 It is 732 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27th, 2022. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals and I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. Like confirm all members and anticipated officials are present members of the zoning board of appeals. Mr. Dupont is unable to join us this evening. Mr. Hanlon. Hi, here. Mr. Mills. Here. Mr. Rickidelli. Here. Ms. Hoffman. Here. And Mr. Holly. Here. Good to have you all with us. On behalf of the town, Rick Valorelli, the board's administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. And Vincent Lee is assisting us as well in doing something else in the background as well. So not an issue there. Then. Checking who is appearing on behalf of 39 Woodside Lane. Paul, sorry to your architect. Oh, thank you. And on behalf of 7072 Oxford Street, Ace Aetar and Charles Aiden. Yes, we're here. Hi. Perfect. Making sure everyone is here. For this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations signed into law on July 16th, 2022. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2023 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's 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 quorum 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's follow-along with the delivery and 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 is 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 the other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background, all supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website, unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting and orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair, I make the following land acknowledgments. Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals of the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotomy and Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous people 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. Moving to item two on our agenda, the approval of the decision for 8082 Winter Street. This is a hearing that was held on September 13th. We had Mr. Hanlon prepared the draft of the decision for distribution to the board. Thomas came back and Mr. Hanlon posted an updated version that later this afternoon. Are there any further questions or comments from the board in regards to the written decision for 8082 Winter Street? None. Chair will accept the motion to approve the minute. Excuse me, approve the written decision for 8082 Winter Street. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. So the vote of the board to approve the written decision for 8082 Winter Street, Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rickardelli. Aye. Chair votes aye. Mr. DuPont was voted on the hearing but is unable to join us this evening. So the written decision is approved by a four to zero vote. Brings us to item three on our agenda, the approval of the meeting minutes from the September 13th, 2022 meeting. These are minutes that were prepared by Mr. Valarelli, distributed to the board for questions and comments. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the minutes for September 13th? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from the September 13th, 2022 meeting? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. And a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. So vote of the board to approve the minutes from September 13th, 2022. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rickardelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Mr. Holley. Aye. Chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. Brings us to item number four on our agenda this evening. Now, turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda, here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves for 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 and after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting to public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So that number four on our agenda is docket number 3715, which is 39 Woodside Lane. Mr. LaSarde would introduce the project. Good evening, Chairman Klein. This is Mary Wynne-Stanley O'Connor. I'm representing the petitioner on this. Oh, good evening, Ms. O'Connor, how are you? I'm well, how are you? I'm sorry, I couldn't get my speakers to work on my computer, so I'm calling in. I will introduce the people this evening that are gonna speak on this application if I may. We have Stephanie Janvin, who is the general contractor, Paul LaSarde, the architect. The owner is Mr. J. Peterson, who is the principal of Better Homes Realty LLC, and Richard Mead, who is the surveyor for Medford Engineering. As you know, this is a request for a special permit under section 5.4.2b6 for a large addition in a residential district. And we did receive your email of today, and Mr. LaSarde will address those issues that you raised in it as well in the context of his presentation. Great, thank you very much. So, Mr. LaSarde, if you want to begin? Yes, I think one of the concerns was that... Sorry, did you want to display the plans or did you want me to put those up for you? If you could put them up, I'd appreciate it. Absolutely. It does appear to be upside down, but there we go. Right side up and then upside down. Okay, so this is the existing situation with a small existing dwelling, two-story house, and there's a separate garage. We're going to make, we're intending to make a proposed addition, as you can see, the outline and the words proposed addition, and it will generally be in that location and we'll still have a separate garage. It will not be attached to the new house. One of the concerns was that we did not have exterior elevations, but they were provided in recent days and perhaps we could look at those if you like. So just in the set, so these are the existing... Correct, those are the existing house and existing garage elevations, yeah. Gravity, this is the proposed. Okay, so you can see in this top elevation, the existing portion of the house is not seen because of the large addition and you can see the rebuilt existing garage to the right. In the lower elevation, you can see on the left side, the portion of the house which is actually existing and which will remain and the portion on the right is the addition. And here in the top elevation, we can see that the existing house portion is in the foreground and the proposed addition is in the distance here behind it. We're rebuilding the deck which actually already exists and to the left you'll see the existing garage which will be rebuilt. In the lower elevation you'll see the rebuilt garage in the foreground with the addition on the left side and the existing portion of the house to the right. And the deck as I was mentioning is adjacent to the existing portion of the house. So these are the existing plans. You see and these are the proposed first floor plans. You'll see the garage to the right is actually separate from the house. It continues to be separate and the garage is the existing footprint the same as the existing footprint of the garage. Just for reference, these two windows in the family room, are they looking into the sidewall of the garage or are they looking over the top of the garage? They're kind of looking at the side of the roof of the garage. They're at a higher level because of the angle of the land allows them to look over the roof. If you look in the elevation, you kind of see to what extent they relate to the garage. And here is the second floor. At an angle you see the existing portion of the house intersecting the new addition towards the front. And there's the roof of the garage. Is there stairwell access to the attic level or is it just a pull down ladder? I don't believe that we're going to have an attic level. It's just going to be a cathedral ceiling. Now, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills? Yeah, I'm looking at the large space next to the garage, a large room there. Doesn't appear to be any windows in it. Well, that's just the roof area because it's a two-story height. So, or it's a tall height, not two stories exactly, but it's, we want it to show that it was a tall space but the windows are below in the first floor plan for that room. That goes back to the elevations. So it's this volume here. Right. So on the, for the proposed portion of the house at the front, the Eve line is set higher and the pitch is higher than the existing. And I'm just curious if there's a specific reason for that. Well, we are intending to preserve the angle of the existing portion and the client wanted the spaces to be higher in the front bedroom. So, thus the higher angle of the roof and also the location where the wall meets the ceiling would be higher in the front portion of the house than in the rear. I think the, if you look at the front elevation, which is at the top of the sheet, I wanted to keep that roof up so that it looked like an attractive front facade because if the roof is down to the level where it is in the rear, the soft it would be, the roof soft it would be so close to the top of the windows that it would be unattractive. I see. I need some breathing room above those windows to balance the look. Okay. In the rebuilt garage, are all the dimensions remaining the same or are there any changes? No changes to the existing garage dimensions. Application, those are the two plants we had seen before. So one of the questions that I had posed on reviewing the application has to do with the town's requirement for usable open space. So usable open space is a, it's an area of land that is at least 25 feet in two directions that is at least 30% the floor area, the gross floor area of the interior of the house. And on this site, it's tricky because there's also a requirement that it be, that certainly 5% of it be not greater than 8% grade. And this site is very, as a very large grade going down towards the point at the top of the sheet here. And along Woodside lane going from left to right, it's also dropping off. And so the calculation for usable open space that was provided as a part of the application is incorrect. And I wanted to see if you could help us address what that number really might be. I could not calculate that off the top of my head. It seems complex with a hilly site like this. So it's... I was wondering if Mr. Mead maybe had done it. Does he have topography for the site? Yeah, we only had topography from the curb line back to the back of the house. Okay. Do you know if the area between the house and the street is less than an 8% grade? Yeah, it's a, the max is 5.5% from the curb line to the front of the house. Okay. So another question that had come up, is the attic area. So it's identified that there are 769 square feet in the attic, which is greater than 50% of the floor below, which is a larger floor area than it would be allowed to have, but we only count floor area that's greater than seven feet in height. So I'm curious if this figure is correct, especially in accounting for the portions of the house being having a cathedral ceiling. Well, certainly in the existing part of the house, where there had been some, what you'd call attic space, none of it was at seven feet high. Okay. So maybe these do not reflect, you know, the reality of what is proposed. Right. And there's no attic space in the new portion of the house either since there's cathedral ceiling everywhere. Okay. Based on this 4,145 square foot number you would need to provide at least 1,244 square feet of usable open space in the front yard. Just want to make sure that you're prepared for that. Yeah, we should have over that in the front yard section as long as there's no change in the size of the driveway. Okay. So that was to be my next thought that the driveway cannot overlap with the usable open space. So it's important. Correct. Yeah. We're a little more than 1,300 square feet without the driveway. Perfect. Thank you. And then on the site plan, have you prepared a tree plan for the town? I have not. I have not. So there's a tree in the, practically in this location, the front yard, it's a sort of a taller pine tree and you will probably need to have that reviewed with the town if it's within the setback or beyond the setback, I should say between the setback and the lot lines that that would fall under the tree bylaw and you would need to work with the town tree warden or the tree committee on that. We have no issue locating the tree and finding out exactly where it is. Okay. Are there questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I was wondering if you could put up the Topo map that we have from the GIS system. The property is this piece right here. So I guess my question is when you go and look at this site from Woodside Lane, what I believe is a lot 43 here, the house that is in there looks very, very close to the existing house, which will of course get a lot bigger. And since this is a large addition, looking specifically at the impacts, given the position of various things on the site of neighboring properties is important. And I wonder how close 39 the houses there are. And I'm sort of interested in why it is that this is not, I mean, I can't tell from this picture whether the setbacks are met on either side, although 39 looks real close to the edge there. But I'm sort of concerned about the impact of the size of the structure at 39 on the house that's on lot 43. Well, certainly the addition is to the front away from number 43. So there's nothing getting closer to other people. That's one point. I think the issue might be just the sheer mass of the other structure. It certainly from the elevations looks a lot more imposing than the house of the size that's there that already looks pretty much too enclosed on it. Because it's a little hard to ask a specific question here because you can't really see what this looks like from 43. And I don't know if anybody from that house is going to testify on this, but I'd be somewhat concerned there about the sheer massing of such a large house next to a more modest house. And one that certainly looks very close when you go out there and look at it from the street. Mr. Mead, based on your survey, the lot line is farther from the house than is represented here. Would that be correct? That's correct. We have the nearest point of number 39 is 13.6 feet to the property line. So it's farther away than where the property lines are shown on this topo map. I do not know the relative distance between the two structures, however. Any questions from the board? Mr. Chair. Ms. Hoffman. I'm just circling back to the area questions that you already raised. I just remain a little bit confused about what the total area is because I think the total that's listed does include that attic space, the 700 plus. And if that doesn't actually exist, then the required open space area might be smaller. So I would just like to know, what actual area numbers we're dealing with. But I think that is something that applicant might need to calculate. Would that be, I had asked about some other calculations. Is that makes sense, Mr. Mozart? Yeah, I would say, we could recalculate it. I can't do it in my head right at the moment. No, certainly. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I was just wondering, I have a theory that was laid out before as to where the 338 square feet existing comes from. But I don't have a theory as to where that 769 feet comes from. I mean, if there's actually no attic at all there, what is the nature of the mistake that leads you to put that number there? Somebody must have had some idea somewhere about that. And it would at least certainly satisfy my concern about it more if I had an understanding as to where it is that figure might have come from. Yeah, it's hard to say. At one point I was under the impression that we were having attic space and maybe I filled out the form at that time. However, when I was later informed that this was going to be all a cathedral ceiling, I did not retrace my steps and go to the form. So that's a thought. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Handlin. Are there further questions from the board? Mr. Scherr. Mr. Rikadelli. And then I just have a question about the height of the new building or the proposed addition. I see a dimension on the drawings, on the elevation drawings for the proposed of 28-3. But it seems to be measured from the front yard and there's a considerable grade drop. I just wanted to know, maybe this is a question for you, Mr. Scherr. How should that be calculated? Is that off of an average grade of the site or is it off of the front door? I would ask that Develle readily to confirm that I believe it's supposed to be based off of an average elevation at the perimeter. Is that correct? Right, Mr. Chairman. So if the entire lot has a slope greater than 5%, the height of the building is taken from the average four corners around the house itself. If the lot has a slope of 5% or less, basically flat, then the height of the building is taken from the average curb line of biting the property. In this case here, I think we'd be high-pressed to think that the entire slope does not exceed 5%. So they would take an average around the building, usually the four corners of the building and average it out by. Thank you, that helps a lot. I think it will be useful to understand what that number is from the average grader because just visually looking at the drawings, it looks like maybe four or five feet away from the sort of back elevation. I think another consideration too is with the first floor being so high is, so Arlington differentiates between sellers and basements in terms of the average height, the average amount of the basement that's of the lowest level that's exposed. And sellers are typically not included as gross floor area, but basements are. And so I think it would be helpful to have that calculation run so we can understand whether this is a basement or a seller because at this point- There's no basement or a seller in this project. So it's slab on grade? Maybe not a slab, but it's, you know. So under this addition here is just Phil. Correct. Okay. Mr. Chair, I had a question or two. The mechanical room that's shown on the existing on the top left corner on the first floor, is that, looks like it's below the new kitchen or? Is that to the grade in the back? There's a mechanical room to the left front. Right. In the existing, there is a mechanical room. That's correct. With that, is that below, looks like you could walk out from that. There is a door there. Yeah, you can walk out on grade. It's below a deck. Is that the dash line? There is a deck of some kind above? The dash line represents a roof that was put over it as a shed. We've removed this feature. Oh. What happens, will this, what happens to this space can be a storage of some kind? The mechanical room will go to a different location and that shed roof is removed from the project. Okay. And then my second question, Mr. Chair, would be to look at the elevation and see if, I see the provision where you could align the windows, if I may, if one could. So thought the front elevation, the proposed east front elevation. It felt there's a good chance could align some of the window arrangements just from an aesthetic standpoint. I mean, I think there's merit to having asymmetry. We're working with the spaces inside and the spaces inside are based on the shape of the site. So, you know, there's a lot going on here. I think you have symmetry with a window left and right of the door. And, you know, I don't, I don't think we have to make it perfectly symmetrical. Right. I think it looks good as it is. I believe you have closets behind this area and behind this area, is that correct? I believe so. We can look at the plan. I think there might be a coat closet. See, there's a coat closet there and then there's another closet on the second floor. Any other questions from the board? None. The minute I'll be opening the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair adds those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing. Please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead. Members of the public wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host to be asked to give your name and address for the record and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. And once all questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed. And I will do my best to show any documents you need during the discussion. Before we formally open, we do have one comment that we received via email. This is from the residents at 46 Woodside Lane. We're unable to attend the meeting tonight. They felt the proposed plan to expand the structure at 39 Woodside Lane would create a structure that is too large for the neighborhood will contribute to the unaffordable real estate market already prevalent here in Arlington. And the objective of moving forward with the proposal as it currently stands. And that is from Lira Zimmer and Julia Keller of 46 Woodside Lane. Are there members of the public who wish to address? I think that's the first hand that is raised is Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Steve Moore of Piedmont Street. Through you, a quick question for the architect. Is there a particular reason why you chose not to attach to the garage? I believe that there is a zoning issue if you attach the garage, then you cannot have the garage impinging on the setback. But since it's an existing garage, it is allowed and it's separate. It's allowed to be in the setback. So it's an unusual circumstance, but it's based on the setback position. That goes through the answer. Yeah, it's sort of good for the side. We're in as long as you don't change it. Mr. Chairman, also through you, I noticed on the application, the expansion from one parking space to two, but I've also heard there's gonna be no changes of all the garage dimension. I don't quite understand that. Mr. LaSarde? I think it can park two cars in the existing, using the garage and the existing driveway. So that's how I perceived it. The zoning requires you to provide one parking space, believe in the single family district, and that would be within the garage. The space in front of the garage technically wouldn't count as a parking space because it's within the front-arrow setback. Okay, so, but you're saying that only one parking space is required. I believe that's correct. Mr. Vellarelli, is that correct? Absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. One parking space only for this dwelling. Okay. Right, so that just is a change that probably needs to be made to the documentation. It's one to one, not one, gonna be changed to two. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your point about coming up with a tree plan. It's hard to tell from the pictures on Google Maps where the trees are and what might be taken. It was hard to tell whether or not there was a large tree, a very large tree. I'm not sure where the addition is going, but I couldn't really tell. So yes, I think a tree plan is appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next is Dan Schilder. Good evening. Good evening. Diane Schilder, 50 Oak Oak Drive. And I apologize, my dog is in the background and I'm a little nervous. I am a neighbor. I am in agreement with the other neighbor about the large and imposing structure more than doubling the size. I think we'll create an imposing structure for the neighbors. I'm also concerned about the tree that has been already raised. In addition, for the neighbors who live below this new 4,000 square foot house, there's a concern about water runoff in the conservation land and taking more than 800 square foot of usable land. We already have issues in the neighborhood with water and runoff coming from high up on the hill. I have not had a chance to hire an attorney and I would respectfully request at least a postponement of the decision so that we have a chance to hire an attorney and independent surveyor. Those are my comments. Thank you very much. Are there other folks who wish to address this hearing? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close. Chairman Klein, may I respond? Let me, sure, Ms. O'Connor. Sure, just briefly, I know that the board is aware of the fact that this petition complies in all respects with setback requirements and open space requirements and relief is only needed with respect to the issue of it being a large addition. And as Mr. Lissard said, that addition is towards the front of the property away from 43 Woodside Lane. This is by Arlington standards, a fairly large lot and this is a substantial enhancement, I would suggest to you to the lot. They have, the petitioner has set out in the petition the section 3.3 criteria. I don't know if the board needs me to go through that but it is set out in the petition. And I would suggest to you that it is an appropriate use of that property. Thank you. Thank you. In regards to the question about runoff, where this is an increase in the impervious area of more than 350 square feet, there is review required by the engineering division in regards to how water is handled on the site. Have any plans been made in that regard, Ms. O'Lissard? Not to my knowledge, maybe Mr. Mead could answer that. But I have not heard anybody discuss that. Yeah, so I believe the petitioner was waiting to get through the board of appeals before we cross that bridge, but we have not done any soil testing or brought any plans in front of any other town entity. All right, so the question before the board, as was presented, this is a request for a special permit as a part of a large addition, which is section 5402B6 of the zoning bylaw. And the board needs to make a determination that the change is not significantly more detrimental to the neighborhood essentially, and that it meets the requirements of the section 333, which is the seven requirements for a special permit. There have been a lot of concerns about what exactly, a lot of the numbers on the dimensional parking information sheets as well as on the open space for a slur area information sheets. And we have had some cases in the past where there have been one or two numbers that were a little off and we were able to sort of figure out over the course of the hearing what those numbers ought to be and we have proposed moving forward with a vote and then asking the applicant to submit a revised set of information along with the as a condition of approval. I'm a little concerned on this, that there really are very many numbers on here that are incorrect and as a result of things that have changed or sort of a misinterpretation of the usable open space requirements and so forth. And I for one would be uncomfortable voting tonight with sort of the level of uncertainty that these numbers present to the board and how other members of the board feel on that question. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. I concur with your opinion. I think we need better numbers and we have more of a straightforward decision. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I would like to, I mean, assuming if we are going to get additional information, I would like to have more of an understanding of how large a house of this size is compared to other houses in the same. And I'd also like to have at least a preliminary addressing of the stormwater problem. I understand that's a technical issue for the engineer, but in anything that involves neighborhood compatibility, if we are putting the people who below this house in danger of a perpetual shower that's hardly consistent with the character of the neighborhood. So the two are not hermetically sealed. And I think that we at least have to or should take an initial look at that. I don't know that we're in a position of knowing exactly how the hydrology is going to work, but I'd at least like some comfort that if this is a problem, it's a manageable problem and we're not inadvertently introducing something that would really be in violation of the spirit of the violent. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. It's been alleged or represented that the lot lines as presented are not accurate and that they're 13 feet over, I believe was the recollection. I'd like to see a revised plot plan with the proposed new construction represented with the revised lines, just so we get a better understanding of the massing and how it would be presented to the neighborhood and how it would be to the closest to the neighbors, if you will. I don't think that's too much to ask. No, I think it's just- If I may, Mr. Mills, that was a instrumentation survey that was provided by Mr. Mead. I don't think anybody said that the lot lines that we provided were incorrect. I think that the GIS, the map that you put up was not necessarily accurate, but what we've provided you is an instrumentation survey. Yes, that's what I was gonna say. But by looking at this, I believe that the site survey that is stamped by Mr. Mead is accurate to the best of his ability and that the town's GIS map, the boundaries and the locations of the properties could be off just based on how those are generated. But I do think, Mr. Mills' point is important that we have confidence in the information that we receive and I appreciate you are pointing out that this is an instrument survey. And I think it would be in order to be able to establish properly that we do have usable open space. I think it would be helpful to have what topographic information is available for the portion of the site where the usable open space would be located. Now, when you're talking about the height of the building, do you wanna calculate from the level where the garage is? Is that considered part of the house in this calculation or are we satisfied that the corners of the house are acceptable as the baseline? Mr. Vellorelli? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, can you repeat that question? The question is how the calculation is performed for the average grade at the house to determine the house, the height of the building. From the lowest point to the highest point or entire span of the lot? Does that answer your question, Mr. LaSide? So is it the entire lot, Mr. Vellorelli, or just where the land touches the building? Mr. Chairman, it's the entire lot as if the building did not exist on that property. It is the lowest point to the highest point and that's how we determine the percentage of slope. Right. But in terms of generating the height of the building, is that done from where the land touches the building or is that done relative to the average grade on site? It's a great question. It's done six feet off of the corners. Okay. And the reason for that is it prevents the builder from just backfilling up against the house and then removing it after the fact. So the measurement is taken six feet off of the four corners. Okay. So it's basically an average of those four numbers taken six feet off of the corners. That's correct. If the lot exceeds a 5% slope. Okay. And in this case, it would be more corners because of the shape of the building. That is absolutely correct. Okay. Does that make sense, Swisswillsard? Yeah. Perfect. Are there any further questions that the board has? They would like the applicant to address? None. I think the board is looking to have the dimensional parking information sheet updated, the open space gross floor area updated. We are looking for the site plan to have topographical information added to so that we can verify the amount of usable open space that's available. And then there would be the new calculation of the height of the building based on the averages was just discussed. And then there's a request to get a sense of where the tree is. That's any trees that may be impacted by the construction of the house and a basic sense as to what the approach would be to handling stormwater on the site. Obviously understanding that the detailed design would not be occurring at this time, but just that we can get some level of assuredness that that can be addressed. And Mr. Hanlon, you were trying to better understand the volume of the house, was that correct? Well, what I specifically had as for as a sense of what the size of the houses in the neighborhood are. There's an issue has been raised that this is out of scale with the other houses in the neighborhood. And the only way we can address that is to understand better what the sizes are at the other houses in the neighborhood. I'd rather have something in the record than just go to the GIS system and read off all the ones nearby. But of course I can do that too. Mr. Chairman, we can likely have all that information for the before the next year, next meeting. That would be great. So the next meeting of the board, we have a meeting scheduled for October 18th, but that is the introduction of a new comprehensive permit application. So if possible, we would prefer to go to the October 25th date, is that amenable to you? Certainly. Mr. Chairman, if I may, Rick Valerelli. Yes, sir. Good night for us. We have two very light cases scheduled for that night. So that would work. Oh, perfect. With that, I would entertain a motion to continue the special permit hearing 39 Woodside Lane until Tuesday, October 26th, 2022 at 7.30, P.M. So may I have some moved? Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. So it's a vote of the board to continue the special permit hearing for 39 Woodside Lane until Tuesday, October 25th, 2022 at 7.30 P.M. Vote of the board, Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rick Valerelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Chair votes aye. We are continued on 39 Woodside Lane. Thank you to all of you. Good night. Thank you all. Thanks. Brings us back to our agenda. Thank you. Agenda item number five, which is docket number 37167072 Oxford Street. So I could ask the applicants to go ahead and identify themselves and tell us what they would like to do. And in the background, I will pull up the documents for this hearing. All right. Well, good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Ayesha Aitar and I'm here with my husband, Charles Aiden and our other owner, Mergan. We appreciate this time with you. We're recent owners of the property, the two family home at 7072 Oxford. But we are a long time residents of Arlington. We moved to the area in 2012. Our family has grown since then and we've become, you know, very much rooted to the area. We've obtained a permit to renovate our new property as of May of this year. And today we're here because we're seeking relief from the section 5.4.2, that is the dimensional and density requirements and with regards to the minimum open usable space to gross floor area ratio. We understand that this is an issue that comes up quite often here in Arlington, often discussed about here at the board. So our renovation involves a mere increase of 300 square feet in gross floor area. And that's not because we're changing, you know, the footprint of the building. The increase is because we're adding two dormers in the attic. Dormers are very characteristic of, you know, the houses on Oxford Street, as well as our neighboring streets, Winter and Grafton streets and really across Arlington. We're essentially, you know, doing the attic, the dormers because we want to add two additional rooms to the upper units where we're going to be residing. After the addition, we're going to have a total of four bedrooms. That's enough to accommodate our multi-generational family. My mother lives with us, we have a daughter and my husband and I work remotely from our home. So we do need an additional workspace. Again, we're not making any changes to the building envelope of the house or the height of the building. However, because our existing property is non-conforming in terms of the usable open space to gross floor area ratio, it remains non-conforming after the renovations as well. It is not possible to make the property conform as is because we're starting out with the size of usable open space at zero square feet due to the minimum dimensional requirements. So here we are. We're seeking your understanding and pleading for relief on this front. We're happy to take your answers now. I mean, questions. Thank you. There's the plot plan. It's the existing and then... Just the dormers. So is this representing the second floor or is this the new? The attic. Okay. If I may jump in here, just to clarify, the change on the front of the house that is shown, that is the first story enclosed porch or covered porch, unenclosed covered porch is staying as is. Above that originally was a sunroom that ran the full width of the house, the entire front of the house. And Ayesha and Chare wanted a deck to enjoy the view or we're looking in the sports fields in the school. So we have basically, we gave up actually half of that sunroom which was fully enclosed and converted that to an open deck above the porch and extended the living room to the covered portion. And the change that you're seeing on the back of the house is really reworking of the existing covered two-story porches there to accommodate egress stairs for the two units. These I believe are the proposed plans so they, yeah, so as you pointed out to the rear deck it's slightly modified so that there's an egress stairs that provides the second means of egress from the upper unit. And then this shows the rooms that are being created. So this would be under the shed dormer to the one side and then this is under the gabled dormer on the opposite side. And as you stated before, it's this, we said originally this was all enclosed and now that this is the new line of enclosure and this is open deck. Exactly. And so looking at the, so then this is the plans that 9.2 is this current, it's the setback. I'm assuming that's the existing setback is 9.2. Yes. And that's remaining. And then on the back here, this plan has it at 21.4. I'm assuming this has it at 21.1. Is this the existing and this is the proposed it's slightly wider to accommodate the stair? No, I believe that would have been perhaps because there was a disagreement between the existing field measurement, the instrument survey and the drawings we provided. But in fact, the existing puddings are staying where they are. So we are matching existing dimensions. You're reusing the original puddings? Yeah, some of them, not all of them, new ones will need to be provided, but the corner of the purchase thing, exactly where there's the existing on the garage side. So this is showing that the, indicating that the lock coverage is being reduced. I wasn't quite sure what was being done to reduce the lock coverage. Nothing really, I'm not sure why that would show such a change. Yeah, both the front porch and the rear porches, the two-story porch there is, they're all existing structures and we're staying exactly in that footprint. This is just the same, again, on the other side. So the set doesn't have any information about what the existing conditions for the house are. And when I went by to take a look at the property, I noticed that all this work has already been completed. So if you could give me a better understanding as to what the building was before you started, because one of the things the board has to do is determine whether the changes, you know, whether they are, there's substantially more problematic, or that's not the correct term, but for the district, but it's difficult when there are no existing conditions presented. Right. So existing conditions were actually presented in the original permit that we acquired back in May. And detailed existing conditions were presented there. This, I believe, is happening because we're actually using a more recent set here. And this set is actually not showing the existing conditions. So basically what's happening to the house is if we look at the front renderings there, instead of the deck in the original house, like if you were to look at the property card of the house, you would see that that's a full-width enclosed sunroom with actual louvered windows. And so that's one area that we have reworked. And then as I mentioned in the back, the two-story covered porches there are having to get reworked so that we can achieve egress stairs. Where there is none right now. And we are taking out the stairs on the inside of the house. Currently, there's a set of stairs that are on the inside of the house that kind of provide that egress. But obviously to be able to claim that as living space, we decided to convert those into the living spaces, such as the bedroom and the kitchen areas and that's why the rear porches are having to get reworked to provide the secondary egress means. Zero footprint change to the house. The only change here to the house is really the addition of the dormers on the top. Mr. Chair. Yes. Would you like us to share the original pictures before the removal work began? Well, it just occurred to me that Google Maps probably hasn't updated and they haven't. So. For sure. We do have some pictures. Yes. So this is the Google street view of the house. From March of this year. So you can see there's that open, the open porch at the ground level. And then this is the enclosed sort of the porch that was converted into a sunroom up above. This is the position where that gable dormer is now constructed. Chant down the street a little more. So from this side here, it's just a straight gable. And then are there other changes that are made to the facades to the window placements and things like that? Are they essentially where they were? No, windows have moved definitely because some of the bathroom locations have changed. Okay. Especially on the second floor. But as you can see from the elevations, we took great care in aligning the windows properly and making sure the first floor and the second floor windows were all the same size, identical units and essentially in keeping with the original aesthetic of the house. We did our best to match dimensions of existing windows. Even the small square windows that you see there for the staircases and the bathrooms. They're in very close relation to the dimensions of the original windows that were found in the bathrooms and the staircases. Okay. And then just from my understanding, so at the basement level towards the rear of the house, there are two egress window wells for bedrooms. And then towards the front on the driveway side, there are two that are just essentially light wells for like a family room or living room, is that correct? Okay. Are there questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I'm sure that everybody watching this must be dying to know what happened with this permit. How did, I mean, we miss itar is correct that we very frequently get cases of this sort, but in almost all of them, they haven't built dormer yet. And I'm curious as to what the explanation is for this coming up now after it has been built and whether the permit was mistaken, whether it was exceeded. What is the explanation for the fact that we're seeing this after it's been built? No, nobody was mistaken and nothing was exceeded. The original permit was essentially conditional and it called into question the garage to be able to essentially create open usable space that met the 25 by 25 dimensions. So was the idea that you would somehow remove the garage and that would compensate for the increased square footage in the house so that there wouldn't be a net increase and therefore the percentage would change? Is that the idea? Essentially. And so the reason we're seeing now is that you're having some second thoughts as to whether or not you want to remove the garage and that's kind of what's at stake here really is your ability to continue to leave that as it is and still do the project that you were planning. That is essentially the relief aspect, yes. There's a perfectly fine garage there that's in good condition that is in keeping with the garages of all of the neighbors and essentially it would cost a significant amount of money to actually remove that structure which is again perfectly functional in good condition and a very valid use case from the owner's point of view. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hamlin. Other questions? We also, excuse me, you also consulted with the building department and made sure that that is in fact our intention to have that condition first but also go for a special permit. And essentially our motivation was not to be losing time because we're using a construction to perm type of loan and the loan term would dictate us to move swiftly and that was our intention but we made sure that our intentions were clear and you're not trying to trick your board or the building department or anything like that. So in effect, if we say no, you go back to the conditional permits that you had originally? If we would have to, sorry. Yeah. Are there further questions from the board? Are there questions? Seeing none, go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. This is a refresher, the comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. Members of the public wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the raise hand button on the participant tab in the Zoom application and those calling in by phone can dial star nine to indicate that you'd like to speak. You'll be called upon by the host and asked to give your name and address for the record and then given time for your questions and comments. So with that, the first hand up is Mr. Moore. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I guess I need to understand better why it is possible to follow the timeline which has just been laid out for us in terms of why the building moved ahead as was. I understand that it was conditional permit and they're changing their mind in terms of what they wanna do and otherwise they go back to the conditional permit. But what is to keep a developer from pursuing an approach like that, changing things halfway through? I mean, what forces a developer to come up with a plan and stick with the plan that they came up with rather than do this sort of change midstream? Because the board now is under significant pressure not to, I mean, to now go ahead with this because it's been built. I don't quite understand why this approach is allowable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you could just sort of answer that for me, I'd appreciate it. Sure, Mr. Moore. So my understanding of this case and Mr. Valarelli was certainly being a better position to comment is that they presented a valid application where they were offsetting the additional gross floor area that is being provided by the way of the dormers. They were accommodating that by agreeing to remove the garage and create usable open space, commensurate with the amount that they would need for this project. And then whether at some point in time, the decision was made that that would be the A strategy and that would get them the building permits that they could start, but then they would then request from the board try to request a special permit to allow them to keep the garage essentially by way of this hearing. Can I just share my screen, the permit application so that it's clear that this plan was communicated from the very get go? Oh, I was just asked Mr. Valarelli if he would just sort of confirm. That's true, Mr. Chairman. So I had a conversation with the building commissioner earlier and that is the case. I hate to say roll the dice, but if they were granted the special permit, the property would remain as is. They did have a way to bring it into conformance if the board denied the permit. I've taken the garage down and looks to me like shot in that porch a little bit as well. Again, this was my conversation with the building commissioner today. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. My understanding, I think it's going to be a little bit closer to what Ms. Itar is willing to demonstrate, but I have the sense that from the very beginning they had hoped that they would get the special permit and would proceed. They're not really leaving us in an awkward situation because the worst that we could do is put them back to where they were prepared to be when they got the permit initially. So essentially, if you get the permit with the condition and that gives you the opportunity to not lose the time while they wait for us, understanding that they will then go and attempt to get the permit that will enable them to obviate that condition. It's really, I mean, I think it's a creative and sensible strategy for moving things along. And it's very, very different from just building a building and putting themselves in the situation where to comply, they have to tear down the building. Here, they've already sort of accepted for themselves that there's an alternative that if not desirable is not unacceptable and I don't feel particularly pressed one way or the other to do this. And in fact, if they hadn't done that, if this were really like all of our other cases, this hearing would have been over 25 minutes ago and we wouldn't have had a problem because at least as far as I can see, this is not really distinguishable except for the fact they've already built the building is not really distinguishable from the other cases that we have that are like this. Well, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Tell me, is there any requirement that they apply for the special permit in a timely enough fashion for you folks to be able to weigh in on that prior to building commencing? I'm not sure when the special permit was applied for. However, you folks have had time when your dockets for the past months and I'm sure this building took a while to complete. Why was the application for special permit not made more recently than now? I cannot say why. The permit was received on August 26th. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. The next would be Rebecca Lane. Hi, good evening. Trying to get my hands on the screen as well. I'm Rebecca and that is Adam Lane and we're at 77 Grafton Street. We are that light greenhouse that you saw right behind the Google street shot of the house that's going up. And we wanted to voice our support for what Aisha and Charles are trying to do to the house. Overall, we have been extremely pleased by the choices they have made. It really is keeping with the neighborhood density and the old fashioned porches. We were very worried we're gonna disappear and instead they've actually made them look nicer. Thank you too. Is it Onar? Yes. Onar. And so we look directly at those dormers. Our bedroom basically faces them. They have not obstructed our view of the park or anything else that we could see prior in any way. And as far as we know, we certainly don't have the measurements, but the yard has remained exactly the same as it was prior and goodness knows in this area you need a garage. So it seems frankly silly to us to ask them to not have a garage in that the footprint as they stated remained exactly the same. The yard looks exactly the same and in many ways the house if anything is better. So we hope you approve it and we are looking forward to having new neighbors. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you much. I appreciate it. Absolutely. I would just say that with some construction in the neighborhood being sort of at odds with the local character, it's just very nice to have some sensitive improvement done especially adjacent to our own property. So. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Excuse me or comments from the public? Seeing none. I'll go ahead and close the public comment period. I'm gonna go ahead and share. This is the memorandum that was issued by the Department of Planning and Community Development in regards to this property. So the planning department reviews special permit applications that come before the board and provide some assistance with some of the concerns that may be raised by the application and they review the special permit criteria. So as they note here, it's not increasing the footprint of the existing structure. In addition would not increase any of the non conformities of the existing structure. As we had said that there is just a slight increase in the gross floor area of the property and because usable open space is calculated based on the gross floor area, there is a technical increase in the deficiency in the usable open space that is generated by the increase in the size of the building. And as Mr. Hanlon said, this is something that the board sees very routinely and that the addition of dormers are very common throughout not only this neighborhood but the town in general. So just a quick review of the special permit criteria that the rest is used, it's a permitted use. It's a two-family house and an R2 district. The existing two-family house is not going to change or remain a two-family house. It will just have more space inside, provide additional living space, will not increase the traffic congestion or impair public safety. It's not imposing on the sidewalks to the streets. It will not create additional burden on any municipal systems because there's no need for special regulation. The only special regulation would be that it's the board's ability to act when there is an increase in the intensity of an existing non-conformity, which is what is being requested here. Rateria six, the integrity character of the district. So this is where the residential guidelines are applied, the residential design guidelines are adopted by the town to help guide residential development and particularly in things that come before the zoning board of appeals. So as they note, this is very consistent with the residential design guidelines. It complements the style of the existing structure in the adjacent homes in the neighborhood. It will not detrimentally impact the neighborhood of the character of the district. And criteria seven, it does not create detrimental excess of any particular use. Again, this is the location of the house. This is the condition presently as it's under construction. And then in the summary of their analysis, they maintain the proposals consistent with special permit criteria. And are there any further questions from the board for the applicants? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just wanted to squeeze in. I, my daughter goes to school, my granddaughter goes to school in this area. I had occasion to pick her up from school and they'll walk by this house on the way home. And normally we're in a situation where we have to speculate on what a property looks like. We'll look like after the changes that they're asking for have been made. But now we pretty much know. And I can say that as you walk down Oxford Street, this house as it is right now fits right in. It's actually somewhat difficult to see the dormers from the street. You would nobody if, but for the fact that it's obviously not occupied now, you would never, you would never see this as being in any way inconsistent with the line of tree, the line of houses that exist today on Oxford Street. And so while usually I think that a project is going to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, I think now I can say that I know that this one would be consistent with the general look of the neighborhood. I wouldn't necessarily encourage people to go ahead and build their houses and then ask for their permits, but at least it offers an unusual glimpse now. And I've influenced by having done that today. I also, by the way, taught my granddaughter what dormers were. She was fascinating. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Other questions from the board being done. So were the board to go to approve this evening? The board has three typical standard conditions that would be attached to the decision. The first would be that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and submission, specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There will be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Number two is the building inspector is hereby notified to monitor the site and proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures that at any time it is determined that violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute non-criminal complaints if necessary, the building inspector may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And the third condition is that the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. Are there any other conditions that members of the board would ask the board to consider? Seeing none, what the board has before it is a request for relief under the zoning bylaws under section 813B whereby the existing non-conformity in regards to usable open space will be intensified by the addition of dormers on the attic floor of the existing house, which increases the gross floor area which increases the need for usable open space. And the board can make a termination to allow that under section six of the chapter 48 and under section 813B of the local zoning bylaw. And Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just like to say for the record that when we get these cases we've tended and I've been writing the opinion and so I've tended more than anybody to say that we also find that there's a extension of the nature of the non-conformity which is the predicate of our making a section six finding. But the truth of the matter is that when the cases come to us there's already at least implicitly been a finding to that effect by ISD, by the building inspector. And those have generally not been challenged in the cases before us. So we've been really accepting those going forward. And that has rarely been an issue because we usually are finding ourselves able to make the section six finding. But here I would like to just basically say that in writing the opinion I would propose that we say what I think is more accurate and that is that the finding of an extension of a non-conformity has been in effect made by ISD. That's ISD's call in the first instance unless it's appealed to us. And that what we will have done is made the section six finding and granted the special permit and leave the record that way. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. I think that's very appropriate. So with that, entertain a motion in regards to this special permit. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the ZBA, the board for grant the special permit subject to the conditions that have been read into the record. May I have a second? Second. Thank you Mr. Mills. The board has before it as a motion to approve the special permit for 7072 Oxford Street with the three standard conditions as motioned by Mr. Hanlon and seconded by Mr. Mills. Any questions from the board on what we're voting on? That will roll call vote of the board. Mr. DuPont is unavailable this evening. So I will ask Mr. Holly if he would be going to vote on this application with that roll call vote of the board. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rickidelli. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. The chair votes aye. The special permit for 7072 Oxford Street is approved. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Good luck everyone. Thank you very much. With that review of the upcoming meetings and milestones for the board. So we do not have a meeting on Tuesday, October 11th. We have that night off. But to make up for it, it's the comprehensive permit application for 1021 1027 Massachusetts Avenue which is being called the Residences at Millbrook. That application was filed last week with the town and was certified by the town clerk. And so as is required under state law, the application was distributed to town boards and commissions within seven days. And the board has 30 days in which to convene a hearing. And so working with Mr. Valerelli and the schedules of the newspapers that we have to publicize through, we couldn't put it together in time for October 11th which is why it's going to be on October 18th. At 7.30 PM, we will be convening this under Zoom as we have been all the last two years. So the hearing will be opened on the 18th. The board then has until November 2nd to make it to decide if it is going to make an assertion under the safe harbor provisions of Chapter 40B, these are the provisions, excuse me, that allow a town to have the decision of the zoning board of appeals be final and not appealable to the housing appeals committee. The board has, this was asserted for the Thorndike place and the town lost on appeal on that. And the final decision was to occur when the hearing was reconvened under the housing appeals committee and then the applicant withdrew from the housing appeals committee. And so that has now effectively fallen by. So, and the board chose not to assert when for 1025 RMSF or 1165 RMSF because at the time the board didn't think that it met the criteria. The approval of 1165 R gave us a one year stay of new applications and that expired back in August. And so this application is free and clear. We've asked the planning department to review the record to determine whether or not the town meets any of those statutory minima under law and they are reviewing that. And so we will have to make a determination on that. Hopefully we'll have that information in hand by the 18th. So we can do that at the same hearing. Once the comprehensive permit is open, we have 180 days, which brings us to April 16, 2023. Hopefully we'll be done a long time before then. And then we have 40 days after that to file our final decision. So I'm planning to put up, trying to schedule a planning meeting with the applicant and the town to sort of plan out the sequence of hearings so that we can get that in front of the public. And everyone can sort of understand how this is gonna work and how it's gonna flow. And so that's coming up on October 18th. And then we do have a hearing on October 25th. As Rick said that we have two new hearings that are coming up that night. We also have the continuation of Woodside Lane from tonight. And also the remote participation study committee has asked to come and address the board. They're getting ready to start their hybrid meeting pilot plan. And so they had wanted, we had agreed to be part of one of their test subjects. And so they're getting ready to start that. So they want to come and talk to us on the 25th. So that will be going on on the 25th as well. So that's what we have coming up so far. There are any questions about any of that? I know it's all very exciting. And with that, unless there's anything else, there are questions for the board. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the meeting. I thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting with the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would especially like to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee, Kelly Lai, and Marissa Lau for all their assistance and preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. And as our understanding of the recording made by AACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. And that email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. So to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. And the second, thank you, no. Vote to adjourn. The roll call vote of the board, Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. I'm struggling with my unmute tonight. Aye. That's quite okay. Mr. Holley. Aye. Wonderful. And the chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all so much. Okay, nice job, guys. Good night, we love you all. We'll see you all on the 18th. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.