Okay, so it is 733 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6th, 2022. Good evening, everybody. 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 lights for a click confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. From members of the zoning board of appeals, Roger Dupont here. Patrick Candlen here. Then get holy. Here.  On behalf of the town, Rick Valorelli, the board's administrator. Good evening, Rick. And assisting us as always is Vincent Lee here. It'd be great to have you with us as well. Good evening. Then. Appearing on behalf of 160 Walliston Avenue. Casino. Over worry. Are you here? Yeah. Hello. Good to have you. And appearing on behalf of 320 Appleton street. Jennifer Condon and Jim Jordan. I'm their architect. I know they're trying to log in right now. Hopefully they'll be with us in a minute or two. I'm glad you're here. No, no rush, but you're here. Thank you. This open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an app 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 meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum 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. The 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 a CMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you please maintain the quorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted and the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda as chair or 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 town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington formerly known as monotomy in Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony, province and commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. And the item number two the approval of meeting minutes from our November 22 meeting. Starting this meeting with an administrative item as this relates to 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 introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. So item number two is the approval of the meeting minutes from November 22, 2022. These were minutes that were drafted by the board for questions and comments. And I know that some of those came back in. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the meeting minutes for November 22. Seeing none. I would ask for a motion to approve the written minutes from November 22, 2022. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Thank you. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. So roll call vote of the board on the approval of the minutes. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. And the chair votes aye. Those meetings. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dupont. So roll call vote of the board on the approval of the minutes. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I noticed that you skipped over. Mr. Dupont, but I think I know why. Yeah. Mr. Dupont. This brings us to item number three on our agenda this evening. Now turning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda. Here are some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves for themselves and to make their presentation to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what questions they have on a proposal. And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. And at the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So with that. Item number three on our agenda this evening is docket number three, seven, two, five, 160 Wallace than avenue. I would ask the applicant to introduce himself and I will go ahead and bring up the application on the screen. Hi. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Cassiana and I'm here with me is my wife, I join. We are the homeowners for 160 Wallace than and our architect, Nicholas Preston is also on the. He's also joining us remotely as well, but he cannot join with audio. So, um, but there's something with his audio, but we might defer to him. If anything comes up that we cannot address ourselves. So, so with that. Yeah. So do you want me to talk about? Yeah. If you just to tell us a little bit about what you're planning to do, what you'd like to be able to do. Okay. So, um, what we're seeing right now is the plan for the new construction single family residence. Um, the entire plan has been approved by right. Um, but, um, we are here today to request for special permits to, um, Enclose the basement egress. So, um, which is, um, yeah, the stairs leading from the basement to the back of the property. Um, as highlighted by the mouse cursor. Um, so the reason why requesting special permit is because, um, these stairs is going to project. Into the, um, minimum setback. At the rare part of the building. And, um, so according to our understanding of the bylaws, um, in order to enclose the stairs, um, we need a special permit for that because we are looking to build on something like a doghouse. I'm covering over those stairs. Um, that's. Yeah, that's what we're here for. All right. Thank you. Um, So it just focused in this portion here, which extends. This dashed line, I believe it's the, uh, the rear setback line. So this would be a new construction in, in the rear yard, which typically is, it's not allowed, but in this case, because, um, A section 5.3. Point nine. Uh, a, in our bylaws, um, it is being proposed as, uh, an enclosed entrance in a setback. And that's the reason that they're requesting a special permit and coming before us this evening. And you had. Said that the, your. Architect is, uh, is, um, unable to. Doesn't have a, an audio line to the meeting this evening. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Um, Which is to go through the. The drawing said here, this would be the extension of the foundation to include that. Um, Planned at the first floor showing where that's there is. And then this is the. For floors. Front elevation. I believe this is the, the rear elevation without it. That's right. The, uh, the bulkhead here. Um, and then this is the proposals would be to add this. Feature. Um, So the. And then this is the site plan. So the, the, I had posed a question, um, to Mr. Valerelli, uh, earlier. This week, uh, and the last week, um, about the question about usable open space on the property. Um, so usable open space is a way that the, uh, one of the ways that. One of the requirements that town has for, uh, residential property. And it's to. It's basically a percentage of the gross floor area. The house has to be provided as open space outside the. The building and open to the sky and relatively flying is basically to provide, um, outdoor recreation space. And where this is a new dwelling and the parking is at level, is at level. Um, The bylaw allows the. The minimum dimension. For qualifying as usable open space to be 20 feet by 20 feet. And so I believe. The rear yard. Is currently counted as usable open space. And, um, The reason I. So this is new construction. Um, And on the table that was provided by the surveyor. Under usable open space. Um, It's listed as being non-conforming and showing zero user space. Which I think is incorrect because. Certainly the building department would not have issued. A permit for the construction of the property if they'd had no usable open space on the back. Um, And I did get. Um, I'll just say, I know Mr. Valarali, I believe you had sent me an email with some additional information, which I thought I saved here. Now I can't find it. Oh, that's why, because it's a different file format. Let me see if I can switch to it real quick. Oh, that's this sketch here. Um, and so. The usable open space currently in this rear yard, it's an area that's 21.9 feet by 61.77 feet for a total of 1353. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. So that equates to 33% usable open space. We're looking at the 30% because they plan on enclosing the once open stairway leading to the basement. It's a different story, so it changes the complexion of the usable open space. And in fact, it would probably not qualify. So they would, they could possibly count the areas to the left and the right of the proposed basement access. But would they, but they would not be able to count the area directly behind it. Yeah, sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, but because there's a structure now in closing the basement stairs, it interrupts the open space that 21.9 by 61.77 again came to about 33%. So now we have just a one small patch take you pick either left or right, whatever's bigger, whatever one you pick does not does not qualify for useful open space. That's not enough. They needed that entire backyard. They needed that stairway to the basement, unenclosed in order to be confident as useful open space. Okay. So it looks like the proposed enclosure for the stairs is five foot eight. Just 5.67. So that would leave 56.1 feet divided into two parts. If we multiply that by 21.9, we're at 1228. Back to the, oops, if I go back now to general information on this property. That's a power since 4679. So that would be down to 26% of the usable open space after with the addition of that part out back. So if I'm so Mr. really sort of. So that being the case where the house currently complies in regards to usable open space but if this structure over the stair was added. It would no longer qualify for usable open space and that would be a new non conformity. That's correct. Mr. Chairman, I spoke to the inspector actually wrote this permit. Yeah, that was the condition of the permit being released as those stairs would remain open. Okay. Unless the board found otherwise. Okay, thank you. And go ahead and go back to the application. Ask if there are questions from the board. Mr chairman, Mr. Hanlon. I noticed that in the playing department memorandum, there was a suggestion that because of the amount of the additional gross floor area that this should be treated as a large addition, in addition to everything else that they said. I seem to remember that that is, at least as I understand the rationale for it. It's inconsistent with this board's decision and 21 Hutchinson road and what was there then indicated as a long standing interpretation of the of the instructional services department and I wondered if Mr Valerelli could state whether or not there's some reason why this why. Well, could we state what the position of the department is and whether it agrees with the notion that the provision on large additions would apply in this case when you have a new when you have a demolition and new construction. And so again, I did not do the plan review for this, this particular job. You would have to take what was what was rebuilt on the existing foundation, and then take what was added if the addition to the existing foundation exceeded 750 square feet, and they would need a special permit for large addition. So everything within the existing foundation would be okay. It all depends how much they added to the original foundation and is it in excess of 750 square feet. I don't have those numbers in front of me. It was is Mr Chairman if I can just follow up on that. I want to explain a little bit more about my understanding of this project is that they did not attempt to build on the existing foundation or at least that isn't something they were relying on that they just totally demolished the old building so that there's no alteration in the old building that took place because the old building isn't there anymore. Is that a misunderstanding of what the issue is I'm not quite sure I understand why it is that the foundation of the old building is relevant. If the old building has been completely demolished. That is the case in this house was completely demolished, then a large addition special permit would not be necessary. So, as a matter of fact, I wonder if the applicant could explain. So whether what actually happened has the old house actually been completely demolished or not. Yes, the old house was completely demolished and then we got the full permit for the new building it's a totally new building everything is gone right we're using nothing from the old house so even the property on plan the last plan you put up that was used sort of figure out the usable open space. That's no longer valid because even the driveway it's not going to be in the same location as a previous driveway it's everything is changed on the last so it's a totally new house. And construction is already underway the old house is completely gone because again, we got the full permit approved for the entire construction nothing was done by special permit. Again, Mr Chairman, if I may develop really, if in fact the foundation was removed, and we were down to raw land. We would treat this like any other knockdown and rebuild where a large addition would not be required. So this is I believe this is the correct site plan so the proposed driveway. I'm right hand side in front of the garage. But the 21.9 is still the setback from the rear lot line. So, without the base the proposed basement access and enclosed. The property does meet the requirements for usable open space, but with that constructed it no longer meets the requirements for usable open space. And as such it's no longer something that the board can just permit as a special permit, because it's a new non conformity, it would require a variance. And variances have a very different set of criteria, they're established by the state. And the first one being is there something about something unique about the land. That makes a variance necessary. And I think as your as your application indicates, you know this is very much a flat rectangular piece of land. And the reason for providing this entrance is to provide a better entry into the basement it's not. It's not a requirement for the property to be developed. So, I have a question about you please calculation because again I think the architect has different numbers on further down in the application I mean I'm only just noticing this little box over here. But the first time so the question I have is on this calculation that was done sort of in this meeting seems to have been done on just the rare part of the lot. So I'm not sure why the front doesn't count so for usable for space open space to be considered usable it has to be at least 20 feet by 20 feet, and it cannot include a driveway. Right, you can so. So like this portion of a lot here wouldn't qualify the sides don't qualify because they're too narrow. So it's 28 feet to here. At the top of the stairs so 1234512 the five steps is five feet this landing is probably another. I don't think you have 20 feet from the from here to the to the property unfortunately it's not mentioned. No, the left of the stairs those are flower beds so okay. So that's part so from the stairs to the left of the lot. From the building. So the left side so if you look at the front of the. So from the site and it's maybe not that clear that the left of the stairs, those actually not stairs those are just flowers beds. So if you look at the front. These these beds here. Yes, those are flower beds so I'm not sure why those don't count as part of usable open space. So, let me go back to the site plan. So then you're saying that there we go. This is the property line here. This is the front of the house. So you're saying that from this front line of the house. So what we have out here are the steps, a landing and planting beds, but nothing here is like part of the part of the building. Correct. So I'm so from the door, the main to the left of the lot. That's more than 25 feet. From the door to the edge of the lot in front that's more than 20 feet. Okay. Mr. Valerie, how does the building department typically consider planting beds when it's doing its determination of usable open space. That would be okay that could be included. So what we're seeing here is that the useful open space has to be a contiguous chunk of land. We can take a corner from the left and add it to the back corner has to be contiguous. Mr. Chairman. So, I'm not quite sure I understand what's meant by it has to be contiguous if, if this was a square that met the 20 by 20 foot requirement. And there is a lot of usable open space that is contiguous to that in fact, pretty much the whole of it all the way around, except for where the proposed driveway is. Wouldn't you take that 20 by 20 and then add to it all of the other open space because the 20 by 20 is only a minimum requirement it doesn't. But not all of the open space that is counted as usable open space has to be part of that 20 by 20 is that is that wrong. Mr. early. Mr Chairman so historically and as a matter of plan review, the building department has always used a contiguous area of land to qualify for usable open space. It did not separate a chunk here and a chunk there had to be contiguous. But if the board feels as though that's unfair and maybe should look in another direction. So be it. Well, Mr Chairman. If I could just, if you if you if you zoom out a little bit so you can see the entire area that's usable open space. So what we would interpret contiguous is that, you know, the, let me wait until we see the picture here. So, you know, you've got that patch there that I'll assume is a 20 by 20 foot patch. If you go up the left side of the house and then pass the rear and then all the way down to the back you get something that looks almost like the border of the house. And all of that is contiguous. There's there's no place where it's totally blocked off except the proposed driveway and by that time you've gotten. I think more than enough area to count or at least that would be the question. But it isn't a situation where there's a patch here and it's there because it's all contiguous all the way around until you reach the driveway. Yeah, so we basically have a piece. Here is separate piece here. The third piece would be roughly here. Mr. Valerie this is Richard Lorenzo I'm in the butter. And we'll be we'll be getting to public comment shortly sir. Okay. Mr chairman. So I'm just curious I was trying to follow along in the bottom left hand corner on the on the plan on the same plan. What do you calculate the those dimensions as So I don't know what they would be. I do agree with the with the applicant that is greater than 20 by 20. And so when you say greater than 20 by 20 or we're not, we are or are not including the stairs. So that would be that typically the calculation includes stairs include that are open to the And the walkway that are open above. And so it includes the deck at the rear as well because that's again open to the And even if we exclude the stairs, it is still more than 20 by 20. Right, but I don't think there's 20 by, I don't think there's 20 feet between the edge of the end here and the street. I'm not because I'm so the stairs is so where you have the vertical arrow. That's pretty much like the stairs, everything to the left of that those are just flower beds. Right. Yeah. So you would include the stairs in the usable open space, because you can, you're able to access them. So is not that entire rectangle. And is that not greater than 20 by 20. And so this is definitely greater than 20 by 20. So, so what, maybe I'm oversimplifying but what is the issue then if that's greater than 20 by 20. Well we. So, the question is then. So this is the definition of usable open space. And as Mr. Valaralee had said, the typical interpretation of this bylaw by the, by the building by the special services department who, you know, routinely interprets what our bylaws mean. They have always taken the interpretation that this implies that the usable open space has to be a contiguous area. So that the minimum dimensions are 20 by 20, but it all has to be the same piece of property in order to be considered usable open space. So it would be the largest of those three could be considered usable open space. The, but the word contiguous does not appear in the definition. And so the question then before the board is what, what is the board believe the correct interpretation of this should be does it necessarily should the board can agree with the this the interpretation for the building department that in order to be considered usable open space the space all does need to be contiguous. Does the board feel that that's not the case and that as long as there are pieces of land on the property that total up to the required amount of usable open space that is sufficient to meet the requirement. Mr chairman. So, if you look at the actual language of the statute and we don't have the, the, what it, what it says is no horizontal dimension is less than 25 feet. So if you're going to go and try to add up the amount of usable open space on the property. I would think that you would be able to take anything that otherwise meets the definition of usable open space. And as long as it had a 20 a horizontal dimension of, in this case, at least 20 feet, no, no horizontal dimension is less than 20 feet than that would count and the statute doesn't say anything about having those things all one big patch as opposed to adding up the pieces. And I would think that just, and I'm not trying to actually be fair or not fair here I'm just trying to read what the statute says. But it seems to me that that the statute just says that it shall be deemed usable. And it has a minimum dimension of 25 feet, which in this case is 20. And we've seen three patches that do seem to meet that requirement I'm assuming they do. And I would think that you would be able to add all of those together because each one of them counts as usable open space in order to see whether you have their right amount in total. And I'm assuming in the statute that suggests that we can disregard two pieces of what otherwise is usable open space because there it's not, it's not connected. So my inclination would be to just apply the statute as I think it, it's written and and not impose an additional requirement of continuity, continuity to it. And so when reading and rereading the definition here in terms of looking for plural versus singular language and the, the first line where it says the part or parts of a lot designated and developed for outdoor use by the occupants, which sort of implies that it does not need to be a single piece that it is either a part of the lot or at several parts of the lot developed for outdoor use. And can I also clarify one thing that those three. Yes, sir. We highlighted. They are all contiguous right because from the front, you can walk all the way through the side to the back and all the way around the back. So I'm not implying that it needs to be contiguous. I'm just saying like, they actually seem to be contiguous. Mr Chairman. That's actually where I was started from before, but Mr Valerelli has persuaded me that the, the strips along the side of the house do not meet the requirement that their minimum dimension is 75 feet. If you don't think of it in terms of continuity but you just think of it in terms of the statutory requirements. Those don't count as usable open space because they have a horizontal dimension of less than 20 feet. Right. And they but I think they can certainly be accessed from one another they just we can't count them space wise as being usable open space but right. But the point is well taken that those that the three areas that were identified, you are able to go from one to the other without hindrance. Are there further questions from the board. Mr Chairman, not to believe not to belabor the point. So when we talk about usable open space in order for there to be any at all. In this instance, you have to have at least one area that's 20 by 20. Would you agree with that. So if you didn't have any area that you're considering to be usable open space has to have a minimum dimension of 20 by 20. So if you had less than that then you would by definition not have usable open space. Correct. So if you then said okay well we do have areas that are 20 by 20 now. Does the calculation then kick into whether or not we have we meet the 30%. Is that where we go next. So we had run so I had run the calculation based on the rear yard, having the inclusion of the new of the of the proposed enclosure over the stair and that had reduced the usable open space to 26.25. And I think if you were to just assume for this. Let's go back. Just need to look up again the square footage of the house as proposed, the proposed house is 4,679 square feet. Yeah, so original so what we were looking at the rear yard was essentially two spaces adding up to 56.1 feet, and that was multiplied by 21.9 feet, which was 1228.6. And then in the front if we just assume it's 20 by 20 which is 400 gives us our gives us 16 roughly 1628. We'll divide that by, then we're up at 3435% so I think we have confidence that we can make that amount of space if that's the way the board wants to consider it. But we would certainly be looking for a more, you know, final calculation from the, from the applicant. I just want to clarify that there is a table application where we have the actual calculation for this application so the table that was put up earlier. I wasn't even aware that was part of the package someone in the. Yeah, so that is the 42.1%. And here is listed as the usable open space as, as, you know, almost 4200 square feet with on a 6000 square foot lot that that number is incorrect. I think there's parts included in that number that aren't correct. Yeah, I think we have included like the deck upstairs as well and yeah, and maybe even the driveway so yeah. So the building department had calculated it using the full depth of the rear yard, the full width of the rear yard and come up with an area of 1353 which was over 30% so that's why they had issued the initial permit. Are there any further questions from the board at this point. Mr chair. This is probably if I may. If, if, if this was a hash, instead of a dog house enclosure, if it were a door or a hatch, would that be counted towards the open area or would that be not in the open area calculations if it were just a door or a hatchway coming out of the basement through the Mr Valorale, how does the building department typically calculate that does it include it. That's a lot was the sham and so it's just a simple bulkhead, then it's allowed to be used as part of the open space calculation useful. Anything further Mr honey. Nope, I think. Right. I'm now open the meeting for public comment, public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asks that those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing to please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead. Those who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application. Those calling it by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host you'll be asked to give you our name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions and comments are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed. The comment period will be closed, and the board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. There was one member of the public I know who was interested in speaking of the Mr Landro. Mr. Lorenzo, Tommy rich, Mr Lorenzo, we can name and address the record please. I'm at 15 Rubilee street. Thank you. All right. Welcome to the house design looks great welcome to the new neighbors. Hope we can make this work okay welcome aboard. Two things come up. One, the special thing was sent out because of a variance to cut back with inside the 20 word setback. All right, so that itself. I'm here to protect the setback rules, because we don't want overcrowding amongst ourselves the houses are close enough. I mentioned earlier about parking is at level, and I'm not sure if anybody's had a chance to look at the house. From my view, I see a slope driveway where the grade is growing up pretty gradually and it looks like it's almost current. So, when we talk about open space that curve driveway may cut into it. My concern as in the butter is to to two fold one would be the water drainage coming into our properties because we are a low water area. I got some pump, and I don't need additional water to want to make sure it's lives up to the zoning bylaws at this town, which have grown up and born and raised here. I actually live in the house that I grew up in. Okay, and I've enjoyed the neighborhood and joined the character of everything. Again, the house looks great. And also came with a clean slate at the very beginning of when your architect was designing it, knowing the bylaws. It's almost like this is after the fact makes you think about the builder and the architect. And with that folks, thank you. Thank you, sir. Next on the hand up to Mr Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Steve Moore Piedmont Street. Two questions. First, just thought about it. I don't know information packet on one I noticed that when I was looking through the application, a whole bunch of pages were marked Oakland Street I understand that. I think there was a, I think it was a package and then accidentally attached to the end of the document that was for a different site. Well no it's actually between the walls. Now pages 16 through 20. It's a series of elevations. So that's, that's sort of a code.  Okay. Yeah, the other question is this. So the house that was on the site was demolished the foundation was retained. I would like to ask the applicant was a tree plan performed so I've looked at the street you pictures, and there seem to be too large street trees. I looked at the pictures, I looked at the aerials and, you know, it's a little inconsistent with the street pictures that I found. So I'm wondering where the street trees taken, do they currently exist. That's my first part of the question. Thank you Mr Moore to the applicant are there street are there trees currently on the street in front of the property. Yes, so first of all when we completed the tree plan and that was all approved and secondly, there is one tree in front of the property which is preserved so if you go on site you can see there is a protection all around it. Just one I believe I mean, there was a tiny little stump right in the middle of the front of the property, we met the stump there so I mean if there is a second tree then it's must not be on our lot so there was just a tree and a tiny little stump which I don't even know how long the stump has been there it's certainly not the second since we got the property so Okay, that's sort of that helps explain I'm glad to hear the street trees being protected and there was a tree plan that was I'm assuming approved by the sounds like it was. Thank you. Thank you Mr Moore just briefly to that point. This is the the site plan at the front. There's this 24 inch caliber tree just off the edge of the property and there's a second one.  I believe that's a either a hydrant or a manhole or something so to the there are the two trees in front but only one is in front of the property. Right okay thank you. That was my confusion. Thank you. Not problem. Thank you. The next on our wish to speak is D harsh. Go ahead and unmute yourself and name and address of the record please. Thank you Mr Chair, Dan her 49 night clock street. We are neighbors on the other side of Mr Lorenzo, our home sandwich. Thank you Mr. Mayor and our neighbors. I'm pleased to be here today to address the issue of the applicant's again I echo what Richard say we welcome the neighbors we you know this is something that's very new to us we've lived in this house for 20 plus years. The only thing that raises a bit of a concern is just the timing of a lot of this. The foundation is in place and if I understood Mr Valerie correctly. and now it's being asked to be enclosed after. Mr. Villarelli? That's correct, Mr. Hurst. So if that structure remained open and open set of stairs going to the basement, we probably wouldn't be here tonight because it would not need a special permit based on the usable open space. So the inspector who issued the permit said as long as that remains open, we count that entire rear yard, the calculation that rear yard clearly satisfy the gross foot area of the structure. All right, thank you. The only concern we have is just a stormwater issue. As Richard indicated, this is a very low lying area. Any new construction that causes any kind of additional challenges for us is a concern. So to add into the setback, if that impacted that in any way, that would be a concern beyond that. Again, I go what Rich said, looks beautiful, again, this is a new process for I've never been a part of something like this. So we just wanna make sure it's done within the bylaws accurate thing correctly. And I mean, that's really where we speak from. All right, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon? Mr. Chairman, this is Pat. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. We got so much involved in talking about usable open space that we didn't really, we skipped over really fast. What the reason is why they need the open, the permit, which has nothing to do with open space. That would be a reason why they couldn't get the permit. There's, it says explicitly in the bylaw that it is okay to have a enclosed into the yard. That's part of the regulations that have to do with the preservation of the yard. So we're not talking about a variance here. We're not talking about anything that disregards the terms of the zoning ordinance. It's just that the zoning ordinance has or the zoning bylaw has in it, an exception. And the applicant is trying to show that he meets that exception. And that otherwise this meets the requirements of a special permit. But either way, no matter how we come out on this, there's no issue about varying the or allowing a non-conformity with the zoning bylaw. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Next on our list is Laura Wielczewski. If just name an address of the record, please. I'm Laura Wielczewski, 53 Nicod Street. And we are backyard of butters to the new neighbors. And again, I will say that it looks nice and welcome. It's great neighborhood, but I am just a little concerned with the setbacks from the new judo and also the deck. It looks like it's 12 feet. And what is the minimum setback to the lot line? Mr. Vellarelli, what's the required setback for an open deck? I'm sorry, Laura, are you talking in the rear yard? In the rear yard. In the rear yard. Yes, the rear yard, the jut out for the stairs and also the deck. Yeah, so an open deck if it can start entirely in the rear yard can go up to 10 feet, but not exceed more than 50% of the required rear yard distance. So in this case here, it looks like the deck is, I don't have it, it's not calculated on my plot plan, but it looks like it is about 10 feet, which would be a lot. Mr. Vellarelli, it's dimensioned at 12.2 feet off the rear yard. Yeah, that's the distance, correct. And the depth of the rear yard is 21.9. So it is less than half. That's correct. And the proposed basement access would not extend as far as the deck does. Okay, so there's no minimum even for an enclosed structure or a setback. So it can be so that an enclosed entrance or porch can extend beyond the property, but it's not, excuse me, beyond the setback line by three and a half feet by right. And if they look to extend beyond that, it can be done so, but only with a special permit issued by the Board of Appeals. I just wanna be clear as to how far can you go to the property line from the enclosed proposed stairway? How far does that have to be? So if they, without a hearing before the zoning Board of Appeals, in this case with a 20 foot rear yard, it could be 16 and a half feet from the rear, from the rear lot line, but with a public hearing and a ruling by the zoning Board of Appeals, it can be closer to the property line than that. But there's not, at that point, because of the discretionary permit, there's not a fixed dimension, but the use of it is very restricted to only being an enclosed entrance. So I guess that's the thing that's a little bit weird is that if it's only 12 feet from the property line and the structure is already built, so it seems like the cart was put before the horse. Well, certainly if they've gone ahead and put in the foundations for this portion, then that would be at their own risk. But I see that the applicant shaking his head. I'm guessing that the footing has not been put in place for the larger rear entrance. It has been. Did I respond to that?  So it would still be coming off four or five feet off the rear of the house in order to put in your standard sort of angled bulkhead doors for our basement access. What they're requesting would then extend that farther and be taller. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon? I just wanted to be clear because the deck is in a different situation than the entrance here. The deck is allowable by right because the limitation was 10 feet or half the distance to the goal line, so to speak. And that meets that. So they don't need a special permit for that. What they need a special permit for is just the entrance that we're talking about. And that is why we're here. And there's no, once they ask for a special permit there's no automatic number that limits what we could do. We could let it go all the way out if we thought that that meant that met their conditions of the special permit is a discretionary decision. But it has nothing to do with the deck. The deck is already within the requirements of the bylaw. Thank you. Ms. Otsiski, should you have another question? No, I don't think so. It just, again, it seems like the foundation footing is already there. And it's not a bulkhead where it would be at the ground level that you would go down. It goes up. So it seems like it is a little bit more. And again, I feel bad for the owners. We want to be friendly neighbors and it's a great neighborhood and all that, but we just want the rules to be followed and not to be too overcrowded. And it's nice now because we do have a little backyard and some space between the houses. And we just don't want that to disappear by everything being too close. Understood. Thank you. Next on our list is Judy Mince. Hi, Judy Mince. I'm 161 Walliston. So I'm across the street from the new house. And it's just a quick comment because everybody's concerned about water. And I just want to say sort of following from afar what the new owners have had to go through for mitigation. I think that the neighborhood is by and large going to be better off from a drainage perspective than we have been. That's all I wanted to say. I think it's good. Thank you. And then Mr. Hirsch had his hand up, but then it went away. Are there any other members of the public wishing to address this hearing? Are there raised your hand digitally or are you going to wave in your window? Mr. Larran, go for a second. Yep. Give me my five seconds of fame. I'd appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Again, new name is welcome. Okay. We're good people. It's a great neighborhood. I hope it works out for you. We just want to make sure that the bylaw doesn't adhere to that the new foundation that's in right now adheres to what was permitted and not for future use. So if someone could check out on that and then also look at the slope of the grade of the driveway. Again, that's going to impact me and I understand drainage systems, but things flow downhill. I'm the guy at the bottom of the hill. Okay. So I'd appreciate if we could follow up with that with the town and the permitting aspect as I'm going to come by, but I'd hate to see them build the structure and I'm going to say, uh-oh. And then I'd feel even worse. Okay. So let's nip it early, do the right thing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, everybody appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. And then Mr. Hirsch for a second. Thank you. Again, just to echo it, I appreciate the fact that this should possibly see some improvement. I want to thank Judy for mentioning that because I do recognize that. And I look forward to that happening, but I do want to be clear about something. This foundation is in, I noticed the deck piece, how it does slide back in the drawings about a photo too. So no concern there, but this is in place right now. And I think that was probably the greatest concern is that this is in right now. And when you get a notice of a special permit or a hearing for a special permit and you see some of the work is already done, you just have questions. I am new to this process. Again, I feel, Laura said it would feel awful even being, I haven't brought into this. However, we're here. So, you know, we want it to be right and correct, but be clear that foundation is in right now. So, you know, it's not beyond us to realize that if this wasn't granted the hardship that may cause, but at the same time, this is the, this was a clean slate and the opportunity was there to do it correctly. And it just looks as though it wasn't, but, you know, so be it. It doesn't have, you know, a lifelong impact, but we want to point that out because that is the case. So that was all. And again, I certainly hope this has all resolved. I thank everybody for their time and best of luck. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address the board? Any new hands up? We'll leave Ms. Wolchewski's hand is just up from before. Going once, going twice, okay. With that, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment portion of the hearing and return back to the board. So there have been several questions that were raised by members of the public. And there was a letter submitted to the board which had another question as well. Just briefly for background, Mr. Valarelli. So as a part of the construction process, the building department does go in and does verify construction at various phases as they proceed. So would it be fair to say that the building department has visited the site and it's aware of the footing and the foundation walls are as per the permit? A little more than that, Mr. Chairman. So two as built are required. One after the foundation is in place to make sure that it was constructed as proposed. The inspector will check that out. And at the end of the day prior to the issuance of the CO that the entire building was constructed as proposed. Okay. Can't you answer your question? Yes. Okay. And to your knowledge, were there any questions in regards to the foundation as it was poured on this project? Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. That's to say that there were. I'm just not aware of them, but not to my knowledge. Okay. And Mr. Valarelli, again, just on background, as far as, on a project like this where the footprint of the house is larger than the previous footprint, the driveway is larger than the previous driveway, as a part of the review process that the applicant has to go through, would they need to submit a drainage plan through the engineering department? Yes, Mr. Chairman. So if the impervious area of the proposed exceeds 350 square feet of what was there originally, they would need a saltwater management plan. I believe they did file for one of this. The applicant is nodding in a scent that they did submit. We do that. We got a civil engineer, we did all of that. That also even determines, like, I know people might be concerned that sort of the basement floor seems pretty high. It's because we also did the test speeds as well. So all that was vetted by civil engineers, even the sloping driver as well. It was all factored into the calculation. Okay. And that is all we know, but that's kind of the original plan for the house. None of that is changing. Okay. I think we have a, some of the questions that had come up about the deck, I think we've addressed those. We've talked about the water question. We talked about the foundation. We've talked about the grade of the driveway as it relates to stormwater. We've talked about foundation. So then the, I think it's time to sort of come back for the board to the question that's really before us. So this is a request under section 539a of the zoning bylaws to request an enclosed entrance in the setback. Typically we see these in the front yard. Very occasionally we see them in the side yard. I think this is the first time I've seen one in a rear yard, but the bylaw makes no differentiation between the yards when it comes to enclosed entrances. The, as we had said earlier, the applicants can have three and a half feet by right. And then beyond that it needs to be referred to the zoning board of appeals. And the board needs to make determination based on what is being requested. I just want to flip to that page quickly in the bylaws. So it's this section here, 539a. So enclosed entrances not more than 25 square feet in floor area, more than one story in height. So now project more than three and a half feet may extend into the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district. Porches and enclosed entrances larger than that allowed above may extend into the minimum yard regulations otherwise provided for the district by special permit. And so that is what the request is. And then the special, too far, the special permit requirements, the findings that the board would have to make. Thank criteria, here we go. So one is that the use requested is listed as a special permit use in special use regulations for the applicable district or is so designated elsewhere in this bylaw. So this is something that the board can approve by special permit under 539a. The requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience and welfare as for the board to discuss. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impaired pedestrian safety whereas the proposal is in the rear yard. I don't believe that this is in question. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage or sewer system or any other municipal system to such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate area or any other area of the town will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting the health, safety or general welfare. There were questions asked by several of the neighbors in regards to stormwater and drainage in the area. And this was explained by the applicant and by Mr. Valarelli that they did have to engage a special excuse me, a civil engineer to look at stormwater and drainage issues and any recommendations that they have made would have been a part of the initial building permit would not be impacted by the area that is currently being considered for this enclosed entrance. Any special regulations for the use as may be provided in this by-law are fulfilled. Again, that's section 539A. This requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining districts nor be detrimental to the health or welfare. The board should discuss that. That's the question about the crowding and the setback and the encroachment. And then the requested use will not by its addition to the neighborhood cause an excess of the use that could be detrimental to the character of that neighborhood. And in this situation, it's a single family house within a closed entrance. It's not something that would be in excess in a single family district. So with that, I would go back to the board in regards to this request. I think we need to discuss whether the requested use is essential or desirable to the convenience and welfare of the public, which in this case would be for the applicant and those impacted. And then the question about whether it would impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining districts. I'm gonna go back to the application. I'm gonna show what's really included. So this is really what's at, is just this additional piece of construction here. Just a question for the applicant. Is there any particular reason for the dimensions on it? Or is that just, I think it's so that you have space behind that you have a landing inside and then stairs up and the top step is where the door is. I don't think it's any longer than it needs to be. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. I think that's for the builders. And I guess that was also for the surveyor to kind of correctly calculate the rest of that. Okay. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Holly. There is, I may have misheard the applicant saying for the egress requirements. There are two window wells shown on the Southwest elevation from each of the sleeping quarters. So to speak a bedroom space there. So is this not purely for egress requirements more like an entry being treated in the rear of the lot? That's all it is, right? If I understand. Yeah, that's correct. It's sort of for a walkout more like an entry. It's not really to meet egress requirements because. Egress requirements, right? So Mr. Chair, we have two issues here, right? One is really I'd set back, you know, not compliance in there and then the open space calculation portion. Correct. So as far as the open space goes, it's just that if the construction of this was to reduce the usable open space beyond 30% then we would have a whole other question we need to address. If the board is confident with allowing usable open space to be, to count various pieces of the property that each individually conform with the requirements to be counted as usable open space. If the board is comfortable with that approach, then this property would have enough remaining usable open space with the addition of this entrance. And then the question of the entrance is, does the board feel that it meets the special permit criteria in order to be approved? Right. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jubon. So as I think Mr. Hawley said and as you just said, so there are really the two issues. So one is whether or not it meets the criteria or the special permit. And I feel arguably that it does. So my focus then is that you can make that decision based on the special permit criteria as long as you don't run a foul of the usable open space requirement. And I like your little red rectangles because that I think sets the question very visually but I'm not entirely sure that I know what the dimensions are on those. And it would be helpful to me just to be able to actually do the math. And I don't think that I can do that as it stands. And I'd prefer if we had something that was more in line with a site plan with having those numbers provided for those rectangles and then we can add them up. I have no problem. I don't think that there's any prohibition whatsoever in the definition of usable open space. I think if you've got 20 by 20 and you've got 10 of those, you're fine. You can just add them all up together. I don't think they have to be continuous. I know we've used the word contiguous tonight but I don't think they have to flow into one another. So I think if you have them separate, I'm comfortable with the idea of being able to add those together as long as we hit the 30%. And so I don't know that we hit the 30%. And so that's my hesitation is I would like to see those numbers confirmed so we can do the math. Would you feel comfortable with a vote of the board that had a requirement that the applicant submit a revised site plan indicating the areas and the total calculation as a part of the decision or would you rather that they make the calculations so we have those figures before the board votes? I can go either way but I think we have to be very explicit. So if I remember, I wrote it down. I think that, so we're dealing with 30% of the gross floor area, is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So I believe you had said it was 46.79. That is possible. It's too far. Yes, 46.79. 46.79. So if you check my math, I think we need 1,403.7 square feet of usable open space. So if we were to, and the other members can speak to this but if we were to say that we're granting it conditioned upon them providing evidence that they do in fact meet the 30%, I think I'd want to consider adding that meaning 1,403.7 square feet if that's the accurate number or above. Okay. But they also have to establish that those three rectangles are 20 by 20 at least. Yeah. So those that would be the condition I would foresee. So we do have a condition we've used in the past which was that the applicant is to provide a certified site plan indicating and dimensioning the areas of the existing and proposed site that comply with the requirements for usable open spaces indicated in section two with the zoning by a lot of town of Arlington to the Inspectoral Services Department for review and approval. So we could use that as a base and just modify it. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I think the key thing here is if we're taking the view that you can add up each of the individual parts that meet the requirement, the horizontal dimension requirement that is not, and if that's the view we wish to take, that's not the view that Inspectoral Services has taken. So unless we make it clear what we envision, they would presumably do what they always do and then we'd have to pick the case back again. So the key thing on the 20, the key thing on the adding it up is the absence of the requirement of continuity and the ability to add up every bit of open space, that meets the requirement for usable open space. Okay, so if we were to do that as a condition, we would need to basically state how we want it calculated. And of course, if we did that, we would also just as a matter of course, include the numbers that Mr. DePont has been talking about. You got how to award that. Are there other questions or concerns among the board? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I guess we'd need to go back a little bit to the usable open space requirement, I'm sorry, I said that exactly the opposite. Move back to the question of the requirements of the special permit. I'm sort of two minds on this. I don't really think that I understand what the advantages are necessarily and why this rear entrance needs to be enclosed. But when you look at it on the map or on the plan, it certainly doesn't extend further than the deck or it doesn't appear to do that. And I don't see that there's an issue of crowding. The superstructure over it is what possibly gives rise to a concern that with respect to the butters. But I find it very difficult to say that this is somehow harmful to the neighbors or has any significant effect really on how the sense of credit here. Does specifically state the reason for the request? To me, if I could ask the applicant sort of what the the reasoning behind requesting a the enclosed rear entrance as you're proposing it, what the reasoning is behind what you're hoping it will accomplish for you? Yeah, so what we're hoping to accomplish is really for someone coming out of the basement into the rear yard to be able to exit standing upright for elderly parents really. Because sort of like having to fit in with the bulkhead doors and my mom had surgery on her knees and having to bend to sort of open the bulkhead door from the inside in order to come out into the rear yard from the basement. We really want that sort of just be like a regular seamless walk out. Really, that's the main thing we're aiming for, yeah. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I just don't see that projection here and given the configuration of the house that a projection here of 7.3 feet for the closed entrance is going to present a problem under, I believe it's paragraph F. It seems to me to be too small to really significantly involve the compatibility with the neighborhood. It's not really going to make a big change. That's the way I feel about it. Thank you. Getting further from the board. Mr. Chair. Mr. McDonnellies. I just had a question. I think, you know, looking at the drawings of the specific enclosed rear entry, I think I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding what the total height of that is. To Mr. Hanlon's point, just now, I think it's probably not too impactful, but I see a dimension that's maybe 7.9 to some line, but I wonder what the overall height is just so that we can sort of have it in our mind for that kind of impact that it would have, you know, from the neighbor's yards. That's the applicant, if they have a specific dimension. Unfortunately, the, because this was scanned at one point, it was hard to read. Yeah, I was having that same problem. Give me a second. Let me, I have that somewhere in front of me to try to pull it up. I'm still trying to find that. I can give you the precise number. I mean, I can kind of work backwards. So for example, the door you see there, sort of like the standard door, how it's six foot eight. But give me a few seconds. I'm not sure why it's two inches. We can kind of go with that while I search for this. Mr. Chairman, I have a cleaner copy. I might be able to help Mr. Riccadelli on that. Oh, thank you. Yeah, so Dan, the tall side looks like it's seven foot eight. Okay. No, no, go ahead. Thank you. It looks like it's seven foot eight and three lower side of that shed style roof. Looks like it's six, nine and three quarter. Thank you so much. That's helpful. There's one thing I should add that's not very obvious from this view, which I think some of the neighbors have sort of noticed and pointed out, which is as part of the regular plan, which was approved by Wright, there's going to be a retaining wall around the perimeter of the property, which is about two feet tall. So essentially what you're seeing right here, the finished grade is going to be about two feet higher. And the reason for the retaining wall all around us because of the groundwater, we found that the groundwater below was too low. So our foundation, our basement could not be at the level of the previous property. It had to be elevated higher. So if you add, so that's why when the city foundation wall, the seed protrude above the floor, it's because that is all part of the original design that was approved, that is going to be a retaining wall and we're going to raise the grade up a little bit. So essentially we can take like the conservative estimate is just to add two feet to that number to becomes about nine feet. So just to clarify, so you're saying that there's a retaining wall around the rear of the property that to your property is two feet taller than the adjacent properties? Yes, correct. Around the perimeter, three sides of the property. So if you were to look at them, the construction sets that was originally approved, that was all part of the approval round. So obviously the retaining wall hasn't been built yet. So that's why it's not apparent. Okay. So should the board be looking to vote favorably on this? There are three standard special permit conditions which the board would include for any special permit, which I will now read into the record. The first standard number one, the final plans and specifications approved by the board for the permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector, the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There shall be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Number two is the building inspectors hereby notify these to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures that any time determined that violations are present and the inspector of buildings shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw under the provisions of chapter 40, section 21D and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, inspector buildings may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. In addition to that, as we discussed the question about how to count usable open space and to Mr. Dupont's question about making sure that they're sufficient, I would propose another condition which would be number four, which would be the applicant is to provide a certified plot plan indicating a dimensioning the three areas of the proposed site to be counted as usable open space. Each area must individually qualify as counting towards usable open space, i.e. 20 by 20 feet open to above and collectively must equal at least 30% of the gross floor area of the house, i.e. 1,403.7 square feet. Does that meet everyone's concerns in that regard? Are there any further questions in regards to this application? Being none, I would ask for a motion. And Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application be approved subject to three standard conditions plus the one additional condition relating to the calculation of usable open space that the Chairman just read into the record. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. So this would be a vote of the zoning board of appeals to approve a special permit for 160 Walliston Avenue with four total conditions. It was motioned by Mr. Hanlon, seconded by Mr. Dupont. Any additional questions from the board? No. Seeing none, we'll call vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The special permit for 160 Walliston Avenue is approved. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'd just like to note before we move on to the next case that I was impressed by the tenor of the hearing, the way in which everybody respectfully dealt with each other. And I also want to say that Mr. Valerelli, who was always very helpful, was particularly helpful tonight. And thank you very much for his support. Thank you, Pat. Sandy. Thank you, one and all. With that, move on to item number four on our agenda, which is docket. Let me stop the share here first, which is docket number three, seven, two, six, or which is 320 Appleton Street. So I would go ahead and ask the applicant to go ahead and introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. And I will load up the documents for this evening's hearing. Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Adam Glassman. I'm the architect representing the owners in this case for 320 Appleton Street.  All right, thank you. Almost got things in front of me here. And we're applying for a special permit. Here's screen application. Hey, okay, application materials. Oops, that's just the application materials. They put the wrong file. We did it. A letter from our neighbors. What did I do with the drawings? Let's see here. Second here, new share. There we go. This is our cover page and on the front is a rendering of the proposed mudroom. It's approximately 96 square feet. Here's our site plan. Might be a little hard to read. But the mudroom addition would be replacing an existing open front stoop, which is unsightly and dangerous to use in icy and wet weather. Do you know the dimension to the sidewalk? Well, it's from what? From the house. So, I guess where the sidewalk is in relation to the property line. Well, there's a tag here that says 25.2 feet from the house to the... But is the property line the edge of the sidewalk? As far as I know, yeah. Okay. I'm sorry, these black and white photos. We sent them in color, but if you look on the lower left photo, you can see the character of the neighborhood very similar, house size and styles. Most of these homes have existing one-story front bump-outs enclosed entries, and we'd be consistent with that pattern up and down the street. If you see on the right side, the lower right, that's the existing house with an aluminum awning over the concrete stairs that we're hoping to replace. Just our FAR calculation for the existing house. I don't know how relevant this is, but we've got 2,300 and eight square feet. Okay. And then in our proposed GFA plans would show a 96-square-foot addition. Proposed addition. Our zoning table. The house has existing non-conforming setbacks, and that's why we're applying for a special permit. Our open space, if you go to the next slide, is conforming and will remain conforming. We have color-coded plan, but apparently that reproduces black and white. We're only losing 18 square feet of usable open space, and we're far exceeding the required amount. Next slide. That's the proposed with the mud room in place. Correct. The existing plans show the area of demo and these existing elevations showed the area of demo limited to the front scoop. So comparisons existing and proposed, existing in the upper left proposed on the lower right with a kind of a classical designed, you know, massing. Next slide. More existing and proposed. Scale is maintained, character is maintained. We believe the streetscape is being improved for the more welcoming addition. View from the front right. And our setback envelope. This is why we're here. This is the violation of the front yard setback. The plan view, the addition and plan is 10 feet by nine and a half feet, not adding a full basement underneath. I'm not sure that we can call this because the stairs are exterior. I was wondering if we can call this an enclosed entry. I'm assuming not. So we're not applying for it as an enclosed entry as it, but we are applying as a non-conforming front addition. Our roof plan. Able roof structure over the proposed addition. Similar style to the existing dormers. Front, side and rear views, no exchange to the rear. And that's the last page. And that's what we got. Okay. So this is, so similar to the last hearing we had, this is again, a request to build what we would consider an enclosed entrance within the setback as opposed to the previous one. This is not in the rear. This is on the front, extending towards the street from the front of the house. And as the applicants architect had shown on the earlier plans, this is something that is fairly common on Appleton Street. The one question I had, I had two questions. One I already asked, which was the, I was concerned about the proximity to the sidewalk, but that's been addressed by the architect. The other question I had was so, one of the statements is that the existing step is kind of small and difficult to navigate, especially in the winter time. But the new proposed front step is actually the same size, if not a little bit smaller, and is completely uncovered. And I only raised that because I wasn't sure if there had been any, and it'll be much more exposed because you're that much farther out in front of the bushes. So I wasn't sure if you had considered possibly making the mud room smaller and allowing for a larger covered landing before the entry door. I think the real issue for the owners, and that you please feel free to jump in anytime, is that one of the main issues was the fact that there was no storage for their family. We have hockey players and we have athletic equipment and we try to keep the mud room as small as possible while also accommodating their storage needs and having a place as a buffer between the entry and the main living spaces where their main concerns. I'll also add, having lived here now for almost 15 years with the two dormers, we've had our roof replaced, we've had the ice dams and we have a rake, we've chopped ice down, what happens with that, the two dormers, and we get the sun at the back of the house as opposed to the front. So it actually makes this flow and everything falls on the front steps in the front walk, making it icy, dangerous for the mailman, dangerous for us. So even though these other steps are exposed, Adam's design has this additional dormer and we're hoping that will take the snow dropping to the sides onto the landscaping and not onto the front of the steps. We're also keeping our tree, our tree won't be impacted and I actually think that will help with some of the snow as well. And we do keep our tree maintained and trimmed. And I think we have very overgrown bushes that we're gonna replace with something that hopefully will be a little more attractive. So I actually think the design with the third peak roof is gonna actually help with some of that ice and hopefully we won't have to snow rake the roof as much. Oh, great. Let's look and see if one of these plans had that scripted, the tree is here. But it's not on that plan. Are there questions from the board for the applicant? I don't see any. That, go back. So I'm now gonna open 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 the decision. Members of the public wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application and those calling by phone may dial start nine to indicate who would like to speak. Are there members of the public who wish to address this hearing? It's going twice, being done. Go ahead and close the public comment period this evening. So the matter before the board is a request for an enclosed entrance exceeding 25 square feet and farther than 3.5 feet from the foundation line of the building which the board may approve using the special permit criteria under section 539A. I will quickly share. We do have from the Department of Planning and Community Development, they issued their review today of the application and reviewed the seven criteria that we had listed for the prior hearing. The request of use is permitted in the R1 zoning district to the granting of a special permit would improve the convenience and safety of the owner's entrance to their home, would not be an increase to traffic, not an undue burden on municipal systems would not result in the need for any special regulations. The special regulation is the section 539 while in regards to the integrating character of the district, they do note that this is a common feature in the area. Many homes having closed entries and the proposed front yard setback would be similar to several other properties on Appleton Street and it consistent with the residential design guidelines will introduce a human-scaled architectural variation to the overall streetscape and a visual interest would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and would not cause any detrimental excess of use and includes the site photo in front of the house with the tree and the Department of Planning and Community Development maintains the proposal is consistent with special permit criteria in the zoning by law. Mr. Chair, could I make a request? Mr. Glassman, yes. I know this would be unusual but would you mind assuming the board will vote to approve the plans as drawn? Could we make one change? And that would be that the landing, the proposed landing is three feet deep. Could we call it between three and four feet deep? It wouldn't make any change to the open space or it wouldn't impact the proximity of the front of the enclosed addition to the sidewalk. I just, I'd hate for them to wish they had this a little deeper and at your point was a good one. So let's see, do we have that? Looking for that. The right plan to reference here. Here we go. So that three feet is just cutting it so close that I think four, making it four feet wouldn't be such an insignificant difference as far as the application goes but it would probably mean a lot to them at the end of the day. So were the board to vote to approve? We would have the standard reconditions which we've already read into the record this evening. And at the request of the applicant, through the applicant's architect would propose a fourth which would read the depth of the landing in front of the entry door is not to exceed four feet. And so that would give you some leeway and how deep that is. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any questions from the board in regards to that or any of the other? Mr. Chair. Mr. Rickidelli. Just on that last bit, you can correct me if I'm wrong but the setback would actually be to the, the setback that we're looking to allow would actually be to the face of the new building, right? Not to the exterior stair. So would we be even required to include that language because it's not really in our purview here? So under 539 we're granting and Mr. Veller really correct me if I'm wrong. Under 539, we are approving the enclosure, the enclosed area here at the enclosed entrance under 539A, but the steps do the steps need a separate approval? Mr. Vellerelli, under 539B. Sorry, I was on mute. Interesting question. So open stairs and the front yard can extend up to 10 feet into the front yard from the face of the foundation. In special services, if the board approved this projection, the special services would allow the stairs to be built as proposed, including me and Chris in the depth of the... Okay. So I think if the board just focuses on the projections, the stairs would not be an issue. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I think that in light of what Mr. Vellerelli says, it's still as important to include the language that the chair has suggested because otherwise you would arrive at a potential contradiction. The first standard condition requires compliance with the plans that are approved by the board and the only plans that we have, if we don't say anything in line with what the applicant has requested, would show them not being four feet out. So just as a matter of getting everything papered over correctly, we would still need to have something that recognizes that a deviation from the plan that we have before us would be allowed. Okay. And then I'm also considering a fifth condition, which is one that we have... We used to include in the past on porches, but because the bylaw has changed, we don't need to include with porches anymore. But because this is an enclosed structure and it's going on the front of the house, I wanted to clear that the approval of the enclosed entrance does not constitute a moving of the foundation wall of the house. The foundation wall of the house remains at the front wall of the house as it is today. And what that would do is it just means that if the applicant was to consider building to the sides of the enclosed entrance, they would have to come back before the board for something like that. They couldn't do that by right location of the foundation wall. So we have the three standard conditions. We have a condition number four, which is that the depth of the open stair landing in front of the entry door is not to exceed four foot zero inches. And then a fifth that the approval of the enclosed entrance does not change the existing location of the foundation wall of the house. It's just, I know that it's being constructed with open underneath, but I just want to put that in as a confirmation. Are there any further questions for the board or conditions that they feel would be appropriate for this possible grant being none? May I have a motion please? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move approval of the application subject to the three standard conditions plus the two additional conditions that the chair has just read into the record. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. So this is a motion of the zoning board of appeals to approve a special permit for 320 Appleton street with five total conditions as motion by Mr. Hanlon and seconded by Mr. Dupont. Are there any questions from the board on what we are voting on? Being none, we're all called vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holly. Mr. Rickidelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The motion to approve the special permit for 320 Appleton street with the five conditions is passed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. You're very welcome. Good night. Good night. Good night. So for coming back to the board, we have two hearings that are currently scheduled. One is Monday, December 19th, which is the return of the comprehensive permit application for 1021, 1025 Mass Ave. There has been a lot of work going on the townside to get consultants hired and in place in talking with the town this week. It looks like that is now coming finally into place. And so hopefully we will be able to make some progress on the 19th. And then Tuesday the 20th at 730. We have two hearings on our normal day. One is the continuation of 39 Woodside Lane. To guys who recall this was, this has been continued a couple of times. Most recently because of the discovery of an easement on the property that was not previously disclosed. So there the applicant has been reworked on the application. And as soon as that information is presented to the board, we will put that out to everyone. And then the second is a new hearing for 21 Old Spring Street. And Mr. Valaroli sent that out to the board recently.  I believe that's a variance application for Old Spring Street. And then just a last piece, we had discussed a while back when we were talking about that possibly moving to a hybrid meeting format that we would want to, before we dove in, we would want to have some kind of a dry run session at some point, possibly in December. I will say I have done absolutely nothing in that regard to this point. And I would recommend that we can, offline we can try to find a date that works, but we would probably do that at this point, we would do it in January as things get awfully full this time of year anyways. So I will contact the members of the board, kind of come up with a date. So that would be great. I believe that it's all the business we have before ourselves tonight. So I 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 especially like to thank Rick Valaroli, Vincent Lee, Kelly Lanema and Marissa Lau for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting and to echo the sentiment that Mr. Hanlon presented earlier to especially thank Rick for all his assistance making our way through the zoning bylaw this evening on our cases is very much appreciated. Please note that the purpose of the board's recording in this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings. It's our understanding the recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us That email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Vote of the board to adjourn. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Mr. Rickidelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The board is adjourned. Thank you everybody. Night everyone. Okay, thanks guys, good night. Thanks everyone.


Well, artificial intelligence has been making significant inroads into various industries, including the legal profession. Its role in the legal field has both transformative potential and notable consequences. Undoubtedly in its positive role, it aids the document review and discovery legal research, predictive analytics, contract analysis, due diligence, legal writing, assistance, and client interaction, and so on and so forth. In other words, I could say that AI can significantly enhance efficiency and productivity. However, it also has some serious consequences such as concerns about job displacement for specific routine tasks, data privacy and security, ethical considerations and so on. Well, to discuss all this and more, we have with us a young but very accomplished guest expert, Abhi Vardhan. Abhi Vardhan is the founder of Indic Pacific Legal Research and the founder chairperson of the Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law. He has led the development of emerging law and policy thinking brands such as Visual, Legal, Analytica and the Bharat Pacific. Abhi Vardhan is a law entrepreneur and is an author, an editor of several books. His first book on technology law, AI, ethics and international law was published in 2019. And he has also authored published handbooks on AI and international law. Abhi Vardhan, welcome to the show, talks that matter. Welcome, welcome to the studio mentor talk. Well, Abhi Vardhan, I would not like to take too much of time talking myself because my research team has gathered many questions for you depending on the time permitting. We would be asking you some very significant questions which are weighing on the mind of the research team as well as my mind. So let me throw first question at you, which is a very basic and fundamental question. But I'm sure many of our viewers would be interested in gathering your answer with regard to that particular question. My first question to you, Abhi Vardhan, is that how is artificial intelligence currently being used in the legal profession to enhance efficiency and accuracy? Abhi Vardhan, my first question to you, Abhi Vardhan, is that how is artificial intelligence currently being used in the legal profession to enhance efficiency and accuracy? Thank you so much. Him and me, first of all, for inviting us to the pleasure to be on your podcast and Abhi Vardhan, I'd be more than happy to discuss about AI and law per se. So when we take your first question, which is about the use of AI in the legal profession, we already see a lot of business-to-business use cases, which is to say that law firms and even startups which have some amazing in-house lawyers, they are actually trying to use Generative AI or any AI for that matter for legal operations, legal management, and document analysis related work. Again, it depends on the component and the size of a company. For example, Alan and Overy would do it because they have a huge client base. A firm like the top nine law firms in India, they would do it because they have a huge base, huge client base. But it depends definitely on the demographics and the requirement and obviously what kind of data are they processing. Because I've been in touch with firms and companies which actually are developing these V2V use cases. I think in legal management, legal ops and document analysis, including contract analysis, we see a lot of AI use cases. And we were then moving on to the second question, which is by and large connected with the first question. We are just trying to stitch up the questions in that format. My second question to you is, how can the legal industry balance the need for human expertise and critical thinking with the efficiency gains brought by AI tools? So when we use any AI related tool or AI oriented tool per se, we obviously need to understand that an AI tool is not going to be an inevitable solution, which is to say that yes, in aspects like document analysis, generative analysis, and sometimes even, so for example, in a recent workshop I had done, I had featured a very interesting AI tool in which I just put any, I don't know, SLP or a contract or a bear act is a PDF file. And I find out that the very AI system itself can interpret and give me a good summarization from any part of the document, be it 100 pages long, 200 pages long. So I think just because it gives you a summarization and can do some analysis, it does not mean it's completely going to change things and remove human autonomy, because human expertise is about those specific aspects of human agency and how legal concepts are used. So I think from an operations and management point of view, I think balancing human expertise, because human agency in the field of law is not going to go anywhere, even if contracts and the systems come in, but there's a lot of scope to simplify generic tasks like document analysis and so forth. I think then I think human expertise is not going anywhere. Yeah, well said. Well, but what do you think are the challenges of implementing AI technologies in let's say law offices, law firms and how can these challenges be overcome in your thought process to ensure successful integration? So I think when it comes to law firms and law related departments and startups and companies and even family businesses, what I see a trend is that they are first of all companies which are going to involve artificial intelligence technologies. So I think like it is the same case with any technology company or any firm using AI, the same applies to law firms, the similar challenges exist. Now what are those challenges? So the challenges obviously include data privacy and consent issues as to what kind of data has been processed and is it not affecting the autonomy of the client? Is it not affecting the client autonomy relationship per se? I hope that these technologies are not going to cause any dent in the credibility of the law firms because they've existed for a long time, at least the top players who are using it. So reputational risk, credibility risk, sometimes even legal risk because you're drafting but at least what aspect of drafting or analysis you're given to the system? How much autonomy do you have in doing that? All of these questions have to be very strictly answered because in the case of AI technology the problem is we don't have any product service classifications in IP law or commercial law properly anywhere in the world. The United States tried to do so, India is also trying to maybe in future but it has not happened yet properly anywhere, not even in China for that matter. So I think these are the challenges I would give an example. And obviously you know another significant challenge on which you have spoken elsewhere and even written articles and perhaps even in your books you have mentioned about those aspects. And that is how does one address the challenge relating to data privacy and security concerns impact with the use of AI tools in legal practice? And according to you are there any measures to mitigate these risks? So we already know that the Data Protection Act the PDP has already come up to the public, it's now implemented, the president has given the assent. Now if you look at the basic aspects of legitimate use of data and even the data protection rights from section 11 to 14, we see a thing that while I actually talked about the client-autonomy relationship and it comes to using confidential data because this is not like a B2C case where you have chat GPT and you are just prompting in public and chat GPT says oh you know what it's a free research review. That's not happening in this case, it's a business to business use cases. So the licensing and the use of such proprietary information if necessary or something which is generated out of not something which is given in an updated database but something which is already in the database for a long time. I think obviously is pseudonymization of data matters, what kind of sensitive data are you taking, what kind of personal data are you integrating but at the same time the kind of metadata and non-personal data which is being used, I think that's exactly where companies and law firms need to be aware about as to how are they processing it and the more they do ethically I think they can because it's not going to happen very soon for law firms but definitely at an ancillary level it will happen and for example the data protection law, it's very clear in the data protection act that there will be certain obligations in the legal system which will be superseding the data protection law. For example in the case of the fintech industry or the health tech industry or maybe even the ed tech industry if necessary. So I think if there are superseding obligations then I think in that case one needs to be aware about as far as law firms and companies are concerned. If I was to compare this whole concept of and reality rather of AI with OTT for instance, OTT went through its own self administration, self regulatory regime and then it was found not to be enough and then the government stepped in and tried to work out some regulatory framework and the process is still on. Now do you think that the regulatory bodies and professional organizations relating to lawyers and legal fraternity can play some significant role or relevant role in establishing guidelines for the responsible and ethical use of AI in the legal profession? Yeah so a very interesting question. So to take it I think self regulatory approaches is the best way for a market to grow because again these are not business to customer cases yet but I have seen instances of some Indian law firms very few not many actually doing this that for example you have this chat GPT kind of an application which is like you're prompting and asking questions on legal issues. I know certain companies already trying to implement those solutions some of them were featured in a workshop which I had held some time back. So I think what I see is that self regulatory approaches is a good way to go forward but I think on legal management and legal operations are much better way and we can learn this from the competition commission of India. For example for cab aggregators like Uber, Ola, Rapido and others the government of India through its statutory body the competition commission just delivered some self regulatory guidelines on what kind of fees are you showing it to your customer who's booking your ride. So I think from a form of business to business point of view the bar council of India maybe relevant bodies can actually at least issue certain kinds of basic touch up guidelines that you know what this is exactly what you need to at least try to ferment as a template that try to make it more inclusive so that the customer who's your client obviously in the legal profession we don't say customer they are actually you know aware of what they're doing with you and what kind of data you're using. So I think then that way the bar council can take the initiative and then the ministry of law and justice and even Metis would come in to be and maybe even our courts would act upon but I think let's start with the bar councils and because they registered the law firm staff. Very valid remark on that. Finally you know I mean we on to the last question and I'm sure we'll have another round of episode because we haven't exhausted all our questions but you know we are nearing the closing time but the final question is also very relevant because we had we got quite a few you know comments and questions with regard to this particular episode and one question which came from every direction was that what are the potential career opportunities for lawyers in a future where artificial intelligence is prevalent in the legal field? So there are two kinds of opportunities. First obviously is in traditional fields like telecom and technology law which we know you know we call as TMT law entertainment law all of these fields intellectual property law I mean in these I mean from a substantive and procedural law perspective I don't think jobs are going to go away or opportunities are going to go away but in the case of you know a non-field perspective I really see that lawyers and law professionals who are efficient and at least aware that they're using the right tool to make their tasks better at a mass scale for example I don't know under the digital India initiative it turns out and I think it's being done with state legal services authorities in a Marshall Pradesh there was a very interesting case study of legal aid so if it is being tried that lawyers who are at a district court level or a civil court level they start using some basic AI applications which are available for free under the digital India initiative and turns out that they're using it to make their tasks improve I think we as Indians are pretty much good at that I think using those AI tools which are credible enough which are helpful enough in translation document analysis contract analysis legal management for clients and others I think if it is used at a granular level which is I would say at a mass level you know available to lawyers across the board I think that would create a lot of career opportunities and also make lawyers a lot of efficient people you know thereby obviously increasing the credibility of the legal system the judiciary overall so I think that would be great for you know India systems I think the I think that's how career opportunities should be looked into first is obviously substantive field based and second is obviously efficiency and professional work based that's what I understand thank you well in conclusion I will close with a remark that AI's role in the legal profession offers numerous benefits in terms of efficiency accuracy and accessibility to legal services however it also presents its own challenges related to ethics bias and the changing nature of legal work now balancing these aspects will be crucial as the legal profession continues to adopt and adapt to AI technologies as Abhi Vardhan mentioned well thanks so much Abhi Vardhan for joining in and sharing your expert views a big thanks to all the audiences and and and viewers for watching and and sending in their comments all the time really appreciate it see you next time with another interesting topic thank you so much bye for now