 So it is 7 33 p.m. It is August 29th, 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. First, I would like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning board of appeals. Roger Dupont here. Patrick Hanlon. I'm here. Then get holy here and Elaine Hoffman here. Good to have you all with us tonight. Mr. Rick Adele and Mr. LeBlanc are both unable to join us this evening, but we still have a full slate of five members present. On behalf of the town, we have Colleen Ralston, the zoning assistant. Here. Good to have you with us. And then just running through the dockets appearing on behalf of docket 375 832 Appleton Street is Jenna Francis with us. I see her box on the zoom screen. Appearing for docket 3761 five Mystic Lake Drive. Robert of Nessie. It looks like it's he's connecting to audio from my screen. Oh, you're right. Yeah. It does appear that he is present. appearing for docket 3762 148 Mount Vernon Street. Allison and Brian Lascaux. Yep, we're here. Good to see you. Thank you. Apparing for docket 3763. Excuse me 56 Newcomb Street. Nancy and Michael Flynn. We're here. Good to see you. And appearing for docket 3764 212 Pleasant Street. Nellie Akinhead. Here. Good to see you as well. So this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into the law on March 29 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31 2025 at the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting and opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join this meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means, some attendees are participating by video conference others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly please be aware that other folks may be able to see you your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain to form during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website less otherwise noted, the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. And this chair reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting and orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotomy and Algonquin word meeting 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 whom the colony province and Commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. The first three items on our agenda are administrative items, I'm going to move those to the end of the meeting. So that we can move forward with the bulk of our meeting tonight we do have many items on the agenda. Before I select the first item, I did want to ask a question of one of our applicants. Which is miss Aiken head. I understand the department of the special services department issued a memo late this afternoon, or at some point during the day today, outlining that they have a difference of opinion on a certain dimension. And my understanding is that you may want to request a continuance and if that's the case I would go ahead and move that first, knowing that I think the bulk of the people who are here this evening are here specifically for that hearing. I would like to request a continuance and we got that memo, maybe half an hour an hour ago we're not prepared to discuss it we don't understand it yet so I think it would be better just to put everything off until a future meeting if that's acceptable. So let me go ahead I will open the hearing on 212. I will explain what the memo is and then we'll continue with it will move on to the continuance. So, moving on to public hearings. Here's some ground rules for effective conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves for themselves make their presentation to the board. I will request members of the board to ask 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. So with that, I'm going to take item nine on our agenda which is Docker 3764 to 12 Pleasant Street and bring that forward. And just so there was a memo released by inspectional services, which I will go ahead here and display. So effectively a special services has calculated the average grade for to call Pleasant Street based upon request. The average grade was calculated twice by two different inspectors the result was an average grade elevation of 12.71 The basement ceiling elevation of 19. This office has determined that the basement ceiling of 6.29 feet above average grade and per the town of Arlington zoning bylaw definition of a story it constitutes a story. The elevation the average grade elevation in this in the plans provided by the applicant was it was at a significantly higher position, which made the lowest level not a story. For that reason, as we briefly discussed, I would ask Ms Aikenhead if she would like to request a continuance in order to evaluate this new information. I guess please I would like to request a continuance to better understand how the building department did their calculations and what is, I guess, an error potentially with our calculations which were done by a licensed surveyor. I think it would be better to have further this have further conversations about this when there's more information than this memo. Okay. Thank you. As Mr Hanlon do you see any issue with us moving forward with a continuance at this time. No, I don't see any as long as the applicant is consenting with that. It seems to me that it would save everybody a lot of time to get to understand this recent development and for everybody to be here playing with a full deck so it seems to me that it's it's an appropriate thing to do if the applicant requests it. Okay. With that, I will go ahead. I'll stop the share on that. And I will. Mr Hamlin can I ask for a motion to that effect. Excuse me. I apologize. I didn't mean to interrupt this is attorney Sarah Radigan. Mr Chairman, would you allow me an opportunity to speak before you take the vote on the continuance. Are you looking to present testimony or this would be some some some questions procedural questions about the status of the matter and then also also first I'm sorry just to clarify I represent the neighboring property owners at 214 pleasant street. Ms Sabrina how and Mr John Garber who are on the zoom call as well. And as you know, they submitted a letter to the to the board outlining some concerns. There are some technical points that I just wanted to ask this board about before the cases continued. I think if we can, if we can limit it to sort of technical questions about the based on procedural matters. Yes, that that's what I was going to suggest. And with with apologies to the many people who are on this call, specifically for this hearing. I don't want to get into a place where we sort of hear the whole hearing tonight, knowing that we're just going to continue anyways. And so I would really rather if we can keep it to procedural matters I would appreciate that. Thank you so much for the first one is just a request for a clarification. The petitioners letter to the board suggested that this was a quote unquote reopening of a hearing. And I just wanted to, to ask this board if this is a new application, or if this is a continued matter from the previous application. The previous application was withdrawn. And so this is considered a new application. There was some confusion I believe when this was initially requested be put back in the thought was that it was just, it could be reopened and but no it has a new docket number it is a new hearing. The follow up question to that is, does the does the board need to make a decision about allowing a repeated petition, since the substantive plans haven't changed in terms of what's being requested. So the request was to withdraw and the request was allowed without prejudice. And so the board is allowing the petition to be the excuse me the application to be resubmitted. Thank you. I understand. Thank you. So just the two, two other three other comments of questions and requests that I wanted to put out there and again this is I'm trying not to get into the substance of hearing. The, the issue of the question of whether the basement was a story came about by some sort of difficult processing of the application materials by my clients who are trying to understand how the calculations of average grade were made. The difficulty they had was that the proposed site plan. Part of the difficulty was that the proposed site plan did not show elevation levels or what points were taken for their calculations. And so this is just simply a request that this board. Request that the applicant do a little bit more of a thorough job of showing their information on a proposed site plan that we can then review as well. I realize that they'll be going back to the commissioner to get a better understanding of what's going on here. So I'll leave that to them. The second thing I wanted to mention to this board is that we had asked the commissioner today if there was another one or two special permits that would be necessary for this project. Because the property appears to be in two overlay districts. One is the inland wetland district. When you go to the overlay maps in the conservation commission section of the GIS. The property is entirely shaded in this or almost everything but a sliver is shaded with the green color around spy pond. As being part of the inland water district and under section 5.8. It refers to permitted uses and then things that are not permitted. And I'm reading from 5.8.4 a. Which refers to the fact that no structure intended for human occupancy. I'm paraphrasing. Shall be altered enlarged or otherwise moved for any purpose, unless a special permit from the board of appeals is issued. And we spoke to the commissioner. He wasn't sure about this process because he hadn't seen it before and needed to defer to a conservation commissioner who he thought might have more information. Who is out on vacation this week. But we wanted to bring this to the attention to this board as well. To, you know, to make you aware of that. That that issue was one that needs to be addressed. And then just one last process question, which is a request. To please have the applicant be required to reach out specifically to the immediate of butters. With any revised plans and calculations so that we can have a chance to review this. Before a hearing, not on a sort of an emergency basis and not to take up the time of this board. Thank you. And thank you for allowing me to comment. Certainly. So with that. I would like to go ahead and continue. As a part of the. The motion to continue. I think it would be appropriate for the board to request that all new materials be. To be provided to the board. A certain amount of time ahead of the following hearing. And with that. I know that the, we typically would do so. Typically postings are 48 hours ahead, which for this board means Friday. The end of the day Friday. And so. We could request. That time as well as Aiken head. You had. You have your hand up. I don't know that this is the place to debate anything, but I did want to. Comment on the attorney's comment about the inland wetland district. I am fully prepared to respond to everything in the letter from all the neighbors. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not respond to. Prepare to respond to the memo from the inspectional services that was posted an hour ago. I did share all my stuff a couple of weeks ago. We're not in the inland wetland district. We are in the upland resource area, which is a hundred foot wide buffer around spy pond that is under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. We're not in the inland wetland. We're not in the inland wetland. We're not in the inland wetland. We're not in the permitting requirements. We've completed that in 2022 and we have been issued an order of conditions. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I wondered if, if. We're doing a. Continuance and we do have the ability to plan. This has been around for a while. I think it's a little bit difficult. I think it's best to get their papers in. By Thursday rather than Friday. Friday puts everybody up against a weekend, which is always a little bit difficult. And the town only is technically open. For Friday morning. So that it. It. Going Friday is a lot later than Thursday. Then you'd think it's a practical matter. But I think it's better not to be an excessive burden to ask people to have their papers in. By the end of the day, Thursday, which gives everybody a little bit more chance to, to take, to take stock of the papers that are being submitted. So the next available date we have is September 26th. We would be looking to continue to September 26th with the. Documents. Provided. By. And of day September 21. Thursday, September 21. Is that acceptable to the applicant? Yes, that's fine. Okay. Then with that. Mr. Hamlin, may I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that the application be continued to a date certain of. 926. At 730 or as soon thereafter as it may be heard. And that all paper that they board request the applicant and others. To provide any written papers that they wish the board to consider. By the end of the day, Thursday, September 21st. Second. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Vote of the board. This motion to continue to date certain of Tuesday, September 26th, 2023 at 730 PM. With new documentation provided by end of day on Thursday, September 21st, 2023. The roll call vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. I. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on to 12 pleasant street. Thank you all. Thank you. All for all of you who came out this evening. Thank you very much. We look forward to seeing you next month. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Okay. Thank you so much for your time here. Thank you. Thank you. And then with that, I will move on to item five on our agenda, which is doctor at 3758 32 Appleton street. And if. If the applicant could please introduce yourself and tell us what she is. Looking to do. Thank you for having me and hearing my request. And I'm a licensed massage therapist and I was previously living in Wuburn and practicing out of my home there with a solo establishment license through the city and the state and everything. And I'm just hoping to do the same thing at my home now in Arlington. Okay. I will bring up the application. So there are two applications were filed there was an initial application which is an application for a special permit. And then that was fall and the advertisement went out as a request for a special permit. And then there was a follow up application as a request for a variance. Right, because when I when I initially called the zoning board to ask what I needed to do in order to get permission to practice. I was told to fill out the first application and then just today was corrected and told to fill out the other one. Okay. So the essentially the issue at hand so this would be a request for home occupancy, excuse me a home occupation. Right, which falls under the in the zoning board of appeals is something that requires the action of the board. There was, there's been some question back and forth between myself and the excuse me, Mr. Champa who is the director of inspectional services. In regards to the use that is being requested by the zone by the oops, the Sorry, I'm just under the zoning by law there are specific things that are eligible for home occupation. Of course, it is now crashed. So home occupation does not allow things that which are categorized as a bigger part and I just need to reopen this because I do want to make sure I read this correctly into the record. So home occupation is an accessory use which is carried on entirely within a dwelling unit and it's incidental and subordinate to the dwelling user, which does not include retail sale of merchandise on the premises, nor alter the residential character of a lot or building as regulated under section 501. Home occupation shall not include personal service establishment uses office business or professional uses commercial stables or kennels. The teaching of more or the teaching of more than three people simultaneously and in the case of music instruction teaching of more than one pupil at a time. And then for here the question is the personal establishment uses, which is in our, the personal service establishments are retail establishments primarily engaged in providing individual services, generally related to personal needs, but such as but not limited to a barber shop hair salon nail salon drop off pick up dry cleaning business or self service laundry tailor or shoe repair shop. And a office uses the office business or professional building or portion of building used to provide services to customers or clientele such as an insurance agency real estate office service that involves some specialized skill or knowledge typically obtained through advanced education and training, such as an attorney or architect, the term office business or professional shall not include medical offices for a physician dentist or other health care professionals. And so an office medical or clinic is a building, building containing offices facilities, providing medical dental psychiatric and related health care services for outpatient own office medical or clinical shall not include a hospital. So I had asked the building inspector to clarify where the town considers massage because the word massage does not appear in our zoning bylaws. And he had responded that massage has historically been classified as a personal service, unless the applicant has advanced training and certification that allows them to provide services that propose to treat medical conditions. So that the primary issue before the board is if this is a as personal service use, then it is not an allowed use for a home occupation. And as such the, and under state law the board is not allowed to grant a variance for use. The board would not be allowed to to grant a variance to allow a personal personal service to be used as a home occupation. However, if the that based on the termination of the of the zoning enforcement official. And so then becomes does the board agree with that determination. And if it does not is the board able to act upon that or does the board need to defer back to the zoning official and then proceed with a an appeal of the decision of the building inspector so unfortunately this is kind of a little bit of a muddy quandary for the board. Would like some of this information came in rather late so I do want to just sort of run this through the board see where people sort of fall on this question. The zoning official has made a determination that he typically that typically massage is considered a personal service unless there is specific advanced training. And I guess that let me go ahead and actually ask that question of miss Francis. Sort of the nature of her training and whether it is more towards just sort of general massage or massage as a as a therapy for medical condition. I see a variety of clients typically and I do often treat people I mean I don't know what the classification would be I often treat people who are recovering from injuries and you know a new replacement surgeries and that kind of thing I have a certification and pre and postnatal massage as well as a technique called positional release which is great for chronic pain such as things like sciatica and fibromyalgia and other nerve disorders, Guillain-Barre syndrome, things like that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just as a question in what you've just told us, Miss Francis, was has that information ever been shared with the building inspector with Mr. Chopin? I'm sorry, was that a question for me? Yeah, it was. I'm trying to figure out what he knew knows as compared to what we know. I don't think there was any questions of that nature in the application so I don't think he would have that information that I just provided. So I mean Mr. Chairman let me just say that what I understand Mr. Chopin to have done is to sort of set forth the rule but as far as I know he hasn't actually applied the rule in this case and you know really doesn't have the information before him even that we have which is really only about 30 seconds worth and there's lots of, there's potentially a lot of information there that needs to be considered that probably we shouldn't be considering in the first instance here but that Mr. Chopin should be considering before he makes a ruling about how the traditional interpretation of this provision applies in this particular case. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chopin. So I agree with what Mr. Hanlon just said and would you mind reading again the language that you just quoted with regard to massage being a part of medical treatment? Of course, that is the email from the building inspector where he says massage has historically been classified as a personal service unless the applicant has advanced training and certification that allows them to provide services that are proposed to treat medical conditions. So I just think that that underscores Mr. Hanlon's point that that's something that Ms. Francis should probably discuss with Mr. Champa to see how that might affect any determination that he would make. Indeed, I would ask Ms. Francis, are you aware of any, I know that you're licensed professional by the Division of Occupational Licensure in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Are you aware of any other sort of certification processes that would be more towards, you know, sort of more towards sort of a medical or sort of as is alluded to by the building inspector. Does the Commodore have such a delineation? As far as I know, I mean, there are various kinds of additional certifications that you can get such as I mentioned pre and post natal and the positional release. And there are a slew of those but there's as far as I know there's not any different kind of licensure. It would just be an additional workshop or certification that you could acquire. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Okay, so if the, if this was a use that was definitely allowed under home occupation. A home occupation is allowed as an accessory use in the R2 to it. Oops, sorry, I'm in the business section. Let me go back to part two. So I make sure that we are covering ourselves here. Office uses accessory home occupation notes requires a special permit if home occupation serves customers or pupils on the premises section 591. So quickly finding 591. On in any residential district, a home occupation is permitted to follow the following conditions are met. No non resident shall be employed there in, not more than 25% of the existing GFA of the dwelling unit in the principal building. Now to exceed 600 square feet is devoted to the home occupation and no stock and trade commodities or products shall occupy space beyond those limits should be no display of goods or wares visible from the street. All advertising devices visible from off the lot are specifically prohibited. The buildings or premises occupied shall not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood due to exterior appearance emissions of odor gas smoke dust noise, etc. You shall not become objectionable or detrimental to any residential use. Any such building shall include no feature of design nor customary, not customary in buildings of residential use where permitted or allowed by special permit and the use regulations of physician may operate an office by the physicians residents with up to one non resident employee. So the, if the use, if the use was clearly allowed as a home occupation use the board would be able to approve the use to have an employee that excuse me for that. I couldn't have people in the in the home for the purpose of the use. But to the points raised by Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Dupont. There is still a question about whether how exactly to apply this use, and it's not something that the board can can readily determine and it's something I think that to Mr. Hanlon's point is probably best worked out between this Francis and the building inspector. I certainly move to continue on this to date certain, but I know that we do have someone present who has submitted a comment to this application. And so I would like to go ahead and and take public comment. And also as it relates to whether this home occupation use how it would impact the community and not specifically on the use underlying it. So with that I'll now open the meeting for public comment public questions the comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing its decision members of the public will be granted to ask questions and make comments. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on. You never remember that these are partitioned at the reactions tab now. In the zoom application those calling by phone please style star nine indicate you'd like to speak you be called upon by the meeting host asked to give your name and address given time for questions and comments. All questions that are to be addressed through the chair please remember to speak clearly. And with that have our churchy close enough. I live at 11 Acton Street, and I know for everybody on the zoning board you know that that is directly across the street from the, what do they call themselves Arlington Heights nursery school. So my concern is we are already overburdened by people who are asked to park elsewhere and do not. So, I saw on miss Francis application that there is space in my driveway. I would like to know is there a way that we can, is there an enforcement mechanism for that. And that the other thing would be that she just would not put her car out in the street. It's, you know, we watch middle school kids nearly get run over on a daily basis. Thank you for that miss Francis what would be your intention for customer parking. Yeah, thank you. We have, I don't know if you're familiar Mara with the with the property 32 Appleton Street but it's a very long driveway. And I would, I would never have more than one client at a time. And there would, they, I would not have to move my car onto the street and they could easily park in the driveway behind my car because I would not need to leave while I had a client there. Okay, so that sounds like good intention. I don't know what the board has the ability to do or not do, but I just wanted to put that out there so thank you for allowing me to speak. You're very welcome. Are there others who wish to speak to this application. Seeing none I'm going to go ahead and close public comment for this specific hearing. That this Francis would do be amenable to us proposing a continuance to allow you to try to discuss further with the special services department and and see if we can find a work around to the, the question of what the use, what the appropriate use should be. Yeah, what would the procedure be I would reach out to that person and then we would just get back on the schedule for next month or. So what we would do we would propose continuous to a date certain which would be September 26. Then I would ask you to get in touch with Ms Ralston, who's the zoning administrator and she can put you directly in touch with the building inspector she'll be very familiar with with what exactly it is that needs to be discussed between the two of you. And so she can help to sort of facilitate the start of that discussion and then hope that we'll get hopefully something more firm back from the building inspector is to see what exactly what the determination is and what the board needs to determine. Okay, Mr Chairman. Mr Hanlon. I was wondering if we could get I'd like to be a little bit more clear on on one thing. The record doesn't say yet whether Ms Francis is proposing to have any non resident employee on the on the property. And one thing that I would. All right, go ahead. Okay, one thing I it's not clear to me that if the building inspector were to decide that this is a permitted use, whether there's anything more that needs to be done on our side. This is indicated in the R2 if this is a home occupation it's indicated as yes. And if there's no employee, there isn't a need for a special permit. And so I guess one question that we will need to have is, is whether or not there's any. There's any further role for this if if Mr Trump agrees with Ms Francis if not, obviously she can appeal the decision to us. And we can deal with it in that context, but I'm not sure what else there is for us to do beside that. So under the use table for residential home occupation is listed as an accessory use some of the wrong place here. It says note requires a special permit if home occupation serves customers or pupils on the premises. See section 591. So it isn't the employee only that's not the that's not the. No. But what. Okay. I'm also a little confused because 591 makes no statement about having has a statement about non non resident employees but it has no statement about students or customers. Which is the source of my confusion as well. Okay. We'll have time to figure this out before the end of September, but it is a question. Okay. Then with that, I would seek a motion to continue the hearing for 32 Appleton Street to a date certain Tuesday, September 26 at 730pm. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Second, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. This is a vote of the board to continue to specialty hearing. 32 Appleton Street to a date certain of Tuesday, September 26 that's 730pm. What are the board, Mr. DuPont. I. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. And the chair votes. We are continued on 32 Appleton Street. Thank you so much to the applicant for appearing. And to the neighbors who appeared on behalf of this hearing. Thank you. With that. Back to my agenda. Brings up. I would like to ask the applicant to introduce themselves and make their presentation to the board. Yes. Good evening, folks. Robert and Essie council for the applicant. I'm accompanied this evening by William Mahoney. Who is the developer. And John Barrows. Who is the PE. John was the individual who handle the conservation hearings. With respect to the permission we needed to get from conservation. The property itself is in an R2 zone. I must admit that I made a mistake on the dimensional form. When I indicated that the historical use was as a two family. Historical use was as a single family. Not a two family. I have submitted corrected dimensional forms. And a corrected special permit app. Fixing that. Is it just that one line that you corrected? That's all I corrected. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. With respect to the property itself. The property has been a challenging site. Particularly with respect to conservation issues. The conservation commission did have jurisdiction. Because the property. Was in fact. Subject to flooding. And in a riverfront area. But again, the property has been in an R2 zone. What we're proposing to do. And what the conservation commission. Decision indicated, which I sent to the board. As part of my submission. Is that we propose. To demolish the existing single family house. And construct a two family house. Now. The reason we're before the zoning board. Has nothing to do with conservation issues. The reason we're before the zoning board has to do with. A second curb cut. We need a second curb cut. To accommodate. The construction, which we're proposing for the site. That second curve cut. Christian is shown on the. Plan submitted. The utility site plan. That we submitted with our application. And that plan shows. The. The two curb cuts. They're nine feet wide. By the way, the existing curve cut would be relocated. And the new curb cut. Would be constructed. And the new curb cut. You posed questions to me. A Christian. That I had to answer for you. With respect to. Our proposal. And one of the questions you posed was. The deed on the property. Indicated that there was a 15 foot. Prohibition. With respect to. Getting into the front yard. That was a deed restriction. That was put on the property. And that was a deed restriction. That was put on the property. That was put on the property. And that was done years ago. The difficulty for my client is. We're dealing with registered land. And when you're dealing with registered land. The only way you can get that kind of a. Defunct deed restriction. Off. Is by going ahead. And filing a petition with the land court. Which I did. The land court then issued an order. Eliminating that 15 foot. And that's what we're dealing with. With respect to. Establish. With respect to our plans. Was how to deal with the setback. And the way we dealt with that. Again. Is shown on that plan plan. That that. Plot plan. University. Utility site plan. We're at the top on the left. It shows that. Would it be helpful for me to go ahead and share that. Yes. Would you do that, please? Absolutely. That's right up there on the left-hand side. Okay. So. Those are the lots. That we looked at for the purpose of determining. The average setback requirement. If you have questions on that. Once I finish my presentation. Mr. Mahoney can respond to those. Questions. With respect to. The, the plans. Again, no one should be. Surprised. That we're proposing to construct. A two family dwelling. In a two. In a R2 zone. That's exactly what we're proposing to do. And if you visit the neighborhood. You're going to see. That there are many. Two family homes. In that zone, as there would be. In an hour to zone. The hearings before the conservation commission. When on for a number of. Meetings. And the conservation. Voted unanimously. To grant relief. To my client. Now I know issues have been raised. By others with respect to. Conservation matters. Again, we're not before you. On conservation issues. One section of the bylaw. Was cited. With respect to. A conservation issue, but. I believe if that becomes an issue for. Any member of the board. I can have Mr. Barrow's respond to that. If it becomes necessary, but again. I would like to see the hearing. Focus on the. Second curb cut. Now. With respect to the second curb cut. We need relief under section 6.1. 0. And that basically. Is the zoning provision. That allows a second. A curb cut in a second driveway. We need to demonstrate certain things. To be entitled to that. And among those things that we need to demonstrate. We need to show that. They will not be. Undrew congestion with respect to. The second driveway. No. No safety issues. And one of the issues that you raised with me Christian. Was the distance. Of the. Proposed curb cut to the corner. The. We believe that I believe that. It is 50 plus feet. To the corner. That's not. A response that I gave you because quite frankly. I had not heard from the engineer in time. To get that response to you. But we believe that. The distance is. Approximately 50 feet. To the corner. Which is plenty of room. With regard to. Anyone. Making that turn at the corner. To have the. That second curb cut proposed curb kite. In sight. When they make that turn. So we don't think there's going to be a safety issue. At all. With respect to the second curb. I'm going to say this too. About the master plan. That the master plan. Encourages. More living units in town. Not just the master plan. But some of the zoning amendments that have occurred. In the last year or two. At town meeting. This is an opportunity. To have a second. Unit. Okay. A second living unit. In the town. Which again. I think goes along with. The focus and the intent of the master plan. With respect to the zoning aspect of the matter. We believe that we satisfy. The zoning requirements. We don't believe that we are going to be in violation. Of any of the zoning requirements. By adding the second. A curb cut. And indeed section six point one point. One oh. Would not allow us to get relief. If in fact. We were going to be in violation. So we do not believe. We would be in violation. I had the engineer. Prepare the dimensional form. With respect to the plans. With respect to accuracy. So we are here before you this evening. We are here before you this evening. We are here before you this evening. We are here before you this evening. We are here before you this evening purposes. Some of the folks who may speak tonight. Have already had their innings. Quite frankly, with conservation. Been heard before conservation. Conservation took everything into account. And conservation, as I say. Voted unanimously. To allow the construction. With certain limitations. To allow the maintenance. To allow the maintenance. To allow the maintenance. Substance of the conservation commission decision. Which I recorded at the registry of deeds. Back in May. The again. We're asking you folks. To render a decision. With respect to the zoning aspects of this matter. With that. If you have any questions for me. Please direct them to me. And if you have any questions for either Mr. Honeed. Or Mr. Barrows. You can direct them to them as well. They're both on the zoom. Thank you very much. Quickly scroll through the set here. So as we've been looking at this is the utility plan with the building. Here. The existing property has a garage and approximately this location with a curb cut. Very similar location to this one. So this would be a new curve cut for a second driveway. This curve cut is proposed to be relocated. Further notation here on the plan. And then this is the edge of the mystic river. And the dimensions off the edge there. That's not. That's the square footage of the different floor levels. So this is. The existing usable open space and landscape space. And as proposed. So this is the side. This side here is the front. For these two images. So this will be the front elevation. The house is viewed from. Mystic mystics. Drive. The two side elevations. This would be the facing the budding neighbor to the left. This is the elevation that would face this valley parkway. And then the rear elevation, which would also technically front onto missing valley parkway. Structural. This is the basement level plan. I know that has this have egress windows to either side. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Did the egress windows, do they require a. A pit on the exterior to access them? Bill. Yes, they do. Can you hear me? I can. Yes. Yes, they do. And one thing I would like to mention as well. The whole reason for the two driveways was to stay out of the flood zone, which is a requirement for the whole, the entire thing is out of the flood zone, which was a big thing with conservation. I just wanted to mention that's the reason for the two driveways. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. The second floors. And then I believe it's the attic floor. And the roof plans. Structural, structural, structural. The fire separations. That's the. Section through. Approximate grade. And then the. The house being 3410 and a quarter, which is less than the maximum of 35. And then just some construction details. And then going back again to the. To the site plan. So on the plan, I believe that this here is the bump outs that are at the first floor level. Yeah. That's right. I was planning on putting it on a fireplace outside the house. Can you comment on that? Yes. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I thought you, I did, I did. Oh, sorry. It's okay. Yeah. Those are going to be fireplaces a little, it's, it's off the ground. It's about two feet from three feet from the ground. And it's just about 18 inches deep. Or give a, give a take about four feet wide. And there's a fireplace in there. Oh, okay. So the window wells are not shown here for the basement, but are they past the end of the driveways? Correct. Yep. They're right, right, right about, right about the end. Yeah. The other, the other thing that I'm. That I think you guys have. Not on this one. It shows them shows them on there. I don't, I don't know. I didn't know I just saw him on something, but I don't, yeah, they're definitely past the driveways. Yes. Okay. Several feet past. Okay. Okay. So the request that's being made is in regards to section. Six 110. Which is the location of parking spaces. Six 110 a parking and residential districts. Do you see the zoning by law now? Or do you still see the plan? Excuse me. I'm sorry. What do you see? The zoning by law. You see the line. Okay. So. So for single family to the second paragraph, 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 driveway that makes more than one intersection with the street may be added in a manner that avoids an undue concentration of population. Allows adequate provision of transportation. It conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. In no case may a second driveway for a single family, two family do flex or three family dwelling violate any other dimensional or density regulations for the district in which it is located. And then no more than two driveways are permitted. And then in that first paragraph under parking and residential districts. So no parking shall not be permitted in the area between the front lot line and the minimum front setback. Except on a driveway, not exceeding 20 feet in width, leading to a required parking space is the off-spade parking is permitted in the side yard. In the rear yard on a paved driveway or in the case of a corner lot. Number two in an attached garage. Number three within the foundation of a dwelling. Any driveway leading to off-street parking on a lot cannot exceed 15% downward slope. Space designed for parking within an existing garage is determined to meet the requirements. Side yards used for parking shall have a vegetated buffer when a budding a lot used for residential purposes to minimize visual impacts. So returning to the plan here. I know that there was a revised plan that was provided that indicated that there would be some sort of. Planting. In these areas on the outside of the. Proposed parking. I did want to ask the applicant how they were going to be addressing. Providing a vegetating buffer. When the distance to the property line is so tight. In regards to the parking space here to the left side of the. Property. I was going to try and put a hedge there is to the best of my ability. I mean, I suppose I could probably squeeze a few more inches to the right. Again, I could take off the fireplace. If you guys wanted that could probably put those inside the building and then I'd have. A few extra feet to push that over. I think I think we put three feet on that, but you know, I'd have to talk to conservation. I can't imagine they'd have a big, you know, difference to move that in a foot or so to, to accommodate that. Okay. I don't know if you guys could make that a requirement. I'm happy to do it. It looks like it's pretty close over there. And I can certainly understand that in the questions. I was also a little concerned that the proposed curb cut seems to be offset from the driveway. Especially with the location of the electrical box. Right there on the curb. So it would seem that having the. Go ahead. As I say, having the driveway a little bit closer to the house. Would help to align the curb cut with the driveway and to, you know, provide a little bit more space around the, that electrical box. Yeah. Like I said, I have no issues trying to pull that a little closer. Like if it meant getting rid of the fireplace, I'm certainly willing to do that. I'd probably have to. If you guys say, give me a couple of minutes. I'd probably have to run it by conservation, but I can't imagine they'd have a big problem. If I cut that and just push it to the right of foot or two, whatever you guys think it is necessary, you'll certainly be willing to do that. Okay. And the only other question I have. So there was a question that had come in. A couple of questions that had come from. Residents in regards to setting up the. Five point seven of the zoning bylaw. Which I will go ahead and scroll back up to. Too far. And which is. I went too far again. Five points. Bloodplain district. So just wanted to ask. If the question of whether this property is located within the floodplain district and whether. The property is in compliance with the requirements of. This section of the zoning bylaw. Question. John Barrow's answer that, but. In your opening comments. You made a statement. That this common came in from a resident. He bought a resident. Okay. I want that to be clear for the record. He is not a resident. He appears frequently on zoning hearings and ARB hearings. But he is not a resident. All right. John, would you address that issue, please? I'd be happy to. Good evening. So just to give you a little background on. You know, how. Site. Came about. The developer. The first thing we did. When we started on the project was to. You know, have a survey done. With elevations. Determined what the flood. Plain. A hundred year flood elevation was. Applied to FEMA to. To receive a Loma. Which. The letter of math amendment. You probably know. And because. They do a broad stroke on their maps that show. You know, a large area. So we defined the. The flood. Elevation. And. The developer worked with that. Line with elevation. And the conservation commission. And we brought everything within that elevation, which is 7.1. So, you know, we went back and forth a number of meetings with. Conservation commission. Make sure that. You know, The. Different parts of the project. The structures really were inside the flood. Flood. A hundred year flood elevation. Which. Also designates. The limit of the floodway as well. So we have, you know. Sign the site. Fall in. The. I should say. You know, The. Outside of the flood. Has any areas. Okay. So I would just. Note that the. This section of the law as, as David, Mr. Nessie is not. Under. Under. It's not being requested that the board review this section of the bylaw. I only mentioned it because it was referenced in the letter to the board. Yes. I agree with this. And that. The only matter that is before the board this evening is. The matter of the second drive away. And if the. Board should be. Taking a vote this evening on this application, it might be worthwhile for the board to consider. A condition noting that the board. Has not made any determinations in regard to section 5.7. Just a, just a, something to consider going forward with this. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I take it if, if that turns out to be what happens. The applicant would be proceeding at its risk. We. The building inspector as far as I know is not, not made a determination on, on this and could do whatever he chose to do that, but they would certainly, they would simply not have an appointment. Permit that authorized anything under that section of the bylaw. Is that correct? So the. That section of the bylaw, I believe does. Provide that the board is. Able to make us to provide a special permit in certain cases. And so I just would want it to be clear that the board is not. Isn't making no determinations in regards to any special permits that might relate to. Compliance in section 5.7. And that's because we're asked not to. So if Mr. Trump has suddenly got to be in his bonnet about that section. The applicant would it be on his own? Is that correct? Certainly. And the applicant would apply again to the zoning board of appeals for a specific determination in regards to that section. This was all vetted with Mr. Champ. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Are there questions from the board for the applicant? I do not see any questions from the board. So we'll now open the meeting for public comment. As I said before, public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public are granted time to ask questions and make comments. Those who wish to speak should be readily raised their hand using the button on the. Participant tab. No. Sorry, it's not the participant tab. It's on the reactions tab. In the zoom application, those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak. You'll be called upon by the host to ask to give your name and address. Given time for your questions and comments, all questions will be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. So with that, the. The first name. On the list is Barbara Hindley. Yeah. Thank you very much. If you could give your name and address of the record, please. Barbara Hindley. Six mystic lake drive directly across from five mystic lake drive. I'm a person who believes that affordable housing. It's very important. But this is not affordable housing. First of all. Secondly, Robert and Ness. Glossed over the fact that he. Characterized. The property as a two family. In the applications. And it has been, I have lived here for 34 years. And it has always been a one family home. And I know that he apologized. And that's lovely. But I don't, I think that that is. Cause for reexamining the entire process. I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't understand why that would be. Cause it all depends on how much this. Also, I pay flood, flood insurance every year. Charge flood insurance to these new occupants. And I don't understand why that would be the case. I've paid flood, flood insurance for 34 years. And I paid it this year. To be totally honest with you. It's very intimidating. For me to speak to a group of men. across the street and it's frightening to me to speak out in this way. But I think that Arlington is making a huge mistake by tearing down perfectly fine single family homes and replacing them with high, I mean, you know that these condos are gonna sell for more than a million dollars. That is not affordable housing. And the fact that CHAPA was quoted in any aspect of this case is absolutely ridiculous. CHAPA is for affordable housing, not this kind of housing. And I'm frightened to say this because I know the contractor is here and his lawyer is here and I'm right across the street and it's frightening for me to say this. So I will stop there. Well, thank you very much for coming before us this evening. The comments of all the neighbors are very important to the board and our determination of the proceedings that we appreciate for coming out to this evening. With that, I'll move on to the next on the list, which is Dave DeLorenzo. Hi, good evening. Thanks for the listen. Just name an address of the record, please. Dave DeLorenzo and Charlene O'Connell were butters directly across the street at 10 Mystic Lake Drive. We just as a process question submitted a letter at 8.45 this morning that didn't show up in the docket. Is it, can I assume that it was received and reviewed by zoning board members or would it be necessary to read the letter into? If you wouldn't mind reading it in, that would be appreciated. Okay, I can paraphrase it in. I don't want to take people's time unnecessarily, but I do first want to then say that we strongly endorse Barbara Hinley's comments. We appreciate everything that she had to say and see ourselves as aligned with her concerns. So, you know, we also, the letter starts by saying that we appreciate the alterations that the developer has made intended to decrease the amount of impermeable surface area of the new proposed construction to satisfy the concerns of the conservation commission. And we also understand that while the existing structure is a single family residence, the neighborhood is owned for two family residences. And we support the need for additional housing in Arlington, particularly affordable housing. And if this project were to provide that within the same footprint, we would be in favor of it. That said, we don't believe that the five Mystic Lake Drive property is well suited for expansion of its existing footprint or for conversion to a two family residence due to its constrained location overlapping a designated floodplain and floodway. And we understand that some of these issues have been brought up before, but this is, but they haven't been addressed to the satisfaction of the abutters by the conservation commission. And this is the form that we have. So I appreciate your patience and tolerance. I'll try and keep the comments regarding those aspects of our concerns brief. So we hope that generally this, this broad concern and specific concerns, which I'll go into can be taken into consideration tonight. So first, just back to the quickly the issue of how the application for this variance was presented as a initially a two family. The house was, the property was referred to as a two family property. It was, and I do appreciate the correction, but it was referred to consistently and in multiple locations as a two family residence. And beyond that, I think it's important to note that there is language supporting that, which is the effect that the proposal would modify the existing building, retaining its main characteristics and allowing continued use of the building as a two family residential structure. So retaining its main characteristics seems wholly false, not at all correct and not addressed by the correction. Specifically, the proposal would change the design from that of a 1929 Arlington single family to a contemporary side-by-side condo with four levels of livable space, nearly doubling the gross floor area from 2,250 to 4,150 square feet and nearly tripling the livable square footage from 1776 square feet to 4,974. That's a substantial change. It is not a small change, it's a substantial change. That's concern number one. Concern number two was about the floodway designation and I'll leave that aside for now. The flood plain, I believe, has not been changed by the Conservation Commission and the letter of map amendment that was received should not have changed that because it only applied to the structure and not the lot. And so I think that, and I in my letter referred to the zoning bylaw 5.7.5B and I am a resident, I'm not someone from out of town just to correct that prior comment. But 5.7.5B, according to that, development to an existing dwelling in the flood plain district are permitted provided that any expansion is limited to a quote, a maximum of 15% of the lot coverage existing when this section is enacted provided that such expansions conform to this section five do not constitute substantial improvement of the structure. Substantial improvement means any repair reconstruction or improvement of the structure, the cost of which exceeds 50% of the actual cash value of the structure. Now the developer's proposal would violate that provision both by expanding well beyond 15% of the existing lot coverage and the construction of a building that would cost undoubtedly well more than 50% of the cash value of the existing structure. And again, Wally above referenced a letter of map amendment from FEMA would exempt the future homeowners from the need to carry flood insurance that does not apply to the entirety of the lot nor does it release the developer from the obligation to comply with local zoning laws. The next concern is a little bit different. It was noted during the conservation commission hearing by someone who appeared very well versed in Arlington zoning bylaws that the existing setback from the road would no longer be sufficient if the footprint of the building were to change. I tried to wrap my head around the setback aspect of the bylaws and couldn't figure it out but not fluent in that but I'm hoping that the zoning board can just consider that generally during your evaluation of the proposal in general. And then finally, and I say this with some reluctance I don't mean to directly impugna motives of the developer but it's just come up as a concern for ourselves and for other neighbors but the developer has on multiple occasions broad heavy machinery and dumpsters on site without retaining a permit. Apparently without penalty and it's led to concerns by us and other butters that other obligations and agreements with the town which the developer is consented to will not be complied with. We understand that things come up but obtaining basic permits for these operations would seem like a fundamental prerequisite of doing any of the work that needs to be done. So the fact that the very first permit that was obtained was for a dumpster that appeared a few days ago and none of the work that had been done prior was permitted is a concern that I think warrants consideration by the zoning board. That's it, thanks for your time. Thank you. Before I move on to the next person who has their hand raised I would like to remind the public that the issue before the board is the approval of a second driveway for this property, the appropriateness of the structure compliance with sections of the bylaw that have to do with inland waterways or with floodways, issues about approval by the conservation commission. Those are things that this board has no jurisdiction over at this time. The only thing that is before us is the question of the second driveway and that is we would ask that the people who are speaking before the board if they could try to limit their comments to assist the board in making its determination in regards to that question, we would greatly appreciate it. With that, the next hand raised is Joanne Preston. Yes. Can I speak now? Yes, please. Name an address for the record. Hi, everyone. I'm Joanne Preston. I'm a resident of Arlington. And as a matter of fact, I'm a resident of Mystic Lake Drive. I've submitted some remarks. They came out of some discussions I've had with some of the people living on Mystic Lake Drive. But I would just like to add them for the record. One is that the second driveway violates the town public tree bylaws as it is too close to a street tree and moving the proposed second driveway would locate it into the regulatory floodways. So perhaps I haven't been to many of your meetings. So you may know that the distance that a driveway has to be from a street tree is determined by something called the DBH which is the diameter breast height. A number of years ago, there wasn't DBH assigned to this tree, but trees grow. I've been down there and measured it myself. It's, and by using that, they determine how much space there should be between the tree and the curb cut. And from what I have seen from the developer that they do not meet this requirement. Shall I continue with my... Please. Okay. I don't believe and it's been noted before that this plan is not in compliance with bylaw 6.1.10 which side laws, yards are used for parking shall have a vegetated buffer which abutting a lot used for residential purposes and so on. Now, I know you've discussed that and there was some talk about, okay, we'll talk to the conservation commission, but I didn't hear anything about exactly a commitment. I have the same concerns as the previous speaker and a commitment that it would be done. And I would think if you were found no other problem in the second driveway, you would have to get a written commitment to make sure that it got done. Also, I wanna talk about safety, which in terms of flooding, frequently there is flooding on Mystic Valley Parkway to the extent that the parkway is closed. And much of that flooding is around the Mystic Lake Drive entrance. Just recently with constant rains, they closed Mystic Valley Parkway at Mystic Lake Drive and the flooding extended to the proposed second driveway site. This was told to me by our first speaker who lives at Sixth Mystic Lake Drive and observed it. And I went down and observed it also. As climate change continues, we expect even greater flooding on lower Mystic Lake Drive. And that's not only a concern for the residents but for the people who are gonna buy these condominiums. Remember that the developer is leaving and everything has to be suitable for them. I would also like to talk about this has to do with safety. The other thing about safety, it may be the driveway is now 50 feet, but it's gonna have to move from Mystic Valley Parkway Turn, but it's not a right angle turn. It's actually, if you look at the map, it's a very sharp turn to the right. There are many small children within the butters of that neighborhood. And I don't think that a person turning off of Mystic Valley Parkway is making that sharp turn is going to have, be able to see children riding their bikes and so on. Let me just see if there's one more second driveway to it. And there are no legal two driveways on all of Mystic Lake Drive and the neighborhoods. So this is a very, it would be a very unusual event to have them there. I don't think people would be expecting them driving up and down Mystic Lake Drive, which is a safety issue. So that's what I would like to have read into the minutes and for take into your consideration. And the pre-warden, of course, can be called on to do a recent assessment of the DVH of that large maple tree. But according to my calculations, the driveway is much too close. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe that on the next person on our list, Don Seltzer? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don Seltzer, Arvis Circle Lincoln, and so recently a 50-year resident of Arlington. I do intend to address the driveway issue, but I hope the chair will indulge me for 30 seconds to make a comment about the floodplain situation. Our bylaws make a distinction between a floodplain and a floodway. The conservation commission does have the authority to make small changes to the floodplain, but they do not have the authority to alter the federal regulatory floodway. And there's also been new information that's come out since the spring conservation commission hearings. FEMA has issued a new preliminary flood map that does show that the proposed footprint of the new building does intrude upon the federal regulatory floodway. Onto the question of a second driveway. A second driveway. I'd like to, the driveways pose a pedestrian safety hazard because the applicant is only going with a very short setback in the front yard. We know that both tenants are going to have two cars each as is usual practice, and there's not sufficient driveway length to provide for two of them. And each driveway is going to have in the front yard only 12 feet, nine inches, whereas the average car is going to be about five or even six feet longer than that. It's going to hang them over the sidewalk, almost into the street. This is the situation right now, the existing house of the single driveway, as you can see behind me. And having two driveways of only limited length is going to just accept a test of any problem by providing two pedestrian hazards where anyone walking on the sidewalk is going to have to walk out into the street. And as was this previous speaker, Ms. Preston noted, it's going to be near cars coming off Mystic Valley Parkway and making the turn. So I suggest I ask that the board consider whether the idea of having two sidewalk walking driveways is a good idea for this location. Thank you. Thank you. Next on our list is Serena Bray. This is Serena Bray. I'm at 16 Mystic Lake Drive. And I have two young kids and I observe them where the curb cut is or where the parking is going to be that parkway. People often speed around that parkway because they're coming out of a rotary situation. So the speed at which people come off the rotary during, it really varies. It can be very calm or it can be very, very fast because people are speeding out of the rotary. And if you were to make that turn, it is a very sharp turn. Another issue I thought of is during the summer and the fall, because we live near the Mystic Lakes, it's a huge amenity to the town, to many people outside of town. So many people often do park on Mystic Lake Drive because there's nothing, there's no signs that say no parking, residents only. It's literally open to everyone to park. So if you build a new building, which has six bedrooms and you only have a few spaces, when people have guests, when there's visitors during the summer and the fall, it really makes parking pretty hard because most of these houses, even though they're deemed residential, even for two residential part two, it's really hard to find parking in this one little street. So overnight parking hasn't been improved. I know they're talking about allowing it, but that hasn't been in place. So I just feel like that's an issue. And then the other thing is that box that you pointed out, Mr. Klein, that box is actually, I think the Department of Public Works often comes to check it because it runs the pumps to prevent sewage flooding or overflow when the Mystic Lake does tend to overflow. So I've personally had all these houses around here have had sewage flooding or flooding issues. This property, I know the previous owner, there's definitely, so that box should be protected and the location of that second carpet is really close and probably should be, there should be more of a buffer. So thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Next speaker who has spoken before will be Steve Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I want to commend Ms. Hindley for being willing to come before the board and talk. I know it can be quite difficult and it's, but it's important as I think she stated and I'm happy that she was willing to overcome her concerns and come and speak. And I would like to, with all respect, deserve with respect to Mr. Ernese, I do want to raise an issue to do with the driveway's proximity to the intersection. I know that he feels that 50 feet or the footage that is there now is absolutely sufficient for the space between the proposed curb cut and the Mystic Lake drive. I'm not sure I'm saying the correct name, but that intersection, I do believe the traffic moves at fairly high speed on Mr. Bailey Parkway and cars will come around this corner quite quickly and 50 feet in normal condition is not really sufficient here in this condition with cars moving quickly and a public street tree right there between the proposed curb cut and the corner. The public street tree has to be retained. It is not to be damaged during construction or anything like that. And it is not a small tree. And I think that will impede any sight lines to someone coming out of such a curb cut added driveway into the, into the roadway. It's, this is one of the problems of Mr. Bailey Parkway where all the streets intersect, there's often residences close by and a similar case came up a couple of years back where someone was proposing the same thing, another curb cut very close to the intersection where I believe there was a stop sign at the time and it just was kind of too tight. And I understand why this is being proposed. I don't think the solution being proposed is an adequate solution. And I also applaud Ms. Preston's comments about the addition of this curb cut and driveway that certainly impact the second public street tree, which is right there and quite close. And although it may be desirable for the developers to move around it and such, a lot of heavy equipment, a lot of construction, a complete tear down of what's gonna be going on here is significant activity and will probably detrimentally impact these mature trees. One question, the front setback requirement of the zone is what currently, Mr. Chair, for this property? Front yard setback? The required front yard setback is 20 feet for the average setback for the street. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair, because right now it looks to me like the, based on what I can interpret from the plans, which weren't, I don't know, it was like it's been copied too much. I couldn't tell how far it was exactly. It strikes me that this building is too close, intrudes into the front yard setback. And since this is a property that has a road that wraps around it, it actually has a couple of cards, whether it's the way it is. And it strikes me that they're intruding into that. Also, Mr. Chair, for you, I could ask the developer, what currently is the tree situation of the town? I've seen a tree plan, and it certainly is required for this project since it's teardown. I don't know what trees are going to be taken as part of the process. And Mr. DeLorenzo had mentioned there's already been work done on the property that's been heavy equipment there. I'm wondering what demo work has already occurred on this property that preceded the issue of building permit? Mr. Anderson, can you adjust the question as to where the permitting stands at the moment and has the applicant spoken with the tree warden? Bill, can you jump in on that? Can certainly answer any of those questions, folks. As far as taking trees from the property, there's only one, and I think you guys can see it. And I'm not taking any trees. I have had some very minor discussions with the tree warden. There's these three street trees that are noted on the plan that we've been discussing. And certainly all of those will be protected. And I really disagree with the fact that this fire went towards the corner. I mean, there's no branches coming to that. I mean, 15, 20 feet in the air. I don't have a picture of it here, but I don't feel as though that's gonna be impeding anyone's view as far as coming to and from the street. And I don't know if anyone, I don't think people are flying off the parkway onto that street too often. I mean, I don't think it's really a cut-through. People stay on the parkway there. Are you going to be planting a tree with respect to conservation as well? Well, the plantings that they're requiring are quite extensive, all over the property. And I'm also willing to commit to this proposed hedge question that is certainly willing to put that in any, anything that you guys want as far as that water of conditions, I'll certainly try my best to keep that. That's definitely gonna be in there. I didn't just put it on here to not do it, you know what I mean? So that would definitely be something that we would definitely take care of, absolutely. And the whole point here is we tried to do all this the best way we could as far as keeping the new property out of the flood zone. And it's that which we've been able to do. And that's the reason for this whole meeting tonight is to do that. And the other part of this whole thing is the conservation and we're trying to, we were trying to work with them and we had several meetings when he added quite a few plants. That whole backyard, it doesn't show here, but there's gonna be plants all over the, you know, all the majority of that yard is gonna have quite a few plantings there. And you know, I'm willing to commit to that. And the tree is not gonna be damaged in any way. We'll certainly have those protected during construction. Okay. Mr. Chair, that is certainly good to hear. Because that is a big concern. And I suppose it is a subjective issue about whether or not that curb cut is too close to the intersection. However, I would suggest discussions with the tree warden that aren't just passing or minor, but we do need a tree plan and that will have to be approved by the tree warden, which is different than the conservation commissions per viewing. And that would be a good thing to occur. Certainly if there are gonna be increased plantings, that's all good news. Also, and within the building, being within the front setback is okay. I can address that. The current building, just so everyone knows, is actually closer to the street than this one is playing a little bit by, not a lot, but it is. And then the average setback, I haven't had any discussions in some time with the building inspector, but as far as my understanding goes and the way they've looked at this in the past is they use an average of the houses on the street and that's covered on the plan that you guys have, Christian. And that's where we got the- And it is how they do it, Mr. Mahoney, yes. Well, I guess I'm- And I believe on this plan, that average front is, I believe listed as 11.8 and the house is proposed at 12 foot nine. Yeah, I wanted to give us a little room to mess if we got to know what you're talking about. So this isn't furthering a non-conformist, Mr. Chair, that's correct? That is correct. This property will need to have a, it still has not been submitted for permit, but it will need to comply with all the zoning bylaws. Right, that's good to hear. One last question and I'm not sure there's an answer to this one. I know that curb cut is what is at issue here, but I do have a question. Does the current single family home have flooding problems in its basement? Yes. No, I'm asking the, Mr. Chair, the people- I'm aware, I don't wanna, I haven't lived there. So I can't answer to that. I have not seen any water in there. I know there's been some talk of people saying that it's flooded for tens of 10, 30, 10, 20, 30 years, but I'd be lying. I don't know exactly. I haven't seen any water in there, but right now it's empty. I did let a friend live there for some time that was going through a tough time and they've moved out a couple of months back. But like I said, I didn't hear any water stories from him. So I'd be lying. I don't know too much. I really don't know how to answer that because as far as I know, no, I know there's been some, again, we're not doing anything. This is all, we're reducing the impervious area that's currently there. We're actually reducing it. I know it sounds hard to believe, but this was all gone through with conservation and they're very stringent on what they allow and we try to do everything we could to please those guys to get this approved and we did. All right, Bill, that's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. So I know we have no new speakers on the list, but everyone who has spoken before seems to want to speak a second time. I would ask people who are looking to speak a second time to limit your comments to new information. If the information you're providing is something you have already provided, I ask you to consider in the, whether it's necessary to raise the same issue a second time, but the order that I have is Preston for a second time. Yes, it is slightly different. If you give a permit for the second driveway and they put it in according to the tree laws protecting public trees, they would have to remove it because it is definitely too close to that maple tree. And the DBH calculation is used to calculate how much root space will be needed for the tree. And according to my calculations, because I went down and measured it, the driveway is much too close to the tree and it would have to be moved. And if it gets moved, it will be in the regulatory floodplain. Okay, thank you. And just to clarify that you're referring specifically to the one on the plan is the curb cut to the right, which is labeled as proposed curb cut. The second driveway, yes. Yeah. Great, thank you. Is Hindley for a second time? Yes, thank you. I just wanted to respond to your comment that this was limited to the second driveway and I understand that and I really appreciate that we're going beyond that, but this is a hard chance to speak. And I would submit that since the conservation committee met the effects of global warming and climate change have devastated the world and our country. And you must be Mr. Klein, a wonderful public service. Is it labeled the first? You got it. To be. Sorry. Kirk Island has bounty day. Honoring when just. Sorry. You must be a wonderful public servant to be doing such a difficult job and we appreciate what you're doing. But basically I'm appealing to you to go beyond your purview and draw attention to your colleagues to these really serious concerns that we've expressed tonight. Thank you very much. Appreciate, very much appreciate your comments and your comments. Next, I have David Lorenzo for a second. Thanks again, I'll limit my comments to driveway related items specifically. I want to reinforce the point made earlier that cars indeed turn off a Mystic Valley parkway very quickly. And so the proposed 50 feet would not seem to us to be sufficient. And I think that should be definitely taken into consideration. It definitely is used as a cut through further. The road as Serena Bray mentioned is used for non-resident parking routinely to excess it's a burden on the street already. People who are coming to enjoy the river and the lake there isn't enough alternative parking. And so they routinely on weekends in the summer park on our street and create some congestion, which just gets back to in my mind the insufficiency of the present driveway scheme to service a building of 4,500 square feet and two units. There's just no way that's gonna be enough parking for the residents and they will inevitably and their guests will add congestion to the street. And as parents of two young children it's a great concern to us as well. So just wanted to add that. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. And then Ms. Bray for a second time. Sure. So I can speak to Mr. Mahoney. He doesn't know about the flooding but because that time when your friend was living there that was a drought. We just happened to be in a drought. But before that, my property has been flooded. The whole street on Maynard has been flooded. That's why those pumps were put in place because there's continuous flooding issues on all the properties and I'm higher. I'm like higher and I'm out of any of the flood out of the FEMA maps and I get flooded. So that's kind of my experience from being a resident for about how many years since oh nine. So it does flood and it really just, it's unpredictable the weather these days. And the speed at which the cars come there's multiple accidents where cars flip over they actually break one of our other neighbors. Cars continuously break through because they're speeding so quickly. He has these barriers put on his corner so that cars don't fly into his backyard because that's actually what happens. This happened just a few years ago where a car took the turn too quickly and the car crashed through his fence. So there are cars that go really quickly. And then that's also unpredictable because it could be, there's no control. It says what the speed limit is but people don't obey that speed limit. Great, thank you very much. Was there anything further? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Then Mr. Seltzer for a second time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to raise a quick legal point regarding the questions that Mr. Moore had over the non-conforming setback of this property. The bylaw that provides the exception for using the average setback of other buildings on the block specifically says it's for the development of a vacant lot but they might use this exception. And I don't know what the board's opinion is of whether this is considered to be a vacant lot to be developed. Thank you very much for that. That's a determination for the inspector buildings. Unfortunately, it's not in our purview on this hearing. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? Seeing none, I am going to go ahead and close public comment for this hearing. So we're to return this question now to the board. So we received significant testimony from the public. In regards to a lot of questions, obviously a lot of it dealing with the flooding and the location of the property and existing issues in the neighborhood. Well, the location of the house on the property, the size of the house, the flooding issues are not directly under our purview. Whereas the board is being instructed to review the case of the second driveway, I do ask the certainly the questions about safety and security of the corner are under our purview. And again, the findings that the board was required to make, if it was to find positively for the second driveway is that a second driveway may be only added in a manner that avoids an undue concentration of population. May add in a manner that allows adequate provision of transportation and maybe add in a manner that conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. Those are the specific findings that were required to make under the zoning bylaw. Are there questions and comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. It seems to me that the issues relating to the preservation of the street tree. And I do want a footnote here that we're applying 3.3.3 as well because this is part of the special permit. And so consequently considerations that are relevant under that provision may be relevant even if they're not one of the three that the chair just read. But in any event, we've always paid attention to whether or not a second driveway would adversely affect street trees. And we have Ms. Preston who's gone out and done a measurement and calculated it. And I mean, that certainly is evidence and I respect that. She's, as many of you know, been quite an advocate for trees in this neighborhood. But I don't really know how to resolve that question. And I wonder if, I don't wanna put Mr. Moore on the spot, but as the representative of the tree committee here, so to speak, what could we do about that? It seems to me that it would be significant both in terms of our historical practice and because of potentially conserving the value of land and buildings, whether or not at the end of the day that street tree will fail presumably from an inadvertent damage that comes from the filter doing the best he can to preserve it, but we can perceive that that is brought with difficulties. So I wonder if through you, Mr. Klein, you could invite Mr. Moore to help us figure out what the facts are with respect to this. Mr. Moore, can you address the questions of compliance with the street tree protection? Is that under the jurisdiction of the tree committee? Certainly, I'll be happy to respond. Steve Moore, my previous comments certainly were as a private citizen with very large interest in trees. These comments are related to my Arlington Tree Committee membership and what I know about that situation. Probably in the past when we've had situations like this where there's been potential for significant impact of large scale construction on street trees, there have been some pretty extensive conversations with Tim McQueen, the tree warden, because he's the gentleman that's on point when it comes to monitoring, number one, compliance with the rules to do with protection of the critical root zone that Ms. Preston mentioned. And number two, also keeping an eye on the health of the tree following, because as Mr. Hammond points out, often the failure of a tree happens substantially later than the development, long after the developer and the construction is completed. So I guess I would suggest that, number one, they develop a tree plan that's done by a small requires by a certified arborist. Number two, that that plan be discussed and approved by the tree warden. And number three, that they would take into account specifically the methods and intent. I know the developer already said this, but the methods and intent to do that protection because as Ms. Preston rightly points out, doing a curb cut in creation of a driveway that close to the critical root zone of the street tree, which the driveway will impact, I can tell you because it's usually one foot radius for every DBH inch, and this is not a small tree, that that could potentially be an issue. And unfortunately, badly impact the health of the tree. Mr. Handler, I'm not sure that I've completely answered your question. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Moore has probably done the best he can under the circumstances. So I appreciate the advice that he's given us. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So just following up on Mr. Handler and Mr. Moore. So oftentimes when we are discussing construction and the effect it has on trees, we're talking about the construction process itself, not necessarily the placement of either a structure, in this case a driveway in proximity to the tree. So this isn't just a matter of for the period of three months or six months, whatever it would be for building, that we're worried about having adequate whatever shielding. We're now talking about something that if actually placed where it's proposed to be placed, could in fact have a detrimental effect to the tree. And so where we oftentimes have approved an application, we've said that the builder, the owner will work in concert with the tree warden and develop a tree plan, but this is actually different than that. This is not a temporary item, as I just said. This is something where there has to be in my mind some evidence of the fact that just by virtue of putting a driveway there, it's not going to have a detrimental effect. So that's one issue I have. I have to say as to the overall proposal, I have concerns about the safety of these two driveways. And I've heard residents make observations that's somewhat anecdotal. I understand that about the idea that if people are parking tandem, that those cars are going to push out toward the sidewalk and potentially cause people to walk off the sidewalk and in particular, the concern is with children. So I have a concern about that. I don't necessarily understand the dimensions in terms of what the parking would be. It looks like they're suggesting side-by-side parking at the end, but I do have a concern about the parking toward the street and that it would, number one, force people to move off the sidewalk onto the street. And secondly, that the sight lines could be affected because it's a fairly congested area. I know it very well. I traveled down there with some frequency. I think that there is some supposition that's being made on the part of the applicant that this is not a cut-through street. And I don't think that that's true. And I think that there's also some presumption that traffic coming around that corner is going to be going at a reasonably slow clip so that it's not going to present some sort of a danger. I don't know if that's true either. I know driving on that stretch where you're moving along with people behind you coming around the curb, if you've got to take a right-hand turn, you can't just put your brakes on, put your brake on and your brakes on and without the danger of potentially having people around you. So I have a concern about the proximity of that curve to the street intersecting. And so that makes me question, at the end of that, just the adequate distance of the first driveway that's proposed closest to Mystic Valley Parkway in terms of whether or not that's adequate at all of the second driveway. So I don't know what my conclusion is, quite honestly with regard to those things, but it almost strikes me that there should be traffic data. And I realize this is onerous for a person who's developing just as a residential property. But I don't feel like I have a good handle on what the dangers are that are presented by the things that are just raised with regard to traffic safety, the placement of the street, the idea that sight lines are maybe gonna be tough for pedestrians, including children, and then the idea that parking can force people off the sidewalk. So I have real reservations about this for all of their reasons. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. There are other questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I wanted to raise the question of the setback and what the significance of the calculation of the average setback, which substantially reduces what would ordinarily be done in the bylaw. And I get that this property is already not conforming in that conceivably we could be working under chapter eight. But one of the provisions of the very section of the bylaw that we're talking about is in no case me a second driveway for a single family, two family duplex or three family dwelling violate any other dimensional or density regulations for the district in which it is located. And I'm not quite sure what that means in this situation, but it does raise a question that I like to think more about about what if it turns out that the average is not what it's calculated to be, is there any likelihood that that sentence may be violated? That under the circumstances, the thing that we're being asked to approve is a thing that can't be approved. I'm not quite sure exactly what they're trying to get at here, but it is somewhat troubling to me that the front setback is so small. It's not just a matter of playing with arithmetic. It's that several of the things that Mr. DuPont pointed to are the product of the fact that this is very tight in the front and there's not enough room to do it. I'm sure the developer would prefer to do if he had more space to do it. So I'm not 100% sure that I think that questions about what the actual setback should be, whether those are totally irrelevant. I'm not sure that they are relevant either, but it does accentuate the discomfort I feel on some of the points that Mr. DuPont raised. Thank you. I'm sorry, scribbling here in the background, sort of lots of thoughts about what kind of restrictions the board would want to consider should the board wish to proceed with an approval on this project, but I also hear from the members that not everyone thinks that that is necessarily the way that we should go on this. So I think it's good to have more discussion among the board. I did have one question for the applicant. The curb cut to the left, which is the nine foot proposed curb cut relocation. If you could just explain sort of the nature of that relocation. I don't have it directly in front of me, the old one. I mean, that's very similar to what's there. I mean, based on the comments here tonight, I was thinking maybe we should put this off and I'll try and get a little more information from the, I'll sit with the tree warden number one and then maybe try and even, I don't know if I could have the ability to do a traffic study, but I mean, maybe I could even go out there and I want to, you know, possibly look at, you know, I think one of the neighbors is directly across from me at six, their driveway, but I'm not sure. So I don't want to say that without, maybe I can get a little more information for you guys to consider and, you know, continue this to, you know, whatever you guys have the time to see me again. There were certain issues bill that they could, if they wanted to decide it this evening, they could, such as the tree issue. The safety issue is a, I guess is a different issue for certainly Mr, for Mr. Dupont and certainly for Mr. Hanlon. So they may want more information on the safety issue. I am trying to conjure up in my mind a way that there could be a vote subject to condition subsequent. And I'm struggling with the idea of dealing with the safety issue without perhaps doing more. Okay. But I'm going to leave that up to the members of the board. You jumped the gun on me, Bill. I was going to wait to see what Mr. Klein had to say before I basically asked whether the matter could be continued. Okay. I'll leave it up to Mr. Klein. Thank you both. Are there other, so the, as sort of outlined by, by Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Nessie, the issues that are really before us that the traffic concern, the traffic safety concern is something that it should probably discuss to the transportation planner in town. To sort of get their senses to what would be appropriate. And they, if they, you know, if their recommendation is that, you know, it needs to be a greater traffic study, I wouldn't imagine that would necessarily be their recommendation, but that's certainly something you can discuss with them. The concern about the trees is definitely something that, you know, a more substantive discussion with the tree warden generation of a tree warden would be something that would provide a much greater sense of degree of comfort into how that would work. I think to provide the vegetated buffer, it would be good to provide. You know, at least, you know, 18 to 24 inches between the closest point on the driveway or parking to the property line. Just to. Provide that extra space. Well, I don't have that on the left. That's a simple. That's simple to do that. And then a permissive handless point and, you know, things that were raised very nicely by the, you know, some of the residents. That the, you know, we understand. We all know that there are going to be two cars in each of these drive ways. And so it would be appropriate to have to make sure that the driveways are long enough to accommodate that. And so right now I know that it's basically a 12 foot nine driveway leading to an 18 foot parking space. I think it would be helpful to explore. Making the, if the driveways could be 18 feet as well. So that we do not have cars that are overlapping the driveway. I mean, overlap of the sidewalk. Because certainly that's a, that's a, you know, a major safety concern. If kids and people have to walk into the street because cars are blocking the sidewalk, even though that's not, it's not permitted. And so I think it would be helpful to make sure that the driveways could be 18 feet as well. So that we. Do not have cars that are. Overlapping the driveway. I mean, I think it would be helpful to make sure that the driveways are not blocking the sidewalk, even though that's not, it's not permitted in the town of Arlington to park your car on the sidewalk. No, you know, a thousand people do it, but it's not, it's not allowed. Under the town bylaws. Some of the other comments. You know, there were specifically mentioned. There's a lot of concern about the speeds. That's something that we should be taken up with the parking space. You know, on street parking, obviously that's something that in town right now that's being looked at for overnight parking. But I do want to make sure that we have enough space between the two driveways to have at least two full parking spaces. And it'd be good to have at least two full parking spaces between the proposed curb cut in the corner. I know that that sort of impacts the ability for people to turn the corner, but people are going to be trying to park there anyways. Chris, I'm trying to, excuse me, I'm trying to understand. So right here it says that currently there's 57 feet between the two curb cuts. That's perfect. The two driveways. And then the other thing I just want to ask, because I don't know how simple that's going to be. You want me to extend these driveways. In, into the property more. Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're asking? I would like you to take a look at that. To see if the, so right now the driveway, basically the. I don't know exactly what the distance is from the sidewalk to the start of the parking space. Okay. Yeah. So, but I think that's, that's 12 feet, nine inches. If I'm not mistaken, that's what it says. That's pretty much what it is. That's where that. That's what that. Yeah. So I don't what I'm just trying to figure out what you're asking. And I'll certainly do my, if you could take a look at extending that to 18 feet from 12 foot nine. Yeah, that would require me to go back to conservation because I'm certain, I think I'll call David Morgan asked. If I could do that, maybe I could. I just put some crushed stone at the end of that driveway and, and they could pull in deeper and they wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't know. I'd have to ask. Yeah. Just the, the concern just being that at 12, right now, what would happen is someone would park into that parking space and there's only 12 foot nine and then they would park another car there and it would. Lap onto the side. I'm not, I'm not arguing that that stuff does happen. I understand that. And obviously the flooding issues are things that you guys are going to have to work through. There was a question. There was concern about protection for that electrical box. Depending on the proximity of the curb cut to the, to the electrical box and the sort of the alignment between the driveway and the electrical box. If you could take a look whether, you know, providing a protective ballard might be appropriate. Again, I may push, maybe I can push that over. I don't know how far it is right now at without talking to the survey and having to get an exact measurement, but maybe I can push that over a little bit and get rid of that fireplace on the, that three foot buffer. And, you know, I'm going to try and push. Yeah. So I've got some work to do when I'm willing to try. You know, hopefully we. Next time. Flipping through my various notes here. Again, the public tree bylaw questions about flooding, talking to the tree warden. And then the pedestrian safety. I think that was the bulk of the comment that related specifically to. To the second driveway. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just wanted to underscore Mr. Mahoney's willingness to get together with the tree warden and take a really hard look at, at all of this. Mr. Nessie was kind of hoping that we could do that with a condition. And I believe actually that Mr. Moore dictated a very fine condition if we can rely on conditions for conditions or language and reality is reality. And one of the things that we need some advice on is whether or not with the best will in the world, we can have adequate assurance that the trees that we're talking about can be preserved, including with not just from construction, but from the implications of actually having a driveway there. And if we're going to take the time to do this, we need to do it right. And I think that before the board and trust all of this to a condition, which may or may not be workable, we'd like to have at least a foundation laid that if we did have a condition like that, it would have the desired effect. Thank you. And also to that point there. Speaking with David Morgan, the town's conservation agent. It would certainly be difficult if the board imposed a condition that was in direct opposition to a condition from the conservation commission. So I think it's good if we can sort of work together to try to come up with with something that meets the needs for for both boards. Is there anything further? The board would like the applicant to consider before they come back before us. Seeing none. The next schedule date the board has is Tuesday, September 26, which is obviously starting to get a little dense. Does that provide the applicant sufficient time or. Do you want additional time beyond September 26? No, I think that's good. I'll get right on this. I'm not going to waste too much time. I'm going to try and get with David and I'll call those guys tomorrow. Okay. We have other people we need to speak with as well, Bill. Okay. Not just David Morgan. Understood. Yeah, I'm going to, I'll get on the phone with all three of them. Okay. The tree wouldn't I've talked to many times about several different plant. This isn't my first time speaking with him. And David, I'll certainly talk with him. I'll call all these people and then the traffic transportation planner. I don't know who that is, but I'll have a conversation with them and see how they feel and possibly meet them out there as soon as I can. Let's go with that date then. Okay. With that. And I have a motion to continue. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you. That Mr. Dupont is that an affirmative? Yep. Second. Okay. So. The motion before the board is a continuation of the hearing for five mystic lake drive until a date certain of September 26, 2023 at 730 PM. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. A second. Thank you. As of November 26th, 2023, 730. PM vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. The chairman. Hi. And the chair votes I, we are continued on five mystically drive. Thank you all very much. A special thank you to. The residents who came out for this hearing and it's both before us and thank you to the applicant for their willingness to. conversations with the town on this matter. Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Going back to our agenda for tonight, that brings up dock at 3762, 148 Mount Vernon Street. If I could ask the applicants to introduce themselves and tell us what they would be liking to do. Hi, good evening, everyone. I'm Allison Lasko and this is my husband, Brian. We are the homeowners at 148 Mount Vernon Street. We've lived here for a little over four years and we are here because we are looking to do a modest addition at the rear of our house to accommodate our growing family in the neighborhood we love. And we are seeking a special permit for relief from the two and a half story rule found in the dimensional and density table of section 5.4.2. And if I could share my screen right now, I would love to pull up some drawings. Colleen, can you help her with that? All set. All right. All right, so what we're showing you here is this is the front of our house, which you can see is just a standard two-story house. But because of the slope of our yard, it slopes from the front to the back such that we have a walkout basement in the back shown in the lower elevation here. So our existing home is here and the proposed addition we're looking to do is in the back here. I have one more just to show this from the other side. So at the rear, here is our, the addition would be basement foundation, first floor, second floor. And because of the height of our ceiling and the average existing grade, our existing home is actually considered a three-story home based on the zoning bylaw definition of a basement as a story. And the last document I'll share with the screen right here is our professional survey done, in which case they did all the calculations that they have on here that basement is considered a story. So we don't believe that this addition will substantially be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity. So there's no change in use other than we're just trying to get a little more space in our kitchen and another bathroom for our family. So I guess at that point, if you guys have any questions or need us to explain anything further, we are ready to go. Fantastic, thank you very much. So just to confirm with you, I do have a note from the building inspector that the structure is an existing non-conforming three-story single-family dwelling in an R1 zoning district. And this is a building, this is a proposed addition and as such under section 8.1.3B, which is non-conforming single or two-family dwellings, an increase in the non-conforming nature of a structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than an existing condition. That's the finding that the board needs to make, that the board needs to find that the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. And reviewing the information that was provided in the dimensional parking information, the front yard depth is also non-conforming, but there's no change. There will currently the left side yard, right side yard and rear yard are all compliant and they will also be compliant after this work is completed. The building is below the maximum one height. The only question that I had come up, and this is very sort of flutsy to lack of a better term. So usable open space, the minimum is 30 for this district. So 30% of the gross floor area has to be usable open space in the yard. The number that is currently listed on the form for usable open space in the rear yard is 756 square feet. And doing the calculation, the usable open space percentage comes out to 0.2998, which obviously is to the fourth decimal point out of compliance. But looking at the plan, I think that the area that's usable open space is larger on the lot than 756 square feet. So I don't think you're creating an on conformity, but I would ask you to confirm that 756 square feet of usable open space and confirm what that actual number is. Because I think it is actually larger than that. And it would need to be at least. Yes, I believe you're right. I think on our calculation sheet was around. At least a square foot larger to meet the requirements. It was rounded down to 25 feet for our calculation, but per our survey plan here, it's 25.3. So yes, what do you need us to do? So basically Justin, you'll need it for the final application and we'll include it. Should the board move forward to approve the special permit, you would just include it as a condition that you resubmit the dimensional and parking information with the updated figure. So with that, are there questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just a quick question. I wonder if Ms. Laska could comment as to whether there are other houses nearby on the street or in the neighborhood that have similar additions to this? Yes, there are multiple houses on our street. Our neighbors completed a project just very recently with the same thing. And it's because the whole side of our street is the front yard is level and the backyard slopes down and multiple houses have the first and the second floor addition as well. Thank you. Ms. Laska, I could just ask you to stop sharing the screen. Yes, I'm sorry. No, not at all. I can't actually turn that off. Are there other questions from the board? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. Have questions or comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. The members who wish to speak should raise their hand using the button on the reactions tab or if you're calling it by phone, it's star nine. So with that, the first name on our list is Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Steeve Moore, Piedmont Street. Just a quick question. I was looking at the drawings related to this application and I guess I would ask through you to the applicant, is that garage currently part of the basement? It looks like you already have a garage in the basement. That's correct. The garage is existing and it's full of stuff. Mr. Chair, as is my garage. What I don't quite understand and don't know enough about how it works for the calculation of usable open space and the setbacks in which a driveway can exist and such front and side. So the driveway currently goes to the back of the house and you can somehow access that garage. There's not enough room for a car turnaround, I guess is what I'm saying. So I was wondering if part of this project is going to be impinging on what exists in the current near yard further than is currently impinged upon since the turnaround aspect would have to be pushed back with the addition that's being created on the back of the house. Yeah, so it appears that I would have the applicant to confirm. So the existing driveway essentially remains the same but as you know, there is a portion of the proposed addition that would overhang the driveway that I believe that overhang occurs above the ground level. Where's that rear elevation? So that this is the addition at the basement level and then at the first floor level that steps out. So there's no impingement on the existing driveway or the existing garage door. Is that correct? That is correct, it's very important. Oh, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, yes, that is correct. This does not affect our driveway in any way. We absolutely do not want to impact it as we park side by side as it currently is. Okay. Mr. Chair, the point that I'm making though is that by adding an extension of the rear of the house towards the rear of the property, whatever turnaround aspect is acquired to get into that garage via an automobile has to be pushed farther back into the existing backyard. And I don't know what the setback rules are for a turnaround or a driveway or such. Even though the entrance to the driveway is currently exists, once you cover that up and push that back, you have to push the turnaround farther back. And I don't know how that is calculated. Sure. So the proposed addition is not the full width of the back of the house. It's a partial width of the house and the location of the existing garage door is not changing. Oh, okay. So access to the garage will not change. Okay. I see what you're saying. No, I wouldn't want to turn, Mike. I wouldn't want to park in that garage. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome, Mr. Moore. Are there any members of the public who wish to address this application? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close public comment period for this hearing. So the issue before the board, so this is an existing single family home on a steeply sloped lot so that the rear of the house has the basement exposed, which creates the condition where the basement is considered a story. So this is an existing non-conforming three-story building. They are looking to put an addition on the rear of the structure, which will extend this existing non-conformity and as such can be permitted only with the finding of the board that they propose increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. And the way that the board typically does that determination is by considering the seven different categories for a special permit, which are the first is that the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit in the district, which this is the use as a single family residence in the same family district is allowed. The requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. The use of property in Arlington is useful and desirable to the residents of Arlington. And obviously most of the houses in this particular part of town are constructed in the 1920s when houses were considerably smaller and expansions to these houses are desirable for maintenance of the desirability of the property and the usefulness of the property. Their required use will not create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety. As was stated, the driveway is not changing the number of inhabitants is not changing at least not those of drivable age. And the driveway can only really accommodate a couple of vehicles. So this will not be an issue. The requested use will not overload any public system. So there will not be a noticeable increase in the use of utilities by this property, by this addition. The requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the neighborhood. As was a question and answered by the applicant, this is a common addition that one sees in this neighborhood where there are these additions off the rear of the house to provide additional living space and additional bedroom space. The required use will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare. There's nothing about this addition that would impact the health or welfare of the residents. The requested use will not cause in the use detrimental to the neighborhood, which is true as well. There's also a question of whether there are any special regulations involved and the only special regulation is eight one is the one we had stated, which is section eight one three B, which is that the board needs to find that the increase in the not performing nature is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing conditions. Does the board have any question in regards to any of the findings that the board needs to make? Being none, should the board choose and vote to approve this application this evening? There are three standard conditions that the board would apply. The first is that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Number two, the building inspector is hereby notified that is to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time determines that violations are present. Building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve an institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And condition number three, the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. With that in mind, are there any other conditions that the board feels would be important before they could act upon this application? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hanlon? I believe that you had an interchange with the applicant before about updating the figures on usable open space at the time of building permit review. And I think that we should probably include that. Okay, yeah, the applicant is to provide. Okay, so the applicant is to provide a revised and signed dimensional and parking information and open space slash gross floor area sheets. Correcting any deficiencies discussed at the hearing to the Inspectoral Services Department for review. I believe that is the one I was looking for. Are there any other conditions? Any other questions? Being none, I would ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hanlon? I move that the board approve this application subject to the three standard conditions that the chair read into the record and the additional condition regarding the tabulation of open space, usable open space that the chairals are read into the record. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So the vote before the board is the motion to approve the special permit for 148 Mount Vernon Street with the four conditions that were read into the record. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont? I. Mr. Hanlon? I. Mr. Holley? I. Ms. Hoffman? I. And the chair votes I, the motion carries. So as we had mentioned before to the applicant, if you can just have your, the surveyor just revise that data sheet so that we have the usable open space corrected. And so the board will draft a decision based on the vote just taken and that will be voted on hopefully at our next hearing. And then you can proceed with the, talking with the special services about next steps. Great, thank you. Thank you. Great, thank you. So that, oops. Nice. Keep your clip on here. That brings us to the next item on power agenda, which is docket three, seven, six, three, 56 new come street. I really appreciate the patience of the applicant. If I could ask them to introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to please the members of the board. My name is Mike Flynn and I'm with my wife Nancy. Hello. Hello. Hi. So what, what are you proposing to do? Well, we have a, we're in an R two and we have an existing two family. We propose to essentially an interior remodel of the primarily the second floor unit. The use is, will be continued to be a two family. So the use isn't changing. We are already, as with the prior applicant, we're already a nonconforming lot in terms of projections into minimum yards, section 5.3.9 subparagraph capital D of the zoning bylaws, as well as maximum lot coverage in terms of the GFA, which is in section five, five dash 16 districts and uses, page 64 of the bylaw. What we're seeking, so we're already nonconforming. What we're seeking to do is to further project into the rear setback. We're currently at 13.5 feet, more or less, plus or minus. We're looking to extend another three feet and that will add an additional 35 square feet on both the first and second floor. However, what we're doing there is not, it's a screened in porch on both floors which will allow for a few things. One is we're also adding a deck or a balcony to that which will increase some of the open outdoor usable area. About on the first floor, we'll also provide easier access and safer access both in and out of the property and as well as access to the rear yard. That is very important to us for a couple of reasons. One, the project proposal is designed to increase our use and enjoyment of the property and to bring it up to modern standards. It hasn't been touched or remodeled in decades. And so, we're looking to do that. We intend to age in place here and we hope to grow older. Well, we're already pretty old, but we hope to grow older here and hopefully this is the last place for us. So we're looking to make it more livable. The other thing is on the first floor, I hesitate to use the term tenants. The first floor is occupied by my mother and father-in-law Nancy's parents who are 89 and 94. Right now, we have a rear staircase that they can't use, that provides access both to what is currently the rear porch area and the backyard as well as the driveway and the basement. It's a dark, if it was built today, wouldn't comply with the code that stairway turns. It's very dangerous and dark. What we're proposing to do, and this is one of the reasons that we need to go back, is to allow, to provide an entrance right where they park their car and at the end of the drive, where they don't have to come around, they come in and they go up into their apartment and then from there, they can also go down to the first floor. It also provides easier access and safer access for us to get to our floor. So that's it in a nutshell. I'd rely for more detail on what we supplied and it just kind of parries the language that is required for a special permit under section 3.3 that our proposed use will not impair the integrity or character of the district or the neighborhood or be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and will otherwise comply with the criteria set forth in 3.3.3. I hope that kind of gives an overview and we're happy to answer any further questions. It's great, thank you very much. Thank you. I'm gonna go ahead and share the drawings that you had submitted. So this is the plot plan. So the outline in red, if I'm reading this correctly, this is the proposed addition on the first and second floor and this is the proposed deck at the second floor level. Is that correct? Yeah, that's right. Yeah, perfect. So this is the proposed first floor plan. So this is, we've made this is the extension of the space for the first unit. This is the elongated stairs that are provided. And then this is at the second floor level. This is the landing for the stairs here. This is the porch. And then this is the deck as had been described and that there's also a third floor plan, but this is all, are you adding a dormer to the rear? Is that what this is? No, already existing. No, yeah. Already existing. There's no implications on the third floor. No. So here there's a partial elevation from the, what would be the right side of the house from the street. So you can see the deck and the proposed addition from the, this is from the rear. So this is the addition here with the deck up at this level. And then this is us to believe us. Oh, this is from the other side, right? So this is the addition. Yeah, that's the driveway. That's from the driveway side. That's in the driveway side. Okay. Perfect. And then this is just structural plan. So again, this is it. The one question I had had with the application was the, this is one of the few additions I've seen where the gross floor area is being reduced. And I just want to make sure that that was, I was reading that correctly. We apologize for that confusion. We had, I guess, a typo. We have submitted a revised. They have the revised. Yeah, right. But the revised calculations show an increase and that increase is a total, like I said, 35 feet on each floor. If you, if you, Mr. Chairman would scroll back to the plans. There we go. Yeah. If you keep going back. Oh, that's all I have. Okay, let me, That's the first one I have. If I could share, share my screen. Absolutely. Colleen, can you allow that for them? Also. I hope I can thank you. So this, this is what appears now. And on the agenda, these are the materials so you can see that we have, there was actually an increase in the gross floor area. If I've done my math correctly, it is 35 square feet on each floor. Okay. And that is shown a little bit better in essentially what our architect, David Harmon has done is he's indicated in black here, the amount that is, that's where we're increasing the GFA as you can see. Oh, okay. And so it's, I don't necessarily object to the use calling it an addition, but it's really just an extension of what is, what is currently a porch that really isn't being used on both floors. And we're extending it out to make it more usable. And it's essentially becoming a screen porch on both floors. And this is now scrolling down to the second floor, which shows again that additional 35 square feet directly above. I hope that clarifies things. And we apologize for that. No, that's fine. Could you just scroll back up to that page that had the numbers? Okay, sorry, I'm sorry. Yeah, probably this one. Yeah, if you just bring that one up. Yeah, that's the one. So the first floor, okay, so all these numbers are, so we're now going from 4850 up to 4920, got it. Great, thank you. If you wanna go ahead, you can take that down again. So going over the dimensional parking information, as I say before, this lot does have a number of existing non-conformities. It's non-conforming in regards to overall lot size. It is not compliant with regards to lot coverage. It's already over at 39% and the proposal is to increase that. The front yard depth is non-conforming, but there is no change to that. The right side yard is non-conforming. There's no change to that. The rear yard depth is currently approximately 13.5 feet, which is non-conforming. And so the proposal is to increase the nature of that non-conformity from 13.5 to 10.3. The only other change I would make on the space is regards to usable open space. Looking at the site plan, it appears that you have zero usable open space today and that number will not change. So the area of usable open space in both categories will be zero and the percentage will be zero. Which is fine. Now I think everything else is fine. Are there any questions from the board? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open the hearing for public comment. Public comment is taken as it relates to the matter of hands. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Those wishing to speak should use the raise hand button under the reactions tab in the Zoom application. Those calling by phone may dial star nine. Public questions are to be addressed to the chair. Are there any members of the public who wish to address this hearing? One's going twice. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. So what the board, excuse me, just the public portion of the hearing. So what the board has before us is nearly identical to the case immediately proceeding. This is an existing, in this case two-family dwelling that has existing non-conformities. The applicant is proposing to increase the non-conformity in regards to the rear yard setback. And in order for that to be allowed, the board has to make a finding that the increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. The board typically does that by reviewing the required findings for a special permit. The first is that the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit in the district. This is a two-family dwelling in a two-family district that is allowed within the district. The requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. Making the existing homes in Arlington that were often constructed with constraints, especially in the stairwells that are difficult to navigate, especially as we all are getting older. Appreciate the changing of the stairwell in this house makes it much more accessible to a wider variety of people. And that is certainly within the desirable and within the public convenience. It will not create undue traffic congestion or impaired pedestrian safety. It's not changing the number of residents of the house. And it is not changing anything at the driveway that might impair pedestrian safety. Will not overload any public system. There's gonna be no increases to any of the utility requirements for the property. Requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the neighborhood. This is a very modest addition as the applicant said of 35 square feet on a couple of floors in order to provide additional living space and also to provide space for the expanded stairwell. And that is certainly within the character of the neighborhood. Required use will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare. There's nothing about the application that would raise any eyebrows in that regard. The requested use will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood. It is certainly not doing anything along those lines. And then the question is whether there is any special regulation that is required and that is the determination we are making in regards to section 813B about the increase in the non-confirming nature of the structure not being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So those are the findings that the board would need to make. Are there any questions of the board in regards to either the application or the required findings? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I have one thing I'm certainly not, I'm unfortunately not looking at paper that will tell me this, but my recollection at the beginning is there was a question about lock coverage, which doesn't change the analysis any, but if that is also a non-conformity that is being extended, we should probably refer to it. Absolutely. Yeah, so it is that both the rear, go back to that page. Yeah, so the changes are both in lock coverage and in the depth of the rear yard. Those are both being increased. And then there is the technical increase non-conformity with the usable open space requirement because that is the amount of usable open space is determined by the gross floor area of the house. The gross floor of the house is increasing, but the usable open space is not increasing because it is already zero and cannot be increased because of the dimensions of the lot. So there's those three different categories that need to be that are a part of that. So I appreciate the handling of bringing that forward. Any other questions from the board? None. The board has the three standard conditions, which were just read into the record for the prior hearing. So I'm gonna go ahead and wave the reading again. I would also request as an additional condition that the, I know the applicant has provided it, but I just wanna make sure that the board has revised and signed dimensional parking information and open space gross floor area sheets, correcting any deficiencies, discuss at the hearing. So we discussed the application was different from what the, from the revised. So I just asked the applicant just again, so just resubmit that revision so that we have that for our record and that that accompanies the building permit application. Are there any other conditions that the board may wish to consider before voting on this matter? Being none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application be approved subject to the standard conditions and the one additional condition regarding updating the record that the chair has read into the record. Second, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this is a vote of the board to approve a special permit for 56 Newcombe Street with the four conditions as read into the record. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Topman. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That special permit is approved. And so the board will vote, well, write up a written decision based on our vote tonight. That'll be approved hopefully at the next hearing if not the next hearing, the hearing after that. And then at that point, the decision will be ready for being recorded with the town clerk, and then you can move forward with the spectral services on issuance of the permit. Thank you very much. Good luck. You're welcome. Thank you. Appreciate your patience tonight. Thank you. Okay. So alas, our business as a board is not done because I pushed a bunch of stuff to the end. So apologies, have to keep you guys here. So going back to item number two on our agenda, which is the vote to approve the meeting minutes from July 25th, 2023. So these are minutes that were prepared by our own Colleen Ralston submitted for notes and comments. Are there any further comments in regards to the minutes for July 25th being none? May I have a motion to approve the minutes from July 25th? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this will be a vote of the board. Ms. Hoffman was not at the July 25th hearing. So she is exempt from this vote. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. It brings the item three on our agenda, which is the approval of the meeting minutes from May 30th, 2023. These are also minutes that were prepared by Ms. Ralston submitted to the board for questions and comments. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to the minutes from May 30th being none? May I have a motion to approve the minutes from May 30th, 2023. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Again, Ms. Hoffman was not present for May 30th. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. It brings the item four on our agenda, group of meeting minutes from May 11th, 2023. Again, prepared by Ms. Ralston submitted to the board for questions and comments. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to the minutes for the May 11th, 2023 meeting? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from May 11th. Mr. Chairman. So moved. Mr. Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Again, Ms. Hoffman was not at best meeting. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. The chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. So that is the end of all of the special business on our agenda. I did want to remind the board that we do have a meeting on May 11th to begin to deliberate the decision on 10 study type avenue. Mr. Hanlon has been trying very hard to get us a revised copy of the draft decision, which we will distribute to everyone as soon as it is available. Mr. Chairman, I did the revised copy should be in everybody's. I sent it around earlier today. Oh, fantastic. Fantastic. I have not seen that yet. I will take a look for it. So that will be Tuesday, September 5th. We'll be the initial deliberations on 10 sunny side. If we need additional time, we have already set aside Tuesday, September 12th for that. And we need to be completed by the 24th of September. And then the next hearing date we have scheduled for regular hearings will be Tuesday, September 26th, which I fear now already has five items on it. But we will move forward as such. So that is our upcoming schedule. And with that, I would like to thank you all for your participation. It's nice meeting with the arrow engine zoning board of appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would especially like to thank Colleen Ralston and Michael Champa for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note that the purpose of the board's reporting at the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings. It is our understanding the reporting made by ACMI will be available on demanded ACMI.TV within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to ZBA at town.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for an attempt to adjourn. Mr. Chair. Mr. Moore, I'm afraid you can't make that. You're the only person who can't. Mr. Chair, I would throw out my attempt to, to move closure of me. No, I, I wanted to just tell you that the public does appreciate the completion of the minutes. It is important and I, you know, I know I'd raised a question about that before and I'm, thank you for, thank you for doing all that. I know minutes can be a lot of work, particularly on your board. Secondarily, was the last item, the 148, whatever it was, moved to the next agenda, the last item that had been on tonight's agenda. So both 56 Newcombe Street and 148 Mount Vernon Street were voted on and approved. No, no, I mean the last item, which I can't remember the address on 212 something. Oh, oh, sorry. We moved that up to the front. That was continued till September 26th. That's when I guessed that's going to be a long one. Thank you. They had received some new information from the zoning board, from the building inspector. Yeah. And they requested time to consider his, his new comments. Okay. Thank you. That property certainly is fraud. Thank you. It's a, you're very welcome. So with that, I will again look for a motion to adjourn from our board member. Thank you. The moved. Mr. Chairman. And second. Thank you. Mr. Dupont. Vote of the board to adjourn. Mr. Dupont. I. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. This often. Hi. And the chair votes. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very, very much. Good night, everyone. Good night. Thank you all very much. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.