Arlington Redevelopment Board - Jul 25th, 2022
Meeting held in the Select Board's chambers, with board member Steve Revilak participating via phone. Materials were available from https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/DisplayAgendaPDF.ashx?MeetingID=1662.
Docket 3707 - 611 Massachusetts Avenue
This docket involves a sign permit for the Cyrus Dallin Museum and the Arlington Chamber of Commerce.
(Kelly Lynema, Acting Planning Director) Ms. Lynema explains that this is an application for a post sign. The museum previously had a post sign in front of the Jason Cutter House, which had to be removed for the Whittemore Park renovations. The uses on this site began in 1989 when the Jason Cutter House was moved to Whittemore Park. Ms. Lynema says this request is unusual because the property is zoned R1, but is in the middle of a business district. She suggests the R1 zoning might be because it's a town-owned property.
The proposed sign would be 8.29 square feet; it's similar to, but slightly smaller than the old sign.
(Heather Leavell, Dallin Museum) Ms. Leavell says the museum would like to replace the sign with one of comparable size, and closer to the house. The sign is intended to capture the shape of the door and the color scheme of the house. It was designed by a museum board member who's also a professional designer.
Ms. Leavell says they'd like the posts to be a wood-like material, that's not susceptible to rot. She says that everyone has had a tough couple of years due to the pandemic, and museum visitation is down. She hopes that a sign will help bring in more visitors.
(Kin Lau, ARB) Mr. Lau thinks it's a good sign. He asks about the posts.
(Heather Leavell) Ms. Leavell says they're thinking of pressure treated posts and a weather-proof material for the panel.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau suggests using cedar posts. He asks about lighting.
(Kelly Lynema) Ms. Lynema says the sign won't be illuminated, but the front of the house is uplit.
(Heather Leavell) Ms. Leavell asks if it would be possible to have uplighting on the sign.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks that could be subject to administrative approval by the Planning Department.
(Eugene Benson, ARB) Mr. Benson has no questions about the sign. He asks if the museum has gotten approval from the Historical Commission.
(Kelly Lynema) Ms. Lynema says they have a hearing with the Historical Commission on August second.
(Melisa Tintocalis, ARB) Ms. Tintocalis asks if the applicants have considered including language like "open to the public".
(Heather Leavell) Ms. Leavell says the museum puts out a sandwich board sign when they're open.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis says the sign gave her the impression that the museum was run by the Chamber of Commerce.
(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak has no questions.
(Rachel Zsembery, ARB Chair) Ms. Zsembery says she has no questions about the sign.
Ms. Zsembery opens the hearing to public comment.
(Sarah Burks) Ms. Burks is a chair of the museum's Board of Trustees. She supports the application. She says the museum used to have a sign from the tourism committee, but it blew down and wasn't replaced. She says that lots of visitors walk by, see the sign, and come in.
There are no more comments from the public.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau supports the application.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks there's a precedent for allowing this kind of sign, because the property is so close to a business district.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis has no further comments.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery agrees that there's precedent for allowing this kind of sign.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau suggests the board allow administrative approval of uplighting, if the applicants would like to do that in the future.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson suggests the decision include a finding that mentions the location and use of the building.
Permit approved, 5--0.
The board approved minutes from their April 7th meeting, 5--0.
Docket 3704 - 18-20 Belknap St
This is the second hearing for 18--20 Belknap Street, where the applicants are seeking a special permit to renovate and expand a non-conforming four-family house in the R2 district.
(Kelly Lynema) Ms. Lynema says the applicants are seeking a special permit to renovate a pre-existing non-conforming structure. There are two issues. The first is the use, which predates zoning. The second issue is the size. She notes that the board asked the applicant to provide a number of clarifications at the last hearing. The applicants provided materials showing a peak roof height of 33.8', and that less than 50% of the third floor had a height of 7'. They've shown the location of long-term bicycle parking for each apartment and added a crushed stone buffer around the open space. Ms. Lynema says the department could not confirm whether the parking buffer met zoning requirements.
(Robert Annese, Attorney for the Applicant) Mr. Annese says his client tried to respond to the board's requests.
(Chris Manley, Applicant) Mr. Manley says he emailed details of the bike rack before, but would defer to the board's preferences for rack type. As for parking lot screening, Mr. Manley says they're planning to add a 5--6' fence and a 5' buffer. He believes the exemptions in 6.1.11(E) might be applicable to this project, and the 350 square feet or so of landscaped open space next to the parking area is enough to compensate for the smaller buffer. Mr. Manley says that nearly all of the back yard was paved before they started the renovations. He says he'd prefer to use native plant species for screening, but will defer to the board for any specific recommendations. They're planning to go with a shorter fence in front -- about 3.5' -- so that side of the property is more open. The front fence is intended to provide some privacy and security for pets and children.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he calculated the roof height at 34.4', based on the applicants plans and wants to confirm if that value is correct.
(one of the applicants) The roof height is 33.8'.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau explains how he made his calculations and would like the applicants to clarify which number is correct.
(one of the applicants) The lot has a slope of more than 5%, so the building height is calculated relative to the average height of the lot. That's 33.8'.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he wanted to confirm that it's less than the 35' maximum height in the bylaw. Mr. Lau moves on to the parking lot. He understands that the 5.5' crushed stone border is part of the open space, and asks if that's part of the 6.1.11(E) relief.
(Dan Bornstein, Attorney for the Applicant) Mr. Bornstein says that 6.1.11(E) provides the board with a way to reduce the parking setback. He also thinks the proposed setback could be waived as not being substantially more detrimental.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks where the six foot privacy fence starts and ends.
(one of the applicants) One of the applicants says the fence is shown on the plot plan. The ends are denoted with x's.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson has some questions about the way the dimensional worksheet has changed between the two submissions. The first worksheet showed a GFA of 2382 square feet on the first floor and the revised worksheet shows 2229 square feet. Mr. Benson asks the applicants to explain the disparity, and to indicate which is correct.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says the original plan had bumps outs for mud rooms, but those were removed.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says the original worksheet showed 2223 square feet on the second floor and the revised one shows 2229. He asks where that difference comes from.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says he can't explain that difference readily, but thinks it might be due to slight changes in the floor plan. He says it might be due to a modification in the front of the building, where the decks are.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson notes that the original application showed zero square feet in the basement, and the revised application shows 1964. He asks the applicants to explain the difference.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says the original basement contained mechanicals and storage. He says it was one open area with the mechanicals scattered around. Mr. Manley acknowledges that the zero square feet in the original submission was due to a misunderstanding of the bylaw.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he's like to see a diagram of the old basement, in order to accurately determine GFA.
Mr. Benson says he doesn't understand how GFA in the third floor is being calculated. He notes that the current submission shows 1247 square feet before renovations, while the assessor's property card shows 421 square feet.
(There's back and fourth about the dimensions on the property card, whether it could be a mistake in the assessor's data, and whether the assessors measure area the same way that our bylaw defines gross floor area).
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says that (building inspector) Mike Ciampa was in the building to verify the measurements of the third floor.
(There's more back and fourth about what counts as GFA in a half story, and whether the bylaw's clause about "used exclusively for mechanicals" applies to the old basement configuration).
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that a garage cannot be counted as GFA. He also had a conversation with the ZBA chair about this case, who stated that the ZBA would primarily consider this under section 8.1.4 of the bylaw. Mr. Benson says that section 8.1.4 doesn't allow the applicants to increase non-conformities; he believes that the applicant has to match the FAR of the old building or ask for a variance. He thinks the board needs to understand landscaped open space and usable open space. He asks if there was open space with the original building, noting that Don Seltzer submitted a letter with an aerial photo from 2020 which shows green space in the back. He wonders if the rear of the lot was paved over since then, and asks the applicants if they were aware of this green space.
(one of the applicants) One of the applicants says they've never seen that photo before, and were not aware of the property having green space in the back.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if the applicants brought the front of the building forward 5'.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley answers in the affirmative.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks about landscaped open space and usable open space.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says that usable open space is noted on sheet A-07; there's an area in the rear and an area in the front, and he explains how they did the calculations.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson would like the applicants to work with the planning department and inspectional services to correct their numbers. He thinks there's too much shifting sand.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak has a question about roof slope. The first plan submission showed a 1:12 slope on the wings of the third floor, and the current plans show a 2:12 slope. He asks if that's a correction, or a change to the plans and work to be done.
(applicants) The applicants indicate it's the latter -- they're going to change the slope of the roof.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak asks about the distance from the front lot line to the edge of the porch.
(applicants) The applicants indicate that it's 19.5'.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says that while a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, he heard a number of cases under section 5.3.9, Projections into Minimum Yards -- people adding front porches or mudrooms. When someone sought a special permit for a porch, the ZBA would typically ask questions about open space, to ensure that the proposed porch wouldn't create an open space non-conformity. Based on that precedent, Mr. Revilak wouldn't count the front porch as open space; and the definitions of open space in our bylaw don't mention the inclusion of porches. He notes that the plot plan includes stairs in the front yard area as designated as open space, and says that stairs can't be counted as open space either.
With the porch 19.5' from the property line, Mr. Revilak says there is no usable open space in the front yard. He says the applicants need to provide 780 square feet of landscaped open space. Although the areas indicated on the plot plan don't match our bylaw definitions, he thinks there's a very high probability that they meet this threshold.
Mr. Revilak asks if the rear yard was paved over when the applicants purchased the property.
(applicant) One of the applicants answered in the affirmative.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he's inclined to agree that there was no usable open space on the property prior to the renovations. Although there aren't dimensions shown for the open space in the rear, he believes it meets the 25' requirement, based on the dimensions for the adjacent parking spaces. While the applicants may not be providing the 2339 square feet of usable open space that they'd need to conform to the bylaw, he believes they're providing some, and reducing the non-conformity.
Regarding GFA for the third floor, Mr. Revilak recalls that the ZBA only counted areas with more than 7' in height. That's what went into the calculation for required open space.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis asks about the square footage of each unit.
(applicant) One of the applicants identifies the plan sheet with a table of square footages.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis notes that the square footage is a little larger than what would be considered a starter home. She asks about the fencing.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says they're planning to use vinyl fencing. He says they'd usually use a 6' high fence, but could go with a shorter one.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis asks if the property has access to the Minuteman Bikeway.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley answers in the negative.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis asks about improving the relationship of the fencing to other buildings on the street.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says he'd be okay with that.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she has some comments, but will save them for the board's discussion, after public comment closes.
The chair opens the hearing to public comment.
(Austin Brown, 10 Belknap St) Mr. Brown asks who's in charge of measuring the final structure.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says it's the building inspector.
(Austin Brown) Mr. Brown says he got a copy of the Massachusetts Building Code from the library. It's not the current edition, but is still recent. Mr. Brown says that in this version of the code, bathrooms have to be 7' high, except where the roof is sloped and 50% of them have to be 7' high. He thinks the applicants plans don't comply with the building code, that there's been a lot of number fudging, and that the whole thing feels disingenuous.
(?, 12 Belknap) The speaker says the developers haven't been acting in good faith. They disagree that the front of the building aligns with other buildings on the street, and that the third floor is massive and doesn't follow the spirit of the law. They felt the developers were duplicitous and disingenuous. They feel bullied by the building and believe it doesn't fit in. They hope the board could impose an onerous fine on the developers.
(?) The speaker says she's lived nearby for nearly 20 years, and that the previous owner repaved the driveway in 2020 as part of a renovation. She says the new building is closer to the street. She agrees that the old building was desolate, but says she never felt unsafe there.
(Deb Bermudy) Ms. Bermudy says the crew that's developing this property is not new, and that they know what they're doing. She appreciates how challenging this must be. As for value, benefit, and improvement, Ms. Bermudy says she's lived here for over 30 years and that her investment in the community can't be measured in dollars. She thinks luxury condos aren't in the neighborhood's interest. She thinks the neighborhood is desirable because of the people who live there.
(Chris Loreti) Mr. Loreti says the project doesn't belong before the ARB; he thinks it should have been heard by the ZBA instead. He thinks the board needs to look at section 8.1.4, and says the applicants have incorrectly cited the Bellalta case, because that only applies to single- and two-family homes. He disagrees with Town Counsel's memo about the scope of the ARB's authority and believes the board has no authority to relax dimensional regulations unless the bylaw explicitly says so.
There's no further comment from the public.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says that Mr. Benson brought up several points about floor area ratio, and that's her biggest concern. She thinks she could get to a waiver for the parking buffer, but is concerned about the half story and bathroom spaces. She wonders if we could give the applicant a list of conditions that the ARB needs, and send them to the ZBA for a variance for FAR.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks the board can grant relief for the increase in floor area ratio, and he'd rely on the building inspector's determination as to whether the height complies. Mr. Lau doesn't like the eight parking spaces in back, and would be willing to grant the applicant relief if they reduced the number of spaces; less parking and more buffer.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he wouldn't approve the permit if there was an increase in FAR, due to Section 8.1.4. He thinks the ARB's flexibility should be reserved for business districts, and that the ZBA would handle this case differently. He says that only a few feet of the property abut the minuteman bikeway, and that the applicants could accomplish their renovation without increasing the FAR. On parking, Mr. Benson would trade buffer requirements for fewer parking spaces. He says it's not the ARB's call whether the third floor violates the state building code, but he would be okay with a condition that the building inspector verify that it meets code. He believes the FAR of the old building is smaller than what the applicant has reported.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau disagrees with Mr. Benson regarding the property abutting the bikeway. He says there have been cases where a small abutment created additional requirements. Because the ARB's jurisdiction includes special permit uses that abut the minuteman, Mr. Lau feels the case should be before the ARB and reviewed under environmental design review.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks what relief is getting us.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau gives the applicant credit for reducing the number of units from six to four. He says it's a nice building which improves the neighborhood. He'd like to reward the applicants for making it better.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson reads the EDR standard for open space. He thinks that should prohibit open space that's blocked from view by a fence.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis thinks the board needs to get a revised set of dimensional numbers, which the applicant and building inspector agree to. She'd like to see accurate numbers. She'd be comfortable with giving relief on the parking buffer requirements in exchange for fewer parking spaces.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he's okay with open space. He believes the applicants have provided the 780 square foot of landscaped open space that they need, and have reduced the usable open space non-conformity. He'd also be okay with giving relief on parking buffers in exchange for reducing the number of spaces.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she'd like to get to 4--6 spaces, confirm the building height, verify that the third floor was usable, and add conditions regarding fencing. She thinks the applicants should seek a variance from the ZBA for any increase in FAR.
(There's more discussion about FAR, and how to determine the FAR of the previous structure, which no longer exists.)
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak isn't keen on sending the applicants to the ZBA for a variance. Variance criteria are set in state law, and the ZBA has no discretion to change them. One of the criteria is that the applicants have to show that a literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would create a hardship, owing to conditions of soil, shape, or topography, which are present in the property for which the variance is sought, but not in the zoning district as a whole. He personally can't think of any argument for how this property would satisfy that hardship criteria.
By saying the applicants need to obtain a variance, Mr. Revilak thinks the board is really saying "you need to make your building smaller". He hopes the board can cut to the chase and say that.
(Robert Annese) Mr. Annese points out that the new building is already up.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery acknowledges this, and says that the project's design professional is responsible for understanding and complying with local zoning.
(Robert Annese) Mr. Annese says he would never take this case to the ZBA for a variance.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says the board needs to get accurate numbers, and get the building closer to its original FAR.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson agrees that the applicant's chances of getting a variance are close to zero. He thinks they need to come back to the board with a design that is closer to the original FAR.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau suggests the board add a meeting date in August, so the applicants aren't stuck waiting until September.
(Dan Bornstein) Mr. Bornstein says that his clients left the last hearing with a list of things the board needed, and feel like his clients did them.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery believes the board still doesn't have accurate calculations for floor area ratio. She feels like the board is wrestling with the before vs after vs delta.
(Dan Bornstein) Mr. Bornstein says the applicants were asked to correct their FAR values, and they did. He thinks there are multiple errors in the assessors card. He wants to understand what his clients need to bring to the board, in the event that the hearing is continued.
(Chris Manley) Mr. Manley says he provided the board with an architects drawings of the building before renovation. He doesn't know what to do if the board doesn't believe them. He believes the assessors card is inaccurate, and notes that it lists an incorrect lot size. He says that a lot of what he's hearing isn't possible for him to do. He'd never build one parking space for a four bedroom unit. He says he's done his best to answer the ARB's questions.
Mr. Manley says he's already been turned down for refinancing on this project; if the hearing is continued, he's not sure whether it will be him coming in front of the board, or the lender who's taken control of the property. He says he tries to maximize development because of the high cost of property acquisition, and the high cost of development. The economics just make it work out that way.
(The board discusses how a new set of dimensional calculations would affect their thinking, especially if they showed an increase in gross floor area. The current worksheets show an increase of 593 square feet, and there's a discussion of whether reducing the floor area by that much would be acceptable. There's also discussion about massing on the third floor. Mr. Lau suggests changes to the roofline, which involve pulling the shed dormers in at all four corners.)
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she'd be okay with a small increase in FAR if the applicants reduced the size of the dormers. She thinks they're completely out of scale, and notes that they already have to be reframed to change the roof pitch.
The board comes to a consensus around a set of conditions, which include:
- A condition that the building be less than 35' tall.
- That the building inspector review the use of the third floor, to verify compliance with the building code.
- That the number of parking spaces be reduced to 4--6, and the required parking buffer provided. This would be subject to administrative approval by the planning department.
- A reduction in the dormer size at each of the four corners to reduce massing. This would be subject to administrative approval from the planning department.
- That the front fence have a maximum height of 3.5'.
The board votes to approve the special permit, 4--1 (Mr. Benson voted in the negative).
Open Space and Recreation Plan Update
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she enjoyed reading the draft Open Space and Recreation plan. The request is for the board to endorse it.
(Ann LeRoyer, Open Space Committee) Ms. LeRoyer says the Open Space Committee received CPA funding to update the Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP). They hired Horsley-Witten to help with the process. They've submitted the draft to the state Division of Conservation Services, and recently received conditional approval. Ms. LeRoyer says the main thing was to listen to residents. Over 1000 people participated in surveys and study groups.
There are three themes in the new plan: sustainability, accessibility, and collaboration. Sustainability includes thinks like green infrastructure, pollinator pathways, and tree maintenance. Accessibility includes physical access and ADA compliance. Collaboration includes working with other town departments, local business, and state agencies. There's a need to maintain our parks and recreational fields, and a need for public education about ways to get more open space in infill development. Ms. LeRoyer says the Mugar property is kind of an elephant in the room, and that's just a difficult situation.
(David Morgan, Environmental Planner) Mr. Morgan says the letter of conditional acceptance acknowledged that the plan was very thorough. He sees the OSRP as a checklist of things to work on.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks about raingarden projects for groundwater recharge. He's aware that a few of these have been built in town, and asks under who's purview the work was done.
(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says the OSRP is a policy document. The Open Space Committee doesn't own land, but it tries to address goals. She says that Public Works and the MWRA were involved in the raingarden projects.
(David Morgan) Mr. Morgan says that one of the goals for raingardens is to increase biodiversity. He says he's working with the DPW on this.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he wasn't able to read the entire plan, but he's glad we're going to have an OSRP, which could help us qualify for state grants. As for competing priorities, Mr. Benson notes that there's currently a proposal for a mountain bike track in town. Mr. Benson asks how that decision will be made.
(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says that mountain biking is quite popular. She says this is under the jurisdiction of Parks and Recreation, and there's a hearing scheduled. The Open Space Committee might provide Parks and Recreation with a letter. Ms. LeRoyer says that part of the OSRP is about meeting recreational needs.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson wonders if the plan could say something about balance. He hopes there's something that says the town is against artificial turf. He wonders if the plan should say something about different goals. He thinks it could be interesting to think about opportunities for different kinds of parks that meet different goals -- having a cricket field for example. He asks about the Mugar property.
(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says it's mentioned a few times.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson wonders if the town will buy a portion of it, after it's developed.
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis asks who the point persons for implementation are. She think it would be helpful to mention who's running point. She asks if Ms. LeRoyer could elaborate on maintenance as an ongoing concern.
(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says that DPW does a lot of the maintenance, along with several "friends" groups.
(missed a bit here)
(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis asks about the relationship between the OSRP and municipal vulnerability planning (MVP).
(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says the plan addresses MVP. For example, the town received funding to help manage flooding in Wellington Park.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak thinks the plan is very thorough. He's already submitted a written list of comments, and would like to discuss one of them here. The survey responses to demographic questions indicate that respondents were more likely to be from high-income groups. For example, 40% of respondents said they earned more than $200k year, while the last ACS data from the census puts that figure at 22%. Likewise, people who've lived in town for many years were more likely to take the survey than people who've only been here for a few. Mr. Revilak says there's been research into who participates in local government, and we know that people who earn more or live in an area longer are more likely to participate. He feels like the survey shows some of this "selection bias" and asked if any of the outreach efforts were tailored to compensate for that.
(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says the committee was concerned about participation bias. She says they did outreach efforts with Arlington EATS to help promote the survey. They also worked with the Arlington Housing Authority, and set up listening stations at farmers markets and along the bike path. The committee also worked with DEI Director Jill Harvey on their outreach plan.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak thanks Ms. LeRoyer for sharing that. He thinks that outreach is a tough nut to crack.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery appreciates the historical references and the details about how Arlington evolved as a town. She was also struck by the challenge of maintenance. As we invest in more programs, Ms. Zsembery thinks it's important to address maintenance. She thinks it's hard to justify investments in new areas if we can't maintain what we already have. She's also interested in how open spaces could be programmed, to bring more people into our parks and build communities. She notes that several of this year's zoning amendments were to that effect.
The board votes to endorse the OSRP, 5--0.
There are no members of the public remaining, but a few board members have comments.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says that 18--20 Belknap Street was not that different from some of the cases that come before the ZBA. He hopes we can continue to work on clarifying the zoning bylaw to make things clearer and more predictable.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she'd like to discuss this during the board's next retreat.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks about the status for holding hybrid meetings.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery thinks the board will continue meeting in person, with the intention of having hybrid meetings as soon as that option becomes available.