 So it is 734 p.m. It is Tuesday, May 25th, 2021. This is the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. It's calling this meeting of the board to order. Would like to confirm that all members in anticipating the visuals are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Hupnant. Here. Patrick Handlin. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Aaron Ford. Sorry, here. And Stephen Revillac. Here. Wonderful. Good evening to all. I'm out of town, Rick Valorelli. Here. And Vincent Lee. Here. I don't believe there's anyone else in the town who's waiting on tonight. And person's appearing for 83 Palmer Street, Bob and Essie. Yes, I'm here. Here, fantastic. And appearing for 34 Marathon Street, McGoverns are here. There we go. Hi, I'm here. Oh, wonderful. All right. This open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020. The order publicly suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of the public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Public bodies may need 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 public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom app with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being reported and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Other participants are participating by computer, audio, or telephone. 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 reporting. 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 unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the answer to promoting an orderly meeting. And where we are starting a new hearing this evening, I'll just read the town's new land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals discusses an arbitrary use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotomy and alconk when we're in quick waters. The board 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 bullet line of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. We will begin this evening with several administrative items including the approval of minutes. And actually we'll not do the approval of minutes, sorry. Approval of decisions and discussion on the board about the future of online meetings. These items relate to the operation of the board and such will generally be conducted without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearing or will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought to the board? After the introduction of each item, I'll invite members to provide any comment, questions or motions, please remember to mute your telephone or computer when you're not speaking. Please remember to speak clearly. If members wish to engage in discussion with each other please do so through the chair taking care to identify yourself. So we have item number two on our agenda is approval of the decision for 12 Christine Road. The decision was written by Mr. Hanlon. It was distributed. I believe everyone should have had an opportunity to comment on it. Are there any questions or further comment? Seeing none, may I have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move that the final decision for a special permit in 12 Christine Road be approved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon, may I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Members in favor, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revlak. Aye. The chair votes aye. That decision is final. This brings us up to item number three, the approval of the decision for 53 Pine Ridge Road. This is another decision written by Mr. Hanlon. It was distributed to the board for questions and comments which I believe were received. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the decision for 53 Pine Ridge Road? Seeing none, may I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that the draft final decision in 53 Pine Ridge Road be approved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon, may I have a second? Second. Aye. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Call the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revlak. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That decision is final. That brings us up to item number four on our agenda, which is the discussion of post-COVID meeting protocols. So this appears to be a topic that is moving at an extremely fast rate of speed. I had a conversation with the town council of Dukheim on Friday, where it was looking like those are the notes that are available on the website where sometime between the first and the 15th we have to transition to being back in person. Subsequent to that yesterday, there are our house and Senate bills now in the Massachusetts seeking to extend some of the provisions of the relaxation of the open meeting law that are in effect because of Governor Baker's order from last March. But apparently they're both attached to the budget bill. So they would probably not get passed until the very end of June, which is of course after the date when we would need to transition. And then just this afternoon, Mr. Hanlon brought up my attention that Governor Baker spoke and he himself is introducing another bill which would actually extend, it appears it would extend all of the provisions, possibly until September. Whether this is specifically to give towns and cities an opportunity to come up with new policies or whether this is just related to pre-existing summer vacation plans that necessitated the change, we don't know, but it appears that there will be action in the state, hopefully taken before the 1st of June to extend the current provisions we're operating under. So that will give us and give the town an opportunity to figure out how we can move forward in a hybrid fashion. At town meeting earlier this month, there was a study committee set up by the town in order to investigate how best to implement this transition. But it looks unfortunately like we are going to have to implement this transition far ahead of when that committee gets against us to really get going. So that's more sort of an update on where things stand with us. Are there any questions or comments from the board in regards to this? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just wanted to point out that at least the news stories around the governor's announcement suggested that a part of the purpose of the announcement was to provide the legislature with an opportunity to study and to move forward on some more permanent resolution just as in many areas of life, some of what we've done during the pandemic, we intend to continue to do. There's that sense in the legislature. There's some of that going on as well. And we're coming up against the deadline right now. So part of the idea is not so much to give the legislators a vacation over the summer but to give them time to get their job done. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. So it, although under the current emergency order we basically have a window of between June 1st and June 15th to give thought to meeting again in person, I would be inclined to err on the later side if for no other reason than, I won't get my second vaccination until early June. So if for, as much as I miss seeing everybody in person I am personally not in a rush to give up virtual meetings just yet. Thank you. Anyone else? I see none. We'll go ahead and close this topic for now. I'm sure we'll get additional additional information probably be rolling in very soon from the status to exactly what whether Governor Baker's action is approved and we're moving forward in that direction. So I guess more details coming. So this brings us up to the public hearings for this evening. Now trained to public hearings on tonight's agenda here are some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves and make their presentation to the board. I'll then request that members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered I'll open the meeting for public comment. So the next item on our agenda is item number five docket 365883 Palmer Street. And the hearing on behalf of the applicant is Sir Robert Inessie. I'd like you to go ahead and introduce yourself and explain to us what you are looking to do. Yes, this is Robert Inessie appearing for the applicants. And I have a rather unique situation for me at least. I've never encountered this kind of an appeal before. And I think Mr. Hamlin, Mr. DuPont may understand the concept that I would talk about in terms of it's almost like a complaint for declaratory relief. What I'm asking the board to do is not to look at the situation presently as far as zoning is concerned. What I'm asking the board to do is go way back to 1955. When this particular decision was written by the zoning board of appeal. When it was written in 1955, essentially what the board did is the board allowed an assemblage of a three lots, basically into two lots. And the two lots wound up being subdivided into one containing 4,582 square feet that had a single family home on it. The other lot containing 5,504 square feet did not have a home on it. I'm given or understand of any kind. What the board did is, the board basically rendered a decision at the time and said that you could have the subdivision that you could have a single family house or a house. I shouldn't say single family because it didn't say that at all. But that you could have a house on the lot containing 4,582 and a house on the lot containing 5,504. So we have to go back to 1955 and try to view what the neighborhood looked like in 1955. And one of the ways that you can do that is by looking at the block plan that might have existed then and other matters as well. But if you look at the block plan and even look at the block plan today, I think what you'll see is that the lot containing 5,504 square feet was one of the larger lots in the neighborhood. All of the lots, I'm given or understand on the other side of Parma Street, on the other side of 83 Parma Street were two family buildings, two family lots. As I look at the block plan, I see two numbers and the two numbers indicate to me that they were two family dwellings. So the board certainly had that in mind. And again, I'm asking the board to do something that's unusual here. I'm gonna be requesting that the board go back in time to 1955 if the board believes it has the authority to do so for the purpose of interpreting what the zoning board meant when they subdivided that property into two lots. Why? Because the then zoning board didn't indicate that the lots were to be for one family homes or two family homes. Now my argument as counsel for the applicant is that the neighborhood even then consisted largely of two family homes. And the board and the collective members of the board must have been aware of that fact back in 1955. And my position for the applicant would be if the board meant to limit the lot containing 5,005 square feet or either of the lots for that matter to a single family lot, then they would have said that in the decision. The problem is the decision is devoid of any of the matters that ordinarily would be contained in a zoning decision. There are no findings and facts with respect to how they concluded whatever they concluded. And so there's nothing that we can look at for that to that effect. However, the other argument I make is notwithstanding that fact, the board did come to a decision in 1955. And when they came to that decision again, they knew the neighborhood was largely two family. They didn't say that the subdivision limited construction of the homes to a single family. And if they wanted to say that, they could have said that, but they never did. So my argument is that we all know that there's a 20 day appeal period with respect to any defect in a zoning decision. And you can make an argument here reasonably that there was a defect in the zoning decision. Why? Because they didn't make the findings of fact that they should have made with under chapter 48, even as at that point in time. But my position is that where they didn't do what they were supposed to do, and they didn't certainly say that the subdivision was limited to one family homes and the 20 day appeal period expired that they meant, okay, whether they meant it or not. But as far as I'm concerned, my position would be that the bottom line is that it was a two family lot, okay? Not a single family lot. Now, I'm not asking that the board look to present zoning. If you had to look to present zoning, we don't have enough square feet on the lot to satisfy the 6,000 square foot requirement, okay? So I'm not asking that the board do that. In addition, if we had to look to present zoning, I think it'd probably be a question of a large addition as well, because I had the architect fill out the dimensional information even though it would not be relevant to my argument, because my argument isn't whether it complies with present zoning. My argument is what was the intent on the part of the members of the zoning board back in 1955. And I'm suggesting to the board that I filed an application for both a special permit and a variance, because I didn't know what else to do in terms of getting the matter before the zoning board of appeal. So I'm asking that the board step in at that point and help the client out in terms of where we are and perhaps interpret that decision from 1955 and interpret it so that in fact, the subdivision resulted in lot B becoming a two-family lot, even though a single-family house was constructed on it after the zoning decision. Thank you, Mr. Nessie. So just to clarify, has the building department stated that this is not a two-family lot? I spoke with the building department and Rick Bellarelli would know this as well. And I was told that the matter should be determined by the zoning board of appeal. And that's the reason why it was chucked up to the zoning board of appeal. And that's what happens in these situations where there are gray matters and the building department perhaps doesn't feel that they have the ability at their level to make a determination. So it gets chucked up to you folks. That's what happened. And we're in between 1955 and today, the town has on several occasions voted to adopt an updated zoning map in which this parcel is identified as a being within a two-family district. So you're saying notwithstanding those votes, there is still a question as to whether this lot is allowed to have two-family. It's a two-family. Well, what I'm saying is that it's a two-family but that the subdivision allowed a two-family building to be constructed on the lot in 1955 because I can't comply with the current lot area requirement for constructing a two-family on this lot. I don't have 6,000 square feet. I don't have that. So if I had to comply with present zoning, that's a problem for me. I'd have to get relief of that with respect to present zoning. Okay. So you were looking to amend the 1955 decision not because it specifically precludes the construction of a two-family house but because by modifying the original decision, you feel it would allow you to construct a two-family house by right? That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm suggesting. That's what I'm suggesting that that was the intent on the part of the members of the zoning board in 1955 because essentially that's pretty much what they said, okay? In their decision, in 1955, the proposal was quite in keeping with several others already submitted to the board which pertain to lots in the block between Plano Street and Beacon Street and the resulting lot, lots would be as large or larger than the average, lots in the vicinity. Yes, you hit it on the head. That's what I'm asking the board to do. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. Members of the board. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. When was the house that is currently on the lot built? Say again, Mr. Hanlon. When was the single-family house that is currently on the lot built? It was built shortly after the decision. Maybe within a year or so. Did somebody jump in? The assessor's records indicate 1955 as the year. So maybe around the same time, yeah, within the year. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not any particular plans to build a house were before the board at the time it made its decision in 1955? I have not seen any. I know that, okay? And I did make in part, but I haven't seen any. If there are, I have not seen them. Is there any evidence that, well, I'm guessing the answer to this must be no, but when it was actually built, have you seen any of the papers that were submitted to what was then with the building inspector to know why it was that it was allowed? Mr. Nessie, I'm losing you. I don't, we can't hear you very well. Yes, I'm sorry, you cannot hear me? I can now. Okay, all right. I do not, okay? I have not seen any plans, okay? When the house was built, okay? My argument of course is that it wouldn't make any difference because even if the house was built as a single family, which it was, okay? My argument still is that you have to look at the zoning decision as it was written, okay? And what the zoning decision said, we're not talking in my opinion about what the then owner of the property did to clarify the intent of the zoning board. We're talking about what the decision said for the purpose of clarifying the intent of the zoning. No, I do understand that. I'm trying to understand if there's any evidence as to what the building inspector thought when he was presented with the plans, but I gather that that is the subject on which we currently have no information. Would it make it, let me focus in on whether it's two or one. If you were planning now to raise the existing single family house and to build another single family house there, would your argument before us be any different? You still don't have the authority to, I mean, you still don't have an adequate lot to build a new single family house. So you seem to me to be more or less in the same fixture in now. My argument, I think you're right, okay? I think your analysis is correct, yes. So the real problem here is building anything on non-conforming a lot. Well, I don't know that it's technically a non-conforming a lot, but at least a lot that is too small. We can agree on that. Okay. Do you have any understanding? This is, you have no reason to necessarily be up on that, but in the last six weeks, this is the second case that we have had in which a long ago Board of Zoning Appeals, Zoning Board of Appeals has approved an odd subdivision of lots that resulted in a lot that was non-conforming and that therefore, and knowing that that's what it was doing. And now we're in the situation of trying to figure out what to do about that. Do you have an understanding? I mean, what this looks like is an application for permission to do a subdivision. And today, of course, as far as I know, the Board does not have that authority at all. So it's not something that we see in our normal business, but I have the sense that the Board in those days may have had powers that it was acting under that are not the power to issue a special permit or the power to issue a variance, but something else. And I'm wondering if you have the knowledge to teach us as to what authority the Board was actually exercising here and what the rules were, what the statute is, whatever, I mean, authorities don't come from just nowhere. So where does this authority come from? I certainly go back to, I did not begin to practice law in the town until 1967 or 68, but certainly going back to then, I can attest to the fact that the zoning Board did in fact allow subdivisions. And they were doing so in my view under the provisions of Chapter 40A. Now, if you were to ask me whether there is any particular town bylaw that they were relying on, I don't know that to be the case, but I think the catch-all and the umbrella for what the zoning Board did in the early days was again, hanging their hat on Chapter 40A. This is the last time I'll yield to others, but one of the things that is true in both of the decisions that we've recently read in which 1960s or 1950s opinion, they do not seem to have regarded, I mean, you would have thought that doing a subdivision that resulted in non-conforming lots would have been something they would be, if not think of themselves as prohibited from doing, at least would be strongly contrary to their doing it. And in both of these cases, the Board really essentially said, we think it makes good sense to do this and it's in the interest of all the parties and so forth. And so we're doing it because it makes good sense. And I'm trying to get a sense of what sense that makes when you have a law that says that this is such and such is a minimum. And I wonder if you can inform us as to what they're thinking was back then. I think that in many instances, Mr. Hanlon, the Board did take action based upon what made good sense in those days. We had some pretty illustrious figures on the zoning board, going back to the 60s and the 70s. We had as a chairman, Bob Muldoon, who was essentially the head of the Real Estate Association for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a very well-known real estate attorney. We had DeKeshen, a very well known real estate attorney as well. And I think that you're probably looking at it correctly that in many instances, things were done, okay? Again, under the umbrella of, we'll cite chapter 40 and say we're doing it under 40A, but it was done because they thought it was the correct thing to do with respect to the facts before them at the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nessie. Thank you. Mr. Revillek? This is a question of sort of looking at this from a different angle, but this lot has more than 50 feet of frontage and an area of more than 5,000 square feet. And if my understanding is correct, chapter 40A, section six, would allow the reconstruction of a single or two-family dwelling on such a lot, provided the zoning board of appeals made a finding that the new building was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Is that correct? This is a question for any of the attorneys. I think that is the law. I think you're right about that. I mean, would it be... What I'm sort of kind of thinking or my line of thinking is we, the zoning board of appeals made a decision back in 1955 and they really haven't provided much insight as to what their mindset was and what the rationale for making that decision was. In the absence of that decision ever having been made, I think what we would be looking at today would be, essentially an application of the vested rights provisions in chapter 40A, section six. And I'm just curious or looking for thoughts on whether that might be a more appropriate way to proceed or an appropriate way to proceed. Again, I filed for both a special permit and a variance. So I think both are before you and I quite frankly was looking for guidance from the zoning board of appeal. That's why I did that. Thank you, Mr. Nessie. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. Mr. Nessie, hello. As always, I am, I appreciate the arguments that you're making and understand how you're getting to the point you have arrived at. I guess the thing that is a bit of a challenge for me is that we're looking again is Mr. Handland reference to a zoning board, which was acting in another capacity perhaps. And I think maybe as a planning board on the one hand, because they seem to have approved a subdivision plan. On the other hand, they've cast it in terms of a special permit, which sort of brings it back to the regular type of work that the zoning board does. And my initial question when I was reading your statement of facts was, were these two lots when they were combined and then separated out into new sizes, conforming in terms of area and frontage. But then I believe that in your argument, when you've highlighted it, which I appreciate, you said that the zoning decision, it says that the subdivision would create two lots was with less than the square foot area required by the zoning bylaw. So do I understand that correctly? And that's what the zoning decision said as well. Yes. So that's always the challenge for me is on the one hand, if they make a decision, and I think as you've indicated back then at times, they were trying to make what they thought were common sense decisions given the facts on the ground. And at the same time, and oftentimes they'll just do that without any sort of comment. But here they're actually acknowledging the fact that they're creating either one or two nonconforming lots. And so that's a part of it that I have to really consider carefully because as we go along, if more and more lots appear on the horizon where there have been these decisions which were acknowledged to have been inconsistent with the provisions of the zoning bylaw at the time, I'm fearful that that sets a precedent. And I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I know that the planning department is not going to comment on something along these lines, but I'm wondering whether town council would be able to give us some guidance because I do think it's a rather complicated question legally. So those are my concerns or at least the facts that seem to come up for me to consider. And I'm again, thinking town council might give us some help in, in sort of figuring out how to weigh those. Mr. Chairman. This is Pat. No, actually it was me. I just wanted to, I certainly think that's true. I think that this is not a one off situation as we've come to realize. And the decision here itself says that the proposal is quite in keeping with several others already submitted to the board, which pertained to lots in the blocks between Palmer Street and Beacon Street, which suggests to me that the board was already well acquainted with this situation and heads. And there are another of other opinions that may be similar to this one out there. And so I think that we have to imagine that whatever it is that we decide ultimately in this case is something that may affect a number of other cases as, as well. And we need to be thinking sort of in, in, in that vein that we'll be laying down a rule of some sort. And we need to be quite careful and considering as a matter of law, just what that, that rule ought to be. I have questions for comments to the board. None at the moment. I'll now open the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments will only be taken as they relate to the matter at hand to be directed to the board for the purpose of informing your decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asked that those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing to complete the patient and allow those wishing to speak to the first time to go ahead of them. Members of the public who wish to speak to digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab and resume application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak to be called upon by the meeting host. You'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to be clearly once all public questions and comments happen address for the time allocated by the chair has ended the public comment period will be closed. The board and staff will be our best to show documents. Are you going to ask a question? So at this time, if you'd like to speak, please go ahead and in the participants tab raise your hand. Mr. Moore. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont street. I would hope that. When either making a decision or referring it to town council or. You know, when establishing a precedent, I know you're trying to walk carefully here because I think as, as your members have clearly pointed out, this is going to come up probably with increasing frequency. I would hope that. Either yourselves or whoever makes the decision here. I think it's going to come up. I think it's going to come up. I think it's going to come up with a lot of appeals in 1955. But also what occurred. In this case, the same year. With the property. Single family home got built. And it was. Built on, I guess, not quite a conforming lot. Because my understanding of this is not that clear. I think you need to consider not only what a decision with the previous board was in this case. Many 5060 years ago, but also what's been done since and I mean had, for instance, two homes been built on two non conforming lots. You'd be stuck with a, you know, sort of the situation. As, as built. You're now stuck with a situation of one house, one single family home on. What is a maybe a non conforming lot? And you have to proceed from that fact. Not from the fact that two houses were built on two non conforming lots. At the time. Now. Forgive me if my lack of understanding of the situation. I'm not sure. Clearly points out that what I just said is ignorant. I'm not sure I completely understand what's going on here. But, but I think, I think the facts on the ground now. And the fact that zoning is different now. And the zoning rules are different now. It doesn't get. Doesn't get all I'm done by the fact that in 1955, a certain decision was made based on the facts that were true at that time. In my, in my perspective evolves. And what matters now is different than perhaps what mattered then. And just because it was made then based on the more. Points of fact at that time doesn't tie our hands in the fact that we expect now to follow the rules of zoning. That have been established since in currently on effect. That's all. Thank you, Mr. I think we're going to move on to the next question. Mr. Heckley, I think go ahead and unmute yourself. And name and address the record please. So I thought I had unmuted myself and it must have clicked again. My apologies. So my name is Philly. I live on Palma street. And I, I live in a two family. There are some sections of our streets that are zoned for to family and it's lovely. My concern is not about whether or not there should be some kind of, I can't find the word, sorry. So my concern is not about whether or not to allot to family. My concern is that the particular builder who seems to have drawn the plans has done a lot of houses, one street over on Beacon Street and I guess there was enough footage on that street to allow for this. But I feel like as a, that the particular type of construction that was put by that particular builder is not enticing a very close-knit community because it creates a different type of relationship and I think it brings more divisions and it does bring communion and in our particular block we're very proud of being able to have block parties and a sense of communion and we miss that since COVID-19 and we're concerned that the particular type of driveway that the builder seems to be promoting is gonna be detrimental to the particular social tissues that we have at the moment. That's my concern. Thank you very much. Next on the list is Mrs. Susan Brow, name and address of the record please. Hi, this is Andy Hazelton. I live at 99 Warren Street with Susan Brow sitting next to me. But I guess reinforcing what Philippe said, I don't think that we would necessarily be opposed at all to a two family being built on the neighbor's lot as long as we're in keeping with the character of the neighborhood or the street, I should say in particular. And I don't think that the proposed design is simply put at all. And I would refer you to the excellent December 2020 residential design guidelines for Arlington which explicitly are at variance with the proposed design specifically with regard to the recommendation against parking that dominates the principal facade on page 43. And also even more particularly with regard to the principal A1 that new development should be designed based on the relevant neighborhood block category and local streetscape pattern which is defined on page 16 as two family town core, one of the primary characteristics is side yard driveways. So it seems to me that if Arlington takes its new and extremely excellent residential design guidelines seriously that it would frown on the proposal. Thank you, Mr. President. Anything further? Oh, thank you very much. Mr. Seltzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don Seltzer Irving Street. And I have a question for the board. I don't think I heard it said this evening. Back in 1955, what was the minimum buildable lot size? Do we know? That's a very good question. We know that both of the lots that were established were not conforming. But I have been unable to get my hands on a copy of the older zoning bylaw. Does Rick, do you know by any chance? Mr. Chairman, I can tell you we're trying to locate a 1955 zoning bylaw which is a long shot, but I can test almost to 100% certainty that the lot size back in 1955 was 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet and probably a lot less. Having grown up in a development in Arlington when I was a youngster back in the 50s, that lot in a new development was 40 feet of frontage and 4,000 square feet. So I can say with probably 99.9% certainty that 1955, the lot size was 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet, probably less. Mr. Chairman. Please, Mr. Hanlon. I'm willing to bet for that other 1% because the opinion of the board flatly says, at least as I read it, that 5,500 was not adequate. And if that's true, then 5,000 couldn't be the minimum that existed at that time. And assuming that whatever law established the minimum lot size dealt in even numbers, I'm willing to bet that the even number at issue was probably 600, 6,000 square feet. Yeah, I mean- Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask about that last statement by Mr. Hanlon. I'm looking at the decision now and I can't find where it says that 5,500 was too small. I do, my understanding of the situation then was that you had two lots back to back together comprising a little more over 10,000 square feet. One was 12 beacon and the other one was to be eventually become 83 Palmer. And what the board allows was to subdivide it roughly in half. And I almost got the impression from that was that it created two buildable lots from that but perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Mr. Chair. Please, Mr. Revillak. So in the materials for the board there is a, you know, we have a decision attached to the decision is a sketch of a plot plan. And the next page contains a handwritten note which reads to it to subdivide two lots said subdivision would create two lots with less than the square foot area required by section 14B of the zoning bylaw. So to me that indicates, well, if we had a copy of the zoning bylaw from 1955 section 14B would give us the answer. But whoever, clearly whoever wrote this note and attached it to the sketch felt that the two sizes provided were less than whatever number that was. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Revillak. Mr. Seltzer, do you have further questions? I think that gets as close to it as we can. I hadn't seen that other handwritten section. I thank Mr. Revillak for that. Thank you, Mr. Seltzer. Mr. Vellorelli, I know the building department has just moved from its long time home over on Grove Street over onto Maple. So the chance of locating the 1955 is difficult at this time. I, Christian, I tried to get it through the library. Okay. And I was unsuccessful, okay? COVID had something to do with it, I'm sure, but I tried a long time ago to get it through the library and I was not able to do that, okay? Have you tried the town clerk's office? That was the only other place I could think of the look. We called them as well and we didn't get any help there either, okay? So I'm thinking, quite frankly, as I'm listening to all of this, that and my memory is going back to the 1960s and I'm thinking that Rick Vellorelli may not be wrong, okay? In terms of the then zoning, for a lot area being 5,000 square feet and the frontage being 50 feet. So don't quote me on that until I have something in black let-a-law to look at, but that would be my memory, Mr. Hanlon, okay? Just going back and searching my brain at this point as to what I remember from the 1960s and the 1970s. Oh, if that were true, Mr. Hinesi, Mr. Chairman, if I could be allowed. Then this would become a fairly, it seems to me at least, this would become a fairly straightforward non-conforming lot problem now that at some point the law would have changed and increase the minimum lot size and Mr. Revelak would be right that section 648 is what would come into play and the equivalent provisions in our law. That's correct, I agree with that. That's one of the reasons I file for both a variance and a special permit. So I think it can be considered as Mr. Revelak is indicating alternatively under chapter 40a section 6 and that would deal with the lack of correct lot area conforming lot area today. Are there any further requests for comment from the public? I don't know, we're in, believe Mr. Seltzer, Mr. Hazelton, I think are both had an opportunity to speak. What have you looked to speak again? Hearing none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment period then. So we have before the board requests to essentially reconsider the decision from 1955 in a way that would allow the redevelopment of the lot by right. Which would not take into account the changes in zoning that have occurred in the intervening time. I'm asking that the board consider the alternative as well. That's raised by Mr. Revelak. Yeah. So if just for argument sake if the board was to apply the current zoning bylaw to this property currently, it would be as the preexisting non-conforming lot in a two family district. And if the homeowner was looking to modify the existing home through a large addition or to renovate the home, then it would come before, if they were just renovating the home and they were not seeking to do a large addition then they could do so on the existing footprint if they were looking to enlarge the home beyond 750 square feet who require a special permit finding from the zoning board of appeals. And I guess my question to the applicant is it has said on a couple of occasions here to quote modify the home. Is the intent to renovate the existing home or is the intent to replace the existing home? The intent is to construct a new duplex. That's the intent. So new foundation, new everything. I did submit as I've indicated, I did have the architect prepare a dimensional form which you have with the papers. Yeah. So that essentially shows that. Okay. Yeah, we have the proposed site plan which I guess that's one to confirm. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I don't want to sort of jump to the chase too much, but I will not, I definitely will not feel comfortable moving forward on this until we've had a chance to have a thorough conversation with Mr. Heim about it. It's both important. It's legal, it's technical and there may be a range of different possibilities that might lend themselves to actually making a decision that makes sense and could conceivably respond to some of the things we've heard from the neighboring residents. So I think that these fish aren't ready to fry and would like to take the time to consult as we did with the last one with Mr. Heim and try to consider this more carefully than we've had the opportunity to do so far. With that in mind, are there additional questions that you would like to raise at this time so we have a full set of information to discuss with Council? Again, if it's going to be discussed with Council, I would like the alternative to be discussed as well. Chapter 48, Section 6 approach. I know I emphasized in my argument the decision and that the decision allowed this of right, okay? But again, I did apply for both a special permit and a variance. And I think that there is a good argument with respect to Chapter 48, Section 6. This is only by-law that amended in 1975. I believe that's when the change occurred. I could be mistaken about that, but the change occurred with respect to a lot area, okay? The size of the lot. And we predated that, of course, for 1955 at the time the subdivision was allowed. And I would just ask that despite the fact that the zoning board at the time and the zoning boards at the time aren't as erudite as we are, okay? In terms of what they did, okay? That we don't simply push their decisions aside like it was nothing because when the decisions were made, people relied on them, whether in fact, at the time they were wrong or not. And that's the whole point of having a 20-day appeal period. Once that appeal period expires, okay? Generally, the closet is closed. So again, if it's presented to town council, would you please present it both ways, okay? The way I argued initially and also 48-6. Mr. Chairman, I don't actually disagree with any of that and think it doesn't go far enough. I would like to present a broad question to town council of what are the options here? There are essentially many options have been presented to us and there may be ones that no one has thought of yet. And I think that we need to approach this with an open mind and figure out, what the right way is for dealing with this case and it would be a mistake to try to put too narrow a question to him. He just need, I think he needs to work with us in order to explore the possibilities and guide us to exercising our judgment as to which legal option is the most appropriate for the town and for the neighborhood and for the applicant. I'm open to that, certainly. Thank you. Mr. Ravillac, I know you had your hand up. Yes, I have two points. One is, the first is to concur with Mr. Hanlon at least to make for myself to feel comfortable in making a section six finding, I would need this, I would really need to see architectural drawings or at least something more than a certified plot plan. Second, and this falls under the case of more options, but I suggest that Mr. Anise might wish to review the language in warrant article 38, which was adopted by town meeting last night. It basically under certain conditions allows the complete reconstruction of a dwelling on a non-conforming lot subject to certain energy efficiency requirements. I just mentioned this as an option. It's really brand new, but... I haven't heard about it, Mr. Ravillac, yeah. Okay, it just maybe something you would like to bring your clients attention to. I'll look at it for sure, yeah. Thank you. Do you want further comments from the board? Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to, this is not exactly a question to Mr. Heim, but there's been the sort of music that's been left on the dominant and the tonic note about the compliance of the lot back in 1955, I think is in the legal notice, which says that said to subdivision would require two lots with less than the square foot area required by section 14B of the zoning bylaw. This was in the legal notice that went out calling for the hearing. Thank you, appreciate that. So with that in mind, I think the board should look to continue this hearing. And I think it would be prudent to have Mr. Hanlon and perhaps one other speak to Council Heim in the intervening time and be able to report back to the board that they continue date. So we currently have, today is the 25th, we have a hearing scheduled for the first, but I think that's too quick. That also coincides with the 1165R. We have a date in our calendar for Tuesday, June 8th, which currently is unused. And then, but Thursday, June 10th, we do have a hearing for Thorndike place scheduled. And that will be a considerable hearing. I'd rather stay away from that. I would strongly encourage you to do any members of the board. I was just gonna ask that very question. Is there any member of the board is unable to make Tuesday, June 8th? Seeing none, why don't we move that the, that the board continues 83 Palmer Street, docket number 3658 until Tuesday, June 8th at 7.30 p.m. Sorry, Mr. Hanlon, just before we vote that day works fine, but would you remind me what other dates we have on the calendar real quick? Absolutely. And I'll come back to this at the end of the hearing as well. But just for those who are in attendance. So Tuesday, June 1st, is a continuance of 1165R minutes now, which is the current date. Is a continuance of 1165R minutes now, which is the comprehensive permit hearing. And Thursday, June 10th is a continuation of Thorndike place, which is a different comprehensive permit hearing. And then we have, those are the only two hearings you currently have scheduled. And then beyond that, we have milestone dates of Thursday, June 25th, which is currently the close of the public hearing on Thorndike and Friday, July 2nd, which is the close of the public hearing on 1165R massive. So I guess my only comment would be having multiple, you know, having back-to-back two meetings a week is a lot. And that would put two meetings, if I read that right, one on the 8th and one on the 10th, and then one on the, could you say the next one would be the 25th? So the 25th is just a milestone date. So it's the date we have to close the hearing by, but we don't have anything scheduled for that date. So I guess my comment would be, can we not have two on every week or any week? I mean, if we have to do it under special circumstances, that's fine, but we did it last week. And I don't think the intense to wear us out. Would Tuesday, June 15th work for people? Mr. Chairman, I can do that if we're virtual, but I will be out of the, if they area physically during that period. I can do it. Okay. We would still have five members who are present today who would be available then, but I am very hopeful that you will be able to participate remotely still during that time. Mr. Nessie, does that work? Date work better for you? I'll take whatever date is good for you folks. Okay. And thank you, Mr. Ford. Does that work for you? It does. That thanks, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. So in that case, I'll amend my motion that we continue. This hearing on 83 Palmer Street, docket number three, six, five, eight. To the. Tuesday, June 15th. At 730 PM. I have a second. Second. Okay. Mr. Nessie. And voting. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revola. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. DuPont. Aye. Chair votes. Aye. We are continued on. 83 Palmer Street. Thank you everyone for. The participation in this hearing. This brings us to the next time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next is. 34 marathon streets docket number three, six, five, five. This is a continuance of a hearing from May 11th. So we had the previous hearing who had requested. Some additional information to be provided in the applicant. Was to work with Mr. Nessie. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming up with some of those responses. So Mr. Rallie, if you could. Let us know. What has transpired in the past two weeks. I can, Mr. Chairman. So as requested, I reached out to the architect of 34 marathon street. Or some more finite numbers of the, of the existing structure. So basically without getting into a long spiel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. On the second floor of that structure, it contains 1269 square feet of living space. They are asking to construct a dharma in the attic of seven feet of greater from the underside of the roof framing to the finish floor blow of 627 square feet. That in fact puts them at a 49% area that is seven feet. And that is the size of the roof. And that is the size of the roof. And that is the size of the roof. And that is the size of the roof. Or above. And it complies to the half story definition. It's in fact, 49%. But it is less than half. All other factors of the house are okay. It's the typical request that the board has heard many times. There is no open space usable. So there are even that area in the backyard does not qualify, even though there's a patch of land. That may look like it does. But in fact, I think it's 23 by 40 something plot plan is listed on novice. So the long and short of it is the basement is not being used. That wouldn't qualify anyway with the ceiling height is less than seven feet as it is. No living space is planned for the basement. We have the first floor, second floor with 1200 and change square feet. They're asking to develop some living space in the attic, which is 49% of the floor below. So it qualifies as a half story. I can answer any other questions. I did take the liberty of redoing the entire application. That is also posted on novice. If the board has any questions, they can direct it to me. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Valeroy. Mr. Hanlon. I just wanted to ask about landscape open space. Because as I was reading the charts that just says over 10% or something like that. And I, and I'm, what I guess I would like to know is whether we think we have enough information to conclude. That there won't be any extension of the nonconformity if there, or if there is a nonconformity, even about landscape open space. So if you could just tell us what the stages of that is, that would be great. That is correct, Mr. Hamlin. So the open space does far exceed 10%. I didn't calculate it out, but it far exceeds 10%. The only expansion on the existing nonconformity is the usable open space. So we're looking to expand the nonconformity. Whereas is zero. Zero to begin with zero at the end of the day, but it is in fact increasing living space on an already nonconforming piece of land. And by the way, you raised a great point because the zoning bylaw does not tell us to separate landscape open space and usable. Especially don't kind of have two chunks of land, one being designated as landscape and the other one being designated as usable. You can in fact, theoretically use your usable open space as landscapes space. So not to get too crazy with this thing, but it doesn't separate it. So that being said, if one has usable open space, they have landscape open space. By default. For the questions, Mr. Hamlin. Thank you. Just along those lines to the, to the homeowner, are there any plans to do any, any work either with the driveway or need to walkways around the house? Oh, sorry, you're on mute sir. There we go. There we go. No, the driveway will stay as it presently is. And there is a already preexisting walkway that will stay as it is. Well, the sidewalk way will probably improve upon because the cement was cracked. Yeah. But other than that. No. We're going to, you know, just do exterior improvements as far as, you know, replacing shingles and. It's the residing residing kind of thing where it needs to be and painting and improving that way once that we do it all at the same time. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that, because it was a question posed to me at the last hearing. So they. Yes, they have four parking spaces. They only need to. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Last call from the board before I open up for. Second round of public comment. Seeing none. So go ahead and reopen this hearing for public comment. As per the previous. Hearing members who wish to speak should digitally raise back man. Using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application. If you are participating by phone, please dial star nine to indicate your name and address. If you've given time for questions and comments. Any public comment at this time. Seeing none. Going once going twice. Go ahead and close public comment for this evening. So any further discussion for the board or we've. Someone have them. We want to discuss. Possible conditions. On the granting of an approval. We have our Mr. Chair. Mr. Of course, I. Eager to hear from my fellow board members, but I can't think of anything in particular beyond the standard. Conditions. Thank you. So the standard three conditions with the board. The bill requires special permits. The first one. Is it the plans and specifications provided approved by the board where the permit shall be the final plan. The specifications made to the building inspector of the town of Arlington connection with this application for zoning relief. There will be no deviation during construction for approved plans and specifications. Without the express written approval of those zoning board to proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time he determines that violations are present and the inspector of buildings shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw under the provisions of chapter 40, section 21D and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the inspector of buildings may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. Is there further discussion on this or any other conditions the board feels are necessary for the proceeding with this application? Seeing none, may I have a motion? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the application for the Marathon Place property, Marathon Street property subject to the three standard conditions that were just read into the record. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Excuse me. So for the vote of the board, Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mills. Hi. In Mr. Dupont. Sorry, Mr. Dupont, I couldn't hear you. Thank you. Hi. And in the absence of Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Ford. Hi. And the chair votes. So that motion is approved. So the board is issuing a preliminary approval on this pending the approval of the written decision. And our next, that should be hopefully be voted on at our next schedule of hearing, which would be next Tuesday, June 1st. Mr. Hanlon, does that up there? Mr. Chairman, I've already written half of it and I'll write the other half and we'll have it by then. Perfect. We are approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate all your time and efforts. No, you're very welcome. Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Valorelli is... He's a man. Thank you, Mr. Valorelli. Very welcome. Thank you. All right, thank you. Here. So just to quickly for the board and for any members of the public who are interested in following along, there are upcoming meetings that are scheduled. So Tuesday, June 1st at 7.30 p.m. This is the continuance of 1165 bar mass Tuesdays at 7.00 p.m. Thursday, June 10th is the continuance of Gordyke Place. And now Tuesday, June 15th is, excuse me, the continuance of 83 Palmer Street. And then beyond those meeting dates, we have two milestone dates. Thursday, June 25th is the close of the public hearing to Gordyke Place. Actually, pardon me, that was a Friday. Friday, June 25th is the close of the public hearing to Gordyke Place. And Friday, July 2nd is the close of the public hearing of 1165 bar mass Tuesdays at 7.00 p.m. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zone Gordyke Hill. I appreciate everyone's participation and patience throughout the meeting. I especially wish to thank Mr. Valorelli and Vincent Lee for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting in this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings for understanding the reporting made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the ZBA website. And so to conclude tonight's meeting, may I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Chairman, before I move to adjourn, I'd like if it is okay, I'd like to especially underline the contribution that Mr. Valorelli has made to help the McGoverns through some of the arcane aspects of our process. We've tried to become as user-friendly at an agency as we can and we have a somewhat Talmudic document to deal with and Mr. Valorelli really kind of has gone beyond the normal scope of the duty just to be helpful and I would like to express my and I think our appreciation to him for doing that. Thank you, Mr. Hamlin and all of us as well at Ditto. Thank you, Mr. Valorelli. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Thank you very much. May I have a second? Second. All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Seeing none, the board is adjourned. Thank you all so very much.