 All right. It is 734 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25th, 2022. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals and I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. Like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. From the zoning board of appeals Roger Dupont. Here. After canlan. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And then cat Holly. Here. Have you all day new Rick Adele is unavailable to join us this evening and the board currently has a vacancy. Town officials on the call. Rick fellow rally the board's administrator. Good evening, Mr. Good evening and Vincent Lee the assisting staff. Good to have you Vinny. I know you're having some. Audio problems there. appearing on behalf. Of the remote participation study committee. Is there anyone here from that group at this time. Jennifer Seuss is here. Good to see you. You. Representing 39 Woodside Lane. Mary O'Connor is here. Yes. And I saw Paul as artists here as well. Good to see you. Appearing on behalf of one three. Edith street. Jack Foster prison. See you. And then on behalf of 24 Langley road. Faith found. I'm here. Good to see you. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. The open meeting of the Ellington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations signed into law on July 16, 2022. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2023 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, the public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a forum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting the Ellington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Some attendees are participating by a computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly please be aware that other folks may be able to see you your screen name or another identifier please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members this body. If you are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, the public is encouraged to follow along using the post agenda as chair I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair I make the following land acknowledgement. The zoning board of appeals in the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington formerly known as monotony. Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board here by acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony province and Commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. So at the start of this meeting. I'm going to quickly just drop down and open up the hearing for 39 Woodside Lane, because the applicant has a request to continue. So Mary O'Connor. Thank you Mr Chairman members of the board. We would request that the continued hearing that's on tonight up to 39 Woodside Lane be continued to November 15, due to an unforeseen family medical emergency suffered by a member of our construction and architectural team. Thank you so kind of any questions from the board. And I have a motion to continue the special permit hearing 39 Woodside Lane, until 730pm on October 15, 2022. Mr. That's not October 15 that would be November 15. Oh, thank you so much November 15. Thank you. Second. So this is a move whichever is appropriate. So this will be a vote to continue the special permit hearing for 39 Woodside Lane, until November 15, 2022 at 730pm. To roll call vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Hi, Mr. Hanlon. Hi, Ms. Hoffman. Hi, Mr. Holly. Hi. And the chair votes I we are continued on 39 Woodside Lane. Thank you all. Thank you. Have a good night. Good night. So with that, I'll return back to the administrative items we're starting this evening with a couple of administrative items. The first is the approval of written minutes for September 13. And the second will be a discussion of the board's participation in the hybrid meeting pilot to expedite the consideration of these items the chair notes the following. So these items relate to the operation of the board and as such will be conducted without input from the general public, the board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. So with that item two on our agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes from I had said September 13 I apologize it is September 27, 2022. The minutes that were prepared by Mr. Valerelli distributed to the board for comment. Everyone should have had an opportunity to review and return comments to Mr. Valerelli are there any further questions or comments in regards to the written minutes for September 27. Seeing none. I have a motion to approve the minutes from September 27, 2022. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon and a second. Second. Second. A roll call vote of the board and Mr. Hanlon. I Mr. Rickidelli is not with us this evening this often. Hi, Holly. Hi, and chair votes I those minutes are approved brings us to item number three. This is a discussion with the remote participation study committee. So with that I introduced Jennifer Seuss. Hi, good to see you. I'll sort of give a brief presentation of what we've done so far and what we hope to do in the next few months, and then open the floor to questions. So, as, as you likely know, since you've read about it, you just read at the beginning of your meetings, the remote orders extended until March 31. Now what happens in March 31, we don't know. The legislature is often does things the last minute. There's lots of backdoor stuff. But some possibilities include going back to the way it was before those rules were that the only reason that you could be remote was either that you're physically out of town, or there was a medical emergency. That's one possibility. Another possibility is that they pass legislation requiring some sort of hybrid meetings or encouraging it or there's a date later to, you know, there. There's a lot of discussion about hybrid meetings. And the third possibility is that they just keep pushing it because they have made the decision, and which is possible. So, but what happens. So what we're doing now though, so a year and a half ago, a time meeting passed this remote participation study committee that designed to study actually hybrid meeting technology and protocols. In the first year, we spent a lot of time talking to people both participants and meetings and people on committees of the surveys and some, some also just conversations, gathering information, putting together a report for a time meeting about what we want to do and it made sense to do a pilot, rather than sort of launch full full fledged into this for reasons I'm sure you understand. So we reached out to several committees yours included and asked if they'd be interested in being part of the pilot. Now I actually don't remember if you guys have voted to be part of the pilot or if that's still to be done. Do you do you have a great question. Okay, so. I know we had discussed it and I believe we were in agreement that we would want to do so but I don't think we had had a formal vote or not. So, so if you're still willing to go forward, you would need a formal vote at some point but so. So the hybrid pilot, you know, best of intentions we'd want to start a couple months ago for various reasons where we have a much shorter time period. But in the ideal world, we would start this hybrid with you guys, if you're still interested sometime in November, if that's just not possible. So December would be fine as well. There's a few things that you as a community have to do before we start the pilot one is certain to have a vote. But the others to go through that decision point document which I know you've seen, and make some crucial decisions about how you want to run your meetings. And we didn't want to sort of tell committees how to run the meetings we wanted to sort of just talk about the kinds of issues that might arise. The most important issue is what happens in the case of technical failure. If you have technical failure and you don't have a quorum in either place. So there's a people in a room and then people online and there's not quorum either place, what happens. A couple possibilities few possibilities one is you could shut down the meeting and restart in a couple of hours or an hour or something and give people time to get to someplace either all remote or all in person. So another possibility is to have a date that you said in advance that you would reconvene. And a third possibility is, is to continue with the meeting but of course it would only be possible if you had a quorum in one place. We had on these topics briefly at the end of our last session. Right, so you have some responses for some of these questions. Oh great. Oh wonderful. So what are you guys thinking of right now just a curiosity. So for that what we had discussed was that we would, we would want to have a, there would be a pause for like 15 minutes to just see if it could resolve itself. Yep. But that if it couldn't we would adjourn to a future date, just because chances are the reason that the calls going out is because there's a snowstorm or there's lightning or something and so we don't want to encourage people to go out on the road. And then internet outages on town halls sometimes. Yeah, or your community center has been problematic. So, so there could be things like that so one of the things for being part of a pilot is that you're going to get more problems that hopefully we have in the future and that's the point of being a part of a pilot is to stress test these things. And so there might be more technical problems or protocol problems, and your feedback is really going to be important to us. The kind of feedback we're looking for we have a serve a really quick survey or ask two kinds one is the chair or the chair doesn't need sort of were sort of requiring that person to fill that out after every meeting. And the other survey questionnaire is to be sent out to board members and members of the public to be filled out at their discretion. So no one has to. So we have to at least one person filling out but the other one the shorter one can be filled out people as they want. So, so if you have people who are participating remotely by zoom that's very easy can put in the chat. And, and then if you have it in person, you might have to do have like a physical piece of paper or something to give to people to fill it out. Yeah, or some sort of, well, yeah. Okay, so the other sort of questions to ask is, how do you handle public participation. So you have some people on zoom, some people in the room. What do you do, do you go back and forth to handle one at a time. Do you have a sign up that happens in advance or like at the very beginning of a meeting. So you want, you want to sort of figure that out. Yeah, I mean, one of the things we love that this meeting is being is interested in being private pilot because you do have lots and lots of interest in the public. So you will be testing sort of public participation both remotely and in person and that's going to be great for us to get information from you. So you guys are going to be, I think you know in the community center in room a or B those that's a big room that can be divided with the divider. Okay, yeah. Yep. There, there have been like weird little problems so I do suggest that people that somebody sort of be trained certainly in the technology but also just in the room layout before the meeting starts and so I know that you have a staff person. And that that person to be trained first but I'd also suggest that somebody else from your committee be trained as well for little things like where's the key or I know there's a little like, you know, remote control box where is it I mean that everything has to be plugged in nothing's on batteries for example like little little things that could go wrong. It's good to sort of test those things out first. So the other, there's one more major zoom. Yeah, I mean you have to, you have to figure out who's doing what so you know you have a staff person but do you have somebody's handling the remote stuff in the room, somebody who's handling zoom and raises somewhere else or you know you sort of have to designate the people who are in charge of that. I mean you are lucky because you have staff people in your meeting but but it might be helpful to have a member who's just making sure everyone gets in and raise the hands and stuff like that. Who's not doing the on in rooms down and just seeing I thought there's one more big thing. That's basically it but I do you want to say one more thing. When you're in the room the camera follows you and it picks up sound and it's pretty good. But if somebody speaks in the room. One of the things you don't get is you don't get their name in the way box so if you want to capture that you will need to the speaker will need to say their name, and certainly that has to happen if it's public anyway, but you might decide that it makes sense for committee members also commission members also to say their name. I mean, we didn't do that in the olden days but it might, you know, it, you know, we certainly get that information captured on remote and zoom and so it might be valuable to do that as well in the room. Would we be able to schedule just sort of like a dry run. Absolutely. So, so Jim Feeney is running these and rather than trying to schedule everyone at the same time. He just said, reach out to him and work with him. So you can just add to him through me, or you can return to him on your own Tuesdays and Thursdays are good days for him in general. Okay, well, those are good days to just go down and hang out for a few minutes in those rooms. Okay. So it might be instructive, you know, for, because a lot of what we do has such importance and, you know, I would hate to sort of try this out for the first time on some poor unsuspecting applicants so right try it out. You know, once or twice, just among friends and family, we could probably try to make that work and see what happens. I would say I would suggest that you do a trial run beforehand for 15 minutes or something, but then also start the meeting a few minutes early to sort of go through that before they. Obviously you can't discuss anything official but you just that kind of, you know, you can ask people about their dinner plans or something. Perfect. Yeah. So a couple more things that some committees are doing some committees are coming up and you said you've already had a discussion but some committees have like a subgroup that is making going through the decision point document and sort of presenting things to the committee for suggestions, but it sounds like you've already sort of talked about some of those things. Yeah. And I would just stress that what you want to do is make sure that the public knows what the decisions are. Both at both, ideally in your agenda, also in at the beginning of each of the meetings. Here's what happens in case we have a technical set or this is what we're going to do. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, questions, yes. Any questions from the board. So I have a couple of questions. What is, do we have in the ordinary run of meetings is probably no reason why we shouldn't have them in the community center. In the community center. There are occasional cases where we can expect a very crowded room. And just for public health reasons, if no other, it would might be a good idea to do those all zoom rather than rather than have a lot of people coming together for a covert event. I guess I'm wondering what, how we would do that. I assume that we have the ability to sort of in an exceptional case make clear in the public notice that the, or something that the meeting will be an all zoom meeting if that's what we've decided to do. But have you thought through the procedure how that would work if we elected on special occasions to go all zoom, or I suppose alternatively even all personal maybe. So in terms of the feedback on the pilot, we're getting less feedback if you do that. But of course, you're right that it might make sense to do that. What I would recommend you do is, especially if you've not made that crystal clear to potential outside members one person in the room, just in case. But, but if you, you know, if it's all been announced in advance and it's really clear, then you probably can continue to go on zoom. The great thing about the fact that the order doesn't expire until March 31 is that legally we can do anything we want right now. Right, so we, we might very well have some much more restrictive requirements whenever that remote participation order expires. But right now it's wide open. So it really is apt to come up most and 40 b cases because before you even have anybody from the public you have a room that's half full of experts of one sort of the other from each side. And when you begin, and then, you know, some are more controversial than others but if you have a lot of people, it's not too hard to be in a position where everybody is sort of tightly squeezed together which is still not something that a lot of people are comfortable with. Mr. Chairman, if it's all right. I just want to be clear that, as I understand it, the technical issue is is that is that it doesn't require any vote of the board. In other words, if, if you wait 15 minutes, and then nothing happens. Then you already have preposition in order that says what is going to occur so that if anybody stays on the phone for 15 minutes and nothing happens and they know that they're going to have to go to the backup day. And we don't have to worry about somehow finding a quorum to act because we've already acted there's a default option and it doesn't require anything more from our part. And that that understanding is correct about how the procedure would work isn't it. At least that's what our intention is. We have stated is our intention. Yeah, we did it that way. That's that's what we understand. And we did send over the decision by document to Doug Heim who gave us a bunch of feedback so we. So, my understanding is that that's okay, as long as it's communicated advance. Thank you. Absolutely. Any further questions from the board. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question if you don't mind. So the legal notices, would they have an option for the participants. Right now it says a hearing in regards to the petition will be conducted remotely. So with the legal notice, I give the petition, give the public an option to join remotely are in person. That's my understanding. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Thank you. So one of the things I'm going to do is reach out to the committees before, you know, week before your first hybrid and to make sure all those teas are across and stuff. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do you have any sense of when you're meeting the next meeting that you would think it would make sense to do this. So we have two meetings that are scheduled to November of the 22nd is the continuation of the 40 d and I would not want to do that as a test. We do have one coming up that will be on the 15th. That'll have two items on it. We would need to figure out if we think we're going to be ready for that date. I'm a little uncomfortable. Jumping in that quick. Yeah. So I think, you know, December might be a better option, but it might not be a bad idea in November to at least do sort of a, you know, a dry run meeting. Yeah, with members of the board and to sort of see what happens. Okay, okay, just just to let me know when those those make sense. Okay. Are there any further questions from the board. None. Thank you so much for coming to us tonight. Sure. I have another meeting to get to so I'll take my leave. Thank you so much and I will be definitely be in touch about finding a date to do a dry run. Great. Thanks so much. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Do you think that it may be useful to schedule a vote for the 15th, so that we can get that formality out of the way. Absolutely. And I can check and see if we've done that already. I just can't recall. I'm sorry. Very good. Thank you all. Go back to our agenda. The next item is a public hearing. So turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda. Here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicant or applicants to introduce themselves for themselves and make their presentation to the board. I will ask members of the board, ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, I will, the board will deliberate on the matter. And just as a case, anyone has joined the meeting late and is here on to hear the case on 39 Woodside Lane. Just note that the 39 Woodside Lane was continued now until November 15. There was an acute family emergency on behalf of the applicant and they requested a last second continuance, which we did at the start of the meeting. So we will not be hearing 39 Woodside Lane tonight that has been continued to November 15. So that goes to I don't remember five on our agenda this evening, which is docket number 370313 Edith Street. So I could ask the applicant to go ahead and introduce themselves. That would be great. My name is Jack Foster. I live at one Edith Street. I submitted this application with Spencer Renke, who co-owns this is a two unit property in East Arlington, up and down. And so we co-own the property together along with our respective spouses. We've submitted an application for a shed dormer. Which would go on to the top unit, which is one Edith Street, my residence. I don't, I've never done one of these before, so I'm not sure what else would be helpful, but I did note the memo from the Department of Planning and Community Development requested some floor plans and side elevations. I believe those have been included in the, in the reference materials. They were originally included in our application package, but for whatever reason, didn't are now uploaded with reference. Let me go ahead and share the application. So essentially they are looking to, it's just adding this 653 square feet up on the third floor. Exactly. So this is the existing front elevation. This is the proposed front elevation view from the corner existing and proposed. And then this is the plot plan. So there's no change to the plot itself. It's just this side of the house. Exactly. And I'm happy to share my screen or Mr. Chair, whichever your preferences we have. Yes, the floor plans and elevation are located here. So this is the existing will be left side elevation. This would be the proposed. And I'm assuming this line is just where the old line used to be. Yes, I think that's just a demarcation of the prior line. Where the floor would be. And then this is the proposed floor plan. Yes, sir. Yeah, we're looking to add a kind of a family room, great room, which then enters into a hallway for a master suite. So a bedroom, bath and a closet. And that's about it and exit onto a balcony. Currently there's a roof over the kind of the a budding or built on office. I guess it's an office on on the Juanita Street unit currently with a roof. And so that roof would be replaced with a flat roof and a balcony. And this is the. Yeah, and that's that's about it we've we've been working with Bob Terrizoni of high tech dormers, who I believe does a lot of the dormers in, and kind of the north in the kind of metro s Boston and Arlington Medford. So he's he's been on site. He's been in our attic and he's examined, you know, what we're working with and has given us a proposal so he's available and is, you know, we're, we've got a retainer down with him so hoping to be able to move forward. I think that this will add a lot of value to the property and and increase the, you know, the usage for families to increase from a two bedroom to a three bedroom. So the, the, the first thing I do want to clarify I went back and forth with the planning department a little bit about this. Yeah, it just as a technicality. It's not a dormer. It's, you are just, you're changing the roof shape basically it's going from being a, you know, your regular symmetrical gable to being an asymmetrical gable. I see. But it doesn't matter one iota except that it's just just not technically not a dormer. I see. And typically what we see would typically when we would see this would be a dormer and that would, there would be a portion of the existing roof that remains. I see. And then you would see the dormer is subservient to the roof so you would sort of see it as an element in the roof so this is just a slightly different appearance of that so I just wanted to clarify that. I mean, we went with this asymmetrical roof shape as opposed to kind of a standard dormer which mostly for roof for balcony access. If you retain the e shape I don't think a door way would quite fit right right there so we're hoping that the asymmetrical roof line will be visually appealing. It's also functional to the to the great room space, and, and I did notice in the memo then agree that the setback from the front sidewalk, and the, the addition of a balcony will will set off the asymmetrical roof from from the street. Definitely. And we're, and we're definitely open to fencing designs, railing designs that are more modern for the balcony. Thank you. Are there questions from the board package. So this is the reason this is coming before the board. As we see often, essentially, thus the site has zero usable open space. And by the amount of usable open space of properties required to have relates directly to the amount of gross floor area of that building itself. And so, as you increase the gross floor area the house you're supposed to increase the amount of usable open space. And as a non conformity that it has no usable open space. And the question before the board is, is that it's going is requiring more usable open space where there's none now is that creating is, is that substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hanlon. This is great to come up eventually anyway but the Before we get to the what's called the section six finding that you just indicated whether it would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non conformity. There has to be a finding that there is a extension of the non conforming use. There's been a lot of discussion back and forth over time, including the Oxford case that we had last week. Generally speaking, ISD by asking for a special permit impliedly finds that there's an extension of the non conforming use, whether or not that is appropriate in a case like this is something that has come under under some discussion. This has been in the pipeline and has been pending for a while and and no one has appealed that determination to us. So I feel sort of bound by the implicit determination that has been made by ISD. I do think that that in substance, it's a serious question whether in a case like this we should be hearing it at all, as opposed to it being doable as a matter of right. And I think that view, or at least the view that it's a significant issue is shared by the building inspector and I'm hoping eventually that we get to the point where it would be a rare occurrence if ever that we would be dealing with cases, cases of this kind. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Foster, do you know what the roof pitch is? You know what I would, I would have to calculate that I know it is greater than the minimum but I do not have that exact figure. I can ask. I can I can get that figure for you shortly though. Unfortunately, that sheet for some reason is not a part of this application record and I'm not sure why. I think I think on the sheets. Yeah, I don't I don't know why they're one of my habits on my. It certainly looks to be a pitch that's, that's greater than 2%. So I mean 212. So I think yes, that's, I mean, that's the figure that we submitted on page two of the calculation form. Yeah, that it's greater than 212 as to the exact pitch. I would have to, I would have to get that from records. Let me see. I have it here. No, it's simply greater than 212 should be able to do it from the elevation here. We're going from it's to be over 12 feet. Yes, if that's a figure you'd like I'd have to, I'd have to consult my notes and get that for you. Okay. But I know that it is over them to over 212. The only question I had. I have a question for the board so this is to the first case I can recall where rather than it being done as a dormer the request is to really to raise the entire half of the roof and the reason that this works here is because the second floor has an enclosed area in the front porch, what would have been the front porch is now in closed space is that counts towards the gross floor area the second floor. And that they're able to raise the entire side in order and still remain within the definition of a half storing. But what this does create, which we had seen before in the side here is that you end up to effectively this, even though this is the existing condition, this is sort of the mirror of what the right side of the house is going to look like. So the right side of the house is a two story, but the left side of the house is going to functionally be a three story building. And I just so it'll have a very tall facade so I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention typically if we were to have a dormer, you would still have the Eve line that would be continuing above the row of second windows, which would sort of break that break up and then passing a little bit between the main part of the house and the, the addition into the attic. And so, you know, as Mr. Handlin had said, you know, essentially, you know, there, there is there's definitely an interpretation of the zoning bylaw and there are discussions going on that this kind of a request, because of the way that bylaws are considered, so that could be approved by right. I did want to bring it to the board's attention because as a special permit we're allowed to sort of continue to consider the application of the residential design guidelines and so the question is, you know, to be to be blunt, does this does this bother anyone does anybody think that this is detrimental having a straight three story facade. We're placing in another house directly next door. Mr. Chair. Topman. I wouldn't say that it bothers me but I guess I have a follow up question which is because it with the current proposal, it would still be a half story, but it's kind of locking the building in to being asymmetrical. I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at but that is kind of an interesting situation that it. It wouldn't really be possible to do the same intervention on the opposite side. So that from the this move could not happen on this side and there's really not any additional space left over to do any kind of dormering on this side. Mr. Chair I don't I don't know if there's any other follow up comments but I'd be happy to address those those concerns. I'd also like to respond to your question about the pitch. It's, it is exactly a 212. Okay, perfect. Yep. Yeah, I think in this current configuration we're maxing out, we're at 46% of the plan below. So we're, you know, 4% shy, I guess you could open up a window or something. On the other side and not, you know, create more square footage but create a little bit more of a, you know, symmetric Cali if you'd like down the road. But I'd also know that our next door immediate next door neighbor to the left. The later mints, I believe they submitted a letter stating that, that they approve of this design as the most directly affected individual party. And as the configuration of the house, we selected this side so that this, you know, the the creation of three stories, which I have seen around town at a number of houses that you know, so the Eve line is not uniformly maintained. But we put it on the left side so that it would not be visible from the corner from the predominant lines of sight on Margaret Street. Thank you for that. So I'm going to start with the board. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So I'm just trying to summarize for myself so, I mean, in terms of the half story calculation everything is fine. In terms of the pitch. Yeah, of the roof. Everything is fine. So really the issue becomes one of aesthetics in terms of like the residential guide, not design guidelines. Would you would you agree with that. So that yes. So we're really talking and I think that the applicant has just addressed it by saying that the next door neighbor who would be most directly affected by it has no objection and approves of it. But I guess the question and I'm not an architect. Like many of you, but in the event that you wanted not to have that that roof be raised for the entire length or width, whatever it is of the house. In order to create a dormer you'd essentially just be cutting off. You know, a couple of parts, you know, spaces on the ends of each of the roof line right so that it would have more of the appearance of a dormer. Exactly. And that would be really the only thing that would give any visual relief. As far as that is concerned. I'm just trying to understand that that would really be the only option. And, and I guess it's, I'm not sure that it's anything that we could insist upon anyway, but that's really the issue is it not. It is and the applicant had sort of made this the statement at the start which is very true that in order to have, you know, good flowing access out onto the deck above the second floor. In front of the building. If the existing roof line remained there really isn't space to come out that the door would be impacted, you know, the door would be in the roof framing. So in order to do to make full use of that area on the third on the attic level, essentially at the front, it's in shifting, rotating up that piece of the roof is sort of somewhat critical to make that happen. I just wanted to clarify. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm hoping that we maybe gets more lucidation from the public hearing but many of that I wanted to raise the whether this is a dormer or whether it's changing the shape of the roof is not a matter of concern under the zoning bylaw as such, it is just a question ultimately of whether this is the extension of the non conformity here is increases the detriment to the neighborhood. But because we do the, the, we put this into the special permit framework we do have from from the planning department, a comment on how they think at least the residential design guidelines apply. They are relatively bullish on this. They mentioned that that covered porches and and these kinds of things are common in this neighborhood and that they think that the addition will complement the style of the existing structure and the adjacent homes in the neighborhood. And while the proposal will increase the structures massing the addition is set back for me to the street and partly shielded by the proposed open porch which is a statement that Mr. Foster already makes so their conclusion is that it wouldn't really impact the neighborhood character the district or adjoining districts, which is, I think, consistent with what the letter we have from the neighbor most directly affected says so. I'm not unduly disturbed by this it seems to me that it's an issue that that comes up sometimes when we deal with cases of this and it's only kind of perverly related to the extension of the open space non conformity, which is what we're supposed to be focused on but anyway applying the residential guidelines is always subjective and different people can have different views but the planning department seems to be relaxed about this. Further from the board. Oh yeah. One question I had was on a one page eight of the site plan. Go back to that 12 foot seven inch dimension is the new. I just want to understand what that 12 foot seven inch dimension they shone running east west of the page. Is here. Yeah, my my understanding Mr chairs that that is the affected the effective length of essentially the left side of the house from the ridge line of the roof to the existing overhang into the overhang so that's the section where the roof will be lifted. Okay, those effectively have the width of the house. Okay. But back on the calculations is 15 foot five inch shown as the width of the building. So it's just a Right, so if you if you go to the floor plan based on I believe the seven foot height calculation. Yeah, that extends a few feet three feet past the onto the right side of the house. So if you imagine the bridge line is where where the wall is between the hallway or the bedroom in the closet. That's the ridge line. So that seven foot space extends three feet over so that's where you get the 15. But wouldn't the area of the floor below be the entire width of it which is okay. And then the floor below includes the area that on the third floor is the balcony so that was right. That is offsetting. Right. So that allows the this to be more than 50% of the main volume of the house. Right. Right. So this is what 25 feet or 24 something. Yeah, we're in that range. Yeah, go ahead and stop the share and We'll be opening the meeting for public comment public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments, the chair asks those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing to please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead of them. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application, those calling in by phone please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host to be asked to give your name and address maybe given time for your questions and comments, all questions that are to be addressed through the chair please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed the public comment period will be closed. And with that, are there any members of the public who to address this hearing, just the hearing for 13 eateth street. One more chance anyone wishing to address this hearing. None I'll go ahead and close the public comment period. Okay, so what is before the board this is a request to create an attic, excuse me, in addition at the attic floor level, which would take place on one side of. The existing house and as the applicant had said, hi tech dormer they will basically take the existing roof plane and tilt it up and then reframe underneath it so it will create an asymmetrical roof form. And definitely said partly that's to enable better access to get out on top of the existing addition that's on the front of the building, which is an office space on the second floor and it would be an open deck on the third floor. This comes before the board because it is technically increasing the existing non conformity with regards to usable open space. And so the board typically applies the criteria for a special permit in its review and then as this is a special. So it's actually considered a chapter six. Section six determination the board needs to make a determination that the, the change is not significantly more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. So are there any questions from the board in regards to what we're doing. Does the board vote to approve this application, are there any conditions that members of the board field would be appropriate. The board does have three typical. Standard conditions which would apply which I'll go ahead and read into the record the first standard condition number one plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specification submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with his application for zoning relief should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the zoning board of appeals. Standard number two, the building inspector is here by notify these to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time and just determine the violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21 D as the Massachusetts general laws and institute non criminal complaints. If necessary the building inspector may also approve an institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and standard number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. Are there any additional conditions which members of the board field would be appropriate this time. Mr. Mr chair sorry to interrupt. One question. Does condition one does that apply to internal floor plans as well. So the demarcation of internal balls, walls, number of, you know, if we're looking to drop half a bath. Yeah, no I the interior wouldn't matter to wouldn't wouldn't be a material to the board. Okay, thank you. Absolutely. That would entertain a motion. Mr Chairman. I move that the board approve the application subject to the standard conditions that the chair just read into the record. Second. And thank you. Are there any questions from the board this is a vote to approve the special permit for 13 eat a street with three conditions. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not a roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. This happened. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Chair votes. Hi. The special permit for one free eat a street is approved. Thank you very much members of the chair. And Mr. Thank you. I would like to introduce myself. I'm a resident at 24 Langley. And I'm on our agenda, which is docket three seven. One eight, which is 24 Langley road. I would ask the applicant to introduce themselves. And I will. Go ahead and load up the documents for this hearing. I'm faith bam. I'm the architect for the project. And I think herb Sweeney, the owner is here. Yes. Hello. My name is Herb Sweeney. And my family and I have been residents here for I think seven years now, really love our neighborhood. We're looking to make some improvements to our house, including a porch on the south face to improve access and circulation. And as fate noted we've engaged faith bomb architects to assist in the design of this feature. And if it's acceptable to the chair, I would like to have faith walk through the design and the features of the application. Absolutely. This bomb do you have a presentation you want to present or do you want to. I think we, I'd like to go through the drawings and it was my understanding that you have the drawings. Do. Yes. One. Okay, so I'm just trying. You'll see the on the left side are on facing the camp that's existing. And on the other side is the proposed. And what we're asking to this house is situated in a corner lot. As you can see Crosby street and Langley road surround the house. And on the south side, we are hope what we're doing two additions but but the one in question right now is that porch on the south side. We are asking that the setback. It's considered a rare rear yard, but in fact, it functionally is a side yard. And because the property has so many front yards, we are hoping to place this porch on that side of the house. So if you look at the next drawing. This shows the foundation plan beneath the porch will be a unfinished storage space in that the lot in section on the east side is at a higher, almost a story higher than it is on the on the west side. So on the wet this storage unfinished storage space which you can see in the proposed basement plan will be accessed at the lower elevation. So, can you take the next drawing. You can see that there is a covered porch, and to provide access directly to the kid through the kitchen for the kids and, you know, to access the exterior space. And it's a picks up in terms of its roof, the existing roof and you can see that in the elevations so if we can go to the elevations. There's just a set to cross sections through that covered porch, and it's got a center entrance in the next slide. These are the elevations the existing is above, and the proposed is below. So, facing these drawings on the left side is a little porch, and it picks up on that existing. So we call it a pent roof that wraps the entire house so it's sort of a continuation aesthetically of that house in terms of setback, the required setback for a rear yard is 20 feet. And we are at this time, setting it back 13 feet and change. This would be fine if it was a side yard, but because by it is defined as a rear yard, we are, we are here to us for that special permit. Next slide please. I mean the next image if you don't mind. Thank you. This is the view for as you can see from the, the lower west side of the house. Now, it's kind of torturous to get up into the kitchen, whereas we were looking for our proposal is a much more natural easy access from the high grade. And the other side shows the addition which is in compliance and not part of the discussion. Next, next slide. This is a view from the north side, which looks at the more functional side of the house, the garage side. There'll be a air handler there and not much view and there's no porch here whatsoever so it's really not really relevant. Next slide. This is the front elevation of the porch and you can see right now, we're moving that the compressor to the other side of the house, and putting this porch there. We are basically the house is layered and three layers on the elevation, the lowest is a rough stone rubble foundation above that sits a brick, brick area, and then there's that pant roof and then it's become siding. And so our intention is to just to continue the rubble at the base of the porch, and then have the porch just sit at the brick, brick facade, and then continue the pant roof. And finally, I think the last one yeah this just shows that pretty much every house in the neighborhood has this condition of sort of being framed a center, a center facade, a center mass with two small one story pieces framing that center porch is flanking the main body of the house, the front entry center on that mass, and that there's a scale change that's created by this porch, this proposed porch addition, and, and the, it does not impact negatively the pedestrian circulation but I think it improves the way the house can be used in relationship to to to tightening the, the relationship to the neighborhood. And so that's, that's, I think that's everything. Thank you very much. Back to. Oh, and these are letters that were provided by the neighbors who are happy with this addition. Thank you to just to refresh the board so this is the corner. And it's just this piece here, by definition because this is a front yard and this is a front yard. Everything has to have a rear yard so this is the rear yard. And it's the response at the 13.7 feet is the proposed distance from the edge of the porch to the property line, where currently, I believe this is 22.3 is the is the current rear yard depth. There's this are some letters from a butters. Is that 19 Langley Road in support for 167 Crosby Street also in support, just the locations there's no change to the brush floor area. It is just a portion going existing rear yard 22.3 would have the porch extended into it. Any questions from the board, any questions from the board seeing none very straightforward application. With that I'll go ahead and open the meeting for public comment as stated before public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose purpose of informing our decision members of how to speak can digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab. And if you're calling it by phone you've made it star nine. With that, you have Steve Moore. Yes, thank you Mr. Steve Moore Piedmont Street. I'd like to ask the applicant through you. Did I hear correctly that there's a plan to establish a foundation under this porch. Yes, there is a foundation under the porch. There is not now foundation there you'll be adding the foundation correct. Yeah, we'll carry the porch carry it will take the load of the roof down to the ground yes. Yes, so it is a new it is a new foundation system for the right. Let me ask you then. My understanding is the way these porches work that based on the fact there will be a foundation there that in future, the applicant could now build straight up from that new foundation at a later date. Correct. That was until May 11 I believe is the official date of so town meeting voted an amendment to the zoning bylaws at the spring, the spring. And one of the amendments is that any porch is not considered to be within the foundation wall of the house. And therefore any, any enclosure or building upon it would require an additional special permit. Okay. Thank you, I noted that there's been significant not abuse but almost misuse of that around town so I'm glad that was casting those versions on SAP and by the way, just sit. I'm glad I'm glad time meeting fix it thank you Mr. You're very welcome. Oh, oh I'm sorry. Yep. I know it's a significantly large tree on the property where these that not the addition that you're talking about tonight but the other addition. And I'm hoping you're going to protect that and come up with a free plan to perhaps talk to the tree working about herb do you want to talk about that herbs a landscape architect. Yes, yeah, of course. So there is a large lilac off the southeast corner. Sorry, Southwest corner of the property and one of the major considerations with this improvements of the house was to not impact that existing lilac. So it's not a, it's not a tree but it is a very large shrub and it will be retained. That's a significant goal as I am a professional landscape architect is one of the most important aspects of the garden that this. Oh, that's it that is a dogwood it's off the northwest corner and it would not be impacted by the south, the western expansion as well. It's also lovely. I like the lilac more than I think the absence of trees in the proposed plan is just that none of the trees are transposed it's not that the reason being removed. That's for oh I'm sorry yeah we did that so that you could read the dimensions. Okay, and if the if the question Steve you had was of the state champion, honey locust on the northern side absolutely we do everything we can to keep that. Since that's about, you know, 100 and some years old at this point. Yeah, Mr. Chair that was the three I was thinking about it looks magnificent and that's always particularly interesting to me. Thank you, Mr. Absolutely. So these are, I believe that would be this tree here's the. Your cursor's not showing up. Oh well. It's a lower image on the left hand side I think it's the tree. So left in this view to the left of the house is the is that tree. Yeah, Mr. Chair it's more obvious in the picture at the end of the planning boards document I'm sorry maybe in the package, it was a photograph. Oh, okay. Let me switch back to that then. Yeah it's on the front elevation for the side. Got it. Maybe to the left of that image that you just had up. This one here. That is, that's the honey locust that about four foot diameter. Oh wow. Any other members of the public who wish to adjust hearing. Seeing none I'll go ahead and close the hearing for public comment. So what the board has before it is a request to construct a porch in the rear yard setback. And this is something that the board can grant through special permit. The. We have from the planning board their memorandum. They addressed a special permit criteria. That if he granted by special permit improves convenience and safety of the owner's secondary interest to the home will not create undue traffic will not create an undue burden on the municipal systems would not result in the need for a special regulation. That while the porch exceeds the maximum square footage allowable by right. They're common feature as the, as the architect has demonstrated. And it's consistent with residential design guidelines in terms of improving the overall streetscape adding visual interest and breaking up the massing of the property so. And the seventh criteria would be any detrimental excesses of any particular use and that would not be the case here. And this is the view from the front. Nice tree over here and sort of looking from the back rear back right corner excuse me. That are there any further questions from the board. Mr. Holly. Probably I'm missing something here for sure. There is on sheet is some addition being talked about we're not discussing this hearing about that addition correct or. Correct it's just the fourth edition the other edition is by right. But, okay, that's the reason why the area summary sheets do not include that addition calculations and stuff and no changes being called out. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I don't exactly know. I've been looking at the version of our bylaw that is published and that is made amended by special Tom meeting through May 11 2022. And the amendment that I remember Tom meeting making to the provision that's at issue here is not reflected in that document. I'm a little bit unclear as to as I recall the those amendments actually passed in annual town meeting and not special town meeting, although that may be wrong. I recall the number the date being in June and I wondering whether I'm just having question about what document is actually the document that has been approved and and is is enforced but the language that is in the one thing that I downloaded after I heard that the document that approved it seems to me to reflect to be essentially the language that existed before the change. I just, I just noticed this for the first time and I am a little perplexed by it and by what if anything, we should be doing about it. Let's see. Leave it's 539. Right. On pay on paid 56 of district and uses. Six, thank you. The first sentence there and what I'm reading is projecting eaves chimneys bay windows balconies open fire escapes and enclosed entrances not more than 25 square feet and so forth. And the word porches was supposed to be inserted into that sentence. So it is that way in the warrant article, but it doesn't appear to be in this be that way in the consolidated document. I wonder I'm having trouble I'm looking at the wrong version. I had looked through this I had thought it had been caught correctly. I think it's fair to say that the Attorney General approved what we submitted they certainly she didn't certainly didn't disapprove anything. And we've been applying it as was enacted by Tom meeting for some time now so I wouldn't want to have Mr fosters case tied up and all of this but we are I guess that we need to follow up and make sure that it's in the public domain is right. And for all I know I may have downloaded some intermediate version and it's already been corrected but I was surprised not to find the word porches, where I expected it. Yeah, I know because I had used this as well. Is there. Yeah, where porches is there. And then down here is porches and a closed engine says may extend into the minimum yard regulation so that was what was in the final recommendation from the ARB is that is this the this isn't. Is this the official right. Is this the consolidated document. So this is what it should be is I'm sure of that. Yeah. This is what I just this is what's available now on the town's website. Okay, then I must have gotten an immediate version that's been that could be. And as far as I'm aware, none of this has been approved by the Attorney General's office yet but under state law, it is. It is the zoning by law from the time it's enacted. If struck if stricken by the Attorney General then it's stricken retroactively. Yeah, I think that we have actually received a memorandum from the playing department that the Attorney General has approved this so I think we're okay. I stopped carrying the paper of records so I haven't been able to check to see if it was actually published in as it was supposed to be published so. So we're the board to vote to approve. We would impose the standard three conditions which we read into the record earlier are there any additional conditions which board members feel would be appropriate for this application, seeing none. Any further questions on this in regards to this application. I would entertain a motion. Mr chairman. I move that the application be approved subject to the standard conditions which the chair has previously read into the record. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. What the board has before this is a vote to approve special permit for 24 Langley Road with the three standard conditions as motions by Mr. Hanlon and seconded by Mr. DuPont are there any questions from the board is to what we're voting on. Miss. Mr. Hanlon, the roll call vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Hi, Hamilton. Mr. Hoffman. Hi, Mr. Holly. Hi, chair votes. I motion to approve the special for 24 Langley Road with three conditions is approved. Thank you all very much for thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, I'm going to review our meetings and permissive Connors note at the start of the meeting I went back into the state law so indeed under chapter 40 a section 11 second paragraph and says no, it talks about the notice for public hearings party of interest to find the other that says no such hearing shall be held on any day on which a state or municipal election caucus or primary is held in such city or town. So the board is not allowed to meet on November 8 under state law. The continuation of 39 Woodside will happen on the 15th of November and Mr. Vellarelli will need to let the applicants for Melrose Street know that as well. We'll do Mr. Chairman thank you. I don't know if we need to do any kind of a particular notice, but I think we can discuss how to do that. On November 15 after that we do have a meeting scheduled for a hearing scheduled for November 22, which is the continuation of the comprehensive permit application for the residences at Millbrook. At the time we had proposed the topic would be sort of traffic and transportation and parking. I'm still the plan I'm not. I had asked the planning department for an update on where we are with retaining consultants. I have not heard back from them today so I'm not entirely sure where that is. But the, the hope had been that the, we would have consultants on board who could review that and provide us feedback, and also provide feedback to the applicant before the hearing so we'll keep working with them on that. And then the boards to typical dates for December would be December 13 and December 27. So I just wanted to confirm with the board that those dates are good, or see if there was any interest in changing those dates up up a week so it would be the sixth and the 20th rather than the 13th and the 27th. Mr Chairman. If I had my brothers in the occasion I think moving them up a little bit and not having a meeting in the period between Christmas and New Year's is help because lots of people are not around and during that period of time and So, that might be marginally better. I agree with that. Hi, yeah. So, Rick, if I can have you make a note of that that if we're meeting in December the dates will be the sixth and the 20th. I already did. Perfect. Anything else for the board. Mr Chairman, nice question. Mr Moore. You folks had talked about doing a walkthrough of the 40 B property. I'm wondering if that has occurred or is that scheduled for the future. That has not been scheduled yet. We're, it's partially being held up because we don't have the consultants yet and we have. The consultants. Thank you. Once it once that is going to happen it needs to be publicly noticed because it would be open to a forum of the board. And that would appear on the town calendar like all the regular meetings. It would. Thank you. You're welcome. All right well with that. I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would especially like to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee, Kelly Lenema, Marissa Lau for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note the purpose of the board's reporting at the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings. The recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI dot TV within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to email to zba at town dot Arlington dot ma dot us that email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. I have a second second. Mr. DuPont vote to adjourn roll call vote Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Hoffman. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. And chair votes. The board is adjourned. Thank you all so very much for being here tonight. Thank you guys. Good night everyone. Take everyone have a happy Halloween. It was well. Yeah, take care.