All right, so it is 732 PM on Tuesday, March 22nd, 2022. It's a good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm 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 all members and anticipated officials are present. So members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Dan Riccadelli. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Venkat Holley. Here.  On behalf of the town, Riccadelli, our board's administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. And joining him is Vincent Lee, who may be stepping out, because I know he has a second meeting he's working on as well this evening. So. Correct. Perfect. And then appearing on behalf of our various cases for 1113 Lowell Street and 83 Palmer Street, Bob and Essie. Yes, I'm here. Good to see you. Appearing on behalf of 25 Highland Avenue, I'll look up Ola Bonn. I'm here. Good to see you. Thank you. If you want to wait Pleasant Street, Carl Koiner. Seen him earlier. Back to him for four, six river streets. Dennis Marino Lascaux. I'm here. I believe my architect, Wiley Brown, is waiting to be let in. Ah, okay. There's nobody in the waiting list at the moment, but he does arrive. We will let him in. And then for 44 Edmund Road, James Cipher, but I don't know if he's appearing this evening because they have requested a continuance by letter. So I don't think you'll be making an appearance. Okay, so this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures signed into law on February 15th, 2022. This act includes an extension until July 15th of 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via Zoom app 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 computer audio or by phone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain 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 the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. Ms. Chair, reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts, discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotomy, an Algonquin word meaning swift waters. The board hereby acknowledges 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. This evening, I am very pleased to announce the select board voted on March 7th to approve another well-credentialed member of our town to fill the open associate position on our board. Like to introduce her to the board and ask her to briefly introduce herself, Elaine Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am a local architect with about a decade of experience in and around New England. And I am a passive house certified professional as well as a lead accredited professional. And my expertise is in sustainable designing, particularly related to operational energy and embodied the harmony of new and existing structures. And I'm just excited to be joining the board to help understand and assess the environmental implications of the topics before the board as relate to the zoning bylaws. So thank you. Fantastic, thank you so much. Welcome. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I was wondering if you could, as we're getting into the meeting further, if you could authorize me to record, it will make doing opinions easier later on. Ms. Chairman, you should be okay to record. I think it's a, I think I'm fine. Thanks. Perfect. Okay. So I'm going to sort of swap the order of things on our agenda this evening in order to try to make things a little smoother here. I'm going to jump right ahead to the hearings. As attorney to the public hearings on tonight's agenda, some ground rules for clearing conduct. There's a nice business after I announce each agenda item off the applicant to introduce themselves for themselves, make the presentation to the board, then request members of the board ask questions they have on the proposal. And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. And at the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote on all matters. So the first is what appears on the agenda is item number six, stock at three, six, eight, seven, 1113 Lowell Street, fair for the applicant is Robin Essie. Yes, thank you. Thank you for hearing me this evening. I'm giving an order of stay and that the board has heard from the building commissioner, Michael Champa, with respect to the fact that Mr. Champa has located within the bowels of town hall, a an old decision from 1961 that I kept referring to on the building card that I had introduced on a couple of hearings indicating that there was a zoning decision reflecting the fact that the zoning board in 1961 had agreed that the property had been converted from a three to a four family structure. Unfortunately, this matter has gone on for a year and a half without that decision having surfaced. And quite frankly, it came down to the ninth inning for my client because he was getting fire sale offers to purchase the property from the folks who wanted to buy it from him saying, you're never going to get a four, all you're going to get is a two, so sell it to us for whatever. Fortunately, he did not do that. So I'm happy that Mr. Champa was able to find that decision. He's indicated that he is prepared to issue the permit if he's not done so already. I'd like to make a comment too about the building department, particularly why the building inspector had to go to the bowels of town hall to find this decision. Why isn't there enough money in the town budget so that we can have someone on staff in the building department who can fulfill that role so that we don't have an important individual like the acting building commissioner having to go to the basement of town hall to try to find old decisions like this that never should have happened. And I'm wondering if the collective zoning board of appeal in its wisdom could maybe make application to the town in some manner, whether it's the board of selection or some other body for some sort of a budgetary allocation so that someone can be appointed to the building department for the purpose of doing this kind of ministerial work that frees up the building inspector to do what the building inspector or commissioner should really be doing. And again, I think it's a waste of town resources. I grew up in this town, I've owned property in this town all of my life. I like to see my tax dollars go be used in a productive way. And having the building inspector go to the basement of town hall to look for old decisions is not having my tax dollars used in a productive way. One more comment. I'm hoping that the board when it has its meeting in a couple of weeks, we'll talk about the fact that late filings to the board should not be allowed to come in where the applicant doesn't have an opportunity of responding. When you have something come in to the board hours before a zoning hearing and the applicant that really doesn't have an opportunity to respond. That happened to me twice in 11 to 13 Lowell Street. And the first time I simply let it go by the second time I couldn't let it go by because my back was against the wall. The other issue here is that had this matter gone forward had the zoning board turned it down, had it gone to court, had it been turned down. And later on had the decision shown up, guess what? The town could not be sued. The building commissioner could not be sued. Town employees could not be sued. But Bob and Essie as council for the applicant probably could be sued if the argument could be made that he didn't act in a due diligent way to try to ascertain where that old decision was. So my point is I would like to see remedial steps made. I understand there are difficulties in the building department at this point. I understand there are budgetary issues that have to be looked at as well, but you've got to free the building commissioner up. So he can do his job and he's not doing ministerial functions. That's all I have to say. Thank you. I do know that the building department has been trying to hire an additional inspector for a period of time and has not been not had much success in terms of filling that position. And I would ask Mr. Valerelli if he knows if that position has been filled yet I'm by sense that it probably hasn't. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. So we have a candidate and we are still shot staff to secretarial positions that we are now interviewing the town is interviewing. So we're getting there, but Mr. Nessie is absolutely right. We've been shot staff for many, many months at this point. So with all this in mind, so in regards to 1113 Lowell Street, the request was a determination by the board that the building could have four units. And as Mr. Nessie noted, the 1961 decision was located that does indicate that the building is currently allowed to have four units. And so with that there is and the building inspector has acknowledged that and has agreed to issue the permit. So I believe at this point that all that's left is for the board to dismiss the complaint because it's no longer required. Does that meet your needs, Mr. Nessie? That's, I would agree with that. I can withdraw it as well, either way. If you don't mind with, I think withdrawal is probably the proper way to go. Do note, we have a couple of people who would like to speak to this issue. So before I call on them, I just wanna ask on the board, are there any members of the board who have a question as regards to this matter with Lowell Street? Seeing none. I'll now open the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments will only be taken as they relate to the matter at hand. Should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing a decision. Members of the public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. The chair asks those wishing to address the board a second time during any particular hearing to please be patient and allow those wishing to speak for the first time to go ahead. Members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone, please dial star nine. Indicate you would like to speak. If we called upon by the meeting host, we'll be asked to give your name and address for the record and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions to be addressed through the chair, please remember to speak clearly. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time is ended, public comment period will be closed. So with that, the first person wishing to speak is Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I noticed that the building inspector is not on this call. Perhaps Mr. Valerelli is familiar with the searching that Mr. Ciampa had to do. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? Mr. Valerelli, are you aware of the circumstances of the search? It is, Mr. Moore and Mr. Chairman. So the area of the town hall that has all the records is for lack of a better term, a mess. Right, right. Mr. Valerelli, you don't have to give me those details. I was asking if in the absence of Mr. Ciampa, Mr. Valerelli could answer questions that I might have. So just to save the board's time. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Moore, I cannot. All I saw was the decision that was found. I know none of the background of this at all. Okay, all right, well, thank you, Mr. Valerelli. No, I appreciate your being familiar. When Mr. Anesti mentioned that the decision was found in the bowels of town hall, I wanted to find out if he was being facetious or was that literally true? And it sounds like from what you're saying, it was literally true found in the basement of the town hall where I had been, I'm familiar with what it is. And since that is the case, I want to megaphone what Mr. Anesti had to say. It's shocking and embarrassing and unprofessional for what I've found to be down in the basement of the town hall. And if that's true, that valid records are down there because it was hard to tell whether or not they were valid or just forgotten or extra or temporary or whatever. If there are valid records down there, this situation must be remediated. It's critical, particularly in this case, as Mr. Anesti clearly points out, that there could have been litigation that came out of a mistake made because of the quality of those records and their storage. I think I would like to, as I said, put stomp what he had to say in that the town budget needs, money needs to be found. I don't really care where and I don't really care whose department. This is a permanent building, so maybe it comes out of that one. This must be, it must be lit, cleaned up and figured out. And the fact that the building inspector had to go do that because he was short staffed, I understand that may have been because of COVID and a number of people going, but even administrative or secretary people should not have had to go down there and do that. It's, right now is dangerous and I want to foot stomp that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So I have this feeling that we're being told this because we happen to be here. And, but it certainly is not within our purview to determine the budget, either of the inspectional services or anyone else. And I think for those people who feel strongly about this, including Mr. Nessie and Mr. Moore, that they would be find themselves more effectively making their feelings known to Mr. Puller and to the finance committee, who ultimately are the ones who have to make these kinds of decisions. And we have, other than that this is all on ACMI, we have no real role in being able to do that. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Hanlon has an excellent point. I didn't mean to make it so strongly as I was sounding to this particular board, but because he's right, it's not your guys responsibility. And it's a very, it's very well taken. I just want to, when, if the chairman or the board members have a chance to bring this issue forward, I would appreciate their support. I also will ask that question. Good point, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next on our list is Mr. Loretty. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Loretty, 56 Adams Street. Can you hear me? I can, sir. Thank you. First, I'd like to just start with a question. I'm looking at the list of reference materials for this hearing. I'm seeing one that's clearly the decision to which Mr. Nessie referred. Has that been posted? That is a very good question. Mr. Valorelli, do you recall if that was posted? I do not, Mr. Chairman. I know that the building commission has sent that personally to the chair and to the members, I believe. Okay. Yeah, well, I don't want to waste a lot of time. I don't think it has been. And so I must share Mr. Nessie's frustration about not having access to the relevant documents in a timely manner. But I would to suggest that it's not merely a problem for the town. The current understanding by the law requires decisions to be filed 3 of D. I think not. And I will ask Mr. Nessie to ensure that it has been in that all future decisions of his colleagues are because too often are not filed. Now, since I can't comment intelligently on the substance of whether this should be treated as a two family or a four family home, not having seen that decision, I would just like to raise one other point. If indeed it is illegal for a family, I hope the board can agree that it is not a one or two family home. And if it's not a one or two family home, then the provisions of the zoning bylaw that apply to other types of structures apply. And I haven't looked closely enough at the plans, but indeed if the applicant is seeking to increase the floor area, then they have to come back before your board. And Mr. Ciampa cannot simply grant a building permit. And I say that because if it's not a one or two family home, then that property is subject to a 0.35 or 35% floor area ratio, which it already exceeds. And the zoning bylaw is explicit that that ratio cannot be increased for other than a one or two family home. It also has other dimensional non-conformities that will trigger review by your board, either for a special permit or for a variance. And so I don't want the board to just wash their hands of this and say, oh, great, Mr. Ciampa can just grant the building permit with no further review of our board. Because by my reading of the zoning bylaw, that is not the case at all. And that's an issue is somewhat separate from whether it's a legal, well, it's related to the issue of whether it's a legal two family or a legal four family. But clearly the applicant can't have it both ways. They cannot claim that this is a legal four family home and then seek to have the zoning, you know, the zoning exceptions for one or two family homes apply. It doesn't work that way. So I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, but that's my take on this. And I will hope, I do hope that the board can see that that decision is posted at some point. Thank you. Next on our list is Mr. Seltzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Don Seltzer Irving Street. It kind of got sucked into this docket back in January when I was attending ZBA for another hearing and was just sort of interested in it. And at the time I did, in real time, I actually did some historical research and provided Mr. Nessie with some photographs of the building which suggested the four family use. But I think it was from the 1980s and probably isn't relevant to what was happening back in 1961. So I have a couple of questions trying to understand how the bylaw treats non-conforming properties. The first one has to do with that 1961 building permit. It was worded that it was to add a single room. And I'm wondering if that constitutes a conversion from a three family to four family, since obviously it's not adding a kitchen, which is necessary for an additional living room or even a bathroom. And the next point is 8.1.7, which relates to the restoration, abandonment or non-use of non-conforming uses. I've sent the board a history of the occupancy. And the interesting thing is after these 1961 events, the usage shows that clearly for at least five years was not used as a four family. In fact, the 11 whole street side was used just for one family. And it wasn't until 1967 that we see any evidence that it was actually being used as a four family. So I'm not sure how 8.1.7 applies to this. And the final question is it appears that there's been a recent demolition of the rear annex of the existing building. I didn't see a permit for that. And I'm just wondering, does that somehow constitute an abandonment of use as a four family? I'm not sure I expect you all to be able to present answers to that this evening, but just some issues to be considered. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seltzer. I'm looking at the card. I may admit some people from the waiting list. Yeah, I think just so sure. This is the packet, the application package, the current application package. So they are intending to, although the size of the building is increasing, the lot coverage is being reduced. And so that may be that rear portion of the building that is being removed as to the increase in the floor area ratio. That's something that is up to the zoning administrator, the zoning official from the town to note if that's an issue and then to call for the appropriate review. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. If I'm not mistaken, in this case has gone on for a long time and my memory gets shorter and shorter as my years get longer. But I believe this is an appeal from a decision of the building inspector. And the building inspector has indicated to us that he intends to withdraw that decision and make a different decision. At that point, there's really nothing before us anymore. There's no decision that we could really make if we reverse the decision of the building inspector we'd be doing the very same thing he did before. And since he's backed away from the decision that was being appealed, really there's nothing before us. There may very well be reasons why it is that people who are interested in re-raising legal questions about this should be in touch with Mr. Champa. And it's conceivable that other people beside the applicant could appeal a decision of the building inspector. But either way, none of this is right for us. We don't have a special permit application. We don't have a variance application. There's nothing before us to appeal. And so it is true that Mr. Rinesi is just waiting here to withdraw his application. And I don't see any reason or any ability that we have to not grant that because there's nothing left for us to decide. I agree, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Very good. So at that point, then let's go ahead. I will stop the share on this. Where's my sharing window go? Okay. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment for this hearing. And we'll go ahead and accept the withdrawal from the applicant. Mr. Moderick, can I add one thing? Mr. Loretty? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chris Loretty. Mr. Selser, I would just like to follow up on something that Mr. Selser said. And again, I feel like a disadvantage not seeing being able to see the decision. But the question I have is this, if a decision was made to allow a four units in that building, but subsequently those units were removed so that it became a legal two family, then doesn't the two family limitation apply? And doesn't the applicant have to show that the four units were continuously used since the time that special permit was issued? I really don't think that the documentation that has been shared on the town website does that. And I would just say to Mr. Hanlon's point that indeed, if the only decision before the board is whether this is a legal two family or a legal four family, then I understand his point and it goes back to Mr. Chiampa. But that does not necessarily mean that he's free to simply issue the building permit, giving the dimensional considerations that may suggest that this has to go back to your board in any case. Thank you. Loretty. So with that, I'm gonna go ahead and formally close the public hearing. And we'll move on. So at this point, Mr. Ernestie, we will go ahead and accept your withdrawal of 1113 Lowell Street with respect to the building inspector and then it's up to the building inspector to proceed with the review of the application in light of the decision from 1961. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if we need to have a motion and vote to formally accept the withdrawal. We can certainly do so. I move that we, this should be quick. I move that we accept Mr. Ernestie's withdrawal of the appeal. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont, vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Driccadelli. Aye. And Mr. Holley and chair votes aye. Ms. Hoffman had to jump off the call this evening. She was able to join us just at the start, but she has prior business travel this evening. So she's. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I just, just to make sure the record is clear and that everybody who was here and is shared their opinions with us is clear on this. Our, our acceptance of the withdrawal of the application doesn't express any opinion, whatever, on the merits of any of the issues that have been raised either tonight or previously. There's a process that's going to start again as to whether to grant this building permit and what the legal ramifications are. Mr. Champa is the one who is responsible for making those decisions in the first instance. And if we do see it again, we'll take it under advisement in the way it's, in the way it's presented to us then. Thank you. That I will, on the agenda, I will move to, I'm going to pull the next item. It's actually docket number, item number 11, which is docket 365883 Palmer Street. I'm bringing this forward because this is also a case being brought forward by Mr. Nessie. Yes. The, I had originally asked to have this matter continued. I am not the attorney who is handling the application for a building permit that's going to be filed under the energy bylaw or it's a different attorney. The, I had originally asked to have it continued. Upon reflection, I think my request for a continuance would be for a longer period of time than would be reasonable. Consequently, I've changed my mind and I'm requesting that the matter be withdrawn without prejudice. Now, I am keeping my options open. I will, Mr. Klein indicated that at one point. I am keeping my options open. That is if for any reason, the other attorney who files under the energy bylaw is not successful with that. I would like to come back and go forward before the board with the matter that I have filed, the application I have filed. So I would like to have it withdrawn without prejudice. And I'm requesting that of the board at this time. Thank you, Mr. Nessie. Are there any questions from the board in regards to this matter? Are there any questions or comments from the general public on this matter? I'll open the public comment period. And I'll go ahead and close public comment period. So with that, may I have a motion to withdraw the special permit application for 83 Palmer Street without prejudice? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. The vote of the board, Mr. DuPont. Your hand, Luke. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rickardelli. Hi. Mr. Holley. Hi. The chair votes aye. So that is withdrawn without prejudice. Thank you very much, Mr. Nessie. Thank you for your time. Good evening. Good evening. So with that, I'll move back up our list to, excuse me, item number seven, docket number three, six, seven, seven, 25 Highland Avenue. So this is a continuous from a prior hearing. The board had previously voted a special permit in regards to certain aspects of this project. What's before us now is the second portion of this request, which was a variance in regards to parking in the front yard setback. So with that, I will turn to Olga Vaughn. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Thank you again for giving me time to speak on this matter. And I wanna start with the end of a last meeting we went. I went before the board in regards to 25 Highland Avenue. We are doing two-family renovation and this time in this variance we're asking for additional parking in front of the house. And the board asked me to provide structural plan for parking, address the visibility issue, address the fact how the dirt will be removed and also get a geotechnical research on the soil in front of the property. So the file is attached to, would you like me to share this or you can share that? And I can just walk through each document. So the first one I have here is the plot plan. Yes, so the plot plan has been updated and you can scroll it. So you can see on the front of the house, this is the proposed slab for the parking, which is 20 by 18. As discussed previously, we're planning for two cars and a little bit extra space in front for future occupants to have maybe trash cans, few things of that nature, not more than that, because currently there is no space that trash cans have to be dragged all the way up and down for trash removal. So for that we're planning to have a little bit space in front for the trash cans and two cars parked. There is a tree as you can see on the right side on the bottom, which is on the sidewalk. For requirements we have to be four feet from the tree and we exactly fitting in the parking slab between the tree and the current walkway up, which will be also replaced and reinforced, it just in a really bad condition at this point. So can you scroll up? I can have other documents attached there. Sure, they came through as individual ones, so I'm gonna go ahead. Oh, okay, because if I share the screen, I can just scroll through them. Okay, so this is a geotechnical engineering report. As you can see, it's a pretty short report. We had a geotech on site. We called the dig safe and they came in on site to do the site tour to check in the front of the property that we're intending to build 20 by 18 parking slab on the grade. So they have down the test pits within the area and determined that there is a test pit reveal that there is a boulder ledge two feet down, which a couple other tests on the same area also relieve that. So our plan at this point is to retain Geotechnical Engineering Service, this particular company to work with us on site when we will start even approved doing this work. So they will be monitoring. If the ledge is too excessive and we don't have a way to remove it, we will definitely have to stop. But according to this report and we spoke with them on site, that should not be a problem. That's something what they do every day really. That's the service they provide. So is the thought that they would be able to excavate the material without the need for shipping? Okay, this is the dig safe notice. Yeah, that's the dig safe was called in. It's the structural drawings. Yep, so this is a structural plan for this lab, particularly this is the wall retaining wall done by design LLC, T design LLC. And it has, I think three documents should be all together with it. Perfect, thank you. This is a retaining wall review, this footings and the vertical section of the back wall. And so the approximate height of the wall is eight feet, is that correct? Yes, and that will be the highest point. That's what it is, going up to the house. That's the document. So based on the last meeting, I feel like the biggest concern for a lot of members of the board and the neighborhood was where the solution to address the visibility concern. So I've done my research and I put it into these documents. As option one, we're proposing to install an alley exit kit, which is used widely on the garage exit, on alley exits. It warrants pedestrians when the vehicle is exiting out of this more parking facility or with a voice alert and flashing car coming next. So if you scroll down, you will see this is how it looks. So it has this three, how it operates. It has this trigger, triggering sensor, detects a vehicle, start exiting the parking spot and it sends the signal to pass controller located inside of the sign. The pass controller will activate the system and the voice alert attention vehicle exiting watched for vehicles, plus that a sign will flash. It does have a light. So it doesn't matter during the day or night, it will be flashing with the light. So pass controller will continue to activate the sign for 10 seconds. It is adjustable, it can go for longer. Or if a second vehicle activates the system and it resets another second timer. Again, it can go for longer, it can be adjusted. So if the residents feel like the sound can disturb them, that also audio can be cut off and the flashing only can be used. So that's one of the option, option two, are the adjustable mirrors that can be placed across. Those are used again, also a lot for backing up. It's ideal for private and business usage. In this particular case, that will be private usage for this property. It gives more safety increases. Doesn't matter if you indoor or outdoor, they will work just fine. Again, the description of the mirror there. So first option, second option can be used on their selves or together scroll down. You'll see both options can be hang different ways. Up or down can be adjusted for better visibility as an extra solution again. So I put together a little bit more of information, additional information on backup cameras. As we all know, most of the cars, all of the cars at this point have backup cameras. It was a federal requirement since 2018, but even before that, a lot of cars been equipped with backup cameras. So that mandate just increased the amount most of the car that are manufactured from 2018 do have that. Also, besides backup cameras, there's a multiple different safety features in the cars right now. The rear parking sensors that will sound an alarm or when the vehicles coming by in the back or even if somebody walking. In addition to the backup cameras on many vehicles today supplemented, also Red Cross Traffic Alert, also senses traffic approaching from either side when in the reverse. And cross traffic alert sound and alarm, but also growing number of vehicles equipped with automatic rear braking. So car will just stop on its own if it detects vehicle or pedestrian approaching. So yeah, that's it. So this is four points that I had to address and I've tried to do my best putting it all in documents. As I mentioned at the beginning, there was a dirt removal question. Dirt will be removed offsite. There is no real space in the property to place that. So that has to be taken out. Thank you very much for that. So this is a request for variance. So we discussed prior requests for variances. Variances have a different set of criteria than a standard special permit and has a higher threshold for approval because a variance is essentially requesting to do something that is against local zoning. And in this case, I have the application here in front of us. The request is for two parking spaces in the front yard which in this case would require cutting into the hillside in order to create the parking spaces currently this house. And excuse me, the adjacent properties, particularly heading up Highland Avenue, do not have parking because of a considerable grade change on the edge of the sidewalk. And visiting the site this past weekend, looking at the site relative to the application and the provided site plan, it appears that the height of the existing retaining wall at the edge of the sidewalk in the location where the discussion is to put the parking spaces is about five foot four. The cut would be five foot four of the sidewalk and then would be increasing. This has been said at eight feet at the back wall. So that's the size of the retaining that needs to be put in place within the front yard setback in order to accommodate those spaces at the level of the sidewalk. And then obviously they'll also require a curb cut which is a separate application from the engineering division. So there are four criteria that are required for a special permit, excuse me, for a variance which is enumerated here at the top. There has to be something related to the soil condition shaped topography of the land or structure, which especially affects such land or structure but not affecting generally the zoning district which is located that a literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship and desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance of bylaw. And those requirements are, sorry about that, I think I, am I still on the call? Yes, you are. Oh, good. Okay, I lost my video there. So these are established under state law. So they are not something that the board has a lot of discretion over. So let me go ahead, I would like to just zoom in a little bit on this. So typically a house in Arlington, you would have parking either under the house or in the side yard or in the rear yard. In this case. There is none, just because of the way it sits on the hill. And so the request is to provide for parking in the front yard. Yeah, at least, well, there's no more space for two cars. So each occupant for each unit has a space. And currently, I believe they do have parking on the street, is that correct? To my knowledge, yes. Yeah. All those properties, neighbor to the left and neighbor to the right, who does not have a parking in front. To my knowledge, we all park on the street. Are there questions from the board in regards to? We, as I remember and members of the board do remember we had extensive conversation on all the points and we all had a time to talk about and discuss that. What really stands out in what I'm asking for as the owner of the property, my goal is to have to build renovated property for the new occupants and have just comfortable living. I do understand there is available parking on the street. However, it's all possible with the right approach of the building and structural engineers to build that retaining wall and to have two parking in front of the property. It's all possible. It is a not large development as I'm sure we do a lot of work through in those meetings. My husband and I, we are just a smaller company and this is not a first project in Arlington. We do pride ourselves on a quality work and what we deliver to the towns that we work in. And that's why I do this meetings myself. My goal is to have a comfortable, nice property for the new occupants. And in this case, we do see opportunity in front of the property to have this parking, to have just comfortable convenient for the owners. And that will add value in my opinion. So from the board's perspective, the fact that you can build it doesn't necessarily mean that we are allowed to allow it to be built under state law. So we do need to evaluate the criteria. So we appreciate your providing the additional materials that are very helpful to our discussion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. Yeah, so could we review sort of what the dimensional aspects of this are? Because we've got the street, we've got the sidewalk, we've got the existing retaining wall. And could we sort of go through what the dimensions are gonna be like at the end of the retaining wall? Where is the end of the proposed parking, front yard parking, is, so that's right on essentially the sidewalk. And so at the corners where you have the retaining wall, what are the heights right at those corners? I know, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that they started a certain height and then they move backward and they increase as you get toward the house. So could we talk a little bit about what that is and how does that conform to our bylaw? I know we have some provisions in the bylaw as far as visibility goes in terms of in terms of what the heights are supposed to be as you're coming out onto the street. I'm not sure that those strictly apply at the sidewalk but could we go through again those dimensions please? Certainly, so at present the, so this is the retaining wall that's there currently and currently it has a break for the walkway, the steps up. So at this point here at the edge of the steps and then at a point here approximately four feet from the center line of the tree, the top of that wall is mostly parallel going following the sidewalk. It's around five foot four, somewhere between five, four and five, six. And will that height be maintained under this proposal? So the goal is not to touch the grading on the right. However, if we have to just for visibility issue to regrade say three feet in and remove the grade that's to increase the visibility that's possible. However, right now the proposal is only work solely in the slab proposed 20 by 18. So we started with five four and the highest number on the back will be eight feet. So just to be clear, so it is still going to be roughly five foot four at the retaining wall as the driveway meets the sidewalk. Correct. Well, the goal is not to touch the grade anymore only work in that 20 by 18. However, where the stairs going up walkway to the property there will be much better visibility obviously just because the grading is done from previous with having the walkway going up. So that allows for greater visibility. The right side will have a higher five four. Now again, if say we need, I made a note last time. I think somebody did mention there was a requirement on the lowest, if we have to come down to four feet to just regrade that hill, so to speak, to increase the visibility that we can do because the dirt will be coming upside no matter what. So Mr. Dupont, I would go ahead and ask Mr. Valarelli if he can confirm what the recurrent town bylaw requirement is for visibility at the corners. TM is a TM and so far from the fourth lot by the retaining wall, lock fence or whatever. I cannot exceed 30 inches in height for the first five feet going inward toward the property. So not exceed 30 inches and extending five feet in. That's correct. So the first five feet can only be 30 inches high. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So as I understand it then the request for the variance would be not only for the parking in the front yard but it would also have to be for the requirement of that 30 inches for a length of five feet, a distance of five feet. That would be correct. So in this case at the right side we'll have to be a regraded. That's retaining wall in front of the property has to be redone anyway actually. Which is not in a good shape right now. Mr. Chair, I have a question. To Holly. For the pad is gonna be around 360 square feet over the 350 limit for the paved surface. Is that something that's triggering impervious surface? Yes. So is the proposed to the proposed? This is a concrete slab, is that correct? Right. That's what we're proposing. But I do also understand the concern. If we have to put a pavers pervious or pervis there is a different options right now on the market for pervious driveway solutions. That will allow the water to run off. That can be done as well to minimize the... Because in town if you increase by more than 350 square feet you have to go through engineering for a stormwater. Right. So currently on this property on this lot there will be no concrete, no slabs. It's all mostly just wood sunken patio we have on the first floor proposed and it's gonna be all grass. That's the plan. There was no pavers anywhere in the back, it's all grass. Right. But the slab here is greater than 350. Right, right, right. So yeah, in this case we'll have to get a pervious solution for the parking. Either the pervious pavers or there's a eco-friendly, a type of driveways available on the market too of a research dose as well. Are there other questions from the board? Just an observation that just an eight foot structural wall needs some drain or weeps. Otherwise it's gonna over a feet of time. Just a side note, I think I didn't see one from the structural wrong. Thank you, actually I did observe that too. I meant to ask that question. My partner was working with the structural engineering on getting that done. In the past we build the walls of that height and there was a drainage accounted for. We've done that. In the structural section that it is there isn't an indicated four inch seepage drain at 48 inches, so that would hopefully be there. Any further questions from that board? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So just one question. I think just looking back at the variance requirements and I know one of them is that variance requests don't create detriments to the public and I'm just wondering, I know that when we previously reviewed this there were some groundwater issues. So just trying to, I can't comment on whether this would impact that groundwater condition that we already reviewed. But based on Mr. Halley's comment in yourself just wondering how we could evaluate that to make sure it's not detrimental to any rivers. So besides, can I answer that question? Because I spoke to the geotech company that was on site for the front parking. They also have done analysis for us for the right side of the property where we have a four foot wall because that question came up on my special permit as well. And they have established that is with the recall right I've sent in all the information to the building department. There is no groundwater issues whatsoever even though we have put in that four foot wall on the property line. It also was proposed by structural engineer which we provided all the plans to the building already. Builder is putting a crushed stone along the wall on the side of 25 Highland Avenue. However, there was no signs of a water issues notice at the point of the analysis. And there's no visibility, visible issues that that could be an issue at all. Thank you Ms. Van. Mr. Chairman. Mr. President. I don't want to elevate the form over substance and I really do appreciate Ms. Van's diligence in getting information to us over a period of time. When I look at the application and I don't actually have it in front of me I just have notes. And I'd be curious to know what the rest of the members of the board feel. I mean, it's really talking about a variance from the requirements as far as location of parking spaces go. And it's not really in relation to what we were just discussing which is that requirement that walls or other construction pieces are no higher than 30 inches. And so I don't see that as being part of the relief that's being requested. And that said, I know the board tends to try to help applicants to form there or formulate their applications or petitions and we try to be flexible on that point but I'm just not sure that that's actually before us. And I do have a concern about that particular part of things because I think it's a critical element. And so I know that there's a representation being made that there's not going to be a visibility issue but I'm not sure that there's any evidence of that in front of us. So I do have a particular concern that that's not actually part of what's before us tonight. And so I'm not sure exactly how to proceed on that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Once we get finished asking our questions, is there going to be a continuation of the public hearing? There is, yes. Okay. That will probably happen right now. Unless there's any further questions from the board, I would like to open this hearing up for public comment as Mr. Hamils. Yes. What will be the height of the wall at the back towards the house? Eight feet. Okay. Eight feet? Yes. It sounds dangerous. If somebody's falling eight feet and you can break a leg. Right. Falling from the top, you mean we can put a rail in? Yeah. I mean, it's going to be right yet. People are going to be walking around. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. As a common space, somebody can jump off of the, that will be, that has to be secured. Yes. Thank you. I wouldn't want my kids play on that front here. So I'm going to go ahead and open this for public comment. Comments are taken as they relate to the matter that's been directed to the chair. If you can raise your hand using the raise hand feature under the reactions tab, or if you're dialing in, you can dial star nine. So first on our list is Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I am going to talk about the tree, the public tree that's there at a moment before I get to that. I'd like to mention that.  I'm not a general contractor or a builder. However, I'm concerned about removing this much material, this close to a foundation that's already existing, from a perspective of ledge removal and actually any instability that may be caused by removal of all that material. Yeah, I know there's going to be a retaining wall built and such, but you've got to remove all that material first. And I just, it just doesn't feel right instinctively. However, I'm not an expert. So I'm sure something like that probably can be done. The finished product when this is, when it's completed, however, visually will be not only striking, but kind of shocking, I believe, and looking around the other area of the neighborhood in the vicinity of this property, there's nothing at all like that. And I'm not sure how much in keeping with the neighborhood this sort of sunken into the wall parking that will be remaining will be. It doesn't strike me, it will be in particular keeping with the neighborhood. Speaking to the tree issue, I saw that the measurement is the tree trunk is four feet from the edge of where the driveway will be to remove this much material and build that size of retaining wall and porous slab, much more material closer to less than four feet from the tree trunk is going to have to be excavated and removed even just to build a wall that ends up being to the tree trunk. I'm concerned about the damage that is probably gonna happen to this public street tree. And there has to be a tree hearing, I guess maybe not a tree hearing since they're within the four feet, but they're certainly within the critical root zone of the tree where all this work is gonna happen. Also, there's a number of trees, I believe, either on the neighboring property down the hill or on the edge of the property down the hill. I'm concerned that removal of all this material will destabilize them as well. And if it's ledge or boulders, which I think was the applicant stated, the boulders of the size that exists in this area of Arlington will definitely require a chipping to be removed. I can't believe that it can be excavated and removed without serious disturbing of the entire front area. So I think there are a number of serious issues related to this approach, only to basically address the convenience of parking in the front of the yard as opposed to all this tree. I think it's an extreme solution that's got a lot of risk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Next on our list is Anson Stewart. Hi, can you hear me, Mr. Chair? We can. Great, thank you. I have a number of concerns about visibility. Apologize, I need your even address for the record. Sorry, Anson Stewart 12 Moulton Road, which cuts this property to the rear. I have a number of visibility concerns. I think I spoke to those at the initial hearing on this matter. I think others will probably speak to those concerns better than I will. I just like to make two points, one very detailed and then one much more general. The first detailed one is I don't think the numbers on the plot plan propose to be a 20 foot slab as the interior dimension add one foot for the ball on each side, so that's 22 feet plus four feet from the tree gets you 26 feet. I think the distance from the tree to the edge of the staircase is actually substantially less than 26 feet today. So I'd like some clarity on that, whether they're planning to relocate the staircase as well, which I don't believe is shown as proposed on the plan. The second comment is much higher level and that's just, I do not see how this can meet the second criterion required here. I don't see a substantial hardship. Parking on the street is not a hardship for the neighbors to the left or the right. So I just, I don't see how this appearance requests could be granted as creative and intriguing as some of the solutions are. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. So... Ms. Van, if you can hold off, I'm gonna go ahead and pick the next person and then we'll come back with to address those questions. So with that, I would ask for, is Laurie Medeiros? Hi, I'm Laurie Medeiros. I live at 21 Highland Ave, which is a budding on the downward hillside of 25 Highland Ave. I also, I'm just wondering why a variance would be needed if there's on street overnight parking. There'd be, you get two parking spaces per unit in their overnight parking spaces. So to change those into a driveway seems more like a luxury than an actual extenuating circumstance needed. I don't think really that the mirrors and the lights and the noise and all of that, unfortunately will really deter an accident happening when my parking is still in front of this driveway and they're still gonna be parking on the other side. So it may help if somebody's walking up the sidewalk, possibly, but I don't think it's gonna help if they're backing out into the street because they're already going beyond the width of a car into the street and cannot see. I also am kind of strongly opposed to touching this ledge. This ledge actually 17 Highland Ave, which is next to me on the other side has this ledge in their basement. So a big portion of this ledge is actually sticking out of their basement floor. This ledge goes straight through all of these houses and to begin to excavate that, I think would be detrimental to the properties, the walls, the foundations of the houses around this property. And I just don't really see how that would really be worth it in the long run when there are two parking spaces on the street that go with the house. As far as Ms. Bann saying that there's no issue with water between my house and the house that she is renovating, there is, I have pictures, images, I have video of this said water when we've had rain since the snow has come, the water actually comes out through the wall. It's not even actually coming over the wall. So there is no drainage system behind that wall that runs a length of our yards in between the two houses. As I said before, that land was taken from the basement and never left the property and just dispersed from the sun porch back and up the backyard. So now we have runoff going towards Mr. Anson's house and the back, which is running into his garage and coming down through that wall because I still have never received neuroviscene, any kind of a plan of what they actually put in for drainage there. So I would question what drainage would be going in in this front area for a driveway because again, that would be putting more pressure on the property on my side, my foundation, my stairs are on that side. It's kind of one of those things. And still, as I have requested many of times because the wires to my property run through that tree, and that was one of the main reasons why they put the tree in, I think, that tree is still not been protected. Just like they said, they had somebody out there looking in, they had a front digger to look in if it ran into the tree, the tree needs to be protected. That tree cannot just sit out there, they have still not protected any of the trees in the yard. So I still have a lot of other issues that are currently still going on.  So I think that there's a lot of things going on here with this house and the driveway is just gonna add more on top of what is already here. And I don't really think that putting a luxury driveway in unless there was somebody who already currently lives there and something spectacular that they needed, I could see. I've lived here for 25 years. I've gone up and down the driveway.  I parked in front of the house. I bought a baby up and down the stairs. I've been pregnant up and down the stairs. So it can be done. If somebody wants to buy the property, they will live there and they will love it just like I have. And that's, I guess, all I have to say. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there any further public comments or questions regarding to this application? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment on this. Ms. Materos, the question that was raised by Mr. Stewart about the size of the pathway on the plan, it's showing a 20 by 18 pad. Is the intent that the retaining walls are on top of that pad or are they beyond that dimension? So I intend to have a clear 20 by 18. Okay. However, the plans, the plot plan, all the measurements were done by the professionals. The measurements are done from my explanation to the land surveyor looking for a clear 20 by 18 pad for parking. I can go back. So on the left side where staircase is, staircase will be removed and replaced. However, on the right side, given into the consideration the size of the wall, I have to verify that those dimensions. Because it appears that you would need to, the wall itself would extend a foot beyond that dimension on three sides. And then the footing underneath is going to extend out beyond that as well. An additional foot. So it will be more than, it's going to look more 18 by 17. So if the 20 by 18 is the clear dimension, then the outside of the footing is going to be two feet on all three sides. Right. Okay. So with that in mind, you're talking about, you would be replacing the steps. The steps have to be replaced no matter what they are. Just right now, they're not in the, they are in a bad shape, they are not leveled. Okay. Then this, in this materialist's questions, we do have the, we have the report from the geotech that it is, as he had described it, it's sort of bouldering ledge. So it's not, it's not a continuous ledge, but it's just, it's broken up. That was explained to me. And geotech, the name of the person is, Mark, yes, Mark. Mark, what he explained to me, it is possible. It's not impossible solution. It's not a impossibly dangerous job to do. In this case, this company, Adwork Geotechnical Engineering, they will be on site working, making sure that's done appropriately. And I do appreciate everybody's comments. It's not, I'm not an engineer. I am just developer. Again, this is mine, my husband's business. We hire a specialist to do a certain task that we cannot do, just like, you know, average person will hire accountant to do the accounting. I'm, that's for that reason that we hired engineer, land surveyor for the land, architectural plans to the, to concern of Ms. Loram there is again, the water issue. We have sent people out. If she has records and concerns, Ms. Medeiros, you do have our email. You do have our numbers. And yet you always choose to have this, voicing your concerns over the public hearings. You could email us. You could call us. We met on site multiple times. Your husband met with my partner on site, working on your house while we're working on this property. This property just received full permit to work on. And for that reason, we were not to the property because we didn't have a full special permit approved. It was just received and we're coming back to work. So all the protection will be in place. I'm on top of this. As I know how important it is. Mr. Chairman. I think, you know, just to restore decorum that both Ms. Pan and Ms. Medeiros should be addressing the chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. So ultimately that's decision to the board on approving this or not. I try to address all the issues to the best of my ability. And it's really, I will respect any decision made. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. I don't want to get into too much of a back and forth between the applicant and the next door neighbor, but the neighbor who has requested to speak for a second time. And unless there's an objection from the board, I'm going to go ahead and allow it and just request that Ms. Medeiros make her points to myself as the chair. So Ms. Medeiros. Yes, Mr. Chair. So at the last meeting, I was told that there was going to be a groundwater testing that they had to submit a report on all this other information. And that there was going to be, that they were going to let us know what the drainage system that they used and how it's going. I mean, right now it's going towards me. So I'm just wondering where is the drainage system and all that information? That's all that I was saying. So this isn't a back and forth. This was discussed at the last meeting and I have not gotten any information regarding that since. So we're moving on to the driveway now. And as I've said before, these are all concerns of mine because my house is on the downward slope. They have built their house, their land up three feet. And in that three feet now, is now changed the direction of how the water is coming down the hill of Highland Ave and into my property and into the subsequent properties around me, behind me and everything else. So it is a concern of mine. And as she has, I don't know. That's, I guess, all I have to say. Thank you, Ms. Maderos. Ms. Bant, I know that in the details that were provided at the prior hearing in regards to the wall that's constructed on the down slope adjacent to the property at 21 Highland, it's indicated that it's a masonry wall. It has crushed stone on the uphill side of it and that there's a four inch drainage pipe that's included in that detail. So I just wanted to follow up with you on that. Where does that drainage pipe lead? So based on the plans that were submitted as a condition for a special permit, that drain permit, it's turned into our lot away from 21 Highland Ave. Does it drain water onto the top of the soil? Does it go down into some kind of a French drain? Does it? No, it just goes to the top of the soil, but I want everybody to understand. I had geotech people on site and they told me there is no water issue. We have done this again as a courtesy and there is no water issue. It's only three feet wall. How that wall can change direction of the water. Again, I'm not a specialist. I hired people for that and that was submitted. All right. So moving on from the next question. So for the board, so what we have before us is this application for a variance. And as we had said before, there's the four variance criteria that we need to address. And essentially the first two are really the gatekeepers. And if we agree that if we can make a finding on the first two, that then allows us to proceed to the third and then to the fourth. So when we go and find the original application, which is here and pull that back up. So this is the initial application. So the first criteria is to describe the circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography, especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. That would substantiate the granting of a variance. And so the topography of the, so the issues on the site for soil conditions, obviously it's, there is something under the surface that has caused prior owners to construct a retaining wall along Highland Avenue that has occurred at the adjacent properties as well. And that wall makes it impossible to create off-street parking, which is a requirement under the building, under our zoning bylaw. The question I sort of have in general for the board is that, do we feel that those circumstances affect just this property or is this something that we feel is more generally affects the zoning district? So this is in the two-family zoning district adjacent to Massachusetts Avenue. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. At least on this one, I mean, it's obvious that topography and soil conditions are at the source of the applicant's predicament. And so the question is, is three families, three housing units, general enough that it should be thought of as something for a town meeting to take into account in a broadway or whether it's relatively unique. And I think that given the case law on this, that the application passes muster on this one, that we're only talking about three if we were talking about dozens and dozens or even a substantial amount more, it would be a little different. And we have to be careful about that because the ledge in rock is on the present in the western part of the county. But the particular of this town, but the particular problem that this applicant has is really a problem that is shared by two other units. And I think that that is sufficiently focused that the applicant gets by criteria number one. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Any other questions, any other opinions from the board in regards to criteria number one? Hearing or seeing none, I'll move on to criteria number two. Describe how a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning by-law specifically relating to the circumstances affecting the land or structures noted above would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner or appellant appellant box, excuse me. So in this case, this is in regards to the zoning by-laws prohibition against creating parking spaces within the front yard setback. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I have a view on this one too, which is sort of cuts in the opposite direction from the one I had before. Earlier this evening, Ms. Van summed up what her objective was and really what the hardship is. And what she said was what she's trying to accomplish here is something that will contribute to the comfort and convenience of the new owners. And to me, that's not an unreasonable, that's not an unreasonable hardship. I know that we have recently had a case which also involved a question of parking and I was in the minority on that one as well. But the record was really different in that case. Here we've got a record in which the people, the other people who shared this problem say as Ms. Maduro says, that she's had no problems with this at all. She's climbed this up pregnant after the baby was born. She had the baby in her arms that this has not been an unreasonable hardship to the other people who share the condition that Ms. Van is pointing out. And I don't think that the comfort and convenience of the new occupant is even arguably a hardship. Now, I will say that to some extent I'm keeping beyond to the next issues because if this were all completely flat, if there was nothing on the other side, there's always a temptation I think to view this particularly sympathetically. But I will say that as we get onto the other one side I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Stewart that there are lots of risks here. There are lots of potential problems. The applicant has gone way beyond the call of duty to try to resolve those. But in my mind, it's not completely convincing. It's not that all the questions are answered and I don't really want for us to be in a position if things go wrong, if some of those risks come about of having pushed hard against unreasonable hardship in order to get to those questions. So I think that the applicant doesn't make it on two. And if the applicant doesn't make it on two, the applicant doesn't make it at all and doesn't you need to meet all four. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Other opinions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So I would just echo what Mr. Hanlon has just said. And I was just struck by the fact that the application itself says that it's an inconvenience. And I do think that it's always important to maintain the distinction between inconvenience and hardship. And I think that they're two entirely different things. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. I weigh in with my brothers on these two. I think it's more of a convenience than a hardship we're resolving here. I don't think it meets the demands of the statute. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Anything further on this? At this point, we do have several opinions in opposition to the second criteria. I'll go ahead and let's discuss the final two and then we can come back and address the conditions again. Excuse me, I have conditions, but the individual findings. So the third is describe how desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. For me, this is one I have concerns about. I appreciate the research that the applicant has done in terms of trying to come up with ways to make exiting this driveway safer. But this is a residential neighborhood. This is on a primary pedestrian route and it's a sidewalk that receives a fair amount of use and it's immediately adjacent to a crosswalk. And we're talking about a five-foot wall which a car would be coming around the corner of and certainly all that my concerns with that, we could try to put a mirror, but the mirror is gonna have to sort of stick out a little bit into the sidewalk, I think in order for it to really work. And the sensing system with the, basically it's either gotta be, I mean, the cars gonna be parked pretty much right with at the edge of the curb, at the edge of the sidewalk. There's really not time for a system such as that trigger in order to alert passers by that the car is backing out. And it's a tree right there and there's cars parking on the street. So I have considerable concern that this driveway, if allowed, could be exited safely on a regular basis. Are there other comments from the board in regards to criteria three? Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So as you do, I live in that neighborhood and I'm very familiar with that stretch of Highland Avenue and I would make a couple of observations having lived on that street for more than 20 years. First of all, not only is it a heavy pedestrian route, but it's a lot of school kids who are using that route. And so I know that they travel in groups and I'm just not even sure that with those different methods of warning that kids are really paying attention even if a light is flashing or they hear a noise. I just think they're absorbed. I know that the high school cross country team runs up and down Highland Avenue. So I'm really more concerned about the safety to the kids and I realize that there are neighbors there too who are coming back and forth as well. But I think that the children are of particular importance in this particular case. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Other comments from the board? Mr. Chair, I think with snow, it's adjacent to the pedestrian, the sensor system might, I don't know how that will impact with snow and all that. I think it's a detriment in that sense. Thanks for that. Then criteria four, how desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intended purpose of the zoning bylaws. So by sense on this is the, if the parking space was allowed, certainly there are a lot of instances of parking in the front yard that occur throughout town. So having cars in the front yard would not substantially derogate from the intended purpose of the zoning bylaw. But the high walls on the side do give me pause because that's in violation of a different section of the zoning bylaw and that's there for, specifically for the safety of other residents and that would be difficult to maintain in this case. Other comments on four? Seeing none. So I would go back, I'm trying to recall on the prior variance application if we had voted separately on the different criteria as individual findings or if we had just done a final vote on the variance request itself. Mr. Hanlon, do you recall what we had done? I don't remember. I don't remember. I do think that it's, well, we could do each one but all the applicant has to do is fail on any one of them. It isn't actually necessary to go beyond the first one where the applicant fails on. So I'm not sure that we need to make a specific finding for each one. The variance is a question of grace rather than right in any event. If the board isn't being totally arbitrary at least it could basically say no for without making any of these findings. The findings are necessary for the applicant to win but not necessary for the applicant to lose. But that being the case, if we wanna do a vote on each one of them, that would probably be, it would be okay. I think with that in mind, I would just ask the board, is the board prepared to move to a final vote or do we want to vote individually on that? Well, I see one vote for the proceeding directly to the main vote. I agree with that. I agree. Thank you. Thank you too, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. Okay, so with that, I have a motion in regards to 25 Highland Avenue. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application for variance for 25 Highland Avenue be disapproved. So this is a motion to deny the variance for 25 Highland Avenue. Second. And seconded by Mr. DuPont. Okay, so as written, this is a motion to deny the variance requests for 25 Highland Avenue. So in this case, a yes vote is voting for the denial just to make sure everyone is aware of what the votes mean. So with that, we'll do a roll call vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Rickardelli. Aye. And the chair will vote aye. So the variance application for 25 Highland Avenue is denied. We'll go ahead and we will prepare the appropriate information for that and get that back out to the applicant as soon as possible. Thank you. Well, I just wanna thank you everybody for time and expertise, knowledge and all the sharing comments. That was very available. And as I said, I appreciate and respect decision one way or the other. I love the town and we've been working in it and I probably will see everybody again on maybe some occasion that I have to say. Thank you so much. Have a nice night. Thank you. Thank you too. With that, the next item on our, yep. Next item on our agenda is item number eight docket 3678, which is 108 Pleasant Street. So this is an application that had come before the board previously, but there were some issues in how it was advertised, which the owner was gracious enough to continue so we could get that resolved. So this is officially a special permit request for 108 Pleasant Street, which is a request to convert the building to a three unit dwelling, which is allowed in the zoning district by special permit. So with that, I would reintroduce Mr. Koiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the purpose for tonight's meeting, as you said, is to acquire a special permit. So I'll just quickly review some of the data regarding the property. And it was, it's in R4 district, zoning district, it was constructed in the 1890s by Charles Devereaux, which I believe was possibly Devereaux Street. And he lived in there for quite some time. Starting in the early 1990s, it was converted to a psychiatric unit and I had received a special permit. And that special permit is probably in the bowels of the town of Arlington. And it was used basically as an office, where office cubicles built throughout the whole building, which I have removed. So it uses offices up until about 2019. And then it was bought by Kanchin, a Hong Kong real estate group. And that was in 2014, it sat empty until 2016, at which time I bought it. So I've owned it since 2016. The building's been empty since 2014. So I've been developing as a three unit residential building as shown on the plans that you have. The lot is at the corner of Pleasant and Atkinson. And it faces, or Addison, I'm sorry, it faces Pleasant Street. The lot's 14,401 square feet. It's a large yellow queen ant style house. The floor area as submitted with the architect is 8,302 square feet. And that's over five floors. The floor area ratio is 0.57. For the purpose of three units, we're combining the first floor with the basement. That's 3,670 square feet, including two bedrooms and two baths on the first floor. An in-law apartment that has one bedroom and two baths in the basement. The second floor is the second unit, 2,257 square feet, three bedrooms, two baths. The third unit is the third and fourth floors. That's 2,375 square feet, three bedrooms, three baths. There are front and rear entrances with stair access to each level throughout the house. There's approximately 11 to 13 parking spaces depending if the driveway is included. So those are the specifics regarding the building that I have. I just just to review the neighborhood. My neighbor across the street, across Addison is 100 Pleasant Street. It's a fairly comparable building, slightly large or slightly smaller, I'm sorry. Well, it is a bit smaller, it's 4,592 square feet. And they have six condo units in there, ranging from 501 to 1240 square feet, averaging 765 square feet. So that's on a smaller lot than what I have. So that's on the Arlington Center side of my street. On the Route 2 side of Pleasant Street is a large brick apartment building. It was converted to condos quite some time ago. There's 27 units there. They range from 616 to 987 square feet. So nothing over 1,000 square feet. So that's to either side. Across the street for me is 105 Pleasant Street. It's a somewhat similar building. It's 3,835 square feet with three condos. They range in size from 980 to 655 square feet. And they average 1278 square feet. Behind me on Addison Street is a single family residence. That's 4,420 square feet on a 4,656 square foot lot. So that explains my immediate vicinity. Attaining a three unit special permit on a building that has over 8,000 square feet. The average size of the units in my building will be well over 2,000 square feet, which compares with less than 1,000 feet to either side of me. So with that, that's the end of my presentation. Thank you very much. A quick question for you. Are there any changes to the exterior of the building? No. So just flipping through the remainder of the plan. So this is the proposed basement plan. You had mentioned an in-law apartment in the building. Yeah, see where the circular staircases, see where the circular staircases on the Addison Street side, that connects the first floor with the basement. That's been changed because having a circular staircase when you're getting older is right top. So actually the front stairwell has been extended into the basement. And so the access from the first floor to the basement part of the, is through that stairwell. I call it an in-law, it's one continuous unit. Okay. So it's not, it doesn't have a separate kitchen. Correct, we're limiting, yes. Okay, basement level, first floor level, second floor, third floor. And then this is the attic plan here at the bottom. Correct. Elevations for everyone. Questions from the board? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hanlon. It's my understanding that the, this building is being used as a office, for office use now, is that correct? Mr. Bonner? The office, it was used as an office. The special permit was from the early 1990s for a psychiatrist from Brookline named Udowitz. And the special permit was for apparently some kind of psychiatric living space. It doesn't appear to have been used for that purpose. It was used for office. It was the headquarters for his series of homes around the Boston area. And so it was used in office up until 2013, at which point it was sold. Thank you. Prior to 1990, the history is sketchy. The lady who gave me my vaccine shot said she grew up on Aston Street and she remembers a lot of kids living there. So there might have been some kind of group home or dormitory style, something back in the 1970s. The last time the Devereux lived there was 1921. Other questions from the board? Seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and open this up for public comment. Again, public comment is taken as it relates to the matter at hand. It should be addressed through the chair. If you'd like to be recognized, please use the raise hand feature under the reactions tab, or if you're calling in by phone, you can dial star nine. So with that, I will recognize Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Since I seem to be talking on everything here, why don't you recognize Mr. McAwa? I'm not sure how to pronounce his name. Now I'll cut rather than me first. We can certainly do that if you prefer, Mr. McAwa. Mr. McAwa, can you hear me? We can, sir. Okay, I just wanna make sure the microphone's working all right. Just a question you had asked about exterior changes. Okay, I apologize to the name and address of the record. Oh, sure. Steve McAwa is 17 Russell Street. I'm also chair of the Arlington Historic District Commission. And you had asked a question about exterior changes. Just wanna let the commission know that there were exterior changes done to this project that were in violation of the permit that has been issued by the Historic District Commission. And that is still outstanding. So I don't know if that's within your purview, but that is a impact of this renovation on the character of the district that is still unresolved. Oh, at what point was that permit issued? I would have to go back and look at the date. I apologize, I don't have that in front of me. I just saw this, I just happened to be at this meeting and saw that this was on the agenda. Oh, okay. I'd be happy to provide the certificate of appropriateness to the commission for their records. Thank you. Yes, if you could forward that to Mr. Valarelli, that'd be great. And that is in the building department's records as well. Oh, it is, okay. All of our certificates with building department and with the town clerk. Thank you so much. Sure. Is that Mr. Moore? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad Mr. Makaoka could speak because he answered one of my questions. I did wanna ask a further question though. Is this building currently on the historical register or Arlington's version of that? I guess I would ask that to the applicant. No, it's not. Okay. I would ask, I'm actually gonna forward that question to Mr. Makaoka if I could as well. The structures within the Pleasant Street Historic District as such is on the Arlington list of historically significant structures and is on the list at the MHC, the Mass Historical Commission of Historical Structures in the state of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Makaoka. That's helpful. And it's a beautiful piece of architecture. I was just quickly looking at registration of it and they call it the architectural swan of Pleasant Street. I thought that was interesting. I'm happy to hear that there's not gonna be exterior changes. Clearly this is a beautiful piece of architecture and I wanna commend the applicant in going for that use versus an office use. I know that an awful lot of the grand homes where Arlington have been turned into various versions of offices and insurance agencies and doctors, areas and such. And although I understand that use maintains the architecture, which is wonderful, Arlington has a significant housing problem and although these will be high-end expensive units, I'm quite sure I'm pleased to see that use. So I wanna commend the applicant for turning it into housing. Even though it probably will not be affordable housing, it will be beautiful housing. And when I saw eight fireplaces, I was impressed. So thank you, Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Are there any further questions or comments from the public? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment period on this application. So the application before us is the special permit because of the use that's being requested, which is a three-family use. Certainly the structure is large enough for it appears to be set up appropriately. The comment from Mr. McAlcay in regards to the Historic District Commission does give me a little pause, but I think it might be appropriate for the board to include a condition that the building be made in compliance with the certificate of appropriateness as issued by the Historic District Commission. Any further questions or comments in regards to this application from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. This is, I mean, as you can sort of tell, this is a non-conforming structure in lots of ways, but as long as it is on the existing foundation and there's no external changes, there's no extension of a nonconformity. The provision of the zoning by-law under which this would proceed is intended to allow for the conversion of one in two-family dwellings of these large houses that exist up and down Pleasant Street into sometimes offices and into sometimes apartments or in this case, three-family. And a key consideration of all of this is that the purpose of all of it is to preserve the integrity of the older buildings that are there. And so consequently, I enthusiastically support the condition that the chair has presented that going forward with this, going to put it three, which as a housing advocate, I think it's a great thing and would have been okay if it had been four. Still, it's very important to preserve the integrity of the structure and not make changes in it. And I would be willing to support this, but only on the understanding that that would take place. I'm sorry, can you repeat that last bit again? Said I would be prepared to support this, but only under the understanding that the no changes be made to the exterior of the building. Thank you. Mr. Turner. Mr. DuPont, first, please. Just had a question about when we say, and I also support the application with the proviso that it be made compliant as you had already described. I'm just wondering, is that something that we foresee the building department having the authority to make sure that there's compliance? Because it seems to me that that's what we're saying. I believe that where it is construction, that's actually a very good question. Mr. Vellorelli. Yes, Mr. Chairman. So the hurdle before the applicant is the approval of the special permit for the third unit. That's just the beginning. It still has to go through the review process for possibly sprinkler systems, I'm sorry, suppression systems and the host of other things that the building department will take over if the board approves the special permit. In regards to questions about the outstanding certificate from the Historic District Commission, is that something that the Inspectoral Services would follow up on as well? Absolutely, that gets filed with the building permit package and Mr. McAuliffe always sends us a copy. We would check that automatically, especially because it is on pleasant street. Okay, because the representation of Mr. McAuliffe is that there was a prior notice from their board that there's work that was not done to their directive. And so we just wanna make sure that even though that relates to a prior issue on this property that that would be addressed, if we were to condition it with this special permit that it would be addressed at this time. It would be, Mr. Chairman, if it was a condition of a special permit, I am unaware of any prior notices from the Historical District Commission, but any conditions set forward if the board approves this will be followed. Okay, thank you. I will call back again on Mr. McAuliffe as the chair of the Historic District Commission. Hi, thank you for the recognition. Just for the record, I was able to pull up a copy of the certificate which was dated June 27th, 2019. And that has already been filed with the building department and the town clerk. And I'm happy to send along another copy to the ZBA if you'd like it for your records. If you could use it, that'd be great. Thank you, I appreciate that. Certainly. Any further questions or comments from the board? Seeing none. So the board has three typical conditions which we would include with any application before us. The first is that the plans and specifications approved by the board for the special permit shall be the final plans and specifications submitted to the building inspector of the town of Arlington in connection with this application for zoning relief. Should be no deviation during construction from approved plans and specifications without the express written approval of the zoning board of appeals. Number two, the building inspector is hereby notified that he's to monitor the site to proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time to determine that violations are present. The building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning and bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40, section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and Institute non-criminal complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve an Institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And then number three is the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. I had recommended that we have one that the building be brought into compliance with certificate of appropriateness as issued historic district commission dated June 27th, 2019. And then Mr. Hanlon had recommended, Mr. Hanlon, we recommend that there be a condition as well. No, I think that it would be fine to stick with the condition we have. I do have a question that I wonder if Mr. McCalker could answer. Please. My question, Mr. Chairman, is that is, I just wanted, we're being very specific about what certificate of appropriateness we're referring to. And I just wanna make sure that there's no possibility that there may at some point as things move on, there's maybe an amended application or a renewed application or something that would lead to there being a certificate of appropriateness that isn't dated January, June 27th, 2019. Since I'm concerned that by being over specific, we could find ourselves really, well, that we may be over specific and not taking into consideration all of the possibilities. I do not recall another certificate, but in the overabundance of caution, you may just wanna say no in compliance with the requirements of the certificate issued by the Historic District Commission and we get at that. We could have it as the building. Shall we make compliant with the certificate of appropriateness as issued by the Historic District Commission? And just did it like that with no date. That would make me feel more comfortable, Mr. Chair. And where the property has a, and thank you again, Mr. McAuliffe. Again, where the property has an existing special permit allowing the office use, do we want to, does our issuing a new special permit override that or do we want to rescind that? Not certain how that works, Mr. Valarelli, you know. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, can you repeat the question? Sure, Doug, there's a prior, the applicant stated there's a prior special permit in place to allow an office use on the property. And we're wondering if that should be, if we need to make it, if we're, you know, issuing a new special permit for three family, does that automatically get wiped or do we need to make a statement that we are superseding that? I think just to be on the safe side, that would be a question for the town council, I would put that in as a condition. Okay, I would just say the special, the prior special permit allowing office use is hereby rescinded. Anything further from the board? We have the standard three conditions and then the two additional one is that the building should be brought into compliance with a certificate of appropriateness as issued by the Historic District Commission and then number five is the prior special permit allowing office use is hereby rescinded. And unless there's any further questions or comments from the board, I would ask for a motion. So moved. Second. Maybe that I had a, I'm not sure that there was a so that I could, that I should move the application to be approved subject to the three standard conditions and the additional two conditions that the chairman just read into the record. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Dupont, do you still concur? It still applies. Fantastic. Then with that, a roll call vote at the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Riccadelli. Aye. Chair votes aye. So that special permit for 108 Pleasant Street is approved with the five conditions as discussed. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. You're very welcome. Good luck. Is this written down someplace then? So what will happen, the board will write up a formal decision letter and we'll approve it at our next hearing, which is coming up, I believe April 12th. And then from there, there's a 20 day appeal period, but the decision will be filed with the town clerk. Okay. And you can follow up with Ric at any time if you have questions. Okay, very good. Thank you. With that, our next item is number 3689, which is 46 River Street. So this is a request for special permit. I will just mention briefly before moving on to this that the final docket on tonight's agenda, and I apologize for not mentioning this earlier, number 368844 Edmond Road. The applicant has requested a continuance. So we will actually not be hearing 44 Edmond Road. And if you've been hanging on for the last two hours, I apologize sincerely for not mentioning that sooner. But with that, we will move on to 46 River Street. So with that, if I could ask the applicant to introduce themselves and also what they would like to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the board for this time. And also especially thanks to Mr. Valiere for his good guidance in this process so far. My name is Dennis Lascaux. I'm the homeowner at 46 River Street. I grew up just across the river in Brookline. And until recently, my wife and I and our son were living in a small condo just down the road in Somerville. But a year and a half ago, at the height of the pandemic, we really fell in love with this house and its character, some of the old brick work and as well as Arlington. And we were lucky enough to purchase this from a family that's owned it for 70 years through several rounds of renovations here and there. We've since kind of fell in love with the house even more and the neighborhood even more. And we hope to own it for just as long. At the same time, we have had a second child. We both often work from home, even outside of the bounds of the current climate. And we often have in-home childcare and we like to have people over. So someday we'd like to reclaim at least a part of our dining room for those purposes. And as such, the space that was a bit small at first has become really, really constrictive. And we don't want to de-convert it from a two family as the additional rental income really helps us be able to afford the mortgage in the neighborhood and provide housing. So we do need more space, but under the current zoning, this lot is undersized. And my architect, Wiley Brown, will go into detail on all this later in a moment. I'm just introducing the project. So we do need more space, but under the current zoning, the lot is undersized for two family in terms of both square footage and frontage. And as such, even though it's grandfathered in as a two family, we need to defile for this special permit, which would otherwise be a by right addition of a half story. No changes to the existing footprint of the building or the lot or trees or anything of that nature. While we do need more space, we also wanted a design that would preserve and highlight some of the unique and historic characteristics of the house. And at the same time kind of create something that's in relative harmony with the neighborhood. So ties in the whole house rather than just feeling like a glued on piece. And so to accomplish this rather challenging design brief, I'm very fortunate to be able to be aided by local architect Wiley Brown, who has designed everything from skating rinks in Europe to geodesic domes in Costa Rica to most recently, sustainable housing in Dorchester, which has won a BSA award this year. He also happens to be a very close friend of mine since our freshman year in high school, thus making it possible for me to afford his services. And so with that being said, I'd like to turn it over to him. And if we could enable him to share his screen he is here tonight, he will present a brief kind of five minute, 10 minute visual of his design process and our joint thinking on how we came to this design. Mr. Vellarelli, can you grant him permission to share screen, Mr. Brown? Yes, hello, I'm here, Mr. Wiley Brown. Thanks, Dennis, for the discussion. He's good to go, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board here. I'll set this up. Give me one moment, please. Let's go here. Can you all see my screen? You can, yes. All right, great, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, again, yes, I'm Wiley Brown, an architect in Massachusetts. I have, as Mr. Lasko explained, I've worked in many places around the world, but particularly housing and housing in context to the local environment is really something that is important to me. And I happen to be, as he mentioned, we grew up in Brookline together. And so I'm familiar with the area and I do quite a lot of work in both Boston and South and around Boston area. This is my first project in Arlington I will admit. So I'm excited to see how this goes. So here's a picture of the house in context. What's actually kind of interesting and unique about it is it's a structural brick house with this addition that was placed on a number of decades ago that's sited in vinyl. As Mr. Lasko mentioned, here's the neighborhood river street on the corner of Warren River. And I took a quick snapshot of the street. So you can see that actually the fact that it's a brick building is actually somewhat unique to the particular area across the street are some newer 1970s brick condos, but they're not of this kind of two-family house variety. They're much larger. So I mean, just going straight to zoning, Mr. Lasko mentioned this. It's the existing lot size and frontage size that are already too small. It's a non-conforming lot. But according to the by right, you notice in the green box here, there is a possibility for more space in doing a half story and adding 10 feet to the height. So I saw that as an opportunity, but of course we were already set, the existing building was not performed, but that was where there was some possibility with the special permit. And so we basically said, what if we take the existing building and we add that extra 10 feet and add the half story of 660 living area and just pop it on top and are in a way that's respectful to the existing historic brick work. And so just to see if that's even something that's according, looking at the neighbors to see if it's something that's actually relevant in this neighborhood, we looked at the kind of three adjacent neighbors in Down River Street and over on the corner of Amherst Street and saw that the neighbor directly next to it is also two and a half stories, 35 feet tall. It's actually a little larger than we're proposing even after the proposal. The neighbor on the other side, on the right side is also 2.5 stories, 35 feet tall. It's not quite as large as what we're proposing but it's in the very close to it. And then two doors down again slightly smaller but two and a half stories, 35 feet tall. Those are both two family buildings as well. So it fits within the character of the directly adjacent buildings. And then of course, as I said, being context relevant is really important to me. Of course, I looked at the Arlington residential guidelines which I'm sure you guys are very familiar with but the kind of bullet points that I pulled for a renovation to kind of go over it is one about this streetscape rhythm from principle 4A that non-conforming locks should maintain kind of the existence of the streetscape rhythm of building spaces. So that's something I kind of held on to. Another one is that, although a lot of what the design regulations talk about are kind of matching styles. It does give a little bit of a caveat for well-designed contemporary style side or re-additions that can compliment the portions of the main house in certain areas. So I kind of went a little farther and said, what is according to these guidelines, what is a contemporary or modern? And it really said something about combining different geometric volumes in a certain way that's proportionally respectful for the existing. And so again, holding on to that for a second and then principle B3, really looking at matching materials for what's there and trying to match or compliment the existing materials. So these are things that I was really thinking about as we were trying to go through design. And so what's interesting though is this building as I pointed out before is inconsistent with the local trend. Most of the, as according to the report and what I've seen walking in the neighborhood most of the buildings there, although they are two family, they tend to be wood frame structures with clabbered or some sort of maybe wood clabbered or some sort of faux wood, whether it's a concrete fiber or vinyl or some other variations. Whereas this one really is a historic brick building with some really wonderful detailing from 1920s. And so just looking at, again, buildings around the house of how they sometimes create different patterns as you go up beyond two stories. And so here, change of pattern direction as we see with some balconies out front, here really change of colors and material that are working with the massing of the building to demonstrate that there's something different in that upper zone. Open upper level terraces, seen with these kind of vertical striping as opposed to horizontal striping. So I was trying to pull from these different features that I saw around the neighborhood to put together a composition that you can take the assessors map here. And so I made some massing models really quick to kind of look at how it would sit in the neighborhood. And so we see this is the existing condition and we have this kind of brick box which is unusual on the street with this wood or it's actually a vinyl sided front addition that somewhat matches the type of construction of the other buildings. And so the question is, how do we add some space on top? Okay, well, so if we pop up a little piece that really respects that edge of the brick rather than trying to match structural brick, we definitely go with a veneer. Clearly, it always kind of looks a little like it's obvious when you put veneer brick over structural brick. So the thought was like, what if we match it with some other material and we maintain the proportion? So it is respectful of the brick work but it puts its piece out there and it maintains that roof edge that's so kind of clear of a beautiful brick parapet that's actually detailed nicely. So the proportions of the addition complement the main house, but then it becomes a question. Now we have these little, this bump out that's existing in the front and this bump out at the top. How can we start to blend them together? Kind of match the massing. And so the idea is like, what if we combine the geometric volumes? So we add a few little shade pieces for this outdoor terrace that shades it makes it a bit more pleasant in the summer. And then we combine and it's this combination of two geometric volumes that are kind of interlocked. You have this massive brick main component and this kind of new contemporary additional component that kind of interlocks with it that's clearly not the historic but a newer contemporary piece to bring it up to contemporary standards. And so then it becomes a question, looking again down the street and that sense of that street rhythm. And so here's the existing. And then we put that kind of extended gable on there kind of makes a nice little rhythm with the gabled houses and the gabled dormer and it kind of filters its way down with kind of a gable, gable, gable looking at it from the other side of the south side from Warren Ave. So you get this kind of pattern of gables that continue as opposed to the flat roof that it currently is. And so then it comes to a question of materiality and do we, it says like match or complement? And so do we match the vinyl? Well, in sustainability that's not, and today we have different ideas about using plastics or these materials. Is that really a good thing to do? Particularly it's not that much siding or really doing structural brick it's hard to match brick anymore. It's going to be very contrasting. So could we complement the brick? How could we emphasize the brick? And we see lots of examples in Boston around of really where brick and kind of standing scene metal come together nicely with like a gambrel feeling on top. It's a really standard way of extending a roof but it's clearly something other than the original mass brick building. And so this became the kind of idea if we could actually match the current addition to the materials of the new addition. So it becomes just two materials and we complement the existing brick as opposed to match it and make a clear reading there. And we have this idea of complimentary geometric volumes and again that interlock. And so this is the kind of intent behind what's going on here. I recognize it's a slightly more contemporary style than we see on the street but it seems within the realm of where the guidelines fit. And as this building is already unique in this environment maybe adding, keeping it a bit unique and celebrating what's actually historic by honoring that, by putting something that's clearly not historic as an addition to it. So throwing that out there that's kind of the nature of design. And here we have the elevation as we see there and it is adding about 600 I forget how many 50 square feet, 35 feet tall and proposing a two and a half story building. So thank you chair and members of the board. I'm very happy to hear your comments and thoughts. Thank you so much, Mr. Brown. So my first question is the portions that are going over the porches at the two ends. What is the intention for what that is and how that's assembled? Again, that's intended to be a kind of a shade structure that would be outdoor space. And it's basically to make a shaded porch and the intention is it would be constructed of not two by timber but slightly oversized timber that's joined with steel joints at the end and capped with a steel bit of roofing that are not steel but metal roofing that would protect it from the weather. So it's meant to be an open kind of lattice a pergola type of roof cover. So are they each individually freestanding or are they linked at the top? Oh, they would be linked through linear basically like a piece of rebar, not re-rebar excuse me, a threaded rod that goes through and holds them at a certain distance in space and held from flapping around so that you don't deal with any movement. Okay. And so you're proposing to reclad the addition over the front porch? Exactly, so it's picking a material that could be both a kind of roof and a wall kind of like we're talking to the gambrel and then having that extend so that it all becomes a uniform additional mass on top of the brick. So we're really only dealing with two materials. So the intent would be to reclad that to match the additional component that's extending up from the roof. And to obviously in reading through the zoning bylaw the half story definition from the town is that the seven feet is from the finished floor on the third level to the underside of structure on for the roof. And I had seen before that you had mentioned that the seven foot is listed as being the room height or being the ceiling height. So I just wanted to make sure that you're aware that that number is actually to the ceiling structure and just to confirm that you meet the requirements of having that top floor be less than 50% the volume excuse me, the floor area of the floor adjacent below. That's fine. I was not aware that it was finished at its structure but I think that's a matter of inches that we can certainly make sure is implemented in the construction. Very good. Thank you very much. Questions from the board, please. Seeing none. And once more and twice. All right with that. I will go ahead and open the hearing for public participation. Again, we take questions and comments as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed through the chair for the use in our deliberations. If you are participating by Zoom, you can use the raise hand feature under the reactions tab or if you are on phone, you can dial star nine. Are there anyone who wished to comment at this stage? One's going twice. Go ahead and close the public comment period for this hearing. Are there any improvements being made to the lot or the property itself that would impact its usability? No. And the existing window well and stairwell going to the basement, those are existing. Is that correct? Further questions or comments from the board? Good, Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So I think this is a very interesting proposal just to come back for a second to what our responsibility is here. As I understand it, while there are a number of nonconformities on this parcel as there are actually throughout Arlington, this proposal won't lead to an extension of any of them with the exception of usable open space. And we have a regular diet of cases of what we've come to call zero going to more zero. And it seems to me that traditionally we have talked about that in language that related to the extension of the nonconformity. But that's really in some ways not exactly what we're doing. The very fact that we give that we make a section six findings suggests that we are treating it as if it's an extension of the nonconformity. Really what's going on with all of these greater degrees of zero cases is that it almost never comes out that there's any increased detriment when that's the only thing that is the reason why the case is before us. And I think that we should be a little bit more clear about that as we go forward. But here from what I've heard so far, I don't really, it seems to me that there really are no issues other than dealing with what our precedent has already resolved largely for us. So I would be apt to be in support of the application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Can I see a side view of the design, please? Brown, do you have that? I do, yes. I can share my screen and... I appreciate that. Thank you. No problem. Can you see my screen? Yep. Okay. Here's a side view for you, Mr. Board Member. I don't see a lot of windows up there. And I just wonder about alignment of windows with the current design. Yeah, that's actually one of the... Because that knee wall is rather low in order to keep the roof down, wall-mounted windows, there won't be... There'll be more skylights above that won't be seen. And then the very ends. So if I go back to this end here, the windows will mostly be on the end and the light will be coming through from either side. So actually these sides will have only skylights in the upper section of the roof. And I probably know windows in that side wall. So there won't be any concern because those won't actually be very... If we look at that perspective view, you won't really see what's going on up in the roof area. So it's really just this front zone here. And then on the other side, on the backside, you have light coming in from either end and then light coming from the roof up here above. Thank you. You're welcome. Do you have a color selected for the metal? We have sat down and held samples, but I'm leaning toward a darker gray that's very frequently seen that goes with brick very, very nicely, but it's something that we would definitely pick on site. But it would be some sort of, I think a grayish or a setback gray. We've discussed the possibility of even doing copper, but that's gonna have to do some costs on that. It's actually, I find done, there's ways to actually bring copper, make it fairly effective and efficient and cost effective, but that's something that we're working. That would of course be very shiny in the beginning and then after about three or four years, I'm sure you're familiar. It turns that kind of brownish and then eventually green, but that's decades later. Yeah. The chairman. Mr. Holly. Do we consider this trellis or lattice portion in the area calculations for the attic or the half story? Where it's outside the enclosure. I don't think we do, but that's a good question for Mr. Valarelli. Do we include the covered porches on the third floor as a part of the half story calculation? Mr. Chairman, can you hand me okay? I'm having a lot of trouble with that. Yeah. So porches and balconies are not included for a GFA. So they will be not included with respect to the half story. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Riccadelli. I think, I really appreciate how much I carry to the design and the presentation to us today. One thing I just wanted to bring up was even though we're keeping with the two and a half story in terms of square footage, it does concern me slightly that because we're extending the volume, the perceived impact from a neighborhood perspective kind of feels like it's a larger, you know, kind of full third story. And what I see typically in the C. Starwoodton neighborhood is that, you know, it's kind of shed dormers and that sort of expression to get that half story volume on top. So I'm just bringing it up to the board, you know, we're not reviewing the design here tonight, but I just wanted to hear what the other board members thought about that. That was sort of my initial take was that it's, you know, typically on a, when there's a third story addition and there's exterior space added, it's a deck. It's not done as a porch with a structure over the top. And I appreciate here that it's not, you know, it is open to the weather. But sort of as you note, it does sort of define an additional volume that comes much farther towards the street than it would in other cases. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. I share Mr. Ricardo's concerns about the verbal massing, especially from a street perspective. I think it's very imposing looking. And, you know, I would suggest that they maybe cut that back in half and it would not be so imposing, still have the pergola, but maybe not extend all the way to the end. And I think that may be a little less imposing from the street view, just a suggestion. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So, I mean, I obviously defer to the tremendous expertise of all the architects and that's not where I come from particularly, but I, but this is my neighborhood. So I kind of know what it looks like. If you looked at the photographs of the existing building, I think that what you notice is that because of the perspective of this drawing, it makes the building look taller than it is. In fact, your first impression when you look at it is that it's much, much shorter than the other buildings that are on that side of the street. That isn't to say that it won't look sort of imposing to have what goes on. But if you look at this and compare this to the drawing, I think that you'll see that the appearance of height and bulk is in the drawing is a little more than you're likely to have in real life. The other thing to remember is that this neighborhood includes both sides of River Road, of River Street. And if you look on the other side of River Street, you have a large number of brick apartment buildings that are much larger than any of the buildings that we're talking about on this side of the street. So when you're looking at the street, skate in general, unless you're wearing a patch over your right eye, you're going to see a mix of sizes up and down the street. And at least for me, I don't, and I guess it to some extent depends on just how opaque the pergola is. But to me, it seems like it would fit into a harmonious street scape. You have to recognize that it's not a harmonious street scape as it is. It's a very diverse street scape that all of the houses look all different from the other houses. It's in Starlink. And this house actually looks more different now than any of the others because it's a different material and it's a different shape. And so in some ways, it just will match the diversity that already exists there. And I think that it would add to the look of the street scape as you're heading down towards the Mystic River. But whatever it is, I don't think that it would in truth be quite as dominating as she may infer from the drawings. Ms. Gimman. Ms. Mills. Yeah, I'd like to point out that from the drawings or not, it is going to the maximum of 35 feet. So irrespective of the drawings, it's as tall as it's allowed in a residential structure. That's A, in B pad, it's true. The Johnson apartments across the street are bigger. But this set way back from the road, they're not right on the sidewalk. They're not looking straight up at this. And it goes right out to the very edge of the porch, which actually extends past the front of the house. So it's like you've built up an extension over the front porch, which was already in addition. I do think it's visually imposing from the street scape. I'm sorry. Mr. Brown, what's the spacing on those frames? It's variable at the moment. At the moment, they're about 10 inches between the four inch wide pieces. And that's something that we can tune if there's a desire for it to be more transparent. That's certainly available for discussion. But just to add, I mean, this building as well, it's actually very close to being along the street line of this building. And it's also at the maximum 35 feet. And actually the street slopes up a bit. And so this is measured 35 feet at about two feet higher than the base of four to six river roads. So actually this 35 feet is actually what would be 37 feet on our lot. So it is this point here of this gable that's very much right on the road is considerably higher than even this gable will be. Did you have a plan of that block? I had the set here. I'll sorry for the visual jumping through things here. No, that's perfect. But here's the plan. And here's the assessor's map of that block. Yeah, so I think what Mr. Mills is getting at is just that it's so much closer to the street edge as it is.  I think that's the portion that's tripping me up at least. I definitely appreciate that you're trying to sort of tie what's coming across the roof and to bring it down into the front, but I'm sort of left feeling that it's bringing so much mass so far forward, even though it's not a solid mass. If that attic piece rather than extending all the way to the front ended at the existing building on the front side, would that provide in any way for what you're trying to do in terms of the continuity between the roof piece and the front piece? I think, I mean, that's what you kind of see here is this, you know, it becomes a bit of a hodgepodge of backpack elements. And that's what we're really trying to break apart and make it two stronger elements that just very simply sit together and young. So, you know, if it's a matter of it feeling too massive, as we said, we can tune that and design it to be more filigree and be, you know, a little bit low. Sorry, I think something's happening there. Something lighter in that. But I think if we held it back, we would still have an appearance of massing of still being a separate element. And this is one of the big design challenges of this building is really, you know, this thing is already a very different component to what's going on there. And so it's how do we not make it a beautiful, historic building with a bunch of weird add-ons that, you know, so it becomes a bit of a Frankenstein of different pieces, really going for that idea of two volumes that are married gently. And so that, you know, I know it's kind of architectural mumbo jumbo, but it is an idea of trying to maintain that simplicity and not get too confusing. Mr. Chairman.  There's a bunch of architecture students here as well. So I think your initial suggestion, Mr. Chairman, about maybe just playing with the porosity of that trellis element to make it feel less like a solid mass coming right up to the face of that front port that we're seeing in this image. I'm making it sort of articulated that it's exterior space from a pedestrian might just alleviate how big it feels kind of up against the streetscape. May I also wonder sort of if it maintained the density to the front edge of the building and then from what the portion that's over the porch, if that was, you know, somewhere between, you know, 25 and 15% the density and it really sort of gives you that differentiation between this is the building and this is the porch, but we're architects, we like to play with others' designs. So I don't want to play with others' designs. I'm a professor of architecture, so I play with a lot of people's design. Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit sorry for Mr. Lasko.  I'm not an architect, but I have to listen to Wiley a lot. Yes. Got that. And I appreciate the input.  I like the idea of Mr. Brown trying to achieve with tying it all together, but I also like kind of some increased sunlight and porosity on that front end. So I think if that's a solution that's agreeable to everybody and we can handle that, whether it's increased porosity across the whole thing or just at the front end, I'm happy to abide by that.  I think architecturally having it a little bit more dynamic could actually be quite wonderful. It's a matter of doing a couple of iterations and maybe it becomes more ephemeral. I think it could be quite a great way of thinking about it. Mr. Chairman, one question or a part here. That portion, the current overhang on the second, what is it? Is it a porch that is being utilized? It was formerly a porch, an open porch decades ago and then at some point long before I purchased the house, it was kind of wrapped in vinyl and there was a nice floor put in. So we have it as a lounge area and a workout area in decent weather because it's uninsulated prop. It is counted as part of the square footage of the second floor. So it is residential space and probably as part of residing it, we'll put some more thermal, really efficient windows and some better insulation in and around it and kind of level out that floor. So it's just kind of a family room and workout area utilities facing. Is the original brick wall of the house still exposed on the inside of that room? Yes, and it will remain. I like to be on Zoom calls and people think I'm working on a startup when I have the brick wall. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. All right, well, it certainly sounds for the discussion that for the most part we're in favor, it's really just this front part that we're a little uncertain about. So if you would be willing, we would, I think I would recommend that we continue to April 12th, which is our next hearing date. And if you could come back to us with some alternatives, that would be a great way to proceed. I think that's manageable for my end. How does that sound to you, Mr. Alaska? Yeah, so April 12th would be kind of a similar meeting to tonight. Yes, we would have you on first. Okay. I guess, perfectly acceptable. Any further comments from the board? Anything else that'd like to see for a follow-up? I'd like to see two designs, one cutting back to the front edge of the house and one otherwise, as long as we're gonna play. Okay, okay, then with that, I would take a motion to continue the special permit hearing for 4-6 River Street until April 12th, 2022 at 7.30 PM. This time so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon, a second. Thank you, Mr. Tupont. And before we enshrine this, Mr. Vallarelli, that is the correct date, right? It is. Okay. Perfect. So vote of the board, Mr. Tupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Riccadelli? Aye. Mr. Holley? Chair votes aye. Wasn't this Mr. Holley? We lost Mr. Holley. With that, we are continued. Thank you very much. Appreciate your sticking with us. Appreciate the time. You're very welcome. So for the board, now we get to do all the boring stuff I punted on at the very beginning. So moving back to the administrative items, the first is the approval of the meeting minutes from the February 22nd meeting. So these were distributed to the board. And please Mr. Vallarelli has comments on these. Are there any further comments on the meeting minutes from February 22nd? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the minute? So moved. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Smell the second? Second. Second. Mr. Mills? Vote for the board. Mr. DuPont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mills? Aye. Mr. Riccadelli? Aye. Mr. Holley is no longer with us. Mr. Chairman? And the chair votes aye. Yes, Mr. Hanlon? We have a message from Mr. Holley who's trying to get back on. He had a laptop that was low on power and he was involuntarily terminated and is now working his way back. Okay. Keep an eye out for him. The next item that I have listed as the review of proposed zoning warrant articles. So what I had wanted to do here, so the ARB is reviewing proposed warrant articles in relation to zoning. This is what they do every spring before town meeting. There are a number of them on the docket and I had wanted to just basically walk through what they are with the board. And the intent here is not to really hold a debate on them or necessarily go through the merits of them. But just to make sure that everyone's aware of what's going on and then if they do have comments, comments should be submitted to the ARB, to the Redevelopment Board as they move forward. And then once they appear for town meeting, those would be, you would talk to your town meeting members. So with that, I'd go ahead and quickly share this. So they're holding a series of hearings. They've had the first three and then the final one is on the 28th of March and then at their first meeting in April, they'll be voting, I believe, on the final amendment languages. The first one, which most people I think have heard of, is it's a citizen article to allow two families to be built by right in the R0 and R1 zoning districts. So this would basically, the R0 and R1, rather than only allowing single family housing by right, would allow single and two family housing by right. The second one is that enhanced business districts. So this is seeking to, let me put my head, I should be showing you these, that's this one here. So it's improvements. I unfortunately wasn't at that hearing for this one, so I'm not as up to date on it, but it's to increase pedestrian, so it's by law section, to encourage pedestrian activity, maintain an active street and limit the amount of brown floor retail space occupied by banks, offices, lobbies, and other non-active uses when feasible or to take any related action. So there's language here. All of this is available from the ARB's website. The next one is on street trees, which is basically to require additional planting of street trees when every 25 feet. The next one is solar energy systems. This is a development standard. So this relates more, I believe, to environmental design review, which is the ARB's review process to encourage the implementation of solar and projects under their jurisdiction. The administrative amendments, this is just basically corrections and typos that they're amending. It's only expansion of the business districts. So there are five properties on Massachusetts Avenue, sort of at the corner of Marathon Street. There's three houses on that side and one on the other, and they are actually currently