Okay. Well, it is 734 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23rd, 2023. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. And I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. First, I'd like to confirm that all members and the anticipated officials are present. So from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Handlin. Here. Daniel Rickidelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam LeBlanc. Here. And I did not see Venkat Holy. His Venkat, are you with us? On behalf of the town, we have Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant. Good evening. Good evening. And then is there anyone appearing on behalf of 106 Barnum Street? I know Mr. Inesci was probably not available. Okay. Just briefly on 106 Barnum Street, the applicant did submit a request to withdraw. So we will vote on that when it comes up. But that we will, there, we will not be continuing further with the hearing on 106 Barnum Street. Here for 12 Puritan Road, Julie Gibson and Christopher Scalzilli. There appearing for 20 Martin Street, Asha Sharman, Sharma, excuse me, and Albin Anthony. Yes, yes, we're here. And also I'm Diane Miller. I'm the architect representing them. Oh, wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have a half of 48 Oakland Avenue? Yes, we're here. Steve's just doing bedtime. He'll be down directly. No problem at all. Take your, take your time. And I'm, I'm their architect and be on Catherine. Wonderful. Thank you all. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has been conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29, 2023 this act includes an extension until March 31, 2025 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's Mark 12 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at a meeting location, so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting and opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period. 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 as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join this meeting is being recorded. And it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by the computer audio or by telephone. Finally, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain 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 and I will note that the Department of Planning and Development did issue memoranda on two of the sites, those being 12 Puritan Road and 20 Martin Street and those did not come out until about quarter of six today so those were not posted, but we will be displaying them during the course of the meeting. Public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda and as chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. And as the board will be taking up new business this meeting as chair and 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 Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony province and Commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. And now move to item two on our agenda. Now moving on to administrative item this item relates to the operation of the board and as such will generally be conducted. Well without input from the general public the board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. So this item is the vote to approve the written decision for 21 Oakledge Street. So this was a case that was heard by the board at the end of April, and we have a great decision written by Roger Dupont that was distributed for questions and comments and a revised edition was issued at the end of last week for final comments are there any additional questions or comments in regards to 21 Oakledge. Seeing none, the board will the chair will entertain a motion to approve the written decision for 21 Oakledge Street. Mr Chairman. Mr. Hanlon so moved. Thank you sir in a second. Second, Mr. DuPont. There's a roll call vote of the board to approve the written decision for 21 Oakledge Street. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Ms. Hoffman. Hi. The chair votes. Hi, Mr. Holly. Are you with us? Yes. Ah, wonderful. How do you vote on the decision? Aye. Aye, thank you. That brings us to item three on our agenda this evening. We're opening this here, the public hearings. Here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves for themselves and make their presentations to the board. I will then request that the members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. So with that item number three in our agenda is docket three seven four five one oh six Barnum Street. Mr. Ernest, are you with us this evening? I do not see him. So this was a an application requesting a special permit and a variance in order to construct a three car parking lot in the rear of a property one of the six Barnum Street. The board had a prior hearing on this matter and the board voted to continue because there were some questions in regards to what the what the board was allowed to do. What the applicant was allowed to request after consultation with the excuse me, the inspector of buildings. It was determined that the project would require a variance in order to reduce the usable open space below the required minimum. And in addition, they requesting an increase in the width of the driveway beyond 20 feet was found to also require a variance. So the bull, the applicant would have to have requested two variances on this property and as they had stated previously, they understood clearly that they did not meet the criteria for variance and therefore should they be required to have a variance, they were planning to withdraw so they have done so. At least requested to do so. It's up to the board to accept that withdrawal. So with that, do I have a motion to accept the withdrawal of all applications on 106 Barnum Street. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I'll move in a second but one of the things they requested is that this be without prejudice. I assume that that's the intent of the motion. Thank you. We can add that to the motion yet. Okay, so moved. And thank you, Mr. Dupont. So a vote of the board to accept the withdrawal of all applications on 106 Barnum Street without prejudice. Mr. Dupont. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Mr. Rickardelli. Hi. This hot man. Hi. Mr. LeBlanc. And the chair votes aye. That item is disposed. Item number four on our docket this evening on our agenda, docket number 3749 12 Puritan Road. I would ask the applicants to please introduce themselves to the board and introduce their architect and tell us what they would like to do. I'm Julie Gibson, my husband Chris for Scaldzilly, our architect, Brad O'Donnell is on, although it says Chris Scaldzilly on the street. Yeah, it says Chris on mine, but hi, I'm Brad O'Donnell, their architect. I'm just a few things we live at 12, well, we did live at 12 Puritan Road, we're doing our own addition on 12 Puritan Road, which is on a separate permit. And during the course of working with Brad over the last year or so. My dad who 79 has had sort of increasing health problems. And during the course of working with Brad on our renovation and our plans. We ended up realizing that the town had passed or had supported this concept of an ADU. And it just seemed to make sense for our family. Yeah, as a vet, he's on a fixed income, he is 79 and then declining health. So, you know we had no intentions of actually bringing him with us and then you know as as the process has gone we've realized that this makes a ton of sense for our family to be able to help my dad and also for my dad to be able to age and play. The reason we're here tonight is that in looking at sort of our lot, we figured so during COVID we had converted our garage into like a schoolhouse kind of rec space. We have two young children and one of you so during that time we realized during working with our architect Brad we realized that if my dad were to come live with us it might be a possibility to add on to our existing garage. So the way it's drawn up. It would be I think a little over 200 square feet. And the reason we're at the meeting tonight is because our garage is three feet from the lot line and I believe the ADU requires six feet. So in working with our design, I think as far as I know all of our neighbors are on board we've chatted with them. So we're mindful not to put windows on either the side sort of that would that's a butting our neighbor that would be the three foot side. And in the back there would just be one small window that I don't think either of our rear neighbors would see so we try to be mindful in that design, and you know be able to keep our big old tree in the back and what have you so we are hoping to provide that we could get permission to be able to sort of reuse and, you know, deserve what's already what we already have and just enhance it in a way that my dad could come live with us and be able to age in place so. That's that. Do you have the present slides you'd like to show or should I bring up the application materials. If you could bring up the application materials I could also do a share screen, if you'd like. That would be great. I'm calling if you could enable the Chris Scalzizi. Excuse me. I'll say. Oh, sorry. Yeah. All right. Okay, I'll give it a I'll give it a go. Do you want to see the model Christian or do you want to do the, I'll start with the model. I need to allow it to share the screen, which is fine. Okay. Is that doing it. All right so this is basically what you see here in the sort of dark green color is there existing to rock. This existing it's non conforming right in the sense as Julie said it is three feet there from the property line. And what we'd like to do is add on 220 square feet here, and that turns it from a 300 square foot building into a 550 or sorry 520 square foot building. And as Julie said the reason we're here, basically is that this is why I understand it would be a by right structure except that it is not that six feet from the property line. So, in lieu of tearing it down and starting over, it seemed like the better thing to do would be to save resources and just add on to what we have. The part you see in the wood here, this is the addition these are actually reused windows from their existing house, then this is the existing facade existing light existing roof and existing doors going in there so there's no change going on there there is a remodel. As Julie and Chris already said that we're doing a remodel addition onto their house now from the back. I don't actually see into this area but we're adding one window here. And right where I'm doing this is an enormous tree that I don't actually have models, but so from the perspective of, you know, making this more non conforming it's not. We're not increasing, you know, we're not getting any close to any setbacks we're going into a yard we're well under the open space requirements. And I think all that information is on the plans are on the form. So that's basically it's a one story unit we're not going up. We're just going out a little bit into the existing yard so that Julie's father can have a nice place to live on the inside you can see it's just set up for one person. We're taking the existing area making living room out of it a small one a small bedroom. And then a small kitchenette and bathroom. So, it should be good for one person, and that one person is a member of the family. Thank you. One quick question for you. I understand that the addition there is so you're there's an ongoing addition currently to the main house. Yeah, that is 748 square feet and that is approved by right. Yes. So the numbers that I've put down for the areas and all that on the application include the new maps. Okay. Was there any question raised by the building department as to whether or not the additional. So the, the additional 220 square feet they're being added on to the existing garage would mean that the amount of floor space is being added to the lot is larger than 750 square feet. And the board's going to look at the language because I don't think it's an issue but I wanted to ask if the building department had raised any questions about the overall increase in square footage on the property. I'll let Chris and Julie answer that since they're the ones that took it down there. Did they say anything to you guys about it. I'm just I'm muting. No, I mean, our impression is that they're two totally separate things because this is an ADU and because the addition. The permit's been in for months and months. And then my only other question is so on the roof form which direction is the roof draining. So this is a pretty, what we're doing is it's we're draining into a obviously what is a butterfly roof here and then we'll do a cricket, right. So, but is it moving towards the property. We'll drain it to the front. Okay. So we'll do, we can do a cricket like that or we can even cricket up higher up here like that and pull the drainage, you know, towards the front that way we'll keep it from going into. I mean, there is a good 10 feet to the back. But actually we would do whatever you recommended. But I think the plan at this point wanted to be clear that that it was moving in one direction or the other. Okay. We've got the existing drainage coming off the roof here, which is just going right down on the site. The existing garage. What is the construction of the wall, the walls that are facing the two other sides.  So this is a wood shingle and then underneath it's an older building so there's, you know, three quarter inch boards as the sheathing, and then two by four studs. But again, it's at three feet, it's not under three feet. And I'm not sure if that's where you're going with this, but if you're talking about fireproofing. Right, so there's four in the zoning bylaw under there's a section on garages, which is if it's set, if it's between zero and six feet it has to be. It's a little, it's a little difficult to interpret but for a garage located entirely within the rear yard, if it's within six feet, it has to be at least type three. I don't want to, but that's something that, you know, it's an existing condition, an existing non conforming non conforming so I mean I was the impression that was a three foot rule, but obviously you know better than I do, because this might come up many times for you. No. Okay, are there. And the area, you know here the area where we're adding I think the screen is still being shared the area where we're adding here is not. We're outside, you know, we're well inside the right on the, on the rear side is not an, not an issue at all. Right. Yeah, I've got the setback is this line here. So it's only here at the existing non conforming condition and we're not making it worse. Right. Questions from the board. Mr chairman. Mr Hanlon. I wonder if you could look at at the plan at this point, and just sort of delineate where the usable open spaces. So, all of this is usable open space, and all of this is usable open space. Okay, and the dimensions are, and the picture of the house is something that are that essentially excludes the plan of where you're going with what's under construction. No, this includes the plan. Right, that's what you're seeing on my screen now the area I'm sort of moving the mouse around is the addition. Okay. And you've easily got 20 feet 25 feet in both of those places right. That's right. Okay. Let me ask you one other question Mr chairman if I could win in time and calculating the size of the addition is that was 748 square feet as I recall. And did that include only the portion of the addition that was outside the building foundation. That's correct. Thank you, Mr chairman. Thank you Mr Hanlon. Other questions from the board. Mr chair. Mr cadelli. Okay. You know I have the same question about the construction type. I understand the, the comments about you know this is an existing structure but because it's now becoming part of a new use and we're adding on to these async structure I just wonder how, you know, the code would interpret that. I think it says type one, one and two are allowed if it's within that six foot step back and then otherwise it's type three. So I just think that we should probably get to the bottom of that interpretation tonight. Other questions from the board. So I know the board is in receipt of a letter from member of the public who I know is in attendance tonight so I think rather than reviews that letter we've let him speak for himself but I will go ahead and open the meeting for public comment. So questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments and members of the public who wish to speak to digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the zoom application and those calling it by phone is called file star nine to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair, you'll be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. Anyone wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing the chair will allow those wishing to speak for a first time to go first. So public questions and comments have been addressed, or that we have reached 830 public comment period will be closed. We will do our best to show the documents that people would like to discuss. So with that, are there any members of the public who wish to ask questions in regards to this application. We have had raised Don Seltzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Don Seltzer or of a circle to Lincoln. I just have one question and as to whether there's been a stormwater mitigation plan filed in this for this development since the combined construction is more than 350 square feet. Thank you. So, so I'll ask the architect. Do you know what the footprint. So the Arlington requires that stormwater management be the stormwater plan be reviewed by the town engineer, if the impervious area is increased by 350 square feet or more. I think that the addition to the garage is 220 square feet I wasn't sure what the square foot with the footplay footprint of the addition is on the house. Yeah, the footprints 325 I believe. Okay. Okay. So that is one thing that we should that the, the building inspector will be requiring as a part of the application for the. For the addition on the garage. Okay. Yeah, yeah, it goes over that number if we're doing the garage as well. That's great. Thank you Mr. Seltzer anything further. No that's all I had to comment on thank you. Thank you. Now looking I see that the letter writer is not on the call anymore. So there was a question raised in a letter about the second driveway. So the house currently has two driveways as one to the, to the right that goes back to the garage has a second on the left. And I was curious if you know anything about the history of having two driveways. More questions for the applicants. Hi. Hi, so when we bought this house maybe nine years ago the, the driveways were there. We were told by the owner that it was for emergency vehicles to be able to turn around. Because it, the street does dead end right after us so that's what we were told we did not put in the driveways they were there. Okay. Very good. Well to make sure we asked the question. Is there any other members of the public who wish to address this application. I see none so I will go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. So what the board has before it. So it is a house on existing lot. It has an addition that's under construction but that is done by right that's not under our purview for this hearing. So what's before us is there's an existing garage towards the rear of the property 10 feet off the back, six feet off the side, and the applicants are proposing a 220 square foot addition, which would maintain the 10 foot set back from the rear lot line. And in addition, they're requesting that the, the, the use of the garage be changed from being a garage to being an accessory dwelling unit. And so this is something that the board can do under section 592 B, which is if the, if the accessory structure is within six feet of a lot line, creating creation of an accessory dwelling unit. The board has to find that the creation of the accessory dwelling unit would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the use of such an accessory building as a private garage or other allowed use. And the board makes that determination in conjunction with the criteria for a special permit. I will quickly, I just wanted to share the memoranda on this property that was submitted by the Department of Planning and Community Development. So just give me a second. Bring that up. That's the one that just came out. That's the one that just came out this afternoon. So this is the memorandum, basically outlines the request. So the overall proposal is between the two structures. But the dish that we are being asked to consider the 220 square feet. They're going on to the existing accessory dwelling, excuse me the existing accessory building. The principle on the property is not conforming with front yard requirements accessory buildings located within six feet of the right side lot line. So 592 B and an 813 is just that for an existing non conforming structure as long as you're not making it more detrimental you can continue it. The board may grant a special permit provided by the creation of the ADU is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the use of the accessory building as a private garage or other allowed use. Proposed change reduces the overall usable open space the applicant is not increasing the height of the existing structure of the proposal would not increase any of the existing non conformities. So the criteria are the criteria so requested use the requested use is permitted through a special permit the R1 zoning district since the existing accessory structure is located less than six feet from the property line. Criteria number two for special permit public convenience and welfare the proposal would provide an accessory dwelling unit to create living space for an elderly family member. The under traffic congestion or impairment to public safety there would not be an increase in traffic congestion or an impairment of public safety criteria number four undue burden on municipal systems there would not be an undue burden upon any municipal systems. Criteria number five, if granted a special permit this proposal would meet the required conditions for ADU under section 592 B1 of the zoning bylaw. The floor area is less than the maximum floor area requirement due to its proposed size it is not a large addition and therefore is not subject to 542 B6. The accessory dwelling unit would have its own separate entrance, it would be the first accessory dwelling unit established on this property. The use are allowed in accessory buildings in this case subject to the granting of a special permit to the existing setbacks for the accessory building accessory dwelling unit would not be used as a short term rental and the accessory dwelling unit is subject to state building code and state fire code. Criteria number six the integrity and character of the district, while the accessory building is located less than six feet from the abutting properties. This proposal to create an accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use as a garage or other allowed use single family homes are located in the immediate vicinity accessory building is located entirely behind the principal dwelling in the rear yard approximately 20 feet from the nearest structure on an abutting property. The proposal would not detrimental impact the neighborhood character of the district or joining districts nor will be detrimental to the health morals or welfare of the neighbors, the property. And criteria number seven detrimental excess of particular use it would not be a detrimental excess. So this is just an image showing the location of the property. This is the existing house the addition that's going up is on the far side. And this is the garage you can see here in the rear yard. So the Department of Planning and Community Development maintains this proposal is consistent with the special permit criteria and section three to three three a through G, and the Department of Planning and Community Development the zoning board of appeals verify whether the applicant tends to construct an addition to the principal dwelling as shown on the submitted plans, which we have already determined. It is under construction. Are there any questions on the memoranda from the planning department. None are there any further questions or comments from the board being Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the applicant my understanding from what has happened so far and I wonder if the applicant or his architect can do this it can confirm this is that the building that we're talking about now that we keep on talking about as a garage is not currently being used as a garage is that true. Is it still being used as a sort of an education area or play area is it being used at all. So during COVID it was we had a permit that we pulled and we turned it into sort of like an exercise classroom thing for our kids and now that the kids are back in public school it's just the finish space it's already heated in cold and it's just like a yoga studio right now. So should the board vote to approve this application. The board has three standard conditions which it would apply to a special permit. The first is that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specification submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. There should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Condition number two is the building inspector is hereby notified. He's to monitor the site and should proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time it is determined that violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw none of the provisions of Act 40 section 21 D of the Massachusetts general laws and Institute non criminal complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve an Institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1 and condition number two is to maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to this special permit grant. Are there any additional conditions which the board would want to include should the board vote in favor of this application. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I don't have finished text but I think that it would be helpful under the circumstances to say that the applicant shall obtain approval of this water management plan as required by and then cite the relevant provision of the bylaw. This is simply to make sure that it's on paper that what we've already said and the applicant has agreed would be needed is is not overlooked because it would then be on the plans and people would be paying attention to it. Okay, so we do have a condition we have used in the past which is the board requests that the applicant work with the town engineer to address compliance with the town stormwater management bylaw. That would that would be satisfactory to me the only I'm just interested in having a clear warning so that it just doesn't get overlooked in the paperwork. Absolutely. Any further from the board. Mr Chairman. So like this isn't another condition it's my being slow on the uptake, but there was one other question I had hoped to get an answer from the applicant and I wonder if with the chairs indulgence I might ask that one. Please. Could you describe what's on the other side of the fence here what what structures are how far away from the, from the, the property line how close is this garage to actual structures or other uses in the joining yard. Julie do you want to take that. Yeah, I believe it's 10 feet in one inch. There is a wall behind the garage with a fence on it and then there's so there's 10 feet one inch total behind our garage and our fence is, you know, maybe two feet before our garage so we left a good buffer between the neighbor when we did that fence. And that backs up to the neighbor's backyard so then it's another at least 20 feet to their structures, 30 feet minimum along the back, and then along that side where we're within, you know, we're within the six feet. That backyard is completely open the whole way there's no structure. I mean the next structure is an entire another property over on the, on the right hand side the side that's actually non conforming now. It is. Thank you. That. The chair will entertain a motion. So, Mr chairman. Before moving I think the discussion that we've had raises a question about the garage that was once a garage and that is no longer a garage. And I just want the way in which I have come to look at it. The, this is a prior non conforming use regardless in other words, the provision about what could be done with garages. Depending upon the type is really no longer relevant because it's not a garage. And the only thing that is relevant is the article on ad use, and that allows you to go within six feet by a special permit. Notwithstanding that the building is not a garage there's nothing in the ad you ordinance that requires that building that independent building to be a garage. It was no doubt thought of that that frequently would be the case, but that's not written into the statute so we've got a prior non conforming use that one way or the other, regardless of whether it's a garage or not regardless of whether what would otherwise be applicable is six feet or 10 feet. Just to me that the issue, the obviously the issue that the provision on garages is aiming at is, is public safety that if you're going to put a garage or any building that close to the property line. There's a significant possibility that if it catches on fire that it will damage the properties on on adjacent uses which presumably is the reason why it is that if you did have a garage you'd have more leeway with one that is is built with more attention to be fireproofing than if you didn't. So where does that fit in that clearly that's a relevant consideration and it's something that we ought to think about. And since this is a special permit process it seems to me that that generally fits in. I think on the in the area of the statute that talks about the character of the same and basically public safety and the character of the neighborhood. We came to the conclusion, for example, that that garage was a fire trap, and there were children's bedrooms immediately on the other side. We might be a little bit nervous about allowing a change of use that would that that would increase the amount of usefulness of this property. So what I was interested in just what the other side of the property look for was having some sign kind of a notion of what the actual condition today is whether this is is a is is a danger or whether it's not. Now, you know, somebody could come in and build on that other property and create a dangerous situation that doesn't exist today. And so then there's no guarantees about that. But on balance given the given the condition of what's already there where there's no individual danger, and the way in which the statute is structured. I feel reasonably comfortable saying that even adding this criterion or this consideration to the planning department's analysis doesn't wouldn't change the result. For me it could in some cases but in this case it it doesn't and I feel comfortable supporting a motion to approve the application on that by on that basis, among others. Mr. chair. I just like to add on to what Pat said, I agree with with his assessment. And I think, I think the question I was thinking of in my mind was this is a change of use to existing structure. But for instance, if this was existing non conforming house that was within a property line setback. We would require that the new addition meet the, the code that is required in that location so if it was a zero line condition. For instance, and we were extending that zero line condition, we would expect that that new portion of the building be up to the current code. We're not requiring them to upgrade the, the existing portion of that building. So that's sort of the pathway, but I was thinking about, I defer to the, you know, the board and everyone's comfort level. I think Mr. Hanlon's comments is well taken that this is not close to someone and I imagine it would not present a hazard, but you know, just as a matter of course, if this was a much larger structure. I think that that's, that's the path that we would all take. So I, I'm glad that a came up so we can sort of get a resolution and make sure everyone feels comfortable with that. Great, thank you. So I think that would certainly be addressed by the building department as a part of their review. Because the building, the building code does address specifically things within zero to five feet five to 10 feet and 10 to 20 feet so it would all be included as a part of the permit application but I do agree I think it's important that, that it be raised as an as an issue and a concern to that it can be, we can make sure that we have indicated that we have addressed it. With that, are there any further concerns? Otherwise, I would ask for a motion from the board. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So this time I'm going to actually move. I move that the application be approved subject to the three standard conditions and the additional consideration regarding stormwater management that has been read into the record. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this is a vote of the board to approve the special permit for 12 Puritan Road with the three standard conditions and one additional condition that will allow the use of the Excuse me, the accessory structure in the rear yard with its addition to be used as an accessory dwelling unit, other than the town's bylaws. With that, do a roll call vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holly. Aye. Mr. Rickardelli. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the board. Good luck. Thank you. Appreciate it. Everyone brings this item five and our agenda tonight, which is docket three seven five zero 20 Martin Street. I'll ask the applicants to please introduce themselves. And what they are looking to do. Hi. My name is Albin and me. And this is my wife. We're here with our architect, Diane. Who? Yeah, there you are. Yes. Yes. So we, we moved into this property on 20 Martin Street in November of December of 21. And then this January we welcomed our first child. And, you know, we have this is it's a typical Cape the house, but it sits on a, on a property that's that has a pretty steep slope on Martin Street. In fact, they didn't end up finishing up the road. So we decided to get Martin Street to connect to Crawford Street because of how steep a ledge it is. And so there's a small walkway that people use to to traverse between Martin Street and Crawford Street so the house sits on a ledge. We, because of that, like, I think we're the basement that we have counts as a full story and so, you know, most although almost all of our neighbors have like a dormer on the first floor to extend, you know, the bedrooms out. It looks we need a we need a variance to be able to go there and to be able to do exactly like what what the neighbors have. What we're hoping to get out of the extension is some additional like space that's, you know, that is not like the knee wall on on the that you typically find on the Cape and get some windows and some light in there because right now we only have like windows on the sides because of the way the roof goes. I don't know if you have anything else to add. Or I think that was a great summary I wanted to just supplement that with some numbers and square footages and that sort of level of information for the board. So we are seeking two things tonight we're seeking a special permit. We're looking at point three point two two for the usable open space and also a variance, as was mentioned, for the story count with the usable open space there. That special permit is because there are no areas with the minimum of 25 by 25 on the lot currently. So nothing that is eligible for that calculation, which is also consistent with many homes in the area we are not changing the footprint, because we're looking at a two and a half storey with the variance, it is as was mentioned to Cape. So it's currently designated as two and a half stories because of the basement counting as a story with this dormer this would exceed the definition of the half story so it would change from a two and a half to a three story. What we are looking to do in terms of the area increase on the second floor is for the area that has a ceiling height of seven feet or greater, we would be increasing that by 173 square feet. But that is enough to trigger the variance the 173 square feet would make that second floor usable space at seven feet or greater, go from 332 total to 505 square feet total. Their first floor is currently only 962 square feet so that would put us at a total square footage first and second floor after the dormer, just under 1500 so it's still a very modestly sized home. As Alvin mentioned it is situated on a steep incline and also ledge. So it does create that topographical hardship that meets the requirements as well as the ledge. So two of the hardships that meet the requirements for variance. The basement counting as a story as I as was mentioned, it is exposed on the back, but from the front the basement is not visible at all so you go like a six inch step from grade up into the house at the front. The front facade of the house as you see in the drawings is actually very modest structure it appears really as a single story home there are no dormers on the front. The height from the average grade to the ridge is 27.9. That's the current height and that is what it would, we would maintain that, and that number is well below the allowed height of 35. So we're not increasing that the dormer itself is well within the setbacks. And it's actually 19.2 feet from the downhill neighbor, which is almost double what the 10 foot required setback would be in that direction. I mentioned it doesn't change the footprint. We did also submit a petition that and a letter of support signed by 10 of the neighboring properties and that includes the media of others. So, there are as Alvin mentioned several other homes in the neighborhood that have that are similar capes with dormers. Therefore, the proposed dormer is consistent with the scale the massing the character of the neighborhood. It meets the criteria for a variance it is not substantially detrimental and it does not nullify the bylaw. Thank you very much.  So this is the patient here. It's differently. I can share my screen if you want me to pull up the PDF so that it's oriented. Yeah, mind I'll be great. Okay, believe you have permission so. Okay, here we go. So this is the existing elevations I don't know what is there specific drawing that you'd like to look at. I think it would be helpful to run through them all. Okay, great. So, there's the basement level in the first floor not too much relevant there on the existing second floor there are these two small bedrooms they're tucked in under the eaves right now there's a bathroom in between. I did not mention is the stair leading up to this area is horribly treacherous I mean I was like, holding on for dear life as I was climbing up there. The winders instead of three winders there are six of them so it's like this really really see thing and, as they mentioned they have a new baby. So, there's a little bit of urgency we're going to be rebuilding the stair, hopefully before the baby is starting to walk. It's a little bit safer but these are the exterior elevations as I had described this is the front so it's a very modest looking. Looks like a single family. I'm sorry it looks like a single story home. The slope is pretty dramatic so the grade is all the way up at the finished floor level at the front, and then it slopes down dramatically on the side. And then across the back this is the first floor windows, this is the basement level, and then this is currently one dormer on the back that's in the bathroom area. And then what we are proposing is to make it a larger dormer so that both bedrooms can have windows on the backside and so we can have the two bathrooms, also with the head height that they need. There's a new wall here that the beds are leaning up against it's at like four and a half foot high so you don't get to the full height until this line here. There's some skylights, there's the proposed elevation. So the front doesn't change on the back, the dormer is replaced with the bigger dormer right there and then these are the new windows on that second floor. So just I'm trying to. So currently, there's a basement level of first level and a partial second that correct, or there one other floor in there. Nope, that's it. The basement the first floor and the current second floor under the eaves that has a small dormer on the back. Okay. And so currently it's just under two and a half. So the request is to be able to put a dormer on a sufficient size but that would bring it over the two and a half percent threshold. That's correct. Correct. Okay. And then so that and then just if you could go. I don't know if you have them handy the the variance criteria, do you have that part of the same. If not, I can bring those up. I don't know that I have it handy. Okay, I can go ahead and do that. So it was indicated there's a request for a special permit in for variant. So the special permit would be for the essentially it's an addition on the attic floor, but it's entirely within the footprint of the house. And it's it is considered a the increasing the existing nonconformity with regard to usable open space because currently that property has no usable open space this would increase the amount of usable open space it's required to have it doesn't have any. The zoning bylaws do include a provision that in addition, which falls entirely within the existing footprint is not considered. An extension of the exit is not considered more detrimental essentially so the special permit is not actually required that can be approved by right. But what's really before us is this question of the variance for a structure which currently meets zoning in regards to the height of being less than two and a half stories, and the request to go beyond two and a half. And the request is being made as a, as it needs to be as a variance and variance is established under state law, it has more criteria that are required to be and all four required to be met, and those are integrated here. So the first would be scribe circumstances related to the soil condition shape or topography, a special affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located that would substantially the granting of a variance. And so they say that the land slopes 12 feet from the front of the house to the back, while the house actually appears to be very modest one story structure on the front, the slope creates a condition where the basement counts as a story limiting the allowable scope on the actual second floor space. Despite the severe topography of the site the house is still a low structure only 27 nine existing and proposed from average grade plane to the ridge criteria number two is how a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning by law specifically relating to circumstances affecting the land or structure noted above would involve a substantial hardship financial or otherwise the partitioner or Evelyn. So the owners recently purchased this home and welcome their first child they look forward to raising their family in the home and the community. Two bedrooms on the second floor have low ceilings and very limited functional space due to the steep slope of the ceiling. If they were unable to improve the functionality of those two existing bedrooms they would not be able to stay in the house. Number three is how desirable relief may be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good relief in this case will not be substantially detrimental to the public good, because the house is so small and so low to begin the proposed dormer does not increase the height of the house. And does not have any impact the massing is perceived from the street. Most of the other homes in this neighborhood already have full second floors and many even have attic space above that proposed home will be consistent with the size architectural style and massing of the neighborhood and number four how desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington. Relief will not nullify or substantially derogate the bylaw because the proposed change only has 173 square feet of new space for proposed total of only 1467 square feet with three bedrooms and maintains existing 27.9 feet of height. The size house is consistent with if not smaller than most of the other homes in the neighborhood. And then under state law 40 a section 10 requires any board of appeals must find that all four criteria are met in order to be authorized to grant a variance. If any one of the standard does not met the board must deny the variance. The board is also in receipt of memorandum from the planning development. And this apologize this came out very late today. And so most people have not had an opportunity to see it. But hopefully, are you seeing it now. Yes. Or did it. Okay, perfect. So some memorandum. The applicants seek a variance in accordance with with 542 national density requirements and zoning bylaw they propose to construct a 505 square foot dormer addition to a single family home. For additional living space the proposal would result in an increase in the square footage of 173 square feet lock coverage would not increase under the proposal. Structure is in the R1 zoning district and is non conforming with the zoning bylaw lot size frontage front yard and usable open space requirements. The applicant is not increasing the footprint or height of the existing structure. For the definition of a half story, less than one half of the floor area measured from the underside of the roof framing to the finished floor below has a clear height of seven foot zero inches or more, where the floor area is measured relative to the gross floor area of the store below excluding porches and decks. Depending on the dimensions of the finished floor area of the third story the proposal may create a new non conformity. This addition would not increase any of the other non conformities for the existing structure, and the following is an application of the variance criteria. In the opinion of the Department of Planning Community Development soil condition shape and topography of the lot do not limit opportunities for expansion in a manner that conforms with the current dimensional requirements. Hardship although the slope of the lot limits opportunities for expansion into the site and rear yard is likely the proposal could be revised to comply with dimensional requirements. There are substantial modifications to the existing structure maybe necessary, which could be cost prohibitive criteria number three, based on the definition of a half story, the 481 square foot dormer addition would be allowed by right. A 505 square foot dormer would be in character with the budding homes, this property can accommodate the addition without compromising the public good and criteria number four proposal is consistent with the intent of our one zoning. This is the house here. As you can see this is the street, which ends at a substantial rock outcropping in this area here. So this is the house itself, which is accessed off and a budding street. This is the view of the house from the driveway is the evidence that when you approach it from this side. It does appear to be just a single story house. The Department of Planning and Community Development maintains this proposal does not meet criteria number one and they're unclear if it meets criteria number two. That is, that is the opinion of the Department of Planning and Community Development but it's up to the board to reach its own conclusions. So with that, I would ask if there are questions or comments from the board. Mr Chairman. Mr Hanlon. So, how big a, how suppose the applicant were to build out to the, as far as they can do within the two and a half stories how big. Right now we're talking about 505 square feet how much less than that would would be compliant with the zoning ordinance. The Department of Planning and Community Development that based on the definition of a half story that a 481 square foot addition would be allowed by right. So what I'd like is an explanation of suppose we said, you know, that's a pretty good addition it's not ideal, but it's not going to, but it's not so bad. What would be the answer to that I mean obviously you'd rather have it something a little bit more, but we're dealing with with severe hardship here. And I think that the underlying rationale of the planning department's decision is that you could comply, you could expand, and you could comply you just can't comply. And that's between 505 and 481. So, I wonder if the applicant could address that and explain why it is that the smaller addition would be a hardship or were possibly not, not possible at all. And can we just first clarify how the, how they came up with the 481 square foot number. So we took the area of this first floor, which was 962 and divided by two, divided that by two. Okay. So, I think that it's worth noting that the difference we're talking about here is like 25 square feet so it's not a significant amount. What we look at with the design of this was initially we, we thought about okay, do we attempt to make it into a colonial, more of a traditional colonial home so that we could really get maybe even a third bedroom up there just get a little bit more usable space. But we didn't want to ask for too much and we also didn't want to make it a three and a half story with the attic space so we wanted to keep our height at the dimensional height that it was at. So that's where we started to look at a dormer instead. And we felt like the 25 extra square feet really gave them the functionality they really wanted to have two separate bedrooms so that I mean, I'm sorry, two separate bathrooms so that they would have a hall bath and a master bath, and that that becomes and to have windows in both of the rooms facing that backside and that became limited. I think it does actually, even though 25 square feet is sort of a de minimis number it does make an impact in terms of how they can use the second floor of their home. I think the, you know, from from what I we've talked to some, you know, from from a contractor standpoint as well and like what we're, what we're proposing here is a pretty standard edition and it just happens to cross that like that threshold and it's like the minimum we need, but yet like having a standard structure that's the full dormer that's kind of what it nets out at, you know, I wish it didn't really we didn't have to go through this process but it's just a small amount that just like and we wanted to do the right thing for the house itself as well because just doing the normal all the way from a cost standpoint and that just makes more sense than limiting it to meet like that specific number. So if you could expand on what the cost effect would be that that's referred to in the planning department memorandum as well. I mean, okay, so to actually meet the requirements of the bylaw. I can't say I can I can speak to that I'm just speaking about like what from just having spoke into a few contractors like what they mentioned about you know like having a very selective drama versus like the whole drama they're like it's not it's actually just makes more like financial sense to just drama the whole way that's what I meant I don't actually know like relative to we didn't quote it out like. I think are you Albin are you also thinking like a cost per square foot like it, there's a certain costs associated with dormering, and the more square feet you get out of that the more it makes sense from a cost per square foot in terms of the value that you're getting out of it. But the other piece that I wanted to respond to if I may Mr Chairman is the criteria one. I'm surprised that the review did not find it to be substantial because it is substantially slope.  And I know that in Arlington there are other properties that have slopes. But I feel like this particular property is one of the steeper ones that I've been on. And there are many around of their immediate neighbors where it's like it levels off that whole driveway access is level and then there's just where the houses just kind of plummets. And I also feel like they are up against the setbacks in terms of the rear and both side setbacks. And so the only other way that they could possibly expand their house which is a very small house to begin with the only other way that they could expand it if it were not by doing a second floor expansion would be to bump the house forward into the front setback into the front yard, which I don't think makes a lot of sense so in terms of hardship. That is really not where you want to put it's not enough room, you know it's only at nine feet that they could come forward it's not enough room to put bedrooms it's not enough, it's not a logical place to put that. So there aren't really any other options in terms of how they could expand on that property. So I, I was somewhat surprised by that assessment. I do feel like this is a significant variance hardship with the topography being pretty extreme. The dormer itself is in set one foot nine from each end of the floor below. Do you know how much it would need to be brought in in order to be compliant to gain back those. I don't know if that's my head, but let's look at it. Sure. So, I would probably. Probably about five feet like another two feet on each side two and a half feet on each side something like that. Okay. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. So, just thinking about how you opens this hearing about the usable open space if, if the applicant were to inset those dormers that two feet to get that additional 25 square feet of head height away with this project be by right. What did I say the length of the dormer was. The length of the dormer is 28 foot 10. So if the front wall of the dormer was brought in probably 10 inches. It would be compliant. Or if the sides were brought in by as the, as the architect said about two and a half feet per side. Mr. Chairman. Just translating it in. If, if we think that they don't need a special permit because they're within the foundation foundation. And if it were to if they were able to change this so that they would also not be going beyond the two and a half stories. Then it seems to me it has to be by right doesn't it. You don't need much arithmetic to for that or am I missing something. What question would what question would remain to us if they actually met the two and a half story requirement. If they met the two and a half store requirement they would not be before us. And that's the 25 feet. And that's the 24 feet. Yeah. And it seems to me that what's going on here, the planning department's viewpoint is, they're starting with the notion is, can you get to the 24, the 24 feet. And they think you can. They think that the slope doesn't prevent you from getting to the 24 feet. And they also think that getting to the, that the 24 feet wouldn't possibly wouldn't have imposed a big hardship. So that gets them past one and two. You can take profit from a different point of view you can say well can people do what you normally do here. I mean, the neighbors don't have to worry about that 25 feet. Why do these, why does the applicant have to worry about the 25 feet. Well, it's because the steep slope it makes it impossible for them to do this because their basement counts.  It's largely it's a trick of perspective, but it's one that's important to us because we have to figure out, which is the viewpoint really that we're obligated to apply. If we're going to faithfully apply the, the state criteria. Mr chairman. So I, I think that when I was looking at this before the meeting I did also focus in on the 24 or the 25 square feet. And I would just say to the applicant that these are really always tough there are some variance requests which are very obvious. Because they might have a very oddly shaped lot and in order to do something you'd have to be closer to the lot line and those sorts of things so there are some variance requests which are actually fairly straightforward. For me when I was driving over there first of all I couldn't find the property when I drove down Martin Street, and had to circle around because and then I figured out what was going on there. But for me, you know, you look at it and you say okay well it has to be conditions affecting your specific lot that don't apply to the rest of the district, meaning basically the neighborhood and I know within the board we've had disagreements about how it could be applied. And so you know when I was driving around in the circle, you know on to Charles and whatever the other adjoining streets are. It's clear to me that that's a whole bunch of hill in that area and there's a whole bunch of ledge, and I could not at all determine, or distinguish between you know your lot and other lots in terms of what conditions are unique to your property which are not. And I think that to some extent that may be what drives the recommendation not that we have to follow it from the planning department but I tend to look at it in sort of the same view. They do which is it's not clear to me that there is a clear connection between slope which is just a conditional which is unique to your property and not to other properties in the area, and the inability to conform to the requirements of the Biola which is that 25 square feet we're talking about without undo hardship so I do have a problem processing this as a variance. I'm just letting you know and and so that's that's my particular issue, but it sort of echoes I think what the planning department said in their analysis as well. So my question is there anything about the slope, which makes the basement, difficult to occupy. I see that there appears to be an office down there. And obviously there's mechanical spaces but is there, like as part of it. Is there ledge that's in the basement itself, or is there some reason, is there something about the basement that makes it difficult to inhabit. Because certainly this is, you know, in this house because the so much the basements exposed it actually is more to my eyes more, you know that the basement could be used to a much greater extent because you can put, you know, regular windows in the basement and be, you know, have a full exposure so I just wanted to clarify that. Are there other questions from the board before I open it for public comment. I did want to acknowledge that the applicant had said they did. Go around and discuss with their their project with their neighbors, and they do have signatures of 10 of their neighbors in favor of the application. A letter. Excuse me that was submitted by their neighbor at 48 Crawford Street also speaking in favor of the addition. Those with that. We'll go ahead and open this public hearing for public comment. Questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing the decision. If you'd like to speak you may raise your hand digitally by using the button on keeping participant tab but zoom moved it it's now on the reactions tab. And if you're calling any made out star nine and any we will work with a questions and comments until all have been addressed, or we have reached, let's say 920. So with that it is open. So Mr Anthony you don't have to raise your hand as a as a member of the public being the applicant but please go right ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to respond to the, to the comment about, you know, using the basement and making that livable space, like we did we did consider that. One of the things one thing that we want where I want my wife wants is like we want a bedroom that has like, you know, windows on two sides of the room for some amount of cross ventilation. We cannot like have and we also want to have like our child sleep on the same floor as us right so we basically are looking for a situation where you know she can grow up have her own bathroom, and like we can have two separate rooms on the on the same floor with both bedrooms having like, you know, more than one window for for light and air, and like the basement doesn't allow for that configuration, because like on the one side, you know, obviously we're we're blocked, because it's below ground and on, you know, on one side on one side of the basement we could get two windows in fact we have them by the other side like we have no windows we could get one. But it wouldn't actually like allow for for two bedrooms on the same level that we can share with our daughter. And so like we can only go up. In fact, it would be cheaper to actually like make Diana and I like we discussed that as the first option. So we decided to go up simply because there wasn't like a way for us to build it out in the basement. So the comment about, you know, what's different about us and the neighbors it is exactly the fact that we have, you know, we happen to have like, you know, one side of our basement like that's above ground which like, you know, our neighbors don't have that problem right like that is unique to us, because of our situation so because of the ledge so like, you know that's yes it's hard to distinguish our property from from the neighbors and from the area. But you know, we do have if, if this if the grade were, you know, slightly off by like a few inches right like this count as two and a half stories and I mean it would, you know, it wouldn't count as a full story and we would be totally okay but it's really just the grade and you know the slope and the way it's set up that puts us at a disadvantage with respect to our neighbors, right and it's not that we can therefore use that to our advantage even to like have two full bedrooms in the basement and and make it work like that in fact I would much prefer that it's just that it wouldn't be, you know, a viable bedroom on one side of the basement so going up was our was not our first choice it's it's it's something that we've been, you know, we didn't actually. Yeah, it's something we landed on by eliminating other options. Okay. Thank you for that. Are there members of the public who wish to address this hearing. Please raise your hand using the button on the reactions tab or waving waving your windows we can see that you're there, not see any. I will go ahead and close public comment for this hearing. The board has before it. This is an application for a variance for 20 Martin Street. This has been explained. This is a house where the, the lowest floor is about half in and half out of a very slow site. What's effectively the second floor is really their first floor that is free and clear of the ground. And then the attic above they're looking to add a shed dormer on the east side which would grant them the space they need to have a master bedroom master room with hallway bathroom and a second bedroom on that floor. And that adds up to 505 square feet which is 24 square feet above the maximum threshold for a half story for this property. And so they are requesting relief from the board by the granting of a variance in order to have that additional space. So that is the question before the board and it as was previously read in. There are four criteria that need to be met in order to qualify for variance under chapter 40 a section 10 under state law. And so it is up to the board to determine whether those criteria are met. And if so then grant the variance, but if the board determines that those criteria are not that not met the board is not allowed to issue a variance. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if the chair has done such an outstanding job so far summarizing this as he does so many other cases. I wonder if you could just sort of stayed in from your point of view particularly as an architect. What would be the harm. What would be the hardship. That should move us if we were to say that the applicant has obviously some extra difficulties other people don't have because of the location of their property but that by itself is not a reason to get a variance. But they could by bringing the dormer in a little bit me essentially not have that 24 feet that not violate the bylaw. What's what is the hardship that comes from actually complying that seems to me to be the key issue here is what is not why you can't do everything you want but what is the hardship that comes from not complying as opposed to sacrificing that 24 feet. Certainly. So the language under section 10 to the board of appeals must specifically find for a particular piece of land that quote owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions shape or topography of such land or structures, and especially affecting structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located a literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the partitioner. And the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or bylaw. So, there's a lot of case law about what is a substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. So, I, what to my mind what would constitute a substantial hardship would be that you know they would not be able to occupy. They would not be able to create have two bedrooms in that house. That would be a substantial hardship they wouldn't be able to use the house in a manner that one would expect to use a house.  A substantial piece of ledge that you have to move in order to comply with the zoning bylaw the board has seen that recently that there was a case last year I believe where in order to use the, use the part of the site that was within the setbacks would require removal of a substantial amount of land whereas a portion of the property that was within the setback was ready and able to be used. So, to my mind those are sort of the substantial hardships. The question that I had asked about whether you know the dormer could be made narrower and a lot of houses in Arlington the dormer is not, you know, doesn't does not extend the full length of the side that is actually substantially smaller in order to meet that criteria.  So you don't even have to move it in a foot. May I, may I comment. I'm sorry. Yes, please. The only issue with moving the front wall of the dormer in is that both of those bathrooms are really tight the hallway is tight so we would not be able to have like the bathrooms have a minimum size sink and toilet and tub configuration so to take 10 inches out of the bathrooms would be significant in terms of that layout. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Sorry to have interrupted. Because you're between the tops, try to the stair. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So chairman, this is where I mean actually in some ways I'm focusing more on what it means to be talking about a literal enforcement of the bylaw. And the hardship and I think what Miss Miller just raised is the kind of thing I'm thinking about it. If you comply by pulling everything in or by making it shorter. If you do whatever you do to get that 24 feet. What is the harm that flows specifically from that. And Miller is indicated, indicated one. We have to judge whether all of those things amount to a hardship, but the real question to start with is whether they are occasioned by a literal appliance application of the bylaw. And the first aspect of a literal application of the bylaw would be just to comply and have something that is only a half story at the top. So I do appreciate both your summary and Miss Miller's addendum comments from the board. Yes, Mr. Holly. Yeah. Looking at the average grade calculations there, not that I want to go into details there is a note saying the seller. Is this definition of a seller or a or a basement. The other question is, I think they took the four points. And again I have to go back and look at the definition but there but the four corners of the building and then averaged out the grade because of the slope with which the large slopes. Does it does the average grade calculation very there. Just trying to see from. If that puts the ceiling height to somewhere close enough. Oh, it's interesting. So current to the bylaw requires that. More than. I'm going to read it rather than. I know I know. So Arlington differentiates between a seller and a basement. They are very similar. A seller is a portion of a building partly or entirely below grade, which has more than one half of its height measured from finished floor to finish ceiling below the average finished grade of the ground. And the basement is essentially the opposite so it has less than half of its height below the average finished grade. So in this. I'm just looking at the numbers. So here the basement floor is at 103 and a half. The basement ceiling is at a 113 and average grade is at 106.5. So five feet above the full and effectively seven feet below the ceiling so it's very much a basement. Like seven point one one yeah. And then in order for it to count as a story. The average grade to the ceiling has to be at least four foot six and it is well over that so it does definitely count as a story. But the average grade would not be changing because of the slope of the lot is just the four corners of the building. Did I get that. Yeah, so the. It's the yes the average of the height. You know going around the building I don't know if it's specifically taken from the core four corners or if it's done more granular, but that's the, that's how that is calculated. Okay. Where the land meets the right. Right. Let me further questions from the board. If not the board typically has considered these in the past as we take a look, we go through it criteria by criteria for a variance. So I'm going to go ahead and discuss what are what we feel is though it is the weather the criteria is whether the criteria for those are met. So I'm going to go. Push this back. Go ahead and share this again. The variance can be granted when all four of the following are meant describe the circumstances. So I'll condition that shape or topography especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district, and which is located that would substantiate the granting of variance. So the land slopes 12 feet from the front of the house to the back of the house. And while the house appears to be very modest one story structure from the front slope creates a condition where the basement counts the story, limiting the allowable scope on the actual second floor space. Despite this fair topography on the site, the house is still a low structure only 279 existing proposed from the average grade to the ridge. So this is a fairly rectangular lots there's nothing about the shape of the lot the rectangular house square on the lot there's nothing about the shape of the house. But what you don't see here is, you know, it's this topography question. It's either the health and sideways apologize. But you can see that there's a significant grade change over the, the width of the house the question then is, is this grade change across the house which exposes the basement and makes the basement a story where in most houses does not be the case. Does this is this especially affecting such land or structure but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. I mean obviously this is located on a very hilly portion of our LinkedIn. It's located on a paper street because of the, the severe grade change that's happening around the house. And the wasn't addressed but I would imagine there's a fair amount of ledge supporting the house in its current position, which may make it difficult to to utilize other portions of the lot. There are also a lot of other steep, steep sites in this area. So, kind of curious to hear from other members the boards and what their, what their impression is whether they feel that, you know, there is something unique about this lot. And it's topography because it's not the soil condition is not the shape it's really the topography. Mr. Chairman. So, I've gone back and forth and may yet go back and forth but on this one. It seems to me that the question before us is not whether steep slopes are common or not common in this area but whether they are clearly common and they were common in the Mount Kilbaugh area and we've given a number of variances there as well. The issue is sort of what is the implication of the steep slope for this particular property. And not just generally a question of topography and it seems to me that the nature of the problem that the applicants have low from a way in which the topography affects their property that is not generally affecting the property of their neighbors as the testimony has been the neighbors have generally found it pretty easy to do the things that the applicant wants to do. The topography is having an implication, I have an effect on their property that isn't generally true. And so I would, I would say that that the first condition is met if the second condition is met which we'll get to in a minute. The interesting thing about precedent is that in the western part of Arlington. There's a lot of challenging topography and sometimes it arises to the level of hardship and sometimes it doesn't but if we really took a, if we really treated this just as a matter of physical science. It might be excluding a great part of the town from the relief that the variance provisions provide in a way that that may not either be required by the statute or wise for us to do so. I would be I would hate to sort of rely on the fact that there's hills all around. With respect to this I am still interested in whether a little literal application of the bylaw causes severe hardship, but we'll get to that next. But I'd give this a pass on the first criterion. Thank you. Other members of the board. Mr chairman. Mr DuPont. So I to have some difficulties and do tend to go back and forth as well. But when I read the materials that had been submitted, I was focusing on the fact that the argument was being made that because. And I may be wrong about this and I'm happy to be corrected, but I sensed that what was being argued that was that because there was a slope. Then it was, there was a basement created as opposed to a seller. So a seller wouldn't be a story, a basement would be a story. So I thought that I was reading an argument to the effect that because there's a slope. This then makes this basement this space below a story. And therefore that's how we get to argue that we should be able to then go up upon the roof for this dormer in excess. Of what the required the bylaw would provide. And again, we're only talking about 25 square feet. And, and so I look at it and I say, well, the fact that there is a story there, even if it is created by the slope doesn't get me to a point where I say yes. This, this property is affected by the topography in a way that makes it hard and uniquely hard to comply with the bylaw I just have not been able to make that leap. And it's especially true for me I'll admit when I think we're talking about the 25 square feet. And I did understand the argument that was made by Miss Miller. And you know that was that was a good comment that was made about why that would create a problem. But I don't get it. Quite honestly, why where the argument is being made that because there's a slope there's a story and but for, you know that slope we wouldn't have a story below and therefore we would be okay with whatever we wanted to do because it would be a third floor we'd be creating it would just be a second floor. Perhaps I'm not being that clear but that's how I've been thinking about this and I'm struggling to get beyond that first criteria and I, I tend to think that there is a problem with that. Mr. chair. I do agree with Mr. Mr to point there because to me some, sometimes a door coming out of a basement is actually a welcome it's not a hindrance in the sense, the great helps to have a door that you have a walk out basements. So it's not. It's not a criteria which is, you know, hindrance. So that should dictate that because we're not able to do it as a story. We have elsewhere to do it, you know, it is a leap to me as well. I feel it that way. Can I respond to that. Mr Chairman, just. Mr. Yes. Okay, so just, you know want to clarify yes there's a door coming out of the basement. But you know to me, as you know, I don't know a whole lot. You know, construction person, but when I say story, like I expect the whole story the whole level to have equal access. Right. Like, yes, we have a door coming out of one side. Right. But like, I've we've lived here a year and a half we've opened that door like, you know, three times it doesn't like actually like lead to anything useful. So it is like so it's such a slope that you can't actually like walk like I wouldn't like trust a kid there. Right to like walk down that slope it's just completely unusable right so there is a door. That is true. I'm in fact I'm looking at it but like I can count on my on one hand the number of times we've opened it to access anything outside. And the other side is that on the other side right like I'm sitting in the basement right now right like on the other side, there are no windows right and there is like at best we can get, you know, like one, like a window on one side right like the door that you see on the other side actually is to a shed. Like, so it there's no light coming from, you know, three sides of the other side so the, even though it is a story. By the way, you know you're defining it based on on ceiling height it's actually not usable as like a living a livable like bedroom right like it's it's it's we use it for storage and for laundry but like this part of the house yes like there's a two side, but you know the door is not really usable. And like, you know, and then the whole level is not like the two sides of the house like don't actually give us the same amount of light and space so even though it's a story it's it's only like a half and like, like I said, for our purposes, we just want like, you know, we want, we want some level a story that has that can accommodate to two like bedrooms and bathrooms so that, you know, my wife and I and like our baby can have like our own space and yet be on the on the same floor. That's to me like the definition of the ask, and I'd also say that like the family that like sold this to us. They had twins and they basically had the same problem that we're now having when we had our baby and we didn't have a baby when when we bought the house or we didn't think too deeply about this right like they had babies and they were like you know we can't hand they they moved out for they definitely didn't mean to move out either like this house has been super well maintained. But you know so we'll be in the same place if if this is denied just as as like as it says in the description there. Thank you. Mr. Holly, did you do anything further. No, I, I understand all the concerns wise for sure. But just purely by going by the definitions and what the bylaw says which we have to adhere to our at least yeah. Interpret with is what we're getting at. So, that's all to it. Thank you. Any comments from other members of the board. It definitely agrees system of the crux of the question. And there's definitely a couple different ways to look at it. Yeah, Mr. Mr. Hanlon pointed out my notes. It's sort of the implication that what the, what impact what the impact is from the topography. You know, and that, you know, this is there is challenging topography here. It's easy to say there's challenging topography in a lot of places because there really is, but you know what we really need to focus in on is, you know, what is there something about the topography here that's causing a hardship. And is it unique to this property and it sort of comes down to this question of the way that the way that it converts that what would otherwise be the lower level that doesn't count towards the height because it's not really useful. While it doesn't really affect the usefulness of the floor, it does now all of a sudden count against them. Part of what, you know, with the comments by Mr. Dupont that that the topography does make it makes that issue, but is that does it rise to the level that it is something that is especially affecting land or structures here, but not generally affecting the zoning district in which is located. And Mr. Holly said it's sort of, you know, he's sort of a little more similar to Mr. Dupont. I'm sort of wrestling with this the same as everyone else. You know, the board's going to have to vote on this in a sec. So everyone should sort of consider sort of where they stand on this. For myself, I am. I feel that this this site is sufficiently different from the other kinds of slope issues that we generally deal with in town. I think we, me personally, I can make the fun, I'm comfortable with the finding that it does. That we can claim it meets the first criteria. And then we would move on to the, to the second criteria. But you know, obviously everyone should reach their own conclusions on where they stand on this. So I probably the best way to do this is we should take, probably take a vote on the first criteria and see where we stand and then from there we can go forward to the other criteria. And I, because this is sort of relating directly into the decision, I think we're going to have to limit the vote to, to just the, the five standing members of the board. So on criteria one or a variance. Do just a quick vote of a roll call vote. So Mr. Dupont. I would say no. Okay. Mr. Hanlon, I would say yes. Okay, Mr. Holly. No. Mr. Rickidelli. No. And the chair would say yes. But the noes have it. So the board does not feel that the first criteria has been met. So with that, because it needs to be, it needs to be a vote of four of the five in favor and it is only a vote of two of five in favor. So the board would need to deny the variance for this property. With that. I would move that the board. To deny the variance for 20 Martin Street. So the, the motion by the chair, may have a second second. Thank you. Is that Mr. Hanlon. Yep. Thank you sir. So this is a vote of the board to deny variance for 20 Martin Street. And the chair and seconded by Mr. Hanlon, the roll call vote of the members. So a positive vote is in favor of a denial. So Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Mr. Rickidelli. Hi. And the chair votes. So with regrets to the, to the applicant, the board has to deny the variance for 20 Martin Street. We thank you for your time and for coming before us this evening. And thank you. I, we do appreciate all of your careful thought and deliberation on it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, go back to our agenda this evening brings us to item six on our agenda. Number three, seven, five, one, just 48 Oakland Avenue. First appreciate the patience of the applicants for, for sticking with us. And if you could go ahead and introduce yourselves and tell us what you would like to do. I'm Lindsay bronze team and Steve, Steve. And we are requesting permission to build. Walls in a roof onto an existing side porch. That's off of our bedroom, which would violate the half story regulations. Because of actually sort of similar conditions are our basement level. Somebody slopes down the hill, sort of into the crusher lot and so it's our basement level is above grade in the back and that great in the front. And so we are requesting a special permit. And then we will discuss the little additional room off of our bedroom. That's the existing porch and our architect Catherine McPhail is here also. Hi. Good evening. Do you have something you. Sure. Sure, I can share my screen and just review the drawings. I think we're all set to share. Mr chairman. Just for the record. If you're looking for a special permit, I'm guessing that you are currently in the applicant is is currently not in compliance with the half story requirement and we're talking about an intensification. Or are we talking about a new nonconformity. We were not extending the nonconformity here is just it is built over a porch. Would be built over a porch which onto the primary bedroom floor which we would normally consider the second floor but is actually considered the second floor because of the basement situation and they do have an attic as well. That is not habitable. So it appears from the street as if it's a two and a half story house, even with the addition, but because the second story is considered the third third story it isn't in compliance with the two and half story role. I guess my question is why is it that we're dealing with this as a special permit in this case rather than the variance that we did in the case just before. I think that's because what's the building the building department felt that it was allowable at first because it was being built on something that was within the existing footprint of the house and then I don't really know what to say other than other than that about it being a special permit. Thank you. So, Mr. Hanlon I believe that the house is already pre existing nonconformity in regards to the number of stories. Yes. That's true. Okay, so I'll just go through this quickly. Am I sharing this. Okay, so this is the existing house and this area here is where they would be building onto their main bedroom upstairs. This is a view going driving down Oakland. This is a an image of their lot on the town GIS viewer. And you can see that they don't have any neighbor over here it's just the middle school and crusher lot back there. And they are also on a slope and Oakland of course is goes downhill and it also falls back into the back of their property so from the front here, you can see going up the hill. This is their existing garage and an existing family room. And then you can't, it just looks, you can't tell from that it would be a three and a half story building it all from the front and there's really no view from the back except for from the woods. And this is just uphill from the house as you're as you're driving by this with with leaves this is with without leaves. So, there's the argument there is that it's really not. The intent of the bylaw is to, you know, maintain a certain density. Then I feel like it still looks like a tuna it looks like we're adding on to the second story rather than the third story. It's always hard to explain these things. So this is the existing first floor, and this is the side porch that is an office right now. And then this would be the roof, the existing roof and then this would be where they're there we'd be turning this into kind of addressing room sort of closet. And it would be a kind of matching the windows below so hopefully it will be in keeping with the, the look of the house. And that's, yeah, that's, that's it. Did you go back to that rear elevation. So it slopes way down over here, and then at this point this is the garage and at this point it's, it's right on the, the numbers are right on the edge so it's right. It's within, like a percentage or two of, of being a basement. But again this this view is from, you can't nobody's really seeing this because their their lot goes way back. That's what it is anyway, but their lot goes, you know, far back here. And then, you know, there's, there's my under my understanding of this. Mr. Hanlon's question. The difference between this case and the previous case the previous case was currently compliant in regards to building height, both in terms of the, the number of feet and the number of stories. This property has an existing non conformity in regards to the number of stories. And that is literally has three floors at the moment. And so we are, this is an increase to one of those floor levels. But it does not substantially change. It does not create a new non conformity by its addition it's only in the intensification of an existing non conformity. It does meet the criteria does meet the number of the height in feet that is that and that is not being proposed to be changed. Right. And that is the reason this so this is coming before us this is, so there's two different sections listed on the, on the announcement. But I agree with the initial application that it's really it's a section 813 be an 813 a that that this deals with so this is a pre existing non conforming condition. So I'm going to go ahead and I will share the bylaw. So 813 a that an alteration reconstruction extension or structural change to a single or two family residential structure that is completely within the existing foundation walls does not increase the non conforming nature of said structure so this is entirely within those. So, as far as the zoning is concerned it is not does not increase the non conforming nature, and then be is no alteration reconstruction extension or structural change to a single or two family residential structure that increases the non conforming nature of said structure shall be permitted, unless there's a finding by the Board of Appeals that proposed alteration reconstruction extension or structural change will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So the two of these read together, almost implies that you don't need action from the board because 813 a says that because you're within the footprint, and it's a non conforming, you're changing a non conforming nature but because you're within the footprint, you are the increase does not increase the non conforming nature. That the the board sees similar cases to this for other reasons but that board often finds that these do not actually require a finding by the board but in this case. You are for us and the board will will will proceed and take a look at this I would note that the Department of Planning and Community Development. We do not provide a any comment on this particular application before the before the time of the hearings so we do not have any any written with a comment from them in this matter. Are there questions from the board. Mr chair. Maybe more of a comment but I think you know the extension of the non conformity in this case I don't know what the previous case we we heard makes this much more straightforward and if the finding that we're making is that it's not more detrimental to the neighborhood. I feel very comfortable. I think the elevation looks very appropriate and I would support that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just subject to being completely turned around as I nearly was in the last case by the eloquence of my colleagues in the public. It seems to me that the the last case which wanted to do something more or less similar was really really hard. And this one seems to me to be really really easy. If this is in fact completely within the existing foundation walls. Then it doesn't increase the non conforming nature of the structure and therefore it. It shouldn't even be what before us it basically shows that they can do it as a matter of right. But if we for any reason we thought that was not the case. This doesn't seem to be a very difficult case under for a finding of being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. For reasons Mr. Secretary DeLis stated and for the various reasons that the applicants architect has done. So the decision on this would go in the alternative. It either isn't it a increase in the non conforming nature of the structure or if it is a section six findings appropriate. Thank you. Any other comments from the board before we go for a public comment. Mr Chairman. So I agree with both Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Rickardelli. And I do wonder too, I think we discussed this before and we feel like. If it makes its way to us, we should probably issue some sort of a decision. On the other hand, it also strikes me that we should be able to send something back to the building department and say, we don't think this needs to be here. And I don't want to play hot potato with these things. I get that. But it does seem to me that we're sort of running into this over and over again where we say, well, you know, it's not increasing the non conforming nature of the structure. Therefore, what are we doing? And so I would just like to figure out a way of dealing with this so that a people don't have to necessarily show up for a meeting with us. But they may not know that they don't have to show up for a meeting with us until they show up. So that's sort of the difficulty, but I'd like to explore that a little bit to see if there's some pipeline we could have with the building department. And, you know, and if it turns out that no people need to come here to get, you know, a stamp from us, then so be it. But it just seems to me that this happens more and more. I think there's stuff I covered. Mr. Helen. I just wanted to point out that occasionally at some of us at least have been convinced they didn't have to come for us. And then after talking to Mr. Trump became equally convinced the other way so it's a discussion. I agree with Mr. Dupont that it's a channel that we should be using and that we have been using in order to try to make sure that everybody that ever that inspectional services and we are on the same page about this thing. I'm not quite I've never actually seen one that deals with the half story before usually they deal with other issues but in principle it's the same as other things that we've seen. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and open the meetings for public comment public comment questions are taken as they relate to the matter of hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Thank you for your time to ask your questions and make comments. If you would like to speak please raise your hand using the button on the participant tab, or sorry on the reactions tab. And then Steyer nine if you are called in other members of the public who wish to address the board this evening. I do not actually see any members of the public on the meeting at all. So I will go ahead and close public comment. Okay, so what the board has both for it. This is a request for a special permit. This is in regards to section 813 in the Doning bylaws which regards non conforming single family or two family dwellings. The applicants are requesting to construct a second level on top of a single story. So it's labeled on one plan as a sunroom and on another plan as an office. But it is, nevertheless, it's a condition space there was a question earlier on about whether it was actually a porch, and if it was a new space over a porch that would absolutely require zoning board of appeals to issue a special permit but that's here a disposition space. And it is within the existing footprint of the, of the foundation wall and so the bylaws state that this is something that the board is able to consider that this is not a substantial change it doesn't change the non conforming nature. So in this house it does have a pre existing non conformity in regards to the number of floors. And so what we are requested to do in that case is we to make a determination under section 813 b, which is also the same determination that would be under chapter 40 a section six that the proposed alteration to an existing non conforming structure that the text of the finding that we have to find that the increase in the non conforming nature of the structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. I think there have been statements both by the owners the architects and by several members of the board that this does not appear to create any does not appear to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. Are there any additional questions or comments from the board do not see any should the board vote to approve the application. There are the three standard conditions which were read into the record earlier this evening that the board would attach to the to the decision are there any additional conditions that the board feels would be required on this application. There are no further comments. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr chairman. Mr handlin. I move that the. Or to prove the special permit application subject to the standard conditions that were read into the record in the preceding case. Second. Thank you. This is a role called vote of the board to approve the special permit from 48 Oakland Avenue with the three standard conditions. So vote of the board Mr Dupont. Hi. Sir handlin. Hi. Mr Holly. Hi. Mr Rickidelli. Hi. And the chair votes. Hi. That special permit is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you for your patience as well. So this brings us. By the hearing we're just over this calendar upcoming. So the board has on the Thursday, May 25 at 7 30pm. We are going to have an executive session in regards to property on this avenue. You all should have received notice of that. And I apologize to Mr Rickidelli because I know that he's unavailable. I believe Thursday at 7 30. But we will make sure that council is available to explain anything to you that he explains to us at the time. So we'll do the executive session. So we'll do the executive session. From 7 30 to 8, and then at 8am, 8am, excuse me, 8pm on Thursday, as a continued deliberations on 1021 1025 1027 Massachusetts Avenue. So the updated decision as of our last hearing. We've accepted all the changes we made and then put that back out so everyone should make sure they take a look at it. If there are any outstanding points on that hearing that the board that members of the board feel are important to include in the decision. Please go ahead and make note of those. I know I have noted a few and I know Mr Hanlon has as well. But if there's anything else that you're feeling a little uncomfortable with or things we want to make sure that we capture that that is the intent of Thursday. And the plan is on Thursday to basically complete out the decision. You can spend the weekend cleaning it up making sure it's all nice and clean to make sure we has one last chance to look at it. And then Tuesday, May 30 at 730 we would have a very short meeting essentially just to pick up any last second corrections and to vote on the decision and then be done, because we have to be done by a week from Sunday. So that is those intentions. And then after that we have a hearing on June 13 at 730, which is the continuation of 10 sunny side. And then Tuesday, June 20. We have a regular hearing scheduled. And Colleen I believe you said there were two cases on for the 20th. Is that right. There are two, but there was a third that came in today that I can actually have ready. So three hearings. Right. So Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hamlin. I just wanted to avoid stopping before we get to July 11, but the hearing that we've terribly. We've reserved the time on July 11 for the next hearing after the 13th on the 10 sunny side case. And it looks to me as if we're going to be using that date. So hoping everybody continues to save it. Great. Thank you. I know myself, Mr. Hamlin have reached out to everyone if you have vacation plans that you know of just let us know so we can make sure we get it into the record so that we know who's available when and we're not scheduling. Hearings with people aren't available. So if you haven't had an opportunity to send those in, please go ahead and do so. And with that, I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would like to thank Colleen Ralston and Marisol out for their assistance in preparing for and hosting our online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings is our understanding the recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI dot TV. Within the coming, let's say weeks. If you have any comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zba at town Arlington dot ma dot us that email address is also listed on this only board of appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Mr chairman, Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DuPont vote of the board to adjourn for the evening. Mr. DuPont. Hi, Mr. Hanlon. Hi, Mr. Holly. Okay. Mr. Kudely. Hi. Ms. Hoffman. Hi. Mr. Leblanc. Hi, and the Chair votes aye. We are adjourned, thank you all very, very much. Goodnight everybody. Night. My.