 So it is 734 p.m. It is Tuesday, May 24th, 2022. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. So members of the zoning board of appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Daniel Riccadelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Venkat Hawley. Here. Great to have you all on behalf of the town, Riccadelli, our administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Valerelli. And Vincent Lee as well. Here. Good to have you with us. And then appearing on behalf of 30 Venner Road. Ayam Chaturri. I'm here. You're here, perfect. Thank you. Appearing for 44 Edmund Road, James Cyper. Hi. Have you with us? And then appearing for 39 Tuft Street. This is Zachary Heath Trustees and KRS contracting. Here. Perfect. And then the fourth hearing that was scheduled for tonight, 82 Grandview Road, they have requested a continuance. So we will, we're not anticipating their presence tonight. So this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures signed into law on February 15th, 2022. This act includes an extension until July 15th, 2022 with a remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order to spending certain provisions of the open meeting law which is spent to the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location for their 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 the hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording and we ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website and less otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As a board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals of the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington formerly known as monotony in Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony, province and commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. The first item on our agenda this evening so that items two through nine are approval of minutes. I'm gonna hold off and do those at the end which will bring us up to the 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 or themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will then request members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal and after the board's questions have been answered I will open the meeting for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So with that, we will move on to item 10 on our agenda which is docket number 369730 Venner Road. And so I would ask the applicant to introduce himself and tell us what he's looking to do. So thank you. I am Anjad Dury. I live in Arlington, 30 Venner Road. Been about 11 years. And our proposal today is for building an EDU for my mom who we're planning to move from India. She's 72 years old and aging. So the proposal here is to build an EDU for her. And my understanding is the EDU is by right now. However, there seems to be a discrepancy in at least understanding of the limits to the property line. And so I think our proposal here is that the variance seems to be for 10 feet for an attached EDU, whereas apparently for a detached EDU it is six feet. We are asking for is a variance or having us go to six feet of property line for the particular proposal. The rest of the thing all online, is there anything I want, anyone has, which I want, I mean anything more specific which I should get into? I can go ahead and display the plan. So this is the plan of access of the house of space farm following correctly. So this is your existing house here. That's good. And this is the the EDU. That's good requesting. That's good. And you're also adding this deck as well. That's good. Okay. Propose it a little bit to the, yeah, says the proposed left side elevation, the section through the EDU with the deck on the top, detail at the front wall, the second floor level of the house and the deck over the top, the dwelling unit, details of the porch, addition plan and framing plan. And then this is the site plan I've been adding a couple of notes onto here. So there's a couple of things. Is there anything else you want to specifically bring our attention to? Not really. What I want to say is the backside is frontage road, which is the ramp of route two of the property. So, we're already, I think at six feet from for a long time there. So the notes the back, they have enter road on the front and frontage road on the back. So it's technically a through lot. So it has two fronts as a front on frontage road and it has a front on vendor road and two sides and no rear. So the, it looks from here that the existing house is nine feet from the rear property line. That's good. Okay. And you have a shed at the back. So there's, but there's currently no deck. That's good. Okay. And just the driveway for me. Yeah. Okay. So as was previously noted, so the accessory dwelling unit's a new bylaw for the town as of last year. And this is the first time that an accessory dwelling unit has come before the zoning board of appeals. There's, then as the applicant had noted, there are different, slightly different rules for if you're doing an accessory dwelling unit in the detached accessory building, like a garage versus if you're doing it as a piece of the house. So here it is connected to the dwelling unit. So this is an extension of the existing house and per the way that the bylaw is sort of defined, we are to treat. This is still considered a single family dwelling as far as the zoning is concerned. It is considered a two family dwelling as far as the building code is concerned, which only the building, the building permit issues would only pertain to inspection services and their review. It has nothing to do with our review. So this being a front and this being a front. So clearly the house is already within the setback along the backside. And under state law in the town bylaws, you are allowed by right to be in the setback up into the existing non-conformity, which would be nine feet. And then beyond that can be allowed by the town or by the zoning board of appeals with a determination that it is not substantially more detrimental. So we would need to sort of discuss the proximity to the frontage road front yard. The other issue is the six feet off the side line. So the current side yard setback in the zoning district is 10 feet. And that can be, and currently the setback is far greater than 10 feet. So to extend the house to six feet off the side lot line creates a new non-conformity with regards to zoning. And as the applicant had noted that this is, if this was a detached building, if this was an accessory garage and it was six feet off of the line, that would not be an issue. But because it is attached to the house, the zoning by-law does treat it slightly differently. And so that's something we need to pay attention to. Are there questions and comments from the board? I was gonna switch away from this and bring up the section of the zoning by-law. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. In regard to the addition, it's eight feet off the lot line. How close is the next residence over? That's at 26 Vernier Road. How close is that building? Do we have any clue? We can ask our good friends at Google Maps. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I happen to have a photograph of it, which some difficulty I could put up, but not quickly. But when you look at the, there's a fence and Mr. Frederick could correct me if I'm wrong. But there's a fence. There's a fairly wide green space between the driveway and a fence. And then a brick house that is located very near to the fence on the other side. That is great. Notice this before on Google Maps for whatever reason, there is no street view directly in front of this property. It jumps by about four houses for some reason. I could look it up on the, through the town's websites, but can't tell specifically from here. And when I could share the photograph with Mr. Ballarelli or someone else who would know how to put it up on the screen. We can do that, Mr. Hammond. See if I can do that. Should be good to go, Mr. Hammond. All right, so I'm sending it to you. Actually, if you could send that to Vin Lee, he has a better technology than I have on my end. Okay. Or is it possible to send it to Christian? I don't know if that would be easy for you. I can, you know, I don't know, I'm not sure that I can send it to Vin because I'm not sure that I have his number one. Christian, I know I have his number one. All right, I sent it to the Arlington, the official Arlington site. Perfect. It's headed there now. See, there always is this benefit of going up and listening to things for free. So Mr. Ballarelli, I should point out that I've got a message for you saying that Susan Ann Koehler has entered the waiting room as looking for admission. Okay, got it, Mr. Hammond. Is that okay with you, Mr. Chairman? Susan Ann Koehler? Bigger pardon? Is that okay with you to admit Susan Ann Koehler? Oh, yeah. Okay, that's done. Let's see if I can image your screen. Oops, I got to open it first, sorry. Your screen. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Seltzer? Oh, I'll never mind, I was just going to offer that there was a Google Street View from the frontage road, but now I see you have a better one from the front. Ah, thank you. So this is the applicant's house, the car and the driveway, and then there's the fence. And then is the fence on the, the fence directly on the pipe with a lot line as far as we know? It's a one inch and a second. Okay. So the, joining the house next door is pretty much biased towards the lot line. It appears, it looks like it's, I don't know, close to the setback if it is 10 feet away. It does, on Google, it does appear to be very close to the lot line. Thank you. Thank you. Can I speak? How do you like participate? Look there. Hello? Hi. Hi. If you're a member of the public, well, we will call for public participation and you can raise your hand at that point. Okay, but we're the neighbors. Okay. The house that you're talking about, but we'll wait, no problem. You can answer your question. So, I will share, this is the bylaw. Accessory dwelling units. So, the basic requirements has to have a floor area not larger than half the floor of the principle dwelling or 900 square feet. In this case, it's just under 400 square feet. So that's not an issue. An alteration, pausing expansion or addition to a building in connection with accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the provisions of section 5, 4, 2, B, 6, which is the large additions, which applies to additions that are greater than 750 square feet, which this would not apply in this case. An accessory dwelling unit shall maintain a separate entrance either directly from the outside or through an entry hall. And this does maintain an independent entry no more than one accessory dwelling unit per principle dwelling unit, which is the case here. And then this I think is the part that's a question, which is an accessory dwelling unit may be located in the same building as the principle dwelling unit or as an expansion to such a building, which is in this case, a building that is attached to the principle dwelling unit or an accessory building, which accessory building shall not constitute a principle, merely by the incorporation of the accessory dwelling unit provided such accessory is located within six feet of a lot line and then such accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed only if the zoning board of appeals acting first went to 3, 3 grants a special permit. So in this case, that it seems fairly clear that that's subsection triple I there is talking about an accessory building, which this is not, this is very clearly the same an expansion to an existing building. So I think this six foot, my sense is that the six foot rule does not apply in this case. And as proposed with the addition being only six feet from the sideline, that that is a new non-conformity and therefore would require a variance to be granted in order to allow that to be done. And I would ask other members of the board what their sense is on that. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hanlon. I sort of remember the process that led to this amendment to the zoning bylaw pretty well since I was fairly close to the proponents. And there's a very good reason why little Roman numeral three is different. If you'll remember, and all of the, it was always emphasized at the meeting that the accessory dwelling units would not, would all have to conform with what is otherwise applicable in the zoning bylaw. So you wouldn't be able to sort of expand into a required setback or anything of that kind. But there was one problem that was a little different and that is what is addressed in little Roman numeral three. It was envisaged that sometimes an ADU might be a conversion of a garage. And sometimes a garage can be within six feet of the lot in line. So they had a special rule for separate buildings, i.e. principally they were thinking of garages that would allow it as long as it was by special exception, if up to this, excuse me, allow it up to six feet and then a special exception thereafter. So there's a pretty big distinction between little Roman numeral two and little Roman numeral three. And at least it's my sense that you can't really consider two as if it were three, because in a way that violates the whole premise under which the meeting acted, which was the ADUs had to fit within the zoning bylaw as it already existed. And there was no independent authorization really to do something that would be different. And obviously this is a case in which the appeal of being able to give an ADU is probably to its maximum extent. But I don't believe that we have the authority to do that as a special permit. If it could be done at all, it would have to be done as a variance, which as the body knows has its own problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. So I agree with what Mr. Hanlon said and I really just sort of tried to absorb this new provision today. But as we're talking about this and in this specific context, it strikes me that we may well be faced with people coming in and saying, you know, I can't do this without a variance. And it's going to be an interesting analysis for us if we're in that position to try to discern whether or not, you know, the conditions, primarily, you know, the new provision itself saying that, you know, that ADUs are actually something that are desirable is going to give sufficient bases for us to then turn around and say, well, given the desire on the part of the town to allow these should that then give us additional, you know, additional basis for allowing a variance. And I'm just throwing that out there as a question because I suspect that we're going to be facing this sort of fact pattern again and we're going to have to make a determination at some point, whether or not just the mere fact of trying to build an ADU gives somebody a leg up when it comes to requesting a variance. So I don't have any answer to that, but it does occur to me as I'm listening to this that we may well be faced with that as time goes on. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So remember the fourth requirement for a variance is that it's consistent with the purpose of the bylaw. And it seems to me that the ADU ordinance may or the ADU amendment may help our analysis there. I'm not sure that it would have a bearing on hardship. I must say that I would be uncomfortable in being asked to administer this and distinguishing between different reasons people have for establishing an ADU. Obviously some things are more appealing to people, but we don't usually take that sort of individual circumstance into account. If this were an ADU in which someone wanted to rent something to as college student for the extra income, the ordinance allows that and the bylaw allows that. And I don't think that we should be invited under the guise of determining hardship to distinguish between more and less meritorious applicants for an ADU that kind of gets into us something that I don't think that you're supposed to do under the variance. And it's profoundly uncomfortable because everybody's judgment as to sort of the moral or emotional or just the policy justification of one kind of use or another would become a very, it would be sort of a rubbery ruler for us in figuring out what we should do. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I have a question for Mr. Valarelli and that is, could someone come in here and construct a garage six feet away from the lot line at this point as a matter of right? Mr. Valarelli. I don't know, Mr. DuPont. We start to get into a lot of coverage details some of the other things. If it were not, I mean, if they were just asking for the garage and not an addition, yeah, I see it possible, but on top of what they're asking, just looking at it real quickly, there'd be a lot cover issues as well as potentially some other zoning issues that they would need relief from. I hope that answers your question. Yeah, I just thank you. I just think in terms of down the line if people have the needed lot size so that they could construct an accessory building such as a garage, they could do that and then do the ADU from that point on. That would be it. Well, that would be a tough one, Mr. DuPont. So if I understand you correctly, if the proposed addition were granted tonight, then down along the lines and where they wanna add an accessory garage structure, is that what you're asking me? No, I'm not even thinking specifically about this particular case, but in the event that you do have, you do have a similar situation where lot coverage is not gonna be a problem, somebody conceivably could build an accessory building such as a garage and then after that's actually in place could apply to us for an ADU or it is. Sorry, you finish your question. So that was it. So somebody could conceivably construct a garage and then after it's built, turn around and ask for an ADU. They could. So it all depends on the lot size, but we're looking at a 5,000, a little bit of a change, a swift a lot, but if somebody had a substantial lot, they could in fact. Okay, thanks. It's possible. Yes. I just wanna stress that it doesn't already, I mean, while people were envisioning the garage because that can be built by right within six feet of a lot of line, if in fact, if it's done in the right way. But there's nothing that requires you to build the garage first. You could build an independent building that would be an accessory building and destined it for an ADU right from the very beginning. They, if I don't know what other things they may violate, but that could be done here as well if the applicant wanted to do that. But you do have to have a separate building in order for number three to apply. I have a question for the applicant if it was just curious if they had looked at any orientations of the addition that maintained the 10-foot step back off the lot line. Yes, so we definitely tried that again. This is for my mom who's kind of lived by herself for many years. I mean, I'm an only child. Yep. She values her independence. So, you know, she wanted, you know, this is basically, you know, her kind of will in trying to get this out. And, you know, with COVID and everything, it's become more and more important for her to kind of be with her family, which is, you know, she's been by herself for the past three years. Okay. You know, so we tried. I mean, we definitely didn't want to come to this stage and we really, really tried to kind of bring it down to like the 10 feet setback. But as you can see, even with the designs now, it's pretty cramped, you know, in terms of, you know, just a kitchen, a bathroom and a bedroom. Right. So, you know, I mean, we definitely tried. Okay. Are there further questions from the board? Mr. Sherwin. Mr. Kedeli. So, in absence of, thank you, Mr. Kandler for explaining the intent of the ADU regulations when they were written. So in absence of a specific limit for little room number two and one on that list, then we should just be considering this, even though it's an ADU as an addition that would interfere with a lot setback, right? Would that be a correct assessment? Mr. Hanlon. I think that's correct. Okay. Thank you. And then the other question before the, it's not specifically raised before the board. So on the, is the position of the rear deck? So the rear deck is actually not a rear deck, it's a front deck, because this is a, again, the front property line. And so it's supposed to have a full setback, like it does at the front. Now, in the zoning bylaws under five, three, nine B, unenclosed steps, decks and the like, which do not project more than 10 feet in the front yard or more than five feet in the side yard beyond the line of the foundation wall may extend beyond the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district which the structure is built. So in this case, it does not, it extends seven foot 10 from the built from the foundation wall. So it does not extend more than 10 feet. So I think by my reading here, even though this is the front yard and not the rear yard that I think that the deck meets that requirement and would therefore be allowed in the yard. Are there other, any other questions from the board? Mr. Chairman, I have a question then. Mr. Hanlon. So sometimes when you can't move out, you can move up and I'm certainly not unlike the rest of you, I'm not an architect and don't have any sense for what that might mean, but this is a one story structure. And I wonder if there's any way of pulling it back and then building it up so that you get additional space instead of having a deck on top of it, you have a second floor or something like that. I'm basically trying to think of ways that you could go about doing something. And I recognize being even older than 72 myself, that going up and down a stairs not an ideal thing for an elderly person, but it may be that one needs to look to unconventional things to figure out a way of fitting this into the property that the applicant has. So at this time, we're ready for comments and questions from the public. So public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asks that those wishing to address the board a second time during a particular hearing please be patient, 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 that we called upon. By the chair, 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 and once all public questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed and we'll do our best to show any documents that you might need as part of your comments. So with that, we have one hand raised, Mr. Loretty. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Chris Loretty, can you hear me okay? I can sir, can I just have your address the record? Yes, 56 Adams Street. Thank you. First, Mr. Chair, can I begin with just a procedural comment or request? Somebody has turned on the auto transcript feature for this meeting. And when you use a phone, an Android phone as I am, it covers up a lot of the screen and the plans as you present them. So it makes it both distracting and difficult to see. And while I don't have any objection to people using that or there's some way they can turn it off so the participants don't have to look at it. I could not find a setting to do that myself. That is a really interesting question. Mr. Valle, did you or Mr. Lee enable the transcript? We're not doing it intentionally, but try it now, is it still going? I still see it. Okay. We're gonna try to remove that, Mr. Chairman. All right, I just note that. I mean, I don't wanna hold up the meeting just because of that, but on the more substantive issues of this application, Mr. Chairman, I do have a few comments. I appreciate you bringing up the issue of two front yards. I'm frankly disappointed that the planning department chose not to provide a memo on this particular application, but that's water under the bridge. And I very much appreciate the comments of Mr. Hanlon because I also studied this very carefully, this bylaw change when it came before town meeting and was frankly someone who was opposed to allowing ADUs in garages. And my recollection about the six feet is exactly the same as his. And it was clearly advertised by the opponents and stated repeatedly that these ADUs would have to comply with the same setback requirements as a home, just as if they're a regular house. On this particular one, one thing I would note for the people who are more familiar with the building code is I don't see two means of egress for that accessory dwelling unit. And I'm wondering if it isn't used to some extent more like just an addition to the home. And indeed, as Mr. Hanlon implied, there's no reason that an ADU cannot be built as part of the existing dwelling unit. So if indeed you had to keep it to one story, you could take away some space of the existing home and then build out more of the second floor for that same home. What it seems to me is really needed here is a creative architect and not a variance. And regarding the variance, I don't see in the application that this comes close to meeting the state requirements for granting a variance. You know, as you know, there's very specific criteria that have to be met, they're very strict and they're just not there. And the neighbors really need to know that because if any of them are opposed, it would be very easy to get a variance overturned for this application as it's given. So, you know, all in all, I think it would set a very bad precedence for the board to be granting a variance just because this is an ADU. And some people in town very much like ADUs and it has to be considered just like any other addition. And I would suggest that based on what's been presented, you would never get this a variance if it was just an expansion of a kitchen or a living room. So it really seems to me contrary to public policy for this to receive a variance, you know, given the facts of the case. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Loretty. Next on our queue is Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. One quick question. I noticed when I was looking at Google Maps, a very large tree in the rear corner, but I'm thinking that's on the neighbor's property. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Looking at the, let me bring up the photograph that was provided by Mr. Hanlon. Is that this tree in the back corner? Yes. So that may actually be on, that's either in the neighbor's property or- No, that is part of our, sorry. I think that was not supposed to be my turn. That is not, Mr. Chair, that is not your lot, the developer's lot. I would just ask that, Mr. Chadori, if that tree is in his yard or not? It is, it is. But it's beyond where you would be proposed, where the proposed addition would occur. Yes. Yeah. So the Mr. Chair, the applicant is going to retain the tree? That's correct. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Stop, share on the image. I see no other hands up for public comment. Ah, there we go. Next up would be Greg Bartlett. Good evening. My name is Rosemarie Kamatz. This is Greg Bartlett and I live next door to Ayan, hi Ayan. Hi. And I just want to ask and perhaps even recommend that the question that earlier was asked about how far the, what was the distance between the property line, our property line that we share with Ayan and the house, that rather than refer to Google Maps, that we go rather to the town assessor's office so that the data that we're looking at is consistent. Thank you for that. Was there anything further? No, that was it. Thank you. And sorry to interrupt earlier in your meeting. No, not at all. Thank you so much. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address this hearing? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment for this hearing. So this was advertised both as a variance and as a special permit. And there's a variety of different questions before the board in regards to this application. Let me just go ahead and go back to the final page here. So the question is before the board is, I think it's fairly clear that in order to approve this addition as proposed, we could approve the six foot off of the frontage road lot lined as a special permit as a determination that is not substantially more detrimental. However, the six feet off of the side lot line because it creates a new non-conformity that could only be approved by the issuance of a variance. And as was mentioned by members of the board and by Mr. Loretty, there are four specific rules for specific criteria that need to be met for the issuance of a variance. I'm trying to call if this application has those within it. A special permit application does not have the variance application in it. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I wonder whether actually there is a variance application. I mean, this may have been advertised as a variance because ISD understood that it may be necessary. But there's nothing in the record that indicates that the applicant has sought a variance. And more importantly, there's no place in the record that I saw, maybe I'm wrong about this, where the applicant has done his best to make a case for why he should get a variance. So in some ways, I'm a little bit nervous that we really haven't been in the situation where the applicant has had the opportunity to make his case or even to consider what this all would mean and so on. It's coming at him. I just sort of worry, we sometimes have the situation but going from an application as it's advertised and without an application that contains the explanation for why the applicant believes he meets the requirements and so forth is not a procedure that seems very fair to the applicant. I'm wondering whether, so I'm wondering what we should be doing about that. I hesitate to go forward with the variance when we don't really have a record for that at this point. We haven't really discussed them except right now. Right, I would like to just review what would be required as the findings in the variance and then we can ask the applicant if that's something that you'd be interested in pursuing. Let me quickly try to find, this is the variance criteria. So I went down here to the does under state law variance maybe granted when all four of the following criteria are met. First criteria is described the circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography, especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located that would substantiate the granting of the variance. Criteria two is to describe how a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning bylaw specifically relating to the circumstances affecting the land or structure noted above would involve the substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner or appellant. Describe how desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and then describe how desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington. And the state law under chapter 48 section 10 requires the zoning board of appeals must find that all four criteria are met in order to be authorized to grant a variance. If any one of the standards is not met the board must deny the variance. So we just reiterate that because that's these are the rules that we have to operate under if we were to consider a variance. And so I think we would return back to the applicant Mr. Sheruri and sort of ask, I think as far as a variance is concerned where it's a very, very strict standard and personally I'm not entirely certain and I think other members of the board have expressed it as well that you may have a difficult time making a case based on those four criteria. So Mr. Hanlon had asked, had you considered applying for a variance or is that not something you were considering? Yeah, I wasn't aware to be honest that there was a separate application. Yeah. Okay. So at this point, I think that we have a few different options on things we can do. If we wanted to proceed, I think that I'm not sure the board can proceed, sorry with granting this by a special permit because of the new non-conformity in the side yard and therefore it would need to be reviewed as a variance. It has been advertised as a variance. The board is authorized to go ahead and discuss that, but I think it's something that the applicant was not prepared for and therefore I think possibly a better option for the applicant is if you would be interested in a continuance. So we would essentially table your application for now, give you a couple of weeks to sort of consider how you would like to proceed and then you can come back in two weeks and we can sort of discuss it further if you're interested in pursuing a variance or if you wanna talk with your designer about see if there's another way to possibly alter things so that you can stay out of the side yard setback. Does that sound like something you'd like to pursue? Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. Absolutely. So the next, Mr. Vellarelli, what is our next date? June 14th, Mr. Chairman. June 14th. And as it stands now, it's a fairly light night. I think two cases minor in nature. Okay. So then may I have a motion to continue the hearing for 30 Venner Road until Tuesday, June 14th at 7.30 p.m. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Mr. Chairman, before we take a vote on this, if I could just make one comment is that, it's been emphasized that these are very strict criteria and I'm hoping that the applicant takes the opportunity over the next couple of weeks of taking very seriously whether he can meet these criteria. It may be that Mr. Vellarelli is right, is what he needs just an imaginative architect more than he needs a variance. And so I would hope that both things would be on the table. Everybody would sort of like him to be able to solve his problem. And our hands are tied by the law in a number of ways. And I'm hoping that he'll keep an open mind as he figures out what it is he'd like to do before he comes back to see us again. Thank you, Mr. Vellarelli. With that, I'll take a vote of the board on the motion to continue. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Riccadelli. Hi. Mr. Holley. Hi. And Ms. Hoffman. Hi. And the chair votes aye. So we are continued on 30 Venor Road. Thank you so much for coming before us this evening. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity again. That brings us back to the agenda. Next item on our agenda is docket number 368844 Edmund Road. We invite the applicant to introduce himself and tell us what they would like to do. Hi, can you hear me all right? We can. Thank you. Wonderful. My name is James Sipar from 44 Edmund Road. And what we're hoping to do is build an extension on the back of the house, adding a bedroom, a family room and a basement section. And the issue is that it's sort of a long narrow plot where we're already in violation actually on both sides. On the left side, we currently have 8.2 feet and on the right side, 8.9. And if we go back, you know, the house is a little bit crooked on the plot. So we go straight back, we'll go from 8.2 to 8.1 on the left side and 8.9 to 8.1 on the right. One thing that I'm hoping is a mitigating factor on the right side is immediately to our right is not another house, but it's actually a right of way. About 12 foot, we're right of way. And then the next plot that belongs to a house. So while we are in violation with that right of way, we've got an extra 12 feet before the next actual, you know, plot that belongs to a house. That's what we're hoping to do. Well, that, what are the questions you might have? I had something. My name's Carl Gumez with Mieland Instruction. Are you the contractor for this property? I am, yeah. So I'm helping Jim with the addition and I just wanted to add a couple of things. So we're also seeking a section permit, okay? And that's for the size of the addition. It's actually 104 square feet larger than the prescribed by right addition size. And currently the house is 1,380 square feet at the Dutch colonial. This is on a very small lot. And like Jim said, it's currently non-conforming lot on both the left and the right sides. And we basically have three issues that are creating a hardship on this property. And it kind of forces us to plan the addition the way we have and to locate the addition the way we have. First is the shape and size of the lot. And you can see that it's skewed from the street and it also gets narrower as it extends to the rear. So you see the 45 feet in the front and it's 38.8 in the rear. So it's getting narrower so we get and squeeze in. The second item is the lot at the rear yard has two steep inclines. One is at the rear and one is at the right side. So we kind of force be pretty much tight in the back of the lot. And the third, like Jim mentioned is the fact that we have this 12 foot right away as our neighbor on the right side. This is servicing several houses at the rear of the lot. It's actually servicing houses that are on the parallel street, which is Forest Street behind Edmund Road. This right away creates a burden on a lot as it uses a family home. And you can imagine people driving up and down these three or four houses that it services. And as much as it being a hardship, it's also a benefit by the fact that you are artificially or seemingly having a larger setback to the next property, which is a house 12 foot beyond that, okay? So in a way it's trying to help with the criteria of the bylaw and having a more substantial setback. Granted these release, we really do not see any detrimental impact on the neighborhood. In fact, we think it improves with the property value of the structure and also it's in keeping with the family oriented neighborhood. Now we spent quite a bit of time on the application or variance criteria. And I think that we've met those criteria and then some and we'd really appreciate your consideration tonight and approval. I know that Jim has spoken to some of the neighbors and I'd like if you could think about that Jim, that'd be great. Sure. So I spoke to actually the neighbors on the right a couple of times, most recently this morning, because they were curious about what we were gonna do because they had actually done something similar on their house a while ago and their son was younger. And that they didn't have a whole lot of questions. I sent them the plans. Encouraging. We spoke to a few other neighbors and there are a few other people in our neighborhood who had also done similar things if you kind of look around our neighborhood. It's a lot of these sort of small colonials with additions on the back, just like this. So there are a few people who had had similar experiences. Thank you. And from here back to the tabulated information on the page. Is the 854, is that the size of the addition? That's correct, yeah. Okay. So the combined would be the sum of the 1380 and the 854. That's right. 2234. So as was noted before, so the front yard's not in question. Everything is at the rear. The left side is going from 8.2 to 8.1. The right side would go from 8.9 also to 8.1. Both of those are preexisting nonconformities that would be increased. The rear yard depth doesn't list what the present condition is, but I'm imagining we could calculate that just from the plot plan. So we're adding by my notes, I think it's 15.3 to the back. The house is not straight across on the back. So it's 15.3 on one side and 19.5 on the other. Okay. Yeah, so now it's like 60.7 going down to 45. And then there's no questions about the height. So for usable open space, the definition of usable open space, it has to be 25, at least 25 feet by 25 feet. And it has to have a minimum, a maximum slope of 8% on 25% of it. And so looking at the grade mark callouts that are on the plan, 84, so 84.39, 84.74, excuse me, 94.92 on the other side here. Is the retaining wall, is that a retaining wall on the side? It is. Yes. Okay. And it maintains the rear yard is relatively flat to that point. Yes, up until the, it's probably like three or four feet from the right of way where it slopes up again. Okay. And then it slopes in the back too. Yes. Yeah, it looks like it slopes minimally to the sort of the back left corner and maybe a little bit more towards the back right corner. Yes. There's about six to eight feet here in the back. Okay. Yep. Yeah, there's a retaining, on the thing, there's a retaining wall that goes most of the way across. And then there's like a big chunk of rock sitting on the corner of that retaining wall. Ah, okay. So there's a couple of things for the board to consider here. That's just noted. One is that it's a large addition which has a specific finding and an application of the requirements for a special permit. It does appear that the house, as it is existing is compliant with usable open space. And it also appears that with the proposed addition, it would still comply with the requirements of usable open space. But I think that's a calculation that would need to be provided to inspectional services before they could issue a permit. And then the final piece is the question of the side yard setbacks. So this has actually been a little bit of a moving target in town and at the state level. Over the last couple of years. So under state law, if for single and two family houses, if there's a preexisting non-conformity as there is on both sides of this house with the side yard setback, a zoning board of appeals may approve an intensification or an increase in that non-conformity with a determination that it is not more detrimental, not more substantially detrimental than the current condition. And that is referred to as a section six determination and that was affirmed in a zoning case at the superior court. So the board should be under state law, the board is allowed to make this determination. In the town's bylaw, we have an older provision which I will go ahead now and switch over to 813. The 813C, which is the extension of an exterior wall of a single or two family residential along a line at the same non-conforming distance within a required setback may be allowed providing the extension creates no new non-conformities, nor increases any open space non-conformities. And that no such extension shall be permitted unless there's a finding by the special permit granting authority that the extension shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming dwelling. So this has been used primarily in town to require a variance for this kind of, so if you are reducing the side yard setback that you would be required to issue a variance which is contrary to what is allowed under state law. And actually at last Wednesday's special town meeting, town meeting voted to strike this section of the zoning bylaw. And as an added quirk under state law, zoning bylaw changes go into effect immediately upon passage. And then if they are not approved by the state attorney general, they are retroactively reinserted. So we're in sort of this strange place, but I think we're in a fairly safe place to say that the zoning board of appeals is able to act upon the request for the increase in the intensity of the incursion into the existing non-conforming side yard lines. I believe that the board is well within its rights to act upon that by special permit. And I would just ask Mr. Hanlon if he concurs with that opinion. Chairman, if you can hear me, I turned the video off a moment ago and now I can't turn it on again, but nevertheless I do completely concur with that. I think that the guiding principle with respect to the special permit would be 8.1.3B. And under the circumstances, the intrusion into the side would count as an extension in the nature of the non-conformity. And that is allowed by special permit as long as we make a so-called section six finding that the change will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And I think that may have been true even if C continued to exist. But if the town meeting has repealed C as it has, then we're left with 8.1.3B and that's the framework under which we can operate. Any other questions specific to that question of our ability to operate as it's under special permit? None. So then going to the board, are there questions or comments for the applicant in regards to their proposal to provide an addition off the rear of their house which requires our action under large addition and under the extension of the existing non-conformity with regards to this two-side yard lot lines? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I would just echo what both you and Mr. Hanlon said and I do think, I know you were referring to the Bella Alta case. Yes. I think the language in that case is pretty clear that under section six, that we are authorized irrespective of what the bylaw itself says. So I feel that we're on pretty solid ground. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Are there any other questions from the board for the applicant in regards to what they're requesting? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open this hearing for public comment as was stated earlier. The purpose of public comment is to help inform the board in making its decision. If you would like to speak, if you could raise your hand by selecting the raise hand button under the participant tab or if you are calling in, you can dial star nine. Anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this hearing around? I don't see any hands and I don't see anyone waving frantically in their window. Once it's going twice, go ahead and close public comment for this hearing. So that brings us back to, excuse me, the question before us. So this is a request to build an addition to the rear of the existing house. It would require, we would call it two or three special permits, the two three findings, the first being the large addition and the second and third being the extension of the nonconformity into the left side yard line and the right side block line. And it has just occurred to me that I have not printed out for myself the form that I usually sell out at this point in the hearing includes information on the conditions that the zoning board applies. So thank you, pardon. Standard conditions here, we're gonna start. Okay. So we're the board to approve this application. There are three standard conditions that the board would attach. The first reads the plans and specifications approved by the board for this special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There shall 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 would be the building inspector is hereby notified that he is to monitor the site to proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he determines that violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And the standard condition number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. I would also propose a condition that the applicant is to provide a certified plot plan indicating and dimensioning the areas of the existing and proposed site that comply with the requirements of the usable open space. It's indicated in section two of the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington to the inspection services department for review and approval. That is just to confirm compliance with that. Are there any other conditions that the board feels would be justified? Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So it's not really a condition but I do note that in the advertisement for this particular the public notice it indicates that there is also the need and a request for a variance. And there is a variance application attached to that. So before we sort of wrap things up here I think that we need to dispose of that somehow whether it's that we put in some language indicating that based upon, you know the mass general laws, you know, section six of chapter 48 that, you know we've determined that a variance is not necessary or perhaps the applicant withdraws the application for variance but I just don't think that we should leave that hanging. So it would be the most appropriate action on that. I think we could, I think it probably makes most sense to ask the applicant withdraw the request for a variance. It would certainly be the cleanest. And the reason for withdrawing it would be that it is not necessary at this time. All right. We could do that. Would that be just a request? You formally or is that part of this meeting? I would ask Mr. Valarale if he thinks it's fine that we receive that verbally. Mr. Chairman, it is, that is your call and understood. And we will request that variance be disposed of. Okay. So we will formally withdraw the application for variance. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I think the way to do that is since the applicant has just requested that it be withdrawn and it's been noticed already that we should just move to accept the withdrawal and then that will dispose of it without prejudice. And then we can get to the main business of doing the special permit. So I have a motion to accept the withdrawal of the variance application for 44 Edmond Road. So I shall move. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. The vote of the board in regards to the motion to accept the withdrawal of the variance application for 44 Edmond Road. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So that's there. We accept that the variance has been withdrawn which brings us back to the special permit application. So the board will go back to their application. I'll bring up quickly the doxy memo from the Department of Planning and Community Development. They review the special permit criteria. The criteria one on requested use. So the requested use is permitted through a special permit. The use itself is an allowed use but we can grant this through the special permit in the R1 zoning district. So let me grab our form. It's a little easier to follow. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just to, we're proceeding under really two basic, two different provisions of the zoning by-law. One of which is section 8.1.3B and the other of which is the provision on large additions and they're a little bit different but those are the two provisions of the zoning by-law that authorize us to grant a special permit. Okay. So the first is the large additions and the second is 8.1.3B. Predictions is, large additions of 6B6 under, yeah, 542B6. So in the case where the requested use is listed the table of use regulations. So as Mr. Chairman pointed out because for large additions it's 542B6 and for the non-conforming, the existing non-conformity in a single and double family is under 8.1.3B. Explain why the requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. The applicant has proposed that the proposed addition creates more living area for growing long-term Arlington family. It'll allow the family to stay in their home while also giving them the space they need. Criteria number three, explain why the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or undue impair pedestrian safety or proposed additions of risk out of the property and the addition will not increase the number of inhabitants living on the property. Therefore the proposed design will not create undue traffic nor will it impair pedestrian safety. The fourth criteria, explain why the requested use will not overload any public water drainage or sewer systems or any other municipal systems to such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate area or any other area of town will be unduly subject to the hazard effect in the health safety and general welfare. Number of inhabitants will not change due to the addition simply expanding to create more living space for the current family. Therefore the addition will not overload public water drainage or any other municipal system. Criteria five, describe how special regulations for the use as may be provided in the zoning by-law including but not limited the provisions of section eight are fulfilled. The home is non-performing in nature due to the size, shape, et cetera. The proposed addition does not increase the number of habitants nor does it impair the integrity or character of the neighborhood district. And there's also a special provision as Mr. Hanlon had noted under large, the provisions for large addition which requires making its determination the Board of Appeals finds the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. And so this is a residential neighborhood. This home is in the middle of the residential neighborhood and the addition just increases the living space in an existing single family house in keeping with the current architecture of the house. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just to elaborate on that a little bit, the addition is made in the rear so that it doesn't have an adverse effect on the frontage which is actually consistent with the residential design guidelines. The testimony that we've had in the hearing indicates that similar additions have occurred in the back on a number of the other houses in the neighborhood and that too means that the way in which this is proceeding is more or less in harmony with everything else. One of the potential problems that the large traditions are attempting to get at is avoiding situations where you're too close to the lot line and you're overwhelming the neighboring properties here that clearly isn't happening in the back and the de minimis amount of additional approaching on either side is essentially trivial and on the one side you've got the right of way so that that makes it even less of an encroachment on neighboring properties and all of those factors it seems to me go together to help establish why it is that this is in harmony with the neighborhood and with the adjacent drones. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. And then also under that same criteria under the finding that the board needs to make under 813 on the nonconforming single family or two family dwellings the board needs to make a determination that it will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and in this for the reasons very much as to why this is in harmony as stated by Mr. Hanlon go directly towards why this is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Returning to the criteria. Oops. The sixth, explain why the requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining districts nor be detrimental to the health and welfare. The applicant is before the district is primarily residential homes the proposed addition allows for the family to grow and stay in their home keeping the property from being bought by developers or rental agencies thus keeping the district family oriented and not impairing the integrity or character of the district or districts. And as Mr. Hanlon had put forward under the previous section that maintains the house being in harmony with the neighborhood. And for the last criteria explain why the requested use will not by its addition to the neighborhood cause an excess of the use that could be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is primarily single family homes the addition allows a long-term Arlington family to stay in its home walk creating more living area for the family to grow thus keeping the neighborhood and family oriented therefore maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Go back to paragraph E. The special regulations is something that we routinely sort of just go right by and most of the reports from the planning department indicate that no special regulations are required. I just wanted to make the point that this language comes from before the at least the language in the bylaw comes from before the recodification in 2018. At that point the provision that included the affordable housing provision the inclusionary zoning and the provisions for non-conforming use were all in a section that was labeled special regulations. And I believe that the special regulations that are being referred to are the things that we that were referred to previously and then this was a provision that wasn't changed during the recodification. So just, I mean, this is perfectly sensible the way the applicant has put it in. But I just wanted to draw the attention of the board to the fact that we're not reserving we don't have the right to just create special regulations. The issue really in almost all these cases where we have a non-conforming use is whether section whether what is now section eight is complied with and here the finding would be that it is. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. Are there any further comments or questions from the board? Seeing none, the chair will entertain the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that the board approve the special permit for the large addition and for the extension of the non-conforming use subject to the conditions that the chair has previously read into the record. Mr. Hanlon, do we have a second? Second, thank you Mr. DuPont. So this is a vote of the Board of Appeals to approve the special permit application for 44 Edmond Road with the four conditions that were previously read into the record. So vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mels. Aye. Mr. Rigidelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is a unanimous vote to approve the special permit for 44 Edmond Road. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good night. You're welcome. That, coming back to our agenda. Item number 12 on the agenda, docket number 3698, which is 39 Tufts Street. I invite the applicant to introduce themselves and introduce what they would like to do. Good evening. My name is Carl Shanley. We're looking to renovate 39 Tufts Street, basically bringing the house back up to code. The current owners have owned it since 1980 and their son is intending of moving back in and using the second and third floor for its own residents and then still keeping the first floor as rental. That's kind of the gist of it. It's all going back onto the same frame that is originally there. The only thing that'll be added would be the dormers on the roof that would more make more living space on the third floor. Thank you. And bring up the application document. This is the site plan for the existing house. And Ms. Shanley, I believe you said you're staying entirely within the existing footprint. Correct. So there is an existing backyard which qualifies for a usable open space. We're driving down the side in the existing garage. Yes. So the basement, so the increase in the area of the basement, is that just a change in the use of an area? It's actually a change in the back porch accessibility. We are not aware of what's under there for a foundation. But yes, I would assume just by that change is probably making the difference. Okay. And then the additional space in the attic area and the 637 is less than 50% of the 1279, which is the area of the floor below. Right. Certified plot plan. And I believe the plans that we received is just the proposed plans. Had you prepared a set of existing plans at all? We had. And you're looking at an older schematic. Ah, okay. I can share my desktop. We provided back in January a permit set of drawings. And then I think they asked for existing conditions at that point and we submitted those back in February. They don't seem to be included in this package, but I could show you, take you through them if I could share my desktop. Mr. Valarelli, can you give Mr. Harley the permission to do so? I can do that. Mr. Holly, you should be good to go. Mr. Hanlon? I was just going to ask Mr. Valarelli if the plans that we're about to see are already in the record as he knows it, since if not, we should get a copy of them for the record. Mr. Hanlon, what is on Novus is all that we received by Inspectional Services. We did the numbers based on the proposed, the plans that we have and everything checked out with the exception of the open space. It was already pre-existing non-conforming at 22% and with the additional GFA, it's going to be 20%. So to answer your question, no, I'm probably about to see the existing for the first time. Okay, so if I could make the request that the applicant provide, I don't want to get into whether or not it was already provided and so forth. If the applicant could just provide a copy of the existing so that we have them for the record, that would be beneficial. Okay, absolutely. So here's the existing first floor, where you come into, okay, I don't do this a lot. So is everyone seeing the existing first floor plan? So yeah, you come in from the existing stoop into the entry up a stair to the second floor, second, third floor unit. This is the entry for the first floor unit. And then there's entries off the back in the existing sunroom, which you can access the first floor unit and then up into the second. Currently, there's a little bit of, there's really no place once you're in your own unit to take off your shoes, hang up your winter coats and those kinds of things. And we were looking for ways to improve this for the owners, the second floor. You arrive from that existing sunroom up into the existing kitchen. This is the stair down up into what's a little entry and then the stair on up to the third floor. There's an existing bedroom there now that's very low and tight and into a sort of double closet and into an existing bathroom. So all these features that we're working on are there now we're just expanding them. On the proposed, what we're looking for is separate entries so that you come in in the first floor unit you have a closet and in the back you have just generally where the majority of it coming in, you'll have a little mud room, a place to take off your shoes, hang coats and a closet and then the same two bedrooms, renovated bath and a new kitchen. The second and third floor units will have a new entry with a coat closet. Again, a little mud room up the existing stair into the living space on the second floor, the same two bedrooms, new kitchen. In the back, a mud room at the top of the stairs and a laundry and then on the third floor. Oops, yeah. Up at a stair, a small sitting area into what we call a master bedroom, a dormer out facing the street and then a dormer to get a little bit of light in the master bath, a walk-in closet. The, there seem to be a little bit confusing at the confusion with the planning board. There's attic over all of this space and the 600 and I think it was 37 square feet is above seven and there's 600, I think it's 40 below seven feet. So that we met the criteria for the half story rule. And the seven foot is taken from the top of the finished floor to the underside of the roof structure. Up to the rafters, yes. Yeah. And the elevations. So the living space is sort of stack up. We align that dormer into the third floor with those spaces as a small roof kind of for scale. And when you're coming in the front doors, you have a little bit of coverage. This is the existing, there's an existing some room that we're proposing to rebuild and this will provide the rear entries for both units. I would just on this elevation here just to note for the record. So the only differences that I see between the submitted elevations, the elevations that are presented here on the north elevation that's sort of on the first floor, the third set of double windows to the from the, that was counting from the left. That was shown as a single window in the prior plan. And that's now being shown as a double. It's just that third that windows over and on the south elevation in the upper level the double window is the same. And then the individual window, the smaller one is shown is slightly more to the left now. So now it sort of appears to be sort of centered on the gap between the two windows below before it was sort of in line with the left edge of those two windows below. And then also the roof shape is slightly different. It was a gable roof and here it's a gambrel roof. So it has the extra little hitch in the roof. And then the front and the rear elevations looked essentially identical with the exception of the additional ridge line because of the gambrel. And then do you have existing exterior elevations? No, just the plans and I do have photos. We have photos to back up. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, the tough street side, the little garrison goes over and there's a crossing gable and in the rear, this is that existing sunroom. And it appears to be a frost wall on a slab below this. And what we're proposing on that is the basement stair, the existing basement stair is very steep. And what we'd like to do is in this entryway, get you a little bit better stared down. So we'll be, you know, the proposals to report that foundation and create the space to bring that down. Okay. And so at the basement level, then that the sunroom will connect to the rest of the basement? That's correct. Okay. Are there questions or comments from the board? Chairman. Mr. Hanlon? I understand this and I'm a little bit unclear as to what was just said about the implications of what's going on with this sunroom. But it's fair to say that after the alteration of this structure, everything is going to be completely within the existing foundation walls. Correct. That's correct. So just for the record in general, there was a question raised because this is a two-family house in a single, in an R1 district. And there was a question as to whether this was sort of how that came about, what the providence of that was. And the building inspector, Mike Ciampa, was good enough to provide me with a copy of the original building permit from June 16, 1938 that clearly indicates that it's a dwelling for two families. So it was originally built as a two-family house. Existing non-conforming use that's not being altered. So zoning by the laws. So then the, where this is an, so I guess this is the question for the board. So where this is a two-family house in a single family district, the use is technically, do we think that the use is technically non-conforming? And the reason I bring that up is, so there are several sections of the zoning by-law that deal with non-conformities of the lot and of the building of the structure. But the section that deals with section 812 is the section that deals with non-conforming uses, which means so unless the Board of Appeals has made the finding provided for, in general law, 48 section six, which is the determination that it's not more, substantially more detrimental. And section 811, then in order for the non-conforming principal use of the structure to be extended, the Board needs to find that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood extension. And then 811 is the applicability section. I apologize, I need to refresh for myself. So it reads, except it's provided in the section, the by-law shall not apply to structures where use is lawfully in existence or lawfully begun or to a building permit or a special permit issued before the first publication of notice of the public hearing on this by-law, which is December 14th, 2017. However, this by-law shall apply to any change or substantial extension of such use or to a building permit or a special permit issued after the first notice is said by the hearing or to any reconstruction extension or structural change of any structure and to any alteration of the structure but done after the first notice is said by the hearing to provide for its use in a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a substantially greater extent, except where alteration reconstruction extension or a structural change to a single family or two family residential structure does not increase the non-conforming nature of such structure. Reexisting non-conforming structures or uses may be extended or altered provided that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there's a finding by the Board of Appeals that such change extension or alteration shall not be more substantially detrimental to the existing non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood. It is the purpose of this by-law to discourage and perpetuity, excuse me, discourage and the perpetuity of non-conforming uses and structures whenever possible. So in order to approve the extension of the existing non-conforming use, the Board just needs to make a determination that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Are there any further questions or comments from the Board? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open this hearing for public comment. Public comment is taken as it relates to the matter of hand and is to be used to help inform the Board and the decision. If you would like to speak to this hearing, if you could use the raise hand feature in Zoom under participants tab or if you're calling in, you may dial star nine. So with that, the first on the speaker's list is Mr. Loretty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chris Loretty, for using the chat atmosphere again. Can you hear me? I will answer. Thank you. And thank you for getting the original building permit posed to demonstrating that it is indeed prior non-conforming, pre-existing non-conforming use, but this is a one family district, that side of Tuss Street. And I believe with perhaps one exception, this is the only two family home on that side of the street. And I think there's a couple of things the Board needs to consider in just the size of this structure, particularly with the addition in comparison to all the other homes, all but one of which I think are single family homes, because it really is substantially larger. And I think Mr. Valorelli mentioned that it is increasing the non-conformity with respect to usable open space. And there's also another dimensional non-conformity that it's increasing because it's a two family and a one family district. This structure has, I believe, an FAR limit of 0.35. The existing structure doesn't come close to meeting that and that's only gonna get worse with the addition. So what my understanding is, and this has happened on my street of two families and it happened on the next street over on Foster Street with two families is in order to prevent the increase of the open space non-conformities, the developer has been required to remove the garage. And I believe that's an appropriate remedy in this case as well, in order to prevent the increase in the usable open space non-conformity and to alleviate, well, I guess it doesn't really alleviate at all the FAR requirement, but I think it does make it more consistent with the single family homes in the neighborhood in regard to the massing of the structure with the size of the undersized lots. And these are all, I believe, undersized lots. Thank you. Thank you. Other members of public wish to speak to this question? I believe Mr. Harley, did you want to speak to the? Yes, I'm sorry, I was having trouble finding the raise my hand feature. I did want to say also across the street, there's a very large three-story school that's a part of this neighborhood as well, this directly across the street. So it's not, anyway, it's in terms of, I think scale in the neighborhood, it's very close and again, much smaller than the building directly in front of it. That's all I was gonna add. No, thank you. Any further members of the public wish to speak to this hearing? Mr. Barron? Oh yeah, I do. Mr. Barron. I guess technically 41 Foster Street on the new director of facilities for the town of Arlington, kind of representing the Gibbs School. So really comments, it may probably not affecting denial or approval. I just wanted to, you know, verify traffic, noise, dust, stuff like that, control during the construction if this is approved. And what the question is on timing, when do you believe the construction will occur? The majority of the construction is deemed to start sometime in the summer between, and then the tenants are meant to move out between the 31st and the end of June. And the majority of the deconstruction reconstruction should be done before the school term starts back up again. And then everything that is will then be restricted to parking in the parking lot. There is quite a lot of parking in that driveway, probably six, at least six trucks. And we feel that that should be ample enough for the people that are on site at that time. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? I mean, no, go ahead and close the public comment for this hearing. I did want to just go back and just confirm what Mr. Loretta brought forward in the R0 and R1 districts. There is no FAR for a single family detached dwelling, but for a quote, other permitted structure, there is a maximum FAR of 0.35, which I believe would apply to this property. Going back to the application. Don't believe that it doesn't look like the FAR was calculated. But we can take a quick pass at that. So the existing gross square footage is 37.16 and the proposed is 42.34. So the proposed would be 0.35. 0.847. The existing is 0.743. And then for usable open space, the present condition, let me actually just go ahead and share this. So it's an existing undersized lot. The frontage is undersized. FAR, as we just discussed, the current condition is 0.743 and the proposed condition is 0.847. A lot coverage is unchanged. Lot area for dwelling unit doesn't change. They're not changing any of the setbacks, the height in stories. So the present condition is slightly under 2.5, probably around 2.25 or 2.2, going up to 2.5. Is the, the height is changing slightly as they are replacing the roof. That's correct. And then the landscaping as a percentage is greater than a percent. And then the usable open space at the rear of the property, as we mentioned before, it has to be at least 25 feet by 25 feet in order to qualify. So this property currently has 835 square feet of usable open spaces unchanged. And the percentage current condition is 22%. And it's being proposed to be reduced to 20% where the minimum is 30. So that is an increase, it's a requested increase in the existing non-conformity. The parking spaces, parking area setbacks loading, type of construction and the slope of the roof. So at present, it appears that there's several different issues going on here. So one is a non-conforming use extension, which under section 8.2 from that, 8.1.2. Yeah, so under 812, the non-conforming principal use of the structure can be extended with a finding by the board that it is not substantially more detrimental. And then the second is the extension of existing non-conformity with usable open space, extension of existing non-conformity in regards to the FAR. I believe it is just those elements. Is there anyone aware of any other non-conformities that were present? Chairman? Yes, sir. So we're dealing with a non-conforming structure in terms of the proposal, correct? In terms of the usable open space. So that's the structural element. And then there's the continuation of the extension of the use non-conforming use. So do I have that right? Is that what you were? So there's two non-conformities in regards to the structure. One has to do with the usable open space that is currently only provides 22% relative to the gross floor area. And then the expansion of the house decreases that to 20% when the minimum is supposed to be 30. And then the second is that the existing FAR for a non-conforming use structure in the district is supposed to be 0.35. And it's currently at 0.743 and it's supposed to be increased to 0.847. Mr. Chairman? What's your hand line? So I'm not hearing you. I'm sorry. You're with me a minute while I get the machinery out. Oh, I can hear that. Okay, well, let me see if I can do without the machinery. Section 8.1.3a provides that alteration reconstruction, extension or structural change to a single or two-family residential structure, which this is, that is completely within the existing foundation walls does not increase the non-conforming nature of such structure. And while I, so there are two ways of, it's not, it seems to me that that addresses directly the situation where an increase in the force base of the structure is going to tip off things that are essentially based on, so the usable, the FAR and the, it seems to me at least that the FAR and the usable open space requirements ought to be covered, all other things being equal by 8.1.3. And I've, A, and I've been wondering why it is that we have the jurisdiction to find that there's an extension of an increase of the non-conforming nature of such structure at all. Now, it may be that the fact that this is a non-conforming use means that an increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure, which of course this isn't under Section A might be treated differently because the use itself is non-conforming use. But I'm wondering what, this is all sort of, as it's not too unusual with the non-conforming uses, there are various provisions that are all sort of coming together in an odd way. And I'm not 100% sure that we're in a position to make a Section 6 binding of no detrimental impact because we are precluded by 1.1.3a from finding that there's an increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure. So it's a little bit of a puzzle. If this were, if this were, if the extension, if this were a one family and there was not a non-conforming use, what would it be? It seems to me that Subsection A would apply and the question in my mind is whether it makes a difference that it's a non-conforming two family use. Very interesting question. Certainly in my sense, is that, let me go ahead and just display the text of 8.1.3 here. So this is 8.1.3a that Mr. Hanlon has just been explaining. So I think it could be taken to imply that 8.1.3a would basically cover the question of usable open space and the question of FAR, but I don't think it would cover the question of the extension of the non-conforming use, but that can be allowed with the Section 6 finding. I'm not 100% sure, Mr. Chairman. Ordinarily when you're talking about the extension of an unsuccessful, you're talking about a mom and pop coffee shop turning into the kickstand or something, which is wonderful, but you're not talking, it does seem to me odd that the only extension of the non-conforming use here, the use is pretty much the same as it's always been. It's only that the structure is increased that we're treating as an extension of the use. And I'm wondering whether the concept of extending the use is broad enough to include something that is entirely a matter of increasing the structure. It's an odd sort of thing because if you have a little store and you make a really big store out of it, that in some ways exchanges can use as the way in which the store operates is different depending upon whether it's a farmer's market stall or whether it's a weakness. But I'm not sure that the kind of change that we're envisioning here is one that involves any significant extension of the use if it's too family, it's still too family and more or less on the same scale it always was. Right, so the warning of magnitude two specifically that unless the Board of Appeals has made the section six finding any non-conforming principle use of a structure shall not be extended. And in this, I would take extended in this meanings to meaning that it would be extended into an addition, but I guess it could also be, is there another way to consider what the term extended might mean in this context? Because here it says, if you Mr. Chairman any non-conforming principle use of the structure shall not be extended. And here it's not really the use of the structure that's being extended. It's the structure itself that's being extended and that's what 8.1.38 is supposed to be. Yeah, yeah, this section B has always been a little odd because the second part of it which deals with the change to another non-conforming use deals with odds with the first sentence. And of course, this is a very general provision that's supposed to apply to all kinds of non-conforming uses. Whereas the provision in 8.1.3 B is focused and was intended to provide a more lenient treatment for single family or two family dwellings. And so I'm a little nervous about taking what seems to be a favorable treatment for single family or two family dwellings in 8.1.3 and sort of taking away from that based on 8.1.2 which is much broader than that. Other members of the board feel on this point. I guess we could make a finding that in regards to the extension of the non-conforming use and then we at least have that on the record in case that there's a question that comes up later in that regard which would then just leave us with 8.1.3 A as the justification for why because everything is within the existing foundation wall it's not increasing the non-conforming nature of the structure. So if the non-conforming structure is not becoming more non-conforming than I think Mr. Handlin's point about the usable open space and the FAR numbers both being covered under that provision makes sense. Mr. Chairman, it's conceivable that I mean I've just been thinking about how to write this up in a way that avoids delay while we work with town council and try to resolve this. We could grant our ability to grant the permit is based upon the notion that there's an extension of the nature of the non-conforming use. That's a term of art that we use. We could simply raise a question is that it's doubtful that there is an extension of the non-conforming use because of 8.1.3 A, but the applicant has sought a special permit and we're prepared on the assumption that there is an extension of the nature of the non-conforming use assuming that we are interested in granting the permit that we could say we're also prepared to make the section six finding the no detriment finding and then there you are. And then it is what it is. Nobody is going to complain that we've issued a special permit that we didn't necessarily need to issue depending upon what the conditions are. I suspect somebody might complain if we sought to eliminate the garage. I think that would be sufficient. I will say when we get, I mean in a moment we get to, I think the point that Mr. Reddy made, this is close to my house. I walk by this all the time. It really is true that the street and as is true also at Bates Street to some extent, this really looks one, most of the buildings are not built up to the, they're short, there are two stories. And this will I think with the suggestions that have been made look quite different from the prevailing trend of the street. So I wouldn't necessarily assume, well, I don't know that it'd be non detrimental and I leave that up to the architects in some ways but it's not entirely clear. There is a difference in scale that you guys might wanna take into consideration. Running along tough street, there are a lot of those sort of garrison style houses with the two stories where the upper story extends over the first story by a foot towards the street and capped in a gable roof. That's where the ridges parallel to the street. So there are many of those. Granted, this house is, the house immediately to the left is only a single story house which exacerbates the height that it appears but sort of looking up and down the street it's not abundantly clear that as it's built it's taller than the others and the addition portion is really off the rear but yes, the proposed alteration where they're gonna change the roof shape and would make it slightly taller would change the appearance but I recall from driving over there last weekend it didn't strike me as being significantly out of scale with the rest of the houses. Mr. Chairman, I live in the neighborhood as well and I walk on the street some days and I think it's sort of a unique street. There's this technology that's similar to the house that we're looking at here but there's also a couple of triple-deckers which are very unique to Arlington across the street and then the school is sort of a, the neighborhood doesn't have one consistent language I would say as much as some of the other neighborhoods in East Arlington do. My personal thought is that as the main structure of the house isn't changing that it would not be more detrimental even with the addition of the dormer on the front roof just looking at kind of the context around it. And so looking at a higher view, 39, that same sort of shape and layout appears two houses down on the corner with Raleigh Street and then on the opposite side of Raleigh Street again is that same what appears to be another identical house. There are several instances of that on the street and then the proposed expansion granted is going to sort of the sides will become much more prominent because basically the right now the way the gable is set up on the side it's about 50% of the length of the house and the proposal is to change it to be the full length of the house. So it will be a different appearance from the way it is now in terms of those other houses that are similar. So if the board were to approve this project we would have our standard three conditions to Mr. Barron's point about the construction directly across from the Gibbs school. Are there any conditions in relation to that that we would want to consider? Did sound from the testimony of the contractor that their intention is to have most of the major construction done prior to Labor Day, which would help to keep this from impacting the school itself? Correct. Had you said that there was sufficient parking offsite on the property for- There's a, we estimate this somewhere between five and six vehicles can park off street most of the day as well as we're gonna have accessibility to the garage. Obviously the house will be completely vacant. So the garage will obviously be usable for storage of new and whatever other stuff needs to go on site. So we're trying to keep everything to the back of the property. Obviously children's safety is precedent. We hope to have a envelope before weather turns so that we can be working inside and so forth. The main objective is to get it buttoned up and clean and then do the inside stuff then after that. Okay. Does anyone know which side of the building has the student pick up and drop off? Is it on both sides or one side or the other? You believe it's tough straight is it a one-way access? Okay. Yeah, the, sorry, the parking- Very. Yeah, hello. The parking is directly across, almost directly across from 39. So there would be probably teachers and maybe parents coming in and out of that parking lot. So there would be a concern for traffic and then the only other concern, even during non-student months or when the school is out, dust control would be a concern. I think most of that's inside at that point anyway, but there are air handling units directly across from this property. And so we would be concerned with the air handling units of the school. I know a lot of contractors think they're not making a lot of dust, but it doesn't take much to clog up the filters. So we'd just be concerned with dust control. We'd probably end up trying to keep the roof on the house and keep the envelope the way it is while the interior's got it and then move on to the roof and the outside structure at that time. Hopefully that would do it. Anyone from the board who'd want to close the condition based on these concerns? Chairman? Chairman? I wonder, I mean, this is the sort of thing that Mr. Barrett needs to be sort of involved in. They sort of detect the back and forth that as Mr. Barrett raises a point, Mr. Harley or Mr. Shanley have an idea as to how it might be done. I don't think we're in a position to just prescribe how everything is to be done. And I wonder if a condition to the general effect that the applicant will consult with the school division ways of addressing these problems and leave it up to them to work it out might be a better way to receive. Otherwise, that seems to me that we'd have to ask Mr. Barrett to work together with Mr. Harley and Mr. Shanley to present to us the conditions that are necessary in order to govern this. Since I don't really think that we're in a position just to make them up on the spot. Absolutely, communication is easy. We can exchange phone numbers and be in contact when things are happening. So he's aware of them. So he's not hearing about the third party. So maybe the condition that we, that just says that the applicant will consult with representatives of the school district to address parking dust control and other issues. Mr. Barrett might be able to help me finish out that list in a mutually satisfactory way and then expect the process of work. Oh yeah, I'm fine with being in communication with the construction team on site there. I'd have to see if there's, there may be summer programs there as well. I'd have to verify that too. But as long as I had the contact there from, you know, I highly doubt that, you know, it would be much effect on the school. But if there is an effect on the school, I'd like to be able to come up with a, you know, maybe stop work and a solution to continue. Absolutely. So the applicant will coordinate with the school department to discuss issues of dust control, noise and traffic as they relate to the Gibbs school. Is that? No problem. Okay. So that would be a proposed condition number four. Are there any other questions, comments or concerns from the board? Seeing none, I would ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the application for a special permit subject to the four conditions that the chair is just writing to the record. Thank you. Just to step back to three standard conditions that were read in the record before and the fourth condition that was read into the record just now. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this would be a vote of the zoning board of appeals to approve a special permit for 39 Tuft Street with the four state conditions, three standard and the one additional. Before we take that vote though, I just want to make sure that we are all in agreement with the finding that that the extension of the proposed, as Mr. Hanlon has stated before, it's very possible that we do not need to have a finding that the extension of the use is not more detrimental, but on the possibility that that is actually a required finding based on the zoning by-law, I think it's important that the board go on the record as to whether they approve that as well. So are there, I guess, is there anyone on the board who feels that the extension of the two family use into the larger confines as the house is proposed would be more detrimental to the neighborhood? So seeing none. Okay, I just wanted to make sure we had that on the record, thank you. So then the motion before us is to approve a special permit for 39 Tuft Street with the four conditions. It has been moved, it has been seconded. So are there any further questions? Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Rickard Alley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are approved on that special permit. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good luck. Cheers. Back to our agenda, this brings up docket number 3696, 82 Granview Road. As we had noted before, there has been a request to continue this hearing. I do see that there's a member of the public who has a hand raised. I'll go ahead and ask them to speak. Hi, this is Holly McLaughlin. Just a quick question on the 82 Granview Road request. If the owner does intend to proceed at a future date with that request, will we receive additional notification through the mail? And at what point? So there will not be a separate mailing, but we will be, so the vote that the board is gonna take, we have to continue to a specific date. So we will be, so the vote that will be proposed will be to continue to Tuesday, June 14th. So that is the date they would be returning. Okay, thank you. You're very welcome. As noted, the applicant has sent a letter to Mr. Valarelli requesting a continuance. They're trying to work out some details of their proposal with an abiding neighbor. And so while they're working on that, they have requested a continuance. So I would accept a motion to continue the special permit hearing for 82 Granview Road until Tuesday, June 14th at 7.30 p.m. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. So this is the vote of the zoning board of appeals to continue the special permit hearing on 82 Granview Road until Tuesday, June 14th at 7.30 p.m. Any further questions on the board? No. Being none. Yes, sir. Just, I think it should be clear that I'm not sure that this would apply in this case, but by accepting the request of the applicant for a continuance, I assume that it's understood between the applicant and the board that the statutory time for the board to act would be equivalent to the extended. As well taken. Mr. Chairman, if I may, Rick Valorelli. Mr. Valorelli, please. Those continuance form will be going on to the members either later on tonight or tomorrow by a docusign if they could please look at the town email sign that can get that back to me would be much appreciated. We'll do, thank you. Thank you. So vote of the board to continue. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. And Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on 82 Grandview Road. And that brings us to the end of our hearings tonight. So we will return to the administrative items on our agenda. So these items relate to the operation of the board and it's such to be conducted without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. After introducing each item, I'll invite the members of the board to provide any questions or comments they may have. So going back, item number two is the vote to approve the meeting minutes from our September 2nd, 2021 meeting. Yes, we are a little behind in our minutes. So these were distributed to members of the board for questions and comments. Hopefully everyone has an opportunity to take a look at those and send them back. So are there any further questions or comments on the minutes from September 2nd? Seeing none, I will move to approve the minutes. I have a second. Second. Thank Mr. Mills. So there are four members of the board who are present at that hearing. We're still members of the board. So I'll just go through those. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Stain. Stain. Mr. Mills. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. Bring us to item number three, which is approval of the meeting minutes from September 9th. We'll be distributed to the board for questions and comments. I'll send back to Mr. Valarelli. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the minutes from September 9th? Seeing none, I move approval. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Stain. Stain. Mr. Mills. Aye. The chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. It brings us to item number four on our agenda, motion approved minutes from September 14th, 2021. Those were similarly distributed to the board for questions and comments. Are there any further questions or comments on the minutes from September 14th? Seeing none, I move to approve the minutes. May I have a second? Second. Second. I throw in my aye. Throw in Dupont votes aye. Mr. Hanlon. Stain. Stain. Mr. Mills. Aye. The chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. That brings us to the minutes from our October 26th, 2021 meeting, similarly distributed to the board for questions and comments. Are there any further questions or comments as they relate to the October 26th, 2021 minutes? Seeing none, I move that we approve. May I have a second? Second. Aye. Dupont. Mr. Dupont. Stain. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Stain. Of Stain. Mr. Mills. Aye. The chair votes aye. So those minutes are approved. That brings us to the motion to approve the minutes from our November 23rd, 2021, either distributed to the board for questions and comments. And are there any further questions or comments on these minutes? I will note that there were only, there are only three members of the board who were present at that meeting who are still members of the board. So Mr. Mills was not available that evening. So I move approval. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Mr. Dupont, how do you vote? Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Since there's only three, I'm going to vote aye. Very good. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. That brings us to the minutes from our December 21st, 2021 meeting. These are distributed to the board for questions and comments. Are there any further questions or comments as they relate to the minutes from December 21st? Seeing none, there are six members of the board who are present at that meeting. We're able to vote. The chair moves approval. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. A vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. I'm staying. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. That brings us to the minutes from our January 25th, 2022 meeting. These minutes were distributed to the board for questions and comments. Are there any further questions or comments on the minutes from January 25th? Seeing none, the chair moves approval. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. And there are six members of the board who are present who can vote on this. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Mr. Dupont. Aye. And the chair votes aye as well. That brings us to the minutes from March 22nd, 2022. These were distributed to the board for questions and comments. Are there any further questions or comments as they relate to the minutes from March 22nd? Seeing none, the chair moves approval of the minutes. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. There are seven members of the board who are present at that hearing who are able to attend the minutes. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. I'm staying. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Mr. Dupont. Aye. The chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. All right. So that has all the items that were on the agenda. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. I just, this is, I don't want this to be out of order, but I have to tell you that on Tufts Road, I was squarely in favor of 8.1.1. And honestly, every time I read that section, I need a cup of coffee and some Tylenol. Because honestly it's like, you know, pulling down and connecting dots. But I swear I would love to have an executive session to go through this section of the bylaw and say, what does this actually mean here? Because honestly, I thought that there, I won't go into the details. I'll talk to you about it on another occasion, but it really seems at times to be very torturously worded. And I think there's a lot in there, but I just, I get a different sense every time I read it. Anyway, editorial comment, that's all. Just as a footnote of that, it's, I mean, much of that torturous language is in the state statute, which is impossible. And actually going through this, and it's not a bad idea for us, I mean, to just in general have an executive, I don't know that it needs to be an executive session, but a meeting where we just, you know, talk about what it means. We may have dug in there or something like that. But working through that is, it's kind of hard. And it would be useful to have a little bit of continuing education on it so that you can say, and to figure out hard spots and to get help. Yeah. Is that something that might be interesting to pursue with the redevelopment board who also is bound by the confines of this section? I'd just like to get a consensus from the people we're sitting with here tonight as to what we think it means and sort of go from there. But the more the merrier, I suppose. Yeah. This is curious. In regards to, you know, the interpretation of the zoning bylaws. So the town meeting has just scratched the surface on Monday on the zoning articles. Wednesday night and possibly the following Wednesday night will both be dedicated to zoning articles. So if anyone is interested in how those play out at town meeting, you can feel free to watch on ACMI. Or I post to the Arlington list my minutes from the meeting afterwards. So you can just sort of skim the cliff notes as it were. But the articles that the zoning board put forward to the zoning bylaw working group that the ARB put on the agenda, there are six of them, five of them still need votes. One of them was approved as a part of a consent agenda on the first night of town meeting, but those are likely to come up this week. Anyone is interested in watching that progress. And if you do want to watch that progress, you should be assured that there's plenty of time to go out and get popcorn between the acts. Yes. Yes, we are not a fast-moving bunch on town meeting. So the next meeting of the board is set for Tuesday, June 14th at 7.30 p.m. We have two new hearings on the docket. One is 3840 Newport Street and one is 68 Brandwood Road. And then tonight we continued both 30 Venor and 82 Grandview. So those four will be taking place on Tuesday, June 14th. And then the next meeting after that, Tuesday, June 28th currently doesn't have anything on the agenda. Are there any further questions for tonight? Seeing none. I thank everyone for their participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, especially wish to thank Rick Valarelli, Vincent Lee, and I appreciate all of you especially wish to thank Rick Valarelli, Vincent Lee, and Marissa Lau for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. Is our understanding of recordings made by ACMI will be available on DemandedACMI.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 Zoning Board of Appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Mr. Handel and Mavis, second. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. The vote of the Zoning Board of Appeals to adjourn, Mr. DuPont. Aye. You hear that? Aye. Mills? Aye. Rickidelli? Aye. Ms. Hoffman? Aye. Mr. Holley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Good night, guys. Good night, everybody. Good night, everybody. Good night.