Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - August 25, 2026

Hey, it is 7:32 p.m. on Tuesday, August 25th, 2026. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals, and I am calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd first like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. So from the zoning board of appeals, we have Roger Dupont >> here >> and Venet Holly >> here >> and Adam Leblanc >> here. >> And Mr. Hanlin is unable to join us this evening. Is Nick Rosenberg has he been able to hoping that he can join us. Um so we are a five member board. So a a positive vote requires a vote of four members. Um at present we have four members. So um any we will not be voting on any decisions tonight. Um so it should be it shouldn't hamper our our progress tonight, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of that. Um appearing on behalf of the town, we have Colleen Rston, our clerk and zoning assistant >> here. And then checking on the dockets for this evening, docket uh 391215 Melrose Street, uh have Katherine and James Fleming. >> Hi. >> Good to have you with us. And for docket 39135 Beck Road, um Peter Maradianis and Mary Winston Connor >> here, >> here. >> Good to have you both with us as well. >> Thank you. So tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with the bill signed by Governor Healey on March 28th, 2025, which extended temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to June 30th, 2027. Extension of these provisions allows public bodies to hold their meetings remotely by providing live adequate alternative means of public access to the deliberations. This meeting is being recorded and will be broadcast by ACMI. Members of the public who are participating via Zoom and who wish to offer public comment should be aware that they will be asked to provide their full name and address so that a complete public record of the meeting can be taken in accordance with state law. All participants of this meeting are advised that people may be listening to the meeting without offering public comment and those people are not required to identify themselves. Any votes that are taken this evening will be conducted by roll call vote. All supporting materials that have been provided to members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. And as chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. As the board will be taking up new business at this meeting, as chair, I make the following land acknowledgement. Whereas the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington, Massachusetts, discusses and arbitrates the use of land in Arlington, formerly known as monotamy, an algangquin word meaning swift waters, the board hereby acknowledges that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous peoples from whom the colony, province, and commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts today. So to start tonight's meeting, um we have there's the posted agenda on the town website. Um item number one is an administrative item. Um administrative items relate to the operation of the board and as such conducted without input from the general public. Board will not take up any new business on any prior hearings, nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. Uh so item one is the approval of the board's minutes from our August 11th, 2026 meeting. Uh these are minutes that were prepared by Miss Rston, distributed to the board for questions and comments and final version posted back last week. Are there any additional questions or comments as they relate to the minutes from our August 11th meeting? Seeing none, I move that the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington approve the minutes from the August 11th, 2026 meeting of the board. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Dupont. So, roll call vote of those present. Mr. Dupont, >> yes. >> Mr. Holly, >> yes. >> Mr. Leblanc, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. the minutes are approved. Uh that is the last of our administrative items. That brings us to our hearing for this evening. Uh before opening tonight's meeting for public hearings, here are some ground rules for clear and effective conduct of tonight's business. After I announce each agenda item, I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves for themselves and to make their presentation to the board. I'll then request that members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. And after the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will deliberate and vote to either continue or to close the public hearing. All votes will be conducted by roll call vote. The final vote on any matter before the board will be taken at a subsequent meeting once the written decision has been drafted and provided to the board. After the decision has been adopted and signed, the decision will be filed with the town clerk starting the 20-day appeal period under state law. After that time, the applicant may proceed with their building permit. However, under state law, no decision granted by this board shall take effect until a certified copy of the final decision has been filed with and recorded at the Middle Sex South reg middle sex county south registry of deeds in Cambridge by the applicant. So, with that, uh, going back to our agenda, the next item is number two, which is docket 39125 Melrose Street. So, if I could go ahead and ask the applicants to introduce themselves for themselves and tell us what they are proposing to do. >> Hello. Now, just go for it. >> Go for it. >> Cool. Um, uh, so I'm Catherine and or sorry, James and >> I am Catherine. >> Um, and basically what we're proposing to do is to, um, to put a roof over the second floor porch and to make the back porch large enough that we can do, um, basically family dinners on the back porch. What we have right now is about maybe five feet of usable depth on the back porch and we're hoping to increase that to something more like eight or nine um before you get to like the the structure of the porch. Um the other thing that's unusual about the porch is that we're doing an underground storage space that goes underneath the first floor porch. Um, and the reason for that is we have a garage on the property that um, we use to like store garden tools and um, stuff like that and bikes. And if we can make it work so that they can go underneath the porch, then we don't necessarily have to keep the garage longterm because it's in pretty poor condition. Um, but we don't have a really viable alternative to store that kind of stuff right now. Um, so that's why we're here. >> Right. Thank you for that. Um I will go ahead and share the documents. Um uh so this is the drawing set that was provided to the board. Um and so the proposal uh is for so this is the existing condition here uh in the lower row. So, the front porch is open at the front and it's a deck at the second floor level. And at the rear of the house, it is, as the applicant noted, a a pretty shallow back porch uh that's open at the lower level and enclosed at the upper level. And the proposal is to um I believe expand the rear so that it is enclosed on uh not uh this won't be made se uh three season correct I mean four season this is screen >> open screen >> open screen uh so an open porch on the two levels at the rear and then at the front will be uh fully open uh porches at the first and second floor level uh the first floor. Will the first floor be existing to remain or does it need to be reconstructed to support the second? >> Uh, probably reconstructed to some degree. Um, we we haven't opened the posts to see the condition, but we know that the footings are not supported under all posts and the the railing on the second floor. I can basically push it and break it if I really tried. >> Okay, let's not do that. >> No. Um so here is the the demolition elevations uh showing the work to be removed at the rear and the front. Um then some structural details and then some um plans. So the uh demolition here on the or structural here on the left and then on the right is the construction. So, the roof open second, open first, and as you noted, um, having some access down underneath for storage, um, in this location here. And then at the rear, again, structural architectural. So, this is um, and the enlarged um, on the second floor. And then on the first floor, access to the porch and the the house from the rear tenant. Um and then at the basement level having bike storage underneath and then just some ceiling plans and then the revised elevations. So um here's the rear with the the porch the screened panels in between and the column supporting and at the front uh the open with the column supporting and then I believe there is some additional um uh detailing and some more detailing and some structural Then this is the proposed. This is the existing site plan with a porch here at the front. Um, and then this is the existing covered area of the existing covered porch at the rear. Uh, note there's 25 foot 7 from the porch rear of the porch to the rear lot line. Um, and then is there a proposed site plan? Um, I guess it's here. So, go ahead. So as we know his existing is 259 by 30 foot8 and the proposed condition will be 2111 by 30 foot8. So I think the the first question we're going to have has to do with usable open space which you've identified here. Um, so you have usable open space today and you will at the conclusion of this you will not have usable open space. So I just wanted you to sort of walk us through your reasoning behind that >> reasoning behind I mean in in sorry can you clarify? Oh, sure. So, um, is so the is the you're required to have 30% of the gross floor area of the house in usable open space. >> Correct. Which we do not right now. >> So, what you're saying right now is that the 788 is less >> is less than the required 30%. >> Correct. >> So, it's an existing non-conformity >> with which we' be extending. >> Okay. Um and so that will go from um I remember what the existing percentage is. >> It should be in the um the >> I forget the name of it. It was the form the form we filled out for the application has the percentages. >> Yeah. So the >> Yeah. So it listed it as 55% which is Nope. So I grabbed the wrong one. That's why% look at the correct application. >> Um and so in this one existing usable open space percentage um usable open space existing usable open space percentage of GFA proposed. Okay. So, this has it going from 24.9% down to 0%. Okay. >> Correct. >> We have that. Um, >> Mr. Chair, if I may, Vincent Bodan, the architect for their project. >> Ah, yes, please. Mr. Bodin. >> Hi. Um, so I thought I would just expand a little bit on the applicants reasoning for asking for this change. A as we know I mean if you've visited some of these shallow porches especially the back porches they tend to get the depth is just too shallow to really re be used for sitting or eating. So they end up getting filled with laundry and boxes and so forth. And so what they're looking to do here is increase the depth from say five or six feet to about 9 or 10 feet. And that just really gives them a usable outdoor area where they can put a table, they can have a dinner. Um, so you know, as we understand, the zoning definition of usable open space is getting cut to zero, but they're actually getting left with a pretty decent backyard that they'll be planting with the vegetable garden, but the the porch itself will become much more functional. >> And they're also really committed to the aesthetics of it. the James in particular has been working with me a lot on the architectural detailing, getting the cornises and the the the columns and everything just right. So, we really do feel like it'll be a huge improvement over what's there and a benefit for the neighborhood. >> Okay. Um so the other question I have about the usable open space. So the the definition for usable open space um it in because it's defined as open to the at least 75% open to the sky. The board typically includes areas such as decks and stairs and open porches within the calculated area for usable open space. um because in most cases it's advantageous to maximize what that number is for the tenant uh excuse me for the resident. So in this case um it's not included in the existing calculation and so this is just something I want to flag for the board. the board to discuss how it wants to interpret that in this case um because we have often said that the usable open space goes to the rear wall of the house if it's an open porch and in that case I think you would actually have the required amount of usable open space which would become an issue if the lower porch remained enclosed. Um, so that's just something we would have to talk about um as a board and we can u bring you back in on that question as we go forward. Um, so with that, I would ask members of the board if they have any questions or comments at this time. Seeing no questions or comments from the board at this time. Uh I will now open the meeting for public comment. Public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing its decision. Members of public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments. Those who wish to address the board should digitally raise their hand using the button on the react tab in the Zoom application. Those calling in by phone can dial star 9 to indicate you would like to speak. You'll be called upon by the chair, asked to give your full name and address for the record, and given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly, and once all public questions or comments have been addressed, the public comment period will be closed. So, with that, are there any members of the public who wish to address this application? Again, um this is 15 Melrose Street. Um see Mr. Bodwin has his head up. Are you speaking as a as the architect or as a member of the public? Oh, okay. Uh, so I see no members of the public wishing to speak at this time. So I will go ahead and close the public comment period. Um, so returning to the board. Um so what we have before us this is an application um to uh sorry a lot of pages here um that is being filed under section specifically um so oh so this uh sorry under uh chapter 8. So this is a section this is a uh request to um in regards to existing nonconformities. Um so the enclosed front porch uh falls under section 539D at the front which because the porch falls within the front yard setback uh can only be built upon by uh the granting of a special permit by the board of appeals. And in the rear, the extension of the porch would um extend an existing non-conformity with regards to uh usable open space as is calculated in the application. Um and so uh with that um I I think the just to address the front of the house first. Um I this is very much what we like to see when we are looking for um enclosures at the front porch or um the uh the roofing of a an existing uh deck upper deck on the front of a house. Uh rema maintains the open feel. Um it allows the residents to maintain their contact with the street. It's not creating any kind of undo enclosure. Um it uh it really serves as an amenity and has been noted um by the by the applicant and the the architect. Um they've done a you know a lot of work to try to make sure that the the detailing um is is fitting and proper and so we appreciate that. Um at the rear it's very similar. Um but the the question I really have for the board is um has to do with how we're how the board has been calculating usable open space and whether we should take the calculation as it's shown on the drawings or if the board has set a sufficient standard that it that the area of the enclosed porch ought to be included. um in that calculation. Uh so but before we turn to the board uh the architect Mr. Bodden has a comment. Thank you Mr. Chair. And just an additional bit of detail with regards to the rear porch for the board's consideration is that the existing condition is much more opaque. The existing rear porch has essentially opaque walls with kind of single pane windows. And what we're proposing to do is remove the opaque walls and replace it with a more or less open condition with just an insect screen. So the board can decide whether or not that factors into the decision, but the resulting porch would be more open to the air. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um I'll go ahead and just quickly share this as well. Uh so the existing condition here is along the bottom row. Uh so currently uh the the panels below the hand below the guardrail height are enclosed uh and the upper is fully windowed. The intent going forward is that the it would be screened all the way down. Um so are for comment from the board especially in regards to calculation of usable open space. We don't Mr. Leblanc. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I guess one thing I'm trying to understand is like where does it put what's the existing depth of that porch and then what what is the what then that area might be just to see like is it actually non-conforming or not already even if we were to include that porch. >> Okay. Um, so what is the existing depth of that porch? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm checking the drawings. The approximate existing depth is about 6 feet the existing rear porch and the proposed depth is about 10 ft. >> Okay. Because then I guess to the other point, right, the the definition is 75% of it must be open to the sky, right? Then if we were to say, okay, we're still going to include the porch and the calculation of the condition to that would be existing after the new porch was built. Is that 75% open to the sky? Is that remaining area is that still the 75% does? So, I guess there's maybe a little bit of information to have to to help here, >> if that makes sense. >> Yeah, cuz the was it 30 point because the existing usable open space would be at 958 if it included the area under the existing enclosed porch. um which supports close to 3,200 square ft of gross floor area and the existing would still be compliant. Still be non-compliant. Ah shoot no it would be just compliant. That's the problem. So it' be 3194 as a and the existing is 3166. So um so I guess my question for the board is it are we do we ex I think we have two options here. we can accept the open the usable open space depth as presented on the plans um and move forward from with that or if we feel that the usable open space should be to the rear wall of the building. It is currently compliant with usable open space. And if they were to proceed with their project and and have the porch screened in, I think at the first floor level, it would we would now have this issue that of not of all of a sudden now not having usable open space. But if it was not screened at the lowest level, then the existing condition and the proposed condition for usable open space would be identical. um because both would be open and it would not be more than 25% of the area for the usable open space. >> Uh Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Mr. Leblanc. >> I guess do would we consider a screened in porch to be enclosed? Because to me that still is open. So then I guess it doesn't change >> what the usable open space is >> because I guess I'm of the mind right now of um I think what is being asked here is entirely reasonable and absolutely >> I think we would be having a much different conversation if we were try if this was trying to extend with a full addition of the back porch versus we're actually just reconstructing porches here. Um, so I to me it's just very straightforward. >> Okay. >> And I I don't I also don't want to go against other precedent that maybe we've been doing but right >> here it's a very reasonable ask I think. >> Okay. So I guess then my question for the board would be is there anyone are there any members of the board who would be who would not accept a a position of the board where we say that the usable open space does include the area of the existing uh steps and porch at the rear. So it's the large that larger number which is 958 square feet. But in the final position where the first floor porch is open but screened that that does not remove it from the area that can be considered for usable open space and therefore the usable open space is not changed by the uh screening of the by the the reconstruction and screening of the porch. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. plan. >> I would uh embrace that position that it that it does not >> uh that the being screened in does not mean that it is no longer open. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Second that. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Holly. Um are there any other uh questions or concerns from the board? Uh seeing none. So there's sort of two parts to what the board is looking to approve. Um so the starting at the front of the property. Um this is the enclosure within a or not enclosure, excuse me, a building above uh within the front yard setback which is under 539D. Um which requires a special permit. there are no special findings that are required for that determination. Um and then at the rear uh this is now um effectively approvable by right because we are we have determined that it is not affecting the usable open space. So there currently is no um nonconformity that is being extended uh as this project by the proposed construction as we are considering the usable open space. Um so with that we are just confined uh to the findings that are required under section 333 of the zoning bylaw. Uh the primary finding is that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts. Um so I I think in this case it's and certainly by the the testimony of the members of the board um there are tremendous benefits to a project such as this in allowing the the family to better enjoy their their home and enjoy the the company of uh the outdoors and their neighbors. Um and there really are very few adverse effects that uh would come by such a by such a proposal. Um in support of that uh there are seven subsidiary findings. The first the requested use is allowed or allowed by special permit in the district. Um as we noted the the special permit that's required is for the enclosure of a porch which is allowable by special permit under section 539D. Uh the requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. Uh the desiraability here is that it allows the family to to continue to utilize the the home and uh to better enjoy the outdoors of the home and to uh enjoy the benefits of uh proximity to their to their neighbors and to have um especially nowadays a place where you can be outside and have it screened in uh to avoid the the pests of mosquitoes and the like. Um the next is that the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety. Uh the porch remains unenclosed at the lower level um which is the closest part to the street and the sidewalk and will not uh in any way cause any uh undue traffic congestion or being an impediment to safety. Uh the next is that it will not overload any public system. uh there will not be uh any sort of increases that would uh affect the public system. Uh special regulations for the requested use are fulfilled. There are no special regulations for this requested use. Uh the requested use will not impair the character or integrity of the district. Um as had been noted uh earlier by the architect uh the the applicants have taken real care to make sure that this uh is very well detailed and well fitting with the the character of the house and the character of the neighborhood and will be a great benefit to the neighborhood. Um next is the requested use will not be detrimental to public health or welfare. Uh this allows the the residents to better use their home and to enjoy the benefits of being outside which will have no detriment and the requested use will not cause an excess of use detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh this will remain uh the primary use of the house which is a a two family dwelling and will remain as such. Um so with that I think the board can find that um that this uh application uh meets the standards for a special permit. Um are there should the board vote to approve there are three special permit conditions uh that would be included. Uh the first is 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 Arlington zoning board of appeals. Second, the building inspector is hereby notified there to monitor the site to proceed with appropriate enforcement procedures at any time they determine that violations are present. Building inspector shall proceed under section 3.1 of the zoning bylaw and under the provisions of chapter 40 section 21D of the Massachusetts general laws and institute noncriminal complaints. If necessary, the building inspector may also approve and institute appropriate criminal action also in accordance with section 3.1. And the third is that the board shall maintain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the special permit grant. Um, are there any additional conditions which members of the board feel would be appropriate uh in regards to this application? >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Dupont. >> So, just very quickly, so we're not really doing any binding for the rear as you're laying it out, correct? Yeah, >> that's my my reading of this that because the the reason for that needing to be approved by the board was because there was an existing nonconformity that was being um increased and that is >> a usable open space. >> Correct. So the only the only thing I wanted to point out is so we're saying that uh as a right or by right that the uh plan is proposed is acceptable. That would change if the if the uh first floor porch in the rear was closed >> correct >> based upon the rationale that's been uh you know that's been put forth. So, I'm just mentioning that I don't think that there's necessarily any place for us to put it in this decision, but I would >> just suggest that the applicant keep that in mind. >> Okay. >> I do think it does make sense to add a condition. And I think even if it's just explanatory um and I'll have to massage this language before we uh come to a final vote on the decision. Uh but it would be something along the lines of the board finds that the rear porch that that the existing rear porch does not interfere with the usable open space and the new and the proposed port similarly doesn't interfere and therefore a special finding is not required for the rear uh for the modification of the rear porch. So be something along those lines. I need to work out the final language on that. Mr. Fleming. >> Yeah. So this is just a sorry Mr. Chair, this is just a question then. Um is is this a um >> is this this is a just an explanation that goes into the decision. It's not a condition that's binding in the future if the zoning bylaw were to change. >> Correct. Yeah. Because it would if if the zoning by to change, this would become a non-conformity. It would it wouldn't mean that it would have to be modified in any way. >> No, no. What I what I mean is um totally arbitrarily. Let's suppose usable open space goes away at some point in the future. in the decision that you reach in the next in the next however many weeks. >> Yeah. >> Is there a binding condition on some future owner then that says they can't do an enclosure if the if the resilient has changed or is it or is it in there just as saying we don't need a finding because of this reason? >> Yeah, I just I just want to make sure we're very clear as to why we're not including a finding for the rear. >> Okay. as opposed to making it something that is is binding on how >> I see interpreted in the future. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. Um so with that um in the absence of Mr. Hanlin. Um I will take on the responsibility of appointing someone to draft a decision in favor of approval. Uh which will be uh presented and voted upon at our next hearing which is um it's on September 8th, Tuesday, September 8th. Uh so with that um I move that the zoning board of appeals for the towning of Arlington close the public hearing for docket uh 391215 Melrose Street. >> Second. >> Thank you Mr. Dupont. So then roll call vote of uh members. Uh we have Mr. Dupont. Yes, >> Mr. Holly. >> Yes, >> Mr. Leblanc. >> Yes. >> And the chair votes yes. So, we are closed on 15 Melro Street. Uh, thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> You're very welcome. So, with that, we're returning to our agenda. Item number three is docket 391315 Beck Road. Um, so I'd ask the applicant to introduce themselves and tell us what they are proposing. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Mary Win Stanley Okconor representing Peter Mara Maria Danos who is the owner of 15 Beck Road. Um, he also owns he and his wife live in the house on the next lot at 17 Beck Road. Um this is another chapter 8 uh special permit request but it is involves a use what is presently there um is a commercial storage facility. It's a prior non-conforming use in a residential zone and what uh my client proposes to do is to change the use from a commercial storage facility for for a fee to an office type use. And that office type use would be apparently there is a significant need uh for meeting with and this would only be by appointment. It would not be open to the public. So p the public couldn't just come in to this office. They'd have to come up only by appointment to meet with my client uh to uh fill out all the necessary paperwork to turn in uh firearms. For instance, if someone passes away and uh the deedent's family uh has firearms that the deedent had or for people who want to dispose of their firearms, no firearms will be stored at the site. This is to facilitate the administrative portion of this. And um I would suggest to you that this is a uh under chapter under section 8.1.1 and 8.1.2b to be that um you need to make a positive findings um relative to this use. Um and that it is not um uh substantially more um detrimental or it has not it does not um impair the integrity of the area. Uh and it is is not a significant extension. It shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use. And I would suggest to you that an office administrative type use um is a less intense use. Um there's um less traffic and the like coming. Um and um I can go through the 3.3 um criteria. Uh I think it satisfies all of the 3.3 criteria. Um it's uh allowable by special permit. um the uh it's essential or desirable this change of business use because it is changing something from a commercial storage facility to an office type use. Um there's definitely no increase in traffic. It'll be less no impairment of pedestrian safety. Um there is no bathroom facilities in this garage. Nothing will change on the exterior of this property. Um so there won't be any overload of the public system. There's no special regulations that apply uh and it will not impair the character or in uh uh the neighborhood and it would certainly not be an excessive use um in that neighborhood. Now, if you're familiar with that neighborhood, it is a significantly industrial type. There are residences, but there are a number of industrial type uses there. So, this is what my client would like to do with that um uh property. Um it would be to facilitate meetings with people who want to um dispose of their firearms and fill out all the paperwork. Everything the firearms will be stored offsite at a secure and locked facility will not be on the property. So this is just an office use to facilitate the administrative work and the ultimate transfer and sale of the of the these firearms that are going to be disposed of. This is the type of use that assists um the police department in getting uh firearms turned over and off of the street. >> So that would be and I don't I don't need to get into I don't think Chairman Klein this this property has a number of dimensional nonconformities. I don't think I have to address them because this is a just a change of use. >> Great. Thank you very much for that. Um, so members of board, this is sort very similar to a case we had a couple years ago on Pond Lane where uh it was an existing property that had both a residential component and a commercial component that had been constructed in the past. Um, in that case it was a little that the there was a little bit different because there was actually a a u zoning board decision that allowed the construction of that. Um in this case there is no zoning prior zoning board action on this property. Um so it uh the the providence of the building is uh is assumed to have been built by right at some point in the past. Um but again it is a it's in a residential neighborhood. It is an existing commercial structure with a commercial use that's being asked to change to a different commercial use. Um, >> and I will tell you my client met with the building inspector and um, he concurs that this is a prior non-conforming use and directed him to your board of course for the change. >> Great. Thank you for that. Um, one thing I was just quickly referring um, so the requirements for is there any parking that is available for uh, people who would be visiting uh, this business? >> Yes, there are I think six parking spaces. All that are required are three. My client will be the there'll be no employees. um it'll only be him and he will be of course be parking in his residential lot next door. Um and this would be by appointment and three spaces would be required for an office use given 1100 square ft. >> Okay. >> And there are more than three. >> Okay. Is Beck a private way? Um, Peter, is back a private way? >> Sorry. Here, I'll take you. >> Uh, yes. Yep. Sorry. Uh, Back Road is a private way. >> Okay. Okay. Um it's uh just uh to the applicant if you could just explain a little bit more about the what the need is and what the process is that you would go through with your clients. >> Peter, go right ahead. >> Yep. So the um the need is is um I have come across and helped facilitate uh quite a few families in the past with um you know the removal and disposal of their firearms because they did not realize that they had monetary value and um and uh also um and what sorry what was the second part you said just again >> uh just sort of how what the need is and how the process would work for you. So the pro the process would be to um to get all said firearms that are basically that folks don't have don't need or they've inherited or um family heirlooms things where people like hey I've had this a long time I don't need it anymore don't know what to do with it and or also folks that have passed away and um people hang on to things they don't realize that you know these things you know are also worth money when you know funeral costs are expensive you know and people are in debt So, um I've helped uh quite a few families do this in the past where um I brought them to other folks, other FFLs to do this, but I said, you know, I've been in this type of uh you know, environment for a long time. So, I said, you know what, I should get involved with this. So, this is uh one way to also focus on firearm safety and uh keeping you know, basically the weapons out of hands of people who aren't licensed. So, >> okay. >> So, people would sort of contact you because they they have a weapon in their home that they're looking to dispose of. Uh, they would leave the weapon at home. They would come meet with you, file the paperwork, and then the weapon would be transferred to an alternate location that is already been deter is that already some is that >> a place in town that's been determined or is that >> So, I would uh take possession of the weapon. I would record it in my books per the FFL standards and then the weapons would go into safe storage and then um transferred and sold to other um federal firearms dealers out of state. >> Okay. Um so you would so would people be bringing the bringing them to you? Would you be going to them to retrieve it? >> It could be it could be either or. It would be better if I could go to them um just to make because if they're not familiar with these weapons and that way I can clear them for them, make sure they're made safe, get locks on them, do full inventory and then um Yes. And then bring those weapons to the safe storage. >> Okay. U because >> and safe storage is a is not is off site. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. just basically because obviously if someone has, you know, inherited a weapon or they find one in their home, they probably aren't licensed to transport it themselves. Uh so we want to make sure that they're that the process doesn't involve them needing to bring it to you. Also, that um it been stated that there would be no firearms stored on site. Um >> correct. >> So would they be transferred on site? So, they would uh I would go, like I said, I would go to the person's home. I would uh collect them, do a full inventory. I would then log them into my books, and then I would uh take them and uh get them into where they need to be in the secured storage, and then uh get those weapons uh to uh out of state to other federal firearms dealers for sale. >> Okay. And the paperwork needs to reside in um the office. That's why we need the office. We have to have a physical office location that is also subject to um uh search, excuse me, subject for inspection by the uh ATF. >> Oh, okay. Is is there a specific reason that they would be transferred to out ofate sales as opposed to instate sales? Um, I work with a fair amount of, uh, out of state FFLs that, you know, and it's it's like anything where some folks either have a desire to collect certain things or want different things. Firearms change hands day on a daily basis by all sorts of means, you know, and so it's just an easier method to rather than it's easier to work with other licensed dealers versus, you know, versus individuals. So, you know, so it's just it's it's a far it's it's a far easier transaction that way. >> Okay. I wasn't sure if there was a specific regulatory reason that selling in Massachusetts was an issue as opposed to out of state. No, I just I have a I work with a lot of folks out of state that you know that >> it's just you know an easier way of doing this and you know and I work full-time so this is just something I do on the side you know but also it's a way to help you know the local community you know you know with you know keeping weapons out of unlicensed hands. >> Okay, >> great. Um, are there any modifications that need to be made for the building to the building to facilitate the the change in use? So, like I can't remember. I believe it just has garage doors at the front. So, would you be changing the >> It has garage doors. They are uh a very strong structure and there is steel doors on either side. Um, I current I currently have um a full surveillance system installed um on my house and I plan on installing more cameras and uh around that building as well. And that's why I wanted to, you know, make a point to also know that there will not be any signs. There won't be any signage on this bill. >> Great. Thank you. and a um and I think as Miss Okconor had had noted, this is really just a a request for a change of use. There is no proposed modifications to the building that is before the board at this time. Just wanted to confirm that. Um >> this is a very discreet use. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh so I will turn to the board for questions. >> Mr. chairman. >> Yes, Mr. Dupont. >> So, I don't know um if this is something that we even need to address. Uh but I'll just raise the question. So, when we approve a use like this, and this is a little unusual. Um I would assume that in order to conduct the business that there is licensing required for uh for you, for the applicant. And so, I just would like somebody to speak to that. I assume all of those things uh whatever is needed along those lines those rules and regulations and licenses everything would be observed because we would if we're assuming that we're going to approve a use for some specific purpose that if there is lenture that's required to conduct that type of business that those requirements are met. So just out of curiosity. Yeah. >> Yes. Attorney Dupont. Yeah, there is u there has to be a federal firearms license whenever you deal with Yes, he has to be licensed. >> Uh >> and he'll have to have a business license from the town, of course, as well. >> Okay. I I just had to look up FFL on uh Google uh to figure out what that was. So, I assume that that's what the Okay. All right. Thanks. I just wanted to double check. >> Sure. There other questions from the board. Um, so as a as a question to to Mr. Connor, um, so this would be an approval for an office use. Do you would if in the future this was to change to a different kind of an office, say, you know, became a an engineer's office or, you know, something like that, do you anticipate that it would require an an additional modification uh to the use or would the board at this time be uh effectively assigning the uses to office and then alternative office uses could be um enjoyed at the site without the need for a modification to the permitting. >> Well, thinking that through, Chairman Klein, I would say if it was an architect or a lawyer's office, perhaps not, but if it was a dental office, >> um something with a lot more I think it would >> Okay, >> that would be my sense. Something with or a doctor's office. >> Um >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out what category it would effectively fall under um as a use and then I think it would be professional office use. >> Okay. Here it is. Yeah. Yeah. So, this would be fall under business. Uh, professional less than 3,000 square feet. Mhm. Are there other questions from the board at this point? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open the meeting for public comment. As I noted before, public comments taken as it relates to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of helping us inform our decision. Those joining us by Zoom can dial uh star9 uh and they'll be uh or if you're calling in, excuse me, if you're on Zoom, you may uh raise hand using the button on the react tab. If you are calling in by phone, you can dial star 9. You'll be called upon by the chair. Uh ask for your name and address of the record and given time for your questions and comments. So with that, are there members of the public who would like to address this application? Um and this is uh 15 Beck Road. So with that we have a raised hand. Mr. Steve Moore. >> Uh yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve Moore, Petemont Street. Um I have a couple of questions for the applicant for you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Mr. Moore. >> Um my my first question is what is currently stored in this storage facility? Uh, go ahead and forward that to >> M Conor. Yeah, >> it's rented out to various people who store um different things in there. We don't necessarily Peter, do you necessarily know what they're storing in there? >> Um, I believe it's just uh construction material uh for the most part. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's uh it sounds like a very secure storage facility currently. Um, I heard um I heard the applicant mention uh multiple times federal licensing and a local business permit. What state licensing is required for this sort of activity? >> Uh, Mr. O' Connor, >> I believe it's only federal. Correct, Peter? >> Yes, it is only federal right now. Oh, and state. Excuse me. And state. Thank you. Okay. >> All right. >> So, again, what state licensing is required, Mr. Chair? >> Uh, >> Peter, you got to answer that. I don't know. >> Would this be considered a sale or would this how how would this be considered by the state? >> So, I would need my um my uh state license to sell um especially to out of state. Um, and this would be the um um this would be a federal firearms license in order to sell firearms. >> Okay. So, you need a state there's a there's so there's effectively both a state and a federal license to yes p to sell I guess not to purchase but to sell particularly. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Does the applicant currently have such a license? >> I do not. I I currently uh have do not have the federal license because I need to get the approval done um for this prior to being able to get that license. I do currently uh have a um mass concealed carry permit and I was a firearm safety instructor for eight years. >> Okay. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. That that's that's helpful. I don't know if anything is contingent therefore upon you getting uh such a license or or perhaps not being able to get such a license. But that being said, um this is a a highly uh unique use and somewhat different than I've heard of before come before this board. And I'm wondering so I have a couple of questions about the use. Mhm. >> Um, >> so you're saying that no no firearms would come into this facility or leave this facility. I thought I I know you repeat um excuse me, Mr. Chair, the applicants repeatedly requested a claim that no nothing will be stored at this facility, >> but I guess I would ask through you are firearms going to be coming in and out of this facility and I'm guessing probably not except under the applicant's possession. >> That is correct, Mr. more. >> Mhm. >> Okay, Mr. Chair, that that means that that that there are firearms going through this facility just now under control and ownership, I guess, post >> the administrative meetings um of the of the applicant, but nothing would be stored here. Firearms may go through here on the way to a storage facility offsite. Um so it sounds like that's sort of the process. I'm wondering if we're talking about firearms that currently are only instate versus outofstate firearms. >> I can't Peter, can you add to that? >> I uh No, I wouldn't be dealing with any I wouldn't be bringing in firearms from out of state or taking in firearms from out of state. I like I said, I work full-time. This is just something I'm doing on the side. This is just to help the local community and surrounding towns. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. So it it's definitely local community based. I just I just understand that this sort of uh operation particularly when you talk about uh when the applicant talks about selling out of state >> uh is he talking largely about the state of New Hampshire? >> Um I don't know if that that is particularly relevant to the >> Okay. All right. Well, the reason the reason I'm asking, Mr. chair is that uh I don't I don't want to cast any aspersions on the gentleman and and where he's going with his business because it sounds like this is a need that needs to be filled. Um I I worry a little bit about the fact that in in the state of New Hampshire and and other states um there use use of a particular uh loophole in the federal law which has to do with dealer buying and selling firearms is a way to in effect move firearms around from for through particular uses. And I just I guess I would ask through you Mr. chair, >> what is the applicant's process for making sure that firearms aren't being laundered through his business here at this facility under this new use? >> Um, I I don't think he's going to be laundering firearms. >> No, no, I just Yeah. No, I'm I'm trying to just evaluate how to the the question itself because I'm not sure that we can like the like where the board could condition, you know, you can't do anything illegal. Um, but you can't do anything illegal anyways. So, I I I understand your question and I understand where it's coming from, but I'm not sure it's something that the board would be able to um act upon in its capacity as a >> All right. I understand, Mr. Chair. I would just I would just uh request that the applicant have clear enough processes defined in his business so he isn't inadvertently not necessarily with his knowledge laundering firearms through this facility from folks that are claiming it's inherited when it could certainly come from many many other venues. Uh enough said Mr. Chair I've made my point. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Moore. Are there other members of the public who would like to address this application? Um, I see a hand raised. Uh, Miss Nicole Weber. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> We can. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Name and address of the record, please. >> Nicole Weber, 14 writer. >> Thank you. >> So, um, one, I would have really liked to have this when my father passed. So, thank you for providing this, Pete, because it's a really important um place to look to um to do this. Well, one that I've never handled a lot of this kind of stuff, so it would be good to have it with someone that knows what they're doing. Um my question is, so the the firearm will not be stored there. How far away is your storage unit from your location? So, let's say someone calls you at 7 at night and says, "I really need to get this to you." Um, is there a way for you to get it to this other unit or would you just not pick it up that night and pick it up the next day? That kind of question kind of rumbles in my head with um the young population around us. >> Thank you. So when u when it comes to like something where if it's something of that nature, I would um I would want to wait till the next day because I mean it's are you talking about in like a rush situation? >> Miss Weber, >> grief is weird. You never know when they're going to call you kind of thing. So, I'm just like giving you a prompt to think about to say you say it's not going to be stored there, but if someone gives you it like >> 8:00 at night, would you say I need to wait till the next >> Well, I Well, I wouldn't Oh, yeah. No, I wouldn't be I I would set I'm by appointment only, so something like that. That would be scheduled for early afternoon. I don't book any late, you know, midnight gun grabs and meets and all that. Nothing like that. Um, no, this is something that I would have in the schedule and uh and I would be in full communication with the customer and I would also include sending the customer a uh a sheet of paper with information on what to do, what to expect, you know, and and of that nature. So that way everybody is careful. And then I would go there, make sure the firearms are unloaded, clear them, make them safe, put locks on them, and then from there, you know, bring them to the uh storage facility. >> Thank you, Peter. >> And how far is that storage unit? Do you know? You don't probably have one yet, but do you have an a guess on where you would maybe store these? >> I do have a location, but for the sake of safety, I would rather not say the exact location. >> Yeah. Would you would you say it's within an hour of Arlington? >> Again, I would probably refrain from saying anything just to deter any possible, you know, anybody who would may think that there may be, you know, weapons stored at this location, which I'm here to tell the public there won't be any. So, everyone can sleep good at night knowing that. >> Very good. Appreciate that. Thank you, Miss Weber. Did you have anything further? >> She's all set. Uh, are there any other members of the public who would like to address this application? Going once, going twice. Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public comment for this application. Um so what the board has before us this is a um an application to change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. Um and as uh Biz Okconor had walked us through this requires a finding from the board that the new use is not substantially more detrimental uh than the prior use. And um the board is allowed to attach conditions uh to the it's a to its decision uh should it uh decide it wants to vote in favor and those conditions can make sure that it maintains the the sense of it being not detrimental. Um, as I've been noted too, this is a bit of a different sort of a use, one that we're we have not seen before and is certainly something that uh I think requires the board a bit of care in terms of the conditioning on it. Um and particularly in relation to the conditions that had been presented by the uh by the sort of the the conditions that the applicant had noted that they would in terms of how they would operate their business. Um and at this time I think the board would be um we can certainly discuss how we would want to do uh what conditions what we feel would be necessary. Um, but I would ask the board and ask Miss Okconor if uh the if we were to continue if we if the if I could work with Miss Okconor to work out a set of conditions that would be amendable to the client um and to the board that we could then uh present at our hearing in September on September 8th um and then uh have further discussion at that time. That would be fine with us, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. So, with that in mind, so members of board, are there questions and concerns that you have in relation to this application that should be a part of uh discussion about um what sorts of conditions should would be appropriate for this type of use? um in the past. So the the past example that I mentioned before uh on Pond Lane was specifically uh to be used as a it was had been a contractor's office in the past. It was going to be used as a storage facility. So there were a lot of conditions that related to hours of operation, number of vehicle trips, things like that. Um a lot of that doesn't really necessarily apply here. Um, I think it would be appropriate because of the residential neighborhood uh to uh have a condition that relates to um hours of operation. Uh I think that's something that would be important. Um the applicant know there would be no signage. I think we would include that as a condition as well. Uh the condition that there would be no storage of firearms on the site. Um, I think the board would need to uh discuss if they are comfortable with the transfer of firearms on the site or if that's something that they feel would need to be handled off site. Um, and are there other um elements of this that members of the board feel would be appropriate to uh consider in a list of conditions? >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Dupont. >> So, I I realize that there are some nuances to all of this. I think from the discussion we were having, the only mention of having a weapon was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, uh, that in the event that the applicant, and by the way, if you didn't have the name Mary Win Stanley Okconor under you, I'd be calling you by name. >> I don't know how that happened. >> So, so anyway, I I don't mean disrespect by calling you applicant continuously. Um but I I do my sense was that what we were hearing was that uh people clients would not be bringing weapons to the site and that if there were weapons uh brought to the site it would be by the applicant in in in his control. Um, I would not want to see a situation where you had a client driving with a weapon in a car parking outside on the street, even if the weapon itself was not going to be brought onto the site. So, I I'd like to make sure because, you know, you don't want somebody stealing a car with a weapon in it either. So, I think that the security concerns have to be paramount in all of this. There other concerns for the board. Seeing none. Um, so the the I would move then that the zoning board of appeals for the town of Arlington continue the public hearing for docket 391315 Beck Road to Tuesday September 8th 2026 at 7:30 p.m. >> Second. Thank Mr. Dupont. So this roll call vote of the board to continue. Um Mr. Dupont, >> yes. >> Mr. Holly, >> yes. >> Mr. Leblanc, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. We are continued on 15 Back Road. Thank you so much for being with us this evening. >> Thank you. If you if you'd like, Chairman Klein, I can take a stab at a first draft of some conditions for the board to cons consider. >> I would appreciate that. Thank you. >> Okay. I certainly will. Thank you all. >> Thank and thank you all as well. I appreciate it. >> Thank you so much. >> Right. So, uh the next meeting of the board as we noted is Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. Um Miss Rston, I believe, uh up until now we had no business on the 8th. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Okay. So, now we just have the one continued hearing and um I believe that town council was able to is planning to join us that evening for our uh discussion of changes in the state zoning. >> Yep. I have it in writing. >> Perfect. Uh so what that is that that's going to be a training session for the zoning board of appeals and for the redevelopment board um to understand the implications of changes that were made in the state budget that changed the the state zoning bylaw. So it's a little bit of an odd thing that just happened. So we're trying to uh to figure that out. So that will be a training session. Uh training sessions are closed. Uh they're not open hearings. So uh the board will conduct its business that evening and then it will recess to uh training at the conclusion of its standard open business. Um so and then the other item uh that Mson and I have been talking about um the board has certain times in the past been less than fruitful in its delivery of minutes. And so, uh, Mr. Rosson has done a yman's job of creating minutes for past meetings that assuming that maybe Mr. Dupont and myself have attended in the past, but nobody else has attended. Um, and so there are a number of those that need to be approved. Um, and they're a little quirky because we're approving things that we weren't necessarily at. Um the procedure we sort of came up with was that we would um effectively for each meeting we would include one of these older decision older um set of minutes in addition to the standard minutes that we would have. Um and we would also provide um uh a way to uh access the actual recording of the meeting in some fashion. um if people wanted to to to view the two or just to refresh their memory on what it was. Um and that we would try starting out doing uh one a session and then if if it seemed like that was pretty straightforward and going pretty well, we could up that number, but that we would start out with one each time around. Mr. Alson, is that basically what we had discussed? >> Yes, that's perfect. >> Okay, so I think we'll start up with that. um in September and see how it goes. Um I'm very curious to see how my memory works for some of these meetings that I know I was at. What a really long time ago. Um so next on our agenda is the open set open forum session. Uh if there are members of the public who have issues to discuss with the board that are not related to a specific hearing, you may raise your hand to be recognized. Mr. Moore. >> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Steve Moore, Pont Street. um in what you just mentioned um I'm not sure how that would work in that how can the board vote on minutes of meetings they were not party to if it was only yourself and Mr. Dupont >> I think the board would have to I think rather than approve I think we'd have to vote to accept >> um >> is that is that Mr. chair is that >> I mean in lie of anything else I don't know what else we can do um you know we the we don't these are you know hearings that we just minutes were never posted for and so we're trying to come back into compliance with the open meeting law >> yeah I understand >> so it's very it's a little bit tricky as to how to make that >> work um >> so we'll just sort of have to to do our best other thing we can do too is you know we could vote vote as uh vote the members present and if it's just there are two people who are present then those are the people voting on the on the minutes we could do it that way as well. >> Yeah. No, it is it is quite tricky and the open meeting law has gotten as you know quite a bit more attention >> in recent couple of years. Um, so I I applaud I certainly applaud you guys trying to figure out a way forward because you're not alone here by any means and um and it is tricky to reconstruct a past particular membership turns over but between yourself, Mr. Deont and Mr. Hanland and certainly Mr. Leblanc who's been around for quite a while. Um, yeah, you may get through quite a lot of them. Who knows? >> Thanks M. >> Thank you Mr. Moore. Uh, seeing no one else available for open session tonight, I um, unless there's anything else, I would thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, and I especially like to thank Miss Rston for her assistance in preparing for and hosting our online meeting. Uh, please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings. It's our understanding the recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days. Arlington Community Media is dedicated to providing an electronic forum for the free exchange of information and ideas which reflect the talent, skills, interests, concerns, and diversity of the Arlington community. Please visit acmi.tv to learn how to support this valuable public resource. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbagtown. us. That email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Dupont. And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Llank. >> So roll call vote to adjourn. Mr. Dupant, >> yes. >> Mr. Holly, >> yes. >> Mr. Leblanc, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. The board is adjourned. Thank you all for being here this evening and we will see you on the 8th. >> Thank you. >> See you everyone. Good night. >> Bye all. >> Good night.