 It's 7.33 p.m. on Tuesday, April 13, 2021. So 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 all members and anticipated officials are present. Some members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Stephen Revillac. Here. And I am here. Aaron Ford is unavailable this evening. He's traveling. And Sean, our work is unavailable. He's under the weather. Town officials, Vincent Lee should be on with us. Yep, right here. And Kelly Linema from the planning department. Hello. Hello. Here. I don't know if there's anyone else on from the town at the moment. The person's appearing for 190, 192, Mr. Kelly Parkway, Mr. Bavuso, I believe you're here. Yes, sir, here. The person's appearing for 4143 Fairmont Street. There's someone here to represent. Hi. My name is John Finnell. I'm with Savoy Nolan. Bill Nolan emailed someone on the board earlier saying that he was tied up with another meeting. And if possible, could we be moved to the next space in the docket? Yep. Okay, thank you. He emailed with him earlier today. I just wanted to make sure there was. Yep, hopefully he should be finishing up shortly. Okay, perfect. All right, thank you. Absolutely. And Mr. Whitney for 59 Mount Vernon Street. Yes, here. Thank you. For 1165 RMS 7, I know they're coming up later. I don't think Mr. Conner is on quite yet. By this picture will be on by the time we start. That 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 suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom 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 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. 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 not to share your personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. 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. The chair observed the rights to take items out of order in the interest of promoting and orderly meetings. So just at the top, I just have a brief announcement. So in the matter of docket number 3642 which is 64 Brattle Street, town council has notified the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals that council for the appellant is in the process of filing an appeal of the board's decision affirming the decision of the building inspector. Town council will accept service on behalf of the board if and when notice is served. After service working with town council, the board will have 20 days to respond. So I spoke with council Heim earlier today. He essentially asked me if on behalf of the board I'd be willing to allow him to accept service on behalf of the board and I said I would. And so we are now waiting for the appeal to come in on that decision. So moving on, turning to the, we do not have any minutes or decisions to approve this evening. So we'll go right to hearings. Turning to the first public hearing on tonight's agenda some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announced each agenda item I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves and make their presentations to the board then request that members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered I'll open the meeting to public comment. Whereas each of these hearings have already received public comment in relation to the original application in deference to the amount of business to be conducted this evening. I humbly request that any comments provided this evening specifically relate to new information presented this evening. Now open up the first item on our agenda which is socket number 3651 190 192 Mystic Valley Parkway, Mr. Bavuso. Thank you, sir. John Bavuso representing the Nelson Group members of the board as you know, we have purchased and rehabilitated the property at 190 Mystic Valley Parkway. We have divided the property into two condominium units 190 Mystic Valley Parkway and 85 Park Street. We have slightly increased the footprint of the building by encompassing the existing open deck that was at the side rear of the property. We are asking for a second driveway in the front of the property to accommodate the new owners of the front unit which would be 190 Mystic Valley Parkway. We did take into account all of the suggestions and recommendations that we received. We did hire a traffic engineer to go out and do a study of the property. We have monitored the traffic flow at the intersection of Coral Park Street and Mystic Valley Parkway. We do not see any problems with having a driveway there. We have a 12 foot clear line of sight. The public policy and geometric design of highways and streets recommends at least 11 foot. We exceed that. The driveway has been reconfigured to allow a small turnaround area approximately six feet by eight feet. So people parking in the front yard can now back in and pull out onto Park Street instead of backing out onto the street. This should alleviate any concerns about safety. We have checked with the Arlington Police Department. There have been no motor vehicle accidents at that intersection since, I believe it was 2016. So it is a residential area. It is not a high traffic area. We have monitored the traffic in the mornings and afternoons. The shape of the lot is long and narrow. It's almost twice as long as it is wide. It's almost 60% of the lot is front yard. The parking, the allowable parking areas we have are the small area at the back of the lot, which excuse me one second, which is about 510 square feet. There is another allowable parking area at the rear of the building bordering our neighbor at 186 Mystic Valley Parkway. That area is inaccessible without a curb cut on Mystic Valley Parkway, which as you know, we had applied to DCR4 and been denied. So we have talked to several of the neighbors in the neighborhood. We've got letters of support. We think that this drive we will fit in. We did send in the arduous rendering of what it will look like with the landscaping in place and the raised flowerbed around it. It'll be previous pavers to catch all the runoff. We think this will be an attractive solution to the parking situation on Park Street. We're gonna offer the new owners of this property exclusive parking. There'll be no limits on overnight parking and it will certainly be nice to come home in a winter storm and have your own parking space. So I respectfully request that our variance request be granted. Thank you. Thank you. So just for clarification, so the application is for a special permit and not an variance. When we begin the project, that's what I interpreted the zoning to say that a second driveway would be allowed by a special permit from the zoning board. That time I was not aware that over half of the lot was front yard. So the special permit would be for the driveway. We would seek a variance to park in the front. We looked at the planning board recommendation on the last paragraph about seeking an alternate location in the yard adjacent to the existing driveway on Park Street and there's also a front yard area. That allows us no room to turn around. We would have to back out at an awkward angle in this a tree. We certainly do not want to remove any of the trees. We've taken the stockade fence down and relocated it to the back of the property. I hope you've had a chance to go by and look at it recently with, it's coming along very nicely. It's going to be one of the best houses in the neighborhood. It's just my concern is that if this was advertised as a special permit, I don't think it's within the board's discretion to now treat it as a variance without it being reposted to the public. Mr. Hanlon, do you know you're on mute? Sorry, can you hear me now? I can, yes. It seems to me that it hasn't been noticed as a variance and we haven't actually had a public hearing. On a variance as the board and I'm sure everyone knows there are special state requirements for variances that are technical and difficult to meet. And we've, no one has ever addressed that. There has been some public interest in this, but everybody has been focused upon the special permit that was noticed. And I don't really see how we could grant a variance on the basis of what we've done already. That there'd have to be a separate application for that or at least this one would have to add that to it and we'd have to have a hearing that actually focuses on what the real issue would be. My understanding as well that we would have to, is that it would have to be noticed as a variance. I know there is precedent for something being advertised as a variance and the determination of the board granting a special permit, but I don't believe it is. I don't believe we have the discretion to go in the opposite direction. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman, because the special permit is a discretionary matter for us and I think it's a lesser type of scrutiny that we have to apply. Whereas the variance as Mr. Hanlon has suggested is very strictly structured in terms of the criteria that need to be met. And those would have to be addressed in an application to us so that we understood what the arguments would be in favor. I understand, sir. And I apologize, I believe that we, I thought we'd discuss this at the original meeting that the shape of the lot and the placement of the house is one of the factors here that there is very little available space for this. I can certainly refile as a variance request without these boards. Yeah, I mean, part of the issue is that, you know, at the lot originally had what appeared to be four parking spaces at the rear of the lot and due to the construction, there is now only two spaces available in that location, which is what's leading to trying to locate other parking spaces on the site. And I think this... I understand that, sir, but the pitches we have, I think part of the parking was in front yard. If you look at the letter from the planning board with the photos they enclosed showing the parking, I mean, that's the front yard of Park Street. Right, so the original house is pretty existing with non-conformities. They are required to have two parking spaces per current zoning by-law. And they had two parking spaces beyond the front yard setback along Park Street. And then they could park two additional vehicles in the driveway portion behind those cars. So they did have space originally for four vehicles. So, certainly, as a board, we can't vote on a variance tonight. And if you would like to change your application to be a variance request, then we can certainly... I think what we would do at this point is we would ask you to withdraw this application and submit a new application as a variance request. I see. I see. Would the special permit for the second driveway opening with that application still be required? So if it's a variance request, then it would all fall under the same request. I see. Very well, sir. I'll take that on an advisement and do so. Mr. Chairman, this is Pat. I strongly encourage, before the applicant goes too far along this route, I think it... Can you hear me now? I can hear you fine, I just can't see you. Okay, well, that's all right. I'm not that good looking anyway. It seems to me that once you use the word variance, it just isn't a residual thing that, well, if you can't get a special permit, you can always try a variance. The standards are different. Some of the things that were addressed at the public hearing, there was a lot of testimony saying that this was a self-inflicted wound. That doesn't make any difference really, as far as the special permit is concerned, but it might make a great deal of difference as far as the variance. And I just encourage Mr. Bavuso to look carefully at the standards in the state law for when you grant a variance and think about whether or not he's going to be able to meet those standards. Again, they're not just sort of the special permit light or something you can do whenever you need something that isn't in conformity with the zoning by-law. There are very narrow circumstances in which we can give variances and it's not intuitively obvious what they are. And I just encourage you to not just mechanically go forward, but to carefully look at what those standards are and evaluate your ability to meet those standards. It is even true, believe it or not, even though it's a state law, we could have a situation where it makes all the sense in the world to allow you to go forward and the state law will not allow us to do it and we have no discretion to vary those things. So I just encourage you not to make assumptions. This is one of those things where you need to work through the technicalities of a law and the sort of the feeling that you ought to be able to get it, that you have a good case in equity and so forth. That is not enough under state law and you need to pay careful attention to it and you might want to have, it's up to you, but you might want to involve the assistance of counsel in helping to guide you through that. Absolutely will, sir. I understand that. We certainly will look at counsel. Steve Revolac, Mr. Chair. What's up, Mr. Revolac? Yes, I have a question for, through you. I have a question for Mr. Bavuso if he'd be willing to entertain it. Would you, Mr. Chair, be able to just bring up a plot plan or something that shows the proposed second driveway? The current application. That's perfect. So reading through one of the memos submitted for tonight's hearing, I believe it's called a hammerhead configuration for this driveway. So I was wondering how feasible it would be if the driveway were to extend across the entire width of the front yard and then turn right along the side of the house that's opposite Park Street. So effectively that would be providing an off street parking space that is in the side yard, the side yard that's not a front yard and behind the required front setback and possibly reconfiguring the hammerhead so that one could back out and pull forward onto Park Street. So if you wanna think of it as a hammerhead, the driveway from Park Street to the adjacent property aligned on Mystic Valley Parkway would be the handle of the hammer. One part of the head would go alongside the house where Mr. Klein's cursor is. And then the other part would extend into the front yard so there would be possible to sort of back out and pull forward. All that, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the backup area is next to the tree where it says window well, and I don't know why the dimension is missing on this plan, but that's a small area. It's eight feet wide, six feet deep. It's not large enough to park in. It's made to back into it and then drive out forward onto Park Street. Right, but I think what Mr. Revlap was getting at was that if the driveway wrapped around the front of the house and up the side, you would now be creating parking spaces in the side yard and not in the front yard. That's correct. You would also be putting a driveway completely around the house. Certainly something we would be willing to look at. That was our original plan was to come from Mystic Valley Parkway into that area. Absolutely. And looking at the interior plans, it appears the entrance for the unit that is addressed on Mystic Valley Parkway, that's through the front of the house. Is that correct? That's correct. So Mr. Chairman, if I take it that if we did that or if the applicant did that, he might not need a variance that he might still be able, I mean, he might be able just to do it because it only would, I guess what is the legal implications of following that plan? So I mean, typically you would have a driveway that would traverse the front yard and lead to off-street parking. It can lead to off-street parking in the side yard or in the rear yard of the property. And in this case, that would essentially be what is going on is that the, but instead of, because it's a corner lot, instead of a straight shot into the side yard, it would be a straight shot across the front of the property turning into the side yard, which is certainly something we have not, I believe by the time on the board, I haven't seen it considered before. It would certainly appear to meet the requirements for a driveway and would remove the issue of creating a parking space in the front yard setback. So I wonder if procedurally, what the applicant should be doing it. I'm just trying to think about how this goes. He still is going to be wanting to come out, have two parking, two curb cuts on Park Street, right? So the original application, that part of it would still be fully in play, as I understand it. So he'd still need the special permit, but he might not need the variance. And I'm just, I'm trying to think about how it is that is best way, would be the best way to achieve that, whether he should be continuing the present hearing and consulting counsel as to whether or not, well, first of all, in engineer as to whether he wants to do that and counsel as to whether or not he, then what the arguments he will have on a variance are. If he does do that, he'll have to either amend this application or file another one that could be consolidated, I suppose, and resolved. But you don't want to go back and forth changing it and then deciding you really wanted a special permit and going through a number of proceedings. We'd want to figure out a way to notice this properly, have a hearing that addresses the right issues and then resolve it all at once. So that we, that would however comes out, it comes out without an unnecessary delay. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, please. We would love to just go for the special permit and reconfigure the driveway. We could certainly relocate the turnaround to the section that turned next to the property of 186. So they could then back down and still drive out on the Park Street. My company has worked in Arlington for years. We have never sought a variance or special permit, any type of special permission or dispensation. And I certainly don't foresee us doing it again. This is a circumstance that we find ourselves in and we're asking for all the help we can get to accommodate another driveway or parking space for the front unit. So if the special permit would allow us to relocate the driveway to the side, we would certainly pursue that. My sense is that the best course of action in that regard would be to speak with the building department about putting it there and whether the zoning official for the town was the building inspector, whether he would accept that as being within a special permit grant. Absolutely. We do have a hand raised from the public. Are there any further questions from the board? We'll take a very brief, no. Okay, with that, I'll do the next part of my script. I'll now open the meeting for public comment. Public questions or comments should only be taken as they relate to the matter at hand. Should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. Members of the public will be granted three minutes each additional time may be provided as the discretion of the chair provide time for questions to be answered. Chair will ask members of the public who have logged in through Zoom who wish to speak digitally, excuse me, who wish to speak to please digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab of the zone application. Those calling in by phone, please ask star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host. You may unmute your audio and you'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. Once public questions and comments have been addressed or the time allocated by the chair has ended the public comment period will be closed. Board staff will do its best to show documentation being discussed. So with that, Mr. Loretty, name an address to the record please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Chris Loretty, can you hear me? I can sir. Okay, I'm at 56 Adams Street. I'd like to ask at the outset Mr. Chairman, just what does this applicant want? And I asked one, whether they ever submitted a site plan when they applied for the building permit because the permit application itself has absolutely no dimensional information on it. So what I'm trying to find out is when they applied for the building permit to do this renovation and expand the footprint of this two family home, where did they show the parking? Thank you, Mr. Bavuso. Do you kind of think if I have to? When we applied to the original permit, the expansion of the house is actually very minor. We sought to encompass the existing rear deck and stairs and not to extend the footprint of the house any larger than it was. We gained the floor area simply by adding two feet to the second floor as I can see here and then developing the attic below the one-half story calculation of the Galington zoning. Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's correct at all. If you look at the photos of the house before the renovations that I sent, there was ample space for a double width driveway behind that porch with both cars having their own access to their own parking on Park Street. What the applicant did is they made that, what do you call it? The addition so big that you only have enough width for one row of cars behind the house. Now, they actually have enough room for legal parking there. They have two spaces that fall behind the setback and they have one within the setback that is allowed. So they actually do not need any additional parking. It's quite obvious what this applicant wants is to have two separate driveways because they made the addition too large. I would suggest if you're going to allow this at all, the place to do it is right next to the old driveway in front of the addition. That tree does not block, the tree that was referenced earlier does not block a space directly in front of the addition that can back into Park Street. And I realized backing into the road may not be the most desirable thing, but that's the way it always was before this house was renovated. And it seems to me these other solutions that are being proposed directly contradicted by law and having a driveway in the front yard. And I would ask that you not approve them under any circumstances. This applicant should be reducing the size of that addition to provide the double width driveway if that's what they really want. Otherwise you may seek an interpretation that allows a fourth space in that front yard on the basis that it is providing access to the two legal spaces. I think that's a bit of a stretch, but at best that's what I would recommend. So thank you for listening to my input, but I do think you really need to be sure the facts are correct in regards to what is possible and what was there to begin with. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Loretty. Mr. Seltzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Moore was ahead of me. Oh, very kind of you, Mr. Moore, would you prefer to go first? Well, Mr. Seltzer, thank you very much. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I guess my question remains that I asked at the previous version of this meeting before the continuance is that we, what's being requested is a curb cut into a space that is very close to the stop sign. I know that the applicant has made reference to the fact that the police said there have been no accidents there since 2016. And I would suggest that introducing a driveway to this close to the stop sign and this close to Miss Valley Parkway is going to change that metric relatively quickly. I don't know what the minimum distance from a stop sign, what the rules are related to how close you can have a driveway to a stop sign. I would guess that many, many different homes are grandfathered into being very close to stop signs, but I'm not sure why with either a variance or a special permit, we would ever ask to introduce a safety issue where there isn't one now. A driveway very close to a stop sign. Again, traffic would come off of Miss Valley Parkway relatively quickly and a driveway that close is, it wasn't built originally that close and now we're introducing that as a safety issue. So I just don't quite understand why we would proceed that way. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Salter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don Seltzer Irving Street. I'd like to bring up a somewhat larger question for the board and that is the addition to the original house qualifies as a large alteration addition. It's more than 750 square feet. In fact, I believe it's 1200 square feet by the applicants numbers. It is also clearly outside of the original foundation and that's why two of the off street parking spaces have been eliminated from what existed prior to this. What I'm trying to understand is why did this construction not come before the board for its review as required in the bylaws? I think it's 5.4.2. If it had had its proper review at that time before any construction was done, we wouldn't be in this situation here with the question about driveways and access and things like that. This just seems to be something that's been happening fairly frequently in Arlington, where these large alterations, deditions outside the foundation are being granted building permits and never appearing before this board as required. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salter. So my understanding, this results from talking, unfortunately, Mr. Valarelli's on vacation this week. But from speaking with him on this question earlier, he had indicated that the policy within the building department is that an additional volume with additional square footage within the original footprint does not count towards the 750 square feet. It's only the portion that is outside of the footprint that they count towards the 750. And so according to, according to him, the way that the additional space was allocated, it was not within, there's less than 750 additional square feet that fall outside the outline of the original housing foundation. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's what the bylaw says. It says that the conditions are, if it increases the gross floor area of the building by 750 square feet or more, and the addition has to be constructed entirely within the existing foundation. I'll leave it up to the lawyers to pursue that further, but to the slave person, it seems clear that any large addition in which any of it falls outside of the original foundation is subject to the sports review. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear more about that and may perhaps consult Mr. Heim. It seems to me that the structure of the, the structure of this provision of the statute, it first asks you to decide whether or not there's an increase of 750 square feet. And then it says, you may do it without a permit if that's all within the existing foundation, if I'm not mistaken. But you can do it with a special permit if you meet several conditions, one of which are all the criteria that we have. And that structure, while it's important whether or not you're extending beyond the foundation or not, doesn't suggest that you count up the initial square feet by ignoring what was in the foundation. And I'm not very comfortable without a little bit more, without quite a bit more. I'm not comfortable acceding to the, to the interpretation that's been suggested. I think some more thought needs to be given to that. So I think Mr. Seltzer, we've addressed your question, correct? Yes, I'm agreeing with what Mr. Hanwin just said. It certainly is worth asking Mr. Heim his opinion because it doesn't seem like inspectional services is interpreting the bylaw the way it is written. Thank you. I don't have anything further to add. Thank you. So with that, I'm gonna close the public comment period for this hearing. So Mr. Bavuso, at this time, would you like us to continue on this? Do you have an opportunity to discuss this further with the inspectional services? I certainly would, sir. And I would like to explore the avenue of the special permit itself. So I would like to continue with the inspectional services and get back to you. Mr. Hanwin, may I have a motion? So when do we, when do we need to pick a date? And I guess the question is May 11th, the date, the next date that reasonably come up can come up with this. So we could, so the May, so April 27th, two weeks from tonight is also a hearing. It also includes 1165 RMS app, but that's a possible date, but May 11th is a date that does not have any conflicts as of yet with any comprehensive permit hearings. All right. So if the applicant is coming, I'm perfectly, if the applicant is willing to agree to this, I think it would be better to put it off until the 11th when there are regular other cases and we don't have a big hearing in a 40B that is pancaked up and has a zillion people waiting to go. And so I would move again, assuming the applicant agrees to this, I would move that this case be continued to a date certain of May 11th, 2021 at 730. So the original application date is February 6th. Just want to make sure that we're not getting too close to that final date. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to burden the board, but I think we would easily have an answer by April 27th. Mr. Chairman, just a quick question about this. So we understand that Mr. Bavusa is going to consider all that's been suggested tonight, but I still think there may be a question as to whether he would approach it as a variance. And because I don't know is that's been taken off the table. And if it is going to be treated as a variance, I'm not sure that we have enough time for the notice, do we? So I think if it was to become a variance application, then we would need to, I believe we would essentially have to vacate the current application and read files of variance. Just as long as Mr. Bavusa understands that if somehow it turns into a variance, we're not going to be able to hear it on the sooner date, on the earlier date. I understand, sir. We would prefer to pursue it as a special permit. And then Mr. Chairman, in that event, if there's going to be an alteration of the plans, those plans have to be submitted somewhat in advance of the scheduled hearing so that we know what it is that we are looking at. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. So in light of that, Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw the previous motion and move to continue the special permit proceeding until the date's certain of April 27th, 2021, at 7.30. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Go to the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revillac? Aye. Chair votes aye. So we are continued on 191, 192, Mr. Valley Parkway. Thank you all for your participation on this hearing. This brings us to our next hearing, which is also a continued hearing. Thank you very much, sir. You're welcome, Mr. Chairman. This is docket number 365241 43 Fairmont Street. Mr. Nolan, I believe you're on the call there. Good evening, Mr. Nolan, if you could, um, do you need control the screen to show us what you're proposing? Yeah, it would help. Are you able to, are you able to share the screen now? No. Mr. Lee, can you assist Mr. Nolan with that? I don't seem to have that ability. I don't seem to either. Try it now. Yeah. Yeah, it looks like I can. Great. Are you able to see the screen? Yes. All right, thank you. Great. Are we ready to begin, Mr. Chair? Please. So thanks again. So a recap on our last meeting, the board suggested that we take a look at the design and read the character, sorry, the design guidelines, which I didn't previously read, gave me an opportunity to read that and also made a couple of suggestions. So my team and I went work and came up with some modifications to the plan that hopefully the board will agree is more in keeping with the design guidelines. So we, I first started by reading the design guidelines and came away with it with the largest, I think, that they're trying to say is to promote good design and thoughtful design. So that it fits within the neighborhood context. And I've seen similar design guidelines in different towns. This one was actually pretty well-written. So congratulations. I've seen some that are very poorly written. So this one was pretty straightforward. I think the original proposal actually included a lot of the design guidelines. What they're seeking to do. And I think I try to do that in every projects, consider the proportion of things, the scale of things relative to the neighborhood context and we try to do good design. Any renovation projects are endeavored to make the things that we're changing and modifying feel like they fit the house. However, there were some things after reading the design guidelines that went out to us, the ways to improve it, I think even better. So hopefully you agree. I'll start with the front perspective here. Our focus was mostly on the front of the house as that's the most important feature with regards to the street, but we also did make some modifications to the sides. The first is there's a emphasis in the design guidelines for the front porch and how it addresses the street. So I think actually our proportions were pretty good on the original proposal. So we didn't change those. The column details, the end trim down here, I think is all appropriate for the vintage of the house, the styling of the house and proportion with the pieces that we're adding. We did add a gable panel up here and we also did on recommendation of the design guidelines, go with a more traditional Eve return here. So those are the two things that we did. The gable panels, I think actually start to bring, visually it starts to bring down the height of the gable. So we thought that was a good addition and that adds a little bit more richness to the design. And then the other move in the front that we thought was keeping with what the design guidelines were striving for and also some comments from the board members on lining the windows. Instead, if you remember, we had a window off to the side here to avoid this roof here. This is a minor move, but actually worked out nice to put two awning windows up here centered under the gable. So those are the kind of the moves that we did in the front of the house. On the side of the house here is where we made, I think some significant improvements with regards to, again, what the building with the design guidelines are looking for. The biggest of which is we've gone from a one foot setback from the front of the house to a five and a half foot setback from the Dormer. You have one of the design elements that we were trying to do in the original plan was this stepped Dormer, which is a new detail. I wasn't able to find, the second thing I did, if I could rewind for a second after reading the design guidelines was actually took a tour through Google Maps or one of the map programs up and down the street. So I went to, obviously, Fairmont Street, Thorn Dyke all the way to Magnolia and the one south of this, which I'm drawing a blank on it, Lafayette. So Lafayette, Burma, and went up and down and had to get a better sense of what was there. I came away from it is that it's a pretty eclectic neighborhood. There are certainly repeat styles. We saw everything from double-deckers to houses similar to the one that we had. I've seen all types of Dormers, smaller ones, larger ones. And I've got examples of that, but I didn't want to belabor the point. Reading through the design guidelines, I was really encouraged to hear that they're not promoting carbon copies of existing details. The way that they stated actually, I thought was pretty eloquent, borrow from details, think of proportions, and they encourage you to think of new details that work within that framework, which is, as a designer, very encouraging to hear. So this was our attempt at a new design that broke down the massing of a seemingly otherwise large Dormer by stepping it. In the previous model, we had several steps in it. Again, try to break that down. True with that is that it did create a somewhat haphazardly organization of the window structures up there. I didn't think it was too big of a deal, and I still don't think it's a crime in any sense because of this roof edge here, biting the two, but this is more in keeping with what the design guidelines are looking for. So we were able to redesign the Dormer feature where we have a lower Dormer here, and we step up in order to get our egress windows, and now those windows are aligned with the existing windows. Well, everything below this roof edge right here is existing, and we're not changing it, except for the front element here. So it would be all new up here, and you can see the windows aligned now with the windows below. And this would be, so that's the same side that we were looking at in elevation, and this is the other side here. You can see the windows are aligned with the windows to the point that we can. These are not ours. I think you can see here, this is a five and a half foot setback, and then another, close to five and a half foot setback where our Dormers are as low as they can be. This is a four-pitch here, and this is a two-pitch over here. And with that, I think that's the extent of our modifications. Hopefully you agree that we are trying to work with the town and the board to create a good project. I am kind of flying all over the place. This is the front elevation. The ridge height stays the same. We're under the required height limitation. That's ridge height is up here, so we're a couple, I think I believe we're 30 inches lower than the maximum roof height. It is, I think, a foot in change higher than in the existing ridge height. And with that, hopefully I haven't taken too much time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Norn. There was one other question that had come up last time, which you and I had exchanged emails over this week, which was in regards to the calculation of half-story on the upper floor. You had provided a plan, which is as a part of the website, and you had indicated that you had reviewed the plan already with Inspectional Services, and they had agreed that the attic floor does meet the requirements of a half-story. Is that correct? Yeah, that is correct. Thank you for bringing that up. You very astutely pointed out that the section diagram shows a little bit different. Just give me one quick second. I'm trying to pull up a drawing here. This is the, these are building sections. We're designing this through the height of the pandemic, and getting in touch with the building department was challenging for every time. So we actually went through and took this to a pretty evolved state, and we have some construction documents sections that are detailed in a little bit greater detail. Are you able to see those right now? Yes, we can see the three sections. So the section diagram was a very basic tool to just explain how we were achieving the half-story. But you were questioning the roof on this. It looked like in the section diagram, it looked like it was flat. We're actually adding a layer of digit insulation up there to create the slope and get it under a two-pitch. But to circle back to your original comment, yes, we met with the, I put the building inspector quite a few times, Mr. Chimpera, if I'm pronouncing that right. Several times, I believe he agreed. And at our last meeting, I think Mr. Vincent, with Vincent, no, I'm sorry, Rick, but I just had a little bit more clarification. The roof, this will be a two-pitch minimum, creating that with rigid insulation, which is good because we can't get that somewhat intentional. It adds to the thermal envelope of the building, but it also prevents any future owners going back in there and trying to claim that space is it's the framings down here. So I think that's one of the things that sold the building inspector on it, meeting the off story. Answer your question, Mr. Clont, sorry. It does, thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board? None. I'll open the hearing for public comments. The questions from the prior hearing still holding. Are there any questions or comments from the public? Seeing none, the public hearing will be closed. Excuse me, the public comment period of the hearing will be closed. So I think this revision does a great job in terms of addressing the concerns the board had raised at the prior hearing. I get, it does not have the sort of the large sort of overstated feel. I think it had the previous time. I think it's done a good job. I'd like to sort of the simplification of the way that the EVE lines move on the side. The second at the attic floor level, I think they do have having fewer changes and sort of makes it sit a lot better than it did previously. I appreciate those moves on behalf of the applicant. Are there other comments from the board? Chairman? No, Mr. Hamlin. I wanted to, I agree with what the chair has just said about the improvements in the design here. I just wanted to note for the record that I spent a pleasant half hour or so taking the same walk that Mr. Nolan did over the weekend. And as Mr. Nolan was describing what was happening, I was sort of going through a list of photographs that you can now take with telephones and just looking at this house as it is now, looking at its neighbors and up and down the street and I came back around the other way. And it is a varied street with lots of styles and I think that this will fit very nicely in what is already there. I think it's sensitive and you can go and look at a number of houses that will, as you're walking up and down the street, look quite similar to this in terms of their basic presentation. So that's the first point. The second point is that this is one of the first occasions when we've had a chance to really use the design guidelines and the way they've been intended. And I'm pleased that Mr. Nolan found them helpful and that we've all found them helpful. They're not regulatory requirements by any way, but they do provide a way to sort of steer your way into a better design that is more attractive and increases the likelihood of getting an approval. So kudos to town staff who had the consultants who put those together, but it seems to me this is a good example of the way in which the guidelines ought to work and I'm glad they seem to have worked out in this case. Certainly second that. Mr. Mills. Yes, I'd like to, excuse me. I'd like to echo those comments on the aesthetics. This is quite an improvement. I am curious, can I see the rear elevation again, please? It's pretty good. Yes, it is quite an improvement and we do appreciate it and I'm sure the name as well. Thank you, that's all. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Any further questions from the board? Seeing none, is there a motion from the board? Mr. Chairman? I move that the board approve the special permit application subject to the usual conditions relating to, excuse me, the usual conditions relating to enforcement, continued jurisdiction and so on. The three standard conditions that we always use. Second? Second. Just to quickly read through those three standard conditions. Number one, the final plans and specifications approved by the board for the permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector for the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Number two, building inspector is hereby notified that he has to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures that any time he deems 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 that, excuse me, it's necessary the inspector of buildings may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And number three, the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit. So with that, the motion to approve having been made and seconded, Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Revillac. Hi. And the chair votes aye, you are approved. So as far as the board is concerned, this is a temporary granting. We will issue a final written decision. We'll vote on the written decision at our earliest opportunity. And at that point, it will be transmitted to the town clerk's office. And can I ask, probably look this up on online, the appeals process. I don't think that's gonna happen, but just curious. But once it's been filed with the town clerk's office, there's a 20 day appeal period. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. You're quite welcome. All right. This closes the hearing on 4143 Fairmont Street, which brings us to number agenda. This is 3653 59 Mountain Vernon Street.