposed and then existing first floor with demo shown and proposed and this is just a brick patio that's three steps up it's not actually a porch or a deck but it's just a patio and this part is exterior so that's part of the be covered and these are actually the salvage we're salvaging the columns because they're so beautiful and we're using them second floor again showing the existing the roof of the existing porch and the proposed outline and the other thing we're doing is over here and this is how we got over 750 is that the second floor and the back was pulled back and the proposal it would just be flush with the existing foundation and at least the way I was reading the requirement for a special permit is that if it's 750 square feet or more and not all of it is within the foundation that we need a special permit because there's actually less than 750 square feet in this addition but when you add this area you hit 750 this is the existing roof proposed roof existing front elevation proposed elevation side elevation elevation rear proposed rear and then the last side and the proposed and you know we looked at this and in our opinion yours to determine whether this is in any way more detrimental to the neighborhood than what's existing happy to answer any questions so did you sit down with inspectional services and review this project no we have not we spoke to the administrator for the zoning board and they said this is what we needed to do got it alright similar to the prior case I think we could have saved you a lot of heading and we're happy if you tell us that this is fine and all I have to do is shave four square feet off I'll shave four square feet off and go straight to inspectional services so the special permit so the definition for a large addition the large additions no alteration or addition which increases the gross floor area of the building by the lesser of 750 square feet or 50% or more of the building gross floor area unless the addition excuse me the addition is constructed entirely within the existing foundation or the board of appeals finds that the alteration is in harmony with other structures of the city and then the bylaw was amended last year to include the phrase at the end say the increase in gross floor area used to determine the applicability of this section shall only include additions outside the existing footprint of the building so and we spoke to the portion we spoke to the administrator and they said we need to do that but are the addition itself is only 697 square feet because I know the porch doesn't count the existing porch doesn't count so we will not request a special permit yes I don't think you need one lovely um and then if you could go to the site plan this is the proposed yep perfect so I'll ask Mr. Handlin to steer me back if I go astray um the house currently is compliant with the left side side yard setback and in the final it will be compliant still it's compliant with the rear yard and will remain so there is an existing non conformity with the front yard setback and that is going to be increased from I think you had said 14 14.4 to 13.7 14.4 to 13.7 so under the Balalta the Brookline decision um an existing non conformity can be for for single and two family houses an existing non conformity can be increased by a section 6 under section 6 of chapter 40a that the change is not more detrimental than the existing condition um which would not require a variance and so I would just ask Mr. Handlin if he concurs with that approach yes I do um so then it sort of changes the tenor of things that obviously as you as you're well aware the variance requirements are rather strict and stringy um and established under state law whereas here um as state law grants for pre-existing non conforming structures that are single and two family that if there is an existing non conformity there can be an alteration in that non conformity that does not require a variance so long as the determination can be made that it is not substantially more detrimental um that's what we are hoping for so that's what I think that's the approach the board will take um with that I would turn back to the board and ask if there are any questions um in regards to uh this application Mr. Chairman Mr. DuPont um I'm glad you brought that up because it looked to me like we were talking about a variance for eight and a half inches which I think as de minimis as that was going to be it was going to be a stretch under the uh statute but does this put us back where we were with the first case tonight which is this gets sent back because it's quite possible that had the applicant gone to see inspectional services first they would have said that they didn't need to be here uh especially for that that difference of eight and a half inches on the corner in the front um going from 14.4 to 13.7 do I understand that correctly Mr. Chairman because I think that would be my preference would be just to send it back and not have to make a determination under Bell Alta yeah um I mean certainly it would be the option of the zoning of the zoning official to make that determination um but they would not necessarily have to make you know they could still say that it is not in it is not insubstantial and they do anyways um in this case we're changing from an open porch to an close to story addition um it is a fairly substantial change in the use of that portion of the property and so in that case um I can only speculate but I would believe that the zoning official would have possibly referred it to the board to make this determination okay so we're operating on the hot potato very similar to the previous case okay the board as chair I'm taking the opinion that the zoning official has referred it to us to make this determination works for me any further questions from the board none I will go ahead and again we'll open this hearing for public comment public comment is taken as it relates to the matter of hand it should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision um members of public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application those calling by phone star nine to indicate you would like to speak um and once all questions and comments have been addressed uh the public comment period will be closed so with that the first hand up is Mr. Steve Moore uh Mr. Chairman wanting to let Mr. Benson go first then I'll speak if you don't mind we can certainly do that oh Mr. Benson thank you my name is Eugene Benson 16 Hillsdale Road the backyard of my house the backyard of the applicants house 90 Brantwood I can see their house from my backyard and from the windows at the back of my house and from the porch on the side of my house we have no objections at all to the proposal we think it's a nice addition to the house and in keeping with the neighborhood in scale and massing we don't think it's detrimental we think it's nice for the neighborhood we've lived here for over almost 33 years and many houses in the neighborhood have had extensive renovations and additions added over time and that's how neighborhoods change that's how neighborhoods stay current um we're in favor of this project and would hope that it's approved by the board thank you thank you Mr. Moore oh yes thank you Mr. Chair Steve Moore people on screen I uh I wanted Mr. Benson to go first because my point is non sequitur and not wanting to break my record of having something to say on everything I figured I would say one thing here could I ask the applicant right through you Mr. Chair whether or not this is the home in front of it that was removed in the past two years um we didn't have any trees removed oh no no yeah no I was wondering it died uh if it was not this house it must have been the one maybe next door and I apologize for it was two doors down the big large one yeah a historic aside a tree in this neighborhood the house is 100 years old because you know Dutch Elm trees are rare it was one of the very last Dutch Elms matured Dutch Elms in this area that unfortunately died about two years ago it showed the age of the neighborhood and just a little bit of history one of the very last ones thank you Mr. Chair that was a sad day I remember we were all it was a hallmark of the tree you know right on the corner yeah absolutely thank you thank you Mr. Foskett thank you Mr. Chairman can you hear me? I certainly can sir so I my name is Charles Foskett and live in 101 Bramwood Road sort of almost directly across the street I've lived here for 49 years very close to the prior resident and also to Ms. Sloan and Mr. Sponsinger and I have no objections to this proposal I think also I'd just like to tell the board that they have been extremely forthcoming in providing the details of their plans and their thoughts well in advance of moving forward and I hope that the board moves forward and supports this proposal thank you thank you sir are there any further public comments or questions on this application seeing none the chair will go ahead and close public comment on this hearing so what we have before us was initially an application for a variance in a special permit I think we have in review of recent judicial decisions at the state level that this is that the something that the board can approve by way of section 6 determination which as we typically do we use the questions in section 3 3 for a special permit as the basis for that review and we have determined that this is not a case that it has a this is not a large addition because the portion of the addition that would take us over the threshold is already included within the foundation of the building that being the rear right corner of the building so the findings that the board would need to make is that the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit within the district this is an allowed use single family home why the requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience of welfare that is stated by the applicant and by their neighbors as well houses and families need to grow and expand with the times and that this allows the family to maintain this house and also maintain the historic character of the home the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or impaired pedestrian safety there are no changes to traffic flow as a result of this project that will not overload any public system it will not cause any substantial increase in the use of utilities requested use will not impair the character integrity of the neighborhood the as the applicant said at the start they specifically hired an architect with experience in historic renovations to work with them on this project and they have gone before the historic board and received the approval of the historic commission that would is certainly working very hard to maintain the character integrity of the neighborhood requested use will not be detrimental to the public health of welfare will not cause an excess use detrimental to the neighborhood and then the determination at the at the start so the increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition and certainly as Mr. Dupont said this is an increase of eight and a half inches into the existing setback and it's up to the board to determine whether they feel that that is substantially more detrimental I would certainly concur with the neighbors that that does not seem to arise to that level even remotely should the board vote to approve we have our pre-standard conditions which were read into the record at the prior hearing so I will waive reading them a second time are there any additional conditions which any member of the board feels would be important to add I would note that they do have a permit from the historic commission there is no reason for the board to reference that in its decision hearing no further proposed conditions would look for a motion Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I move that the board issue the section six finding on the basis excuse me on the basis that the chair just outlined and include the three typical conditions second thank you thank you so the vote before the board is a motion to issue section six finding in regards to the application and attach the three conditions motion by Mr. Hanlon seconded by Mr. Dupont roll call vote the voting members of the board Mr. Dupont Mr. Hanlon Mr. Holley Mr. Rickidelli chair votes I that is approved thank you all very much appreciate your patience this evening thank you very much really appreciate it absolutely then this brings us to our agenda agenda docket number three seven four one eleven pine ridge road I could ask the applicants to go ahead and introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do good evening thank you chair I'm Matt Edwards eleven pine ridge road thanks for sticking with us tonight we'll try to be efficient with time here we have a enclosed front porch that is an existing non-conforming structure it's in the front setback we'd like to make it wider and actually make it open to be the full width of the house to give us a little bit more outdoor recreation space and to improve a little bit of the the aesthetics of the house to be a little bit more inclusive of this existing sort of second story addition that's very old if not original so our our approach or reading here is that we hope it's substantially not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure and perhaps is a third hot potato for tonight but I'll let you all be the judge thank you I'm going to go ahead and share the drawings yes thank you absolutely this is the proposed plan with the extended porch which will propose to extend the full width of the house with the steps leading towards the front this is the proposed front elevation the open porch here the views from the two sides and then this is the existing first floor plan with the enclosed porch here so a few steps down to the landing then it's a few additional steps and then up above it is a bedroom on the second floor that's the existing condition again and then we have rendering from the left side the outside side the front corner from the front and from the downhill sides and then this is the existing site plan so my under so is the so the existing enclosed porch it's just being opened up and resupported correct it's we're not changing the footprint on that side that's correct yes okay and so on this obviously the side yard setbacks are plenty large the front setback is the only one that's in question and it is an existing nonconformity and this is not actually getting any deeper is being maintained at the same depth on the street are there any I'll go ahead stop sharing are there any questions from the board Mr. Chair Mr. Rickardelli I just wanted to ask a question of the applicant the so the existing enclosed portion of the second level that's already that's already there right we're just your proposal to open up the porch beneath that yeah that's right so we're contemplating no interior work that's a existing bedroom that's just not going to change thank you any other questions from the board seeing none I can go ahead and open before I open for public comment I will just as the applicant has alluded to this is another one of these circumstances where probably did not need to come before the board because there really wasn't an increase in any existing nonconformity so we're not 100% sure why they're coming why they were referred to us but we will go ahead and complete the review but as a part of that we will have public comment so if there's any members of the public who wish to address the board on this matter you may raise your hand using the button on the participant tab and if you're calling in you may dial star nine I will wait for Mr. Moore to raise his hand I will raise I can I'm sure I can come up with a comment that's alright you have a great street going now I just want to ask up in the way I'm not going to include it in the opinion I seeing no no true public comment we'll go ahead and close the public comment period on this hearing so there's sort of set up a little bit of a loss on this one because quite honestly they're really isn't a determination that the board can make can I comment on that yes please we met with Rick Valorelli they instructed us to come to you all we didn't will we apply for the permit but we had informal discussions oh okay alright and so this is before us 539 this is because there is a it's an enclosed an open porch that is within the front yard setback greater than 25 square feet and so therefore it does fall that portion of it I guess does fall under the jurisdiction of the board so we will go ahead and proceed along those lines so the findings that the board would need to make in that regards so it's initially it's the section 3.3 findings so the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit in the district so single family use is allowed in the district and the porch within the front yard setback is allowable under 539 a or b a request of use is essential or desirable to the public convenience of welfare this helps to create a more welcoming entrance to the house and is very much in keeping with the character of the house in the neighborhood it won't request of use will not create undue traffic congestion or impair the pedestrian safety there are no changes proposed to the driveway or anything that would impair any sight lines the request of use will not overload any public system there are this will not significantly impact any utilities requested use will not impair the character integrity of the neighborhood as we have said this is a very attractive amenity to the house and is very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood requested use will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare and the requested use will not cause excess use detrimental to the neighborhood this is just just increasing the enjoyment of an existing single-family house I don't remember if there is a specific finding we need to make for 539 539 unenclosed so 539 b unenclosed steps and decks and the like which do not project more than 10 feet in the front yard or more than 5 feet in the side yard beyond the line of the foundation wall may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district in which the structure is built unenclosed steps decks and the like which do not project more than 10 feet in the front yard rear yard and then part of falls back on the question of enclosed which I know we had a discussion enclosed entrance or vestibule a deck is a roofless outdoor space so it is a porch it is not enclosed as such so 539 a projecting eaves chimneys bay windows balconies open fire escapes porches and enclosed entrances not more than 25 square feet in floor area more than one story in high which do not project more than 3 and 1 half feet beyond the line of the foundation wall may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided the district in which the structure is built porches and enclosed entrances larger than that allowed above may extend into the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district by special permit so there are no additional findings it is just those initial findings under section 3.3 Mr. Chairman should the board vote to approve this special permit application we would apply the standard three conditions which were prior read into the into the record would also note that in the past the board has issued conditions on applications like this require noting that the porch will not move the foundation wall of the house but that is now a part of the zoning bylaw itself under 539d so that finding is no longer excuse me that condition is no longer required are there any additional conditions which the board thinks would be appropriate for this application request Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon before we get there I'm a little uncomfortable about the fact that we're not talking just about this isn't really kind of matching up with our usual porch because if we had treated this as a brand new thing and somebody was proposing a porch with a bedroom on top I'm not sure that the analysis that we just went through would fully would fully address the concerns we'd have there and my sense is that it's in practice not a big deal in this particular case but I wouldn't want to set a precedent that we without more thought than I've been able to give it as to what it means to approve the porch and then also the also the level on side the porch I'm not sure that what is being proposed here is just the porch I was quite persuaded that it isn't really necessary to do this the granting the special permit essentially takes a non conforming situation and turns it into a conforming situation and that seemed to me to be a cleaner way to go about it since it's obviously true that there's no substantially increased there's no substantial detriment to the to the neighborhood so I don't feel in this case it's hard to feel strongly about this one way or the other because of the nature in which it comes up I just wonder whether we have using this vehicle in a situation where the resulting structure is going to include both the porch and the room on top of it what that would mean I also don't understand what how that effects are the usual determination about a foundation wall since it's not just the porch it's a porch plus something else certainly so the existing or the existing enclosed porch and second floor are in existing condition so we're really in my view we're not considering that at all we're really doing is we're just infilling the porch between you know from that to the left side line of the house and so it certainly can be taken as you know this is a porch that is in front of the house but as you as you say with the building line is already possibly at the front excuse me the front of the porch because the second the two-story nature of the existing the existing structure in which case all of this is behind the building line so none of it's in the setback I'm not sure you know so based with a couple different decisions here as to how to how to view it I think the board could take the the determination that there really isn't an approval necessary or the board can take the opinion that it's a porch on the front of the house that's extending into the required setback Mr. Chairman especially in view of the hour I don't want to debate too long on how to go about saying yes but maybe just make it clear the usual situation of the case and emphasize that it's not presidential for other cases involving this kind of situation maybe that would be best okay unless there's anything further from the board I think we are ready for a motion Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon the board approved the application for a special permit under section 539AB for the reasons that were stated and with the qualifications stated by the chairman Mr. Hanlon second Mr. DuPont the voting members of the board this is the motion to approve this special permit for 11 Pine Ridge Road with the three conditions Mr. DuPont Mr. Hanlon Mr. Holly Hi Hi Chair votes aye we are approved on the special permit for 11 Pine Ridge Road congratulations thank you so much for staying up late with us well thank you very much I appreciate it you're very welcome this brings us on our agenda back to item number two um so number this is the vote on the decision for 121 Avenue is does the board feel prepared to vote on this tonight or do we want to postpone this to the next hearing everyone had a chance to read it I scammed it I was going to say very very quickly do you feel prepared to vote for it this evening or should we postpone it I'd be okay to vote on it personally okay me too I looked perfectly fine alright with that um so what we have before us is the decision on 121 Park Avenue this was written by Mr. Hanlon presented the board for questions and comments are there any questions are there any corrections that anyone wishes to make at this time seeing none um I will ask for I would then move to accept the the written decision for 121 Park Avenue can I have a second second okay then a vote of the members who were present at that vote I believe I have the list correct so that would be Mr. Dupont I Mr. Hanlon I I chair votes I those are approved excuse me that decision is approved for 121 Park Avenue um that brings us up to item number three the annual election for chair and vice chair of the zoning board of appeals um so we typically do this at the first hearing in April um and so I would ask if there are any motions any nominations for someone to serve as chair of the board Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon I nominate Mr. Klein to serve and to continue to serve as chair of the board and I second if we need a second thank you are there other nominations Mr. Hanlon I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I chair votes I thank you all very much I appreciate your support um at this time we'll accept a nomination for the position of vice chair of the zoning board of appeals I would like to nominate Mr. Hanlon to continue to serve he's willing to do so thank you Mr. DuPont Mr. Hanlon do you accept I do we'll go ahead and second a vote of the board to elect Patrick Hanlon to the position of vice chair of the zoning board of appeals Mr. DuPont I Mr. Hanlon Mr. Holley I Mr. Blank I chair votes I Mr. Hanlon Mr. Chairman Mr. Moore I don't believe I heard Mr. Hanlon's vote and if that is true I believe I did hear your vote for yourself how does that work he did say it was very quiet a little soft voice okay I've always been the soft spoken one absolutely that concludes the administrative items on tonight's agenda so review of upcoming meetings so our next meeting is Monday April 17th at 7 30 p.m. which is the continuation of the comprehensive permit hearing for 1021 1025 Massachusetts Avenue again we'll encourage everyone you have received the email of the draft decision written by Paul Hoverty encourage you to review that think of any questions you have we're coming down to the last possible chances to enter new information into the public record so if there's anything you would like to know at this phase please make sure either let myself know or bring it with you to the meeting on the 17th then the next hearing after that will be Tuesday April 25th at 7 30 p.m. which is we have four cases on that we have one on Varnum Street one on Oakledge one on Teal and one on Brandview and then as we had discussed at the very beginning of this meeting the following Tuesday which will be May 2nd at 7 30 p.m. will be the opening meeting the opening hearing for the comprehensive permit hearing for 10 sunny side avenue that was May 2nd and then Sunday April 30th is the end of the review period for Mass Ave unless it's the 1021 10.5 Mass Ave unless it's extended and then beyond that we have a hearing possible hearing on May 9th and May 23rd Colleen do we have anything scheduled yet for those meetings for May from May 9 or May 23 right now I have four applications that came in this week we haven't set a specific date one guy throughout the beginning of May was too soon for them okay so I would note I am unavailable on May 9th but that does not mean that the board cannot meet under the guise of our very able vice chairs so probably we want to proceed with those um actually Christian two of them thought the 9th would be too soon for them so that we might just push the whole thing right back do all four of them at the later date that works yeah we didn't we didn't continue anything tonight so we're not under any particular pressure we have other meetings where we can approve the decisions so if they're willing to all go on the 23rd I think that's great okay and I also have I think the rest of the minutes from the massive he sent them to me today so I'll try and get them out to you guys tonight tomorrow and we should go ahead and just post those as well okay thank you so 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 would especially like to thank Colleen Ralston for her assistance in preparing for and hosting our online meeting please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings it is 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 zba at town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website and to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn so moved Mr. Chairman second Mr. Dupont vote of the board to adjourn Mr. Dupont aye Mr. Hanlon aye Mr. Holley aye Dr. Rigordelli aye Ms. Hoffman aye Mr. LeBlanc aye the chair votes aye the board is adjourned thank you all very much good night all good night everyone we'll see you on Monday