So it is Tuesday, June 14th, 2022 at 7.34 p.m. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein and I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present members of the zoning board of appeals Patrick Hamlin here. Kevin Mills here. Candlewick Adele here and get holy and get where'd you go. And get your unmute a second ago. We'll pick him back up in a sec. I'm representing the town. We have Rick Valerelli our board administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening and Vincent Lee helping us out as well. Here. Have you here. And then we have, there's four hearings on the docket for this evening. The first two, we will just be continuing on, but I just want to see if there's anyone here on behalf of 82 grand view road. Seeing none. Yes. Oh, you are here. Well, we are here as opposing. Oh, I see. Yes. We will be continuing the case we, the applicant has requested additional time. I understand that there are some, some possible issues with, with some of the abutting neighbors and that they were, yes, work that out in the background. Okay. So we, we are abutting neighbors and we haven't heard from them. So how long does this go on for. So much so tonight we were planning to continue for two weeks on that hearing. So that would bring us to the 28th. I'm also in a budding neighbor. Also in disagreement. Okay. I would ask. So we were talking about this just briefly, Mr. Valerelli. I think the idea is we will continue it one more time and if we don't hear from them then we will ask them to withdraw. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. So we'll continue that till June 28. Okay. And then at that time, if they have not submitted new materials or requested to go forward, we will ask them to formally withdraw. That is correct. Can you put it on? We were informed that they were withdrawing this application. Is that accurate? They were, I'm sorry, they were what with the application? They were withdrawing it, not extending it or continuing withdrawing it. So we have not received any formal communication from them. Okay. I'm just repeating what was said to us and honestly, we have no information at all. We haven't heard from them in two weeks. So they do have the right to extend it without providing any request or information. So we're just going to, they had requested a continuance. We're allowing it to continue one more time for two more weeks and then we'll present. We do not request a second one. You're allowing it. That is correct. Next, is this regarding 68 Brentwood Road? This is considered Grandview Road. But not Brentwood. No, no, no, Grandview. I apologize. Thank you. And then the other case we are going to be continued voting to continue this evening is 30 Venner Road. We did receive some, we received a new plan yesterday. But the plan did not come with elevations and the applicant is working with his, with his architect to prepare drawings for review by the board and by the public ahead of June 28. And so we are going to be voting to continue that one as well. So the two hearings that we are going to have going forward. Is there someone appearing on behalf of 68 Brentwood Road? President as an. But is the applicant here? I am. Okay, perfect. And is the applicant here for 3840 Newport Street? Yes, sir. Yes, we're here. Wonderful. This open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures signed into law on February 15, 2022. This act includes an extension until July 15, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location for their all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join this meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. 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 that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda as chair I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington formerly known as monotony. In Algonquin word meaning swift waters the board here by acknowledges the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous people from whom the colony province and Commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. So with that, I will move to our agenda. Next up is item number two, which is the approval of the written decision for 44 Edmund road. This was a decision that was written by Patrick handlin and distributed among members of the board that asked a comment and return comments and then a final draft was issued late this afternoon. Are there any additional questions or comments from the board in regards to the decision for 44 Edmund road. Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the written decision for 44. Mr chairman. So moved. Thank you. Second. Second. Mr mills. Vote of the board. Mr Dupont who voted on the initial application is unavailable this evening due to illness. Mr handlin. Hi. Mr Mills. Hi. In the chair votes I said decision is approved. Bring us to item three on our agenda. The approval of the written decision for 39 Tufts street. As before this was written by Mr handlin distributed to the board for questions and comments and then a final draft issue later this afternoon. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to that draft decision. Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the written decision for 39 Tufts street. Mr handlin. So moved. Second. Second. Vote of the board again unfortunately Mr Dupont is unable to join us this evening. Mr handlin. Hi. Mr Mills. Hi. Good early. Hi. The chair votes I that. Option is passed. So those two written decisions are complete. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing us to the hearings on our agenda this evening. As I mentioned before, We have two cases that we are just going to be voting to continue. There is one raised hand in the audience. I will go ahead and ask. What the question is in regards to. Yes. Sorry, can I have your name and address for the record? John McLaughlin, the 86 grandview road. Okay. And I was curious what the information. What information was actually requested. So, um, this fellow early you can correct me if I'm wrong. Um, my understanding is the applicant had filed for a special permit. Um, and had been advertised and put on the docket for the May 24th hearing. And so, um, I think that was the reason that we were meeting. They had indicated that they were in discussion with some of their neighbors in regards to the details of the project. They had asked that it be continued and that they have an opportunity to try to resolve those issues. And, um, That is the, essentially the last we've heard from them. Um, are understood. The under, Only understanding we have is that that process may be ongoing. Um, and so that's the reason that we are. We are just continuing this evening. And we are not in receipt of any new information. You said that. It was my understanding. Some information was requested. The application wasn't filled out completely. I believe a second of all, we are the, about it. And there's another one line here as well. So, Mr. Valarelli. Um, Mr. Chairman. So in an effort to appease the neighbors, the applicant was going to redesign the entire project. We have not received the redesign as of tonight. So I think it's in the best interest of all parties to continue to the 28th. And then as the chair indicated, if we don't have anything by the 28th, Then we should just eliminate the request. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Returning to the public hearings on tonight's agenda. Um, Here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct. That's nice business after I announced each agenda item. I'll ask the applicant to introduce themselves or themselves and make their presentation to the board. We'll then request the members of the board to ask what questions they have on the proposal after the board's questions have been addressed. 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 the first. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm wondering if we shouldn't be taking a vote to actually. Do the continuances that we've said that we were going to do. That is coming up immediately. Great. Okay. So next item, our agenda is item number four, which is docket number three, six, nine, six, 82 grand view road. Um, as we've discussed this evening, uh, this request is, um, Was continued at our May 24th hearing, um, to this date. And at this time we are. Opposing to further continue to, uh, our next date, which would be June. Um, at 7 30 p.m. May I have a motion to continue? Chairman. I move that the, uh, Hearing and, uh, the 82 grand view road case be continued to a date certain of, uh, June 28th. Miss Mavis second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Okay. So. We'll all vote of the board to continue the special permit. Hearing for 82 grand view road to Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 7 30 p.m. Mr. DuPont is not available. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Mr. Huffman is also unavailable this evening. Mr. Holly. Hi. The chair votes. We are continued on 82 grand view road. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just want, I just think that, that. We should all know that what we've said so far is that if the applicant is not ready to proceed in two weeks, uh, we would ask the, the applicant to, uh, withdraw. Uh, the applicant is in control of his own application and he may or may not be in that situation. And depending upon what the underlying facts and circumstances are, we may or may not be legally entitled really to proceed with the application. So all we can say in the absence of any communication with the applicant and, and, and any idea of what it is that the applicant may propose, if anything, it's our current intention. Uh, to raise the issue in the way that the chair has described. Uh, but it's really too early for us to say for certain exactly what would happen. Um, in, in two weeks, because the situation, uh, may be quite different from anything that we envision. Sure. Thank you. Um, next item on our docket is number five. Okay. Agenda item number five, docket three, six, nine, seven, 30 Venner road. Does it continue? It's from May 24th. Um, at that, at the end of that hearing, we had requested that the applicant reconsider, um, their proposal to allow it to come forward without requiring a variance. Um, but the applicant has provided a ground floor plan of, uh, their proposed addition, uh, and the applicant's recommendation. Uh, it appears to comply with these idea and setback requirements, but they did not provide any additional information. So we have no elevations. We don't have a site plan. All we have is a, just a single drawing of the first floor plan. So we have notified the applicant that we will be continuing on their case this evening and that they should have a full application for us ahead of the next meeting of that board. We have a second to continue the special permit hearing for 30 Venner road to Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 7 30 PM chairman. So moved. Thank you. Second. Second. Mr. Mills. So this is a vote of the board to continue the special permit application for 30 Venner road to Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 7 30 PM. Mr. Dupont is unavailable. Mr. Hamlin. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Piccadilly. Aye. Mr. Hoffman is unavailable. Mr. Holly. Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are continued on 30 Venner road until Tuesday, June 28th. That brings us up. Item number six on our agenda this evening, which is docket number three, six, nine, nine, 68 Brantwood road. So I would ask the applicant to introduce themselves and tell the board what they are looking to do. Hi, my name is Jim. I am the owner of the property. And this was my childhood home. Recently acquired the property and plan to renovate it and put an addition on it. The addition, as you'll know, is in the right rear corner of the house. It's 26 by 26. And it will replace a porch. Two-story porch topping the deck. That was 24 by 22 by 14. And on the front, there will be a minor little push out to create more room in the foyer. All of these things as the board is probably aware this property. If it were a vacant lot could be constructed. Without any need to come before the board. But because there was an addition. And it's not a new home. It's not a new home. It's not a new home. In antiquated by law. Requires me to come in CQR relief. And that's what I'm here to do tonight. Obviously. A new home. Not only could be built to replicate. The rendering you have in front, but it could also. Provide for a substantially larger home being built. So I won't bore you with more. I'd rather just answer any questions you may have. So I will defer back to the chair. Thank you very much. I will go ahead and share the application. What we see here, this is, so this is a. The site plan for the property Brentwood road is the top. The existing house. It's here. So the proposed addition. The property. As explained by the applicant. Off the back on one side. And then the small. Both entry. And everything is within the side yard setbacks. Property. The plan at the basement level. First floor. Second floor. Elevations. This is the from the rear. House. This is the. All you would be seeing is the new addition at the front door. And then on the right side elevation. These are the front and the. Additionally, the rear. Sections through. Details. I just want to go back to. So this is the. Information page. I just want to. The law is conforming the frontage is conforming. Really the issue is that. The large addition that it's over 750 square feet. Wires a determination by the board that. The addition is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And the board will apply the. To the board. So these are the increases in the individual floor areas. And the overall. Are there questions from the board? No questions from the board. So with that, I'm, I will go ahead and open. The meeting for public comment. So public questions and comments will be 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. So please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead of them. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host. You'll be asked to give your name and address. And you'll be given questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed. The public comment period will be closed and I will do my best to show. Any documents you request. As they are discussed. That. Nope.  Is Eliza Burden. Hi. Give your name and address for the record, please. Sure. My name is Eliza Burden. And I'm at. The public comment period will be closed. And I will do my best to show. Any documents you request. As they are discussed. My name is Eliza Burden and I'm at 44 Brantwood road. I was just wondering if the applicant could. Talk about access to that. The two car garage. It looks like. The garage, the access to the garage is from the back. And I'm just wondering if there's any indication of, you know, how, how, how large that driveway would have to be to access it from the back and whether there's stormwater. Considerations. So that's just, you know, it's how, how much of that backyard has to be paved. And the side yard to gain access to that back. Garage. Mr. Doherty. The current driveway will be utilized. The current driveway actually. Goes further beyond where the proposed addition. Currently is ending. And where the former rear. Which is that driveway. We'll be continued to be utilized. And I believe on one of the drawings. We'll be able to see that on the site. And maybe another drawing a two in. Right there. Thank you. You can see the little archway. Where the cars would then turn in. And it's about a 20 foot distance. It's not going to be in Pervious or Pervious. It's going to be in Pervious. So vice versa. I always get that wrong. But the, it's going to be patio so that the water will continue to. Kind of take through the, through the ground back there. Any help. Thank you. You have a further question. I'm just having trouble seeing how that, how a car could go. It seems like the driveway would have to be much longer in order to. Make the turn to put the car in the garage facing. Brentwood road. Like it would have to make a big. The entry is not on the side of the garage structure. It's at the back. Correct. Yeah. So my understanding is that there would effectively be. Pardon my tracing on the plan. I would need to be an extension of the. Pervious driveway. Approximately in this area to allow. A car to drive in back into the drive back into the garage and then. Come out. Is that correct? Mr. Dory. That's correct. And where you get a nice job. I will compliment you on doing that. If we're looking towards the screen, the bottom right hand corner. That would be probably cut out of 45 or some type of oval right there. So right where your cursor currently is. It would probably go halfway up to that writing on the side. Yeah, it's on the. Building envelope side there. So it wouldn't be a 45 degree angle. It would just kind of be like an oval kind of to take the edge off that corner. That's all, all that green space there next to it as well. Okay. And use the slope of the land such that you don't need to do much modification to make that work. No, very little. And obviously. We are not going to build a, a garage that we didn't have the architecture. We could put it to cousin. Is that clear? It is clear. Anything further? Nope. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm just wondering about. I guess the. The trees on the back hill. Just wondering if there's. Yeah. I feel like the, the, the lot is sloped. So I'm wondering how. What, what did. What the treatment of this slope will be on the back of the property. And I know there are trees on that. So how are those being protected? Because I think they're in the setback. So I think that would be an additional question. I am fairly confident that our next speaker will address that question as well. But just already a few. What did you, have you submitted a tree plan to the town? We did. We did a. Revision to it. So I have it and I got the revision from the avarice today. And so it will be being delivered tomorrow. But to answer the. The question. First of all. There are a tremendous amount of trees that are down there, many of which are not in the setback. Which is still going to stay remain. There's going to be a couple of trees. Taken down that are outside the setback itself. In that back area. So I think that would be a good idea. But not down over the, over the slope. But the tree, the tree plans already been discussed. It was a typographic error on it. So. We don't anticipate any issue with it. Okay. Was there anything further Ms. Burton or are you all set? I'll set. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next on our list is Steve Moore. Next week. I also had questions about the. Applicants proposal for driveway and. Trees. The first one being that. Currently. The applicant was saying the driveway extends beyond what's shown on the existing plan that's up on the screen right now. I'd like to know how much. How much additional pavement. Or. Added that currently is now. I saw your audio sort of broke up there a little bit. Are you asking how much sort of additional area will be taken up by the addition and the driveway? No, about the driveway in particular, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Doherty. As I say, I grew up in the house since the 70s. The driveway went back where your line terminates to the rear of the property. The driveway probably went beyond that about pick a number anywhere between 20 and 30 feet. It went slightly into looking at a parallel line to the proposed. So that area there is going to become lawn area. The buffer on the side, looking at this towards the right-hand side, where those hex marks are for the fencing. That's being increased as well. There'll be more trees from where the fence mark on the right side going to the rear of the budding property. A little past there, but then going across from right to left above where a lot 23 is set there. That's kind of where there's a drop off there. There's going to be new trees planted in there as well. So as it relates to the driveway, the driveway coming in from the street to, as I say, about, well, 26th, the other addition there was 14. So about 12 feet additional layer of driveway, if you will. And then in front of the 26th, I don't have it exact, but I mean, the net result is it's going to be pretty close to what was there, just in a different configuration. But again, in terms of if you look at the site area coverage, compared to the lot size, which is in excess of 13,500 square feet, it's a very low number, particularly in comparison to even a lot of other properties in that neighborhood. Mr. Chairman. Please. Yes, thank you, that's helpful. So you're saying the driveway currently is going, parts of it are going to be pulled up and parts are going to be paved behind the house or does the driveway currently end where the line shows it ending right now? Not the 70s, but right now. Mr. Burton, sorry, excuse me. Mr. Doherty. I don't see anything depicting where the end of that driveway ends. If you are referring to the line that is at the back of the front box, correct, right there? Right. I have no idea what that means. That's not where the driveway currently stops and it's not where it ever did stop. So I'm not quite sure what that lock is. Okay, I see Mr. Chair. I thought that was really what was the existing facts on the ground, but you're saying that the driveway really currently extends far beyond that. Okay, either a wash or a somewhat increase of the impervious area, but you're going to make sure it's impervious materials, let the water into the earth, right? Two, two, ironically, where that line is, by the way, I figured out that line is the line is just following across from where it's showing the 11 and a half on the other side. So you can see kind of where that is. But so two, ironically, right about that point there, it will be asphalt. And then from that point down, and then making the left, if you're looking the way we are, going to the right behind the proposed addition, that's going to be the part that's impervious of ice versa. Right, okay, that's helpful because as Ms. Burton was raising, I think there was always issues to do with water runoff. Lastly, I was trying to look at the pictures that were on the planning document, in the planning department's document that showed what looked to be a very large tree as looking at the front of the property to the left. I couldn't tell if that was the next door neighbor's property or yours. My guess is it's not because that's where the driveway is. There's actually two. So there's one on my property and there is one between my driveway and the abutus driveway. The ones between the abutus driveway, those are not coming down. The one in the front has created damage to the house for years, quite frankly, and is diseased and it has it and that one will be coming down. Correct, that picture you're showing there, it's split in two, if you will, but it's actually classified as a one tree. Okay, Mr. Chair, one last point I'll make. I would hope that you would be seeking the tree wardens concurrence that it's diseased and should come down because at least the pictures that I can see it looks quite healthy. And it probably is, I don't know, but perhaps covered by the tree by-law here. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next on our speaker's list is Stephen Cohen. If you can give your name and address for the record. Yes, Stephen Cohen, 58 Brandt-Rodd Road. I have two questions. The first question relates to the timing of the project and I apologize if this is not within the purview of this panel, but the house has been vacant for about a year and a half now and given the substantial nature of the proposed addition, which to be frank, I'm quite in favor of because I think at the end of the day we'll benefit the neighborhood. But I'm concerned about just the safety of the neighborhood in the sense that there's been a number of equipment and construction equipment that have been positioned in the front yard. And I don't know what kind of rules or regulations pertain to making sure it's safe, for example, for all the neighborhood children and whatnot. So that's the first question I can pause and I'll tell the second question if you want to take that first. I would actually address that to Mr. Valarelli if he wouldn't mind, what are the requirements for securing a site such as this? So Mr. Chairman, there is the construction control agreement. Here is the good neighbor agreement. So that's addressed in a couple of different ways. I've not personally seen the site myself, but the builder has to comply with those two agreements and I believe that addresses those items as well as starting times of work and so on and so forth. Are there any particular requirements for sort of fencing off of the property during construction? Not in this case here. We do request that the builder, if they have an open excavation, does fence off the excavated area itself with a six, four chain link fence are equal for protection, but that is mainly enforced for new houses. But we can certainly make that a condition if the board feels fit to grant this. Mr. Cohen, anything further? And just to follow up quickly on that first question, is there any guidance that can be provided on sort of the scope of length of time for this particular project? Mr. Dordy, do you have a sense as to what the construction period would be once you begin? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to respond to the gentleman's suggestion the house has been vacant for a year and a half. The house hasn't been vacant. My mother passed away in January of 2020. Myself, my brother and other individuals have resided in the house. The house was transferred in December of 21. As you can imagine, the court system wasn't really spinning during COVID. And so the house was initially vacant right about the end of December. At that point in time, we were under the impression that this did not trigger this bylaw because of the configuration of the rear porches. We didn't find out for a couple of months after that once we started with our plans. So that slowed things down, not blaming anyone. I understand, you know, things change and fear is fear for everyone. I have no problem with. So the true benchmark is a few months ago. Our anticipation was to be in there for the holiday season this year. With the hearing coming up, I started trying to think whether that's realistic. Probably not, but certainly it would be whether tight. In terms of equipment on the lawn, there is a dumpster permit that was pulled. That has been issued and there is a trailer that's on there, a dump trailer every now and then. A couple of times, equipment that was in the backyard needed to be relocated out to the front yard so work could be performed in the backyard by other equipment, but almost every single day and night, any equipment has been moved to the rear. Regarding the fence, our intent was to put a fencing on the left side, you're showing the edges beyond the tree. It's about 17 feet from my property to the butters. And our intent was to put temporary fencing on that side and then down a section. Obviously, any fencing, if people want to get over it, they'll find a way. But that is the clear open point. It would be like walking down your driveway as such. And that's what we intended to do. As Valerie pointed out with the other notification procedures, we certainly intend to do that with she had the plans with our butters, kept them abreast as best we could, moving through this. And we're certainly available if anybody has any questions. Thank you. Mr. Cohen? And my next question relates to the backyard. The topography of the neighborhood, there's, it's pretty much a hell when there's a relatively substantial slope behind the house. And we've noticed this summer dump trucks depositing landfill, if you will. And also it appears large retaining stones are positioned back there. Has the property owner acquired the necessary permits for putting in those retaining walls? So in order to be a retaining wall, it has to be, I believe that Ms. Valerie, is it four feet in height for a retaining wall? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. So if it's four feet in height from the base of the footing to the top of the wall, there's no permit required. Over four feet in height from the base of the footing to the top of the wall, up to nine feet. There is a building permit required. Anything over that, 10 feet and above has to be designed by a structural engineer. Mr. Doherty, are there walls being constructed in the rear lot? There's a wall being constructed along the butters neighbor on one side. There's stabilization, if you will, reaffirming of other rock walls on one side into the rear, all within the existing elevation, if you will. There has been a permit issued by the town committed with engineered plans for an eight foot wall looking at the right-hand side of the lot. Sorry, what was the height of that wall? Eight feet. Eight feet. Does that address your question, Mr. Cohn? Yes, thank you, that's all I have. Thank you. Next, excuse me, Judith Crawlwitz. Unmute myself. Yes, this is Judy Crawlwitz. I live at Four Stony Brook Road. Good evening. Good evening to you. Well, I'm gonna follow up or continue with the questions about the rear. My property is down the hill from Mr. Doherty's at the end of this big hill. The hill has historically, before even I moved in, I understand that the family added fill and whatever it was to change the elevation of the backyard, probably so it could be more level or something like that. But as a result, one of the concerns I have is that this portion of the hill that's behind all the houses on Grantwood is very steep. It's steeper than the others. It has a totally different slope and is essentially, I guess, artificially high and plain as sticks out more and then it's a much sharper drop. My concerns are about erosion and about the stability of that hill given that it is a partly created hill and concern about water runoff right down to and into my property or overflow into the brook that was partially covered by that the landfill that was done. Kind of blocked it off. So it's almost like it doesn't run freely to spypond now, I think, I think, but I'm concerned about the stability of that how far out this concrete is going to come, how far out the cars are going to be reaching in the backyard. So I think that's what I'm concerned about. Reaching in the backyard. And I'm also concerned about the trees because the trees, I would think, help stabilize the hill. Mr. Majority, can you explain possibly a little further about sort of the scope of the work that's ongoing in the rear yard and sort of what steps are being taken to deal with questions about erosion and the stability of the site? So first of all, as the young woman mentioned, the property has been like that for over 60 years. So this is not a new issue and it has not moved in any of that time since I was a child. So I don't mean to sound dismissive, but it hasn't moved in 60 years. The cars were all closer from where we were describing where you put your red line on the plan and you showed from that point to, if you will, the high point beyond that, it's probably about 35 to 40 feet. And as mentioned earlier, and then once you go from there, it's probably another 50 feet before you get to the abutters line we're talking about. She has a wall, that land was filled and that is like four feet up from kind of the low point down there where her swim pool is. So I just don't really know how to explain that much more. The rear of the property, thank you. So if you see right about where the fences, where the hex marks on those fences are, somewhere right around that point up on the top, I'm sorry. Oh, up here, okay. Yes, if you going from there directly across to the other side yard, correct. That's a garage on the budding property, but right across there is kind of where we're talking about where that, the high point. That's the edge. And from there, it then tapes down to the back. This is sort of a point where above this line, it's sort of a little bit flatter and from here it gets more steep. Correct, correct. And the steepness probably only goes about to where those dotted lines are. Okay. Right, right about there. And then you have more of a flat area for the rest of the way there. So that's not going anywhere further than where it had been. It's just being squared off a little on that corner and where the other corner where you brought your line across to, because that's where that engineered walls going from right, right about where your red line is up to just beyond where the proposed addition is where it says 217, 87, if I'm reading that correctly. Okay, yeah. Somewhere right around there. So the retained, that engineered wall is going along this side. Correct. Okay. Yep. Ms. Crawl, does that address your question? Almost, they just want to make sure I'm understanding. So this second, the lower red line, you're saying is really the top of the hill where the flat where your usable yard starts, where the big blocks are right now stacked. Is that correct? Those are just stacked there to go over where the commission was just showing where the wall is, where the wall is going. They just temporarily put place there right now. But yes, where those blocks are right now, I think there's like probably six, eight, 10 feet behind there to where the actual, if you will, lip of that yard ends. Okay, yeah, okay, I understand now. So they are right now at the top and there can then be some sort of retaining wall or something you're going to put up there where they are right now, where the lower red line is or no? No, they're going over on the side. If you're looking at this picture here, the left-hand side. Yeah. Starting, basically those blocks are going right there. Okay, yeah, I understand. And you're gonna be not getting rid of all the trees that are holding up the rest, I guess, right? No, there's just a couple over on this right-hand corner, right about where your cursor was. This is challenging, I appreciate that. If you go up to your red line, where it now come down to the side yard set, the line that side yard set back up, up, up, up, up a little, right there, right on your red line. We'll leave it right there. Right about where his hand is to the left.  These are probably like six-inch, something like that. They're not in the setback, but those ones are going to be cut. There's three or four of them. You probably wouldn't even see the difference because all the bigger ones are much behind there, as you know. But yeah, that's it. We're not going anywhere down there. Anything for his comments? No, thank you very much. You're very welcome. Next on our list is Nicole Ferrari. Hi, this is Nicole Ferrari. I live at 36 Hillsdale Road. So my property is behind slightly diagonally from that property we're discussing. I'm just wondering if there has been any evaluation with the retaining wall that would propose retaining wall and any proposed removal of the trees, what type of effect that would have on the water flow, the groundwater, if the trees being removed, I assume trees absorb a great deal of water. So I'm just wondering how much water could be affected by, or could affect my property essentially with- Yeah, certainly. I'm just wondering if there is any of these proposed plans? Yeah, we are unfortunately getting rather far afield from what we are allowed to keep within our scope of jurisdiction. So is the town bylaws require that if the impervious areas increased by 350 square feet or more, there needs to be a permit, with the engineering division, in regards to water and runoff? Yeah, it's just pervious. My understanding from the applicants, what they've portrayed is that what they're gonna be adding is impervious, as excuse me, as pervious pavement essentially at the rear of the property and the existing driveway will be replaced with an impervious asphalt driveway from the back of the existing house, excuse me, to the street line. And the applicant is working with the tree warden on a tree plan to be approved, which is a part of the town's tree bylaws. I'll just ask Mr. Valerelli if there's anything else that would sort of govern this type of work that is exterior and unrelated specifically to the proposed construction? There is, Mr. Chairman, there's a whole host of things, but the only obstacle before the board tonight is to approve an addition greater than 750 square feet. This is just the beginning for the applicant. The tree bylaw is automatic, it's part of the application process. The impervious area or pervious areas will have to be approved by engineering in and of itself and just a whole list of other stuff that will, and special services will handle as a standard operating procedure. So the only question before the board tonight is the addition that exceeds 750 square feet. So to answer your question, yes, this is just the beginning of a long checklist of things that will have to be completed before a building permit is issued. Mr. Valerelli, Ms. Ferrari, does that address your questions? Yeah, so the answer is it's an unknown at this time, that's correct. That, yes, and it's outside our jurisdiction, so we don't really have access to additional information on that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I think it's, I'm a little bit, I'm not entirely happy with the notion that it's outside our jurisdiction. What we have to find is that the alteration or addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the neighborhood. That involves lots of lots of factors, including the ones that are indicated including the ones that are indicated in section 3.3.3. So if we were to, let's suppose that instead of this application, we were dealing with something that essentially clear cut all of the trees but didn't increase the impervious soil but created a real potential problem for increased runoff. I think that that would very well go into the determination whether the addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity. So it's really not so narrow, is that? But on the other hand, we are not gonna become a substitute for the whole rest of the county organization. There are many, many laws and many, many expert bodies that will be dealing with issues of this kind and we don't actually have a clear cutting kind of situation from that. But in some circumstances, increased runoff is very much our business just as cutting down trees is our business and building impervious so it can be our business as well. So I think our jurisdiction may extend under the bylaw just a little further than Mr. Valerelli suggested. Thank you, Mr. Handlin. Now, I think part of my point was that this work seems to be not 100% related to the matter before the board and that the apartments have already been issued and construction is underway on certain features out back and that we don't have jurisdiction over that scope of work. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doherty. If I could just comment, I believe the young lady is over on this drawing here, somewhere down in the left corner, probably back, maybe a little, I'm not sure if it's the house right there where your cursor is, or one more going up at an angle there. But either way, the wall is not going to send any water that direction. If anything, it's going to keep water from going in that direction. Again, regarding any runoff, there would be less runoff by this because this whole area in the back, you would nice enough to draw that second red line. That whole area is now going to be landscaped with beautiful trees, which the trees that are there, they're new old growth trees, right? So they're not old growth, relatively new, right? 60, 70 years. Everybody hates the Norway maples, but they have trees that were planted pretty much in town. But there's going to be trees just to let everybody know. And in particular, the person that asked the question, in that area up there, anyhow. Also along with that retaining wall is going to be for a distance going from the back up towards almost probably close to where your first red line was. And in that little corner where the three bushes trees are being taken, those, as I say, they're de minimis. The amount of trees that are going to be going in in the whole area are going to be like four times, if not more than the small ones we were talking about. As I said earlier, no large trees, no trees in the setback, nothing like that's taken place. But Mr. Valarali's correct. I still have to just bring it back to the tree ward and get his approval, which we fully intend to do. Thank you. Ms. Furry, did you have any further questions? Just a quick follow-up, I think. I'm not sure if I'm following this. I heard him say that he was, if anything, it would divert the water. So if the water's been diverted, does that mean it will dry up the water that's in the back? Is there- Enough! Is there currently just hitting water in the back? What you're saying? There's a brook back there. Along the property line? And what I think is what's being referred to as the green space. Up here? I apologize, because I'm on an ice on stage. Oh, I think you're fine. To the diagrams very well, but it's, like I said, I'm behind the property between Judy's home, the woman who spoke and had the question before me. I'm right next to her. What would be- I think it's this corner property here, because I think that Ms. Crawlwood's property extends, I think it extends, includes this lot as well. So I think yours is this one here, going by the town's GPS, which- I think you're correct, Mr. Chairman. And the difference from that point where it touches Judith's house property there is identified, the distance from there up to that retaining wall, or the line, the second red line you made across, it's probably about 60 feet. It's not even close. There's nothing going down. We're wondering about the wall. What's here? So where is there currently a brook of some kind in here? There's nothing on the town's website indicating there's a brook and there's nothing on the- There's just water. There's natural water that has run right down between Grantwood Road probably and a neighbor's house next to me. Tom's probably comes from the woman behind there as well. Their garage goes right up against there. So you do have some that, I guess probably goes in there. Beyond that, I think it's- I think this, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I had referred to the town's website to determine if there is actually, any wetlands feature back there. There's no wetlands feature that falls into the town's purview for protection. So that's not an issue in this. There is a brook. He's gonna have to call in me, so. Ms. Farrie, is that- Yeah, I mean my answer isn't, you know, my question isn't answered, but it sounds like, again, it's unknown. Yeah. No, unfortunately it's, yeah. We don't know the hydrology of this area. So it's nothing that we can particularly address. Ms. Prowitz, I see you have raised your hand for a second time. Yes, I have. I know what Ms. Farrie is talking about. The Stony Brook Road is named Stony Brook Road because there used to be a brook. And the brook ran literally right past the back of my property and it kept going, I believe, down into spy pond. And I think right now the water that does seep down goes there also. When construction was done on Jason Street, and I guess Hillsdale, I guess that was a few years ago, Nicole and some other neighbors got serious flooding into their basements, which they had never had before, which is, you know, where her question is coming from. The water in that area, remember I said it, it doesn't go all the way now, it has to go underground, but between in that corner where her property and mine sort of abut each other is almost like a pond. In fact, I've had a mosquito treatment company come and throw pucks of whatever they do to deal with the mosquitoes there just in case. Right, is there a different department that she or you could consult with to find out about water, the sorts of things that unexpectedly could affect water, I think at her basement in the flow of that creek because it's the unexpected. No, absolutely. I think I would have to ask Mr. Valarelli if something like that might be addressed. I don't know myself whether there's a town department or division that specifically looks into these matters. Okay, thank you. Mr. Valarelli, oops, we lose Rick. Rick, I'm sorry, I had stepped away for a second. Did you ask a question? This is Nicole Ferrari. I know we were looking for Mr. Valarelli. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Valarelli, are you there? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just a few more. I saw Mr. Valarelli appearing under Julie. It looks like a news screen. Yes, this is daughter's name. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm back. I stepped away. I don't know if you were looking for me. Apologize. Mr. Valarelli, we're looking for you. Yeah. I timed these things well. I'm back. All right, so the question was raised. So in the lower corner of the property, apparently there's an area that is currently retaining water that there's sort of a, you know, that when there's rain, it sort of fills up and then slowly drains away. Is there anyone in town who deals with these kinds of situations, it's not listed as being, you know, part of the town's wetlands map or it's not identified as a brook or anything like that. So it's not a protected thing.  That's correct, Mr. Chairman. No, we have no jurisdiction over existing conditions. Again, if in fact this project exceeds the impervious area by more than 350 square feet, they will have to present the storm water management plan through engineering. Engineering will review this project anyway and will give their blessing on the material that they propose to use for the driveway. Okay. But to answer your question, no, there is nothing withstanding for existing conditions. Okay, good. All right, so at this time, there are no more hands raised. So with that, I will go up. Cohen has raised his hand for a second time, Mr. Cohen. I just had a quick point of clarification. Mr. Doherty had mentioned that the landfill in the back had not changed in 60 years. And I'm just wondering if he'd clarify all the dump trucks that have been dumping stuff in the back, what that pertain to and how that hasn't changed the back topography. Mr. Doherty, are you receiving soils from that rear-vehicle? There were three deliveries of loom-type material that basically was part of just grading the rear yard there in preparation for the site. As you know, on a construction project, there's gonna be more trucks that will be arriving as well. That will have some stone in there, for example, to put onto footings. There will be trucks coming with some stone to put up against the retaining wall for the engineered plans. So there will, those trucks all arrived on a single day. And I think they were gone from the first truck arrived to the last truck left was maybe three or four hours. We try to limit it. We think we do a pretty good job and we certainly intend to do it. Keep in mind, I grew up there and I chose to go back there to live. So there's a reason why. Thank you, Mr. Doherty. Mr. Cohn, did you have anything further? No, thank you. Thank you. I have another speaker, Nellie Eakinhead. Ms. Eakinhead, if you want to. Yes, thank you. So I'm just commenting on a couple of things. Letters to the record, please. Sorry. 54 Bramwood Road. I'm not really here to object or support, but I don't know about the loan trucks, but there are also three semi tractor trailer or trucks full of giant concrete blocks that came in. It wasn't one day. It was at least two or three and they were dumped in the backyard. And then I heard earlier that they had permits pulled, but I looked online after getting the notice in my mailbox about tonight's hearing and the permits were really for demo and not much else. So I don't think there's any permits for the backyard or the addition or the retaining walls or whatever those huge concrete blocks were for. Just FYI. So the, as Mr. Villarelli had explained before, any walls and landscaping that's under four feet in height does not require a permit from the town. I don't think it's under four feet. These are giant concrete blocks. They came in a semi tractor trailer and three different loads, they're huge. They're like about, I don't know exactly, but let's say three feet by four feet each roughly and there's dozens. So that's fine, but I don't know that a permit was pulled for that. I couldn't find it online. Okay. So the applicant has indicated that they have a permit for the retaining wall, which would be on the, in this orientation on the left-hand side, right property line. Mr. Villarelli, would a permit for a site retaining wall appear on the town system? It would, Mr. Chairman. The ISD is behind on scanning. I do not know what else has been pulled for permits on this particular site. The fact that they are delivering rock, massive rock is by right. Anybody can have rock delivered to that property. The construction of the wall with the material is a different story to the best of my knowledge. I do not know if they pulled the permits for the retaining wall as of yet. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Darny. I will state unequivocally that a permit has been issued based on engineered plans from Shea Precast, which is the reference to the vehicles that brought those blocks in, which they're about 16 inches in height when placed into the wall. And they range from either a width of 45 inch, 39 inch, 25 inch, all based on the engineering for that. In addition to that, as I mentioned earlier, there was a permit that was obtained for a dumpster on the front yard. Could be the street. We're fortunate we were able to put it on the lawn. Once the addition starts on the rear and the foundation is in, a dumpster would be out there because that's the bulk of where the work is taking place. When the demolition, which was just non-structural interior, plaster, kitchen, et cetera, where it leads to that back addition, again, all predicated on that we did not need this relief, a permit was pulled for that. So there's been three permits pulled on that site. And I will state that unequivocally. I did see the permits, but I didn't see any for the wall or the addition. Well, the addition is before us today. So that work has not, there has been no construction on the house itself. And as Mr. Veller really had indicated, the permit for the retaining wall, there may be a delay in it's being posted to the town's website. Are there any further questions? Nope, okay. So with that, we have no one else in the queue. So I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. So to the board, so what we have before us is an application requesting a determination and a special permit for a large addition, which is different for both addition here at the rear of the property and also includes an entrance piece here at the front of the property. Let's quickly review the plans. So this is the existing footprint of the house. So this is the basement level of the rear. Existing property at the first floor, some reconstruction in this area. And then the addition above the garage stays here. And again, at the second floor level, the addition of the, here at the rear building elevation. This is the portion of the building that's the addition. The side elevation, showing the new front entrance piece. And the rear. And the front elevation and the side. And the stairs and the decks as well. And sections through. Are there any further questions from members of the board? Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So the question before us is whether this is, excuse me, whether this is all going to be in harmony with the neighborhood. And it seems to me that as the case has been prevented to us, there's certainly had been a prime official case that it should be fine. It's good not to have the impervious pavement up in that turning area that goes to the garage. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong in principle with the retaining wall and so on. And the people who've spoken for it are not so much highly critical as they are puzzled. And it seems to me that we have had this kind of situation before where really is sort of would be helpful is to establish some kind of a way of providing some notices to what's happening on the property and making sure that the people who have an interest in it know who to call and ask for an explanation and so on. Because much of the problem is that there's so much that is happening that people are not connected up for. And there's certainly a great deal of interest and much of that interest relates to the way in which what happens on this property is going to affect the neighboring properties, which is exactly what we're taking care of what we're supposed to think about when we think about whether or not this is harmonious. And so I would like to see in some sort of a condition that is relatively loose, but maybe a little bit like we did on the Tuft Street that just provided that Mr. Doherty or his general contractor, whoever's the appropriate people would provide notice of the major stages they happen and provide a mechanism so that the people who are interested in the neighborhood, certainly the abutters here could say, could you tell me what's happening? I think that here I think a certain amount of communication and just keeping people informed would go a long way towards dissipating the concern that we've heard tonight. Other comments from the board? Switching again, I'm going to return to the report from the plan B development. So they have done a preliminary review of the special permit criteria. Criteria one, the requested uses is permitted by a special permit given district. The proposal would update modernized provide additional living space for the owner's family to live in their childhood home, will not increase traffic congestion, will be an impairment to public safety, will not create an undue burden on municipal systems, will not result in the need for any special regulations. Criterion six, integrity character of the district. So I'm just going to read what they have written homes of vicinity of the property include a range of architectural styles the majority of covered or enclosed entries and porches addition with the drive under garage be located in the rear yard of the property and designed to complement the scale and style of the existing structure adjacent homes in the neighborhood. The new enclosed entryway is also proposed the applicant is encouraged to explore the potential to simplify or align window combinations and add roof detailing particularly on the rear facade create an ordered appearance and reduce the gaps between the windows and the roof line consistent with residential design guidelines the proposed design will add human scale architectural variation to the overall streetscape and visual interest to the front facade of the structure overall's proposal would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood character of the district or journey districts nor will it be detrimental to the health morals or welfare of the neighborhood of the property would not create any detrimental excessive use. That's the image and the part of the plan to development that's consistent with the former criteria and can recommend the approval. So the proposed building, you know, it is a large addition but it is kept, you know, it's not encroaching on the street, it's on the rear side of the house where the, they do have a very large rear yard for this, you know, for the district this property is more than twice the size twice the, there's more than twice the minimum lot size which is very unusual for the district.  I know that the building department will confirm as we go forward that, you know, that the addition doesn't do anything in terms of changing the definition of the height of the property of the building, you know, to confirm that it still stays within the 35 foot height requirement. The building department will also confirm that the building is still within conformance of the, you know, the two and a half floor requirement. For the district, it certainly is, you know, the issues that the butters have are really genuine concerns about the way that the water is going to move on the site. As the project moves forward, the applicant has engaged engineers to assist with that. They are working with the tree warden to address questions about tree coverage and maintaining a tree canopy and the health of the trees on the site. As far as the, you know, the additional pavement towards the rear of the property will all be pervious to reduce the potential runoff from that. And certainly the question about the, you know, sort of the water at the very bottom of the property, you know, it sounds like it's an ongoing question and it's not particularly related to this specific work. And hopefully that work would not, hopefully that the new work will not be impacting that. The applicant is required to comply with the good neighbor agreement and provide notice to the butters of the ongoing work. And as Mr. Hanlon had recommended, it might be advisable for the board to consider an additional condition in regards to notice to a butters of ongoing work and it may be helpful to extend that to, you know, some of the landscaping work at the rear just in terms of overall grading and whether there'll be any changes to the water flow on the property. Are there anything further from other members of the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rikadelli. I agree with what the planning department wrote here. I think, you know, it's a quite a large addition, but as you mentioned, the law is fairly large. And as we've heard, most of the butters are concerned more with the impacts of the addition not the addition itself. And I think the fact that the sort of street escape is preserved with this design makes it feel contextual for the neighborhood. Are there any additional conditions that the board would want to consider? So in most cases, when the board, if the board moves to approve an application, there are three standard conditions that the board would apply. The first being that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of 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. For area two, the building inspector is hereby notified that he to monitor the site and to proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time it's determined violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40, section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And the third is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. Hanlon's. Mr. Chairman, I have, unless you already have said have done it better than I have, I've been working a little bit on a suggestion. So I have nothing. So I would gladly hear your suggestions. Something doesn't necessarily beat nothing, but it at least gives you time. So based on what we did with Tufts, I would say something like applicants will coordinate with the butters to discuss issues relating to, I have to read my own writing here, relating to construction and grading insofar as they relate to safety and safety and erosion. In that context, what would coordination be? I think here, just as was true with the school to the division there that there would be notice as to what is going on. And if people are concerned about safety due to, for example, equipment being stored in the yard or not actually getting into the backyard, possibly through the oversight of the contractor that those issues could be withdrawn. But this is not a fierce condition and it does not give rise to people freely to come back here and say, no, we need to have enforcement here. The condition is to discuss things and to coordinate, to address the problems.  That was reasonable. There is a condition we have applied in the past, which is the board reminds the applicant to comply with the requirements, the good neighbor agreement, the construction control agreement and other requirements in the town bylaws. That's something members of the board think will be appropriate to apply here as well. I think that's appropriate, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mills. He's nodding from Mr. Riccadelli as well. Given this evening, I doubt that Mr. Doherty is going to forget, but nevertheless. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Chair, could I just make one comment on that? Doherty? Yes, sir. I too had the same concern. I've watched Mr. Hanlon in your board, which I was holding off to say, but I have been very impressed over the last six, eight months when I found out I had to go there, how this board has handled the applicants so that I could try to address any issues came up. So I don't want to be disingenuous. I thought I'd save that to laughter with, but I would just say it. So I saw how skilled Mr. Hanlon is at writing these things, but I too, with all due respect, was just a little concerned about coordination as that could be interpreted in many different aspects. And I fully agree with the thrust of your condition. And wonder if it's not kind of duplicative of the good neighborhood agreement, because I certainly plan to, you know, notify about as directed in there of certain milestones and have contact information where they're able to reach out individually as well. And obviously, I fully intend to do that. So with all due respect, any consideration, get to those comments, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Dordy. Mr. Hanlon, I think your comment is addressed more towards issues that are unrelated to the building itself and related to conditions on the site, is that correct? I think that's yes, that is mostly true. The way I first approached it was to be thinking about addressing the process of construction. And I expanded it a little bit in light of the chairman's comment about the other concerns relating to grading and the potential effect on water. But I must say that my primary concern was to make sure that there was an open dialogue as we've asked for in other cases to make sure that people are given, I guess, somewhat more granular bit of information than is literally required by the Good Nation Agreement. I'd like to see the applicant go a step beyond that because it's clear that already we're not we're not having something that's quite as transparent as would be desirable. If it makes me consider it more as like the board requests the applicant extend the requirements of the Good Nature, Good Neighbor Agreement to issues of the regrading and redevelopment of the lot in general. Because then that would require, that would thereby the work that is ongoing in terms of the wall and other grading and other things like that, that notice of work in that regard would also fall under the Good Neighbor Agreement, which I think ordinarily it would not. Mr. Chairman, I think that that may be the case. The truth of the matter is just to get to the nub of it is that regardless of our wordsmithing on the fly here, the most important thing that could happen is if the folks who just talked to us tonight and Mr. Doherty got together and worked out what they do in order to make sure that the neighborhood is informed and that Mr. Doherty is informed if any problems that arise since he will not necessarily always know. And it's up to them to work it out and do so in good faith and so on. And our language is not going to do much good if they're not going to proceed in good faith and getting it exactly right isn't necessary if they are. Other members of the board have opinions on this? I'm not hearing any. Okay, so the board has before it some of the requests for a special permit for a large addition. There are the, we had read the three standard conditions. We agreed to include the condition that the board reminds the applicant to comply with the requirements of the Good Neighbor Agreement, the Construction Control Agreement and other requirements in the town bylaws. And then we have sort of two different versions of an additional condition. Mr. Hanlon, should we proceed with your drafting? Hey, you know, and all right. So I would, I think maybe the, I changed what I had said before. And say that the applicant will cooperate with the butters to discuss issues. I would just at this point say issues related to, related to the impact of construction on the neighborhood. I used a broader thing to refer both to safety and to other kinds of things that may be a problem relating to traffic and so on without trying to identify each one of them separately. Chairman. Mr. Doherty. I'm fine with that, with all due respect to the board. Thank you. With that, unless there are any further questions from the board, I think we are ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman. I move that the zoning board of appeals approve this application with the three standard conditions which the chair has read into the record, plus the additional condition relating to reminding the applicant of the application of the good nature agreement and the condition that the applicant just agreed to regarding cooperation with the butters to discuss the impact of construction on the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. So I stated the vote for the board is a motion to approve the special permit for 68 Brantwood Road with the five total conditions as outlined by Mr. Hanlon and seconded by Mr. Mills. So a roll call vote of the board Mr. DuPont is not available this evening. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rickardelli. Hi. Mr. Holley. I and the chair votes aye. That the special permit for 68 Brantwood Road is approved. Thank you all very much for your patience. Thank you to all the board members and the natives. I look forward to getting to meet the ones I don't already know. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Dordy. Next on our agenda. Here we are. Is number agenda item number six, excuse me, number seven, which is docket number 3700, which is 3840 Newport Street. Ask the applicants. Let me stop sharing this. Applicants to introduce themselves and tell us what they would like to do. And in the meantime, I will be looking to bring the information up on the screen. How you doing? I'm Brandon O'Callis. I'm sorry, my wife's putting my son down. So she's not going to be able to join us, but we're looking to do an addition, a dormer on the house to get some more bedroom and another bathroom space. I know I did read what the planning board came back and I didn't realize that it had to be a slope of about two over 12 for the roof. So I did call my architect today and I spoke with her and she said, that wouldn't be a problem. And she said, I don't know if you guys have the plans from the side there. Working on getting them forward. Well, while you're doing that, I'll just speak to it. So she said, we could bring that trim board down that rides on the roof to like above the windows, which I think will look better anyways. And that will, and then I think she said, we have to increase the ridge or the center of the roof. I think it was like 10 inches. And we would get that two to 12 slope to be conforming because everything we're doing is a non-conforming law but we're not increasing the non-conformity of the property. It's all kind of, it's all on the same foundation and stuff. So by dropping that trim board in that wall, we probably bring it right above those windows and then be able to meet that two to 12. So I just wanted to give you guys, I just saw this today. So I didn't know about that. If you go another page that you'll see the side view, one more maybe, nope, one more. There you go. So I see the trim board up there. I don't know what you call it but that would drop down above the windows to get that slope. Okay. I'm back up quickly to the application. And so this, my understanding and I would ask Mr. Vellarelli to confirm this project is before the board because the increase in the gross floor area requires the addition of usable open space under our bylaws, but at present the property does not have any usable, anything that qualifies under the definition of usable open space. And therefore it needs a determination by the board that the proposed addition is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Chair. Yes. John Leonie, I'm attorney for Mr. Wilkeles and his wife, Carol Voleski. Yes, they are before you today for the large addition on adding the under the roof on the third floor, second two and a half floors. They are seeking relief from the definition of open space because they have, let me, qualifying less than 25 feet horizontal footage. They do meet the 30% requirement for open space. It's just the size of a lot and the configuration of the lot itself due to the streets. They are not increasing the non-conformity at all regarding that aspect of it. They meet to do meet the 25, it's just 30%, just that 25% 25 foot mandate that they're not able to abide by. Again, they're not expanding the footprint at all, just adding some square footage onto the second and a half, second and a half floor. Okay. As the property is laid out, the existing condition on the property is by the definition of usable open space, the property has zero usable open space. Is that correct? By the definition, correct. Okay. And certainly after the addition on the third floor, that condition will be completely unaffected. Yeah, it's not gonna get any worse. Yeah. I mean, this is a very typical condition in the town that there are properties that have no land that qualifies as usable open space. And the board has often utilized the provision of the zoning bylaw that if there's an existing non-conformity, which this would certainly qualify as, if the board can make a determination that the change is not more detrimental, to the neighborhood, then the board will consider what is essentially an extension of the existing non-conformity. And that's how the board typically addresses these types of cases. That's what we're asking the board to do in this case. And I think the not more detrimental to the neighborhood is there are a lot of other structures as noted by the planning board's memorandum in the neighborhood that have similar dormers and similar open space issues. And they are just asking to be put into that same category as all their neighbors. Thank you. This is the basement plan. So I believe the intention is to expand the first floor unit into the basement level. The addition of two bedrooms. Right, they essentially it's a one over one with two bedrooms on the first and the second floor. They wanna expand into the basement and get the first floor, put four bedrooms. And the purpose of the dormer is to get the second floor unit four bedrooms as well. We're keeping with how modern families live as opposed to two bedrooms, which don't quite always function even in our modern lifestyle. Okay, so this is the basement level plan. This is the proposed first floor plan. So again, this was stated, there's no change to the outside of the building. There's no change to the access to the building and the first floor. It's always just a slight reconfiguration in addition to the stair to the basement that's more usable for the unit. Unit two and just a reconfiguration on this existing floor, on the existing second floor which has current two bedrooms that are being maintained. And then the addition into the attic floor with the proposed addition. We'll just note that on the stairway, there is a little shed dormer over that stairway to give it adequate headroom. Okay. We'll make that clear that that's being added as well. You can see that on the elevation. Yeah, so that's this piece, this new piece of roof here that goes over the stairs. Correct, correct. The proposed. They're about three and a half feet. And so this is the view from Newport Street at the front of the house. So what Brandon was saying before is after we saw the memorandum of the standing boy today, he's gone back to his architect. So the slope would become that two over 12 which would change the slope of that dormer to an acceptable level or an acceptable slope. And also I think personally, I think it would improve the look of the house. I think it's gonna look better actually by itself. It needs to give you better roof too. It won't be as flat. Right, right. It's a flat roof league, so. It's facing Gray Street. This side does face Gray Street, right? That's, that face is down the hill I think this is here. Yeah, that's Gray Street, yep, Gray Street. Stuff to tell behind the bushes. Yeah, yeah, the bushes are really tall. This is the rear elevation. This is the left side elevation. The down hill side. So these two windows would, the basement level windows, these would be egress windows for those units. I think those are existing. So this is then the section through the proposed addition. So my first question is why the top floor addition is wider than the floor below? Well, I think it's incorrect in this drawing. The left side, I think they had originally can't believe it, but when I looked at it, I didn't look at the survey gentlemen told me that there's only like four inches before you would hit the 10 foot setback I guess. So that's just gonna be flushed that side. The other side is gonna be the Gray Street side so we can't believe it, but I think by 18 inches. And it kind of goes with the theme of the building. If you look on that side, there's also can't believe we're coming. I think it's the first floor. You don't see it on the plans, but actually you have pictures of the home, I think, right? From the, I have, you can't see if the bushes died. I was gonna say, I have the report from... I got the planning board on the last page I got a picture of that side, but the bushes are so tall, you can't see it. Anyways, there's an area that the jet cell, kind of like where the dining room is, no other side. So there's this small feature at the front. That's the front though. There's another one of those on the other side, the bushes cover it. Anyways, see, I think that might go into the air conditioner. There's one of those kind of can't believe it to things there too. Yeah, just let me get out on that. So when you're drawing Brandon, the north side is gonna be flush. So the side of the house that abuts the neighbor will be flush. The side of the house that abuts Gray Street will have the cantilever that matches the below cantilever. It's like plan. Yes, they can't see it there. It's a second floor over here. Yeah, but the setback here was at was 10 points. Yeah, so what the survey guy told me was, I could only have like a four inch overhang. So it's not worth doing all that type of work, you know? Well, what is the, is there something of, it's very unusual to do this kind of a, an overhang at the third floor level. So I'm just, I'm trying to understand if there's something particular related to the building that. So I mean, I just thought, I mean, I liked the way it matched with the first floor, how it came out and the cantilever, I think ends at the roof line. So it's really not going to like look like it's hanging over. It's going to be flush with the roof line. See what I'm saying? If you put the picture back, the roof has a, I don't know what you call it, like an overhang that's pretty, pretty deep. Yeah. So I believe it'll come right to like kind of the roof line, the out, the outskirt of the roof there. The soffits. Yeah, yeah. Right there, yeah. Will, so I. That show on the, that's not, on that left side with that little dormer is for the stairs, that's not going to be cantilever. That's, I don't know what he's a hold. Great. So I live in this neighborhood. I'm actually on the next block of Newport Street. Okay. So I'm well familiar with the, with this house and the, and the comment on the hedge, which is a spectacular hedge. It was good privacy for the car. In, in seeing this view, it made me very concerned about that it's not only, you know, basically it's a, it's a large flat box being added into the roof area. Yeah. And as you said, you, you were unaware of the requirement that there'd be a 212 minimum pitch on the roof. And so that, that will be addressed. In looking at the section, there's not a lot of elevation material available, but I'm not sure why there was the need to raise the roof height above the current ridge line. And I was wondering if you could, Well, I wanted, I wanted high ceilings. I didn't want it to feel, it's a small area as it is. It's narrow cause, cause what the architect said is, with the hips on either side of the roof, you don't want to get into that cause the cost to start reframing all that is a fortune. So what she did was basically went from hip to hip with it. So, I mean, that's kind of, you know, that's, we didn't have much room. So I'm like, well, if we get some head height in there, at least the rooms will feel open and you know, hopefully get some sunlight in there. And yeah, it's not, it's not ideal. I mean, I know most people dormer like one side of the house, but in this case, I mean, it would cost a fortune. You'd have to take the whole roof off, I think. I mean, I don't think there's any other way to do it. Now, certainly reframing it as a, as a gable roof would be a tremendous undertaking. For a full gable?  But I do think it will look a lot better with that pitch on the roof. It'll kind of match that, that little shed right there going up for the stairs. I think it'll look a lot better. I didn't like the square look either, but I didn't really know what I want to do. But now with that, with that being said, the two to 12, that I think that's going to improve the look of it from the front and the back much better now. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. I share your concern about the additional height of the roof. And I think what you're going to see from the front is two roof lines pitched at different pitches and one starting higher than the other, which is going to be asymmetrical. You architects can ponder on that better than me, but I'm just looking at common sense here. What do you guys think architecturally? Yeah, so one of the things that the board is tasked with when it is doing an application such as this as a special permit application is to review the project in regards to the residential design guidelines and the guidelines were developed and implemented by the town to sort of assist in providing guidance to redevelopment of property in town and specifically the residential property in town. And so the residential design guidelines get applied anytime that the zoning board of appeals is reviewing a project. And so we're going to sort of take a look at that and to evaluate how well the proposal addresses the concerns and the sort of the specifics of the guidelines themselves. And so that's sort of where this comes in, where normally the zoning board doesn't get too much into architectural features, but if it's a project where there are questions about the residential design guidelines and the board does have some discretion to go down this avenue. Let's go. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rickidelli. So just, I show your concern about the tall element at the top and maybe the applicant could just explain to us if you guys are adding slope with the ridge line, the kind of just above the center of the ridge of the roof below, and then you're sloping kind of either way or would you be changing the direction of the roof to make it what they would call a gable dormer? So it would come kind of perpendicular to the ridge line of the roof facing the kind of two side streets. Well, when I ran the numbers today, I think it's going to be like a 30 inch difference from where that trimble it is now to the windows. So I don't even know if we'll be able to get seven feet on that outside, because I did read the thing here. They said you have to have a seven foot on the outside wall. So wherever that would come in, I think, I mean, 30, I think it's 15 from the sound of the roof. So that's 30 inches. So that's going to drop that I think right above. I'm trying to think what shingles she's packed out there for it's a five inch reveal or what, but one, two, three shingles, it's going to come right down to the top of the windows, I think. So it would be like similar to what the roof is now if you're looking from the front of the back. I think it's still a different degree, but it would definitely be a lot closer to what it is existing. I think it will look better as well. I agree. I mean, I think that's an improvement. I think it's quite typical in these neighborhoods and this sort of type of construction to have sort of instead of having shed dormers where it's angling kind of out from the middle actually to do the other way. So maybe that's something to look at if you guys are looking at that roof slope because you may actually not lose as much head height in that orientation. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So when I think about this from the point of view of somebody who may write an opinion, the first condition that we would have is that the construction has to correspond with the final plans that have been submitted to the board. And at this point we're talking about hypothetical plans and guessing what they'll look like. And I'm wondering whether we shouldn't be allowing ourselves the time to actually get a plan, look at it, let Mr. Volcalist look at it and to see how it actually works rather than imagining it based on the plans we have now. I think that's entirely appropriate. I think I'd like to use this time to try to get, you know, to vet the questions and concerns that the board members have to make sure that the applicant has all of the, you know, is aware of all the questions and concerns that are posed by the board before going back to his architect to just to discuss adjustments to the plan as is already indicated that he needs to do so in terms of the slope of the roof. And then I think- I wonder if I could just add that while we've been talking here, I do have a couple of pictures. And in fact, if I've been quicker, I have one that shows the cantilever underneath the air conditioner that Mr. Volcalist was saying since I went over by the next yard to take the picture back in. But the thing that struck me as I looked at pictures is that from the angle where I was and given what's already there and obviously not what's going to put there, the angle of view is such that it's exceedingly difficult for me to make out anything really that goes above the bottom of that line. There's a dormer already there, but it's very difficult to see from the back. You know, if I were the size of a very large basketball player, I might see it a little differently, but it's difficult to see. Now, I can't say what I would see if suddenly the bushes were taken down and I could see it from there. But on the sidewalk, on that side of the street, the angle is such that it's hard to see what's on the roof and that may be a consideration. Obviously, you can go to the other side of the street and you might see more, but... Yeah, you have to walk up more up Newport to see the actual dormer. The bushes, they're very high, which is nice. But I mean, I'd be definitely amenable to, putting that outside wall, bringing that trimboard down to the top of the windows, get that two over 12, and I think that's gonna make it look a lot better. I mean, I don't know if you guys, if that would please the board, that's a 30-inch drop from the current roof line to where it would be, you know? The current roof line is from the ridge line of the existing to the new ridge line is 10 foot eight inches. So it would drop down 30 inches from that, which we're all speculating would be about a quarter. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Mills. Did I hear somebody comment, they were thinking about increasing the height of the ridge line to assist in obtaining that slope. I'd like that clarified. Well, I know when I spoke to the architects, you said she has to figure out where, so you have to have seven feet on the inside for head height to be considered this two and a half story dormer. So we'd have to make up that two to 12. And she said that the center of the roof may have to come up in order to get the pitch that we need. It's still, it's still, it's the top of the roof, I think is only 30 feet now. So we have 35 feet, so we can do that. But it would just, we got to get that exterior down to get that two to 12. Mr. Valarale, I don't think that's a specific requirement but it was on the planning board thing here. It says the roof framing to the finish floor below has a clear height of seven feet, zero inches or more. The slope of the proposed dormer is a quarter to 12 currently, which is less than the minimum allowable roof slope under the half story definition. So there's two things going on here, Mr. Chairman. I think the applicant is worried about the legal size of the height of a room based on the building code. And he's also concerned about the, to make this work so he can raise what is now a flat roof to get a minimum of two and 12. I think we're looking at two different things but two very relevant things as well. Because certainly there's my understanding of the bylaw and the way that it's simply interpreted is that when we're calculating the half story, it's the area that is seven feet or greater from the finish floor to the underside of the roof framing that counts as square footage. But the portions that are less than seven feet tall, they just don't count towards the gross square footage but they are perfectly habitable. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. And so it's typical, as you would see with a lot of the half story additions, the outside wall, it may be six eight, it may be six six. Correct. And that helps you to get the pitch in. And so if you're standing right against the window, it's a little bit tight, but once you step back into the room, then you still have, then you pretty much have the full height of the space. That is absolutely correct. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yes, can I ask you a question to Mr. Valorelli? You may. Mr. Valorelli, is there a minimum ceiling height required in this alteration? There is. So Mr. Mills, so the building code says that the ceiling height has to be seven feet finish to finish and greater than 50% of the area that we're talking about. So in other words, more than half of the space has to have a ceiling height of seven feet or greater. So maybe the architects on the board can help me out with that. That is how I know it. I don't know if the code has changed. Mr. Klein, I think I'm correct on that. I believe that's the correct percentage. It's greater than half. It's always greater than half. Thank you. So that's how I just consider. Obviously, I believe the code is also where there's toilets and showers. You have to have a minimum ceiling height of six foot eight. Yeah, that's correct. Absolutely. All right. That's often something that comes up is that those are on the outside wall and then you're again pushing up. But here the proposal is to keep those towards the center. So that would not be an issue in this regard. Correct. Mr. Chair. Mr. Holly. Yeah. The attic floor here mentions 560 square feet, more than half of the floor below, which is the second floor. No, it's 497. So Holly, where did you find that number? I was on the sheet A1.3. This plan's not correct. That's not correct. What we filed for was the, it's 497. That's what the planning board has as well. So that's, yeah. So that number is different. That's an error, clerical error. Yeah. That's the correct number of 197. It's less than the floor below. Less than half, yeah. That's something to pick up as well and reconsidering that when they're doing the, when you're redoing the drawing on the pitch to pick that up as well. Go ahead. I'm going to stop the share on this. I know we have, we do have members of public who've been hanging out with us this evening, who may wish to address this project. So I wanted to absolutely sure that we, we get to those. So I was going to go ahead and open for public comment at this time, just a brief reminder. We take questions and comments since they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board the purpose of informing the decision. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. And those calling in by phone, you can dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak and you'll be called upon and asked to address the board. So with that, we have a hand raised from Mr. Steve Moore. I guess thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore of Piedmont Street.  The bushes are magnificent. I hope they are retained, but my guess is that they, it's not for sure they will be retained and the difficulty here is just being a corner lot. The idea of dropping a box on top of a house like this means it's going to be quite visible from the two streets that it's the corner lot of. And I don't know how it's going to look with the improved roof line that you folks have been discussing. Hopefully it would be improved significantly. One addition I'd like to, one suggestion that I'd like to make an addition is that one of the problems is that the windows that are part of this, you shed dormers are very large compared to the windows on the second and first floor of the home, which are obviously quite a bit older in keeping with the style of the house that was built. I think probably they need to be mimicked to not draw attention to what is a box on top of the house that's very different in sort of shape and style from the rest of the house. So I would just make that one suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Moore. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moore's point. Maybe Mr. Valarelli can confirm, but he had those larger windows drawn by the architect for safety and fire exit purposes. And there was a minimum size that they could be. And I think Mr. Alvarez-Coulas did explore that with the architect. I did, I actually questioned her again today because I realized they're larger than the rest of the windows. But she said that there's a minimum window size for egress for fire. And that's the smallest ones. There's a five foot by three one. Mr. Holly, that would be examined by ISD during plan review. Okay, thank you, Mr. Moore. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Yeah, because the part of the question is that these are the, these basement level windows are expected to be egress windows. And these are egress windows. And obviously the size is very, very different. I know that these are probably either awning or hopper windows. No, those are gonna be removed. Those are way too small. Okay. I think those are the existing windows. Yeah, those are the old original ones. Oh, they do say exist, bigger burden. Yeah, okay. Are there further questions or comments from the public? Put in the waiting room, no. Further questions from the public? One's going twice and then close public comment for this hearing on the state. So, given what we've heard so far and the comment we received, I think the best course of action is to give the applicants some time to work with his architect to sort of address the questions that have been raised by the members of the board and by the public and also some questions about the conformity with the zoning bylaw. So, if the applicant doesn't object, I think the board would recommend a continuance to our next scheduled meeting, which is in two weeks unless that's too quick. And you- No, I can have it. I should have gotten it done today. I'm sorry, she made an error. So, I'm not an architect. She should have known the two by 12, I guess, but I can have it to you in a few days. The 28th, I believe, is two weeks, right? The 28th is two weeks. So, we would be looking for material at least the Friday before. Okay. So, it's going to be fourth. Yep. The latest. My fourth related. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just wanted to, our recent, and actually not so recent experience is that it often seems to be the case that what seems to be easily doable tonight turns out not to be so easily doable, probably because a lot of people are busy and they're doing lots of other things and they don't get done in time. And there were, as Mr. Wilkall has pointed out, a number of other things that were problematic with respect to some of these drawings that were inaccurate here and there. Ultimately, whatever drawings we approve are going to be the ones he's going to be held by when it comes time to do this. And I would just encourage, we obviously, if he's not ready, we can go out a little bit further too, but I just want to sort of drive home the notion that we are going to need things that are just exactly what he wants and that if he's concerned about whether or not the architect will have the time or will be able to provide what he needs, it would be better off making sure you have the time to do it right than have to do it over and over. I should be ready for the 20th. Okay. Yeah, I just ask a question. Is the board meeting in July? We are. I know we're already scheduled for July 12th. I do not know about the 26th. Okay, thank you. Are there any further questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion to continue the special permit hearing for 3840 Newport Street until Tuesday, June 28th at 7.30 p.m. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. Thank you for your time. Wasn't, we still got a vote. It could go down, you never know. Another second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Okay, vote of the board. Mr. DuPont is not with us this evening. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Ruggedelli? Aye. Mr. Holley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. So the special permit hearing for 3840 Newport Street is continued until Tuesday, June 28th at 7.30 p.m. Thank you. Thank you, board members. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Dallarelli. Thank you, Mr. Leone. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. So that was the last formal item on our agenda. So our next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, June 28th at 7.30. We now have three continuances scheduled for that hearing. Those being 82 Grandview, which may or may not be proceeding, 30 Venner Road, which we are expecting will proceed. And now 2840 Newport Street, which we expect to be proceeding as well. And then on Tuesday, July 12th, I believe Mr. Dallarelli said there's two cases for that evening. We do, Mr. Chairman. So the packages are somewhat incomplete. So I don't know if those are gonna be ready or not. Okay. We did advertise anticipating that they would be to give us plenty of time, but we'll wait and see some issues with each case. Okay. All right. And then just members of the board, I had sent an email around last week, sort of asking people for their summer schedules to sort of confirm when people are around, when people are not around. So if you can just let me know your schedule if you haven't already, I can put those in. I know we're already down a couple of people for one of the August dates, but that's all I've heard about so far. So just let me know on that, that'd be great. Otherwise, I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, especially wish to thank Mr. Dallarelli, Vincent Lee, and Marissa Lau for their assistance in preparing for this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording of this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. And it's our understanding the reporting made by ACMI will be available on demand at atmi.tv within the coming days. And 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. Mr. Chair. Mr. Moore. I'd like to ask one question before you adjourn. 40-day project that we've heard all about intentionally for MassTAB. Yes. I know that they have provided an intent to the town. What is the schedule for when that would eventually come before your board? So there was a meeting, there was a site meeting a couple of weeks back. Yes. With the applicant and the representative from Mass Housing. So they need a letter of determination from Mass Housing that proves the project to go forward. And that letter has not been issued yet. And my understanding sort of from talking on site, it sounds like Mass Housing is kind of backed up at the moment. And so it may take them a while before that gets issued. But really until Mass Housing issues that letter, they can't really proceed with anything. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. So once that letter gets approved, then they can put together their final application package. And then once that occurs, then the board has 30 days to open the hearing and then we have 180 days to close. So that's where we're now sort of waiting on Mass Housing to work with the applicant. Thank you. They're just sort of a significant tree issue. There are. There's some beautiful trees there. Oh, yeah. Thank you, sir. With that, this could be one of our last few online gatherings. So the current bylaw expires on, the current law expires on July 15th. So we'll see what's next. But with that, we now have our motion before us to adjourn. Oh, actually we need the motion. Who's moving? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. And the second. Thank you, Mr. Meals. Vote of board who is present, Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Meals. Aye. Mr. Gidelly. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Chair votes aye. The board is adjourned. Thanks, guys. Nice job. Thanks, everyone. Good night. Good night.