 Good evening, welcome to the town of redevelopment board meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order This is the September 18th 2023 meeting. My name is Rachel Zembery. I am the chair of the redevelopment board I can have the other members of the board. Please introduce themselves Steve Rubilak Eugene Benson Kinlow and We also have the director of planning and community development Claire Ricker with us this evening. I will Try and project. I know that we don't have mics that that pick up our voice So I would encourage anyone who is having difficulty hearing to please move to the front of the room We do have some HVAC. That's a little bit loud in this room today It is on to pick up for the ACMI, but it is not a microphone that projects in this room We don't have that capability in this room So at this time we'd like to move to the public hearing for docket number 3766 351 Broadway. We are reopening this this docket number. This was originally Moved to this evening from when it was originally scheduled and I believe that we have the applicant with us this evening so I'd like to first Provide the applicant with up to 10 minutes for an introductory presentation Then I will turn it over to Claire Ricker who will provide an overview On behalf of the Department of Planning and Community Development members of the board will then Have an opportunity to ask the applicant Questions will then move to public comment where any member of the public who is interested in providing a comment this evening will have an opportunity and then we'll move back to the board for deliberation and a Decision as to whether or not we'll be able to take a vote this evening So with that I'd like to invite the applicant to please join us here In the front of the room and we will clear if you wouldn't mind turning your microphone around maybe Ken and I can share our mic Thank you so much, Sean Just a brief overview of the great thank you 37 years and Time moon is a lovely Thai restaurant. That's it already has been on to they had a fire and they moved I mean they went out and covered up and they're back in the space That there was a pasta place twist and owned by ACS development Patricia assembly They currently have a temporary sign Very similar this but does not like I believe the reason that we're here is because the lighting I Understand the light this type of lighting requires special permit just in its nature of being Channel letters that what's happening? Water tells me that It's not necessary, but I don't know the external lighting No, they're these are internally correct. Yes. Yes. They're a little yes. I'm special. Okay, so these letters Pose channel letters are what we call reverse halo reverse channel letters meaning the hope The letters are opaque they're fabricated from aluminum there Lights inside and it's secondary lighting. That's shiny against the wall creating halo Right, we're going to be proposed to create that background which is about 10 feet long My to be high that will attach to an existing structure That's it. No power. You will see I mean you won't see power you won't see any hardware or fasteners and To be pretty seamless and attractive great. Yeah, thank you very much So I'd like to turn it over to Claire ricker for any comments on behalf of the department Sure. Thank you So this is an application Obviously for sign at high moon The height they are seeking relief to exceed the maximum width for signage in this area and they are And this is an internally eliminated sign so it's under the jurisdiction of the ARB They may also need relief on the 60% rule related to storefront Signage the whip excuse me the whip. That's correct and as well as on the awning Thank you very much So at this point, I'd like to turn it over to members of the board for any questions or preliminary comments starting with Ken I When I look at the streetscape did there's plenty of signs. It's already internal it did too. I think can't be narrow and Breakstone pizza and fuel are on either side of them. So I don't see an issue with this being internal it And I think the designer of this fits in quite well with Rest in the neighbors there so as far as the awning and Eternal that I have no issues I'm gonna leave it up to the rest of the board Talk about the size If it's a little smaller, I'm not Opposed to that or opposed to just leaving it as is I think I'm on the fence of that one there So I'll let the rest of the board see what they say. Great. Thank you Ken. Gene. I Don't quite understand how this is going to be late. Can you explain? Oh, sure? Actually, if you don't mind, can I ask you to switch pages? Okay, if you go to the section That's the one right there. So you're not a little bit, right? So I'll stand up and show you perfect. Thank you This is a sorry if I'm Bosh things with the camera here. So this is an existing structure. This is a section Yeah, of the existing structure, right? These are rails that are there now So if you want to go back to to the picture above actually the next one Sorry, you can see Yeah, right here at the glasses place you were there. Yeah. Yeah You can you see those those rails? Right. So those are there now behind this side. So we can go back to the sections. All right So these are the rails Right and we're going to fabricate this is a backer, right? That's the background for the sign and we want color and then this here is a section of a letter Letter is is all aluminum fabricated, right opaque at the back of it is clear Inside the letter is LED lights a letter the lights shine and as you can see the letters are spaced off the the sign by an inch or an inch and a quarter each and a half spacers and Effectively pushing the light against the backer, which makes a halo effect. You've seen it. I'm sure they're So if I were if this were there and I would walk up to it Actually see the lights lights are inside the letter. You can't see the light source No secondary light so just bouncing off the back door Okay, that's the only question I have Great. Thank you, Gene Steve. I just have one question regarding these and it's really regarding the relief for the whip The third the the for the standard Wall placement standard for a wall sign Each side has to have 12 inches or 20 percent, whichever is less So this is a 13 foot wide storefront So the maximum allowed width as I read it would be 11 feet They're proposing 11 feet seven inches. So it looks like we're seven inches two over 132 inches versus a hundred thirty nine. I believe that's correct. Okay. That was This That's the only thing I wanted to clarify I mean, I think I would say that The other signs on the block are consistent with that. They're all Basically the same size the storefront and that that What you're talking about the six inches on either side of the foot or 12 inches on either side What they are may be existing on conforming but again the plan of the board is to bring things into compliance when we Okay, Steve, did you have any other questions? Okay, the question that I have is regarding the if you go to the Claire the if you scroll down To the to the photo The existing photo there Right there. There are Gooseneck lights above the sign currently you're planning on taking those out I think the owner is planning on taking those out would not be in my scope They're electrician would do it, but I think the answer is yes, okay I think that would be part of our At least for me part of the contingent approval is to have two sources of light, but to remove the conduit attach and repair and Okay Please Well, that was your question. Sorry Great any other questions for the applicant before we move to public comment All right at this time any member of the public who has any comment Would like to make any comment on this application. Please raise your hand Great, so we will start with this gentleman right here I Will let everyone know that you will have up to three minutes to address the board Please introduce yourself by your first last name and address. So if you wouldn't mind Just yes, we can do the chair right behind that and we will ask anyone who's addressing the board this evening To join us in this chair right up here so that you the microphone can pick you up Thank you. Good evening members of the board of Michael Ruderman. I live at 9 Alton Street, which is right around the corner from this location. We're probably the nearest or the second nearest Residential of butters. I like the design. I like the fact that it's going to be internally lit I don't see that there's any possibility of a broad light spillage over the plaza Nothing that's going to leak back back around the corner. So I'm in favor of it I was going to ask the same point that I believe the chair brought up about cleaning up The the cornice by removing the non-functioning Lightheads there and restoring a clean and finished look above it We're very happy the time moon has found a new location and we'll take over the space of the late lamented twirl It's great. Great to see the storefront going to use. I just had one question I was wondering if if anything else in the original Special permit is available for questioning. I had a question about traffic patterns in and out Is that any part of the hearing tonight? It's been it's been something in the neighborhood on our minds As of now the board is only taking up the issue of the sign as part of this hearing right now, but thank you That's all. Thank you Thank you madam chairwoman. My name is Karl Wagner. I live on Edge Hill Road. I'm a town meeting member from precinct 15 I think this is great to see time moon coming back. I'm only sorry I don't know if AC Mike can pan around to the paltry showing of people on this particularly wet night Who are here who could offer their support and I really have to say the ARB deserves to give Arlington hybrid hybrid meetings There is another issue coming tonight You are preventing public input. If you have any comment on this particular Application you are more than welcome. I'm glad to see the word tie and moon with the nice Crescent moon there and I think Arlington deserves to be able to comment to you and see what you're doing on this wonderful Proposal and on the future things that you're going to address this evening. Many other ARB type boards You're out of scope. If you have anything to add about this hearing. Thank you very much I hope people will insist that this ARB go to hi. We're all set. Thank you very much Are there any other comments this evening? Thank you very much So at that point we'll close public comment on this hearing and we'll bring it back to the board for discussion And I will start with gene I'm in favor of this. I think it meets the Criteria to allow us to do a larger sign Because of the architecture of the building and the location of the building relative to the street I think if the sign the smaller of the letters will disappear So I'm in favor of that. I think it meets the standard the standard for the light, which is why I ask the question is You're allowed to have internally illuminated signs unless there's a directly Exposed light source and there's none here. So I'm in favor of this I agree with the chair about removing the goose leg who's neck lamps Great. Thank you Steve I am also in favor of this The I mean in terms of the relief thought it's a small number of inches There is also a little bit of relief for the width of the awning sign But they're taking up half the area that they could so I think that's a fair trade So so I actually do want to clarify for the board what the relief saw it is because It's it's bigger. I think then then we discussed so what they're what they're seeking For the sign width for it for the awning They are allowed on the awning for that to be 60% of the width of the awning as the maximum length of the sign and the same so that the 12 inches or Sorry, let me just go back down to the other Section here with regard to the building its sign itself that the 12 inches or 20% is actually the vertical Dimension there there is the same on on the side, but it also Indicates that the max is 60 inches or 60% of the building web again the way that this is written I think that the 12 inches we could we could we could get to so And we could find that that is appropriate you see that one gene that's on Yep, so it's actually a little bit more for the awning that they're they're looking for in terms of relief Then on the sign itself if we take the 12 inches it's I think Just a few inches over as it as it's shown right now Yeah, the building sign with the awning They're allowed my point was that they're allowed one square foot of sign per linear foot of awning so 13 square feet ish and this one I it looks like it's not quite five So it's a lot less Okay I'm fine with it. I'm willing to make a motion Okay, so we would Let me craft a motion here Is there a motion to approve Docket number 3766 for 351 Broadway with the caveat that the applicant remove the exterior existing exterior lights and Associated conduit and patch and repair the facade After those are removed So motion as Great, thank you Seeing a second we will take a roll call vote starting with Steve. Yes, Jean. Yes, Ken. Yes, and I may ask as well Congratulations looking forward to seeing time and return to Burlington. Thank you All right So at this time, I'd like to Move to our second agenda item, which is the public hearing for the warrant articles for fall 2023 special town meeting Before we begin I will run through the procedures for this evening So this is the second of three nights of hearing for a total of 10 more in articles Consistent with the past the ARB will be hearing from the public wishing to speak on these articles as Scheduled and only on the articles that are scheduled this evening So there's a the nine that are currently on the agenda The board will pose any questions to the applicants But we'll reserve deliberation and voting on recommended action on each article until the last night of hearings Which is October 2nd as I mentioned before the subject matter of the hearing is as posted in the agenda We will be hearing comment on the nine articles listed tonight We will not take comment on articles that are not posted on this evening's agenda Anyone wishing to address the redevelopment board on the subject matter of the agenda Shall signify that you wish to speak by raising your hand when I announced public comment period is open for each of those articles After being recognized to speak you will purpose your comments by giving your first Last name and your Arlington Street address Anyone addressing the board shall limit your comments or your remarks to two minutes We will most like this evening. We most likely will be able to get to all of the speakers But again, I will keep close track of the time We will close public comments After each one of the articles has been completed We welcome anyone who has additional items that they would like to share with the board to please submit comments in writing We will accept comments Obviously through town meeting and they are particularly useful as we approach our October 2nd deliberation and voting date Attendees a public comment shall not applaud or otherwise express approval or disapproval of any statements made or any action taking place during the hearing this evening She'll also refrain from interrupting speakers and everyone should conduct themselves in a civil and courteous manner If an individual repeatedly fails to adhere to this requirement, they will be asked to remove themselves from the public hearing Speakers should address all questions through myself as the chair They should not attempt to engage in debate or dialogue with members or other hearing participants as Typical I will take questions from applicants and save them all until the end of the hearing and then I will address them at the at the end if we determine That there is a clarification required will call on the appropriate person to provide a clarification during the public hearing At this time, let's go ahead and move into our second agenda item now, which is The warrant articles for fall 2023 special town meeting so we will start with article B and What I'd like to do this evening is have Jean present each of the articles. He was kind enough to draft together with Claire the the The draft warrant a main motion language for each of these articles So I will turn it over to Jean to introduce article B Which is a zoning by-law amendment related to open space in the business districts Yeah, thank you and thank you to both Claire and Rachel for working for me on these this and None of these are ones where we've actually ever approved the main motions So this is in some way the this is the first time we're going to be discussing This first one the open space in the business districts. I did not try it was drafted by Kelly line I'm a in anticipation of our bringing this to Town meeting in the spring, but then as you know, we didn't bring it to town meeting in the spring I did change it in in a couple of minor ways one of which was an error that outside your bag, but What what this proposes to do in capsule form is Right now One can have landscaped open space on a balcony or a roof As long as it's not as long as it's not more than 10 feet Above the level of the lowest store use for dwelling purposes when we had a conversation in the spring We decided it didn't make any sense at all to determine where on the building the open space The landscape space to be in fact some of you may have seen photos from around the world That have little green pockets all up and down the sides of buildings and how nice they look and how they add to the green space on The streetscape so this would allow the opportunity To do that with the open green space Some of the other changes which we had not discussed and I just put them in Because Kelly and put them in or to get rid of the requirement that open space is de-musable Only if at least 75% of the area has our grade of at least 8% which we'll need to discuss now. I accidentally on the next page Deleted section 5.3 Point 22c that section should not be deleted. It's the bottom of the page Instead what it should say is for the purposes of this by-law the district dimensional requirements for usable open space and Landscape open space in all districts except the business district are calculated Based on gross floor area for the business district See 5.5.2 I'll send that to you clear And the only other change for that is You'll notice at the end of 5.5.2 be at the bottom of the chart It says in the business districts the districts dimensional requirements for landscaped open space And usable open space are calculated based on the lot area, which is what we had talked about many times the only other difference between what is here and Actually, there's no other difference between what's here and what Kelly had put into the draft bylaw, so That's what it is. So basically if we did this we would allow and Encourage in some ways green space up and down the building sides and balconies on roofs we would delete the requirement for usable open space for some Parts of the business district because For mixed use in the business district and we had decided to do that because usable open space doesn't have to be green space at all and very often it could be Pavement Passful whatever the building kind of wanted it to be and It didn't make any sense that buildings were constrained that way And that's why when we discussed this maybe a year ago We determined that for mixed use and other permanent uses usable open space was really not a necessary concept So that's that Great. Thank you. Gene. We'll start with Ken for any questions or comments. I have none. Great. Thank you Steve I'm thank you for the clarification that the Percentage of lot area is only in the v districts and not the our districts I would that was the one concern I have but it is no longer concerned. That's all that is all matter great Thank you, and I appreciate that we also made that clarification to confirm that we are prioritizing landscape to open space in the Non-residential uses in the business district Any other comments before we open this particular article up for public comment All right seeing none if there are any members of the public who wish to provide comment, please raise your hands Please and I will ask again If There if we could just move that share a little bit closer, we will thank you so much Appreciate it We will ask that anyone who's speaking with us, please come to the chair here so we can pick you up on the microphone Reminder again, please introduce yourself by first last name and address and you live up to two minutes And I have to say I'm not super well versed in this stuff So and I've never been to one of these but in just Looking at it and hearing what you said. I have to say the lay person which is who I am Would understand open space to be not a balcony or a roof And so I just am wondering what is the root of this and it feels again at a distance to be a way of Allowing businesses to Reduce what I would consider to be open space By implementing say a roof garden or a balcony garden and those are lovely things But I would hate to see those implemented At the expense of what I would view as actual open space on the ground that one could consider sort of Visual or appreciable open space. Thank you very much. Thank you Any others, please Thank you, madam chair I'm Carl Wagner from Okay, I apologize we don't have microphones that project. Let me just restart your time. I'll just give me one second So I will just ask anyone who's speaking and again that's not going to project So if you could please put the microphone on the counter, can I see am I hear me if the microphone? Please leave the microphone He can't he can't be picked up. So again, I would just ask everyone project and again There are seats that are closer. So please feel free to move closer to the front. We're going to do our best project Please go ahead. Thank you, madam chair I must admit as I begin my comments the opinion of a lot of people is that all of this is Suppressing public comment. I'm very unhappy to hear that, but thank you for letting me speak I'd like to point out that article B is one of the 2019 density articles the 2019 density articles despite six months of public input and lots of public meetings by the director of planning at the time We're determined by town meeting and the people of Arlington to be Improper inappropriate for Arlington and not properly prepared particularly town meetings said that Articles like this which remove open space in the business districts will be ridiculous the idea of balconies and roofs being open space Which is what this does and the town meeting said to the ARB We will not support this and Andrew Winnell the chair of the ARB made a famous Speech which is available at video 2019. Arfa.org You can still see it on YouTube where he said we apologize The ARB will not bring Messages like this or articles like this to the town meeting or people unless we have your buy-in and you're Addically aware of this and I would ask you madam chair How many public meetings for articles B through J? Have you had the answer is zero? This is being rushed through on a rainy night with a few people hearing it Whereas in 2019 when we said no to you because it wasn't properly prepared. There were three to six months of meetings This is absolutely ridiculous People should not be saying open spaces balconies and roofs when we have a climate crisis We need to save our permeable spaces our open spaces for renters and for residents and this Business districts would affect many many uses beyond business such as as the mixed use This is absolutely wrong B through J deserve to be publicly heard by the people and the town meeting I asked you to reject it and send it back until you've had the director of planning Offering to the people of Arlington and the time of that. Thank you adequate hearing. Thank you Anyone else who wishes to speak this evening? Please I have some concerns about this a lot. I probably don't understand but One I would have the question, you know does this Elimination of the open space requirement for certain Properties in the business districts Does it Mean that that space would be built upon in other words not used for something that might actually be of more use to the community like You know places where people can gather in cafes or Or outdoor seating That sort of thing, you know is I understand this is not a requirement for This open space to be to be green, but You know if it's if it's going to be built It seems to me that's to the detriment of the town in terms of the You know the overall open space that we have available as a community Okay, thank you very much Any other speakers please? And thank you madam chair Chris floretty 56 Adam Street. I had understood this to be in Public hearing with a time certain of eight o'clock. So I miss missed mr. Benson's comments I'm making my comments based on the revised version of the articles as they were posted this morning First I would suggest that the changes to the definition go beyond the scope of the article And that they also apply to non-business districts This article is specific supposed to be focused specifically on business districts But when you change the definition those definitions also apply to residential districts what that will allow And I object to this both for residential districts and multi-story districts is usable open space on the roof of multi-story buildings usable usable open space on a lot area a lot areas that are very steep I can see people in residential districts trying to claim that their roofs are now usable open space Simply because they have access to them I don't think there's any reason why apartment buildings or condos should be exempt from the usable open space requirements merely because they're built in a B district rather than our district that's what you've come up with with this type of change that you're proposing and finally I would say that you're By making the changes as they appeared this morning you provided an explanation that usable open space For business districts is based on a lot area now. There's no explanation at all of what it's based on for this residential area Well, I think that covers it, but I think this one really is not ready for prime time. I hope you'll reject it Any other comments this evening Please my name is Joanne Cullinane 69 Newland Road I just want to say echo the sentiments of the previous speakers that this seems like a reduction another yet another below to like a Reduction of green space for the town as a whole And I guess I'll keep it brief. It seems like we're trying to pave over everything in town Every square inch and it just seems wrong-headed And I oppose it. Thank you Any other speakers? My name is Radnagar. Well, Anki. I live 21 Adams Street. I Am in support. I'm speaking support of this article. I just want to remind Or just you know Make it clear to everyone that we need to move along with times and this is how an LED or a sites You know the authorities bodies that certify You know projects, right? So they consider this open space, you know roof And and let's forget about all all those certifying bodies, right? Let's come back to base It's what is an open space as long as it's open to public. It's a space. It's an open space We live in a three-dimensional world. We forget that, you know, height is also dimension, right? You know, we have formed on rice terraces vertically, right? If you can do that Why can't we consider roof terraces and let's use the third dimension of this planet as well and And and and you know consider that open space. Thank you. Thank you Any other speakers, please? I'm Miller, 42 Columbia Road, Arlington. I Understand what you're saying about Three-dimensional space, but a rooftop is not accessible by everyone. I think that accessible Green space is what I can access and if everything is on the roof, then how much green space is there for the public? Question that that is appropriate use of the land And I wonder if maybe that should be open for discussion from the people in the town. I Also think that I moved to Arlington. No, I know I moved to Arlington because this is not summer bill There is not sidewalks everywhere. There's a reason There's also better schools if we have a lot of people moving into this City, what are we going to do about the schools? What are we going to do about the high school? I think that we were planning ahead with a bigger high school. I think that if we overfill it already I don't think that's appropriate use of the town resources That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you any other speakers please Kristen Anderson 12 up on the road west and I just want to ask the board to be cognizant of the fact that Since the pandemic happened people have been congregating outdoors more especially It's it's wonderful when we can eat outdoors and avoid transmission of Illness and it would be great if we had more outdoor seating for people to Eat out front restaurants. That's all that I would ask because I do that all the time I ate outdoors for instance most recently outside Trist and It's not as pleasant to sit in the street As it would be on a nice terrace Especially if there if you could be under a tree and this is why my favorite place to go is kickstand cafe Because they have that awesome outdoor terrace that you can be underneath the trees So I would ask the board to find ways to encourage more outdoor Seating for outdoor cafes and restaurants. Thank you. Thank you Any other comments? All right, so at this time for article B. I will turn discussion back to the board again We'll save deliberation for October 2nd I think that there were a few Clarifications that were warranted and Jean. I'm not sure if you wanted to Tackle some of these there were questions around Let's see whether or not well what I think one item to note is that for usable open space Usable open space does not necessarily if that remains that does not necessarily mean that it is open to the Public there's no requirement that easements are provided There are no requirements that easements are provided by the by the owner it could be for the uses the use of the The those who are either working or living within that building at all So I just want to make that clear that It does not necessarily mean that it is open to the public any other clarifications I think I think the other two other clarifications the bylaw now allows Landscape Open space to be on about any or a roof. It just limits the height But this would do is get rid of that height so you could have the whole building with green space If you wanted to so some of that is currently in in the bylaw right now Yes, and there's no public right for use of the land rather whether it's Landscape or usable open space. It's the property of the owner of the building who can decide whether The public is allowed on and so under what circumstances Yeah, I think that I think those are okay the comments I just Do you want to discuss any let's do it please tonight? Yeah, let's go ahead. I guess a couple of things I don't know where there's where they at least 70 percent 5% of the area as a grade of less than 8% How that got in Kelly's draft, but I left it in so we could discuss whether we wanted to keep Deletion or whether we're comfortable keeping in the 8% I do have it a bit on that please Overall, I I I think that striking that would probably remove a lot of non-conformities Just given the number of homes on Hills, but given the scope of the article given that we're really trying to my I Think the article is focusing on how Open space is regulated to business districts. I would for now I'd actually like to keep um, strike that part You know one of the things that we can think about doing based upon the school already's comment is slightly revised the two Changes in the definitions so that they only apply to the business districts to make it more consistent with the scope of the article And if we did that we just don't want to I'd still be in I'd have to read it, but I'm sort of inclined to want to keep that part But to unstrike Anything else Steve? No, Ken So what do you want to strike Steve unstrike? What do you want to unstrike? So the Through so there's the current draft Strikes the words at least 75% of the area has a grade of less than 8% I'm proposing that we remove that strike out So If I had a hill if this project is against the hill, let's say Along Paul will be a road, you know, but that's very steep. I'm not saying that point because that's that's a housing Then the slope behind it Is greater than 8% so we I can't count that as open space So that is my understanding that is what we have today and if you're right That's usable open space, but you could count it as landscape. Yeah, but we're talking about just Useful open space, okay, so You know in areas where you're limited that way Let's say you had a nice terraced You know switch back walking path with those sitting areas or whatever that can't be used as open space now Because you're limited to this because that area. So I think you're limiting the business Growth in those areas for this happening. I think we should leave it striked for that reason and That's I just think for opportunity or so But for that, you know, the only thing that I'll add is Usable this is in the definition We would have to be specific that it is just struck for the business So if again, if we're removing Usable open space in the business then you're striking it for the residential Which I think is Steve's case to leave it in. Yeah, but if the the dimensional tables are also a part of this Yes, and basically since five three twenty One is getting driven Yes The business so the v-districts you just have a landscape open space requirement So right so it it sort of moved for the business districts because it doesn't apply there Understood, but it it's still something that again if it if The definition applies both to business and residential so to keep it Specific to the business we would need to keep this in Right to your point, I think we would unstrike it Can did you have any other no comments Gene anything else Steve. Nope. Okay, so at that point we will Move on to article C Article C is a zoning by-law amendment related to rear yard setbacks in the business district and I will again turn it over to Gene Kelly had three suggestions for us if you look at the note on the second page one suggestion is the variable Rear yard setback, which is the one I put in Second suggestion. She had was no setback at all and the third suggestion. She had was a standard length setback Regardless of the size of the building Or anything like that. I chose the variable one because I thought it was the most interesting Of the three for us to discuss the other thing that I did is that Kelly When she did this only had for mixed use and permative use and other permative use And it sort of seemed to me if we were doing for that we might as well do it for apartment Also, so it's consistent for buildings of a consistent size So that's what we've done here. So we're not getting rid of the rear yard setbacks but we are if we adopt this we are Making them variable depending on What's in back of the building? if it's Just an alleyway It's one thing if it's the tall building and it but the residential. It's a bigger setback It's even taller building. It's a bigger setback So it's it's in some ways similar to what it was before Except now it's more responsive to what's in back What's the size of the building? So that's it. Great. Thank you, Steve. I I Think mr. Benson made the right choice and she was in the variable one. I do like it for precisely for the reason It is Sensitive to what's what's there? I think it takes context into account. Well, thank you. Thank you Ken, okay of it Okay So at this point any other comments before we open public comment All right, so at this point any member of the public who wishes to speak on this article, please raise your hand Sure, absolutely, no worry Really the one to look at it is the So note at the bottom of the chart. I think there you go. That's it the one that's underline great Did you have any comment or do you want me to come back to you? Thank you Anyone else, please? Thank you, madam chair. I'm Carl Wagner edge Hill Road. I Am concerned that like article B article C is being presented with zero public chance for comment and Changes such as was done in 2019 This is one of the items that was in the 2019 density articles that the ARB was forced by the town meeting to Pull their support for because town meeting felt that it was not properly presented and the town meeting and the town of Arlington Did not have proper input. I don't fully understand the changes But it looks like it's a drastic limitation in the commercial districts which can include mixed use now So that means residential also and I would ask the ARB to reject this and push it to a spring town meeting After the director of planning instituting proper public input meetings and open forums. Thank you very much Aram Holman 12 Whittemore Street, I Would echo what mr. Wagner says There's a process issue. There has not really been an opportunity for public comment This is very last minute. That's very Antithetical to the spirit of consideration and debate that is typical of Arlington In addition, this is the kind of discretion That the ARB is trying to give itself which frankly has rendered it Unaccountable and has given people the impression that it's highly arbitrary I don't think the ARB should have that kind of discretion. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Thank You Chris already and 56 Adams Street You know, some people say that town officials want to turn Arlington into summer bill and I was amused In looking at this particular article that when the planning department reviewed the regulations for various Other towns they picked the one that was basically the least Restrictive and that was the summer bill. So basic summer bills regulations So basically what is being proposed here is to adopt the summer bill zoning regulations for the rear yard setbacks for for business uses I Have a number of problems with these one What it means for example for mixed use development is that you'd have a zero setback for a thing like the bike path This bike path is next to a right of way If the right of way happens to be a street then what you've got is a front yard Another front yard and the rear yard shouldn't even apply. It should be the front yard setbacks that apply There's also some problems with the way the thing is worded. It talks about having a 30-foot Setback if you're above a certain number of stories And I'm wondering is that another step-back Reparment or just what does that mean is the entire building that has to be back 30 feet or not? I would also add that Rather than being based on the zoning district of the budding lawn It should be based on the use because Arlington allows residential uses in business districts It's more appropriate that it's it's how the lot adjoining the backyard is being used rather than what? What what the districts have happens to be so this one? I think as others see to me have said really needs a lot of work and I would suggest holding off on it for now Thank you. Any other comments, please? Elizabeth car Jones one Lehigh street And if I could just ask you to project as much as you can. Okay. Thank you. I yeah, I don't Speak that I understand. Thank you. I guess. Thank you. It's all I can ask. Um, okay. Thanks So it looked to me I Haven't looked at this thoroughly, but it looked to me that that the only The only properties that would be protected with this rear setback after this change Would be single-family homes. Is that? correct Because it looks like everything else is is crossed off We'll clarify if you have any other comments yet when we get to the end We'll absolutely clarify because it needs to be clear that you know Our two districts, which are very often a budding business district says, you know, you know would be well-protected from You know building up right next to it. So that was my concern. Thank you. Thank you any other comments Okay Seeing none, we will Return to the board for any discussion on article C and I'll start with Jean for the clarification that was just requested Yeah, let me just give a couple of clarifications So Elizabeth this applies this applies to certain buildings in the business district So if this building in back of but the residential district any residential district They have to meet the setback requirements any of them To a comment that this is discretionary. This basically takes away Discretion well, it's there's no discretion here anyhow. It just changes Like the setback requirements are to better reflect the size of the building and what's behind the building So we're attempting to put it in a better context Then the context Is now Great Thank you, Jean Steve any additional commentary or thoughts on this article. I don't believe this was ever proposed in 2019. Yeah, I don't think so. That's all I have. Thank you And this just for clarification all of these were originally discussed at several redevelopment board hearings in the winter leading up to ending up on the original spring Springtown meeting agenda which we've been Requested to be moved to the fall because of the numerous articles that were already on the springtime meeting that were not Redevelopment board articles for clarification Ken any questions or thoughts on this particular article? No, I just want to echo the fact that what you just said. I think all these articles not all most these articles correct Steve were had the proper Herries the so-called by the planning department for a presentation for the spring Town meeting, but we're asked to not present these and pull these articles the most opponent till the fall That's what we're doing right now. So that all the zoning articles could be heard together. Yes Okay, any other comments on the board before we move to the next article Okay Let's move to article D. Which is the zoning by-law amendment related to a step-back requirements in the business district I'll turn it over to Gene. Okay. So this I hope Captures what we have talked about more than once at public meetings Which is number one the step back would be along the principal facade of the building and not numerous And not numerous sides of the building second and we didn't reach agreement on this So it's in here so that we can discuss it Should the step back be on the fifth floor or the fourth floor? Right now. It's on the fourth floor. This proposes to put up on the fifth floor That's for discussion Clarified for a building with street frontage on mass ever Broadway the principal facade and principal property line Are presumed to be facing mass ever Broadway unless we determine otherwise that gets rid of the you know It's on two corners, which is the principal facade and we say the other thing where we have disagreed with Each other on how to interpret the by-law in the past It now says that it must be measured from the principal property line It may be on the fifth floor or a combination of various story setbacks of the fifth Story is set back the required amount So that means they could pull the entire building back Seven and a half feet if they wanted to they could pull the second floor back three feet another four back So when you get to this the floor with the step back You've reached the seven and a half feet The only other thing I did is the step back requirements were located Exactly the same almost in two parts of the zoning by-law So I deleted the second one which was five point three point twenty one C Because it was the same thing that was in five point three point seventeen and then we just re-loved Re-lettered what we had been D&E to C&D So I think that the discussion for us really to have is it on the fifth floor or fourth floor and Are we comfortable with allowing the stepbacks to build up? Great. Thank you, Jean. We'll start with Kim I was always on board To measure the setback from the property line I was not so many discussions and I was also on the line that The fifth floor setback should be seven seven and a half feet Irregardless of what's happening on the lower floors It could be up and be up along the property line or if you be set back From the property line It doesn't matter. It's the top floor which is actually the floor that's casting shadow or casting whatever Onto the street that setback seven and a half feet. So So I'm not clear. Are you saying if the building is pulled back seven and a half feet the fifth floor would be have to pull back another seven No, okay, so that it would just be cumulative, okay, got it. Yes, okay And that's what you have with you. That's the way this yes, and so I'm just saying I agree with everything here So fourth floor or fifth floor floor So there I have Two or three comments one the sentence this requirement shall not apply to the buildings in the industrial district We don't need that because the industrial district Right, but I I'm hesitant to The industrial districts. Yeah, they have it is a different set of rules But step backs there are no step back requirements in the industrial district So I would ask that we consider restoring that sentence. Okay In terms of where the setback is measured from I would have actually preferred to say that it's It is an increase over the yard setback But since in these cases the yard setback is zero It's okay to say measuring from the property line because you know, it's a it's the same difference In terms of fourth or four or five the fourth or fifth story. I'm I'm on the fence at the moment, so I'm on the fence Thank you. I I Agree with Steve. I have no issue with our current requirements of the of the fourth floor. I think that it Provides an opportunity for a more dynamic facade in terms of the height that we are currently have permitted Within our zoning bylaw and the FAR modifications that were Made recently as well, so you would put it the fourth. I would keep it at the fourth. Yeah, I would too So I mean that's something that we can continue to discuss This evening after public comment and then obviously again on on the second Any other initial comments before we open this up to public comment? No, okay, great any if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on this article, please raise your hand Aaron Holman 12 bit of more Street. I Again, do not think this is a good idea I think the critical thing here as I am reading the original and comparing it To what you're proposing The original says that the setback shall be provided Along all Building elevations you are now limiting the setback to only one side of the building I think that's rather poor treatment of people on the side streets limiting this Only to Mass Ave or Broadway. I think that does people on the side streets a disservice Thank you. Any other comments, please pain 79 West Marlin now, and it's really just a Comment to say that again as the layperson This stuff is really hard to understand And I respect that you have the hearing and are opening up the public comment But before someone like me to even make an informed comment I don't even really understand this and I'm just as a general comment. Is there a mechanism by which? The complex work that you do could be translated say by an illustration a picture or some layer That makes it more accessible for people to understand what it is that you're proposing and that's I guess a general comment Not probably specific to this. Thank you. Thank you Any other comments, please? Thank you, Chris already 56 Adams Street. I think it's important to remember Back when the step backs were sold to town meeting and they were sold to town meeting as a way of ameliorating the higher building heights That were allowed under other zoning changes and the the expressed intent was to have those stepbacks on all street frontages not just the Just on one street and also to start them at the fourth floor And I think that's where they should remain Most residents in town don't even want five-story buildings on Mass Ave and Broadway and the master planning process showed that I Think it's arbitrary to find the principal facade is on Broadway or Mass Ave For a lot of these lot particularly on Broadway the longest street frontage It's going to be on the side streets and those side seats are typically less wide than Broadway or Mass Ave Those are the ones that really need to step back not the not the You know the major thoroughfares, so I believe they should remain on both sides And particularly if you're keeping them at just seven and a half feet from the property line that that's really minimal You know a lot of buildings are not built right up to the property line So it's it's not a significant ass to do that So I think this should be left exactly this you know by law change should not be made at all And I look forward to arguing that at town meeting Any other comments Okay So at this time I'll turn it back to the board for any other Clarifications or comments and we'll start with Jean. I think the only Clarification first I understand that this is a difficult topic I taught zoning law planning law for about a decade and I know The time it took the students who were graduate students to get up to speed I understand Pictures would have The only thing other thing I'll say is we're not saying the principal facade and property line Mass Ave or Broadway's that we're saying they're presumed to be but that can be changed So if it's a little bit on Broadway and a lot on the side street we can determine that that's a more appropriate place So that's the only other clarification All right, thank you Kim no Steve So in terms of four versus five, I think we landed on four Gene and I I think we're comfortable before you were on the fence and Kim is Interested in us moving to five. So I think that's still up for discussion. Okay, I will I will join you on the four side Okay, any other discussion Okay Let's move to The next article e which is the zoning by law amendment related to reduced height buffer area and I'll turn this one over to Okay, this this is exactly what Kelly draft did along time ago. I've said this to Rachel if you look at the warrant article it says five point five point two I looked all over five point five point two and I could find nothing To put it in scope So you see what this says? I'm not sure the lower height numbers make a lot of sense But I just don't think this is in scope and I don't think we should go go along with it Thank You gene as Jean and I were looking with this one. I I Agreed with that as well We can certainly talk about it, but I would be interested in us Discussing this one a little bit further and perhaps coming back In the in the spring with I modified article Ken Did we talk about this before we did this was one of the articles that we had on for for the spring We talked about it before, but we didn't talk about we didn't land on the right and again I think there's a mismatch between So you're saying this go ahead and Your suggestions go ahead and strike this from this fall To vote no action and to not move this one forward until we have more opportunity to Explore this one further. I'll be okay with that Steve so this one is actually interesting the height buffer areas or the height buffer distances We're in the 1975 version of this bylaw Where the plan unit development district allowed 200 foot buildings and the r7 and b5 allowed 110 feet Now each of those zoning districts was down zoned at some later some later year in the 70s and 80s But no one ever moved the height buffer It's in the last the last one. I've done I have tried to chase down as much primary source documents like ARB minutes town meeting transcripts to see if it was ever discussed and it was never discussed So this just seems like an internal Inconsistency that crept up over a couple of years of successive down zonings but in terms of just you know The you know the the geometry of the triangle we've changed the height But we haven't changed the base and I think it's worth at least Changing the in the spring perhaps change changing the base to get back to what where it originally was That's very I think that was the original intent. I think that again with the Specific Lower height that that we're looking to achieve that Some additional study Would be beneficial. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any other comment? Well, it's not just a clarification lower not lower height. We're Seeking to achieve, but the lower height that prior Yes, I'm sorry. That's correct. That's correct Okay Any so just want to open this up for public comment any comment on this particular article, please Thank You madam chair Carl Wagner precinct 15 town meeting member and Edge Hill Road resident This is another of the articles that were before the town meeting in 2019 and which were given Extensive chance for the public to hear about and if not to change them by the planning director in the 2018-2019 period. I don't know if people online can see or 13 members of the public that showed up here for this can see But you're proposing the town of Arlington is proposing for the ARB to reduce the height buffers by three quarters and People who live in in single two family or people who appreciate open space that back up against these buildings are going to have Enormous buildings that are being proposed by other articles the MBTA density overlay much much closer to them and The big problem is despite words the contrary. I think really to say that any of this was given to the town Prior to the spring town meeting this has not been open to meetings like these 13 people here We are seeing this for the first time and I asked the ARB respectfully to vote No action on BC and this D as well as the rest of these items and push them to Spring town meeting and ask the planning director and the town which works for the businesses and the residents of Arlington To give presentations where people can give proper input. This is a rushed job And we don't deserve this these volunteers do not deserve having to have an employee that works for me doing this Thank you Aaron Holman 12 Whittemore Street. I second what the previous speaker said and I do not think the redevelopment board Should have this kind of discretion a previous speaker Two speakers ago just said this is highly technical difficult to understand and Some pictures would really help. I think that with the delay in doing this You not only could allow the public debate you could put together some visuals some pictures Which explains what this is so that people will get a handle on it. I think if this passes It will add to the popular perception that the redevelopment board is as a body That is simply responsive to developers, but not to the citizens Who pay for it? Thank you Any other comments? Please Thank you. Crystal already 56 Adams Street again. I think just to echo Mr. Benson's comments. I mean this the way they Bylaw language change is put in its way outside the scope of the article which deals with variable rear yard setback So I'm assuming that's why You don't want to go forward with this and I would completely support that but even thinking about this in the future for the spring I mean what's proposed completely eviscerates the height buffer This reference to not being detrimental based upon criteria established in section three point three point three and three point three Between four is completely meaningless because those sections have absolutely nothing to do with with the height of the building or You know relevant criteria like of things like solar access if top if the redevelopment board wants to get rid of High buffer areas they ought to just put that before town meeting and be honest about it rather than you know Doing away with it the way it's done here But you really don't need to do that because you already have the power on a case-by-case basis Just to wave the height buffer area If you can show or if you can find rather that the budding properties are not adversely affected And if you can't find that and the ZBA can't find that then I think you really need to ask yourselves Why you would want to do away with it? Thank you Thank you. Any other comments? All right at this time we will move back to discussion by the board. I will start with Jean Just for clarification for people who don't understand this in a very few places in the zoning bylaw Buildings can be two different heights But this says is if you have two different height options You have to use the lower height option if you're within a certain number of feet of some of the residential districts unless In this case the ARB finds it's not This is basically changing the wording Changing the height, but we're not bringing this to town meeting. It's not ready to go to town Great. Thank you, Jean Steve No, great. Thank you. We will move on to Agenda item or excuse me article Chi I'm sorry article F. Thank you. The zoning bylaw amendment for corner lot requirements. I'll hand it over to Jean Okay You can read it. It's only three sentences. That's added It basically says that in the business districts the setbacks are the setbacks prescribed in the business district And what might and not the setback from father down the street in the residential district? This has come up a lot of times where we've had to waive this Because the building is either already there or it sort of doesn't make any sense to not give it the ability to go to the property line and there's no Adverse impact. So we had discussed that this was just a way to clarify that this is the way We have been doing this up to this point And makes it easier for everyone to understand Great. So thank you, Jean Kim Yeah, I can ask I know it's only a couple sentences. I just want to make sure I'm perfectly clear what's going on here so the two front the two Sides of the building are facing the street a considered front yard setbacks The other two sides of that let's say square property It's considered a side yard setbacks So there is no rear rear yard setback on the corner a lot That hasn't changed that has not Okay, so all we're saying is that The two front yards Continue all the way down to the end of that So that's a step back It doesn't address what's next to it Okay Yeah, I'm in favor of this that's that's all I have to say. Okay. Thank you At this point, we'll open it up for any comments Elizabeth Carjones one Lehigh Street projecting better. Thank you. I Wondered about the roadway visibility issues with It's especially going around the corners that are narrower and built up, you know, I think there's a requirement or a law By law that that restricts buildings from or any anything from obstructing the view, you know within a certain certain area for roadway disability With this essentially throw that out the window if if it So it would still apply so the We'll take that one and we'll clarify that after everything, but we will absolutely clarify that for you. Yes, you're welcome Any other questions comments, please? Thank you crystal ready Adam Street I find this one completely unacceptable. I think it's important for people to understand that it's not the properties down the street It's the abutting properties. So if you're on a side street You know in next to a corner lot and there's a mixed use development going up There's zero front yard setback and zero side yard setback and you could have a five-story building built right next to you Unfortunately the development that the redevelopment board approved for called mystic wine On Broadway isn't very far along in its construction But I wish it had been much farther along because people could really see what sort of damage this type of change allows And I thought I was a bit amused that mr. Benson mentioned you were giving waivers if you think you have the power to give waivers Why do you even need this zoning change? Of course? You really don't have that power and you're not going to have a town council Or hopefully you won't have a town council very soon that thinks you have that power Either so I think you ought to scrap this and go back to the drawing board. This is this is one that's potentially very Damaging to people who live in homes next to mass have one lots next to mass have a Broadway and even what even homes That are interspersed with business lots on those roads as well Thank you. Any other comments? Okay See oh, I'm so sorry Is there a hand? Okay, thank you Miller 42 Columbia Road My thought is just if it could be brought up in discussion by by ARB What happens here? for like snow removal and I know that if you have a building that is There's buildings down on Broadway that are concerned Because you can't really see around when you're making a right turn. You know, there's a lot of traffic sometimes on the road and so I Think that if we change it It would be worth considering if there's going to be impact on traffic and you know because we are talking about what's evident Eventually going to have higher traffic going through the roads Not that we need to study or delay or anything, but it needs to be a consideration So I just hope that that's something that is being discussed with you guys. Thank you any other comments Please 21 Adams Street I Just wanted to address the chair and the 14 people present by the way not 13th 13 people and this Person matters, right? It's a couple of things. I just wanted to say on record that I'm in favor of this and To other speakers right who brought up traffic concerns and others I just wanted to give a number in 1970 as per your sense of 1970 this town had 17 percent more population than what it is today and this town had 10 percentage points more people Who are under 18 living in this town? So this town has supported far more people for more vehicles and For more density than what it is there today So I don't think we should be worried about, you know traffic and other concerns that this Thank you Any other comments All right at this time I will turn it back to discussion for the board and see if I believe that you were interested in addressing the question regarding Corner lot visibility. Yes, so I actually have to follow up comments, but I'll start with that one So the requirements for court for visibility Visibility around corner lots only apply in the our districts. So this That it's it's what's a by-law says But it's only in the it's only in the our district So there's you need a 20 foot line of 20 foot line of sight from the corner back with a free with a clear height of Between three feet and seven feet above the curve, but it's only a residential district requirement It's not a business district requirement. Should we explain why in terms of the street width and sidewalk width? Do you want to just address? So I'll let you take that. Sure. So really that has to do a lot with the with the narrower roads and the narrower sidewalk with Etc within the residential lots white, which is why it is in that section and not in some of the business districts were to deal with wider roads such as Mass Ave and and Broadway in that area And the second thing I wanted to mention there is a section in the by-law Which it's five three sixteen if anyone matters, but during during the environmental design review We do have the ability to make adjustments to yard setbacks. So what's proposed here is basically just Taking what we've generally been doing and making it more obvious to people Yeah, the the other thing I will add is you probably know that in a lot of Places the older homes don't meet the current standards for lot size setbacks things like that So you could have a street with a lot of older homes with 10 feet setbacks even though the requirement is 15 but you require the building on NASA corner to have a 15 foot setback a little bit crazy Okay, any other clarifications or comments? No Questions guys answer Okay, great any other comments gene Steve nope, okay Let's go to Article G which is the zoning by-law amendment related to height and story minimums in the business district so we had this discussion We had this discussion at a Clear can you move it to the next one, please? Thank you. We had this discussion at a few of our meetings When One place came to us. They wanted to build a new building only one story high on Massive and we felt like we didn't have the authority to say no But it really doesn't make a lot of sense these days to have one story buildings on on Massive or Broadway Anymore so what this basically does is say in the business districts buildings shall have a minimum of two stories in 26 feet in height both story shall be usable Doesn't apply to single-family residential buildings the reason it does not is there's something in chapter 48 It says we can't regulate the interior size of a single-family residential building and I'm concerned that It could be interpreted for two stories. So for safety's sake, we're not applying it to single-family residential Buildings and we can wave it or modify it if it's infeasible for example if somebody wanted to put a new gas station Somewhere we would say sure, you know, you don't have to put departments about the gas station The only thing I would ask you is I chose 26 feet in height You should decide whether that's an appropriate height to go along with the two stories That's it. Thank you, Jane The only thing that I will mention to you is that if we move forward with the with Article I Then we would not need the section Except this might pass and I mean that's what I'm saying, but yes, it's it's just great Right exactly so that the two might be interdependent Okay, Steve One of the I was the an earlier version of this Had tables which said 25 feet and the text that said 26 I'm okay with either of them as long as we pick one. We don't have the table anymore, so Yeah, I'm I'm no no questions great kid Answer you a question earlier What I think okay is for a Retail business or business district For an office is much small, but say for retail that Good height is like 14 to 18 feet clear So 14 to 18 feet floor floor would be a comfortable level for a residential for a Retail space and then add an L4 26. I think the number you select is quite comfortable. I'm just trying to say I'm okay with that And I think that that is consistent with elsewhere were 13 feet floor-to-floor has been What we have been adopting within the other sections of the bylaw Any other comments? Okay, we'll move this one for any public comments, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak on this item Elizabeth cartoons one Lehigh Street I've heard this board many times talk about Not wanting to restrict the flexibility of different businesses and different You know development opportunities in town. I found myself thinking well, you know, what if somebody wanted to open up a You know a little like greenhouse business like Was it Pemberton, you know on Mass Ave in in Cambridge That you wouldn't allow that if if this went through Um, I don't understand why it would would help To restrict certain types of businesses that might want to open up here Unnecessarily That's all thank you. We'll address the flexibility at the end Please Thank you, madam chair. I'm Carl Wagner recent 15 time meeting member and H. Hill road resident The problem with these articles and this one particularly Is that the business renters and the business owners don't know you're doing this? I should say you're doing this and the ARB is forced to review this We're sitting here with very few people. This may be an okay proposal I'm not a business renter or owner. It strikes me that you're instituting a restriction on on business owners and that will probably result if it goes through In business buildings being sold and us losing more and more of our Struggling businesses, so I'm concerned about that The main thing is that the people of Arlington the taxpayers who are businesses and residents deserve to have this discussed Over a period of meetings not in one rainy session at the ARB in a rush job before a special town meeting I ask you like with the other Articles that are before you this evening to push this to town meeting in the spring and to vote no action on this. Thank you Thank you. Any other comments, please Aaron Holman 12 wood and moisture town meeting member precinct 6 again, I think that Giving the redevelopment board this kind of rediscretion this kind of discretion Allows for the public perception that the redevelopment board can be swayed by developers and lawyers But not ordinary residents I urge you to vote no on this. Thank you Thank you. Any other comments? I see none. We will turn this back to the board There was a question about the restriction of flexibility and gene if you can talk about how that still remains within this The way that this is is written that would be helpful. It's the second sentence which says we may may waive or modify The height and story requirements. So in the example of the Pemberton farms thing We have the ability to say, okay, that's fine You can go ahead You know, it's it's it's interesting because zoning is always a little bit of a tug between How much do you want? Allow people to do what they want with their land and how much are there certain Limits that for the sake of the town and what we think the town is and should be need to be there We I think in the past in discussing this had felt like no limitations in the business district Allowing one-story buildings where there could have been more Was a big mistake and it was an opportunity to say If you're going to build a new building It has to be at least two stories high This does not require any of the one-story buildings to get torn down Or a second story to be built. I'll just be considering non-conforming and for the rest of their existence They can continue to exist as one-story buildings. Thank you gene Steve any additional comments? Yeah, so part one of the motivations for this is to Encourage, you know as sites are redeveloped Higher value buildings that result in new growth and Ideally would mean fewer overrides or smaller overrides. So, um You know the minimum the minimum height is something new for Arlington as far as I know But I I think it's a small step in the right direction Great. Thank you. Steve. Good point Okay Yeah, my echo or Steve's comments great Thank you. Well put Uh, any other comment before we move on? Then let's move on to uh Article H, which is an administrative correction gene. All right. So this is um pretty simple last year town meeting deleted a paragraph from section 8.1 3 and it we lettered the other paragraphs accordingly So what had been paragraph e is now paragraph d So now we just have to go back now that that was done And amend the one reference. So there's one reference that says Reference 8.1.3 e there's no longer 8.1.3 e last year it was lettered 8.1.3 d So this just makes that administrative correction Thank you gene. Uh any Comments can No Steve none. I don't have any either. We'll open this one up for public comment. Any Comments Okay, move it back to the board This is a simple straightforward correction. Any other comments? Moving on We will now move to article e which is the zoning by law amendment related to residential uses in the business district And I will turn it over to gene. Okay. So this this is fairly simple, but Um very interesting. Let's say so right now Um, you're allowed to build a single family home or a two-family dwelling duplex dwelling In any of the business districts as of right and as you know, there are some in the business districts as of right In thinking about mass ad and Broadway and the other small places with business districts And a lot of discussions the board has had over time The thought was it doesn't really make a lot of sense to allow new Single family or two family buildings in the business districts So the business districts hopefully will be much more for business than they are for small single and two family homes Um, so all this basically does is say There's no more right to build single family and two family in those districts. You can however Keep them. They'll just become non-conforming uses. You don't have to get rid of them Um, if you want to put a du on them, you can still put an ad you on them. We didn't change those requirements There is one thing that I went back and forth about and I think the board should have some discussion about There are a lot of tables in the business district for height setbacks dimensions At first I went through all of those and crossed out single family to family and duplex And then when I redid this I said no, no, I shouldn't do that because they're still there as non-conforming uses And we should still as structures. I'm sorry non-conforming And uses and therefore we should still Have what the dimensions the setbacks things like that are because if we don't have them All the sudden they could decide they're going to go to the property line Higher etc. So After a lot of consideration and some of you may think I've made a mistake with this I decided just to change the use tables and none of the dimensional tables Thank you gene starting with kin I'm in agreement with you gene. I think you're giving the restrictions in For the one and two story families In the business district this is good Just in case they're not performing but we should keep them as non-conforming existing Not so they can expand on it I I agree with mr. Bensin with regard to leaving the single family to family duplex into dimensional tables I think that that's in the foresight Great, thank you. At this point we'll open up for public comments any number of public wishing to speak please raise your hand Please Thank you, madam chair Carl Wagner precinct 15 town meeting member and edge hill road resident I was just whispering with another member of the public here because the public are not aware of what exactly this is And it sounds like it's not properly presented or researched I am part owner of a business district single family home The people of our link should be aware that it appears what's happening here in this muddle Is that you will be prevented in the future from building a single family or two family If you wanted to in the business districts But you will of course not be prevented if you are a large developer from doing mixed use I think the changes like this may not be wrong madam chair But I think that the town is a democracy and the town meeting members deserve Especially if they live in these B districts in non-conforming residential uses Or if they have constituents who live in these areas People deserve to have a debate and a discussion about this That's not being provided in this charade tonight And I ask you therefore to push it to spring town meeting have meetings and vote no action on this. Thank you Thank you, uh any other discussion Please in the back Matt Miller, um 42 columbia road I agree with what was just stated. I think that There should not there should be a reason for such a change in the regulations Maybe it's because the town wants more revenue from businesses. That's fine But I haven't heard of reason for a change such as this And this could prevent a potential future of business owners from building a house There's places like I don't know you look at DeVito's funeral that was a house. I'm sure There's a certain understanding that I think the people of Arlington should understand And I haven't I haven't been presented with a reason Thank you. Thank you Chris already Thank you. Chris already trying to start my Adam street I guess the one word I would describe this article as is a historical section 5.3 5.5.1 on districts and purposes is describing the zoning districts as they are not how you would like them to be So when it says the b1 district is predominantly one in two family houses, which may be used solely as homes Or they are one or two family homes that may be used as Homes offices or a combination of the two and that's because they were constructed as homes years ago Either before zoning came to Arlington or shortly thereafter and these are homes that people use You know, they change from one to the other And and that's what most of the b1 district is I don't see any need to ban those homes and make them non conforming I would question how often New one and two family homes are being constructed in the b district. I sure don't see them And what you're doing is burdening all those people who already own those homes. You're not these you're not continuing their non conformity You're making them non conforming. So if there's a business in one of these homes, that home cannot be converted back to residential use by right Or you can't convert a one family to a two family by right in that zone anymore once you make that change So I would I would Leave you with two questions one Did you notify all the property owners of one of two family homes in the business districts about this change? And the fact that you might be making their homes non conforming And just how many one and two family homes new homes not replacement new homes have been constructed in the business districts In the past five years because this article seems more driven by ideology Than by history or the fact of the way developments occurring in our league today. Thank you Thank you, please aram holman 12 widemore street town leading member precinct six My comments echo what previous commenters Said I think this will incentivize those owners of Houses in the business district too as their houses age Build something else which will be much larger which will be comparable to the ugly sardine can built between the high school and Stop in shop, uh, which you approve and Those buildings that are now there were protected because the lots were relatively small They cannot support the kind of sardine can model You have approved So there is no need for this article People are perfectly capable of tearing these down and building Larger edifices without being given the burden of being made non conforming So I respectfully say this article should not pass and at the very least it should pass as with all of these With considerably more public discussion and debate than you are having now. Thank you Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, I'll turn it back to the board for discussion and um, I'll start with gene Um, just a couple of things so 5.5 point one Is districts and purposes So i'm sure if we didn't amend 5.5 point one To get rid of one and two family in that we would be criticized for having left it as a purpose and that's why I did the deletion From 5.5 point one again. This does not require anyone to tear down a house It does not incentivize anyone to tear down a house It doesn't make the small lots bigger so all of a sudden they can build mixed use All it does is say Um, and they can all stay there as one or two families. All it basically says is in our business districts We have enough one and two family houses and we need more business properties And as steve said about the other thing Let's get some more growth in town to help with our tax cuts See you say that again Yeah, well, uh, sure. I'll I'll say it again. Um, you know again the You know, I think we're uh, where I feel we're coming out as a board is we want to ensure that Properties in the business districts stay Used as businesses Um, and we're possible we would like to encourage When you know as properties turn over and are redeveloped Higher value More tax generating properties than less expensive lower tax generating properties Thank you. Thank you steve kin. No, I'm all set. Great Um, I will also remind everyone that in addition to the hearing today and the discussion that has um been uh, that has taken place at meetings prior today today on all these articles that the Place when this debate occurs is at town meeting Town meeting is the body that votes and Decides on whether to pass these articles or not. That does not happen Slowly through the recommendation of the redevelopment board So in case that has been unclear through the comments that have been made this evening I do want to address that I also want to address There have been um some pointed comments that these have been driven by the Director of planning and community development These articles that have all been presented this evening Have been brought about through the discussion with public And with the members of the redevelopment board in concert with the Excellent staff that we have in the department of planning community development It has been in joint efforts that supports our master plan and many of the other Documents that we've adopted as a town by town meeting and through a much public debate steve I was going to say I think a few of them these articles predate the current director of planning and community development Thank you for the clarification any other comments on this article before we move to the last Okay, uh, let us move To article J which is the zoning by law amendment related to street trees um A couple of years ago town meeting adopted a zoning by law amendment requiring street trees in the business districts for redevelopment at least every 25 Literary of feet of large frontage um This year Claire can you is asking you screaming? Thank you This year, um Based on some comments. We got from I think it's for green streets are intent about the need for more street trees and what to do um, if mbta communities passes with those residential Places the need for better street canopy We have amended the current bylaw to Apply it to both residential districts too In addition since all of the previous ones were subject to review by The redevelopment board, but not everything in the residential district is We've expanded that so if it's a case in front of the zoning board of appeals, let's say it's a request for A special permit from them They would have the ability to say, okay, you don't need to put the trees there for whatever reasons are here if It's not in the jurisdiction of the redevelopment board Where there's only the board of appeals then the department of planning and community development Could make the decision and we have not changed the criteria for the decision making about when a tree is not required, but it's it's um Basically where there's no other suitable location that can be a payment to the tree fund Instead so the criteria haven't changed. It's just basically applying it to residential and Deciding who gets to decide if there's going to be a waiver That's it. Thank you gene, uh, steve. Um, no comments questions Great kim just one there was one section there where, um The redevelopment board and the zoning board May grant the increase in spacing if there's a conflict With the existing trees. I didn't change that at all. I realized that I'm just bringing that up g. Yeah, because it also says that It seems like it may get too dense and it's too many trees because they don't get a chance to grow if you get too dense That's why this is every 25 linear feet. Yes, but this is what you're saying you can increase it if uh if this existing trees That increase the number of trees increases spacing between them so greater than 25. Okay Fair enough that I was Just reading that you left out the word spacing Yes, all right I do like the part that none you did add about Where it is not feasible Then uh, there's all our ways to go about by either putting into a fund and plant trees elsewhere and stuff like that But not to say It's not feasible. We're not going to do it Great. Thank you kin any other comments All right at this time. We will open this article up for public comment any Please Elizabeth carjones one lee high street. Um Thank you for misreading something because like I totally did that tonight and I feel a little better now Um, so but I wanted to thank the the redevelopment board for for bringing this forward. This was something that um that uh green streets arlington which is members of the open space committee the tree committee and the finance committee Put before uh the Planning board or the planning um department through their Representative and um, we Are grateful to see to see this this happen now As especially with the mbta communities coming online It's um, it's really important. Um, and uh, we'd be glad to hear any any further questions you might have on on how It should be important. Great. Thank you Anyone else Kristen Anderson 12 upland road west and um, I just want to uh, thank you for for bringing this I'm in full support of it. Um, I find that um Having trees especially a long mass av will make it far more walkable for people to get to businesses To encourage that business use Um, uh, so I'm in I'm in support of it. Thank you Thank you Please Thank you, madam chair carl wagner of recent 15 town meeting member and etch hill road resident I think this is laudable. However, it should be pointed out that in the uh, 9 11 arb meeting the proposed Amendment would get rid of all open space in the density overlay that's being looked at in arlington So it feels like this is like having a night out smashing windows and then going to confession for the next day with the priest I'm sorry. Thank you Thank you anyone else all right on that note, we will uh close public comments for the evening and uh, I will turn it back over to the board for any, uh comments Uh further comments regarding article j starting with gene. I should have mentioned one thing There's there's a similar requirement in the nbta community's draft So if that goes through and town meeting passes it We need this too because you can't have anything for nbta communities. That's stricter Then you have in your underlying zoning. So we need this added so it meshes And so if nbta communities passes we get much more tree canopy over the decades Thank you for the clarification gene Uh, steve anything further? So yeah, usually I'm You know usually take pretty seriously the Whenever we had requirements to new development that weren't applicable to others or to previous developments In this case, I think it's um, I think it's The long-term benefit warrants doing doing so and as properties are redeveloped including in residential neighborhoods I hope to see this uh help to build up the town for yannaby over time Thank you, uh kin Thank you Great, uh, so, uh With that we will close Keep forgetting to turn up on timer With that we will close Perfect timing. We will close the uh warrant articles for uh the the public hearing for uh warrant articles for fall 2023 Special town meeting as I mentioned before on october 2nd The redevelopment board will meet again to deliberate And uh vote on whether to recommend action or no action on Each of the articles we heard this evening as well as the nbta communities article If you do have any additional comment for anyone who's not able to join us this evening or anyone who was here who wishes to Send us any additional thoughts Please do so in writing you can send them directly to me to any member of the board To director claire ricker and we would be more than happy to address those any questions you might have or any comments Before october 2nd before october set. Yes before before october 2nd Um, let's see. So with this we will move to agenda item number three, which is the upcoming meeting schedule Um, and uh, I'd love to go through what our our current meetings are. We had to also Tentatively look to add a meeting to the redevelopment board schedule on october 10th for the purpose of reviewing and approved and voting to approve the arb report to town meeting Which is something that needs to be prepared following our october 2nd meeting. So claire I will turn it over to you. I know that you were looking to see whether or not That date of october 10th was something that looked to be feasible by you and your your team Fantastic. Yeah, thank you. Um, when we went over this, uh, the meeting schedule over the summer We had left open, um, the schedule for arb meetings in october knowing that there was a Special town meeting schedule Currently, um, were we to stay on our regular? Um, every every two weeks if we met on the second the next two opportunities would be on the 16th and then again on the 23rd um, the chair has, uh, suggested a meeting potentially on the 10th Which is out of Sort of our cycle out of sequence to what we usually do Um, I think the 10th is is a is a good timeline It's one that the department can respond to. Um, we should be able to have Drop report at that point for your For your review and approval The night is a holiday part of the night. There's a holiday right the night. There's a holiday. It's indigenous peoples Day, so that's why we are proposing to meet on the 10th. Okay, so we would still need to post the, um agenda items for The meeting on the 10th. I believe on thursday the thursday before because of the fact that the ninth is a Holiday and the town offices are closed. Okay So that would mean we will vote on the second and uh, we will need to um We will need to post the draft of the report on the fifth All right, so, um, is there uh, you're fine with the 10th? 10th? Okay, is there I think we need to officially vote on that. So is there um a motion to uh schedule a meeting of the redevelopment board on october 10th So motioned second Uh, we'll take a vote starting with steve. Yes Uh gene. Yes kin. Yes, and me yes as well. So we will now add october 10th at 7 30 p.m To our schedule here Yes, yeah, that would be here Thank you. Um, and then we currently have a meeting, um on our calendar for the night of the 16th Um, I don't believe that we currently have anything scheduled for that meeting Um, so I believe that on the second what I'd like to do is to make a call as to whether or not to um eliminate that meeting town meeting does start the next night um, and then we have A meeting I think we had tentatively scheduled for the 23rd. We do have town meeting that evening So if we do need to meet that evening We could meet at 7 p.m. As we've done before but again, I think Let's let's see what we have leading up to that meeting and then we can make the call as to whether or not To adjust that meeting date as we get closer to october great Uh at this time I will see steve just uh, um regarding the meeting on october 2nd Yes, would we want to would it be worth considering having an earlier start time? Just um, because we have quite a bit to get go through that night Uh, or are we comfortable with 7 30? I'm just looking at the time there. I'm more comfortable 7 30s because I will be coming up from norwood And uh, I have a tough time getting here Uh with traffic and are suing I will make sure I am I am stocked up with coffee for the following morning Fabulous, fabulous. Sorry about that. No worries. Okay. It's all good. Um I will uh work with claire to to see if we have anything else on the agenda for that evening and um, We will we will look to make sure that the majority of the agenda is uh, the Deliveration and voting on the 10 articles We will have also we'll need to discuss the timing there. It is a um citizen article zoning article that needs to be noticed. Um That I believe we uh, we were working together with town council to determine whether or not that Can also occur on the 2nd or whether or not we need to um hear that article on the 10th So we will update the board on that as well And I believe that that is everything related to our upcoming meeting schedule So with that is there a motion to adjourn? Oh, sorry So on the 10th, we're going to be reviewing the report correct So the report's going to have to include our recommendation on the citizen warrant article Unless we right unless I have to discuss them in the second We are going to try to hold that hearing on the on the second and again We need to look at the timing for that if that does not occur. I have spoken with the moderator and um He is willing to accept um and uh a A Uh report to town meeting and then an amended report to town meeting that includes that article which will occur After as is typical after all of the other zoning articles. So it would be later in town I have not received it myself. So as soon as we receive it, we will distribute it Uh to the board Any other questions related to schedule? Okay, that closes agenda item number three and I will see if there uh is a motion for agenda item number four, which is to adjourn So motion Second second take a vote starting with steve. Yes gene. Yes kin. Yes timing us as well. This meeting is adjourned Thank you all