 Now that we're recording, I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order. This is the May 16th, 2022 meeting of the town of Arlington redevelopment board. I'm the chair, Rachel Semberry. This open meeting of the redevelopment board is being conducted remotely for the governor's extension of the remote meeting provisions. Due to the state of emergency due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus for this meeting the ARB is convening via zoom as posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating via video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may not be able to see you or excuse me may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Please do not also share information by changing the background behind you on the computer when you're speaking either anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. At this time, I'd like to ensure that all members are present and can hear me starting with Ken Lau. Present. Jean Benson. Present. Melissa Tentacolas is absent this evening. And Steve Revola. Good evening, Madam chair. Good evening. We also have two members of the department of planning and community development with us this evening. Director Jennifer rate. Present. And assistant director Kelly lineman. Great. Thank you all for joining us and for bearing with us this evening. We are first agenda item is the continued public hearing for environmental design review for docket number 3690 or 34 Dudley street. So at this time I'd like to turn it over to to Jenny rate from the department of planning and community development to see if there's any update that the department would like to provide. Prior to inviting the applicant to speak. Thank you, Rachel. Yes, that quick update is reflected in the memo from the staff, which indicated that the applicant had been responsive to many of the follow up items requested by the board. We've received many updates to various plans, including site plan set, various renderings that were requested, signage, solar design plan, roofing plan rather. The, how the trucks can turn on site and the limit of work. And I don't think I have anything in particular to point out about any of these items that I felt were maybe inadequate or needed additional follow up but I'll let you decide that. And the other thing as we received some correspondence from from in a butter with regard to whether or not this particular project needed to comply with a couple of different things which are somewhat one in the same one is the inland wetland district and the other is the floodplain zoning district. This project does not need to comply with either one of those in fact it is. It is outside of that if you look at the wetlands and floodplain maps that are posted on the town of Arlington's GIS page, and also in the interactive GIS portal. That said, the applicant is fully aware that they need to comply with the town of Arlington's conservation regulation wetland regulations, which is sort of above and beyond the states wetlands Protection Act so they'll be compliant with both of those, and have been engaged with the Commission by filing a notice of intent I believe at this juncture so they will need to comply with those regulations but there are no additional zoning regulations related to that particular issue that are in need of additional compliance. And I think that that summarizes everything and and provides you with my most recent update about this project. The applicant has some material that they would like to share this evening as well. Thank you so much Jenny. Attorney and I see would you like to kick us off on behalf of the applicant. Yes, I would very briefly, Rachel. Good evening Rachel members of the board, Jenny and Kelly. We have tried to be responsive to the requests of the board. And I think Jenny's indication just now. That's a great staff. We essentially went back to the drawing board and made sure that each of the requests made by the members of the ARB were in fact responded to. And I agree with all of Jenny's comments, particularly so with respect to conservation. We have been before conservation. We are going back before conservation again, but I believe that the issues raised by the butter are really issues that are not relevant and an examination of the conservation law by law would indicate that very clearly. I don't, I don't have a lot of discussion this evening, but I do have is Eric Gerard, who is going from VHB, who is going to make a presentation PowerPoint presentation. We have members of the balance of the team available for questions, traffic engineer, architect, operational fellow Jesse Morgan and operational fellow Pete Williams that having been said, I'd like Eric to jump in. So we have his PowerPoint presentation, and then we can respond to any question questions the members of the board might have Eric jumping. Great. Thank you very much, Bob. Good evening. Thank you very much. Again, Eric Gerard, I'm a project manager with VHB. Yes, be here before you tonight to give you the updates that we've made since we last met. So next slide please. Essentially running through the project update since we last met the primary comments that came out of the April 27 hearing was architectural that's supposed to rain leader integration. So that's the little little type on that first one. The solar rooftop unit showing how the site could be solar ready with the roof signage the office sign to be non illuminated. Truck turns providing a truck turn analysis to demonstrate adequate maneuvering within the site and getting into and exiting the site. And then eliminating the car full space and adding an employee shower. So the revised material that was recently resubmitted addresses these items. We feel that the architectural integration to better integrate those rain leaders has been accomplished. Additionally, we did meet we were before the conservation commission hearing again on May 5 to give them a project update since it had been about a month since we had started the process with them so we wanted to give them an update of where we were at. Primarily working through the comments with the with the redevelopment board and the good progression there. So we have formally resubmitted to them at the same time that we submitted last week with the redevelopment board. And so we're going to be back before them very soon as well. Coming out of that that conservation commission hearings it was also requested and it was brought up during the these hearings as well. With the adjacent town owned parcel that we're trying to clean up and pull out the existing pavement and clean up that back of slope area. So we did meet by the park and rec department. So we did meet with them on May 9 I met with the director out there Joe Conley we walked the back area from the Wellington Park side to view the back slope. And then they asked that we give a small presentation to the park and rec commission. So we did that on May 10. They all went really well they were receptive of the idea. They didn't have not many questions or issues with the work that we were proposing. We are anticipating a letter back from Mr Conley stating that to move forward and they could be, I guess essentially signatory on any sort of filings or approvals moving forward. As that work begins in coordinating with their department. So we just wanted to show I think if you maybe hit spacebar again it will pop in the next. Yeah, there we go. Sorry. So just just to show you the project updates, primarily for the building architecture, integrating that vertical element on the facade to better you know hide the rain leaders coming off of for the roof. We feel like this is a really good visualization just to show how how we're achieving that. Also the solar ready screen on the bottom showing the coverage for the solar panels and how that would lay out. The applicant has been in discussion and they got this design from a solar designer. Additionally, I believe the, the screen panels at the rear facade were sent into the planning department as requested for the next slide please. And this is demonstrating one of the truck turning movements that was provided in one of the packages. The green dash lines are showing a 26 foot box truck entering the site maneuvering within it, and then backing in and then being able to pull out with the red. And as you can see on the bottom on Dudley street we did offset that far curb line eight feet to anticipate a potential vehicle being parked there. So we just want to make sure that the truck could still get out. So, using the software that's pretty industry standard, we are we are showing and demonstrating that the trucks do do adequately maneuver. So that that's primarily the updates that we wanted to present and go through tonight, and certainly available to answer any questions. If I might, I'm happy to bring up any plans that the board would like while you have a discussion. I have them all available outside of the PowerPoint. So please just let me know. Great, thank you Jenny and thank you to the applicant team I really appreciate the thorough response and how, how well you responded to each of the questions that were posed during our last hearing. So I'd like to turn it over to the board members for any questions. I know that we're a bit tight on time tonight so what I'd love to do is if we could pose any questions then we'll take any public comment and then we'll do a debate and see if we can move this to a vote this evening. So we'll start with Jean. Thank you and thank you for the presentation and for the changes you've made. I just have two or three questions. One was Eric Gerard you mentioned solar ready. I need to understand whether your client is committed to installing and operating solar on this roof, or only having a solar ready roof, which is it. Eric, I can. I'm going to say I'd like Jesse to hop in and in. Yeah, I don't want to misspeak on this so yes, thank you. No we will deliver solar panels and solar infrastructure as part of our development. And so they will, and they'll be used and operated. Correct. Okay, subject to approval from utility but that is a 52% coverage which we're very confident we can deliver but as part of the permanent stage that's what we're looking to do. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. The second and this came up last time, which is the retention and treatment of stormwater on site. And when I looked at the drawings of the retention basin. It shows at one point it shows an outflow pipe. So can you explain how you're going to treat and retain all the stormwater on site. If there's an outflow pipe coming from the retention basin. And it's about halfway up the basin. So that basin is there to collect and treat the stormwater on off so that primarily the treatment train we're collecting collecting the stormwater either it's running off into the bioretention basin for some initial treatment. Or there's a there's a catch basin on site we're collecting in that. It's discharged into that subsurface infiltration basin. So the infiltration basin is providing that retention and treatment. So the final treatment is within that to meet the standards under master EP. And then there is an outlet pipe to be able to control the higher higher flows coming off of, you know, large storm events. And, and where would the outlet pipe release the water to. There's no one under existing conditions it's there's an existing outfall pipe there currently. So we're tying back into that pipe and what and what level of storm can it retain before it has to release. So the initial design parameters that we were designing with an early discussions with the with the town engineer. We were aiming to reduce the future 10 year storm event, which is a pretty decent storm event to be below the existing two year storm event. So we have what I would consider a rather extreme requirement in our bylaw, the requirement says, if you exceed the three feet, three stories or whatever the height is, which you're allowed to do and which you're proposing to do I believe you can retain and treat 100% of the storm water on site. Well, in some ways that's impossible because you could have, you know, a 500 year storm and all bets are off for that. You just feel like 10 year storms happen too often. And if you're going to be releasing water. During a 10 year storm, you're not complying with that requirement, which is in the bylaw. And I'm very concerned about that. And I think something will have to be done about that to meet the requirements. The third has to do with the trucks and and Jenny, if you could put up on the screen that they had four diagrams of the trucks turning in and out. Yeah, that's that's that's one. If you look at almost every one of the truck diagrams except the second one. The truck ends up. Well, this is another example. The truck ends up impeding into one of the other truck spaces this one would not be able to make that turn. If there was another truck parked in the top space, if you go back to the previous one Jenny. This one would not be able to make the turn if there was a truck parked in the space next to it. If you go down to the third one. This one, again, it gets into the, this one I'm not sure it depends how far out the next truck is but it may or may not be able to make the turn out and the fourth one. This, this also looks like it couldn't leave if there was a another truck parked in the space right next to it. So, how am I misreading these dotted red lines let's leave this one up for an example. To show the truck backing up at an angle which it would not be able to do if there were a box truck of the same size parked in the next style. Do you agree or disagree with that. Yeah, I mean that's showing it sweeping slightly into the adjacent space. So that's, I think that's a problem and I don't know whether that could be corrected by having three spaces or, or, or, or something. But what this diagram shows me is that you can't make it work with the current setup that you have. I believe other people to talk about the rain leaders so I'm satisfied with the solar. I, I'm not satisfied with the storm motor retention, and I'm not satisfied. Now that we've seen the diagrams with the truck turn arounds. That's it for now. Thank you gene, can any questions. I just wanted to comment a little bit what gene said. There's a baller right there next to a light. Is that correct. We that's a excuse me or a column. There's ballards and then this column so there's ballards protecting the building and then there's the columns on the interior there. Yeah. So if that column is adjusted a little bit that would solve it all wouldn't it. Yeah, and speaking with you know the owner and the the applicant as far as operationally and how this will work. We do have the extra space in there. And this is just demonstrating you know how the largest truck, you know can maneuver in and out of each space. We're not fully anticipating to have this and it's an active loading area. If, if, you know, vehicles need to move as well. They can shift and adjust in the site. Yeah, if I might just add really quickly can I was thinking the same thing but I sort of decided that was a column and they would have to redesign part of the building it's not simply a baller there. Okay. Fair enough. I just didn't know why it was, you know, if you move it out a couple of feet and make it, you know, make it. It's, it's in that driveling there you don't really see it architecturally would be that bad. I think your treatment. I'll get off that subject now and the treatment for the down leaders are better is it's, it's, I'll just say it's better. I'm not totally happy with the way it looks right now. I'll probably expand a little bit more. But I'll say it's better but it's not quite what we're looking for. And I couldn't find. Did you guys get rid of the pylon sign or it's a still there. Monument sign can. It was removed that was in I think Jenny's memo correct Jenny. Monument sign. But I can put up. Okay. No, that's all in me. Right now. I think if you address the storm water by just adding a few more capture the tenure. And the only issue I have now is just that one column. But yeah, if you're saying that is a, in which would they pull in and everything else, because I'm sure those lines are those lines the full extent of the truck, 34 truck in there or is it just a spot that sort of designated with some dashed lines. It's something that could be shown with just trucks in part cars in there. This way, it'll be easier for us to understand. You know, saying that it's doable. It's not interfering. And can they did have a diagram, a different diagram that showed a truck parked in there and the truck took up about the entire length of the spot. So that's why I raised the issue of the problem with them maneuvering the truck if there was a truck in the next space. Okay, which one, where was that. It was not one of these diagrams. It wasn't the turning diagram. It wasn't the turning diagram was somewhere else. Sorry, I don't remember. Can you tell me which one that would be in and Rachel might have been just that colored. It might be just the color overall site plan. Yeah, I don't think it's in this might just be if it might be on the first page of the PowerPoint that that colored site plan. What was in one of the materials we received for tonight. What are we looking for in that just to confirm that the truck takes up the full space. Yeah, I think that's if it's just pushed trucks back a little bit. You know, it'd be fine, but I'm not as concerned as Jean about this because the fact of having two big trucks at the same time that and also the 30 footer are typically not normal. And, and the fact that the issue of this is happening within the property it's not outside the street or anything like that, where it'd be more of a problem for me. They go into the project no problem and they can deal it logistically on their own. If it is a problem. I know those turning radius or maybe a lack. I mean they're very generous. So, so I know a truck and do better than that. But that's just the way it is you know what they show on the turning radius is, do you agree with that Eric. Yeah, in these programs tend to be pretty conservative as well on the on the movements. So, yeah, talking with the with the applicant there, you know, confident that with their operations that it's not going to be an issue. I'll leave it for now, Rachel. I mean, you circle back on the on the rain leaders I think you have an idea what you want to do with that. So I'll just come in on that because that's really my only, my only item that I wanted to to raise is that I agree with can I think it's better it's not. It's still awkward. And I think just simply you kind of have this stepped articulation as you as you go towards the top of the rain leader and I honestly think that just a single vertical element would be a lot cleaner, simpler and you know, it would it would align with the rest of the very modern expression of the building so I think if you got rid of the steps and just kept the widest point at the bottom and brought that all the way up to the, to the, to the top, you know, keep, you can keep your breaks. I'd be happy to kind of mark that up and you know we can deal with that with the department afterwards but I think that kind of a clean approach might be a little bit better and keeping with the rest of the building. My that's my only comment Steve out run to you next. Okay, thank you madam chair. I was going to bring up the question of this is, I also wanted to discuss the how the board how we as a board want to interpret the treat and retain and treat all storm water requirement on site but I think that might be best left for the follow up deliberation. Regarding the truck turning radius. In the event, you know, I mean we've brought up the proposal of moving one of the columns. I suppose one could also move the loading dock, you know exterior wall back a few feet. So I'm wondering if it is feasible to restrict the size of vehicles to, you know, like, are less than 26 feet. So say a 24 or a 22 foot truck. Jesse, Jesse. I see Pete taking himself off mute so I'll defer to him. Yes. Thank you. It's certainly possible. It's, you know, to go to the largest truck being a 24 foot. I would just say that, you know, practically, practically the only parking that gets done on the site is are the spaces that are up closest to the office. And, you know, candidly, if you asked us how many parking places we need for a self storage facility, we would tell you for we realized that the requirement is the requirement. But from a practical standpoint, nobody's going to park a car that self storage is just a place where people come to they do their business, they leave. So, even, you know, in all of our properties throughout the country, if if there's ever someone that there's a lot of there's cooperation that takes place in the loading area amongst tenants and and the customers. It's not like there's like a car that's left there. It's like, oh, you know, this might be here for a day or two. But everyone that's there, especially back towards the loading area is an active participant in going in and out, taking stuff from their vehicle back to so. Oh, no, it's, you know, I mean what what what we have proposed that we we would never we would never be satisfied with a loading area and parking situation that doesn't work, because, you know, that's that's important. I mean, we're we build these things for the customers. So, you know, I don't know that's really what I say I mean we have we could I guess if we had to but it works for 26 foot for us. Okay, thank thank you very much Steve does that answer your question. Yeah, I think I understand Mr Benson's point. And he's, you know, I think it's worthwhile to look at the worst possible case scenario of, you know, there are the highest utilization scenario of 426 foot trucks, all arriving at the same time. Having worked at a place where, you know, we had a loading dock that was a little undersized and shippers kept sending us big trucks that wouldn't fit. I am also of the belief that in the, you know, to a certain extent physics will govern this sort of thing. If the if the truck isn't going to fit. It's not going in. So, and I think that given their line of work there's probably the necessary expertise to manage that sort of thing. That is it that's all I have that's all for me Madame chair. Okay, great. Thank you very much. So, I'm going to go ahead and open this up for public comments. We are very tight on time and we have one other hearing that we need to still get to this evening the applicant for that is here. So I'm going to close public comments. A little after 720, because we are going to need to move to board discussion and discuss next steps for the applicant. So any member of the public wishing to speak on this application please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. I'll call on you in the order hands are raised. You'll have up to three minutes to address the board, and we please introduce yourself by your first last name and address and we'll start with Don Seltzer. Thank you chair Don Seltzer Irving Street. I have two brief remarks, continuing. We'll be getting to you shortly now and thank you. Go ahead Donna I restart your time. Thank you. Okay, continuing with Jean's comments. The loading bays appear to be less than 24 feet deep, but the trucks can be 34 feet long. They are about 10 feet and block other vehicles. A vehicle turning radio diagrams typically show the wheel tracks. It should be remembered that the front corners of the cab trace out a wider arc by about a foot or two. And the rear overhang sweeps out to a new even wider path. I trust that the applicants analysis has considered this. Otherwise, it will be very entertaining to watch amateur truck drivers bouncing off the building columns. My other comment. I would like to remind the board of the environmental design standards, specifically standard I on safety. At the last hearing I attempted to ask a question that related specifically to the safety standard, but the chair ruled that these were not issues of concern for the ARB and would be dealt with instead by the building department at some point down the road. I will not press this any further, but will instead refer it to the inspectional services when final plans are submitted for a building permit. It is incredible because the concerns I have are related to state law. If it had been addressed at the previous hearing, I believe that the problems could have been corrected in time for tonight's hearing. But a few months from now corrective action will be costly, and we'll introduce delay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. And now again I see that your hand is raised or you'll be applicant for the, the next hearing. Correct. Who's the applicant for the next year? No, I don't understand. I don't understand anything. I don't understand. We're not at your hearing yet. This is for the one prior. What we're going to need to hold on. That's okay. None of this. Sorry, sorry. No problem. Thank you. Thank you. No later than 730, I promise. Thank you for your patience. You muted yourself, Rachel. Thank you. Sorry. Seeing no other hands raised, we'll go ahead and close public comment. For this agenda item, and I'll turn it back to the board for discussion. And I think there are. Any other questions? I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not impressed through some final revisions and staff. Can I don't know if you agree with the design. Direction that I provided just straightening out and making this a little bit cleaner. Yes, they do. Okay. So the other two items that I see here are any. Additional studies that we'd want to see regarding the truck turning diagrams. I think we should. I think we should. I think we should. I think we should start with. Retaining storm water on site and what. What's what. Storm events. Is required, which. Is not clear in, in the zoning by lot. And I think we should. Steve, to your point, I know that you wanted to discuss that. So why don't we start with, with you, Steve. And we can, we can go from there. I think that the. I think that the. We need the requirement to retain and treat in a way that could not be satisfied by any storm water management system that relied on groundwater recharge, which is all. And at least in my lay person's understanding. Probably a lot of them. So I think that the intent. When we were drafting this in the zoning by law working group. Um, you know, to me retaining is part of, you know, is part of the treatment process. Um, and I would rather. See. You know, a controlled over mechanism of overflow than an uncontrolled one. But you know, there's still raises the question of well, what, how much, how big of a storm does the, the capacity. Do you need to provide the capacity to handle. As you said, there isn't a whole lot of guidance in the bylaw about that. So I mean, I am personally comfortable with the, you know, with what the applicant has proposed. You know, and I think it's made a, you know, it is definitely made an improvement in the, you know, made a reduction in the amount of, you know, flow off site, at least based on the stormwater management report that we received from the last meeting. I'd like to hear my fellow board members takes on that. And now I'll go to you next. I think I'm comfortable with that too. What Steve just said, I believe what he's saying is correct. If there is, if there's any extra capacity that we do not think to maybe up the storage capacity, I would suggest maybe we look into that. But I think I'm comfortable with what they've done. They've done quite a bit here already. There is an option to. Jenny, I know that the applicant is already working with the town engineer on several items. One of the items we could put in as a special condition is to have the applicant work together with the town engineer to appropriately address the level of storm. I mean, again, absent of us making a decision on what level of storm. I think that the next most appropriate person would be the town engineer in that case. I too feel comfortable with the 10-year storm that they've designed for. But Jenny, I wanted to get your take in terms of the applicant's current work with the town engineer and where this is silent in the bylaw. Yeah. I mean, I think the first thing is I don't think we can go back in time to consider how whatever we imagined this might mean because now it's, now it's in the zoning bylaw. So it is a requirement and it is a requirement relative to their height. So I think we should be all every, all the board members should be on the same page about what you're, whatever you are going to choose. The also the other thing that we know is that there's nothing about the storm event that we're talking about or planning for. So maybe that's something to think about in the future when you do the climate resilient type zoning stuff that we've talked about this sort of separate, sorry. I think that the conservation commission and the town engineer will help this applicant to better design this particular around this particular issue. And I think that the applicant is actually demonstrated quite a bit in terms of how they've tried to address stormwater on site, given the limitations of the level of what they can possibly do within the scope of the site. So I think that if you were talking about adding to any sort of special condition, it would be both the town engineer and consideration for the conservation commission's review and approval because the commission has been taking into, into account very seriously, both rain events and, and the the application will be held to those standards regardless. I guess is where I was going with all of that. Great. Thank you, Jenny. That's very helpful. Gene, would that address your concerns? I personally feel very comfortable with the level of willingness that this applicant has been to work with all of the different parts of the city. I think that's a great question. I think that the appropriate person for them to continue working with is the conservation commission and the town engineer on this issue, but I'm interested in your thoughts. Well, you know, I started off my statement about that by saying, it's an impossible standard. You know, there's going to be a storm size. Where it can't possibly be retained on site. I'm sorry, we didn't take a look at that before it made it into the bylaw and say, wait a second, what are we going to do about this? So, I mean, and we don't want to impose a standard of impossibility on any applicant that comes before us. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a 10 year storm is the right size. And I'm especially not sure for a couple of reasons. One is this only kicks in where they ask for the added height. And not if the building was smaller. And second is it is going into Millbrook, which has a whole set of issues and tends to have flooding issues in larger storm events. So I don't know whether a 10 year storm is the right. Storm event and what the town engineer may, in a general way, say 10 year storm event is fine. That doesn't necessarily work when we have this provision in the bylaw. So I really don't know what to do about it. What I would like to do is, and I don't know how we can do this is have the town engineer tell us what is the maximum storm. That he thinks that they can safely treat and retain on site, not just him picking 10 years, but what is the maximum storm considering what they've got there that he thinks can be treated and retained on site, which is a different question than just saying, does this work for you town engineer? And that's what I'd like to know. And then I'd like to know whether the conservation commission would consider that acceptable for a stormwater discharge into Millbrook. And then I would say we've overcome the impossibility standard. I would suggest that absent of a standard. They have addressed the request and that by adding a special condition. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea for the applicant to work with the town engineer and conservation commission to ensure that the level of treatment. Is. Is approved by their bodies would. Would. Would even go beyond. I think the level that's required. We, we need to review that they've, that they've treated it and they have to a degree. I think, I think that again, all of the work they're doing with the conservation commission. I would feel very comfortable adding a special condition. Identifying. That group. For them to continue working with for the. Any additional requirements related to. And what are the other requirements. And what are the different levels of treatment. And storage on site. Well, the, the, the, there are two separate issues and I want to, and they both relate to this. One is. What's the maximum that they can reasonably retain and treat on site. And that's an answer that I would like from the town, town engineer. That's different from. of the brook because if they've met the maximum they can retain on site then the conservation commission is basically gonna have to be stuck with that, I think. So I would, and I'm not sure 10 years is the right number and 10 years sounds too small to me. So I would have a special condition that is that it must be the maximum reasonable amount at storm event that the town engineer determines they can retain on site, treat and retain on site. Maximum reasonable storm event, the engineer determines can be treated and retained on site, yeah. I'm okay with that, Jane, with the word adding reasonable. Yeah, well, it has to be reasonable. I think if you were, I think we're imposing something that wasn't quite listed. Well, we're trying to... Trying to clarify it. We're trying to come up to some way to deal with this bullet point in the regs that are with the bylaw, I mean that can be unreasonable pretty quickly. Okay, so we need to move to the next application. However, we have one more item to address before, I think we can talk about a motion for a vote this evening and that is the truck turning on site. So is this, so, Jean, you, yes. I think the way to deal with that is to not allow more than two trucks in those bays at the same time and they can't be side-by-side in the bays. Then they have enough turning radius. I'm okay with that too. I was gonna suggest that too, Jean, just have two bays for... Larger trucks. Larger trucks that you are for. And then it's all clear. The areas that cross over are smaller trucks and we're all done. And according to the owner, they don't have that many big trucks. So it's not really an undue burden that we're asking here. Right, and put the two larger truck bays so they're not right next to each other. Yep. Great. So that would be a special condition to not allow greater than two trucks, two 26-foot trucks at one time and ensure that those two locations are not adjacent to each other. I would change the wording, Rachel. I'm sorry? I would change the word, not the two trucks are not side-by-side, but I will let the engineer, saying that we'll let the engineer work it out where it would not interfere. So I just would say the engineer, I trust the engineer would do the right thing and say, okay, if we're gonna relocate these, these are the best choices to relocate, not... Okay, so we'll take out not adjacent. It's just not greater than two trucks, two 26-foot trucks at any one time. Correct. That's fine. I can go with that. So two, okay, got it. Any other special conditions? And then the other one is for the final elevation to be reviewed and approved administratively with the department, with the changes that were proposed this evening. Yeah, and I'd like a special condition specifically that they will install and operate the solar on the roof. Yes, I had that one too. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Rachel, are you gonna do a little sketch for Jenny? I can. I trust Jenny, I just... No, please do the sketch. I would appreciate that, Rachel. I will do that. Install and operate solar panels on roof. Any other special conditions, Steve? Everything I've heard sounds fine so far and I have nothing to add. Okay, attorney and SE, do you have any questions or concerns about the four special conditions that were discussed? I do not. Jesse, how about you? Those work for us. That's good. Great. So is there a motion from the board to approve docket number 3690 with the following special conditions to install and operate the solar panels on the roof to review administratively, review the final elevations for approval with the Department of Planning and Community Development that no more than two 26 foot trucks will be allowed in the loading days at any one time and for the applicant to work with the town engineer to identify the maximum storm event that the engineer determines, the maximum reasonable storm event that the engineer determines can be retained and treated on site. No, the maximum storm event that can reasonably be treated and retained on site, you need to use a reasonably to modify, treat and retain. Got it. Thank you, Jean. All right. So a motion. Every second. Second. And I'd like to just respond to a couple of the public comments before we vote because both Mr. Seltzer and Attorney Falwell who weren't here and I think one other person may have expressed some concerns about the height of the building, shading some other buildings in the area. I just want to say that I did think about that and those buildings don't have solar on them and they don't meet any of the requirements for us to consider shading as an issue and we are allowing buildings of this height in the industrial zone. So I don't think it's a factor that we can use to deny this permit application. Thank you for the clarification, Jean. I appreciate it. All right. So we will, with the motion and a second, take a vote on docket number 3690 with the four special conditions, starting with Kim. Yes. Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. We have one board member who is absent this evening. So congratulations. Your permit has been approved and I'll follow up with a sketch, with the department to pass on to you and Jenny and Kelly will also follow up with you for the next steps. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. I really appreciate all your hard work. Thank you very much. Thanks. All right. So at this point in time, we'll close agenda item number one and move to agenda item number two, which is the public hearing for docket number 3693 for 89 Alpine Street. This is for a accessory family childcare facility for no more than six children. Jenny, I'll turn it over to you first. Well, I'm actually going to turn it over to Kelly, who has been communicating with the applicant and the applicant is obviously here. Kelly, do you want me to bring up the application for you? Yes, please. And I do want to make sure that Nellie has access to the interpretation. Nellie, I don't know if Ivan is there with you. Or Megda, if she can help him. Yes, yes, yes. Glad to see. Okay. Can you hear Megda interpreting in Spanish? Okay. All right, great. Thank you. Yeah, Jenny, if you want to bring that up. Okay. So this is an application for a special permit under environmental design review to allow the accessory use of a family childcare facility in the applicant's home. This is where they currently live. The facility is for no more than six children. And they are in operation between 730 and 530, 730 in the morning and 530 in the afternoon every day, Monday through Friday. The applicant has also stated that they encourage parents to call before they pick their children up in the afternoon so that they can have the children ready to go to limit the amount of time that people are parking on street or waiting or queuing up. And then the other thing to note is that this applicant has already received approval to operate a family childcare facility through the Massachusetts BEC. And that is all right. Thank you very much, Kelly. Nellie, would you like, is there anything that you would like to say to the board about your application before we see if there are any questions? Si. Yo, no se, no se si, no me hice entender. Pero yo estoy operando ya mi family hace cuatro años. Tengo mi family en esta casa y ya y si me la probó para diez niños. Solamente cuando hace cuatro años que yo abrí mi programa, yo fui a la, al city hall y lo registré, lo escribí, me dieron un, como se llama, lo que me dieron cuando escribí el negocio. Como un, un route, digamos, un new. Ahora y así he estado funcionando todo. Ahora, con lo de la pandemia, me dijeron, yo fui a llenar para solicitar un gran de los que estaban dando a los, a los estatal, una ayuda estatal, pero para que el estado me diera esta ayuda, yo necesitaba tenerlo a otro tipo de registro, no el que yo había hecho inicialmente. Entonces, por eso fue que lo escribí para este proceso. Pero ya lo tengo funcionando hace cuatro años. Great. Thank you for the clarification. Gracias. Este, la verdad, yo cumplo con todo los requisitos. Nunca he tenido problemas con mis vecinos de parqueadero, nada de eso, porque nunca se hace con Gregorazco, o sea, acumulan carros, siempre viene un papá, se va, luego llega otro, se va y generalmente en el tiempo de primavera y verano no vienen en auto, siempre vienen en cochecito, o sea, no hay obstáculos, obstáculo en la vía pública. Siempre va a estar, siempre está libre. Volví, le digo, ningún vecino se ha quejado, no he tenido problemas con nadie, ni con la ciudad, ni con nada. Solamente es ese registro que me dé el sírijo, la ciudad, de verdad, ni yo tampoco lo entiendo. I understand. We'll try and get you moved through this evening. So what I'd like to do now is to see if any of my other board members have questions for you. So, so, Ken, we'll start with you. Do you have any questions? No, I have none at this time. Okay, great. Thank you, Jean. This one question, are you now at the six child level or the 10 child level? Son 10, yo inicié con seis por tres años y luego, y y sí, vino, miró lugar, las instalaciones, las maestras certificadas y me amplió la capacidad para 10. Thank you. That's fine. Great, thank you. See, do you have any questions? No questions, Madam Chair. Okay, great. Thank you very much. So at this time, we'll open the hearing up for public comment. So if there are any members of the public who are joining us this evening who would like to speak, please use the raised hand function. And I'll call on you in the order that hands are raised. And I'll wait a couple seconds to see if we have anyone. All right, seeing none, we will close public comments. And I'll turn it back to the board to see if there is any discussion. To me, it looks like everything is in order and the applicant has followed all of the requirements of the state and meets the requirements that we have listed for running a family child care facility. So I will turn it over to Ken for any additional comments or thoughts? No, none at this time. No. Okay, Jean? My only thought is that we put the same special condition on this one that we put on the previous one that she must maintain her child care license with the state. We have the wording from the last time. Yes. Thank you, Jean. I'm just writing that down. Steve? Nothing further, Madam Chair. Great. Okay. So is there a motion from the board to approve docket number 3693 with the special condition that the applicant maintain, must maintain their current state child care certifications? So moved. Second. We'll take a vote. Ken? Yes. Jean? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm yes as well. So congratulations. Your application has been approved. I appreciate you going through this process with us. I know it can be confusing. So thank you so much. And thank you for providing this service for people in town. Muchas gracias a ustedes. Estoy a la orden. Mi programa se llama Sol Solesito. Es un programa bilingüe. Tenemos niños desde tres meses hasta cinco años. Así que a la orden por acá son siempre bienvenidos. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great evening. All right. Muchas gracias. Tenada. Muchas gracias. Thank you. You're welcome. So at this time that closes agenda item number two. And as we are currently out of time, what I'd like to do is I know that we need to adjourn for town meeting. We can, Jenny, there's no reason we need to approve these meeting minutes this evening. I want to make sure that Jean and Steve have a little time before town meeting starts. We could push these to our next meeting. You could. I mean, there's not any reason to, but I did incorporate all the edits that were provided. Unless there's anything from you or Ken that's significant. Great. Let's go ahead and take agenda item number three then. Ken, did you have any edits? Nope. Okay. Well, then we can, this will be quick. I did not either. Steve, did you have anything additional other than what you sent through earlier? Nothing additional. Jean? I had nothing additional. Great. So is there a motion to... Can we just have Jenny scroll through? So we can look at it. Let me just run through. It's eight pages. So just bear with me. I'm just going to roll through and you can read it. Okay. Right. Seven pages. Okay. So is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes from April 4th, 2022 as amended? So moved. Is there a second? Second. We'll take a vote starting with Ken? Yes. Jean? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Meeting minutes have been approved as amended. So that brings us to the end of our agenda this evening. Thank you all so much for working to get through both of those hearings in a short time this evening. I really appreciate it. And is there a motion to adjourn to town meeting? So motions. Second. We'll take a vote. Ken? Yes. Also, I'd like to apologize. I thought I could have sworn the meeting was at seven. Andrew said we've been bouncing back and forth. No problem at all. Jean? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you all. And good luck to make a town meeting. Thank you. Thank you all. See you next week.