 It is 733 p.m. It is Tuesday, April 27th, 2021. 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 confirm that members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the zoning board of appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Kevin Mills. Here. Sean O'Rourke. Here. And Aaron Ford sent us a note that he'd be a couple of minutes late. So hopefully he will be with us shortly. The officials from the town, Rick Pallarelli. Here. Vincent Lee. Here. Kelly Lanema. Here. Hello. And we will be joined by Doug Heim. I think he's going to log in around 815. This evening, because we are, we do have a recommendation to continue on 1165 Mass Ave. We will not. Paul Havardy and Marta Nova and Mary Wynne Stanley O'Connor will not be joining us this evening. That's my knowledge. And then appearing on behalf of 191 92. Mr. Valley Parkway. Mr. Bevuso. Are you here? There you are. Wonderful. Yes, sir. I'm here. Perfect. Okay. This open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely. Is this with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12th, 2020. The order to suspend 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 delivery 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 is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website. Identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded. It is being 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 phone. 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 personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. And we ask that you please maintain decorum during the meeting, including the screen name or another identifier. Please take care not to share personal information. Please be aware that attendees are participating by video conference. We also ask that you please be aware that attendees are participating during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website and less otherwise noted. Public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair reserved the right to take items out of order. In the instance of promoting and orderly meeting. So, the last night. At the April 26th, 2021 session of Arlington town meeting, first to celebrate and recognize the heritage of the peoples, indigenous, and Massachusetts, and Arlington by including a land acknowledgement at the beginning of the town's public meetings. Where the zoning board of appeal specifically discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as Monotomy, an Algonquin word meaning swift waters. It is especially relevant that this board recognizes its part in the stewardship of the land. And so the statement that we have been asked to provide, we acknowledge 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 name. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. And with that, we move on to the first item on our agenda, which is number two, which is approval of meeting minutes. We don't have minutes to approve this evening, but we will move directly on to number three. Number three is the approval of the decision for 4143 Fairmont Street. Special thanks to Patrick Hanlon for putting those together. Those were distributed to the board for comments. And I know that Mr. Hanlon did receive comments back and have posted a final version ahead of tonight's meeting. Are there any additional comments or questions from the board on that decision? Seeing none. May I have a motion to approve the decision for 4143 Fairmont Street? So moved. Second. Who is the second? I'm sorry. I was the second. Oh, Hanlon. Yeah, I wasn't fast enough to be the mover. Who moved it? Roger. Roger did. Thank you. Those in favor, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So Fairmont Street decision is complete. The next item on our agenda number four is approval of the decision for 59 Mount Vernon Street. That decision is not fully complete yet. So we will vote on that in our next scheduled hearing. Um, brings us to item number five, which is the election of zoning board of appeals officers per hour bylaws. We are required annually to elect two positions, one of the position of chair and one of the position of vice chair. Are there any nominations for the position of chair? Yes, I have a nomination. Mr. Dupont. I would like to nominate the current chair, Mr. Klein. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. I will accept that nomination. Are there other nominations? Seeing none. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Roe Rourke. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Current chair and future chair votes aye as well. Thank you very much for your support. Do we have any nominations for the post of vice chair? I would like to go ahead, Mr. Revillac. I would like to nominate Mr. Hanlon to serve as the board's vice chair. May I have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Hanlon, do you accept? I do accept, thank you. Wonderful. Are there other nominations for the position of vice chair? Seeing none. We will vote on the election of Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Thankfully, I vote aye too. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Roe Rourke. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. And the chair votes aye. I believe this report has not had the opportunity to join us yet. Mr. Hanlon, congratulations on being reelected as vice chair. Okay, which brings us to item number six. So there are a few items which I thought we should, based on some recent decisions that I thought we should consider possibly adding to the, if it's not opening, it's not open now. Okay, here we go. So these are our current rules and regulations. And so there are a couple of things. One was the tree committee. So this had come up on a prior hearing that there are some cases that do need to be referred to the tree committee. So this is a referral that the board would make, but we just want to include in our bylaws and notation that demolition construction projects that meet the criteria for review by the tree committee must receive a favorable review by that committee before a building permit can be issued. Hearings for projects that meet the criteria but have not received a favorable review will proceed at the applicant's risk. So there are some boards where we specifically request that they receive a favorable review before they come to our board, but this is not one. So I'm proposing that. Also under pre-hearing process, there's a preliminary meeting to occur with the inspector and would like to add that we would, that as a part of the review, it would include a review of the residential design guidelines just to make sure that anyone who is going to be coming before our board is aware of the design guidelines and aware of their part in the review process. And then something we've been doing recently is that the decision that we reach at a hearing should be considered provisional until the board votes in the final written decision and then open meeting of the board. And this is one, I haven't had an opportunity to talk to council yet as to whether or not this is advisable. Mr. Hanlon and I were talking earlier today about what this does to the required time frames for review and whether this poses an issue for us. So that's one thing to come back to. And then I believe that's all had written. Then two other items. One is that is the land acknowledgement statement as to what that should be included as a part of the hearing procedure. And there's another vote of town meeting on zoning bylaws that would include a statement that would essentially, it's tough to tell exactly how the language has been applied but it may require that decisions of the ARB and the ZBA have a condition that they be conditioned upon compliance with the Massachusetts Architectural Acts that's board design guidelines for accessibility. And that has not been discussed or voted at town meeting yet. So I don't quite know where that will come in. But I just wanted to bring these in front of the board and in front of the public. I don't intend to vote on these at this time because town meeting is still open and there may be a couple other things we want to address before closing them. Are there any questions from the board? I see we do have one question from the public. Mr. Moore. Did I hear there was questions from the board first that you hear someone speak? I was, there were no questions from the board. Okay. It was me, Mr. Chairman. Oh, there was Mr. DuPont. Yeah, I was a little late in getting there but I just had a question generally, is town council going to be reviewing all of these? So yeah, so I will pass this all along to town council. Okay, thanks. Mr. Chair, Steve Revelak. Yeah. I didn't get my finger on the mute button quickly enough. Regarding the tree committee, I believe that should be tree warden. The, I looked at, I looked over the tree protection by-law in the general by-laws and it does, and it talks about, it references a procedure that involves a tree warden but not one that involves the tree committee, though I suspect Mr. Moore may be able to add some light to this. I anticipate so. Others from the board? Like flipping through the screen? Seeing none. Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. Yes, Mr. Revelak, you're correct. I was going to ask that question because the tree warden is the one who reviews the tree plans and discusses with the property owners or the developers when this is going to happen. So yes, that would be a change that I would suggest is that you change tree committee to perhaps title it, not tree committee. Let's see, all of this whole section, it's always the. We've been listening if I can, the board that's involved. Yeah, you might want to say, hold on, coordination by other town board. You call it boards and commissions. Yeah, tree committee is, you can leave tree committee there, but in the reference, you should reference the tree warden because the tree warden reports on a regular basis to the tree committee and we discuss the issues that come before him. Right now it's Tim Laquive. He's our tree warden. So I guess I would leave tree committee there and just as Mr. Revelak suggested, reviewed by the tree warden must receive a favorable review by the warden. Got a warden before bill of recommendation. Okay. One question, however, in terms of how as a practical matter, how the ZBA interacts with building permit issuing, only waivers and special permits come before the ZBA automatically, correct? So special permit and variance applications, yes. Right. And the third category is appeals to decisions of that building inspector. Okay, so this would be invoked probably only in the situation of appeals from the regular zoning board, correct? Because demolition is something, a permit for demolition is issued by not your group. That is correct. But specifically the bylaw notes demolition and construction projects that meet certain criteria. So that was the reason I had copied this. Okay. All right, well, it does make sense in terms of appeals of any lower boards that would come before you. But it probably would be pretty rare that this would be invoked. Am I correct in understanding? I want to assume so. I had wanted to include it primarily because there was a prior hearing where I believe you had raised the question specifically as to whether or not they had notified the three warden in regards to the upcoming project. So I just want to make sure it was here so that if somebody is reviewing the bylaws, at least their rules and regulations of this board, they would at least see that notification. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We appreciate that consideration. We're one of our projects for the next couple of years is to try and make sure the other boards and decision authorities in town understand that they have to run things by the three warden before they move forward because that's one of the goals of the town is to increase and maintain the canopy. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Are there other members? I'm sorry. Let's just say are there other members of the public who wish to speak in regards to the proposed changes to the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals? Hopefully flip through the list. Seeing none, Mr. Hanlon, I believe you had a question. I did. One thing that has struck me in a number of the cases that we've had recently is that the applicants have not seen the planning department memorandum. And somebody, a lawyer who is before us all the time knows that that memorandum is out there and it's like putting your tongue in a gap in your teeth. You know that you need to explore that but that's not true of everyone who appears before us and that memorandum is often very useful in structuring the way in which we look at the cases so that it's a real disadvantage for the applicant to not be thinking in those terms right from the very beginning. And I get that the planning department is not a part of the boards and commissions but if we could have somewhere a reference in our rules and procedures that indicate that there is normally a planning department report and that the applicant should undertake to review that report before the hearing that would make our hearings go, I think, a little better. And I get that everything often comes together at the last minute and in the normal course this would be handed to an applicant long before this but we're not in a position where we have that degree of luxury but it does seem to me that the applicant should know he should have it and if he doesn't have it that he ought to be asking how he can get it and ought to be thinking in terms of that report in structuring his presentation to this board. Thank you, yes, well received. Any other questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close portion of the meeting. To the next item on the agenda is item number seven the executive session we are gonna move that to the end of tonight's hearing. We'll move on. The next item is number eight which is the first hearing of the evening. Turning to the public hearing on tonight's agenda here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce the agenda item I will ask the applicant to introduce himself, make a presentation to the board and request that members of the board ask questions they have on the proposal and after the board's questions have been answered I will open the meeting for public comment. So the first item is docket number 3651 190 to 192 Mystic Valley Parkway which is a continuance of the April 13, 2021 hearing. I'm carrying on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Bavuso. Thank you very much sir John Bavuso for the announcing group. I do appreciate your taking the time and letting me speak at the hearing. I know you have quite an agenda tonight. So I'll be brief. So we are asking for a special permit for a second driveway opening on the property at 190 Mystic Valley Parkway. The driveway opening will come off of Park Street. It will have a pervious paver access to an illegal allowed parking area on the left side of the property abutting the property line of 186 Mystic Valley Parkway. As you know, this lot is almost 7,000 square feet but it's narrow and long. We do have a small parking area at the rear of the lot abutting our neighbor at 83 Park Street. The area we want to access is 840 square feet that is inaccessible without a second curb cut. We had applied to the DCR to try to get a curb cut off of Mystic Valley Parkway which would have afforded a straight shot but we were denied that. The reason was we had plenty of room on Park Street. So we are asking for a second driveway opening to allow the new owners of the property to access a private individual parking spot on the left side of the property. So the pervious area will be approximately 940 square feet. We've had a traffic engineer do a study of the property. We found no issues whatsoever. We have plenty of room from the proposed opening to the stop sign in the intersection of Coral Street. We've had a civil engineer look at the property. He's plotted it all out as per the plan that you have in front of you now. We spoke to several of the neighbors on Park Street, many whom have two driveways and we've got several letters of support that we've issued. So I would ask the board to respectfully consider allowing us a second driveway opening. We have configured so that people that drive into this parking area do have a backup turnaround area so they can drive out on the Park Street. We would put signage and also enter it into the condo docks that it's only to be driven out of no backing out as one of the neighborhood concerns. We understand that completely. During our traffic engineer study was noted that even at peak traffic times there's very little traffic at this intersection. The police reports going back two years have found no accidents out here. We think it's a perfect opportunity to allow the new neighbors individual parking, especially when they come home in the winter's night and not have to worry about shuffling cars to try to get in off the street. That's all I have for you, sir. And I appreciate you taking the time to hear us. Absolutely. So this is the current plan, is that correct? Mr. Bouza, I just wanna make sure that I'm showing that correct plan, is it? That's it, yes, sir, that is it. Okay, thank you. Are there questions or comments from the board? Mr. Revilak. Two brief questions. So the driveway on the opposite of the Park's driveway, the portion of the driveway that is in the side yard opposite Park Street, what are the dimensions of that off-street parking space? The parking space would be eight and a half by 18 as per the city ordinance. We did question running the paves a little bit further to allow for additional storage. It would fit one car. Okay, and Mr. Valerello, you agree that space is sufficiently sized? Eight and a half by 18 is the legal size for parking space. Okay, great. And do we also require a planting strip on the side yard? We do. We do. We do. I'm sorry, sir, there is a fence there. Oh, boy, I'm sorry. There is a stockade fence there, but you can't clearly see it on the plan. I believe there's currently a stockade fence that runs along the side of the line against 186, 188, and there's a valley parkway. But there's also a small fence that runs perpendicular to that from that fence back to the house. Yes, sir. What is the position of that relative to the driveway that's indicated here? It would probably be a little bit beyond the 30-foot dimension. It would be at the middle of the house. Okay. And I believe the fence that you referenced currently it runs about half the width of the rear lot line along 83 Park Street and then turns the corner and extends at least to the front of the house along the sideline, is that correct? Yes, sir. And then it reverts at a split rail from there on out. Okay. We didn't want to block visibility. Further questions from the board? Chairman, I have a question. Mr. Dupont. Maybe a couple of questions. So this may be what Mr. Revlak was actually asking and I just missed it. So for Mr. Bavuso, in the turnaround area that you have marked, will there be parking in that section of the driveway? No, sir. It was designed so that if anyone did park there, they could not access the parking area beside the house. So no, sir. That is strictly a turnaround every year. Because Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns that I think that I have, I mean, this is a bit of a hybrid situation. So it takes a little bit of work sort of wrapping your head around front yard, side yard, you know, rear yard when you're looking at this. And I think that, you know, when we had the first meeting, we had neighbors coming and expressing concern and it was anecdotal, but people did think that it was conceivably a problem to have a second driveway and people pulling out. And I would think that that would be especially true if people were backing out onto park. And I do understand from Mr. Bavuso's comments that it's intended that people will go out front ways. But I believe the reference was actually to that being a condition of the condominium documents. And I just think that that sort of leaves us as a board, perhaps I'm wrong, without any enforcement opportunities. I don't think it's usually going to be the case that especially in a two family condominium, the other unit owner is going to be a sentry and make sure that nobody backs out from that driveway. So I have a very real concern about people backing out as limited as that may be. The other concern I guess I have is just sort of in general terms. And that's because I understand how the work was done toward what we'll call the rear of the house on the Park Street side. And I realized that determination was made to enclose the porch or the deck that was there at the time and that that was where the parking was made. However, it feels like this second request, the request for the second driveway is by virtue of the denial of the curb cut on Mystic Valley Parkway. And I do wonder how that got left to the point where we're now being asked to provide a solution for the applicant coming in who now can't come in from Mystic Valley Parkway. And perhaps I didn't understand but it sounded like Mr. Buvuso a moment ago said that the reason that the curb cut was denied was because there was sufficient room on Park Street for a second curb cut. Is that correct? Ms. Melisa? Yes, sir. So I would have thought it would have been prudent to approach that issue with the state, I guess, with the state, I guess, about a curb cut on Mystic Valley Parkway before committing to the design that eliminated the parking in the rear where it currently exists. And so I guess I'm a little bit, I'm struggling a little bit with the idea that the condition, the situation is somewhat self-inflicted. And so I'm just not entirely sure. So for the reason that it's not going to be enforceable to keep people from backing out, number one. And number two, the fact that it was a decision that was made to reduce the parking in the rear that brings us to where we are. And that might have been avoided had the applicant looked for the curb cut sooner if I understand the process correctly. So those are my concerns. Thank you. Steve Revolac, Mr. Chair. Mr. Revolac. One further question, and this may be for Mr. Valerelli. If just hypothetically speaking, if MassDOT allowed the curb cut on Mystic Valley Parkway, would that still require a special permit having two driveways? So in other words, Mr. Bavoso would have to come before us regardless of where the driveway is. That's correct, Mr. Revolac. So only one driveway is permitted per property. So he would in fact need a special permit for the additional driveway. Thank you, Mr. Revolac. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. So just to follow that thought up for a moment, if this were coming off the Alphamistic Valley Drive Parkway, did the original plan allow for any turnaround? I mean, I'm sensitive to Mr. DuPont's concern about backing out onto Park Street, but backing out onto Mystic Valley Parkway would be quite a lot worse. And I'm not quite sure whether, if that in fact were the solution that ultimately prevailed, whether there'd be any way to bring those cars out headfirst. I wonder if Mr. Bavoso could address that. We did not have that on the original submission to Mystic Valley Parkway. It's certainly a good idea and something that we hopefully would have thought of and been pursuing it. In the timing of Mystic Valley Parkway, it took several months to get a decision back from the DCR regarding that with the COVID and everything by email. But we certainly, our safety is always our first priority. It would certainly be a good idea. We believe to have people drive out as opposed to backing out onto any street. Other questions from board members? Could I just, when this Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask, In our, in the Novus agenda for today, there's a site plan that has the notation removed tree for the tree, the large tree that is closest to Mystic Valley Parkway. And it has, instead of having a little curve in the driveway that goes in front of the house, it goes straight out. And I assume that that was said to us an error and that it is not an operative document. Absolutely, sir. Okay, so I don't know if this is... Mr. Chairman, the title of the document is 190 MVP Parkings-10 PDF. And that is apparently not a document that we should be looking at. So that is this one, correct? I don't know. I think this is an older one that was put forward just to sort of sketch out what might be possible. Okay. Mr. Hamlin, if I may, that the document that was displayed on the screen is the second document on Novus, but you're correct. The first document on Novus is the old proposal. This one here that we're seeing now is on Novus, but it's the second document. I said two additional questions. One is, are there conditions of the sewer easement that would impact the parking and specifically the location of the curb cut? No, sir, that curb cut misses the sewer in the manhole that you can see right here. And also, again, this is a permeable paver. If for any reason we had to remove it, they could be lifted up. It's not a asphalt or cement driveway. It's all paving blocks set in the sand. Okay. Is there any issue with the current front entrance and steps being in the easement? I'm not sure I understand the front entrance, the stairway. So, yeah. So on this plan, there's a 10 foot sewer easement and it looks like the front steps and part of the front entryway are entirely within the easement. I do not believe there's any issues, sir. I mean, the 10 foot easement gives the utility company plenty room to work. But again, those are all wood. They were existing. We just rebuilt them as they were. If they had to be removed for any reason, that was a simple task. Okay. Do you know who that easement holder is? I would assume it is MDC. I do not know off the top of my head. And then my other question is for Mr. Valarelli. So the bylaw specifically requests for parking on a side yard where there's an adjacent residential use that there be a vegetated buffer between the two. At the building department is an opaque fence. Is that considered a suitable alternative? It is. I tried to find that in the bylaw. It does exist. Again, I can throw this out that parking within the side yard can be seven and a half feet wide. So the board could impose a condition that the buffer, although not 18 inches, could in fact be 12 inches if the fence is not sufficient. If the vegetated buffer is 12 inches, I would make the driveway seven and a half feet wide, which is allowed under section 6.1.11. And I don't believe the vegetated buffer requirement lists a minimum dimension, doesn't it? I'm not sure, Mr. Chair. I don't know why 18 inches is in my head, but I just can't find it. I can't put my finger on it. And on that same note, I thought a fence was placed as a buffer. I thought that came up on 339 Mass Ave some time ago. Any other questions or comments from the board before I open up to the public? Mr. Rivillac. Yes, I see the vegetated buffer is in the second to, it's actually in the last sentence of 6.1.10.A. And it does not list a, it doesn't give any dimensional requirements on the buffer, it's all right. Thank you for that. And Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, Mr. Chair. Area in the side yard is over 14 feet wide. We could certainly add vegetation along the fence. So with that, we'll now open the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter of hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted at least three minutes a piece. Additional time may be provided at the discretion of the chair to provide time for questions to be addressed. Chair will ask members of the public who wish to speak to digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host. You'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed. Board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. So with that, Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm speaking now as a resident, not as a member of the Arlington Tree Committee. I'd like to commend Mr. Dupont for his comments. I think they were very much to the point and correct in terms of the self-inflicted wound here. I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if I could ask through you what that open space is in front of what is the turnaround part, the claw part of the hammer. That open space, what is going to keep the eventual resident from turning that into a complete second parking space? Go ahead and just quickly bring this image back up. So that's this space here where it says usable open space? Yes. Mr. Bavuso, can you address that question? Unfortunately, I have no good answer for that, sir. I would certainly tell the new owners that that is a turnaround only and not allowable parking. I don't know if there's any enforcement that we could add to that. I'm not aware of anything, sir. Certainly. Any suggestions? If the owner of the property was to extend the paving beyond what is already included in the special permit, it would be in violation of the special permit and then would have to come back before the board for a determination. I believe that's correct, Mr. Valoran. Is that how that would work? It is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chair, I believe also because we require that the vehicle parking is only allowed in a designated parking space or a driveway leading to a designated parking space. I don't think there's any way that you could, you know, rationalize that little turnaround bump being a designated meeting either of those criteria. So I think the, you know, another answer to this is simply that it would be a zoning violation to do so. Thank you. Mr. Moore? Okay, Mr. Chairman. Well, as was mentioned earlier in terms of, when Mr. DuPont was speaking in terms of enforcing no backing out, only fronting out of this driveway, I would suggest that that's non-enforceable. I would just hear that that will become a second parking space. It will probably not be paved. And suddenly we have a development here which is now surrounded potentially by automobiles in a number of different spots. I just, I'm not finding this solution as particularly advantageous to the neighborhood. And I also would point out, I looked at the letters of support that Mr. Barbuso had mentioned. None of them are actually near this house. They're all pretty far away. And I don't know if the neighbor is right next to the house, near the house would agree with the support that was being offered by those letters. Okay, that's it for my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next, Mr. Loretty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Loretty, 56 Adams Street. Can you hear me okay? We can. Thank you. I'd ask the board to turn their attention to the plan that you have on display right now. I believe it was Mr. DuPont mentioned that the deck was enclosed. Well, it wasn't just enclosed. It was a large addition put on beyond that deck and it extends out to where the 24.7 feet is indicated. And indeed, this certainly was a self-imposed problem. I would like to read to you a section of the bylaw, which I think Mr. Rebelak mentioned that I would suggest is appropriate here. And that is the fact that they can get another space simply by increasing the width of the driveway to 20 feet up to the front of the house. Because it is permitted in the area between the front lot line and the minimum front yard setback on the driveway not exceeding 20 feet. And therefore the applicant would get the second driveway that they want that way. Of course, it's just for one car. But I suggest if he doesn't, if that's not good enough, then the solution is just to man up and reduce the size of the addition he put on the back to fit two cars there. But in no case should the board approve the driveway as proposed. I would also challenge the board to find one example in town within the past 10 or even 20 years where the ZBA has approved a second driveway on a corner lot like this one where both driveways go out to the same street. I don't think you'll find one. Occasionally, you'll find corner lots with two driveways but they're on two different streets. And as we know, that can't happen. I would also wonder whether with this drawing shown as it is, has anyone checked to see that the open space, the usable open space requirements are still met? I can't tell just by looking at it, but certainly this driveway and all the other paved area, even if their pavers doesn't count towards the usable open space requirement. And let me see what else I had to do. I guess the final question I had asked is, I made a public records request for the site plan that was submitted at the time the building permit was granted. I have not received any response. And again, I really have to wonder, did the developer satisfied with the two legal spaces that are shown with the driveway at the very rear of the property? And if not, where did they show them when they got the building permit? Because the developer said they were not shown going out to Mystic Valley Parkway. And again, it seems like the building's been built and now they're coming back and asking for more. Well, why didn't they put the spaces they wanted in when they applied for the building permit? So I'll leave it at that, but I strongly recommend that the board not approve the driveway as proposed in this drawing. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Loretty. So to follow up on that, on some of those questions. So the usable open space, my understanding is, Mr. Vellorelli, that the usable open space is contained in this area and that that will be confirmed? Well, again, Mr. Chairman, I did not calculate the usable open space. That was a question from day one with this request. Would the walkway, would that be considered a part of the usable open space? Yes, it would. But not at any driveway? Not any area used for parking. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. Did the applicant calculate usable open space under this plan? I mean, it is really extraordinary for us to be asked to do something that the zoning by-law tells us we should only do it in extraordinary circumstances and the record before us doesn't include, among other things, an analysis of that the proposal that we have could conforms with the zoning by-law. And if it doesn't, at least we need to know what it is. But I think it is a good point that I can't tell from looking at it and somebody ought to have done that. That was initially the job of the applicant, I would think. So the plan does indicate a usable open space of 1358, but does not indicate what the percentage of that is relative to the gross score area. Mr. Buliso, do you have that information? Is the, do you have that information? Sir, I do. And that was submitted in one of the earliest submissions. I can typically find this. Should have been in the submittal package. We were well underneath the requirements because as it stands now, even subtracting, we have almost 7,000 square feet. Take away the footprint of the house. We have 5,485, removing all of the permeable pavement that was designated for parking or vehicle access. We're still over 4,000 square feet. First, we have 75% of that space is front yard, including the 20 feet from Park Street in all of the front of Mr. Valley Parkway. I apologize, I have that for me, here we go. Looking through it here. So the required minimum open space based on the gross floor area of the building was 1,479 square feet. Again, we have over 4,000 even increased. Hold on a second. So you said the required usable open space was calculated at 14, what? 1,479. 1,479. Because currently the plan that you have provided is indicating that you only are providing 1,358 square feet of usable open space. I don't know why that figure is on there, sir. I apologize for that. Well, usable open space is a pretty specific calculation. Not all space outside the house counts as usable open space. It's the only space that has 25 feet in two dimensions and is open to the sky, is less than 75% covered and has a slope of less than 8%. So my sense is that there's a portion of the front yard here that would qualify, but it would not, this space here does not qualify because it's not set 25 feet wide and everything else is paid. Well, the space by the window well is 20 by 60. Correct, but it's not 25 feet, so it does not qualify. Okay. It qualifies for landscape area, but it does not count for usable open area. So that will, we will need to configure, consider that. When the, so the application that came before this board, where is it? Just hide it open in front of me. So, sir, that, I mean minus 900. So the front yard area alone is 1,715 square feet and that's minusing the permeable pavers shown for the vehicle access. All right, but that would include space between the house and the driveway. Yes, sir, it would. Which would not qualify. And then to the number, so the present on the application that we receive, it is indicated the present condition is that there is one parking space and that you will be providing two parking spaces and the minimum is two parking spaces. And by the plan that the current plan that we're discussing the, in the rear lot, in the rear yard where there are, it appears that there's two parking spaces in that existing rear yard and then a drive between that and this street. So without the driveway addition at the front, you currently are providing two parking spaces. Yes, sir, but I believe they would be in tandem. Correct, but it still provides the parking, the required parking for the use. So the additional parking that you're requesting is for convenience, but it's not a requirement for the certificate of occupancy. Yes, sir, that's correct. Okay. Mr. Loretty, did you have a further question or your hand is still up. Sorry, Mr. Watter, I don't know how to take down my hand. So I think I'm all done. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Not at all. Are there any other questions or comments from the public to share and look around if there's anybody waving. So nobody waving, nobody with their hand up. So the public comment period for this hearing will then be closed. So we have for us a request for a second driveway, which is allowable by special permit in Arlington. And the zoning bylaw does include a specific conditions in regards to such a request, which I'll quickly find. Mr. Revlack may be able to find it faster because I think it's in that same section he had referred to reference initially. What are you looking for, Mr. Chair? So in that section, I believe it's 6-1-10-A, there's an approval for a second driveway. I believe there are findings that the board would need to make in order to allow that. Okay, so I believe I have it for a single family, two family duplex and three family dwellings in the R01, 2, 3 and R4 districts, not more than one driveway shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the special permit granting authority for the development that a second driveway or a driveway that makes more than one intersection with the street may be provided in a manner that avoids undue concentration of population, allows adequate provision of transportation and conserves the value of land and buildings in the vicinity. So this is actually the second paragraph in 6-1-10-A. Ah, perfect, thank you. 1-10-A, yes, this paragraph here, the portion that Mr. Revlack wrote is the first part that does continue in no case may a second driveway for a single family, two family, two duplex, three family dwellings, violate any other dimensional or density regulation for the district in which it is located. So there was one, I had spoken with Mr. Valaralee earlier today, he had raised a point about this plan, which I had not considered. Mr. Valaralee, can you explain again what you had explained to me earlier about the definition of driveway width? Again, so a driveway cannot exceed 20 feet in width. So if one were to be technical about this, when you came in off of Park Street, I'm talking about for the proposed second driveway and you got to the very end where it tees off, you can go right and then the little turnaround to the left, conceivably, that could be considered greater than 20 feet in width. However, the board has the right to waive that because of safety reasons. But where we were looking at every little thing, that could come into play. Well, my concern was that in the bylaw where it specifically says, in no case may a second driveway violate any other dimensional or density regulation, or would we possibly be violating a dimensional regulation in terms of the width of the allowed width of the driveway? Well, again, that's for the board to determine. The board has to determine if in fact, that driveway at any one point is greater than 20 feet wide. Other question, Mr. Valaralee, if I might, I can get back to the plan. So a driveway is required to lead to parking for the bylaw. Correct. If parking exists in front of an obstruction, but it's part of a driveway that leads to parking, would it still be considered part of the driveway? It's very ambiguous. And by the way, a very good question because if you read the bylaw, it says, I don't have it right in front of me. It does not specifically say that you cannot park in the driveway leading to the required parking. It says nothing about that. In fact, everybody does. What it does say is it has to lead to a legal parking space. That being said, if the owners of this particular property or any property park in the driveway that's leading to the required parking space, the bylaw does not tell us you can't. In fact, everybody in the town probably does. I mean, how many people have garages that they never use? In fact, they have the garage and that's their legal parking space. The question I'm sort of leading to is, there are two legal spaces here in the rear between the front line of the house and the lot line. That is correct. And in theory, a third car could fit in front of the two here and there is sufficient width to have a 20 foot wide driveway before the addition, which would be able to provide a 20 by 10 foot parking space if they were to put a car here if it qualifies as part of the driveway. Yes, again, because they have two legal parking spaces. So for convenience, they're entitled to widen the front part of that driveway where your hand pointer is now to 20 feet in width and keep the two parking spaces that are required to satisfy the zoning bylaw, one per dwelling unit, you're correct. They could conceivably three cars could park there. Yeah, so I'm sort of getting at it. So the existing curb cut is not the full, it appears to be about 10, 12 feet wide currently coming off of Park Street. It's a 25 foot cut at the moment, but it's shared with the adjacent property. If they were to make this existing curb cut, if they were to extend it farther down to allow for a full 20 feet, then two cars could park here side by side. And then to each unit would have a space that they could have a space back here, which they could utilize by parking in this area without blocking each other in. And then the second cars, they would have to shuffle around. Obviously for this parking arrangement here, they're gonna have to shuffle no matter what. And this, they're gonna have to shuffle no. It would still be some shuffling of cars. That's the utilization of this drive one. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. All right, thank you. Mr. Chairman, clarification. Yeah. So we could widen that, even though the parking space would be within the front 20 foot setback. So you're required to provide two parking spaces and you would be providing two parking spaces that are tandem in the rear yard. And so that would meet your minimum parking requirement. The question then is, you're allowed to have a driveway that's up to 20 feet wide. And as Mr. Valorelli said, that the bylaw does not say that you can't park in your front driveway. You just can't count those as legal parking space. I see. So if you needed to have four parking spaces, you could not count those as parking spaces. But you're only required to have two and you would have two in the rear yard. So you could put cars in those two positions, but they would not count for the parking count. They're required parking count for the property. I see, thank you. Members of the board, thanks. Everybody, so eager to speak tonight. Mr. Chairman, with apologies to Mr. Bavuso too, because I understand what he's trying to accomplish. But I'm also looking at the original application materials and I guess I'm a bit concerned about the usable open space because as I understand what has been submitted on the open space gross floor area sheet, it says open space usable 3968 and then proposed 3232. And then proposed usable open space down at the bottom, it says 1469. So that seems a bit of a departure from one to the other. And it's a concern to me that we don't have that information fixed. And then the other part of it too is that in that section that you had read before where you say that you can't looking for it again now, I believe it's the 6.1.10 where it says you can't violate any other dimensional or density regulation. I believe usable open space is a dimensional regulation. And so my concern is we just don't even know what that number really is. And I understand people are making estimates as we're meeting and that's all fine. Maybe that those are completely accurate, but it's a concern to me that we really don't know that as well. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I'm probably closer to this application than anybody else since I'm about, live about 200 feet away from it, maybe 300. And first of all, I'm really hung up on what Mr. DuPont said. I'm not convinced. I mean, the sort of eyeballing the diagram and sort of imagining which pieces of it may have 25 minimum dimension requirements. I mean, I understand that usable open space is a highly artificial concept with a hardly arcane way of calculating it, but it's our concept and it's a calculation that everybody has to make. And I don't think that we have discretion to approve this if there's not adequate usable open space. And on the drawing that we have, we can second guess it if we want, but the drawing that we have says that there's not enough. So I don't really see how we can go forward with an approval of this at this point. I mean, that just without being satisfied on that point, I don't know what more we can do. When it comes to a question of discretion, I'm really of two or three or four minds, none of them particularly brilliant. On the one hand, we have a safety type issue that this is all close to the corner. The memorandum we have for the planning department is not very definite. There's a general sense of malaise when you look at the possibility of people moving out of that area and into the street. That very malaise is a good reason why people are going to avoid doing that if they can and want to come out in front-wise. But it doesn't really get to the question of safety that I would have thought. And I guess in the absence of something more specific than that, I would say that at least for me, and I drive by this house twice a day. And that's a lot for me because I drive hardly anyplace twice a day. I don't really think that a driveway there would be a particularly hazardous thing. The thing that makes that intersection so hazardous are all the people coming down Coral Street and then whizzing by with hardly stopping to get on to Mystic Valley, that that creates a conflict, but that's a conflict that I don't think that this probably accentuates. So to the extent that personal experience makes any difference, and in the absence of any definitive evidence really one way or the other, I sort of discount the safety issue somewhat. We have had a lot of cases where because of the inconvenience of the inconvenience of the tandem and people having to move the cars around in order to get out, where we have granted a second one that we have not said that that's primarily for the convenience of the people who live in the house, although it is greatly for their convenience, you often the neighbors prefer that we do that because they don't like having people pulling out into Park Street, say, and then staying out there while the other car comes out and both of them are blocking the driveway, it's an inconvenience. And we have granted a lot of these cases and typically if there's no controversy, we say, well, this is one of those extraordinary cases envisioned by the bylaw, but eventually extraordinary cases done in an ordinary manner, stop being so extraordinary. And I'm a little afraid that we haven't had any guidance and the considerations are such that we're always sort of eager to help out. The second of the, that's the transportation head. The land use head is something that comes back to what Mr. Moore said. When you look at this, when you look at this, it is a house surrounded by driveways with potentially with cars on them. And if you were just looking at it from a, we've now backed into a design where the whole thing is practically circled by this. And I wonder if, I wonder if from a land use point of view and from the design guidelines that we frequently talk about, whether sort of building a mode of driveways around this house is going to be the best thing either for the neighborhood, which the statute asks us to look for, or for the people who live here who eventually will be my constituents. And so I care quite a lot about not screwing it up with them when they come. And when you look at this and ask yourself from a land use point of view, what is it that makes the most sense? You're sort of scratching your head, but when you look at the zoning ordinance or the zoning bylaw and the provisions that we were just looking at, there was a lot of interest there about avoiding undue concentration of land, about avoiding adversely effecting surrounding housing values and so forth and almost nothing about the transportation issue of whether there's a safety or transportation problem created by those two things. So the end result of all of that is that my two heads on land use and transportation are kind of quarreling with each other and they're going to keep quarreling with each other until we manage to satisfy ourselves that we have the discretion to go ahead and approve this because there are no other dimensional requirements that are left unmet. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Revillac. I'll like Mr. Hanlon, I considered this in two sort of two areas. One was transportation safety and the other one was just the basic layout of features them a lot. On the transportation safety side, I'm pretty comfortable with a second driveway here. One of my frames of reference was the towns, the fact dot the fact book prepared for the sustainable transportation plan. So it's got a nice little heat map of crash data in Arlington. And if you look at the area between, I believe Warren Street and Mystic Valley Parkway, practically every intersection is noted as having between one and 10 crashes in the last 10 years. And this one, you know, because the applicant has provided crash data, it's three in the last 10 roughly. So I mean, it strikes me as being no more dangerous than any other intersection in this part of town. Now, with respect to like the motive driveways around the house, I feel, I kind of agree with that. I also feel guilty because I am the one or I believe I was one who suggested putting it in the side yard because that's really the only place, you know, our by-law would allow it, you know, on that side of the house. I mean, you know, we can, you can possibly do something in the rear, but in terms of having a separate driveway, you know, we don't allow parking in a front yard. This property has two of them, which means you have to get to the side yard. A driveway that traversed the front yard from Mystic Valley Parkway to the side would be, you know, a much cleaner solution, but, you know, MassDOT, you know, really didn't help facilitate making that happen. But for, I think for me, the final decision would be relative to the other dimensional regulations. As I see it, if this is a plan that does not provide sufficient usable open space for the gross floor area of the building, then we can't approve it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reverend. Other members of the board? I certainly share a lot of the concerns raised both by the members of the public and by members of the board. I agree that it would be, you know, that the second driveway could be usable and would be a safe option if people were able to drive out of the property. My concern is that, you know, that requires, you know, some additional steps by the homeowners every time they use their driveway and that, you know, after doing that for a few days, they will likely just park in the front yard and back out onto the street because that's what everyone else in town does. And there really isn't a good enforcement mechanism for preventing that. And the only way, the only thing that would happen is they would be in violation of the terms of their special permit, which would bring the homeowner now in front of the board to have to figure out how to deal with the home that they purchased. And that just doesn't seem to be something that should be at the feet of the board to have to determine it, to figure out as a long-term plan for the maintenance of this property. The property certainly does have the required parking under the bylaw as it is today. And it had additional parking that is no longer available because of the size of the addition that was done in the rear of the property. But there is space in that area to accommodate four vehicles, two of them in the required two parking spaces and an additional two side-by-side with direct access to Park Avenue far away from the corner in a current position where people are used to having cars exit the property. And I agree that we do still have the question about whether or not this property meets the requirements of the usable open space if there is a parking area, excuse me, if there's a driveway that transects the front yard. And there's the issue that basically we are surrounding this house with pavement which will heat up in the summer sun and basically create a little heat envelope all the way around this house, which is not a particularly nice thing to do. And so I think I'm of the mind that I'm not in favor of granting the special permit request. Special permit is not something that the board should give, a special permit is not something that the board is required to provide and it's not something that the board should issue by course unless there's a very specific reason not to issue it. I think it's much more nuanced than that. And in this case, I'm feeling that while it would be advantageous to the owners and to possibly to future occupants of the house to have a second driveway. I don't feel that that outweighs the possible negative effects on other aspects of the property and other aspects of the neighborhood and certainly does not address the issues regarding usable open space and other environmental impacts that having this driveway may have. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Berlusso, please. I think I've heard you all loud and clear and I do appreciate your time and input. I would like to withdraw my application for a special permit. If we can come up with a better plan, I would like to keep my options open for reapplying to the board. So if that would be all right. So we have a request to withdraw the application. I would ask the board to, do we need to do as a motion that we would move to accept the withdrawal without prejudice? Chairman, I think that we do need to do that. That once we've, once we've begun and I'm pacing a little bit on the exact, on the exact language, but I think that you have the usual bar to, for bringing something back and that the applicant is already beyond the position where he can just do that on his own. I think that we have to accept the request. I'd be inclined to do that. Okay. Well, in that case, then I will. There's a special permit application be with. That the, the request withdraw the application being made by the applicant be accepted. And accepted without prejudice. Second. We're so moved depending on. I'll let you move that. Second. We're so moved depending on. I'll let you move that. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Okay. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Revillack. Hi. Chair votes. Hi. So that is withdrawn. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if I could just sort of, there are two things that I'd like to say. One is that a lot of. There's, there's a lot of stuff that didn't go right in this application. But one of it is that. The applicant had to deal separately with the state and with the town. And I wonder what would have happened if you. Everybody into the room where it happens. I mean, here there wasn't a room where it happens. And so nothing happened. And the result was that the applicant was sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. And then then he worked out on a lot of those rocks there himself, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the government didn't work very well in the situation. And speaking of the government not working well, we've now struggled over and over again with these parking cases. And they, the law that we have to work with is a mess. We can hardly discern the policies that underlie them and they keeps moving back and forth. We frequently grant things and then we turn around and, about granting them in other cases. And I don't really actually know what a principal distinction is between the ones where we're inclined to say yes and the ones where we're inclined to say no. And just Mr. Chairman, in your exalted role is in the bylaws review committee. This is an area that ought not to be an area of heavy controversy and the zoning battles that we see going on. And this really needs to get cleaned up. We need to get our act together to figure out exactly what we want the rules to be, what the policies are and where the balances are. And what we have just doesn't cut it from that point of view. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Revillac. Well, thank you, Mr. Hanlon and speaking of which. Yeah, I'd base it if you recall the hearing for 150 Summer Street. Because the ZDL or the ZDA is a body that can bring changes before or propose zoning amendments to the redevelopment board. Ever since then, I've been wanting to say, at some point it would be really nice if we could just spend a meeting or two talking about parking and perhaps suggest working on language that might make the situation better. Given the number of comprehensive permits we've been hearing lately, I haven't made that suggestion, but I'll make it now. We'll need something to do when the comprehensive permits are over. Absolutely. Be a nice project for the fall, which will put us on a good cycle for spring of 2020, excuse me, 2022. When we'll be meeting in person, fingers crossed. Oh, gentlemen, I'd like to thank you all. And ma'am, thank you very much for your time. I hope to see you soon. Thank you so much, Mr. Bovee. Thank you. Okay, so that brings us to item number nine on our docket, which is the comprehensive permits for 1165 RMS Tuesdays Avenue to allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare a detailed response to questions and comments regarding traffic and redway concerns. The board will vote whether to grant a continuance to Tuesday, May 18th, 2021, at 7.30 p.m. The board is in receipt of a confirmation in the form of an email dated April 23rd, 2021 from the applicant requesting the continuance. Are there any questions from the board in regards to the request for continuance? Seeing none, may I have a motion to continue the comprehensive permit hearing for 1165R on Tuesday, May 18th, 2021, at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thanks, Mr. Hanlon. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revillak? Aye. Mr. O'Rourke? Aye. And Mr. Klein? And Aaron hasn't joined us, has he? He has not. We are continuing on 1165R Massachusetts Avenue. So just before we go into executive session, I just wanted to publicly review the list of upcoming meetings and milestones that are before the board just for everyone's edification. So the next, so Monday, May 10th is the submission deadline for new materials by the applicant for Thorndike Place. So we are anticipating those coming on May 10th and those would appear on our website and on the agenda. On Tuesday, May 11th, we have a regular hearing at 7.30 p.m. It'll be the first hearing for new cases at 12 Christine Road, 34 Marathon Street, and 53 Pine Ridge Road. On Thursday, May 13th, is the Continuance of Thorndike Place. As just voted, Tuesday, May 18th, will be the Continuance of 1165R Massachusetts Avenue. And it's currently scheduled Thursday, May 20th, is the close of the public hearing for Thorndike Place. We do not currently have a hearing scheduled for that evening, but that is the date that the public hearing needs to close. Tuesday, May 25th is a hearing, just a regular hearing with new cases. Those new cases haven't been announced yet. Tuesday, June 1st is the next Continuance date for 1165R Massachusetts Avenue. And then Friday, July 2nd is the date for the closing of the public hearing on 1165R Massachusetts. So those are all the dates that are presently before this board. So this brings us back to item seven. The next item on the agenda is an executive session for the board to discuss legal strategy in regards to an appeal of the board's decision in regards to 64 Brattle Street. Before we vote to enter executive session and close the public meeting, I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone for their participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's participation and patience throughout the meeting, especially wish to thank Rick Malarelli, Vincent Lee, and Kelly Lanema for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. Is our understanding of the recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI.tv within the upcoming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zdaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. So with that, I would ask those who are not presently, members of the board, Mr. Heim. Mr. Chairman. So just to confirm, so we're going into executive sessions. So I will, who should remain and who should go away? I think I would ask Mr. Loretty of Pete to go ahead and sign off. And I believe I should stop the recording from ACMI. You're on mute, Mr. Heim. That's correct. So Sean, if you could go ahead and stop the recording.