 Okay, so it is 733 PM on Tuesday, October 26th, 2021. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd like to call this meeting of the Board to order. First, I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont. Hi. Patrick Hanlon. Hi. Kevin Mills. Hi. Sean O'Rourke. Hi, I'm Sean O'Rourke here. Thank you, Sean. Stephen Revillac. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Good evening, and Aaron Ford, who is our other associates, unable to join us this evening. On behalf of the town, Rick Valerelli, our Board Administrator. Here. Good to have you, Vincent Lee, our support staff. Here. Good to have you. And I don't think Kelly Linema is joining us this evening from the Department of Planning and Community Development. Just to confirm that people are here to represent the hearings in front of us. Appearing for 1416 Edgerton Road. Sean Lyons with us. Mr. Chairman, I talked to all the applicants earlier. They're all supposed to be on board. Okay. We will come back to them. Appearing for 5Chevgette Road. Charlotte Nunez. I'm here. Fantastic. Thank you. Appearing for 911 Adams Street. Heidi Wettach or Greg Walters. We're both here. Wonderful. Thank you. Appearing for 43 Cutter Hill Road. Cy Lee. See the name in the window. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. And appearing for 125-127 Webster Street. Bruce McKenna. His son, Lucas, here. Bruce will be joining us once we come up. Perfect. Thank you. And just checking one more time. 1416 Edgerton Road. Is there someone here representing that project? Yep. Right here, Brandon Lyons for 1416. Perfect. Thank you so much. Okay. This open meeting of the Arlington Zone Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 of 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. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zone Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being reported 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, other participants are participating by computer audio or telephone. Importantly, 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 reporting. We ask that you please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair, reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business after this meeting as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington formerly known as Monotomy and Algonquin word meetings with waters. The board hereby acknowledges the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony, province and commonwealth have taken their names. We pay respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. We are going back to our agenda. Item two on our agenda is the first of our administrative items. Starting this evening with several administrative items including the approval of minutes and the approval of decisions. These items relate to the operation of the board and as such will be conducted without direct input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. After introducing each item I will invite members of the board to provide any comments, questions or motions they may have. If members wish to engage in discussion with other members, please do so through the chair. Take in care to identify yourself for the record. So the first on our docket item number two is the approval of the meeting minutes for July 13th. These minutes were circulated by Mr. Valorelli. I know I had sent in some comments I believe other folks will have sent in comments as well. Are there any further comments to be submitted on the July 13th minutes? Seeing none from the board may I have a motion to approve the minutes from the July 13th, 2021 meeting? So moved. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. Thank you. Mr. Ford is not available. Mr. Rebel Black. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. This brings us to the next item, our agenda. Number three, which is the approval of the meeting minutes from the July 26th, 2021 meeting. Similar to the previous, these were distributed by Mr. Valorelli. Comments were received from members of the board. Are there any further comments on the minutes from July 26th, 2021? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from the July 6th, 2021 meeting of the Board of Appeals? So moved. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rebel Black. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. This brings us to item number four on our agenda. This evening approval of the meeting minutes from our October 5th, 2021 meeting. Similar to the prior two minutes, these were distributed by Mr. Valorelli. Members had an opportunity to submit comments. Are there any further comments on the minutes from October 5th? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from the October 5th, 2021 meeting of the Earlington's voting board of appeals? So moved. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. For our work. Aye. Mr. Rebel Black. Aye. And the chair votes aye. This brings us to item number five on our agenda, which is the approval of the final decision for 2021 a Lafayette Street. So this was a prior hearing at that hearing, the board voted to approve the application with conditions. The final written decision was prepared by Mr. Hanlon and distributed to the board. I believe everyone's had an opportunity to comment and it was redistributed to the board. May I have a motion to approve the final written decision for 2020 a Lafayette Street? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That final decision is approved. At this point in the hearing, Mr. O'Rourke, I know you have a prior commitment this evening. Thank you for your votes on the things we need to do for and if you'd like to log off, you certainly may do so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. This brings us to item six on our agenda this evening, which is approval of the decision for 24 Ottawa Road. This was approved with conditions at a prior hearing. Again, Mr. Hanlon prepared a very thorough and well-documented set of decision for this hearing. Are there any further comments on that decision? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the final decision for 24 Ottawa Road? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. Mr. Chair votes aye. That final decision is approved. Brings us to item number seven on our agenda this evening. Is there approval of the final decision for 43 Fox Meadow Lane? Similar to the previous decision, this was heard at a prior meeting of the zoning board of appeals. The board voted to approve with conditions. Mr. Hanlon prepared our decision. Are there any further comments on that decision? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the final written decision for 43 Fox Meadow Lane? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Chair votes aye. That final decision for 43 Fox Meadow Lane is approved. Brings us to item number eight on our agenda this evening. The approval of the final decision for 18 Herd Road. Again, this was heard by the zoning board of appeals. It was approved with conditions. Mr. Hanlon compared another excellent set of documents for the decision has been reviewed by the board. Are there any further comments for 18 Herd Road? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the final written decision for 18 Herd Road? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. I have a second? Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The final written decision for 18 Herd Road is approved. This brings us to item number nine on our docket, which is the first of the public hearings. Turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda, here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will then request that members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered, I'll open the meeting to public comment. At the conclusion of the public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So the first item is agenda item number nine, docket 3666, 1416, Edgerton Road. This is a continuation from the prior hearing. We leave appearing on behalf of the applicant is Brendan Lyons. So if you would like to unmute yourself and tell us what you would like to do. Sure, thank you very much for having me. First off, can you guys hear me okay? We can, thank you. Wonderful. All right, so long story short, what we have here is to duplex over by the Capitol Theater in East Arlington. And we're applying to do two things. Number one is to put a dormer up on the third floor. It's already a completed livable space up there. The reason for the dormer is on that side of the house, if you're facing the house, the right hand side, there is a bathroom, but with the roof lining the way it is, it's tough to take a shower. We don't have a window in there. So I'd like to extend it, have a window for moisture number one, also making it easier to do what you gotta do and make it a little bit larger. Wouldn't really change too much to the portfolio of the house in my opinion, but that's up for you guys to decide. And the second thing I wanted to do was add a small one car driveway to the left hand side of the house. Now currently there is a driveway on the right side that you can fit probably three cars deep, nothing side by side. And one of the reasons I'd like for this is number one, it's gonna eventually be condos, so a driveway per floor per condo. Now currently it is a one-way street, so you can only take a left as you pull out of the driveway and people use both ends of the driveway to park. So unless you have a very small compact car, it's very difficult to use, very difficult to make a swing. And in the winter, pretty much forget about it, you're not pulling out of your driveway. So not only would this second driveway be beneficial for a selling point of view, but also it would allow, not allow a person or a resident to park in between them, so it would make it much easier for the resident to pull out and make their swing without hitting everything in sight. So that's a long story short of what we'd like to do and love you guys' feedback. Hey, thank you. So up on the screen now we should have, this is the site plan. So per this plan, the existing driveways on the left-hand side leading down to the garage and the proposed driveway, as noted with the arrow, would be on the right-hand side. Demolition plans, instruction plan. And so they would be this single shed dormer on the west side of the building. Information on the plan. This is within the footprint of the current house, correct? Just up on the third floor. Are there questions from the board? Mr. Chairman? Yes, please, Mr. Hanlon. Um, I wonder if I could have a little bit more guidance currently on what I think is the northeast side of the house. The left side, as you face it, is a dormer that already exists with a sort of gambrel roof. And it's not clear to me what's happening to that and whether the new dormer is being built in sort of behind that or whether it's replacing it or what? My understanding from the drawings at the applicant to confirm is that the new shed dormer is on the opposite side of the roof from that existing dorm. Over on the south side. Correct. And on the opposite side of the proposed dormer, everything is gonna stay as is. It's gonna be obviously fixed as needed, but no changes. So a second question I have, Mr. Chairman, is the proposed new driveway is going to fit on just, on these, but again, I think it's the north side of, if you think of Edgerton is going basically north to south. And it looks as if there's no real room between that and the driveway next door. I did notice that in the other building on this, on this street that has a similar arrangement, there's a chain link fence that runs right between the two driveways. And I was wondering whether there's going to be any similar kind of separation here or it doesn't look like it, but maybe there's enough room for some sort of buffer between the two driveways. But I wonder what kind of separation there will be between the two of them. Great question. Currently there is actually roughly rough number. I would say a two foot concrete retaining wall on there at the end of their driveway. So it's actually a step down. So that little wall would provide as a barrier. I see. So you're planning on just keeping that wall. So you'll build yours on that side, on one side and the wall will provide the separation. To my understanding that is there wall. And I have no plans on trying to work with them to take it down or anything. I plan on leaving it as this. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Mr. DuPont. So this is perhaps for clarification from Mr. Valorelli. So as I look at 6.1.10A, when it refers to parking where it says in that section that it shall not be permitted in the area between the front lot line and the minimum front setback, which I believe is 20 feet here, except on a driveway and it gives a width leading to the required parking spaces. But I'm wondering a couple of things. One is that parking space, sort of measurement there. I believe it's eight and a half. It's supposed to be eight and a half by 18 feet. If I'm reading that correctly. Thank you for the question, Mr. DuPont. Rick Valorelli, board administrator. So in this case, the front yard setback would be 14.1 feet. It's a pre-existing non-conforming setback to the front of the house. So they are beyond the required front yard setback. They are a little bit short in the length. They're okay in the width because a driveway in the side yard, seven and a half feet is permitted. That's in that same section, either A or B. Okay. So to answer your question, in this case, the front yard setback is 14.1 feet, not 20. Okay, but the actual dimensions of what would be the parking space are not quite up to the requirements. That's correct, Mr. DuPont. I took the lifting myself to scale that out and it's fine with why seven and a half feet. In fact, we have nine. Technically, it could fall a little bit short with the 18. And I think even upon the back car, we might still be just a little bit short, but plenty of room on the width and certainly the front yard setback is fine. Okay, so it's really the length that we're talking about then? Technically, yes. Okay, thank you. Mr. Revolac. Yes, based on the plot plan, it looks like there are, the distance between the two driveways is 26 and a half feet. Is that correct? Question for me, Mr. Revolac. Well, actually, for the applicant, well, just do the math, just do the math out loud. So 50 feet, lot width, you take away, well, it's a little more than, we'll say nine feet from the right side next to the concrete wall and 14 and a half feet. The left side on the left side, on the other side of the house would leave 26 and a half feet. A question for Mr. Valerelli, there is a provision, it's 6111, 6.1.11 C8. And it looks like that requires the two driveways on the same interior lot to be 30 feet apart. And my question for Mr. Valerelli is, would you measure that from the edge of one to the nearest edge of the other? And at that section now, Mr. Revolac, I guess one could construe that it is. That would be the distance in between the asphalt of two driveways. Okay. Thank you, no further questions. Other questions from the board? So in a similar section to where Mr. Revolac was referring, there's a requirement that a side yard driveway have a vegetated buffer where it abuts a neighboring residential property. I'm concerned that at this location with the tightness that exists between the existing building and the edge of the property and where there's a wall that's on that side, is there the ability to provide a vegetated buffer between the driveway and that wall? Mr. Valerelli, is there a set minimum width for a vegetated buffer? No, that's a great question, Mr. Chairman. We've talked about this before, but according to section 6.1.10, at the very end of section A, it said, side yards used for parking shall have a vegetated buffer when abutting a lot used for residential purposes to minimize visual impacts. Unless that's a scapegoat me and it's written somewhere else in the bylaw, it does not specify the width of the buffer, it just says a buffer. Okay. And second question, Mr. Valerelli, what is the procedure for acquiring a curb cut in support of a second driveway? Not a good question, Mr. Chairman. So the town has a list of contractors that have posted bond and one can only use a bonded contractor to produce it with the town when it comes to making curb cuts on town property. Is there anybody in town that needs to vote to approve a curb cut? No, the only thing with the curb cut can be up to 24 feet in width if you have the room. But no, that is a permit, a utility permit taken out by the paving contractor through the engineering department. Thank you. Further questions from the board at this time? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. We're concentrating on the driveways. Has the question of how much of the second half of the half story with the square footages above seven feet, seven feet of greater, has that been measured out and documented? This is what's provided on the schedule that there's existing 400 square feet and that would be increased to 560 square feet. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I may be able to assist the members if you'd like me to. Please. So we've been struggling with the half story in the attic. So I took the liberty of doing these numbers myself with a conversation with the applicant. So in fact, the 560 square feet is the proposed area in the attic that is gonna meet the definition of a half story measurement from the underside of the rafter at seven feet to the finished floor below, there will be 560 square feet at the end of the day. That calculates out to be 47.86% of the area of the floor below. So he is just under and that would be sufficient for a half story. He's not exceeding that. Thank you, Mr. Valarali. Thank you. I did make sure to note on the prior page, sorry, other direction. Here we go. That the slope of the proposed roof would exceed two and 12, which is the minimum slope allowed by the zoning bylaw. The board is also in receipt of a memorandum from the planning community development in regards to the property. Photos, the driveway, so this is the area at the front left of the home where they're considering adding parking, the large street tree in front. On the recommendation is going to mention that there's story of the structure to ensure the addition of these bylaws, which Mr. Valarali is taking care of. So the plan indicating location to mention the proposed second parking area and curb cut as well as identification of existing landscape reusable open space. And then they do note that the property does currently have sufficient parking without the addition of the second driveway. So are there any further questions from the board at this time? Mr. Valarali? Actually, Mr. Mills first. No. I was going to say, father up in those recommendations, wasn't there an aesthetic recommendation from the planning board? He had said no, criteria number six. Under Justice Location, the Durham windows to align them with existing windows on the side facade. Yeah. In fact, they're done further from the front facade. So it's balanced projection on the northeast side. And Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. You know, review on the documentation as presented to us, the windows did look like they were aligned. I mean, one was a little bit bigger than the others, but they looked pretty much rectilinear above each other. And the dorm is not, you know, I mean, setting your father back, I think would cause quite an imbalance in the construction there with the existing walls and what's in there. And that dormer is stepped back. It's not like it's right at the front of the house. So for my money, I really, I'm not strong on forcing or recommending the applicant move the dorm a father back. I don't think it's going to be that bad from the streetscape, if you will, just my opinion. Yeah. Now, if I believe it is currently set to be five feet back from the front of the building. Yeah. Which I think matches up with their existing floor plan pretty much. I think, yeah, I think that aligns with the existing front building wall. Mr. Revlak, you had a question? Actually, Mr. Mills covered it. So I no longer do. Thank you. Okay. With that, we will transition to public comment period for this item. So I'll now be opening the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments will be taken only 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 will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asks that those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing to please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead of them. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host. You'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the time allocated by the chair has ended, the public comment area to be closed and the board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. So with that, first name on the speakers list is Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Steve Moore Piedmont Street. I have a couple of questions and comments. And looking at the pictures that were on the planning board's memo, the gambrel roof of the existing dormer looks like it was a previous addition to the house. I'm not sure when that was done but significantly expanded the third floor, my guess is that that was an add-on to the original construction because the gambrel roof doesn't really match the design style of the rest of the house. And this is an R2 zoning area, correct Mr. Chairman? That is correct. The addition of the shed roof on the other side of that main house front to back dormer is going to expand that third floor pretty significantly. I know as long as it's still used by the story below, it is a two family. However, how hard would it be to convert this now over to three family home in a two family zone with that much space on the top story, the third floor? You know, I know I'm talking about hypothetical here but this is now, that third story is significantly expanded now if you had a shed dormer and now a second driveway that would have enough parking spaces for a three family home at this point. I don't see that as that far out of the realm of possibility. I know it would require approval to a three family but not the significant space on that third floor now and that combined with a second driveway strikes me as this house is now filled up a lot. And I don't know, I'm also thinking about the recent ADU one article with a town meeting. I don't, how hard would it be to convert that third story over ADU now once that new shed dorm was built? If they were to convert to three family they would need to have a, well, they would have to do it as an ADU instead of they would be size limited to the size of the new unit. They would need to have a full second means of egress for that unit. And also because it would become a three family technically it no longer falls under the residential building code it falls under the commercial building code. And so there are code requirements that would additional code requirements that would come into effect. I do not know off the top of my hand what those are but there would be additional requirements that would come as a result of that. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Everlack. I will just note that in an R2 zone three family is not in allowed use. Yeah. Right, which is why I bring up the ADU position. I just, I'm wondering now though with basically my point is with the new new warrant article and the ADU regulations that have been approved how many of these sorts of expansions are precursors to ADU development? And with additional driveway then there's enough parking as well. And then there's the concern of the side concern which is now you've taken the outside yard and converted it pretty much entirely to driveway. And I don't think that's a particularly good static and it also permeable surface issue wise, major decrease in the surface. I believe the planning board talked to those recommendations talked about those issues. And one last question, Mr. Chairman. This is a non-conforming lot and a non-conforming house on the lot, correct? I believe both of those are correct. The board is now the decision before is whether or not to extend non-conformity further. Is that correct? That is, well, I think I'm guessing by increasing the amount of space on the third floor, it breaks conformity. And I just, I guess I'm understanding not having trouble understanding the worst position on extending what is already a non-conforming situation or the further non-conformity. I've been plummets by that a couple of times now in trying to understand how this works when you do approvals of a house that's already outside the regulation the further be that way. I don't quite understand why, I guess why that's okay. Well, so there's two things. One is in the zoning bylaw, any alteration, that occurs within the foundation line of the house is not considered, is still considered to be a non-conformity, but it is not considered to be more detrimental, which is the criteria that the board has to approve. So as long as the third floor addition it stays within the footprint of the house, it's not considered detrimental. However, what typically happens is the computation for usable open space is usually the next criteria that comes up and that is a percentage of a lot area that's a minimum 25 feet on two sides. And it's a ratio of that to the gross floor area of the house. And what is typical in areas like East Arlington is the lots are so small that they're currently, they were built at the time before that bylaw came into effect and they effectively have zero usable open space when they're at this time. And so the board has longstanding precedent that if the building already has zero usable open space and the addition creates the creation of the addition does not change that fact. And so the fact that we're going from zero usable open space to zero usable open space, the board has taken a position that it does not consider that to be a more detrimental to the neighborhood as long as the addition to the third floor is not exceeding the half floor apartment the built structure remains a two and a half story structure. Okay. And the Mr. Chairman, the addition of the driveway is not going to increase the usable open space outside the house. So the usable open space only counts the area that is 25 feet by 25 feet or more. And so the front yard in this building does not count as usable open space. And if I reference back to- Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate the education for me, Mr. Chairman. It just, I think we're going to be left here where the house is surrounded by driveway and a huge, huge third story. But enough of my comments. Thank you for being patient with me. Absolutely. Thank you. Next on speaker list, Kevin Levy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kevin Levy, I'm at 10 Egerton Road. So I would also like to echo Mr. Morris concerns about a house being essentially surrounded by driveway, especially with respect to the residential design guidelines and their comments on aesthetics and also permeability. But our main issue is that of the vegetated buffer. It would hinder our ability to remove snow from our driveway and cause us problems in the winter as neighbors. I'd also like to dispute the applicant's notion that the driveways are unusable in the winter and that you can't pull out. I think there are plenty of examples in this neighborhood of single-width driveways that get perfect use. So safety and accessibility is not an issue. But again, the primary issues here in my mind are the accessibility and the vegetated buffer. I would prefer not to have a house entirely surrounded by driveway. Very good. Thank you. Anything further? That's all for me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Oh, I wonder if I could ask, is the problem with, is your concern that there's going to be a vegetated buffer and that it will interfere with removal of snow or are you concerned that there won't be one? I'm concerned about the lack of a vegetated buffer. We would essentially be left with no choice but to shovel snow from the driveway into the driveway or haul it all the way out to the street or something. But you're not currently shuffling it onto your neighbor's property though, are you? No, we can get it onto the wall right now. I see. Thank you. I mean, if I may, it's only going, I believe it was 14 feet deep, so there'll still be plenty of space to put snow there past the driveway and also if you're shoveling snow on the, let's see, about 12 inch wide concrete barrier, I mean, and it's not going in the green area, it shouldn't make a difference. Correct? If you're not shoveling anything into our yard, what would make the difference if you're just going on top of the wall? Fair point. Next is identified as Boulay at 12 Egerton Road. Yes, Michael Boulay at 12 Egerton Road. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I also echo the previous comments of Mr. Moore and Mr. Leahy. I think to continue with the discussion of snow, I think creating another curb cut would reduce the ability to put snow on the curb in front of the houses, which will result in piled snow that's even taller than it is now with the current configuration, which I think does create a pedestrian safety issue in the wintertime in the snow. I think additionally, I'd like to point out that the house has provided, has served as a dual family house for many years, at least the 12 years that I've lived here, and I suspect many years before that. It's not clear to me that there's a clear need for the public or the public's convenience to add a second driveway. Additionally, I'd like to point out that the address, this neighborhood is in close proximity to Massachusetts Avenue. So our end of the street is often used by parking, by mass-out-of-the-move businesses, and people who visit those businesses. So the street is often quite congested and removing a parking spot forum by creating a curb cut, I think will further challenge the parking situation here in our part of East Arlington. I think additionally, I would like to raise a question, perhaps, whether the addition of the driveway has, whether an additional driveway will impact the health of the very large and mature tree, the street tree there, and verify that it's not gonna be harmed by whatever driveway surface is going to take away from the tree roots. I think we do have a tree warden who maybe weigh in on that issue. And then, yeah, and then just echoing the planning boards memo about the aesthetics, I think it would, I agree with the planning boards concerns about the aesthetics of the neighborhood in paving a second driveway. Okay, thank you very much. Can I respond? If I may, can I respond or is it not my time? Um, I can't see who's speaking. Brendan Lyons. Okay, if I can ask you to hold. Sure thing. Thank you. Next up, is Will McMillan at 11, Christian Road. Thanks. First of all, thank you to everyone who's part of this process. I'm just fascinated and amazed to learn all the details of how the town of Arlington works. I live across the street. I managed to spend most of my life avoiding using fossil fuels. I love the tree across the street, which I think is a sycamore. We had a microburst in our neighborhood here. You may remember it a few years ago, and a huge number of mature trees in East Arlington and North Cambridge all came down. And so I'm kind of the Lorax here at this meeting. And I echo the concern about the health of that tree. I think it's kind of ironic, well, not ironic. I think it's beautiful timing that we're meeting on the night of a North Easter when we may have incredible rainfall. And we were blessed, I'm sure, after the result of a zillion meetings with having two great swales built at the bottom of our street to help with how water flows in our neighborhood. And it just seems like as much as I appreciate how difficult it is for parking and as much as I appreciate how Mr. Lyons is thinking ahead and trying to make life easier for his future tenants or his future condo owners, I share the concerns about the health of that tree. I gotta assume, ignorantly maybe, that it's getting a lot of its water from the front yard at this property. And our culture is just doing a really horrible job with how we're paving everything over just one square foot at a time. So if there is some way to, if this driveway gets approved to do it so that it's a little bit more forward-thinking and not just a great friendly contractor rolling in and putting a whole lot of asphalt down and adding more water that's gonna pour down the street into those swales, that would be awesome. So this is the Lorax just checking out, saying thank you all for all of your consideration of these important things. Thank you, sir. Next up is Cook at 13. Hi, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Joe Cook at 13 Egerton. We've also been here about 30 years. And I guess I would not go what the previous people have said but it also just wanted to say the town is really trying to get away from making it more appealing to cars with the bike lane and the bus lane. And I think this is a step away from that. And I think if we're gonna start allowing homes to have, I don't know if it's gonna be one or two parking spaces, I couldn't quite tell from the plan but I don't think we wanna be making it more attractive for people that have cars in East Arlington. I think we should be working to make it less attractive. Thank you. Thank you. And I see Mr. Moore has his hand up. I was actually gonna ask him in regards to the tree, Mr. Moore is a member of the town's tree committee. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's exactly what I was gonna comment on. I know this is my second time, however, speaking of the tree committee now. Yes, the concerns about the tree are valid. The critical root zone is the amount of the roots basically following kind of the drip line of the tree and basically for every inch diameter of the tree thickness at breast height, you have to go out in a circle that is two feet in diameter, three inch. So for this one that looks roughly to be my mind, maybe a 14 inch trunk, maybe wider, it would have to be a 14, 28 foot diameter circle with a tree in its center. And the driveway probably is gonna impinge right there, that's true. So that would be an issue. This particular street tree is protected by Chapter 87 of Massachusetts laws that construction can't be taken without approval. And my guess is from what I'm hearing from the neighbors that a tree hearing would be held where the neighbors would eject the tree if that was the applicant's intent. I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying that the tree is protected and that would have to be considered in the case of a driveway impinging on the critical root zone is you can't detect what you're cutting for a cutting of the driveway. So that would be a problem. The tree warden would have to be engaged. Not sure if I'm answering folks question here, but that's the comment I have unless someone has a specific tree ruling question, Mr. Chairman. Perfect. I think that's perfect. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I have a question for Mr. Moore that may or may not be tree related, but it's on the subject that he's having given opinions before. Is there any, I mean, there's the image of this house surrounded by asphalt is a compelling one. And I'm wondering if there are alternatives that use some sort of an impervious pavement that might address some difficulties of that kind in the proposed driveway. I'm not sure what there would be and obviously it wouldn't necessarily affect the aesthetics unless it was painted to look like grass, but it would affect the permeable, increasing the permeable surface. What alternatives do you think there are there? Mr. Chairman. Please. Yeah, Mr. Hanlon, you're quite correct. I may have commented before on other projects. There is permeable paving now that allows water to go through it and down to the... Yes, that is recommended to not increase the impermeable space by putting down a straight asphalt or batuminous concrete, but rather the permeable allows the water to move through it. They're doing this in roadways now as well. The issue here tree-wise though would be that it would probably have to cut the driveway in the critical root zone because that root zone is large for this tree as previous folks have spoken. And I'm not sure how you can do that exactly. Depending on the type of tree, it may not be a surface root tree so the issue may not be as major. However, to your question, yes, there are definitely methods of town that started to adopt these methods in their planting pits. If you ever walk along the Broadway Plaza part away from the plaza towards Medford, you can see that sort of material being used to allow water to get through the roots. So yes, it is certainly possible. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon. Are there any further questions or comments from the public? None. I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. I'll return to the applicant. Mr. Collins, you wanted to address the questions about the driveway. Yeah, just a few quick points. I guess we'll start with the tree. I completely agree. Gorgeous tree, but however, it does raise some safety concerns there. I know I'm mid-20s at this point and I grew up around this property. And there's many in this whole East Island to neighborhood, there's many elderly people that walk the neighborhood and I gotta say I'm walking and I'm afraid they're gonna get back. I mean, right in front of that stairway to the porch there, the great mass of these roots have completely uprooted the sidewalk and I don't know exactly what the solution is for that, but it is dangerous and it does get worse every year with the moisture and the freezing of the ground. So I don't know what the answer with that is, but some have suggested we cut it down and plant new trees. Obviously that's a town issue, not something I can just go do, which I shouldn't be able to, but there is a safety concern with that. Now, also with the driveway to the house to the left of Oz, what you can see, they mentioned that they have no problem pulling out, which I totally agree, that's what I mentioned. If you have a compact car, yeah, you can make the swing. But if you have a van or a pickup truck or a minivan, even it's very difficult because out in front of this White House property, two cars park there and the brown house, one car normally parks right there. So the swing is very difficult. And they're correct in the winter time when the snow banks are up high and you're cut down even less of a turning radius, the driveway to the right of the house is basically obsolete unless you have a very small compact car. So that's my point with that. And we do want to increase the green space. So like we mentioned in the application, there is a driveway at the end of the, excuse me, a garage at the end of the driveway on the right-hand side, which we were gonna take that back and kind of rip out the concrete and reclaim it with some sod or hydro-seed or some type of vegetation. So that's my point with that. Just wanted to give my two cents. Appreciate that. Thank you. No problem. I had a quick question for Mr. Valarelli. Change the share here. I can't tell what I'm sharing anymore. So this is just being the site plan. So the 22 feet you've referenced from the porch to the rear lot line, is that the 20 indicate that that is three feet short of the required 25 feet to count as usable open space? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. So if the applicant is asking for two special permits, one being a second driveway and one being for the additional increase in GFA without the usable open space. Okay. So that the removal of the garage would not impact the amount of usable open space on the property? Would have to do a calculation. I still see only 22 to that porch. Right. I would have to re-calculate it based on the garage not being there. Okay. But if it's only 22 feet in one direction, it doesn't count towards usable open space. That is absolutely correct. And that's how I base my calculations. All right, thank you. Okay. So for the board, we sort of, we have two, this really, really referenced, we have two decisions essentially to make on the property. One is specific to the proposed dormer on the third floor and the second is the proposal for the second driveway. So I just quickly asked the board or just let's address the issue of the dormer first. Are there questions and concerns in regards to that dormer? Mr. Chairman. Hanlon. It seems to me the dormer is basically, I mean, if it's 560 square feet, it's within the half-story requirement. It's just barely within the half-story requirement, but, you know, if you make it, you make it. Clearly, as Mr. Revillac points out, you couldn't adopt a three-person use, a three-family use here, except insofar as the ADU ordinance applies. And as somebody who was in town meeting and voted for that ordinance, I don't think that would be a bad thing if it applied. That was the sense of town meeting is that people ought to have the ability to put in these ADUs and this would be somewhat of a small one. And it seems to me unlikely that it would happen, but if it did happen, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. So I have a lot of concerns with the driveway, but many fewer with the dormer. Thank you. Other questions for the board in regard to the dormer? Mr. Revillac? Mr. Chair, I am also fine with the dormer and like as Mr. Hanlon indicated, the ADU by-law was well-received by town meeting and just from my own personal opinion, if people start building ADUs, well, that's great. I'll be happy, regardless of what happens with this project. So yeah, I think the dormer is fine as proposed. Thank you. Searching for beads of paper in the background. I can't seem to put my finger on it anymore. So then we'll move on to move the discussion then forward to the question of the second driveway. I know the board has approved additional driveways in the past. I think this is a little bit of a different situation than some of the others because it is such a small space and because the space available under the by-law, essentially the by-law requires a certain minimum area for a parking space and this property does not afford that minimum space on this side of the building. As was noted, the building already has the required legal minimum parking space plus additional space beyond that. So I do have concerns about the possibility of adding an additional driveway on this side of the property but I would like to hear from other members of the board what their thoughts are on this. Mr. Revillac. I mean, as proposed now, I would not be supportive of the additional driveway and they're basically at least two very obvious reasons. It doesn't meet the minimum requirement for length. It's a foot too short, even for a compact car. And we also have a requirement on the spacing between driveways on a single lot and we're a couple of feet short there. And just to say of third reason, it is kind of tight particularly if one were to try to contemplate adding a vegetated buffer along the side. So as proposed, I would have a, maybe one of my board colleagues can make a compelling argument to the contrary but I'd be very reluctant to approve. Thank you, Mr. Revillac, Mr. Mills. I would just like to say I concur and fully support with Stevie, so eloquently stated. If this misses on several points, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. Yeah, so maybe just to take what Mr. Revillac said a step farther. I mean, when you look at the bylaw and it does give you dimensions for parking spaces and if you don't need that, it's a dimensional requirement. And similarly, if as he had pointed out you have that section of the bylaw 6.1.11 where it requires the 30 feet between the two driveways that's also a dimensional requirement. And I really don't think we have the authority to grant a driveway under those circumstances because you're looking at really what a variance would be doing, I think. So I think that's one of the reasons and then I think for the reasons that were laid out also in the memorandum from the planning department that it would be problematic in terms of the area that would be paved, permeability, et cetera. So I think for those reasons I would not be supportive myself. Thank you. Thank you. Additional questions or comments from the board? Mr. Hanlon? Just to sort of draw a conclusion, the dimensional things which come down to meeting certain numbers or not meeting those numbers also are contributing to a lot of the discomfort that people feel at looking at all the pavement that they would be in the front yard, the tightness of the connection between that and the next door. The question is to whether you can get an adequate buffer there, you can't plant just a little bit of grass. It would have to be under the bylaw a genuine buffer and it would be difficult to do that here. If you walk up and down the street, you see only one other house that I could see that had two driveways on opposite sides of the house. There are a number of double driveways where they're on the same side of the house but they will allow two cars back and forth. And when you look at it, it just feels like it has more room than this one does. So that may be sort of like a queen bed and this is like two singles, but it has a feeling of tightness and scrunched upness that is I think disturbing to the neighborhood and it all traces back to the absence of enough feet to accommodate the construction. Thank you. Therefore, in regards to this property, so my sense is from the board, if we were to vote, I think we would be looking to craft a vote whereby we would allow the addition on the third floor and we would disallow the addition of the second driveway, which I think we can do through condition. Does that sound correct, Mr. Hanlon, that that would be the proper way to do that? Yes, I think that's right. I mean, strictly speaking, this isn't two different applications so that we can approve one and deny the other but it should be possible to clearly stated the conditions, what it is we're approving and what it is we're not. Okay. So for special permits, the board has three standard conditions, which it applies to all decisions, which just read for the record at the moment. So the number one is the final plans and specifications approved by the board for the 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. Condition number two is the building inspector is hereby notify the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he determines that violations are building bylaw under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21D and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the inspector buildings may also approve an appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And third is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit. I did wish to go back quickly to the package here because there was a question that was raised in regards to the windows. On the house, I think Mr. Mills is correct. The deviation from alignment is fairly minor. So the location of those windows. So it does appear that the three windows that are all slightly off are the three one to three here. So the one here at the stairwell, it appears could be shifted slightly to align with the other stairwell windows below. The window here, I believe actually was in alignment. And the last one is this window here in the bathroom. So this window here, we could slide over to align with these. That wouldn't be an issue. This one's already in alignment. This one here, I think the side of it does align but the window is wider. And my question would just be, is there anyone on the board who has an issue with the alignment of the windows as they're shown here that we should address in a condition? Is it worth having that? I mean, we could specifically request that the stairwell window be shifted over but when the bathroom window, the only way to address that is to make a smaller window in the bathroom. And I don't think that that's, not that it's not within our purview but that it's not. Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that I would not, I would not favor doing that. This is, we're talking about aesthetics here and dealing with the design. This is a relatively small part on the design. It is aligned just as a fatter window. And I think that the whoever lives here is entitled to have the window that fat. There's not enough of a contrary interest to lead us to try to regulate that. And then I don't think there are any other conditions that we would impose in regards to the dormer and therefore the only remaining would be a fourth condition, which would be the request for a second driveway under section 6.1.10, I believe. 6.1.10A. Mr. Chairman, I had a thought as to how to deal with that if it would be welcome. I think we could do that by saying the proposed second driveway under 6.1.10 is not approved as part of the final plans. Okay. And establishment of said driveway is prohibited. Sounds very good. Are there any other questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, may we have a motion? Mr. Chairman. I move that we grant the special permit application in this case in part and denied in part, subject to the conditions that have just been read into the record. And then do I have a second on that? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Any further questions from the board on the proposal? Seeing none, on the motion to approve in part for the four conditions, vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revlock? Aye. The chair votes aye. So the dormer is approved and the second driveway is not approved. And that concludes this hearing. Thank you all very much. Next item on our agenda, item number 10, which is docket 36705 Cheviot Road. So the applicant is Nunez. If you would like to go ahead and identify yourself and tell you what you would like to do. And in the meantime, I will track down your drawings. Sure. Hi, my name is Charlotte Nunez. So good evening, everyone. I'm proposing to, well, I live in a single family residence in five Cheviot Road. And I'm proposing to change a portico that I have to a porch. I think it will make the aspects of my home in the front look much more pleasing. I don't believe there's, there'll be a huge difference from what I have now other than expanding out the porch. I think I'll leave technical questions to my design team pioneer architecture, which I believe is on the line, Lydia Sovdalsko. Yes, we just, the architect would like to introduce themselves and make some comments. Yes, Lydia Sovdalsko from Pyonark. And there's also John Hale on the line as well, who filled out the application. And what I wanted to point out to that we are, I'm going to put it in a short and very sweet note in here just because there's really not much to it. So basically when you see the scope is the, when you see the existing roof and the stairs, that's where we are going to take that apart because it is not in a good condition. And what we are planning on doing to replace that with a porch that's a little bit wider. So it's pretty much from right side to the left side with the same depth and replacing the stairs to a little bit of a wider staircase and having instead of the roof that's currently on the building, which is a gable roof over the protocol, we're trying to put a flat roof on that and have some railings above. And that's really the scope of work of this project. There is some work on the back, but it's not a concern because it meets the criteria and the requirements for the setbacks. So currently the front setback is where it is the same as it was before basically, the proposed I meant to say. And we are proposing to have beautiful landscape around as you see the existing roof is staying where it is and this elevation, since you're looking at that, you can see the railings. And by the way, this is not a true balcony. The windows are the same as they were previously. We're not changing any of the windows on the front at all. So you have other questions? This side. So I was originally confused looking at the drawings at the roof, the roofline wrapping at the front, but to these portions of roof here, these are the, these are- These are the existing. They don't come all the way out. They stay back where they are. Okay, that was the only question I had had. Are there questions from the board in regards to this application? F O shaking heads. Quickly wanna bring up the memorandum from the planning board. If you could hold on, are you, unless you're the applicant, if you could hold off until we have public comment? So this is just from essentially the, this is just from the Department of Planning and Community Development. They do not have any specific concerns about the property. It's the view in the front of the house. So this is the, that roof to the sides of the porch will remain in place. It's just this portion here that is being reconstructed. And then the porch, there'll be porch extended to the sides as well, but it will not be covered porch at the sides. And that's the recommendation of the planning department. I'm gonna go ahead and stop sharing. To ask a second time members of the board, are there any questions or comments in regards to this application at this point? I just had a question. If you could hold off, please, we'll call on you. So. Oh. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Can I see that front elevation again? Yes, please. Okay, it is a little bit confusing. You know, the existing roofing is staying back and this is jutting out. Yep. Yes. Can you give a side elevation, please? This is the side elevation. So it's right here. So it's this existing roof is remaining. I see. This is the extension of the, this portion of the gambrel at the end. Okay. Thank you. I'm all set. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mills. So I will now open this hearing for public comment. So members of public who wish to speak to please digitally raise your hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the host and you'll be asked to give your name and address. You'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. So first on our speaker's list today is Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I just have a quick question. I'd like to ask through you of the architect and the applicant. Did they utilize the design suggestions that the town has put together to come up with this plan? I never could remember the name of those. The residential design guidelines. Thank you. Yes, I can never thank you. Certainly. I just asked that of the architect. Did you take advantage of the residential design guides, guidelines prepared by the town of Rawlingson? I believe we had looked at them. When we originally fired this, it was in May. So it's been a while for me to remember this but I believe we did look at the regulations and the guidelines. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to commend them for having done that. I think again, these design guidelines are starting to show up in the plans and I'm pleased to see that. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list is Ms. Carswell. Hi, sorry, can you see me and hear me? We can, if you can just give us your name and address for the record and then tell us what you'd like. I'm just next door, 24 Indravelle Road. Okay. So I'm just trying to clarify it's in the front of the house, not the back of the house. So the portion that falls under our jurisdiction is at the front of the house. The portion of the rear of, let me go back to the plan here. So the portion of the rear of the house, and I'll ask Mr. Valarelli to confirm that this portion can be constructed by right. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. So there is an addition at the front and the back but it's only the portion at the front that is under the jurisdiction of the VBA. Yeah, because the back is just, she's already got the back, right? The back can be approved by right and may already have been. I'm sorry, can't hear very well. Oh, I'm sorry. So the portion at the rear does not need the approval of the zoning board. So it's, I don't know the status of the permit. All right. Anything further? No. Okay, thank you. Are there any members, other members of the public who wish to address this application? Seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. So members of the board, so we have the application to back up, sorry. So it'll be the removal of the existing front porch, construction of a new front porch covering the, there we go. So it's a longer front porch along the front of the property with steps coming up. So nothing is enclosed. And then up at the second floor level, it is just a, it's a, essentially it's like a, it looks like a porch, but it's not going to be used as a porch because there's no access to it. Is there any questions or comments from the board in regards to this plan? Seeing none, we have our project like this. We have our typical three conditions, which we read into the record for the prior hearing, which we would apply here. Also, we have been applying an additional criteria on simpler projects, where there's a new front porch being introduced, which is at the end, the area of the new porch is not to be considered within the foundation wall of the building. The reason for that condition is just that the addition of the porch should not allow the creation of additional enclosed space over the porch without returning to the zoning board of appeals. Are there any other concerns? Mr. Revillac. I would suggest adding the condition that the front porch remain unenclosed in perpetuity. Are we allowed to state something in perpetuity? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I feel more comfortable with it, but the condition lasts as long as the special permit does, and as a practical matter, it seems to me it's the same whether we say it in perpetuity or not. I prefer not to say that because it suggests overreaching. We've not generally been saying that. We did not use the words in perpetuity in the ones we approved today, although there had been some discussion of it at the previous hearing. But again, I think in substance, it doesn't matter a great deal. It's just that some of us are closer to perpetuity than others and it causes a certain degree of anxiety. Happy to strike those words for my suggestion. I was gonna say we could leave it just as front porch, the front porch is to remain unenclosed or we could say the front porch is to remain unenclosed without further action from the zoning board of appeals. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could just, we have now gotten to the point where our docket is overwhelmed by protrusions into front yards. That must be something like 60% of all the cases we have on those and in every one, we attach a condition that is equivalent to the one about the foundation of the building that we just talked about. And we've also been doing the open portion of the porch or however you would say that given the given application shall remain unenclosed is also one that we're adopting everywhere. And I would just propose that we treat those as standard conditions in cases of this kind and just automatically do it without having to words, with them each time. Okay. I think that's fair. Anything further on this application? None, I think we are ready for a vote. May I have a motion on this item? Mr. Chairman. I'm handling. I move that the application before us be approved subject to the five conditions that have been read into the record. Chairman, may I have a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Mills. Hi, I'm sorry, may I ask a question? That the public comment period was closed, but what is your question? Just about, I know there's no timetable on the construction or the timing of the construction. Yeah. Is there in the town a restriction? You mean in terms of how long until the construction can occur? No. On set versus offset. So Mr. Valorelli, does the town have strict construction hours? Mr. Chairman, I believe Rick just had to step away for two minutes. So I believe the town does have hours under the noise guidelines, but they relate to specific pieces of equipment. They don't relate to construction in general. But if I'm remembering correctly, I think it's eight to six Monday through Friday and nine to five on weekends. But that's entitled, I think it's title five of the town bylaws. Thank you. You're welcome. I see nothing further. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hamlin. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. The chair votes aye. So the motion to approve the proposed project for five-shave-out road with the five conditions stated has been approved. We're good to proceed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. This brings us to item 11 on our agenda, which is docket number 3674911 Adams Street. So I could ask the applicants to introduce themselves and explain to us what they would like to do. And in the meantime, I will bring up your drawings. That's fine. Good evening. My name is Heidi Wettek and I'm here with Greg Walters. We own 9-11 Adams Street. And we are requesting to the board to demolish our existing garage and reconstruct a new garage that has an additional 125 square feet. Our existing structure has failed and we need to update it and fix it. And we'd like to make it a little bit larger to ensure that we can house two cars as well as lawn equipment, bikes and other things to keep it off the yard and out of the driveway. David. This is the site plan by understanding as though that up to this line here, assuming you can see my cursor is the existing garage and the request is for the new garage to extend this additional. That's correct. Okay. Then there were additional drawings were made available. This is the end elevation. So this being the front, not being the rear. Yeah. The design is intentional so the addition won't be visible from the street and mimics the existing structure. The side elevations, the side facing into the yard and this is a side facing your budding neighbor. That's right. So you're indicating on the rear elevation three windows facing out the back, is that correct? That's correct. You're currently one large window in the garage facing out the back. It's a two wide double hung. Mr. Valaralee, have you returned? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have. Okay. So this, let me go back to package. So this garage is being shown approximately a foot off the line which is allowed under the bylaw but I believe it's only allowed under the bylaw if it's type one construction, is that correct? That's correct. In RO one in two districts only. And so the applicant had submitted a list of materials I believe it indicated. So is the intent that the walls are gonna be, will be the back and side walls will be concrete or that they'll be framed wood? They'd be framed wood with hardy board for type one. That won't meet type one construction. So type one is not, is fully non combustible construction. And so it's a, Mr. Valaralee, can you elaborate a little on what would be accepted as type one construction? We will leave that up to the design professional, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Complicated issue and I would want that documented by registered design professionals. Okay. Your intent is to make it type one. Okay. So you were informed that the hardy board would suffice for that? So the, yeah. So the hardy board is a non combustible surface material, but the framing itself needs to remain non combustible. Okay. And so that would need further revision, but that would be an item more for the building department than it would be for the zoning board. Okay. And just type one to use the existing footprint, just move into the yard of the additional 125 square feet. Questions from the board. Mr. Chair. Mills. I stepped out for a minute. I'm not sure if this question got addressed the slope of the roof appears to be inadequate to that document. I think it's one inch 12 and not two inch 12. So there's currently not a slope indicated. Looks like two feet over 24 roughly, which would be one inch 12. That's also it slopes towards the property behind. Would there be a gutter to collect the water on this property or would the water shut off to the property behind? Currently the roof is sloped in the same direction that just sheds into the water behind our intent is to put a gutter with a rain collection to be able to use to water our lawn and plants and those items. Mr. Valarelli, is there any concern about the slope of the roof? We have to meet a minimum of about two and 12. So my apologies, Mr. Chairman, I noticed as I was system through the documentation for tonight's hearing last week this particular package was missing some elevations. So the applicant was kind enough to include these. I've not seen these until tonight. So again, 23 requirements that a builder has to comply with before he's issued a building permit, excuse me. And the slope is certainly one of them. And I have additional questions regarding this, but it has nothing to do with the granting of a special permit. Okay. But if the applicant had a suitable roofing material, could they provide a roof with a lower slope than two and 12? Yes, they could because the code relaxes on the roof. We go to from type one to type three B. So options open up. Okay. Are there further questions from the board? I'm just seeing none. I'd like to open the meeting for public comment. As stated earlier, members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak. We'll be called upon by the host and ask to give your name and address and it'll be given time for questions and comments. Any comments or questions from the public? Mr. Loretty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chris Loretty, 56 Adams Street. Can you hear me okay? We can, sir. Thank you. I have several concerns about this proposal, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to begin with some that relate to the whole thing procedurally. And that is the legal notice and the memo from the planning department reference section 8.1.3 B of the zoning bylaw, which pertains to non-conforming one and two family dwellings. But we have a garage here and it's not a dwelling. And I believe the more appropriate section of the bylaw that the ZBA should be looking at is 8.1.4, which is other non-conforming structures. And the structure is non-conforming because it leads to an excess of the lot coverage. As you know, the maximum is 35%. This house and garage as it stands is already at 40%. And the planning department has said that it will increase to 44%. But the criteria under section 8.1.4 do not allow an increase in the non-conformity of the dimensional and density regulations. So I'm not sure how this can go forward on that basis. It also, if they're tearing down the structures and they're removing the non-conformity and then they can't put, I think, by building a new larger structure there, you could also argue that they're creating a new non-conformity once they tear down the garage if that is indeed the plan. So that's our main concern about the section of bylaw that's being looked at and how this is being considered. But beyond that, I would say that the existing garage is already somewhat larger than the garage is in the neighborhood. And this is a significant increase in the size. And it's also an increase in the height. And I think you need to consider that as well. When they use the 12-foot figure for the height, I believe what they're measuring to is to the height of the top of what looks like a gable from the street. I think that's really kind of a fake facade. It's this little wall above the garage door itself. And it appears the new garage will have an eight-foot door instead of a seven-foot door. And so the height of the garage at both the front and the back will be significantly higher than it is now. And I think particularly for the neighbors on Foster Street who live behind the house, it does present a 10-foot wall for quite a significant fraction of that lot line that's not there right now. So I would also have concerns about that. And I have to wonder when you see this kind of large addition to a garage, whether there's some other use that's actually intended beyond what the applicant's just describing. And I could foresee this perhaps being turned into an ADU and getting this special permit for a garage and then getting a by-right ADU developed sometime in the future. Whereas if they were to wait for the ADU by-law to come into effect, they would need to get a special permit just for the ADU. So I have to question whether that is happening here as well. But I also wanna talk a little bit about the planning memo which I find inappropriate in a number of respects because the memo says that the garage is consistent with the by-law but clearly is not consistent with the by-law if it's increasing the non-conformity which it certainly is with respect to the lot coverage. And unfortunately our planning department and ARB really take a very lax approach to open space on the lots and the open space on this lot is significantly less than what is expressed in the application that was sent to you. It has very little because of the garage and the fact that it's a very small lot to begin with. So I disagree with the planning department's recommendation and frankly, I don't believe it's appropriate for the planning department to be recommending to you what to do. They can certainly lay out what the issues are, what past practice has been and how this fits with other houses in the neighborhood but it's really not their job to tell the ZVA whether to vote up or down on particular proposals. And finally I just want, I was surprised when I joined this meeting to find that there's actually a member at the redevelopment board sitting on the zoning board of appeals. I too was the state appointee to the redevelopment board. And when I went to ZVA hearings, the first thing the chairman asked me is what I was doing there. Was I representing myself or was I representing the ARB? And frankly, I don't know what the representative of the ARB is doing on your board and who he's representing. So I hope Mr. Chairman, I believe he is an associate member, I hope you'll be using him in the future. And I will be expressing my concerns to your appointing authority for the ZVA about this. But that's all I have right now, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lurie. So Mr. Revolac, it was recently appointed to serve on the Arlington Redevelopment Board. He's been a member of the zoning board of appeals for over a year. He has submitted to the board or his letter of resignation, which is set to occur at the end of the Thorndike Place hearing, which the board has conferred with town council on this and council has confirmed that there's no legal reason you cannot serve on both boards. And it is really an extenuating circumstance because of the 4DB application at Thorndike Place. It's very important that we maintain our members of our board as many as we can going into the final deliberations. And for that reason, the board has asked Mr. Revolac to remain a member of an associate member of the zoning board of appeals until the conclusion of Thorndike Place, at which point his resignation will be accepted and he will serve on the redevelopment board and no longer on the zoning board of appeals. And so that is a reason for his appearance on both boards. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I should just say for the record that if I had my druthers and Mr. Revolac at the time, I'd be perfectly happy for him to continue this relationship indefinitely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next on the speaker list, another Mr. Klein at 16 Adams Street. I just wanted to weigh in. I'm a neighbor almost directly across the street. And I really have no interest in whether or not they rebuild the garage, no dog in that fight. But I can't say that I've been watching them renovate their house since they moved in a couple of years ago like we can do with themselves by hand. You know, I think that it is tough to get cars in the driveway in the garage. I think that having a little extra space in the garage would probably go a long way. No, there's not a lot of space. If you're putting cars in these garages to put snowblower, bicycle, whatever else, I think a little bit goes a long way. I'd also like to say that presently their garage is absolutely consistent with size-wise with ones immediately surrounding it on Adams Street anyway. I can speak for their neighbors to the left. I can speak to my own house, my other neighbors, they can speak to us, so. I did want to say that, and I think it's important that while they're looking probably to go a little bit larger footprint-wise, I think, you know, being in a butter since, you know, that increase is really behind their house and not within the street. I have no problem whatsoever with it. Thank you. Next on the speaker's list is Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Steve Moore, people on the street. I just also want to note for the record that Mr. Revillac certainly did not flash till when Mr. Hanlon made his update of suggestion. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further public comments? I believe the hands that are up are just left out from earlier. Please speak up if that's incorrect. Hearing none, last call for public comment on Adams Street. None. The public comment period for this hearing will now be closed. So there is a couple of questions on this application. We've already discussed the question about the construction type for the garage. And one of the speakers raised the question about whether if the garage is demolished, does that then remove the non-conformity from the property that asked Mr. Bell really to address that because I believe there's a specific reason that there's a request being made to demolish the garage. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, the garage is structurally compromised. I have not seen it personally, but I've had a discussion with the applicant and I think that is the reason for this whole endeavor. I would ask that applicant what the current status of the garage is. That is correct. The roof has failed. It's a cement roof and it's cracked and leaking. And the rear wall is leaking water. It's in really rough shape. So our thought was if we have to do major repairs and take it down and rebuild it, the additional 125 square feet would serve us well for parking cars, storage bikes, kids and all those different things that come with it. Mr. Chairman. Hanlon. I was wondering whether within the knowledge of the board, we've had occasions before. Mr. Loretty has suggested that the right way to look at this is not through the provision relating to non-conforming single family and two family dwellings, but other non-conforming, I guess in this case, he would say structures. And it can't be the first time anyone has tried to expand to build a bigger garage. And I'm wondering whether we have a history of interpretation so that we have a practice that we could follow one way or the other as to which of the provisions of the zoning bylaw applies in this kind of case where you're expanding the accessory structure that is associated with a one or two family dwelling. You know, ask Mr. Dupont if he recalls, I don't recall such a request in the past. I know we've had situations where there's been a request to build a new garage, but not one where there was an existing garage to begin with. Mr. Dupont, do you recall any prior? That's roughly my memory as well, build the garage. Or I know we've had issues where we've had applications where we've had structures that were unsound and then those have been replaced. And I just don't think though that those entailed increasing the size. I too, I was a bit confused along the lines of Mr. Loretty had suggested about the application of the 8.1.3 to this as far as it being a non-conforming single family or two family dwelling. And I do think it's not a dwelling on the one hand. On the other hand, I was looking at the open space and lot coverage regulations. And I'm not sure that it gets me any farther along and trying to analyze this, but I was looking at page 5.16. And it indicates permitted structures, maximum lot coverage, 35%. And then it said below that any other permitted structure and there's a line, there's a dashed line. And I don't know how to interpret that. It seems like there's a bit of an ambiguity. I don't know whether that means that we don't have to concern ourselves with the lot coverage for this accessory structure or other permitted structure. So I'm not sure that I'm adding anything to this, but I'm just expressing where I too in looking have sort of come to a question mark about what the bylaw really intends. All of the comments that have been made by all the speakers, I think help, but I still haven't come to a conclusion myself. I find that relevant section in the... And Mr. Chairman, if I may, I couldn't tell, but is there any usable open space on the slot? Does not appear to be the case. Okay, because the section that was referenced in the planning department memo, the section seven of whatever that was, where it just says private detached garages need not conform to side yard and or rear yard setbacks. And then it gives a table. And I think that we were talking about that, but it's the following page that indicates the section I was referring to about any other permitted structure and lot coverage. So I didn't even know if that 40 to 44% was relevant. This is my bylaw. So this is the section that deals with the location of the setback for the garage. Yep. So type one type two construction of the 3D roof allows it to be closer to the lot lines than it would normally be allowed. And then the lot coverage question. I have it. I think it's the prior page. The lot coverage. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Can I address this question to Mr. Valorelli? I think he may have it off the top of his head. Certainly. What specifically is your question, Mr. Mills regarding lot coverage or? Regarding maximum lot coverage. They are in a pre-existing condition before we even stop this. That lot coverage as it is 44.86% because they're extending that garage. The garage that was there is slightly smaller granted, but I think what makes this a little bit more complicated is in fact they want to put on it eight and a half by 17 foot little storage room on that garage. So that now increases the lot coverage to 48.06%. By the way, already pre-existing non-conforming they're extending a non-conformity. If that wing was not proposed on the side of that garage, this would be a by right permit because they're entitled to build a garage on the lot line type one construction. They are clearly under the maximum height of 20 feet and we don't even have to get into the situation of can you replace something with something new once we remove it because in the section of the bylaw and the dresses structurally compromised buildings and buildings that are destroyed by fire. And I can't put my finger on that section right now but it exists. So the fact that this garage is structurally compromised they come in the building for a permit that is a by right permit. All they're asking the board for is the extension of the non-conformity from a pre-existing 44.86 lot coverage to a 48.06 lot coverage. I see nothing more than that. They never had to get in open space. I hope that answers your question. So I think the question that was raised was whether so this is the building the garage itself is not a single family or two family dwelling. It's an accessory structure. So it would be a non-conforming structure other than a single family or two family dwelling. And so I think the question that was raised was so repair reconstruction extension additions to damage or unsafe structure can be reconstructed. And I don't think there's any question regards to that. But the question was under section 814 which says that no building area or floor area where already non-conforming shall be increased. So as to create greater non-conformity. So I don't, is the garage considered to have a, that is non-conforming? You're directed at me, Mr. Chairman? Yes. Okay, so again, I think that the only thing that kind of throws a monkey wrench in so that's if you will, for lack of a better term is the garage rebuild is fine but they want to extend the non-conformity by that eight and a half by 17 foot storage area attached to the garage. Yeah. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. The provision with which there's a ledge, well, with respect to which there's a non-conformity is not one that's limited to the garage. In effect, all of the structures taken together including the house are contributing to the exceeding of the lot coverage requirement. And it seems, if you had imagined for example that they were adding a little bit to the house you wouldn't have any real problem with that, I don't think, at least under this argument if the increase had been what it is. And there isn't any particular lot coverage requirement that applies to the garage specifically. And I'm not entirely convinced that in this situation the provision relating to the primary used is not the one that dominates. And if that's true, then I think the planning department's memorandum seems to be right as to what one could do. It isn't as if you were talking about something that applied only to the accessory use, but it applies to the sort of entire complex of buildings on the site. It is entirely possible for a garage of this kind to be attached to the house and trying to figure out and treat what the impact when you have this kind of non-conformity trying to separate out the garage from the dwelling seems to me to be arbitrary. And the overall use, the primary use is the use of this land, this property as a dwelling space. So my inclination would be to go that way but I could persuade it otherwise if there was some clear authority to it or if in dealing with this question we had a consistent pattern of interpretation one way or the other. I wouldn't want to be just jumping around but if I'd known no more than I do right now I'd be sort of inclined to think that that paragraph B applies rather than paragraph D. Currently under the zoning bylaw, accessory structures greater than 80 square feet in private garages. There is not a specific size requirement or a maximum size for that in the zoning bylaw. And that specific section eight one four, where am I, I'm still in the sevens, four. This is no building area or floor area where already non-conforming shall be increased so to create a greater non-conformity. So currently there is not a non-conformity in the garage in regards to building area or floor area as far as I can determine. And that being the case, I don't think eight one four B would apply but I don't know if others agree with that interpretation. Order eight one four E, let's say restored restoration work shall not play this structure in greater non-conformity. So is it the consideration of the board that the lot coverage is a non-conformity related to the lot and not a non-conformity related to the structure? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. It's really both. Obviously the lot would not be out of compliance if there was no structure on it because the whole point is how much is on the lot. The difficulty here is that the coverage is the aggregate of the coverage attributable to the dwelling and the coverage attributable to the garage. It's both structures and one is accessory to the other. So I think that it isn't, it isn't, this is not a non-conformity that relates to this particular structure. It's something that relates to the structure to this plus the dwelling. And it seems to me that, so then you have to characterize it one way or the other. And it seems to me that it makes more sense to characterize it by the principal structure than treating the accessory as if it were by itself. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. I would support that look. I do think that you can read these different provisions of the bylaw and you can be led in different directions. And I think it's our job at times to be able to try to synthesize a reasonable or rational response based upon all of the information that we have, including what the text is. And you have up in front of you section 8.1.4E and it says that a structure determined to be unsafe may be restored to a safe condition. And that goes on to say it shall not place the structure in greater non-conformity. And you've already pointed out that you didn't think in terms of area, there was a non-conformity. If you looked at it, even if you did look at it separately as opposed to the approach that Mr. Hanlon's suggesting, but then it says it may be exempted, the structure may be exempted from this provision by special permit. And you could conceivably read to say that that refers to both the completion within one year, but also perhaps with regard to having the structure create a greater non-conformity. So I just think that after all of this is laid out on the table and we weigh it, I think we try to deal with the intent behind these provisions taken together. And I'm comfortable with Mr. Hanlon's suggestion that we should be viewing this in the aggregate. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Ravillac. I agree with Mr. Dupont. Very good. Are there any further questions from the board? I think at this point, it sounds like we are coming towards a consensus that this is something we could allow under the bylaw. We have identified previously the standard three conditions that we would apply to such a thing. I think we would need to add an additional condition that the garage must comply with the provisions. Where's that section? One that references the construction type because that's really gonna be the ends in B7, 542, B7. I would recommend a condition that the garage must comply with the provisions of section 5.4.2.B7 concluding building construction type. And Mr. Valarelli, I believe the building construction type would also address the possible location of windows. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. That was my point earlier on. Yeah, perfect. Are there any other conditions that the board would want to impose upon this project? None. I have a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application before us be approved subject to the three standard conditions plus the fourth condition relating to construction type that the chairman just read into the record. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Any further discussion? Seeing none. A vote of the board to approve 9-11 Adams Street with the four conditions. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Revlak. Hi. And the chair votes aye. The application for 9-11 Adams Street is approved as conditioned. Thank you very much. Great, thank you. Thank you very much. This brings us to item 12 on our agenda for this evening. Docket number 3672, 43 Cutter Hill Road. Hi. This is Zaili of 43 Cutter Hill Road. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of the Zooming Board to allow me to present the application. At this point, I would like my architect, Mr. Sean Yang, to present the plan. Thank you. Welcome. And I will bring up the application here in just a second. Good evening, everyone. Can everybody hear me okay? Can. All right, so good evening, Chairman and Mr. important members. So thank you for having us tonight. My name is Sean Yang. I'm the architect for this project at 43 Cutter Hill Road. Before Mr. Chairman bring up the screen, I was just gonna give you a little introduction of this project. So the house is a one-story single family house on an R1 lot existing. There is the entrance just facing right directly the street to Cutter Hill Road. Where we're trying to propose here, we're trying to build a fine porch. It will be an open porch, but we have a roof. And the purpose for that was to mainly for mailman delivery and also package delivery. Right now with Dalit, the packages and mail just scattered around. It's not a nice scene to watch to see. As we all enjoy online shopping nowadays. So we hope that by doing this, we'll provide a nice shelter and a coverage. And also we're looking forward that this will become more making a house more in writing to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, this open porch with the roof will be considered as, we're not against it as an enclosed porch. So it's gonna subject to zoning by law section 5.3.9. And it's also this beyond 25 square feet. The roughly we propose will be five feet by 20 feet. So it's gonna be a hundred square feet plus minus. So we are hoping that we can get a special permits from you. Mr. Chairman, would I be able to allow to share my screen just to keep you guys some visual reference what that will look like? Certainly, Mr. Valarelli, can you take care of that for us? Let me know if I can do it. Or Vin Lee, can you give him permission to share his screen? I am trying to do that. I believe as a co-host, I think I need Rick to be able to do that. He is the- Oh, okay. We can both, sorry, Vin. Who are we looking for, Christian? I'm sorry. To Mr. Liang. It should be good to go. All right, thank you. You're welcome. Can everybody see this? Yes. Sorry, I don't remember. So this is the existing house. As you can see, the house opened directly to the front. There's no, nothing's covering it. It's not ideal every time when people deliver their package in the mail. So what we try to do, I'm gonna show you another screen. I'm sorry, I am not the expert on Zoom. Yeah. I'm using the final way button. So how about now? Can anybody see this now? Yes. So this is what we're trying to propose. You know, the house, when you compare the two, it is really similar in terms of styles. And I guess it's footage as well. So this is what we're trying to propose on the outside, but it'd be slightly bigger, I believe. Right now, by just looking at it, I think it would be 60 deep at least. So what we're trying to propose is maybe five feet. I think it'd be by 20 feet. So overall, the style would be similar to this one. This is what we're trying to propose. And I'm gonna stop sharing. Thank you. And I just wanna emphasize, this is not gonna be fully open. It's never intended to put a wall around it. So this is the memo from the planning department. This is six building image what the applicant had shown. Are there questions from the board for the rest of this application? None. Go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. Remember, members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve Moore, people on the street. A question for you for the applicant. Is Cudderhill Road a private way? Mr. Lee, is it a private way? Yes, it is. So that explains the chain link fenced up against the road because it's a private way. It's not a setback or a sidewalk holding by the town. That's correct. This is on Cudderhill Road. This is right before Cudderhill turns from being two lane street to like a three-quarter lane street to get around a rock outcropping before it flies back out again. Yes. Yes, I'm sure that's in compliance with all the road. Well, the reason I asked is that the chain link fence was jarring and I thought up against the road, I didn't understand that at all. But thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome. Are there any other public questions or comments? One once, calling in twice? Yes, talk. Yes, it's Wayne and Susan. Ah, yes, please. Wayne and Susan Parsegan. And your address? 47 Cudderhill Road. Yes, please. We're right next door to Psy. And we just wanted to say that we're perfectly fine with what they would like to do. It certainly looks like a nice design. So they've been very nice neighbors since they moved in and we're happy to help them. However, we can and support them. Just to touch upon the question that came up, yes, it is a private way. And my only concern, I guess it's not major construction that's going on, but being a private way, and if any of you have been up and down, it's in pretty rough shape. So I'd just be concerned about if there were large pieces of equipment that were going to impact the road any more than it already is. So. I can speak to that. So in terms of construction, I don't think they will be using Cudderhill Road for delivery. So I think they will mostly happens on the Johnson Road. Johnson. Yep. Okay. That's all I had. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comment? Seeing none, go ahead and close public comment period for this hearing. So I do agree with some of the public comments. I think it's a very well thought out, well planned addition to the front of the house that does a really good job in keeping with the original style of the home. I think it will provide a very good accommodation for the residents. Are there other questions from the board? I think we would, per Mr. Hanlon's suggestion earlier, we would have the sort of the standard five conditions for these projects, which would include not moving the building line or excuse me, the building foundation that would remain where it is and that the portion of the porch that is proposed to be unenclosed will remain unenclosed. Are there any other conditions seeing none? May I have a motion in regards to 43 Cutter Hill Road? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the application for that is before us, subject to the five standard conditions, including the three regular standard conditions and the two related projections and two minimum yards. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Any questions about what we're voting on? Seeing none, the motion is to approve 43 Cutter Hill Road with five conditions. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revlak. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That motion is approved. Thank you all. Thank you. You're very welcome. Thank you. Takes us to item number 13 on tonight's docket. It's 3668125127 Webster Street. I understand from Mr. Valarelli that there may have been some new materials that were submitted this evening. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman, Rick Valarelli, if I may. Yeah. So the applicant redesigned his project and was presenting to the board tonight two scenarios. One, in fact, a variance for an attic with a space grade of 50% of the floor below, which would constitute it as a story. He also was submitting plans for a special permit, which would be the typical lack of usable open space with the desire to add some living space upstairs. Unfortunately, we did get the package and Mr. Lee was kind enough to post those as fast as he could. The problem is, I guess I'll leave it up to the board and the applicant. It is not the kind of application package that I would like to present to the board. I'd like to go through everything and make sure everything's there. And who literally got the package tonight at 631. So I guess if Mr. McKenner is comfortable with what he sent me to proceed, I would leave it up to the chair and the applicant. That is all I have to say. The rest is up to you guys. So I am just seeing this for the very, very first time here. Yes, please, Mr. Hanlon. I just, you know, it's now just shy of 10 o'clock and I'm not very happy with the idea of going into a hearing on an application that isn't even a single application. It's asking us to choose between two possible applications on the basis of plans that we haven't seen yet. And then Mr. Valarally hasn't had a chance to, hasn't had a chance to review. That puts us in a kind of a difficult spot, it seems to me. And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. I appreciate that. Other members of the board. Mr. Chairman. Mel. I agree with Mr. Hanlon's sentiments. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. DuPont. I agree with those sentiments as well. And I also think that it could work to the disadvantage of the applicants because I think that if we are tasked with having to review materials, which we don't fully understand, I think it's quite more likely that there could be unintended mistakes and misunderstandings. So I wouldn't want to see that either. Whereas then the board has, currently has a hearing scheduled for Tuesday, November 9th, which is currently has one item on it. So we could easily hear this on the 9th, if that, if the applicant is not opposed to that. Not opposed. Mr. Chairman, I would just note also that we had that down as a possible deliberation date. We do. Did we not? So would we do both things? So there's all there. We, so that currently they're scheduled for the 9th, a hearing for 31 Melvin Road, which is another new application. So we would do both of these and then a possible, we have to discuss the continuation dates for Thorne Dyke. But I'll go through the calendar a couple of minutes. Okay. So I think at this point, I would look for a motion to continue 125, 127 Webster Street to November 9th at 730. Karen. Yes. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Revolack. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So we are continued on 125, 120 Webster Street, excuse me, 125, 127 Webster Street to November 9th at 730 PM. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. So the next, well, not really item on our agenda, but next on the agenda, pull up our upcoming calendar. Okay. So we just had tonight was the horn in red. So the board is scheduled to meet this Thursday, October 28th at 730 PM for to open a deliberation period for Thorne Dyke Place. And I think the first item on the agenda for that evening will be setting up the schedule for when we will be meeting to deliberate on that hearing. It would be good to try to schedule something the week of November 2nd and 4th, if we can. Then as had stated on the November 9th, we already have a hearing for 31 Melvin Road. We will be adding to that the continuation of Webster. And then there would also be a possible evening to continue deliberation on Thorne Dyke Place. And I do need to talk to the town about the format for how that would happen, because we typically use a different meeting format when we're doing deliberations. So I'm not entirely sure how it works switching formats. And then I would like to try to schedule another deliberation section sometime the week of November 16th through 18th, because Tuesday, November 27th, so I'd gone back and forth with Rick on this. So we had discussed with the applicant trying to close the hearing on the 23rd, which is the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. The issue is that we had a series of hearings that we needed to schedule. And we could either do them then or we could do them the following week. But that following week is actually the week of Hanukkah. And so I would prefer to avoid scheduling hearings that week. And so we kept them on. So there are currently four hearings on the Dyke for the 23rd, but that would also be at the end of the deliberation date on Thorndike Place. So we need to think a little bit. And we can do this on Thursday, so exactly how we're gonna run our schedule to meet those dates. And a lot of that comes down to just how many nights we need to do the deliberation on Thorndike. Any questions about the calendar? Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I would like to suggest that when that we consider when we take up the deliberation from Thorndike Place to go backwards because the condition, well, the waivers, as we did, in fact, in the most previous hearing, the waivers and the conditions lend themselves to sort of a piecemeal approach. Each one is a separate thing and any amendments to it affect a single paragraph, typically, and not much more. So it's easier to go through them and not get bogged down than it is to do the findings where a lot of that is just trying to figure out how to say exactly what we want to say. And we're thinking paragraph at a time is not as good really as thinking more broadly of sections. So I think that we might help ourselves make some progress. I know that I plan to offer a fairly substantial amendment on the transportation section. And there may be other things or organizational things that it would help avoid getting us bogged down to start with the easier parts first and to get to things that tend to be time consuming later on. And at that point, we may have alternative texts to look at so that it would be simpler and go faster. I think that it would be great if we could finish on the 18th, actually, and enjoy Thanksgiving. And one of the things we can be thankful for is not having to deal with this on the 23rd. Absolutely. Absolutely. Here, here. Mr. Chair. Mr. Revillac. I think Mr. Hanlon offers a wise approach. Aside from being possibly more straightforward in the conditions and waiver sections are probably also a little more substantive in that they are things that the applicant will actually be held to. Whereas the narrative, while important, I don't think is quite, it doesn't have the same set of responsibilities. Certainly. Oh, thank you. And we can discuss this further on Thursday, but I agree that that's a very logical way to approach this. Anything further for this evening? No, we are at the end of our agenda. So thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Doning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, especially wish to thank Rick Valerelli and Vincent Lee for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this evening's meeting and to kind of lend them up for providing the Department of Planning Community Development Memoranda. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting is to, the reporting of this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. It is our understanding that recordings made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us That email address is also listed on the ZBA website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. I moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do I have a second on that? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. All those in favor, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revlak? Aye. The chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. You're welcome. Good night, guys. Nice job, good night. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Thanks, Rick. All right, guys.