 Good evening. It is 7 33 PM on October 3rd 2023. 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 first like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning board of appeals. Roger Dupont here. Patrick Hanlon will be joining us later. Hopefully. Ben Ked Holy. Here. Dan Brickardelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam LeBlanc. Good to have all of you with us. Appearing on behalf of the town, we have Michael Cunningham from the legal department. Here. Good to have you with us and Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant. Here. Good to have you with us as well. Then going down the dockets, make sure we have people here for 32 Appleton Street. Is Jenna Francis with us? Yes, I'm here. Good to have you. For five Mystic Lake Drive. Balminesi. Yes, I'm here. Good to have you with us and you're here also for 77 Tanager Street, correct? I am. I am. Perfect. For 212 Pleasant Street, Nellie Aikenhead. See you there. Here. Good to have you with us for 106 Mount Vernon Street. Carl Tumaian. Present. Good. Thank you. For 15 Mockison Path, Scott and Chelsea. We're here. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. 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 29, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31, 2025 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12 2020 executive orders to spending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. 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. They meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you please maintain the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. Reporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda and 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. An Algonquin word meaning swift 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 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 tonight we have six items on the agenda. And I'm going to just briefly I'm going to take them in a very specific order and I'm just going to explain what that is now. So first will be 212 pleasant street. That is because they are just going to be continued straight away. Then we will take 106 Mount Vernon Street, then 32 Appleton Street, five Mystic Lake Drive, 77 Tanager Street, 15 moccasin path, and then we'll do the administrative items at the end. I anticipate that we will be getting to five Mystic Lake Drive around 915. So if you are here for a later hearing, please feel free to step away and check back in at that time I can provide better time estimates at that time. If you are five Mystic Lake Drive, 77 Tanager, 15 moccasin path, I promise we will not start you until after 915. So just I just offer that to you now if you want to step away and come back in that is perfectly fine. I don't want to take up everyone's whole night. Thank you for the heads up on that. Absolutely. So with that, we're going to go straight ahead to public hearings. So before opening the public hearings 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 for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. Any vote taken at this hearing will be preliminary until the written decision is approved by the board at a subsequent meeting. All votes will be conducted by roll call vote. The first item we will take up on is number five on our agenda tonight docket 376 4 to 12 pleasant street. This is a continuation of a hearing and the applicant is working on obtaining some additional information and trying to address some concerns that were raised at a prior hearing. I was notified that they are requesting some additional time to make that happen. So I appreciate Ms Aikenhead being here tonight. The board is intended to continue until October 24 at 730. I just want to confirm that that works for you. That works for us. Thank you. You're very welcome. So with that, may I have a motion to continue the special permit hearing for 212 pleasant street until October 24 2023 at 730 p.m. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Do I have a second? Second. That was me. Second. Oh, thank you. With that, we'll do roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Mr. Rikadelli. Hi. Ms. Hoffman. Hi. Mr. LeBlanc. Hi. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on 212 pleasant street until October 24, 2023 at 730 p.m. Thank you all for that. That brings us to item number four on our agenda this evening docket 3765 appeal of the building inspector in regards to decision on 106. Excuse me, Mount Vernon street. I would ask that the appellant. Please address the board. And I know that there was as a part of the appeal to the board there was a question about the suitability of some of the zoning board of appeals members so if you could go ahead and address that first please. I, good evening. Mr. Chairman members of the board. My name is Carl to main I represent Gail Caucasian Edward Schmidt Scott tower and Virginia tower. The appellants in this matter. I had an opportunity to opportunity to review the town council's opinion with regard to recusal. And we will accept that opinion has written. Thank you very much appreciate that. So if you. So with that, the, basically the appeal, we're going to be hearing in two parts tonight. The first has to do with the timeliness of the application of the appeal. And once that has been discussed, we will then decide on whether we want to continue on to the merits. On the timeliness question. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it back over to you. And if you could explain the situation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first state. I don't know if the board received a memorandum which I emailed earlier today. I think they have two preliminary procedural issues. The first is whether or not there was a timely appeal. And the second assuming that the appeal was not timely filed whether the appellants received had actual notice of the building permit being issued. So with regard to the timeliness of the appeal itself. I think there are questions that we would need answers to in order to basically determine whether or not the appeal was timely filed. We are in receipt of two building permits, building permit number 2023-1162 and building permit number 08299. I think the board of inspection services, Mr. Sianpa had indicated that the building permit 2023-1162, which is the building permit that appears on the town website and has a has a date of July. July 7 as the issuing date was in fact, not correct that when the permit was uploaded to the town system. The date of issue got changed. But I need to note that the date of issue on. Issue changed on what was uploaded, but the permit number was changed from what the building inspector has indicated was the permit that was originally issued. And the font also changed. So my question is, how can those changes occur when a document is scanned for uploading. And are they in fact the same document or are they different permits. Okay, thank you for that question. With us this evening, we do have Michael Champa, who is the director of inspectional services for the town of Arlington. If I would ask Mr. Champa if he could sort of explain the difference between the two issuances of the building permit. Yeah, of course they are the same permit one is digitally created one from the permit system. It's created when the permit is scanned into the system and one is the actual building card that is issued to to the applicant the we've just recently gone online but our prior system defaulted to the date that the permanent applications were scanned into the system. As the permit date so that that's the differences and the difference in the number is that when the permit is scanned into the system. I'm sorry when the permit is issued to the applicant it does not yet have an actual permit number the permit number that it is given is the invoice number. So that's why in the system there is a separate different number than on the permit card that the applicant receives. And when the permit is issued is put into the electronic system. Do you scan the permit card or is the information. The card itself is not either that's correct in the old system the information was entered manually. There was no function to it that allowed us to take the building card that we would issue to the applicants and have it be identical in the system. Additionally, the digital permit serves a purpose of being able to input the inspection we wouldn't be able to do that with just with a scanned copy it's it's actually part of the program. Was part of the program when we were using that system. Thank you. So the application and for the appeal of the decision to building specter to issue the building permit for 106 Mount Vernon Street the appeal was filed on August 3rd, which is the reason that there's this question because there's a 30 day period in the process that was filed and that this date is between the June 6 which excuse me June 26 which I believe was the original date on the written permit and written permit. And then July 7th is the one that came out of the electronic system which would have been that would have been less than 30 days so this is the sort of the crux of the issue here. I just want a few additional questions of directly please. Yeah. So, director see when, when did you have knowledge that the documents that were uploaded to the town website, changed the date of issuance. We were never asked whether they changed the date of issuance. Well, in your response to the appellants appeal you indicated that the online system automatically changed the date of issuance to the data was uploaded my question to you is did you have knowledge that that's what occurred when the documents uploaded prior to your That's a function of the system it's a defaults to the date that it's scanned in. My question to you is when did you have knowledge that that's what occurs when I get scanned in that the data was I was never asked that question. I'm asking whether you asked that what I'm asking did you have knowledge that that occurs. That's been occurring since the system was created in the early in the 90s. I would, I would just ask that all questions be addressed through the chair please. So I guess my question is, at what point in time, did director see amp know that when permits are scanned into the system, the date of issue changes. I think I've answered that question seven times. Thank you. So, Mr. Mayor, I think what. Mr. Sheppa has said is that they, the department has been aware that the date that is registered in the online system is the date that it's entered into the online system, which they know is different than the date that is written on the building card when the permit is form is issued. So my next question, then Mr. Chairman is a two part question. One, if Mr. Siemper was aware of the fact that the date gets changed. Why did he refer the appellants to the online system. And two, why didn't Mr. Siemper provide the building permit that was issued as part of the response to the appellants request for information. Mr. Champa. I was just going to say, so the second question, the second part of that question, my understanding and I'll ask Mr. Champa to corroborate is that the reason that they written building card with the June date was not in the file was that that was already posted on the job site on the date that it was given to the contractor, it was posted on the front door of the property as is required. That is correct. Yet he was able to get a copy as to incorporate into his denial. I would have been asked by the balance when the permit was on the day that the public records request was filed if the permanent had been issued yet I would have answered yes it has and I would have provided the date. I was never asked when the permit was issued. There was a lack of communication. And to be quite honest, you know, not enough homework on your part that we ended up in this situation. I would, I would ask Mr. cutting him. I just like to make Mr. Chair. Thank you. All all questions and all responses should be directed through the chair directly. So the business domain. Are you aware of whether anyone went to look at the building card that was posted on the property. I am not aware. Okay. Mr. Chairman, which brings us to the second procedural issue. This question of whether the appeal was timely. And if in fact, the appeal was not timely, then there's a secondary issue of whether or not the appellants had adequate notice or actual motives that the permit issue. And that's relevant because to the extent they did not have adequate notice that they would have appeal rights under chapter 48 section seven. The appellants have in fact submitted a request for zoning enforcement seven to the director. Previously, so I think it's worth noting that in its art contention that the appellants did not have adequate or actual motives that the building permit issue. Despite the numerous requests for information concerning when the permit, whether the permit had been issued. Whether or not the permit had been issued documents produced concerning the application of the permit, all were non responsive or contained incorrect information. There's a litany of due diligence that the appellants took and trying to determine whether or not building permit had in fact issue. And I would like to just go over a number of those for the record. At the special permit variance hearing for docket ZBA dock number three seven three seven appellants made it known that they intended to the appeal the issuance of the building permit. On June 21, 2023, the appellants sent an email to the director and date David Geldart in the inspectional services department stating that if someone could let them know when a permit issued for the proposed project that one oh six mile burn it straight street they would appreciate it. We're aware of the fact that the permit date determines the time for filing an appeal. On June 22, 2023, the appellants received the only response to the above request sent by Mr. Geldart stating the permit has not been issued. We are awaiting additional information. When the department, advise the appellants that no permit had issued it is out contention that the department had a duty to inform the appellants, one in fact that permit issue. The appellants had the right to expect that the issuance of the permit upon the issuance of the permit they would be notified. On June 28, 2023, the appellants noticed the start of excavation work at one oh six mile burn it street and visited the department the same day. On June 28, the appellants asked the officials in the department, whether the excavation work they observed was allowed. Response was, it was at no time did response say that the building permit issue. The excavation was being permitted. The excavation activity that the appellants observed is not necessarily evidence of a building permit on the state building code. The state building code allows the inspector building inspector to issue excavation permits, and specifically states that the property owner, undertaking the excavation does so with their own peril. But the building permit does not get issued. On June 28, the appellants again requested from the department, final plans permits, etc. and when informed a copy of the file from the department would be available the following today when the administrative staff. Kerry will be back in the office. On June 29, the appellants can return to the inspectional services department to pick up the promise documents in the director and explicitly stated, you could only provide the requested documents in response to a formal public records request made on the town website. The director further stated that if the appellants submitted such a request he will copy the entire file and send it to the appellants. And finally, in the inspectional services parking lot sent an email request to James Feeney, then the deputy town manager pursuant to the mass public records request law requesting a copy of the application plans and building permit for current work at 106 Street. On June 30, 2023 Mr Feeney responded that the director will compile responsive records for the appellant. On July 5, 2023 appellants sent another email to the director asking one appellants would receive the responsive records. On July 6, the director responded by email stating in full, I have attached the files you requested. The application will be scanned into the system tomorrow. On July 6, 2023 the director omitted documents in his possession from the documents produced by him, contrary to his obligation pursuant to the mass public records request law. And his representation to the appellants that he will provide the entire building file is significant to note. I'm curious that the supplied documents omitted from the documents request are those documents upon which the appeal is based, namely, the different dates found on several purported building permits. The director directed the appellants the town website to obtain a copy of the building permit upon which the appellants relied in filing their appeal documents produced by the director included no building permit. And that include either of the documents the ZBA, an email of August 3 relied on to assert that the appellants appeal was was untimely. Those documents were the receipt and the original building permit. On July 7, the applicants in the, the application of building permit will posted with the building permit clearly marked. On July 7, 2003 as the date of issue, and a different permit number than the permit originally issued on June 26. Appellants having relied on the director's instructions to obtain a copy of the building permit online, further relied on that permit and its date of issue for the appeal. In the draft and incomprehensibly the director stated the preposterous position that the applicant cannot rely on the online records, because the online system reportedly changes dates. While the director takes the position that the online system is unreliable as to dates, provides no explanation of whether the online system is equally unreliable as to permit numbers in the font of the online permit. The appellants did not receive a copy of the ledge building permit issued on June 26, until the director's denial of their appeal is important to note that the director clearly had a copy of the permit and application, and they were withheld from the parents, because the appellants previously informed the director of appellants intentional appeal and request the relevant permit and issue date, it appears that they were withheld in an effort to frustrate the appellants appeal. They had no reason to question the date of issuance on the online permit number 2023-1162 as the date the building permit was issued. By later to the director date of August 10th, the appellants requested zoning enforcement under chapter 48 section seven and this is why this chronology is relevant, because to the extent that the board finds that the permit, the appeal of the appellants are timely, there's a question of fact as to whether or not the appellants had actual or adequate notice and to the extent it was constructive notice, did they diligently pursue information to ascertain the date of issuance and I would submit that they did. Thank you. A couple of quick questions. So, the, you had said that the you had it. There was a request to it back at June 28. Request is to excuse me to see the plans. At that time, was the request made to have a copy made that could be taken or was the request just to see the documents. Do you know that. It was it was a in person request at the planning at the directional inspectional services department. Over the counter that they be provided with copies of the file and they were told that they come back on June 29 when Kerry was in the office to obtain that. They returned back on June 29. They were told. Sorry, we can't give it to you submit a request. We're information. On June 26, the date that the excavation began, you say that the appellants had come down to the inspectional services to ask about the excavation. Do you know if they specifically asked if a building permit had been issued. On June 28, they went down and asked whether the the activity taking place the excavation was allowed and they were told it was. Okay, but they didn't ask specifically if a building permit had issued. Not that day they asked for it on June 29. Okay. So June 29 they asked if the building permit had issued you're saying yes. And at that time had they been told that a building permit issued. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, they asked for a copy that day. Okay. And during this time, do you know if anyone went to see if a building card was posted on the job site. They did not. Okay. And then you had noted that there were documents that were omitted. And you said with the original permit. And what were the other documents you say were omitted. The receipt, the alleged receipt that was for the payment of the permit fee. Okay. Okay, and then you say you were not provided a copy of the original building card until after August 3rd. Correct. It was provided with the building inspectors denial. Okay. So I would ask Mr. Shampa. When the request was made at the end of June 29 for the card. Did you have a copy of the card available in the office or was the only copy on the door of the residents. That's correct. It was that we did not have it in our possession. Okay. And what is the usual amount of time it takes to prepare a copy of a file for distribution. So no files are allowed to be provided without a public records request to begin with. And we were provided with 10 business days to fulfill that request. Okay. Thank you for that. I would turn to the board and ask if the board has questions I've sort of been monopolizing the floor here for a bit. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I have a couple of questions for Mr. Shampa. So in the chronology that's provided by attorney to May and in his brief, he lays out the fact that there was an email to inspectional services, I believe, to you and Mr. Geldart saying let us know when a permit is issued. Okay. So what is in that email on June 21st? Were there any other emails to you requesting an update as to whether or not the building permit had been issued? Not that I'm aware of. And then Mr. Geldart on the following day, June 22nd, wrote back and said that the permit had not been issued. Are you aware of that? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. And then. So just to continue along on the on the procedure. So on June 23rd, the building permit was approved. So I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. Okay. And then. So just to continue along on the, on the procedure. The building permit was approved, but the card itself wasn't issued until the check had been paid. The fee had been paid. Is that correct? That's correct. And so the card itself then was handed to the contractor. Who then posted it on the job site. And then on the 28th, the appellants came to inspectional services asking whether the excavation was allowed. And do you know who spoke to them at that time? I do not. Okay. And, and in the, um, in the brief by Mr. Tomei, and he says that they were informed that the excavation was in fact allowed. They were informed that the excavation was allowed to be issued. Are you aware of them having questioned on that date, whether the permit itself had been issued? I'm not. And then on the 29th, they came back and presumably because they were looking for copies of the file. And do you know who spoke to them on that occasion? I actually spoke with them on that occasion. They did not. And I assume that they already knew because they said they were asking for all of the files for the current work occurring at the, at the property. Okay. And at that, on that occasion, did they ask to see the file? For cause the file for the, the address. They did not want to see the file. They just wanted a copy. Okay. And, um, those are my only questions for the moment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Are there questions from other members of the board? Okay. Seeing none. Mr. Tomei, did you have anything further in regards to either the question about timeliness or the question about adequate notice? I just want to correct the record. I believe someone had mentioned that the, the, uh, um, the appeal on August 3rd. Actually the appeal was filed on August 1. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, so this is a public care. Um, and the. The question before the board is whether the, at this point as twofold is one is whether the application was. In a timely fashion. And the second question is, uh, was adequate notice provided to the appellant in regards to, uh, the, the data, the issuance of the permit. Um, because this is a public hearing, uh, the public is allowed to, um, participate and ask questions. Um, but only as they relate to the matter at hand. So, um, the matter specifically at hand right now is are those two items and related to the questions that the board has been following? So if there are members of public who want to address those two questions, um, you can raise your hand using the raise hand button on the reactions tab in the zoom application. Um, or if you're on phone, you can dial star nine. Um, are there any members of public who wish to speak to these questions? Um, one, uh, Mr. Fitzsimmons. Thank you. And good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Uh, my name is Bruce Fitzsimmons. I live at 122 Mount Vernon street, which is three houses away from the property at 106 Mount Vernon street. Uh, by way of full disclosure, I'm also an attorney and I've represented, uh, the homeowners Sean and Bailey Snyder, both when they purchased 106 Mount Vernon street and when they sold their former home at 113 Mount Vernon street, I've also provided them with legal advice pertaining to tonight's hearing. Um, I've previously submitted, uh, written comments to the board and I will try my best to restrict my comments, oral comments to only matters not addressed in writing previously. Um, has the chairs recognized that the heart of the hearing tonight is the question of when was the building permit actually issued by the building department? Uh, the appellants wish to keep the focus on this as to when they learned about it. Uh, but the, uh, statutory provisions in chapter 40 a section seven, eight and 15 and the relevant case law clearly says that it is the time that the appeal. Um, excuse me, the time of permit was issued that starts the clock and the 30 day time period for filing the appeal is strictly enforced. If the appeal is not made timely, um, that that point the board and any court who might hear a subsequent appeal would have, um, no subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Um, with respect to the, um, um, question about the adequacy of notice, uh, the court cases don't give us a, uh, bright line test as to what would constitute adequate notice. But in the leading case on this matter, which is Connors versus Anino and which I've cited in my written comments, the Supreme judicial court determined that the appellants, uh, receipt of, of actual notice of the issue of, of a permit 10 days after the permit had been issued. And therefore 20 days prior to the expiration of a 30 day appeal period, uh, would be sufficient to qualify as adequate notice. I would submit to the board that in this case, uh, the appellants actually had, uh, at least 24 days notice prior to the clock, uh, running out on their appeal period because their email to, uh, the building inspector and to, um, I believe then the acting town manager on the 29th, uh, indicated that they had some knowledge that a building permit had issued. Um, I also want to, uh, address, uh, comments and Mr. Tumaian's, uh, petition, uh, that perhaps the permit that was initially issued and given to the Sniders was a build, uh, excuse me, a foundation permit, uh, or something less than a full building permit. And I think if you turn to the building card, which is, uh, at page 13 of the packet, uh, it's very clear on the face of it that, uh, it's, um, the purpose of the permit was to add an additional dwelling unit to property and decks. There's nothing on the face of this permit that would limit its applicability to excavation work or, or, uh, constructing a foundation. Um, I will accept that the date of issuance, well, I would submit that the date of issuance on the card is June 23rd. Uh, but, um, with respect to, you know, starting the clock, um, I think I would defer to, um, the building inspectors comment that it began on June 26th when the, um, when the permit was paid. Now I also think noted that the fee amount that was charged, which was over $7,000, uh, would be in excess of what you would typically expect for a foundation permit. So, uh, what the town was charging my clients was the fee for the entire project. Um, I would like to address also, uh, briefly, uh, the comment in town council's memorandum to the board. Um, but most of which I would agree with, um, but there's one suggestion that, uh, the board can entertain hearing, uh, the merits of the case, uh, without deciding whether or not the appeal is timely. And I apologize if I'm misconstruing, uh, uh, town council's point on this. Um, but I would lead you back to the Connors decision and state that not only is that time limit for filing an appeal, uh, strictly enforced with the 30 days, uh, but the court, uh, the courts have consistently held that failure to meet that timing, uh, deadline, uh, deprives the board of appeals or any court that might hear this matter of subject matter jurisdiction. So at best listening to the merits of this case without deciding whether or not the appeal is timely would be an academic exercise. But at first it could put the, uh, the board in violation of Massachusetts case law. So, uh, in conclusion, I would just say that, um, there's sufficient evidence here for the board to find, uh, that the appellants had received adequate notice. Uh, the permit had issued on or about June 23rd or June 26th, whichever date you choose. Uh, for the issuance of the permit would still be more than 30 days from the initial filing of the notice of appeal on August 1st. So therefore, for those reasons, the board should dismiss the appeal and not hear the, uh, arguments as to the merits. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fitzsimmons. Oh, uh, as Mr. Cunningham, if he's able to, uh, comment on the point that was, that was raised by, um, Mr. Fitzsimmons about, um, the board and if the board decides that the permit was not, that the, excuse me, that the appeal was not timely, that the board, um, should stay away from discussing the merits of the application. The way I read attorney Heim's opinion is that the board could, if it shows the main, they also address the merits further, but are not so required. That's the section, um, that council is referring to. I think that the most clean, I'm not saying that they would run afoul of the Connors decision. I'm not, I don't think that's necessarily true, and I don't think that attorney Fitzsimmons said that's certain. However, I do think that if the board determines that the appeal is untimely, the most clean way to deal with this appeal would to make no further inquiry. Great. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who wish to, um, address? Is it, um, Second name, uh, Francesca Colterra. Yes. If you could just give your name and address for the record, please. Uh, my name is Francesca Colterra. I live on 100 situates street in Arlington. And I'm kind of sitting here as a non lawyer. And trying to get my head around the idea that you could, as a citizen of Arlington, repeatedly ask, has the permit been issued and repeatedly ask what's going on and not get a straight answer. And that's really what it seems to come down to from where I'm sitting. In addition to wedge, the idea that you have 10 business days to, um, file something, uh, 10 business days is two weeks. So I'm thinking you're not giving people a lot of time if they're not getting a straight and simple answer on when the permit was filed. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I will just. The appeal period. It's actually a 30 day appeal period. Um, I believe what Mr. Fitzsimmons had mentioned in the Congress decision was that, uh, The town, um, giving notice 10 days after the issuance of the permit, uh, which would then reduce the time you had to 20 days that in the Congress decision that it was found that those 20 days was still a sufficient period of time to apply. Um, but your, your points are very well taken. Thank you so much. Here's a button. Um, are there any other members of the. Uh, public who wish to address the board. Um, Director Champa. Yes, I won't take up much of your time. I can't, there's not enough hours in the evening for me to correct all of the inaccuracies in the previous statements, but I can say that. No one in our office was asked have as the permit been issued yet after the date of the permit being issued. Thank you. Okay. Um, Is there anyone else who wishes to address this otherwise? I'm going to go ahead and close for close the public comment period for this hearing. Seeing no one else. I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment. Uh, for this hearing. Um, This is Paul and Marcy Tannenbaum. I'm trying to put that raised hand, but I'm having trouble getting it notified. So. So sorry. I didn't recognize that. That's what you were trying to do. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Well, I couldn't figure it out. I just have one. I have a very short comment. So if you could just name an address of the record, please. 109 Mount Vernon street directly across the street from. Thank you so much. My only comment is. Anyone who lived in a neighborhood. Walk past the house. And see the permit posted on the front door, which is still there. And the adjoining neighbors who are making this filing could have done the same thing I did. Look at the front door. You can see the permit. And you would know without having to go see you or inspectional services officer. That's it. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Here. One last, one last call for public comment. Mr. Chair. I also can't find the head. This is Carl to man. I'll come back to it in just a second. But there's no other members of the public who wish to address. Nope. Okay. So with that, I will close the public comment period officially. Mr. to man, you had a question. Actually, just a comment. One I want to know for the record that the appellants received a copy of the receipt and showing what the building permit fee was that was paid until after the denial, nor did they receive a copy of the building permit that was issued on the 26th. With that said, I would ask request that the board when they do make their findings that they make the finding relative to whether the appellants received or had actual or adequate notice. Okay. Thank you. Um, So as Mr. had said originally, there are two, two decisions before the board. One is, is the applicant is the appeal that was received by the board timely, which means within 30 days of the issuance of the app of the, of the. Building permit and then the second question, if that is not, if the board finds that that is not the case, then was adequate notice provided to the appellant in order for them to file timely in a timely fashion. So I'm going to the board. I think it's. I think it's. There's been a. You know, fair amount of evidence that's provided this evening also documentation and that was submitted to the board. That the building permit was issued on June, appears to have been issued on June 23rd. And not on July 7th. And that. The, as the director had said, the July 7th date on the electronic card is, as Mr. had noted, has a different font has a different layout. That that information. That the July 7th was the day that that was issued into the electronic system, but that was not the date that the permit was initially issued. The building card that was posted on site is dated June 23rd. And the. Appellants. Knew enough that there was. Construction work going on to. To go to the building department. And find and try to get information. They did not. Check for the building card on the building. Which. You know, as the, as the neighbor had said, that would have. Sort of answered things right then and there. But I. Would ask the board if they feel that they are comfortable making a finding. That. The. That the permit was issued on June 23rd. As is dated on the card. And that the application for. The appeal being filed on August 1st. Would not be timely. I feel comfortable with that decision. Making that decision. Okay. Other members of the board. Mr. Chair. Yeah, Mr. Mr. I agree. I agree with you, Mr. I feel comfortable with that. The date. The date that is on the picture of the front door. Seems to solve that for me. Okay. So. I think the board should go on record. In regards to this finding. So. Just do a vote of the board. Whether they would approve of the finding that the permit was issued. On June 23rd. 2023. And therefore the. The appeal. Being filed on August 1st. 2023. Was not filed in a timely manner. So I will do a quick. Vote of the board. Mr. Mr. Chairman, just as a point of order and perhaps Mr. Cunningham can weigh in. Do we need to have a motion. For that vote? Or is this just a straightforward vote? There should be a motion. Mr. Chairman, I think you've set it out pretty clearly. And I think for the sake of the record. I think this is the direction you were going, but. Accept a motion. On the issue of whether. The appeal was timely. And it sounds like you're going towards a second motion regarding the. Actual notice. But yes, I would take, I would take two. To accept motions, Mr. Chair, and then take votes on those two separate issues. Okay. Then in that case, thank you very, very much. Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Dupont. May I have a motion. In regards to the timeliness of the application. So moved Mr. Chairman. And that would be accepting that the. Building permit itself was issued on June 23rd. And that, that's the motion. Okay. So I may have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. So what's before the board is a motion. To find that the building permit for 106. Mount Vernon street was issued by the department by. The inspectoral services division on June 6th, 2023. June 23rd. June 23rd, 2023. And that the. Application for. So then the appeal of the decision of the building inspector. Being filed on August 1st was not filed in a timely fashion. Mr. Chairman, another point of order. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I, so I think that the motion then is going to have to be two parts. So it's going to be, you know, that we're, we're moving to. Vote on whether or not the building permit itself was issued on June 23rd. And then that in addition to that, the August 1st. Appeal that was filed was not timely. So that's the motion. That I'm presenting. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. So you're saying the motion that's before the board is only that. The board would find that the building permit was. Issued on June 23rd, 2023. And in addition, that it was not timely appealed. By virtue of the appeal having been filed on August 1st. And Mr. Cunningham is, Mr. Cunningham is weighing in. Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Chair, that I believe that would constitute an amended motion. Where you would need another second on that. Okay. Can I just second it again? Or do we have to. I don't know if we have someone else to it. Nope, that's fine. Okay. Second. All right. I'm, I'm going to write this out. All right. The board. Finds. That. Building permit. For 106 Mount Vernon street. Was issued. On June 23rd. 2023. And the. Application. It's not application to appeal. The decision. To issue the permit on August 1st. 2023. It's not timely. Okay. So the motion will then. Mr. Dupont, I would just ask you to confirm. The motion is the board finds that the building permit. For 106 Mount Vernon street was issued on June 23rd. 2023. And the appeal of the decision. To issue the permit on August 1st, 2023 was not time. That is your motion. Correct. Thank you very much. And that was seconded by Mr. Okay, then a vote of the board. On that motion, Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Mr. Well, Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. So that is the. So, is there further discussion from the board on the question of whether the notice provided the ablant was time was not excuse me not timely but was sufficiently made available. Mr. DuPont. So, the way I look at this I mean there was the request in by email to and special services by the appellants on June 21. Let us know when the permits issued, we're aware that the permit date determines the period for filing an appeal. So, as of that very date they had complete knowledge that they had to be diligent in terms of keeping an eye on whether or not the permit was issued. And when Mr. Gildard, the following day June 22nd replied it has not yet been issued. Mr. to me and contends that that somehow created an affirmative obligation on the part of the town to provide updates and I do not accept to that I just think that the town offices are too busy to be accepting that sort of responsibility I think that the parties who have a vested interest in this namely the appellants are the ones who have to exercise due diligence. So, with that said, they knew that the issue in state was critical. They knew on the 21st to ask if it was issued. They knew that work was allowed on the on June 28. They didn't on that date ask if the building permit had been issued and had they they would have been told it had. They didn't ask, apparently, to look at the file on June 28 either because if they had I think that would have been in Mr. to man's pleadings on June 29 when they went back and they spoke to Mr. Champa, they didn't then ask whether the building permit had been issued. They asked whether they could look at the file. So, you know, I believe that they had ample opportunity to protect their own rights by just asking the simple question has the building permit been issued to the people who would have the answer. And I'm confident that if, if it had been asked they would have been told yes. They certainly didn't look at the building card either which was at least on the building as of June 28 the date that they observed the excavation work being done. So, I believe that all of this other discussion about July 7 and the uploading and all of that is irrelevant that's just a function of the way that data is transferred onto the system. Another issue from my perspective is, what did they know, or what should they have known and they certainly knew that the work was being done, and they went to the inspectional services and they just failed to ask the right question, but that's not on anyone else but them. That's a matter of due diligence. So, I think that, you know, the issues to about when they receive the file are also irrelevant because of the fact that by that time they should have already known that the permit had been issued. Their knowledge of the permit being issued is not in my view dependent upon when they received copies, because that information was all there for them to uncover. So, for those reasons, I believe that the notice that they received or could have obtained themselves was in fact sufficient. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Excuse me. Are there questions or comments from the board? You don't see further questions or comments from the board. With that in mind then, Mr. DuPont, I would turn to you again for a motion in regards to a finding in regards to adequate notice. Mr. Chairman, I move that the board find that the notice provided to or available to the appellants as to the issuance date of the building permit was sufficient. And adequate. Move the board find notice provided to appellants regarding date and issuance of the permit was adequate and sufficient. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. So there's motion for Mr. DuPont. Do we have a second? Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. So with that we have a motion. It has been seconded. The motion before the board is that the board finds the notice provided to the appellants regarding the issuance regarding the date of the issuance of the permit was adequate and sufficient. That was by Mr. DuPont seconded by Mr. LeBlanc. Excuse me. Are there any questions from the board about what the motion is? Seeing none, I will go ahead and do a vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Rickidelli. Aye. Thank you. Mr. Hoffman. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye as well. So the board has found that the permit, that the application, excuse me, the appeal of the issuance of the building permit was not filed in a timely fashion. And the board finds that adequate notice was provided to the applicant, to the, excuse me, to the appellant in order to have filed on time. So that then brings us to the last remaining question, which is the question. Speak further about the merits of this case. And I think this has been expressed by Mr. Cunningham. And from attorney Heim, town council, this is something the board could do if it wants, but is not something that we're obliged to do. And certainly it is something that would not really serve the board to do. Is there any desire among the board to discuss this matter further. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. I believe for the reasons that are out, we're outlined by Mr. Cunningham and then also by Mr. Fitz Simmons that there is no reason for us to discuss the merits of the case. So I would decline to hear those. Yes, Ms. Hoffman. I would agree with that as well. Perfect. Thank you. That being the case. Unless there's, I think the board will find this matter closed and we will move on to the next item on our agenda. Mr. Cunningham, does that sound correct? It does, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very much. All right. Thank you so much for appearing. The board has closed the public hearing on one of six of our industry to close. And with that, we will move to the next item we've taken up this evening, which is 32 Appleton Street. And so I would ask Ms. Francis if she's here, if she is. I'm here. Wonderful. Good to have you. So this is a continuation of a hearing that we started our last session. And at that time, Ms. Francis had introduced that she was looking to open a massage business in her place of residence on Appleton Street. And there was a question from the board because this would be considered a home occupation. There are certain categories of home occupation that are allowed. And the question was massage therapy considered to fall within those allowed categories. And so we continued the hearing so that we could discuss this further with the town. We spoke with Director Champa about this question as to whether it is a, excuse me, a public service. It's not public service is not the correct term. Go ahead and bring up the zoning bylaw. Bear with me a second. Occupation, home occupation. So home occupation. This isn't the definition section. So home occupation is that shall not include personal service establishment uses. And so there's a question about whether massage was considered a personal service. So this, there are, there are massage businesses currently in town that are considered a personal service. These are sort of more general massage services. I just presented evidence to the building inspector and to the board that's now in the record that the service she provides is as she has advanced training on the medical side of massage and it's a, it's more medically therapeutic than just sort of a general service. And for that reason. I think it was considered that it was actually would fall under the category of medical or clinical office, which is a building or portion of a building containing offices or facilities providing medical, both psychiatric or related health care services for outpatient. And I found that that was the category that this fit within. So just briefly ask Miss Francis if she could just describe a little bit about what she's planning to, what her business would be like on the site and then we can go forward from there. Hello again Jenna Francis with hopefully soon to be opened Arlington Heights massage therapy. So I will have a therapeutic practice here in my home, if granted permission. Seeing just with just myself working here so it would be one client at a time in my home I see a lot of previously I had a license to practice out of my home in another town and I have a lot of clients with. They're either recovering from or preparing for knee surgeries back surgeries pre and postnatal various nerve disorders beyond Bray syndrome Parkinson's frozen shoulder lately I've been getting a lot of frozen shoulder clients for some reason. And so that is the nature of my practice and I think it will be a great benefit to the community where I live, if I'm granted permission. Great. Thank you. And I believe you had said before there was a question about parking and you had indicated that there was. You would be seen one person at a time and that there was space in your driveway for them to be parking. We have a we have a two car garage and then space for two more cars tandem right behind that and then a long driveway so there's no reason why why it should cause any parking issues, just with seeing one client at a time. Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. Are there questions from the board in regards to this request. Just remind the board that this is before the board, because a special permit is required for a home occupation where people are seen in the home. I see no questions from the board. Where this is a public hearing. I will go ahead and open this for public comment. So if there are members of public who wish to address this application, you can use the raise hand button in the reactions tab on the zoom application, or if you're on the phone you can dial star nine, or you can wave frantically in your window. If there is anyone wishing to address this application. So with that I'll go ahead and close the public comment for this hearing. So again this is a excuse me an application before the board in regards to wanting to start a home occupation in the one district. So memorandum those issued by the director of special services back on August 28 noted the applicant consultant special services regarding operating a home business and R2 resident excuse me it's an R2 district. R2 residential district that would allow customers to be served in the home for the town of Arlington zoning by law section 543 use regulations for residential districts home occupation. It requires a special permit of home occupation serves customers or pupils on the premises. That is the request. So, when the board is considered a special permit. There are the seven categories seven questions that the board needs to review the seven required findings. The first is whether the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit in the district, which we have just reviewed that it is why the requested use would be essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. This is a service that would be very useful to residents of Arlington who have, you know, some, some limited physical issues that they are looking for treatment that they would be able to find this locally and not have to travel outside the area to find the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety. This would be one car, one patient at a time as the as the applicant stated. The, I would note it was the letter that the board had received was specifically about parking on around the corner on Avon place, where there is both there's the Odyssey middle school at the end of the street. And the Arlington Heights nursery school is located near there. The applicant has indicated there's sufficient parking in her driveway so that anyone who is visiting this, this service would not need to turn that corner. It would not impair the safety of any of the students who would be attending either of those institutions that requested use will not overload any public system. No public system would really be impacted requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the neighborhood. This is a fairly simple and straightforward request for for a one on one service. So I don't think that that would be had a question other questions use will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare. It would be the opposite that it is providing a health service to the neighbors and to the town and the requested use will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood and would not do that either. So those are the findings the board would need to make in its vote. The when the board makes a special to the board vote to approve the special permit there are three standard conditions that the board would apply. I'll go ahead and read into the record. 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 the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. I think that there is just there there is a hand sketch submitted to the board. Ask the board if they feels that we should impose this condition because it really doesn't seem like it's appropriate for this. Let's leave it in. Number two, building inspector is here by notifying is to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he determines violations are present. Building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21 D of the Massachusetts general laws and Institute non criminal complaints. Number three, the building inspector may also approve an Institute of perfect 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. Does the board feel that there are any additional conditions which would be required. Should this application be approved. This is the none. In which case, I will entertain a motion. Mr chairman. Mr Hanlon. This is this is it's a pleasure to take part in the case for once and I move that the application be approved subject to the three conditions that the chair read into the record. Second. Thank you very much so it's a motion to approve. Mr Hanlon. Second, with three conditions seconded by Mr DuPont. Any questions from the board about what the vote is. Mr chair. Mr regrettably. I wasn't, I wasn't present for the first round of this conversation. Am I still eligible to vote on this or should I should I sit it out. You are not. Okay. Thank you for reminding me of that. Mr general just add that I wasn't at the initial meeting as well. So I'm in the same campus down. Perfect. Thank you. So with that, we have five voting members. So the vote of the board, Mr DuPont. Hi. Mr Hanlon. Hi. Mr Holly. Hi. This hot man. Hi. And the chair votes eyes. The special permit application for 32 Appleton street is approved. Thank you very much. Good luck with your business. Thank you so much. Have a great night. Thanks you too. Okay, so I was. I had told people at the start of the meeting they could come back at 915. And it is 855. I am here, Mr chairman. I'm just concerned that if there were people who wish to address it, who may have may not be available at the moment is my larger concern. I'm just. Mr chairman. We, I don't think that this will take 20 minutes, but we might want to get out of the way the. And in case of the approval of the outstanding of the. Decisions that are. Oh, thank you. Available for tonight. I will speak slowly. So will I. Okay, so then going back to our agenda. This is item number two on our agenda, which is the approval of the decision for docket number 3762. 148 Mount Vernon street. So this was a case that was heard at our previous meeting in August. The decision was written up by Mr. Handlin and distributed to the board for comment. And then a final issuance was made this afternoon. Are there any additional edits or comments in regards to the written decision for 148 Mount Vernon street. Seeing none. Thank you. Chair will entertain a motion to approve the written decision for 148 Mount Vernon street. Mr chairman. Mr. Handlin. I move that the board approve the decision, the draft decision for 148. Right. Thank you. May I have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. I move the written decision for 148 Mount Vernon street. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Ms. Hoffman. Hi. And the chair votes I that is approved. That brings us to item three on our agenda, the approval of the decision docket number 3763. 56 newcomer street. This was again heard by the board at its August. Hearing. And. The Mr. Hanlon wrote. Decision and distributed that this past weekend for comment. And the final version was posted back to the board this afternoon. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the decision for 56 newcomer street. Seeing none of. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the decision for 56 newcomer street be approved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. A second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. It's a vote of the board to approve the written decision for 56 newcomer street. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Ms. Hoffman. Hi. And the chair votes. I that written decision is approved. So that brings us. Back. So next item we will take up will be. The continued hearing for three sevens. For. It took us five minutes. Mr. Chairman. While we have a little bit of time. I wanted to tell you that years ago, my law firm was involved in the first major trial of a super fun case. And it just occurred in Denver. And in order to. In order to make everybody relaxed. The judge required all of the lawyers at the beginning of every hearing. To tell a joke. And this was intended to have. Beneficial. Everybody. Observe. No, the result of that was we had an infinite number of associates out researching jokes. Because it was the lawyers were so competitive that they had to have feel that they had told the best joke. And if you know lawyers, you know that. Even the best joke suffers somewhat at the lawyer's hands. However, having. Having come down on the side other than jokes. I will point out that I've managed to take another two minutes. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moore. I would just like to offer a comment on the statements that Mr. Handling just made. I noticed that he doesn't seem to suffer from the. Lawyer mangling of jokes problem himself. I retired. Ah, that's. Retirement. Does wonders for the few. Yes. It doesn't that. So yes, I. Apologize to everyone we. Since I did state at the start that we would not convene on the next one until nine and 15, we do have to wait now until nine 15. So. We'll sort of sit here until that time, unfortunately, but I can with the board. So the next meeting after this meeting. That the board has on its agenda is Tuesday, October. 24th. There are three items on that agenda. There are two. Previous. Two previously submitted new cases. And then earlier this evening, we. Agreed to continue. To 12 pleasant street. Also to that date. So that will also take place on the 20. October 24th. After that, we have. We don't have anything on the calendar. I don't believe. But the next dates, the dates in November would be the 14th and the 28th. And the dates in December would be the 12th and the 26th. So those would be the remaining meetings through the end of the year. Mr. Chairman, are there any 40 B's. That are in line that we know of. Not that I'm aware of. One of the safe harbor provisions is. When the board approves. A decision. I believe it's a sick. It's a one year. Moratorium, essentially. And so. Assuming that the. The town. You know, has that these that the decisions are. Not appealed. So currently. The decision for 10, 21, 10, 27 mass av was not appealed. The decision for thorn dyke place is no longer under appeal. And the decision. For 10 sunny side avenue. I don't know if they have, if they're outside of their appeal period or not. They may still be within the appeal period. But. Those having been approved and moving forward, that would grant us. Some, some relief from a new 40 B application being. Provided. And then after that, it's a question of. The town would need to. Re-evaluate. Whether it meets the 1.5% land area. Dedicated to affordable housing. Because at this point, we are still very short of the, the 10% of all residential units. Mr. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. In light of all of these things happening is, I wonder if there is any. Reason to reconsider whether. Approval of the MBTA communities zoning is essential in order for the town to. Participate in the fossil fuel free project, whether. One of the other provisions that that law. Having to do with reasonable progress might conceivably apply. Certainly there is a lot more activity than we would have imagined a year or so ago. I know very little about the. I have not. I have not looked and should have. But you're the comment that the chair just made raised in my mind. The possibility that we may have. Options that we had not previously thought of. No. Is that under the jurisdiction of the ARB? Somehow. The, uh, no. The, well, the MBTA communities is under the. ARB adopted a recommendation that will be. The main. In the. In town meeting. At that point, town meeting will do whatever in its wisdom. It decides to do. And things can be amended and all kinds of things like that. The further it, but that has to do with the adoption of. The new. The new remuneration. It's not going to be rezoning to begin with. And it would be like every other kind of rezoning. It operates in the same way. The, one of the issues. That has been raised is that under the statute that authorizes the town to. Implement a fossil fuel free. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, in new buildings is in major renovations you have to need one or another of a series of housing requirements. One of which would have been the 10 percent that we are very far away from and from qualifying for. One is actually enacting a in and in time by this February enacting a MBTA communities act and the third has to do with having making reasonable progress under a housing production plan and you know we we again have done a lot of 40 b stuff during that period of time and it's conceivable to me that it's worth taking another look to see whether that provides an alternative an alternative way to qualify into the statute. I'm not saying that it does it just this conversation suggested that I will that I should go look at the statute and see with regard to the 10 percent is that no no no they they one of the requirements one of the potential ways of qualifying is that if you're making reasonable progress under a housing production plan and the question in my my mind is whether or not the 40 bs that we have will will qualify under that provision and that just means I gotta go look at it and and I'm sure that the town itself is looking at it it's just that I had not really expected all at once at a key time to be looking at so many looking at Thorndike and 1021 mass and the 10 sunny side all of which could potentially come to fruition before the deadline of the statute but I I'm not saying that that can happen either it's just a question. Okay. Mr. Chairman could I ask through you Mr. Hanlon a question about the the what is the statement he just made? Sure. Statements is too official a term I just want to ask a question in terms of your understanding Mr. Hanlon of the pilot project for the fossil fuels my understanding was it was no more gas hookups meaning two natural gas lines in in the street. Is it your understanding this also covers the addition of propane tanks in the front yard that feed a furnace in a house on a new construction? I don't think that I do know that the propane big tanks in your backyard fueling a grill don't count if it is actually heating your house I am not I believe that that would not be that would not qualify under that but I'd have to look carefully at the statute the I should emphasize that one of the things that has happened in the program is that rather than being a pure Berkeley Brookline style released the hookups it actually fits into the enforcement mechanisms of the stretch code and the specialized stretch code which the town has also bought in and so the procedurally that will they will work together and I'm sure that Mr. Champa and the state will work all that out to make it work seamlessly but that is some difference between that and the bylaw that we additionally adopted I think that Miss that that Talia has a Talia Fox has a memorandum relating to the fossil fuel project that carefully parses out where they're the same and where they're a little different from the bylaw that we already adopted oh okay thank you Mr. Handler I just wanted to it's my ignorance I know that I haven't done my homework here I just wondered if I'll stop you had you and you were helpful thank you thank you and Mr. Chairman as Mr. Handler's saying there is that information by Miss Fox is available it was heard by the select board last Wednesday and there's a very good summary as part of those materials on the website for anybody who's interested in what it does and doesn't do and then the last night the redevelopment board voted on they had 12 articles for the special town meeting so they met last night to debate and approve final language so that will be my understanding is that'll their report will come out on Friday and that will indicate what is in the the base vote for the MBTA community's uh some district that they're they're working on chairman it also is worth noting that there's been a commitment that the MBTA communities that it's so complicated I mean there were there were so many options that going back and forth and fairly substantial revisions were made that those will not be heard by town meeting before the 23rd so we will end up starting with other other articles than that one and that one at earliest would be the 23rd that doesn't say it will necessarily start on the 23rd it kind of depends on where you are on everything else but this will be a very interesting and and fairly long town meeting yes unusual for a fall all right three minutes three minutes we can get going okay mr chair well another question is to take up some time um if if you're willing um I must have missed the final meetings related to 10 sunny side uh maybe maybe the decision is still being written I'm not you said it was in the appeal period so I must have missed the going over of the final decision is that the final yep so the final decision um was drafted and approved by the board um the beginning of august I think no no no it was in the beginning of it it was the second meeting in september second in september okay the 12th I think or something like that well I know I know I missed one of them it must have been that one that you actually went ahead and did the approval okay yes we finished that and and then there's a certain period of time after we act and after it is filed with the clerk which is the operative date for appeals to be filed and what I think the chair was suggesting earlier is he wasn't quite sure whether that appeal period is still open or not thank you Colleen um I just wanted to say that the document is up for those if anybody wants to sign them why do we ah Colleen is great okay it is now 915 so with that we will return to uh this is at hand I thank everyone for their patience I apologize for over estimating how much time we would need for earlier items um so returning to our agenda this we will now move on to item number seven on our agenda just dock at 3761 five mystic lake drives continuation of a prior hearing that was begun um in august and I would turn to attorney and essay to um reintroduce the project and to tell us what has transpired in between since we last were here yes thank you mr chairman I am accompanied this evening by on standby by john barrow's who is the pe who handled the conservation matter uh and by mr brayton who is the pe pe who did the traffic study uh we went back as you suggested we should and did some more homework and that homework consisted of uh having a meeting on site with the tree warden mr mahoney did that with the tree warden and christian if i could ask you if you could pull up the letter from the tree warden that is dated september 20 of 2023 uh the uh we can talk about that uh the tree warden did take a look at the site took a look at the existing trees as well and uh the there was a tree plan that was in fact prepared we have that as well uh you should have that christian as well uh the uh the tree plan uh was approved uh by the tree warden and uh you should have that tree plan as well and the uh the the conclusion on the part of the uh tree warden was that the plan submitted by my client uh was in fact uh uh sufficient and he approved it now with respect to uh uh comments that he made in that uh uh letter he made a comment that the uh the uh the uh the tree plan was in fact consistent with the requirements of the bylaw and he did say that my client had an obligation on an ongoing basis to in fact ensure uh that the uh the main stem and critical root zone uh of the trees uh uh uh tree would be uh would be preserved according to ASI international society of a agricultural dust management practices now. Toward that end we have engaged the services of a uh uh uh uh tree company and a tree expert I should say and the tree expert basically uh has come up with a uh a proposal for us in terms of what we are going to be doing to preserve trees and that is the report of the accredited tree care uh a company Barrett uh and their certified tree experts and basically we have an ongoing arrangement with him with them with respect to what's going to be done as far as tree preservation is concerned. I know there was a lot of discussion last time about whether in fact any tree roots were going to be damaged by the driveway that we were going to be installing and by other issues construction issues as well. The bottom line on the part of the tree warden is that's not going to happen and as a method to ensure that that is not going to happen there'll be a shifting of obligation to my client to continue with that tree expert company to preserve uh the the viability of the trees. Now that was one of the issues that was discussed there was also a discussion about the driveway and I know there was a lot of discussion about the length of the driveway and whether in fact you would have two full-sized cars basically overhanging onto the sidewalk with respect to the the driveway that we were initially proposing. Well my client went back to David Morgan of the conservation commission and spoke to David Morgan about that issue and David indicated to him that he had discretion to a certain extent with respect to the conservation commission rules and regulations to give us another two feet with regard to the length of the driveway. The what what we did is we also basically came up with a calculations essentially with regard to how folks would be gauging the length of a car and a full-sized car and that is on that all along as a car calculation Christian that you have a full-sized car is 15.7 feet. We will have ample rooms to have two full-sized cars in that driveway with respect to parking with no overhang onto the sidewalk. So that's the second issue that we were asked to deal with. The third issue that we were asked to deal with was the issue relating to the traffic the location of the second driveway and essentially the makeup of the street Mystic Lake Drive. Now if you had an occasion to get down there and take a look at the street you would have seen that it's a pretty quiet street. The traffic study bears that out. We did a traffic study and if you could bring that up Christian on your screen as well that's the traffic study of data September 20th of 2023 by that's the traffic study of Bryant and Associates jaded September 25th of 2023. That traffic study indicates that the proposed second driveway is located on the north side of Mystic Lake Drive approximately 55 feet from Mystic Valley Parkway. There is an existing driveway or six Mystic Lake Drive almost directly across from the proposed driveway. Mystic Lake Drive is a two-way two-lane roadway in a residential neighborhood. The traffic counts were taken on Mystic Lake Drive in the vicinity of the proposed driveway over a 24-hour period on September 14th of 2023. There were 84 vehicles during a 24-hour period with 42 vehicles traveling in both the eastbound and the westbound directions. Due to the distance of the driveway from Mystic Valley Parkway it is anticipated that the vehicles are driving at a low rate of speed when they come off of Mystic Valley Parkway because quite frankly they do not have the ability to conjure up any speed because of that short distance. Based on a review of the proposed driveway the low traffic volumes and low anticipated vehicle speeds on Mystic Lake Drive there do not appear to be any safety concerns with the location of the proposed driveway. Now that's the conclusion of Brian Associates, Todd E. Brayton. Now there was a further issue that I think Christian had brought up and Christian brought up a question with regard to whether we might need bollards with regard to that mechanical piece of equipment that was located in the roadway. We are certainly willing to do that if in fact that is something that the board wants us to do and we're open to that in terms of what those bollards might consist of as well. The one thing I want to emphasize this evening is that we're not talking conservation. We've had a conservation hearing. The conservation hearing issued in order of conditions. The order of conditions was recorded at the registry of deeds. That's history. That's been done. I brought in Mr. Barrows anyway on standby just in case anybody had anyone from the board had any questions about that. But I don't believe that we should be getting into conservation issues as far as the hearing is concerned. I think we have and by the way the this has been beaten into the ground. Yes, it's in an R2 zone. Yes, it was a single family house. I will say that again. I'm the one who brought that out initially. I brought that out, not anyone else. And quite frankly it's been beaten into the ground. If it's brought up again that is certainly overkill. That's not an issue before the board and it shouldn't be an issue before the board. With that having been said, Bill Mahoney, would you like to jump in and make some comments? Hello, thank you for taking the time. Peace folks. I just wanted to tell some of the neighbors really an idea of who I am. I've been living in this town for more than 50 years. I've got three children in the Arlington Public Schools and there seems to be concerns here about permits being properly pulled. And more recently there's been two permits pulled and it seems that they're trying to make me make it out of not pulling permits and certainly moving forward. Everything's going to be done by the board. And again I regret not having more contact with the neighbors initially. It's my first time doing the conservation commission thing and I had no idea I would have to do this when I bought the property. But here I am and certainly moving forward. I have no issues contacting the neighbors and having regular conversations with them as far as the construction and the entire process. That's all I want to say. Thank you. I'd like to say one more thing. And again I've said this before. This is an R2 zone, okay? No one living in the R2 zone should be surprised that my client wants to construct a two family house in the R2 zone. The difference is that he's looking for two driveways, okay? That's the issue before the board, okay? He's looking for two driveways. Now there's a new home going up, a two family home going up at the other end of Mystic Lake Drive, okay, as well on the street. And I'm given to understand by the way that there has been a lot of controversy about that in terms of folks in the neighborhood complaining about that as well. Again, it's a two family zone. This is what two family zones are designed for. This is what town meeting decided when they said we want this to be a two family zone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nessie. I'm just going to quickly put the plan back up. Oh, by the way, I didn't mention one more thing. We also went ahead and did a revised site plan showing the plantings with respect to the buffers on either side of the lot. I'm sorry. Thank you. I did just, I know that last time there was specific concern about the driveway and I believe it was the tree I'm circling here in the proximity and just to confirm with you, you have moved this driveway and changed its angle in order to increase the distance between the curve cut and the tree. Is that correct? I get this Bob. Yes, I met Christian with the tree warden out there myself and he's the one who came up with that measurement and that's why we did that of course. Yes. Okay. And then also this does show the screening planting that's required for parking that would occur in a side yard and then it occurs on both sides. And I'm sorry that Mr. Nessie, can you just repeat again in regards to protection of the electric box? Yes. We are open to ballards being placed to protect that electrical box and what form the board would want us to take to make that happen. We are open to that as well. Great. Thank you. So I had a, go ahead and stop sharing this. So I had a conversation earlier today with David Morgan who's the town's conservation agent. So the other question that had to come up is that in the zoning bylaws section 5.7, which is the floodplain district and the floodplain district imposes a variety of restrictions on development that can happen for projects that are proposed within that district. And the applicability of it is that any proposed use structure development filling grading or excavation within the floodplain district shall be governed by all regulations of the section. And it says that the extent of the floodplain district shall be determined by the conservation commission. So I had asked specifically about that as to whether or not this property fell within what would be considered the floodplain district. And he and I reviewed the firm maps that are produced by FEMA. And he had noted that the applicants had submitted a letter which had been accepted by the conservation commission and by FEMA that indicated a change or requested change in the firm, which would still have a portion of the property within the floodplain district, but the location, but the portion of the property where the house stands would be outside of the floodplain because it is higher than the flood elevation. And so I just presented as an additional background to the board that in the determination based on that letter that was submitted and accepted by the conservation commission, the location on the property where the house is proposed is outside of the floodplain district. There has been some conversation as to whether if any part of the property is within the floodplain district, if the restriction applies to the entire parcel or not. And it's a conversation we can have in reading the this section of the code. I don't see somewhere where it specifically speaks in that fashion. It talks more about areas, but it's something that the board can discuss as part of its deliberations. I would also note that the board is in receipt of several letters from our residents in the neighborhood. And those are all on the zoning board of appeals website for this hearing. So with that, I would, are there questions from the board for the applicant? Seeing none. With that, I will go ahead and move to the next stage on this, which would be public comment period. So public comment is taken as it relates to the matter at hand and this to be addressed for the board for the purpose of helping us inform our decision. As many people have already found, you can use the raise hand button on the reactions tab in Zoom, or if you're calling in, you can start on, but I don't see anybody having being calling in at the moment. So with that, the first person in the queue is with Joanne Preston. Can you hear me? We can. Yes. Joanne Preston, 42 Mystic Lake Drive, which is, by the way, Mystic Lake Drive is only two blocks long. We have two construction sites. I'd like to first comment on the protection of the trees and that there's going to be someone hired to overlook everything for some period of time. This is a developer, I'm sure, as soon as the units are finished, they will be sold. So any protection will expire when they're sold. Secondly, there was a comment on, you know, it's a two family, you can do a two family, you still have to obey the law. And one of the reasons that the neighbors have been so concerned about the trees is the first thing the developer did was to pull a large truck on the property and knock off a large limb of the state trees. No one has looked into what will happen to the state trees. So I also had a few questions of the developer's lawyer. Can I ask him directly? You can ask me and I can forward your question. Okay. He begins his letter to you, referencing a September 22nd survey. I didn't find a survey. I found a site plan. It's not a survey, it's a site plan. Okay. I've had a very hard time and even with a magnifying glass, seeing some of the numbers. And one thing that the arborist didn't do is he didn't calculate the amount of space, at least on what you submitted, maybe you did elsewhere. How much, what would the distance of tree number two, for instance, would be from the driveway? I think it's there in small numbers, but I think it's 12 point something. Go ahead and open that up again. There's a whole way of calculating it, which the tree warms the way. It's the dbh time. It is one inch, the dbh needs to have 10 inches of root divided by two and then you have so on. So is it 12.5 feet? Yeah, and I want to ask now with the two feet that was added to the driveways, how long the driveway is? How long is the driveways? I mean, looking at this, so I'm assuming that this dashed line is for the proposed parking space of 20 feet long, and then there's an additional 12.9. Yeah, so it's approximately 33 feet to the sidewalk, Christian. 33 feet, okay. Yeah, just under that is what we have here. Again, I don't know, at the end of the day, maybe an inch or two shorter or longer by an inch or two. That adds the two feet on, right? Correct. Okay. Well, my reading of the zoning bylaw 6.1.11, parking and loading spaces standards, that that is still in violation of the bylaw, because the bylaw, I'll read you the relevant part, says, except that some spaces which are open and unobstructed at one end, maybe only 15 feet in length per car. So that's 36 feet. That goes for the other driveway too. I could read the whole citation if you like, but this is in 6.1.11. Six, yeah, 111. Yeah, so technically a parking space is 8.5 by 18, and 2 is 36. Right, but for the by the zoning bylaw, we're only allowed to require a single parking space per unit, and that has to be beyond the confines of the front yard. So both of them have provided that dimension. This one is 20 and this one is also 20 feet. So there's two feet, then there's an additional space beyond that. This cannot be considered a parking space. We had asked specifically that they elongate the driveway because it was known that there would likely be two cars parked in tandem in the driveway, but because it's not technically a parking space, they do have one parking space which they're required by code and it is of the size that it's required to be. So if there were two cars there, they're most likely will overhang sidewalk. The information provided by the applicant was they felt that because they provided documentation about the average length of a car and the parking space, the total driveway length is longer than twice that dimension, so they feel that it would be appropriate. But if the car was to be parked, you know, interfering with the sidewalk, that's a matter for the police department. Okay, so it doesn't require this for tandem parking? No, we had just specifically requested that they try to elongate the driveways in anticipation that we would want to avoid having a car overhang as best as possible. So the only thing the town requires is 18 feet for one car? That's correct, and it has to be beyond the front yard setback. Which is 12.9 for the building. And the rest of the driveway is what? It's 20 feet beyond that. So the 20 feet meets the requirement of the 18 feet law, right? Correct, so the parking, it does provide parking that is compliant with the zoning bylaw, with the exception that it needs a special permit in order to have a second driveway. Yes, and what are the conditions for a second driveway? So the board needs to make three findings in regards to a second driveway. The second driveway would have to be added in a manner that avoids an undue concentration of population, that a second driveway can be added in a manner that allows adequate provision of transportation, and that the second driveway may be added in a manner that conserves the value of the land and the buildings in the vicinity. So there's nothing about safety? Not specifically except that because it's a special permit. The third criteria for a special permit is that it will not create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety. Well, I still maintain that it does because you can't, you have to move this map a little bit. When people turn right off of Mystic Valley Parkway, which is a very popular cut through, they have to make a very sharp turn and now that the driveway has been moved in particular, I think that creates a danger. The fact that there's a driveway on the other side, the traffic is going in the other direction so that it can see, it has good sight lines all the way down, and that makes that driveway not as dangerous. But we should hear from some other people. Thank you very much. Back next on our list is Mr. Moore. Well, yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing a little bit with Ms. Preston. I wanted to commend Mr. Nessie and the proponents here about the proactive activities they've done relative to the trees, the tree protections of the root zones, working with the tree warden, getting a real tree plan, all things that are required by the process, of course, but it showed some really trying to work with the situation, including the maintaining of a tree company to be sure the trees are adequately protected throughout the course of the construction. I think it sounds like there's been some very significant work done here, and I'm pleased to see it, and I'm glad the tree warden is in agreement that this is a good plan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next on my list is Brian McLaughlin. Hey, good evening. Are you able to hear me? We are. Just name an address for the record, please. Brian McLaughlin, 15 Mystic Lake Drive Unit 2 next door. Thank you. And I wanted to second Mr. Moore's comment about the diligence and effort that's clearly been put in not only by the town and the tree warden, but Mr. Mahoney for respecting those rules and recommendations and keeping these natural assets in place, arguably a good value improvement for the home as well. I see on the map the site plan that the assessed property boundary overlaps into our fence a bit on the, yeah, right over there, so I just want to confirm if there is any plans to, I guess, take back that fence and demolish it or anything, or if that's going to be left undisturbed for the gentleman's agreement there. Any comments from the developers? Yeah, certainly. I'm open to discuss that with you. If you wanted to leave it, I wouldn't be opposed to that, or I'll put up a new one. We could discuss that, certainly. Like I said, I'm really going to try and be as transparent as possible throughout the process. You guys will all have my phone number and email. That's part of the process as well. Moving forward, I have to send out a letter to the abutters, and certainly you guys, you are one of them. Yeah, so I would absolutely be open to any suggestions. I did notice that as well. It's very close, but yeah, I saw that. That fence is probably on its way out, if you, I don't know if you agree with that or not. Yeah, I'll probably put up some sort of a new fence, and we can certainly discuss what you would prefer, and I'd be happy to try and work that out with you. Actually, you make that comment. It's not clear to me what fence that is. That may be just that ticket fence that is on your side of the property. I'd be happy to take this offline, Mr. Mohamed, if you wouldn't mind leaving a note, maybe in our mailbox with contact information for you. Yeah, I'm around. I live right up the road, so yeah, that's no problem in your number. Yeah. What was it, Unit 2? You said, I know, obviously I know it's 15. 15, Unit 2, just send this a post. I'll send my number. I'll drop that in the mailbox, and we can certainly have a discussion moving forward. Thank you. We'll take a walk through and sort it out, no problem. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, it's Dave DeLorenzo. Hi. I think this is Dave DeLorenzo and Charlie O'Connell, we're neighbors directly across the street at 10 Mystic Lake Drive, and we too would like to commend Mr. Mohoney for the productivity and modifications made so far in response to the Conservation Commission and CBA processes that the project has certainly adjusted around some community concerns so far, and that's appreciated. I just want to speak narrowly on the subject of the traffic study that was done. To the extent that it has any bearing on the placement of the driveway, and really I don't have the expertise to have an opinion about whether 60 feet is adequate or 40 feet is better or anything like that, but to the extent that it was determined by an outside independent evaluator that the street is a low traffic street, I just want to take issue with that because as the parent of a two and a six-year-old who routinely are out and about in ways that two and six-year-olds will be, I put cones out. There's no other way than to put cones out. It's often a quiet street. It's sometimes a very, it's sometimes a pass-through street of cars that are non-resident cars that are passing through at high speeds after having been backed up at traffic at the nearby Rotary and Medford Street and Mystic Valley Parkway. When that happens, it's not every day. It tends to coincide with rainier days and it wasn't a rainy day when the traffic study was done, but it all often can happen on non-rainy days too. When it happens and traffic backs up, then Google Maps or Waze will tell folks who are trying to get somewhere fast to use this street and at that times people will, having been sitting in their car moving slowly and falling behind in their plans, they will make a fast right turn and aggressively drive on the street. If as part of this process it were within anyone's ability to designate this as a residence-only street or a street that had a sign saying no turn between these hours, I think that would be appropriate. That would be appreciated and that would certainly address some of these concerns, but to the extent that the issue of traffic safety on the street is part of what will help determine the placement of the driveway, I think it should be kept in mind that the findings of that study just aren't consistent with what we observe on a daily basis. That's all for now. Christian, can I comment briefly on that? I was just going to briefly mention to Mr. Lorenzo that usually for concerns about the traffic, I would absolutely write to the select board and write to the Transportation Advisory Committee. Those are the town boards that are in a position to do something about that and they deal with all the parking regulations on the street and traffic signs and everything like that. They're very good to work with. I would highly encourage you to talk to the select board and the Transportation Advisory Committee, because that's absolutely something they should be paying attention to. Okay, we'll do that. Mr. Maher, I would certainly be supportive of that too, you guys, and if there's any I can do to assist, I certainly would be willing to do that. That's a great idea. Mr. NSE, did you have something as well? No. Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you all very much. Are there other members of public who wish to address this hearing? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. I do note that Mr. Lorenzo and the McConnell have submitted letters to the board that are on the website, and Ms. Preston has also in conjunction with Barbara Hindley, Serena Bray, Paul Kelly, and Marine Kelly have issued a letter that is in the record as well. Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. McLaughlin did raise his hand. Oh, are you closing on? Thank you, Mr. Moore, for bringing that attention. Mr. McLaughlin, for a second time. Yeah, I was looking for the apologies. Adding on to Dave's comments, you know, we have a new five-year-old neighbor downstairs, and our happy parents have a newborn unrelated to this property in particular, but if there's any venue or way to request a bright yellow, you know, children's zone or some sort of cautionary sign to folks as they whip around that corner on Mystic Valley Parkway, that might be something towards that direction of helping to maintain some amount of alertness and safety on that street. Thank you. Yeah, unfortunately the streets are outside of our jurisdiction, but it does sound like there's a sizable community concern and having some kind of a joint letter to the select board and the Transportation Advisory Committee. Hopefully we'll get the ball rolling on doing something because it certainly sounds like it's something that is on everyone's mind in this neighborhood and should definitely be taken care of. So with that, I will close the public comment period on this hearing and come back to the board so that the decision that is in front of the board, the application, it's for the second driveway, everything else has been vetted through the Conservation Commission and the letter from the Special Services Department notes that the property that is the existing building is a single family dwelling located in an R2 zoning district, the applicant consulted in special services regarding adding a second driveway and per the Arlington Zoning Bylaw, section 6-1-10, location of parking spaces, subsection A, parking and residential districts, for single family, two family duplex, three family dwellings in the R1, R2, R3, or R4 districts, not more than one driveway shall be permitted unless there's a finding by the special permit granting authority for the development that a second driveway or a driveway that makes more than one intersection with the street may be added in a manner which avoids an undue concentration of population, allows adequate provisions of transportation, and conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. So those are the findings that the board would be required to make and to assist in that the board would also apply the seven standard conditions, excuse me, the standard findings required for a special permit. So turning back to the board, are there additional questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hanlon? I guess there are, the chair mentioned earlier the existence of a separate set of rules regarding to the wetlands protection and zone in the bylaw for protection. And I'm wondering where, if anywhere, that fits within the decision that we are being asked to make. It sort of is an unusual situation here in that ISD does not as far as I know have an opinion at this point as to whether or not there is a violation of any of the provisions of that section of the code. And I'm a little bit unclear about the way in which that, whether that is actually even before us at all. And if it is what we need to make of it in order to apply the rules that are clearly in front of us that the chair just read. So I did have a conversation with, with Director Champa in regards to 5.7. Because I believe, I think I have an email from them. I just can't remember if it was over email or if it was something we talked about on the phone or just checking. I believe it was over the phone. So he had spoken with David Morgan, the conservation agent of the town. And the question is sort of back and forth a little bit, but the understanding that I had from speaking with Director Champa was that he did not feel that because the area of the building was outside of the flood plain in a manner that was approved by the Conservation Commission that 5.7 was not applicable to the building. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could just, what we've been asked to do is approve the two entrances onto the street. I don't, I think it is difficult for us to have an independent position with respect to this as compared to ISD and the Conservation Commission. And it doesn't seem to me true that if we were to approve the two entrances onto the street that that would necessarily imply any judgment on our part about whether 5.7 applies. That would still be something that is up to Mr. Champa. If he were to decide that it did, contrary to what he just told you, that it did apply and that it created a problem here, then that would set up a new proceeding that we could then address the issue when it's properly presented to us. So it seems to me that we should just sort of say whatever we do is not, doesn't have any effect on that question. We're not making a decision one way or the other and haven't been asked to make a decision one way or the other on whether 5.7 applies or whether if it did apply whether it has any, whether it would preclude what the applicant is proposing here in which case we have a fairly simple set of three main criteria, three findings that we have to make. It seems to me that of those three, that there's no serious contention that this would be an undue concentration of population. It probably, we have not heard anything very persuasive about conserving the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. So that really kind of puts us right up against the adequate provision of transportation as the major area that we have to make a finding on. And the second driveway, yeah, and also it's the question of whether conserves the value of land and building, whether it has any impact on adjoining properties. Today adjoining property is not on one side of the side with the existing driveway. Basically that driveway is being relocated within the site, but the new driveway is the one that is closer to the Stick Valley Parkway which abuts land that I'm not entirely sure who the owner is, whether it's the state or the town from that parkland that abuts the parkway. I believe that's the state, but I'm not certain, Christian. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so the board, in order to determine if the board should move forward with an approval, we need to review the findings that the board would need to make. So this is under section 6.1.10a, the location of parking spaces. So the second driveway may be added in a manner that avoids an undue concentration of population. So this is a two-family or proposed two-family dwelling in a two-family district. It was originally developed as a single family home. It is now being redeveloped as a two-family home which meets the zoning requirements. So I would recommend that the board find that it does not create an undue concentration of population. Second driveway may be added in a manner that allows adequate provision of transportation. I would take that to mean that it does not interfere with the the flow of traffic in the street and provides adequate space for personal transportation for the owners of the home. And as Mr. Hammond noted, that's sort of the question here is, does the adding the second driveway, does it create an issue for traffic safety on Mystic Valley dry, excuse me, Mystic Lake dry? And the third, whether the second driveway can be added in a manner that conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. I think the addition of the driveway with the plantings involved in the screening and the screening that's on both sides that that will be will not be a detriment to the remainder of the neighborhood. And then we did note that they are required to provide landscaping and setback in the side yard between the edge of the property and the driveway and they are showing that on their plans and they do have an approved plan from the tree warden. Does anyone have any question about those three findings? Mr. Chairman. Seeing none. Yes, sir. Mr. Hanlon. So I'm sorry, I need to come back online on vision. So it's, I was sort of, I've been struck by the conversation that took place during the last several minutes of the public thing. Obviously, I mean, when I went up to look at this neighborhood, I believe actually I was there on a day when Mr. DeLorenzo had to move the cones in the street. Clearly, it is a kind of street where people where it took them play and clearly it on the day I was there, there was no other car in sight. And I sort of stayed and waited to see whether there would be more people and there weren't. And I think that that when Mr. I think it was Mr. DeLorenzo characterized this as a street that's a quiet street except when it isn't is where the problem is. And I think that's a problem that Mr. Mahoney indicates he shares and it would like to solve for the basis of the people who he's preparing new houses for. And I'm sort of persuaded that if everybody could get together that there are a lot of traffic calming measures that could address the situation that exists. And that would have a great deal more impact than the problem than the problem of which of how many driveways there are, which I think would have to be fairly marginal in terms of the real problem that exists. And I'm actually encouraged that with all of the discussion that's taken place. And I know that there have been difficult feelings about these sorts of things that the discussion we ended with was a constructive one that was aimed at improving the entire neighborhood. And I'd like both to commend people for doing that. But also I think that Mr. Mahoney and his and his ultimately his people he sells to will be useful additions to the neighborhood and that they will help get these problems solved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. The other findings that the board would be required to make are the standard seven findings for a special permit with the requested uses allowed or allowed by special permit in the district. This is a special permit under 6-1-10-A, so it is allowable by special permit. Requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. So off street parking, the town still does not allow on street parking having off street parking that is not shared with another with a different homeowner is certainly is helpful. If they were not able to add the second driveway, they would need to add parking along the existing parking. So it would be much more parking directly against the abiding neighbor at 15 Mystic Lake Drive. So I think it's desirable to avoid that condition that it would not create undue traffic ingestion or impair pedestrian safety. I think adding a second driveway does create another opportunity where there are cars crossing the public sidewalk. I think that the proper placement of the plantings because you're not allowed to have anything taller than 30 inches within 5 feet of the property line. So I think having shorter plantings adjacent to the sidewalk to make sure that the sight lines are not impaired will be helpful not only for pedestrians but also for seeing traffic that may be moving onto the street. We'll not overload any public system. Public systems would not be affected and this does not add any water to the street because it's a pervious driveway. Would not impair the character or integrity of the neighborhood. While it has been noted in some of the correspondence that property having two driveways are not common in this neighborhood, the length of the property line on Mystic Lake Drive does make it so that the distance between the driveways being over 60 feet does appear to be sufficient to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Would not be detrimental to public health or welfare. It is just a driveway and with the proper screening and the proper sight lines will maintain public safety and will not cause an undue, cause an excess of youth detrimental to the neighborhood. It is a two-family in a two-family zone and there are driveways in this zone and this driveway can be added in a way that doesn't impair the land and so I think it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. That's the way I would address those findings. Are there any questions from the board in regards to the seven findings? This is sure. None? Yes sir. I just a comment if it's okay. So I know we've reviewed similar cases to this in our two neighborhoods about adding a secondary driveway and I think it's always come down for the seven conditions, the special permit conditions to the safety and the character and oftentimes in those conditions it's because they're mid block plots and the second driveway would essentially remove all the green space along the street. I think in this case, because of the unique size of the lot and kind of the big buffering that happens along this Valley Parkway at the corner, that this is as good an application as any to add a second driveway so I would be in favor of of that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just as a quick addition to that, we might want to pass on to the ARB that when we discuss what we actually do when we apply these conditions, it is only with some degree of poetic license that we actually squeeze our real considerations into the language. So Mr. Rickardelli is quite right. We are very often dealing with trees and green space and so on. That nowhere appears in the criteria that were the findings that we're supposed to make. We sort of import them by talking about the value of buildings and things like that, but it would be better to have a bylaw that actually focuses in on what the real considerations are and directs us to make the findings that are appropriate given those rather than have generic things that we have to then interpret to make them actionable criteria. So it's something we've had problems with this provision for a long time and it hasn't gotten fixed, but I just wanted to stress that I'm always more comfortable where the decisions that we're being asked to make are the actual decisions that matter for both the public and for the people in the neighborhood. Well taken. Thank you. So when we had originally taken this up on August 29th, I had made a couple of notes about potential conditions. So the board would, should the board be voting to approve? We have the three standard conditions that we've already read into the record this evening, so we would have those. There was also a note here that the board requests the applicant to work with a tree warden. That has already happened, so I don't think we need to include that as a condition. There was a proposed condition that the board has neither discussed or taken a position on section 5.7 floodplain district in the zoning bylaw, which I think we would amend to say the board has not taken a position on section 5.7. There was a proposed condition about the applicant is to comply with applicable local and state by-laws and regulations regarding public street trees. I think that their conversation with the tree warden has already addressed that concern. The applicant is to provide a baller to protect the electrical service box from the driveway. I think that is still a reasonable condition and that's something the applicant has agreed to do. The driveways are to be 18 feet in length from the edge of the sidewalk to the provided parking spaces. This was discussed by the applicant that they were able to extend the driveways by two feet, but were not able to extend them further. Requiring that they extend them further would most likely require that they go back to the Conservation Commission. The applicant has provided some evidence that the standard size of a car is 15.7 feet. So, you know, 31.4 would be the length and the driveways are 33 feet. So, unless there is a strong desire to include this, I was going to go ahead and recommend that we not pursue that as a condition. And the drawings now show the landscape buffer, so that no longer needs to be a condition either. So, as I have it here, we have the three standard conditions with two additional, one being that the board has not taken a position on Section 5.7 floodplain district and the zoning bylaw, and that the applicant is to provide a baller to protect the electrical service box from the driveway. So, those would be the five conditions. Are there any additional conditions that the board would want to include, should the board choose to vote to approve? Being none, unless there's any other questions from the board, I would entertain a motion on this application. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application, that the board approve the application subject to the three standard conditions, plus the two additional conditions relating to Section 5.7 of the zoning bylaw, and the provision of ballards that the applicant has agreed to. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Is that second? Thank you, Mr. Dupont. So, this is a vote of the board to approve a special permit for five mystically drive with the three standard conditions and two additional conditions, special permit to grant a second driveway. So, vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Rickidelli. Mr. Chair, am I eligible to vote on this? I was not at the previous meeting. No, you were not. That's right. Thank you for reminding me. Mr. LeBlanc is a similar condition. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So, that special permit is approved. Christian, sorry to interrupt. I just had one question with respect to the ballards. I mean, do you need one on each side of that box or just near the driveway side? So, the way the condition implies from the driveway side. Okay. Just wanted to be clear. Thank you very much. Just so somebody's backing up that they don't hit it when they back up. Of course. Thank you. Thank you very much, all of you. Appreciate your time. So, with that, we move on to the next item on our agenda, which is docket 3-7-6-7-7-7-10 at your street. Again, this was with Mr. Annessi. So, since we're not that you could introduce us to this project. Yes. This is a situation where we are looking for relief under section 5.3.9 projections into minimum yards. Now, I hopefully haven't bored you, Christian, by sending you photographs, okay? But the client thought it would be important for you to have the photographs to show what the porch area would have looked like late 1950s, early 1960s. And I also sent you a photograph showing the concrete platform that was there then. Now, my client has talked to Mike Champa and asked Mike Champa because I posed the question with him. And I said, I want an answer on your building. It's a 2. You're using it as a 2. It's in an R1 zone. And what does Mike Champa say? About that. And Mike Champa indicated to my client that the building was built as a 2-family in the year 1908. And so that basically was the response we got from Mr. Champa. Now, you've got a plan from Mr. Scott Lynch of Rover Survey that basically shows you the dimensions of the proposed addition. And that's the proposed plot plan of 77 Tanager Road. And you have that, Christian. I don't know whether you can pull that up or not. Just in. Yeah, there we go. All right. And that shows the dimensions of the proposed addition. You also have two sketches, which were submitted by myself on behalf of the applicant with respect to the dimensions of the proposed addition. What we are proposing is not a relief under the first portion of section 5.3.9, but rather under the second portion, the language being in closed entrances, larger than that allowed, and larger than that allowed meeting having gone through the first portion, which reads the projecting eaves, et cetera, that do not extend more than 25 square feet in floor area or more than one story high would you do not project more than three and a half feet beyond the line of the foundation wall may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided or in the district in which the structure is built. Well, we in my opinion, we cannot comply with that. So therefore we go to the second portion of the language in section 5.3.9. And so we're looking to do an enclosed porch area. The reason for the enclosed porch area is that the client would like to have some protection for the interior of the building from the winter elements. And right now there would be no protection from the winter elements because when you open the door to the interior of the building, you're going to have snow coming in and the like, whereas if you have this enclosed area, the enclosed area would serve as a buffer to the interior of the building. We're asking that the board grant a special permit in connection with section 5.3.9. We believe that we have satisfied the special permit criteria. The property is defined in the bylaw as being a special permit used, the use we're seeking. As I've indicated, explain why the requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. Well, it's desirable or convenient to the public convenience or welfare certainly for the public convenience, certainly for the convenience or welfare of the inhabitants of the building because of what I just said in terms of the buffer area. Why the use will not create undue traffic congestion or undue impair pedestrian safety. There won't be no increase in traffic congestion because the building will be used exactly the way it's been used historically. There will be no overload of any municipal systems. Once again, there will be no change in the occupancy of the building. Any regulations for the use as may be provided for in the zoning bylaw, including but not limited to the provisions of section 8 of fulfilled and the indication that I have indicated there is they are fulfilled. Explain why the requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining districts. It will be detrimental to the health of welfare. My argument there is the proposed addition is in keeping with the physical characteristics of other homes in the neighborhood. We're not introducing an aberration into the neighborhood, something that is going to be totally out of place with what already exists in the neighborhood. With regard to why the addition will not basically cause an excess of that use, I think that's easily answered. It's not going to cause an excess of that use. If people want to have that kind of a poor-chair area leading to their front door, it's not the kind of a use that I think that provision in the bylaw is contemplating, okay? I think that provision in the bylaw is contemplating a different kind of a use that would have a more general impact on a neighborhood rather than having a specific impact on a particular property. So we are asking that the board grant us relief and I do have Mr. D'Nucci with me, by the way, who is prepared to address you as well. If you have any questions for him, he is the owner and he is the developer and I'm given to understand if I'm not talking out of school that one of the things that he would like to do at some point soon is move, perhaps move, even have it, well his mother's living in there now, but maybe move her from one floor to another, one area to another. So he's anxious to get the construction completed as soon as he can. Thank you. Thank you. So I had a couple of questions. I had of course wanted back with Mr. D'Nessie, with a turn to D'Nessie in regards to some questions with the dimensional sheet which was reissued. So the existing building is 3,939 still quirky. So the GFA of the project is listed as being 3,939, 3,938 and 3,937. So I had hoped that that would get cleaned up, but there's still multiple footages for the house. So I'm going to go with the 3,938 being the average. But the house will gain 84 square feet by the addition of this area in front. The yard itself is mostly landscaped, correct? Because the document says that there's only 398 square feet of landscaping. Darren? Yeah, can everybody hear me? Go ahead. Yes. Okay. Hi everybody. So as far as the document, Bob, 308 feet of landscaping, that seems way off. There's a lot of landscaping in the yard. Are we talking just the front yard? So it would be that all the landscaped areas on the back and the sides. Yeah, that's the reason I bring this up and I had hoped that it would have been corrected before. If you add 84 square feet, then it's no longer 10% of the lot area that's dedicated to landscaped area, but we can all tell by looking at the property that it's far more than that. Yeah, much greater than that. Much greater than that. In the area that we're talking about, putting back, this was basically, this platform has been here. This has been my family's home and I'm not a developer here. This is my home. So anyways, we own the home since the 50s and the platform's been there with a full porch, with a full roof. That's why we shared some pictures that we were able to dig out and we're looking to put the porch back the way it was, you know, including some windows to get some cover. As far as the landscaping and all that, I can honestly say I didn't look deep into this because I didn't think it was super relevant to the platform being closed in. So I hired the professionals and asked them to do their thing and, you know, Bob put it together for us. But yeah, it's all landscaped, the whole back, the side. There's probably, if I had to guess, square footage wise. We've got probably 30 on the sides by 80. That's probably 2400. We probably have 20 by 50 in the back. That's another thousand. Then we have a shallower side on the left side that's probably 15 by 60. So yeah, there's a whole lot of landscaping. So something must be wrong with the paperwork there. Apologize for that. No problem. Scott Lynch revised it. All right, go ahead. The other question, so the other is the question of usable open space. So on the going down the right hand side, there's the driveway, and then there's a couple of landscaped areas and there's a couple of retaining walls going down. Pass that second, pass the third retaining wall, the last retaining wall. Is the rear yard basically flat back there or is it still sloped? Nope, it's absolutely flat. It's way less than me. I think it's an 8%. Yeah, and I spoke with Scott about that because Bob asked me to and I tried to straighten him out on that. There's probably, I would say that flat piece after that last retaining wall. I'm here right now looking out the window. That's probably 40 by 30 maybe, just guessing. 40 by 30. Yeah, that's a big piece. Yeah, the width at 26.8 is on the drawings, the length. We don't have, but I would imagine that it probably meets the requirements for having the proper percentage of usable open space. So I would just ask that, we'll talk it over as a board, but that may, we may include as a condition just having the information sheet be updated to be correct. Those were the only concerns I had. I like the sketches you had provided. It certainly looks like it fits in with the house. I had taken a brief look at the residential design guidelines. And essentially this is the kind of thing that the design guidelines are looking for, sort of some small scale pieces that, you know, as the property moves closer to the front. So these sort of small entryways. And as you said, it's in keeping with then the way the neighborhood is set up and the other houses, the windows are similar to other windows on the house. It looks like the siding is similar. So for that perspective, I think that's all fine. The only other thing I had, and it's just, there's nothing to do with the application, but it would just sort of be a recommendation. The two steps that are shown on the sketches leading up to the front door, that you might want the top step to be a lot deeper, just so it's safer when you're opening that door so you're not potentially stepping backwards onto a lower step. Yeah, what's going to happen with that is that that concrete steps going to stay. And, you know, if we get to complete this, what happens is that's going to get built on top of with a composite style step that's going to come out and be code compliant. Okay. Yeah, that was my only concern was just that, you know, having that top step being be safe when you're, you know, if you're going through all this effort to make it better to come into your house, it would be a shame if that top step wasn't safe. So yeah, that's something to consider. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and stop the share and see if there are questions and comments from the board. See anybody? Nope, with that, I will go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. Public comment just taken as it relates to the matter at hand. It should be addressed through the chair. That's the raise hand button on the reactions tab. If you would like to speak or just turn on your camera and wave. Last chance for public comment. Go ahead and close public comment for this hearing. So this is an application for an enclosed entrance on the front of the building. The this would extend into the front yard setback which the board is allowed to approve under 539B or excuse me 539A, 539A. And the board, there are no special conditions at the special findings that the board needs to make the board would just need to do the standard seven findings for a special permit. And this time Mr. Nessie had read what he had included in his special permit application that it can be approved by 539A. It's essentially desirable because the applicant would allow to enter and exit the home in all weather conditions without firstly impacting himself with the entrance to the home. There would not be an increase in traffic congestion. There would not be an overload of municipal systems. There are no additional special regulations and requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district because it's keeping with the visible characteristics of other homes in the neighborhood will not be out of place if the application would be approved and the proposed addition of approved would be compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. So those would be the fine things. And then the should the board decide to vote in favor of the application we would have the three standard conditions that were previously read into the record. I would also want to add that the applicant is to provide revised dimensional and parking information and open space gross floor area sheets correcting any deficiencies discussed at the hearing. I would want to include that as a fourth condition. Are there any questions in regards to the findings or the proposed conditions on this application? Seeing none, the chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Excuse me. I move that the board approve the application subject to the three standard conditions plus the additional condition involving providing revised documentation that the chair read into the record. Second. Thank you and thank you Mr. Dupont. So the vote of the board to approve the special permit for 77 Tanager Street with the four stated conditions. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Hulling. Aye. Mr. Rickidelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. Thank you all very much on that. Thank you. Good night. You're very welcome. That then moves us on to 3768, 15 Marcus and Path. First let me just say to the applicant I apologize it's gotten so late. I thank you so much for your patience. And if you could tell us your name and address and what you would like to do. So my name is Nolan from Savoy Nolan Architects. Everybody can hear me? We can. I'm here representing the owner of 15 Marcus and Scott and Chelsea we're and I'll try to be brief given that it's late. I'm am I able to share my screen up calling? Can you give Mr. Nolan sharing permission? You're all set. Great. Thank you. Okay, so thank you so much. Start with the this is the existing site plan the existing house of the one and a half story Cape. And so this is the existing site right here. There's an existing one car barrage that we're looking to replace with the two car and a master bedroom suite of which is essentially the project. Moving forward everybody can see the graphics correct? Yeah. Great. Yeah, this is the proposed site plan that shows the addition. We're conforming in all the setback requirements. The reason why we're before you is because of the size of the addition per section 5.4.2 E6. An addition exceeding 750 square feet. So this is the addition in red there and I'll just quickly go through what's in your packet. So this is the existing basement. You can see largely unfinished. There's a workout room and this is a partially finished basement with a laundry. This is the existing first floor kitchen, great room and then two smaller rooms over here and the single car garage and two bedrooms upstairs. So it's a pretty modest house. Just some existing pictures, additional Cape with an extension on the left hand side facing the street. I apologize for my printer quality. Now I'll get into the post. So we are looking to do a kind of fast forward to the first floor plan. That's where you can see the majority of it. So there's a, sorry, I can't see the whole thing. Okay. So this is the existing house here. We're looking to add a little bit of room off of the back here in infill in between the garage and the existing house with the guest office. This room exists currently. We're just enlarging it a little bit and it's mostly to create this new mudroom piece. So from the garage, there's a transition into the house where they have some closets. That's really, we're not really even enlarging the room. We're just kind of pushing it to the rear so we can get this mudroom in. Then here's the new two car garage on the same side. Then on the upper levels, it turns into the primary bedroom. You'll see that we achieve that with a dormer off of the back end off of the front. Elevations. So this is the existing, I forgot to mention, sorry, to another proposal that's a technically, I guess not for you is the front entry piece, which we'll be adding onto the house. I believe we can do by right. This is the proposed addition, garage off the side with the dormer and a match the existing style. Side profile showing the back, the rear, the armor and the rear addition. This is the rear. This is the elevation that you don't see too much of the addition on except for the front entry piece and a computer model image of what the addition will look like. Similar, it's clapboard style. I know that image is a little grainy. Clapboard to match the existing, it's a white house, so we're going to match the color. We have black windows with six over sixes and we're proposing to match that in the existing, I'm sorry, in the proposed. The armor is bigger than the small little age rumors off the existing house get space needed for that for the master bedroom. That's the extent of the presentation. I'm happy to field any questions. Thank you. Looking at this image itself, I'm very pleased that the garage is staying back away from the front of the building. I think that it helps to keep the scale down and keep it back. The driveway, I just want to make sure you're aware that the town, the maximum width for driveway is 24 feet, so just making sure that you keep that in mind. Then the only other thing is the dormer that you're proposing for the front of the addition. Did you look at all into extending the Eve line all the way across, rather than breaking it for the dormer? Yeah, we did. I preferred this. We like the aesthetic of this better. Okay. I just asked because all the other dormers that Eve is continuous, and so this is the only dormer on the house where it's not continuous, I just want to make sure that that was something you had considered deliberately. We did. If you'll notice, the existing dormers are actually set back from the face, from the exterior wall where this one is flush with it. The small little roof here actually relate to the proportions that are on the existing house. It's a different proportion altogether, so mimicry comes from the pitches and the fact that it's an A-dormer. But we did look at it, actually, we looked at it a couple of different ways. This is the one that we arrived on as being the one that Scott and Chelsea arrived at, is the one that they'd like to go for. The only other thing I would bring up is on the dimensional sheets. The square footage is slightly different between the two sheets. On one of them, the gross existing house is listed as being 3330 and the other is 3339. And then just that difference carries through. So what I propose is 4921 and 4944 on the other. So if you just want to just make that correction going forward, that'd be fine. It is 3339. Okay. So it's 3339 and then afterwards it's 4940, is that correct? Sorry, 4944. Correct. The worksheet's correct. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That was all I had. Are there other questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chair. Mr. Riccadelli. I just had one. I think that the drawings look nice. The rendering you're showing looks great. It feels very appropriate for the neighborhood. I just had a question about the roof lines. It looks like from the elevations, the ridge line is almost a line between the addition and the existing home. But where are those two things intersect? What's happening there? Do you have a little valley or a cricket? How are you resolving that? Yeah, there's a little cricket that you can't see. Got it. Okay. Good catch. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I forgot. It's late. That's my bedtime. So I forgot to mention that the Bouviers talked with their neighbors and we are in receipt of four letters of support or was submitted to Blaine, I believe, this afternoon or earlier. Were you in receipt of those? So we have one letter that we had received previously from their fronoses. I did send them as soon as I got home from work, but it's possible that Colleen had left for the day or was out by the time I got to them. So we do have those for you if you'd like them. That's three or four in addition to the one that we have on file. I can read you the addresses if that helps. Certainly. Okay. So 19 Moccasin Path, 14 Moccasin Path, another one from 19, and 18 Moccasin Path. And Scott, maybe you could explain it a little bit better than me, but Scott told me that they had a party recently where they were able to share it with quite a few of their neighbors and there seemed to be support throughout the neighborhood. Yeah, thanks, but we actually had a happen to have a block party last weekend. And as a result of the the ZBA notification to much of the neighborhood, there was there was a lot of awareness about what we're planning to do. And we're able to talk to a lot of neighbors and even show them pictures about what we were considering doing. And everyone, for lack of a better word, was very appeased by the aesthetic of it and sort of what we were going for. And that we were going to sort of keep the character of the house. So that was all great conversation that just happened to take place a few days prior to this meeting. Great, thank you. Are there any other members of the board who wish to address this? Have questions or comments? If not, I will go ahead and open a hearing for public comment. Public comments taken as it relates to the matter at hand and should be directed to the chair and help the board in its deliberations. And may do the raise hand feature under reactions or turn on your camera and wave. Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I was trying to look at this property on Google Maps and also square that with what I saw in the street view. And I don't know, there must be some differentiation in the age of the picks. I'm wondering, in one set of street view pictures, there were some significant trees in the front and side yards. And in another one, I saw there was no trees. And I'm wondering what the tree history is, if I could ask through you, Mr. Chair. Certainly. Yeah, I'll be happy to answer that. So we bought this house in the spring of 2021. And when we bought it, every tree that we bought it with is still standing. To that end, there was construction done on this property by the previous owners and what trees they may or may not have taken down. I'm not exactly privy to. But I think I know the pictures you're alluding to prior to that construction, wherein it was a yellow ranch without the expansion. Yes. Yes. And I think they're just outdated, considerably outdated at this point. But those trees have been long gone. I couldn't even tell you necessarily where they were in the garden. Okay, Mr. Chair, that's helpful. And I saw also, you said all the trees are now standing. Is this project going to be impacting the trees that are now standing? There is no impact to the, there is no impact. Again, I'm not an arborist, but there, my understanding is there's going to be no impact to any of the trees on our property. We trim back one small section in order to give us access to get equipment in. Those are on side trees between my own yard and my neighbors. But outside of that, we don't plan to touch any of the. Okay. All right. I was sure that's good news. It was hard to tell from those picks about what trees were there and what was going to be taken, but you're saying no trees are really planned to be taken at this point. That's correct. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Thank you. Those pictures on Google street viewer from 2007. So they are considerably old. I should have known from the lack of resolution. I tried to find a date, but I didn't find it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. And I would just note that the, the applicant will have to file a tree plan as a part of the permitting process. So that there will be some review of the existing trees on the property. And if there's a determination that some additional protection of measures need to be taken, those should be noted by the, by the tree warden at that time. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. So what the board has before it, this is a special labor request for special permit for a large addition under 542B6. The board needs to make three findings in regards to this large addition in addition to the seven standard determinations that it needs to make. The first is that the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. As has been said several times, this is very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. This is an area with a lot of that sort of, that two family, that excuse me, the two story house as opposed to two and a half. So it's mostly one and a half to two stories. This is in keeping with that, keeps the nice horizontal plane and is very similar to the, to the houses around it. Board is to consider dimensions and setbacks in relation to a budding structures and uses. This is an extension towards the neighboring house at 11 Moccasin path, but it does not violate the setback conditions. And it is, it is still maintaining that same height that the house is today. And consider conformity with the purposes of the bylaw. So I think that the addition here where it is making the house more usable for the existing owners and providing some additional space for them while minimizing the impact on neighbors and the district is what the purpose of the bylaw would be. And then for the standard seven conditions put forward by the applicant that a single family residential is allowed in the R one. And that a large addition can be approved by a special permit from the zoning board of appeals. The requested uses essential or desirable to the public. It's an allowed use would continue as a single family resident is keeping with the neighborhood. I would also note that it helps to modernize the house by providing additional garage space and living space for the family. It's been requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. It is the same same uses before same family no additional vehicles. Explain why the requested use will not overload public water drainage or sewer systems for the same reason it is still maintaining as a single family home. So be no impact on those describe how special regulations for use may be provided in the zoning bylaw. As we noted that is the large addition. Explain why the requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district. We note that it is the same existing use and from before and after but also the same as the adjacent homes and consistent with the character of the district and will not by the addition of the neighborhood causing excess of the use that could be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood existing house. It's maintaining the character of the neighborhood by maintaining the single family residents. So those would be my proposed findings for its application. Should the board decide to vote in favor there would be the three standard conditions that we had read previously into the record this evening. This is a very minor typo in the form so I don't think it's necessary to have the applicant go through process of revising the documentation because it is it is correct on the one and just type on the other. Are there any additional conditions that the board would want to impose on the special permit grant? No. Mr. Hanlon? Okay then with that the chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions. Second. Thank you Mr. Dupont. There's a motion to approve the special permit for 15 moccasin path with three conditions before by Mr. Hanlon, seconded by Mr. Dupont, vote of the board. Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Holley? Aye. Mr. Richard Alley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. The special permit for 15 moccasin path is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your time. I appreciate you staying on this late. Oh you're you're very welcome. Sorry to make it so late for you. Or stay up too late. All right well at Mr. Hanlon's suggestion we've done everything else that we were going to do tonight already. So all that we have left tonight is to thank everyone for their participation in the meeting of the Orange and Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting especially I'd like to thank Colleen Ralston and Michael Ciampa and Michael Cunningham for joining us and their assistance for preparing for and hosting this online meeting. I would like to note that the purpose of the board's recording of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings and as 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 vdaatown.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the ZDA website and to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Second. Thank you. Thank you Mr. DuPont to vote of the board to adjourn. Mr. DuPont. I. Mr. Hanlon. I. Mr. Holly. I. Mr. Rickidelli. I. Ms. Hoppen. I. Mr. LeBlanc. Chair votes I. We are adjourned. Thank you all so very much. We'll see everyone on October 24th. Good night guys. Good night everybody. Good night everyone. Good to see you all. Good night.