 All right. Well, it is 734 p.m. It is Wednesday, November 3rd, 2021. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals and calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning board of appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. President. Sean O'Rourke. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. And Stephen Revillac. Here. All of you here. From the town, Rick, now really our board administrator. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, sir. Mr. Lee will not be joining us this evening. And as always our legal consultant, Paul, happy Paul, good to have you. Mr. Chairman. Hey, this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 of the remote meeting provision of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law which suspended the requirements to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location for their own members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video webinar via the zoom webinar application with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being reported and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Public supporting materials have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. They bring up our agenda. Those. After the meeting of remote participation details which are just done. The only other item is number two, which is the continuation of the deliberation on the final decision for the Thorndike place project. So, turning to the comprehensive permit for Thorndike place. At its October 20, 2021 public hearing the board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for Thorndike place. This marked the end of the acceptance of testimony and new information in regards to the project. It also initiated a 40 day period for the board to consider and render its decision. On October 28 2021 the board initiated its deliberations at the end of that session the board voted to continue to this evening November 3. The discussions and deliberations are being held openly and publicly, but the board is unable to accept comment from the applicant, the board's peer review consultants, the town or the public. For this reason, it's meeting is being conducted using the webinar platform, which allows the board to limit who may participate in the discussion. On behalf of the board I appreciate everyone's understanding. The board will resume this decision using the draft decision available on tonight's agenda. It can be differentiated by the text in the footer noting in October 28 revision. The board will quickly review the revisions proposed to the previous meeting, then resume the discussion with section to see two of the conditions discussing proposed revisions. At the end of tonight's meeting the board may either vote on the final decision or vote to continue the meeting to continuous deliberations under state regulations the board must issue a decision by November 30 or request an extension from the applicant to further continuous deliberations with that. Go ahead and share. So this is what we had at the end of last time. We actually we started last time with. I believe we finished through C one and would pick up on C two. Were there any questions about the revised draft. The 1028 based on our conversations from last time either in the waivers or in sections. AB or C one. Mr chairman I did have a couple of questions as I was reading it over. Yes please. So I'm actually going to go I made notes on another version. So in. Have to scroll back up there with me in C one. Scrolling down C one D at the end the last paragraph. So I was just curious and if we did have this conversation I apologize that I don't recall but I was looking at a couple of things in this last paragraph just above the. And then one of them is that it's going to be annually for a three year period after completion of the plantings the applicant, etc shall remove and replace. I'm just wondering because I was trying to conceptualize how that works I mean completion of plantings will that be at the end of the completion of the project itself and at the time that the certificate of occupancy is issued, or would it be sooner. And the reason I asked the question is, if the plantings somehow we're going to be completed in advance of the completion of the project overall. I'd have a concern that there could be for instance damage to some of those plantings in the course of the construction. So I didn't know whether or not, you know, the completion of plantings was contemporaneous with the completion of the project, in which case I think it's fine as is. But again, if they're going to be finished the plantings would be finished in advance, or far in advance of the project. I might want to consider putting in that it's completion of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever is later. And so but I don't recall a conversation about, you know how that timeline actually works. I don't know if anyone has any sense of how that would work. That's a good question I'm pretty sure this is the same language we had from 1165 are. We could either change the phrase, you know, after completion of planting to after issuance of certificate of occupancy. That at least gets us to the latest date possible. And I think I'd prefer to see that myself. After completion of plantings or the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever is later. Yes. And then in the next sentence, tell me when you're ready I don't want to talk over you doing that. Okay. So where it says applicant shall remove and replace any dead failing or any dead or disease plantings later on, you use the word. The word is down in. I think it's F small Roman numerals six. And there's a reference to dead and failing plantings. And when I first read this sentence, it's where it says dead or disease. I mean you can certainly have failing and you can have damaged and those don't necessarily equate to dead or diseased. I'm trying to get, you know, to into the minutia. But since you did use failing down or someone used failing down below. I'd want to see something like remove any dead failing or disease plantings. Mr chair, I think Mr. Dupont may be referring to see one F. I'm just going to switch the draft that we're looking at to the word file that I have been working on just because I can then slip things in here. So annually for a three year period after completion of plantings or the issuance of the certificate of occupancy whichever is later. First one, then the applicant shall remove or replace any dead failing or diseased plantings and trees serving as screening. Oh, okay. And then if no one else has a comment on that, there is something that also caught my eye in F. And, you know, F two and three. I'm just going to go here dead and make this identical language again so dead failing. I'm sorry. Where were you. Mr chairman. Yes, just wouldn't it be or diseased. Roger where were you. So I'm sorry I was I went, I'm going down and see one again to F. Yeah. And actually above that in E, it talks about vegetation being maintained. But I was trying to connect when I got to F. Where it's into it says with at least a three year vegetation monitoring schedule with an 80% rate. So I'm looking at the main paragraph that in F. And I don't see any actual reference to vegetation necessarily. And so my question in two is what vegetation is being monitored. What is that actually referring to the flood storage area does get planted. But it says with regard to vegetation removal and grading. It's not making a reference to planting unless it's somewhere else and I just missed it. But again, my question is in to what vegetation is being monitored where it says three year vegetation monitoring. Right well the next lot the next one sub three is only native non cultivar species that we planted on the site to establish a diverse community. So that will be installed to evaporate of plantings. So some of these other sub sections do reference planting. Right, and I don't mean to worry it too much but I just in three. I'm wondering where's the affirmative obligation to plant, because if in F in the main body it said and shall plant blah blah blah. But shall you know plant in some form, then I understand the, you know how the two and three are qualified, but I just don't know what it's referring back to as my point. Okay, and so that's my question. I'll just note in here for the moment, and then we'll. Okay, as we go through if we don't find it we'll come back. Anything else on. Mr chairman. This sort of voice to a question that came up that came up last week. But all of these things in the submission requirements are sort of confused back and forth as to what there are some things in here that seem to be real submission requirements and other things are sort of conditions that are just dropped in here in some way. And I'm wondering, just so they filed this plan. What is it that requires them to actually implement the plan. And maybe Mr. Haverty can just explain how the structure of this works I, I think we're all assuming that once they file the plan that these things are all commands and some of them are explicit commands. It's, but I'm not clear on exactly what it is that says, you've got to follow all these plans. Mr chairman the applicant is required to construct the project consistent with the plans approved by the board. So if the plans are submitted in compliance with this condition, then that requires the construction to be done in accordance with it. So the plans in that context means not just the plans that are listed under a to but the final plan, but I see. Okay, got it. Remember the plans that you guys are reviewing our preliminary plans and they're required to submit final plans before they can. Right. So what else I had gone, I had gotten a little confused about what was included in C one was included in C two and I had gone where we tried to clean it up and I noticed in C one. There were actually several items that appeared to maybe belong as sub headings under a separate item. And that was so under I was other than site work and other. No other construction, the funeral commenced no building permits shall be issued under this conference of permit until the director staff has approved the final plans. And just here I everywhere it says building commissioner I changed the director of inspectional services because the, that's the official title in the town of Arlington. And then, all of these here that would are now sub eyes of double eyes and triple eyes. So I V these were separate lines but they all reference the final plans, which seems to be what this eyes about so I just was sort of reformatting them. So they all document about what the final plans are about. And there are a couple of ones of this one location of all utilities should be shown on the final plans all transformers and electrical communications shall be included in the final plans. So electrical telephone and cable cable to the duplex buildings are not currently shown on the utility plan. So I don't know if we need to reference that because it just says that they'll need to be shown on the final plan so I don't know if that's something that we're concerned about at this stage. The location of the cabling running to the main building are shown but not to the individual duplex building. I'm leaving it in. I mean, I just, you know, why not. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. What it what it helps is to say the location of all utilities to the duplex units and or the residential senior residential housing shall be limited just to make it clear up there in the first line. So all utilities to all buildings. That's fair enough. This be I brought up this was lower down. I believe this is a product up here because again it's deals more with the final plans. Originally was the applicant is proposed to use all electric for the project if any gas services to be used gas service location be indicated. The plans that were provided do show gas service to everything at the moment. And but we had affirmative commitments from the applicant to stay all electric. So, I was proposing that we would say here the applicant has committed to using all electric for the, for the project of any gas service is to be provided for an emergency generator or other similar facility gas service locations will be included on the final plans. Seems fine to me. Could I raise one question that we may want to. You know, there's there's probably nobody a more more vociferous advocate of the all electric than I am. But I don't remember, maybe somebody can help, whether Gwen's commitment relating to using all electric was ever made in connection with the duplex units. Much of the discussion happened before the duplex units came back into the picture. And I remember at one point asking her whether the commitment was still good on the new plan. But in context she easily might have, you know, had blinkers on and was thinking just about the senior residential building. I'm wondering if anyone has a recollection of anything that happened that that would shed any light on that. If not, maybe I should go back through the notes and and and and find out the places where she said that although I may have my notes are terrible and and and I'm probably more likely than practically anyone else to have written it down but anyway, that's it's an open question. It's clear that she intended even with the senior housing to use all electric, but it wasn't clear. As I remember it now, whether the commitment with respect to the new plan was broad enough to include the townhouses that there isn't any technical reason why it shouldn't but I don't know whether whether that's what she said or not. I'll leave this so we can we'll come back to that. This is the relocation the utility pole that's in the middle of the driveway between units three and four. And then I also moved up the final plan shall include the sign elevations and details consistent with sign information showing the approved plans, which we just had again as a separate item. applicant must notify the assessor's office. And then. So this is the first of the conditional conditions in regards to the conservation parcel. The absence of assigned memorandum of understanding between the applicant in the town of Arlington the applicant shall provide a report to the board indicating the extent of site cleanup operations and the cost of the cleanup operations to date if there's a signed mo you the terms of that mo you shall supersede this condition. So the applicant indicated they had allocated $100,000 or more to doing a first round cleanup of the site. And so this is more just to provide the board before you're at the start of the project as to what they've accomplished so far. This is the first of several of these where if there is an issue then the terms of the mo you would supersede these terms. Mr Chairman. Yes, sir. In the absence of the mo you have recovered in this agreement someplace else that prior to construction they need to do a site survey for environmental contamination on the total site. Yep. Okay. So this section here see one is prior to any construction or site development activities. So that's the very, very start and then I believe I put it under. I think that's under C2. Okay, thank you. Absolutely. Anything prior to C2 we want to review again. Seeing none. Need a little extra space in there we'll fix that. So before the issuance of building permits. So they have to record the comprehensive permit submit to the board and the director of planning development evidence of a final approval from the subsidizing agency. Submit to the regulatory agreement and monitoring services agreement for the project. Submit to the director of inspectional services final architectural plans prepared signed and sealed by an architect. Submit such form as a director of inspectional services may request pursuant to state building code. Submit to the director of inspectional services and director of fire prevention. Automatic sprinkler system plans conforming with NFPA 13 and the fire alarm system. And whoops, let me give her that a and fire alarm system plans conform with NFPA 72 for the senior rental building both systems shall be designed to be monitored. Submit to the director of inspectional services and director of fire prevention may request pursuant to state building code. So, initially, this was just that these plans but this just sort of puts it in the same format as the prior statement about the building plans. And then E, obtain and file with director of inspectional services copy of all required federal state local permits and approvals required to begin construction project. So G obtain unnecessary building electrical plumbing associated permits required to begin construction. But this is stuff that has to be completed before the issuance of a building permit. So I don't know if it's an issue that this includes the word building and I'm not sure if Paul, you have any experience in this. It's sort of standard language or how does that typically get handled. Which language you were referring to, Mr Chairman. So, in G it says obtain all necessary building electrical but this is the section C2 was things that needs to be accomplished before the issuance of a building permit. So sort of we're sort of if this kind of nitpicky but sort of says no. I understand. I'm not sure where else you would put this. Okay. I mean, is it actually necessary to have it at all. It's not, I mean, they're bound by state law anyway we can't leave all of this I'm not sure what the point of it is. The point of it really is just simply to make sure you're being as clear as possible in your decision everything that necessary to do before they can move on to the next phase of the project. Mr Chairman, but this doesn't have to be in. Roger. I was just looking back at C and I just had a question. The copy of the regulatory agreement and monitoring services agreement. I'm not familiar with that tip of that type of document. And I am assuming that it's something that is entered into or is this right is it entered into between the applicant and mass housing. Is that what that's about. That is correct. And, and is that got to be final. It's going to be in final form it's not going to be a temporary or provisional type of arrangement. Would that also be true do you think Paul. It has to be not only finally executed but actually the regulatory agreement has to be recorded. So prior to obtaining a building. It's all part of the final approval process with the socializing agency, all of which has to happen before they can. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't something that they could come back later and then you just, you know, at will. So, as long as it's going to be fine. That's fine. Thanks. Back to G should we leave this in or omit it. I don't think you can take it out. I don't think there's any harm in having having it there. Unless people disagree. You feel strongly one way or another. I don't. I mean, I would, I would be happy to leave it in. I don't think it hurts to leave it in either. Moving on to each applicant responsible for all applicable sewer permit capacity impact of which he's as applicable. Notwithstanding the pulling the application up are responsible for incorporation and inflow fees. This is pretty much exactly what we had done with. 1165 are Mr Chairman. Yes. It's not quite. Actually, I mean, I, in a minute, I have a bigger question as to exactly what the difference is between the two. What, what is contemplated as the all applicable water and sewer system fees as opposed to all applicable sewer permit capacity impacts and privilege fees. Because I mean, I'm sure that they're different in some way, but I'm not completely clear. I understand exactly where the distinction is. But in any event, while I think it. It's clear that the II fees are not permitted. I don't recall that the other municipal fees that were not set forth in a published rule regulation or bylaw and existence at the time. I'm not sure whether that was in the other. In the other and I'm, I'm wondering whether it was I, I thought I looked but now I, I've got so many different things on my screen. I can't readily find it. So I guess I would ask that question of Paul that final clause. I mean that's true whether it's in here or not correct. Correct. It does not need to be. But taking it out doesn't make it any less accurate. Knowing that does it change. How people feel about that. I, I guess, Mr chairman. I'm happy. Not only am I happy but there's nothing I can do about it if I was unhappy with letting the existing law just take its course. And in general, I feel nervous about attempting particularly knowing as little as I do about what the underlying law is. I'm attempting to paraphrase it for fear that you're creating something here that wasn't already into prevailing law. So if all we intend to do is to restate the rule that it would apply anyway. I would prefer not not doing that and in general, because the best you can do is accurately stated in which case you haven't really achieved anything. The first thing you can do is inaccurately stated in which case you've created confusion stood. Again, that's the pretty much the same issue. Next one as well. The next one was actually one that that was got me thinking about this because it suggests that whatever the existing water and sewer system fees, meaning to lay I the kind of sewer and water things that we pay twice a year or more. And that's grandfathered forever in the condition it was back in 2016. And that that seems like an odd result. And so I'm guessing that the intent is that to apply them to something else. But when I got that far, I realized that I had no idea what any of this was about and it was a little bit nervous sticking stuff we don't know about in here. I think it's pretty similar except I'm not sure that the the or other municipal fees languages in there or in there in both positions. See whether the applicant had whether it was entered in as a body applicant or not. Mr Chairman I have, I've got the final opinion of on the screen. And I'm not I'm under the age it has notwithstanding anything contained here in the applicant shall not be responsible to pay for inflow and infiltration fees. The next one was responsible for our applicable water and sewer system fees, but then it says as per officially promulgated fee schedules uniformly applicable to all other town Arlington projects, notwithstanding anything contained here in the applicant shall be not shall not be responsible to pay for info and inflow and infiltration fees. So both those. So in here I think the second sentence on both of them was inserted was a recommended insertion by the applicant. So we can either if we're uncomfortable with the last half of the sentence we can, we can certainly remove that if we feel more comfortable with the language from 1165 are we can switch over to that as well for consistency. I would be prepared to either get rid of it as if or to stick with the formulation we had an 1165 are anybody feel strongly one way or another. I would go with the latter suggestion myself to go back to 1165. Yeah. Okay. Okay, I'll agree with Mr. Gopond. On Jace, the just revised stormwater report documenting a changes in the design that have occurred. K application both form additional test pits at the proposed stormwater basins to confirm groundwater elevation during seasonal high water groundwater. And the calculations be revised plans to stormwater calculation be provided to the Department of planning for the development for a few prior to building permits to building. Then this section L was kind of split it had a couple different things so this grading. I moved that down to I 19 because it deals more with stormwater and that kind of issues and then that the set aside here for 100,000 I moved down. So, um, so Kevin this is sort of the next phase here to the absence of assigned memorandum of understanding between the town of Arlington regarding the final disposition of the conservation parcel, the applicant or its agents shall perform a phase one environmental assessment of all parcels consistent with the requirements of MGL C 21 E and EPA standards for phase one assessments copies of the report to be submitted to the board and the Department of planning and development. In addition the applicant to place $100,000 in an escrow account under the control of the Department of planning and community development to remove items identified in the report from the conservation parcel and dispose of them under state law. So, in the absence of assigned MOU the terms of that MOU shall supersede to see the condition. The next one and was in the absence of assigned MOU between the applicant the town of Arlington regarding the final distribution preservation parcel. Should the phase one environmental assessment indicate the possible at presence of oil or other hazardous waste on site, the applicant or its agents shall also perform a phase two environmental investigation of all parcels consistent with the requirements of MGL C 21 E to identify oil or other hazardous waste in the soil or groundwater copies of the report to be submitted to the board and the Department of planning and development. The costs associated with the phase two environmental investigation and subsequent site cleanup shall be born solely by the applicant. There is assigned MOU the terms of the usual supersede this condition. Yes. In the prior paragraph the sentence the applicant has agreed to the terms outlined in finding number 71 above. I believe there was an objection to that during our last night of public hearing where Ms. Kiefer was, you know, fine to agree to conditions but she considered the findings opinions of the board and was basically trying to, you know, adopt them as the board's opinion as a condition. Okay, yeah, so I was planning on striking the so striking from this the applicant the town of our Arlington sign a mutual will agreeable memorandum of understanding because we're basically we're conditioning that they had to sign it which we can't do with the position of the conservation parcel the applicant has agreed to the terms. So finding 71 I think it actually slipped to 73 now. But yeah. So I think what we have now would allow us to remove the original language, because the language we're using now as well as more in keeping with I think what had been discussed. Last hearing in regards to what was being considered for the MOU was being proposed. Mr Chairman. Yeah, so that would mean deleting the language about agreeing to terms outlined in finding 71 and I, which is 73 and, and I'm guessing that I'm not so sure that we need to do anything. I mean, I don't know why we need to have a finding, ultimately, about what the applicant, the applicant's proposal at any particular period of time is. And the language that you've read before, and that I'm leaning over and struggling to read screen is, but it's more specific and and ultimately what we have to do here is to adopt something that can stand as conditions in case that memorandum of understanding just for some reason is not reached. And so I like the approach that that you've outlined here, much better than talking about the applicant's proposal so I stick with one and can the other. Paul, do you see any issue with this approach. I think that works fine. Any questions for the questions on M and N. Yeah, Mr Chairman. I, my understanding is that the intent here is to use the word hazardous waste as it's used in the state statute. But there are lots of ways of people may have of using that and I wonder if, if we need to include a reference to the definition that we mean. I don't think it probably means anything that anybody in the public thinks might be hazardous. It's, it's got a specific meeting under the under under the statute. Mr have any I wonder if you said that I'm raising my hand to you amazing to you because you're more likely to know this than anyone else although it's not difficult 41 before the B law but what what is the definition that is intended here. The definition that's intended regarding hazardous waste. That's definitions under chapter 21. I think that that's sort of what we would be relying upon. Yes. It's something that's determined to the hazardous waste as identified under the statutory scheme. That is chapter 21. So would it make sense to just say hazardous waste within the meaning of section 21 or something like that. That's fine. Yep. Requiring that phase one be done under consistent with the requirements of 21 E. And then we do note here that should the phase one environmental assessment indicate the presence of oil or hazardous waste so it does sort of include that. I can sort of add it here. I think it's as defined but it's built in suspenders but I think it's sort of helpful to proclaim that. Okay. Absolutely. Anything further on Eminem. That's the end of C. So section D. So if there was a recommendation earlier to swap the original D and D because of the just the sort of keeps things in more of a chronological order to do that. So I've done that and done that for the draft I have on my screen. So that these these are what used to be the ease. The prior to commencement of any work on the property applicant the site general contractors will tend to pre construction conference with representatives from the fire department environment public works. You know my other staffs may be determined. And so I have. And then there was a one from there went to the applicant and the site general contractor shall host a meeting open to all members of the public to review construction schedule hours policy. So the. I replaced that portion with this part here which is from 1165 bar. So the applicant and the site general contractor shall host a meeting open to all members of the public to review the construction schedule hours policies procedures another neighborhood impacts at least 14 days prior to the start of construction. Written notice meeting shall be provided to parties of interest pursuant. The primary that MGL for clarity. And then after 40 a section 11 at least 14 days prior to such meeting additionally the applicant shall prepare a list of additional parties interested in notice and shall provide notice to such parties. So that's basically to make sure that that meeting is adequately advertised that everyone has an opportunity to attend. So prior to the pre construction conference, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for administrative approval by the board. CMP shall be made available to those receiving notice of the meeting open to the public at least five days prior to such meeting. CMP shall provide documentation of various constructs related activities including construction, a schedule logistics site management coordination. And then coordination with the town to provide construction updates on projects website posting on dedicated and I sort of tried to merge this with what was for 1165. And then coordination with town to provide construction update on projects website, posting on dedicated municipal website and email notification to register email addresses. So this will. So I'm assuming that the project's website would be private would be by the applicant posting on a dedicated municipal website could be our website or 1165 our website or excuse me our place website. So email notification to register email addresses so people who want to be signed up and receive those email notices can do so. Mr Chairman. Yes. Do we have my has the applicant agreed to have a website. Um, they have one currently. Lots interesting. So they have one currently that had sort of been updated to sort of talk about what they're doing and what the project includes and so I just sort of assumed that they would make that they would be maintaining that website going forward. So I wonder whether it would be make sense if if we're relying on that to include a condition requiring them to maintain it. Well, we're certainly saying that we would be having our own website. In addition to that so they'll have if they have their website and we would have our, we would still be maintaining our website with this information, then email notifications. Mr chair. Yes, Steve. Um, on during our October or September 9, 2021. You know, I do have a note of this key for saying that they would be amenable to doing a website to show a construction schedule. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Mr chairman. Yes. So I just have a question and it came to mind. Number four site management is mitigation dust control. I happened to be talking to somebody yesterday who in another town lived somewhere near 40 be and during the course of construction, everybody on the street was actually using traps to catch rats. And I think I asked this question before and I think it's probably been answered. But I'm just wondering, is that something that needs to be addressed in the agreement because I don't worry in the decision I don't think it's in there specifically or is it that the town itself has enough coverage in terms of whatever existing laws exist. That it would be taken care of anyway. Because I'm guessing that once construction starts, it's going to be quite an issue. I didn't know how to address that if at all in the decision. So I believe there are, there are sections that deal specific, excuse me, specifically with rodent control for the down. I'm sorry if I missed them I didn't I looked for past and I didn't see. I didn't see it under any reference to past when I did a word search but perhaps it's under. We'll make sure it's there. D3. This is the site observation. Having an authorized representative of the board. The proposed construction shall be in accordance with applicable federal state laws rules and regulations except we're waived here in the proposed construction shall be in accordance with applicable local laws rules and regulations. The standard site retaining walls four feet or greater in height have to be engineered to private construction this was one that had to come back and forth and this is an agreement between the applicant and the town. In the proposed construction that there will be closer to TV sewer pipe inspection to be performed. And then any repairs that are required as the from the pre inspection would be the responsibility to town and then at the end of the project I'll go back and check it a second time and anything that's changed is the responsibility the D7 destruction applicant conform to all local state federal laws provide advance notice to a butters. And I just want to say a butters of the site and a butters to local public ways servicing the site. We may want to sort of think a little bit more about that but I was bringing that up because it this does talk about roads in order to accommodate deliveries. And so I think it's important not just that it be you know the those residents that are just down in the neighborhood but that anyone who is along that path ought to be kept aware as well. Mr chairman. Yep. I agree completely with that. Can we can we go back to the previous paragraph. Yes. I noticed that it was at the end it says the pipe shall be repaired replaced at the expense of the applicant site contractor. And I think that that really should be the responsibility of the applicant if the applicant wants to contract with the site contractor to make the site contractor responsible that's up to them. But the applicant site contractor isn't before us and I don't really see how we can affect the right, his rights. That seems fair. So in these seven I don't know is concerned about was, if I say local public ways servicing the site is the question of how far out that goes. Or if I should say servicing the site south of Lake Street or we should how if we should worry about that being interpreted to broadly. I mean, I guess the precise perhaps a precise way to do it would be to review the, you know the turning diagrams submitted by the applicant. You know where they showed delivery routes and such and name the actual streets. Ways servicing the site we're way servicing the site it's we're really talking about a delivery of construction materials and construction vehicles. I'm trying to think of a way to say that reference just servicing the site from Lake Street. Just streets in from Lake Street. Was that too much. Fair chairman that that seems right to me that you want to exclude Lake Street which at least is technically a street local street servicing the site. And while they're not primarily intending to use Wilson or Mary or whatever. I mean, there's a lot of street and people who live on those streets have an entry and what's more is blockages on some streets will affect traffic on others. So anything in that network between Margaret Street and Wilson Street and south of Lake Street should count it seems to me. I think we need to include. The addresses. I think particularly I believe Mr McKinnon and the eyes, you know, who are on the corner of little John and Lake that they are, you know, that this would include them. The word of butters basically does that right because even though their address isn't on a little John, they have but little John. So we need to be concerned about the interpretation of provide advance notice to a butters. There's no two butters per residential construction cool. So basically we're saying is any need to provide advanced notice per the town's residential. Okay. So, I think that'll be okay. So that's the seven, the eight shall not drive piles during construction. As a final message about subsurface compaction as part of the construction management plan, have potential keep all portions of any public way used as access egress to the project reasonably free of soil mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with a project, barely boilerplate. on D9. So again here it sort of talks about the final signage. So that's why they were here referred to C1I. So it's, they've removed that from here and just this is now just about temporary signage. So the temporary sign, including the name and address of the project, contact information for the applicant, general contractor, engineers, architect, and other relevant parties shall be posted at each construction entrance for the duration of construction operations. Signage must be legible and able to be read from Dorothy Road. And that's more in keeping with what we had done for 1165R. This makes it easier to know where to look for the construction signage. 10. So this is an exact duplicate of one of the other terms about the final plans. So D10, I'm recommending we remove. And D11, I moved. And this is one we had discussed before. It's about this question about the gas service. D12. It's about site lighting. D13. So utilities included but now limited to telephone, electric and cable shall to the greatest extent feasible be located underground. To the greatest extent feasible was language we had adopted for 1165R. Currently, the drawings do indicate the telephone, electric and cable service to the apartment building as being underground. But as mentioned before, there's no reference to how it's being able to the duplex units. So this here doesn't obligate those services to be underground, but does encourage them to the greatest extent feasible to have to be underground. Mr. Chairman. Yes. My recollection in 1165R there was there was a reason why I mean, because of had already been developed and had a complicated pattern of utility connections that we stuck into the greatest extent feasible because we suspected that that there would be it would be possible that that something wouldn't be feasible. And I just wonder whether we need to have that qualification here that no one to my knowledge has suggested that there would be any difficulty as far as feasibility is concerned of of undergrounding the duplexes. And they've already done it with with the senior housing. So I'm just asking my colleagues here whether we think that it's necessary to stick this qualification in. My concern was just that so there's a whole will be holes along the project. There's one at the corner of little John Dorothy and then there's a second one that'll be farther along Dorothy. So they can run. So those three services are going to be on that pole so they can run them down underground there. But then they're going to have to run across adjacent property. You know, they'll have to run you know horizontally through that front yard. So where so now you've got an you have to establish an electrical easement for the maintenance of those services that doesn't currently exist. So that was my concern was just that and we know as to the best of my knowledge we don't just for you know in the ordinary construction of duplexes there's not a requirement for utilities to be run underground. Correct and I'm certain that none of you know chances are that very few of the buildings on these streets currently have underground services. D-14 was just changing building commissioner to director of inspectional services. This one was verbatim in 1165R. Applicantial test soil during construction confirmed. Soil tights near areas of the infiltration system. This session should be witnessed by the board's designee. I'll unsuitable material if any discovered. That's boiled plate. So it brings us to D-16. So I know we had sort of gone back and forth about this. We had a lot of discussion about this with between the public and the applicant and the board at our last public hearing about the hours of operations. So I know that there have been a discussion about changing 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. to 7 30 a.m. and 4 30 p.m. And then I know there was a lot of pressure to change the weekend hours and to possibly eliminate Sunday and holiday hours. I want to sort of see where the board was on these. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I apologize actually for bringing this up. But it seemed to me that the applicant if was prepared to agree to or at least live with giving up on Sundays and holidays. If they could get a do a little bit earlier on the week, especially in the morning, to get their people there. The residents generally wanted to minimize the construction hour. I mean if they could have gotten it down to the five minutes between 12.25 and 12.30 I suspect that there would have been people advocating that. But people were really clear about Sundays. And I'm wondering whether the the other thing that that I recall from the mixes that this noise was primarily interested with being with getting her people there and not necessarily that interested in actually beginning to engage in the construction activities that would generate noise before 7 30 so before 8 o'clock. But they would like to have some flexibility sort of as a price for agreeing not doing doing things on Sundays. I don't know exactly where that goes. It's it seems and we may want to talk a little bit about it and think it through. You know if there is an advantage to having them quit by four. I suspect that during the winter they'll quit by four anyway because they need to clean up and get out of there before it gets dark. In the summer it seemed odd to me that they would agree to not going a little bit later. But you know moving things a little bit earlier takes the construction traffic more or takes the the access traffic more out of the peak hour which would be helpful. Kids are going to school during all of these periods of time but they'll be going to school just before 8 o'clock just as much as just before 7 30. So I had the sense that the thing that that tended to make the most people happy or at least unhappy is cutting out Sundays and holidays and allowing for the 7 30 to 4 o'clock on on the weekdays. I'm not sure that leaves me with I'm not sure what to do with Saturdays. So that's that's generally consistent with my recollection but I believe it was 4 30 rather than 4. Okay having having the construction workers away from the site and not traveling during the period starting 4 30 is obviously going to be helpful when it comes to traffic. I don't know how big a deal that will make but it will be somewhat somewhat helpful. You want to limit the Saturday hours? Yeah I would suggest noon. I think that's fairly common. We'll stop at noon on Saturdays. So a noon start? Can they get a full shift in at that point or is it just basically a half shift? No I think it's generally just a half shift. Nine to one would be fine probably better to let people sleep in and give them a half day between nine and one but I would limit it to half day. Mr. Havity? Mr. Chairman I wonder if Mr. Havity so what we've been talking about so far is kind of within the framework of that I thought that the applicant was more or less willing to agree to. This is the the hours that we have here are clearly not something that they were prepared to agree to and I wonder if Mr. Havity has a view as to as to the validity or wisdom of of of making this change on Saturdays? So if the imposition of a condition limiting the hours of construction is something that causes the applicant to take an appeal this condition would be stricken by the housing appeals committee if it is not based upon a local ruler requirement that's applicable to unsubsidized housing development. So if this is the sort of requirement that is placed upon a standard housing construction site then it would be allowed if it's the first time you've ever restricted the hours of construction sites to nine to one o'clock on a Saturday then it doesn't even have to get to the point of determining that it renders the project un-economic it's what's known as unequal treatment and it's not allowed person to generalize Chapter 40B section 2. I feel a little bit uneasy about pushing for you know outside what I think is more or less the what the applicant was willing to take as a trade-off here. The the base rule I mean if we didn't we're fooling around essentially with the statute that prescribes the times and allows you know and and allows the work on Saturdays and so you know I I if I had if I had my druthers and I do exactly what Mr. Ford suggested but I'm a little afraid that that that is going further than we can easily then we can easily justify because we we wouldn't do this in general we we as far as I know we never have done this. I have a question you know we've had large developments like Arlington 360 and and I don't know the rules and regulations well enough to know if we've restricted Saturday hours building the surprise that we did so I'd be curious maybe it's a Mr. Dallarelle question is that something that has been done is there precedence on other large construction projects in town for no half days on Saturdays and no Sundays and maybe catching them off guard here. I'm wondering Mr. Chairman whether we can make that inquiry given that the hearing is closed? That's a very good question Mr. Havity what's your assessment on that? I mean I think that that would be really asking for the submittal of information that was not submitted during the course of the public hearing so it's probably something that should be avoided. I mean too Mr. Havity's comment about unequal treatment you know there's the at least my notes from the discussion of construction times with the applicant it mainly focused on weekday hours. I don't have any notes specifically about hours on weekends but 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. is what I believe that is what we you know our noise bylaws limit hours of construction too. Yes so the hours where they're originally the 8 to 6 and 9 to 5 are taken straight from from title 5. So Mr. Chairman I just just to sort of lay this out I raised the question originally whether in order to reduce the impact on the neighborhoods that we ought to have these limits and ask people to comment on that generally speaking the community felt strongly about Sundays and I think holidays and the applicant was sort of willing to do a quid pro quo that if they could start a bit earlier they'd be willing to go along at least with the Sundays and holidays part. If we did only that then I think that that it's fair that the record pretty much supports that and I'm worried about going going beyond that because it's it's I'm for the obvious reason. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Mills. Yes, I have an observation first off as far as living in these conditions on working hours on Saturdays I think what is very different from this from most construction sites it's embedded in a very residential neighborhood and you know you have lots of children and elderly people trying to enjoy their lives in their neighborhoods and they can tolerate it Monday through Friday but the weekends and Saturdays I don't feel bad about limiting them to a half a shift as Mr. Ford suggested and furthermore I'd like to ask Mr. Valarelli what are actually the codes in Arlington what is allowed because I'm have a funny feeling Saturday Sundays and holidays are not allowed off the top of my head but I'd like to ask Mr. Valarelli if possible. Mr. Mills so the best my knowledge is eight to six weekdays and nine to five Saturdays this is um far um commercial commercial applications if you're working on your own house you can work on a Sunday but to answer your question specifically for this project they would be able to work from eight to six during the week and I believe nine to five on Saturday but nothing on Sundays or holidays no to the best of my knowledge I'm 95 percent sure nothing on Sundays or holidays unless they get special permission from the police department. Thank you. Mr. Chairman is is is that part in the noise control ordinance too? So that's in the noise control ordinance it occurs to me I don't know I don't know if the noise control ordinance has been amended since 2016 to change the the terms um certainly in the current version you know it reads a specific way um but I don't know if that you know if that was the same prior prior it's currently count by laws title five second article 12 maximum sound level county's matter of enforcement education where it's this it's not the leaf blower numbers and so it says prohibited times operating or permitting the operation of any of the following devices or vehicles before 9 a.m. or after 5 p.m. on a Saturday Sunday or legal holiday or before 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m. on all other days. Does that have an exemption for working on your own house or is that I mean I'm wondering if that's the same provision that Mr. Valerie is talking about. So this says the following acts are specifically pro so this is section three daytime only activities following acts are specifically prohibited operating or permitting the operation of any of the following devices outside of the times that are listed heavy equipment electric all electric motors internal combustion engines or other construction devices tools or equipment used construction drilling demolition maintenance earth moving including but not limited to bulldozers back hose concrete mixers dump trucks pneumatic tools rollers scrapers air compressors generator jackhammer cranes pavement breakers pile drivers rock drills and chainsaws so it's basically anything that you know makes noise in there does not looking at this I do not see a specific exemption for home owners versus other contractors so I think that maybe the maybe a way of sort of getting beyond this and getting a little more done tonight is that we should table this and try to understand more what are what we look at various bylaws and try to see exactly what the underlying legal picture is obviously if there's some prohibition in some town bylaw that was applicable in 2016 to their working on Sundays then presumably we can do that whether they like it or not but but we don't really know that and and the and I don't know that we need to take our own time now to do that I'm willing to begin looking through that and and see what I can see by reading through our statutes and and report next time okay um and then we we had at 1165 bar we had included the parking of all vehicles and equipment must be on the property during this and mr chairman just to mention miss noise specifically agreed with that okay on the 20th perfect uh yes before we move to 17 can we go back to number d8 real quick um i had to go back i had to go back to my notes on that one sorry d8 correct yeah d8 um so we we're pretty confident they're not going to drive piles on this right March 11th uh i believe we talked about it and it was written about what what i have written in here is um the the foundation work that they're planning to use is not piles it's going to be ground improvement and that's using um and that will cause vibrations okay so what the notes that i had in here and i'll just read and it says it is not anticipated that the ground vibrations caused by the ground improvement will cause damage to nearby structures however due to the proximity of the adjacent buildings it is recommended that the own performer pre-construct pre-construction survey uh of the adjacent buildings and then i say and then i wrote um there's some there's some language that says you know the magnitude of vibrations may be sufficient in magnitude to cause cosmetic cracking it is therefore is is recommended that the maximum allowable peak particle velocity i.e. the vibration level adjacent to the above grade existing buildings be limited to two inches per second above a frequency of 40 hertz 1.5 inches per second between 30 and 40 hertz 1 inch per second between 20 and 30 hertz and 0.5 inches per second below 20 these criteria are intended to reduce the probability of structural damage to the adjacent structures within generally acceptable levels the threshold of human perception to vibrations well below these levels is recommended that the vibration monitoring seismographs be performed by mcbale who's the geotechnical engineer during ground improvement installation the point that i'm trying to say is i'm happy that we don't have to dwell on it here i'm happy to craft it so that we can put it in here but if the goal i think i think we want to protect the neighbors from the vibrations that could cause some cosmetic damage driving piles isn't an issue on this one because they're not going to drive piles but they're going to do ground improvement and i think we we do need to protect the neighbors by having the pre-construction survey done and then providing general enough guidance where the geotechnical engineer will perform the seismographs and keep the ground improvement operations within tolerable levels to try to protect the neighbors so i can craft it so that we can put it in and edit this section but i think it's a if this is the place that we're talking about the foundation work and the vibration levels then i think this section needs a little bit of work no absolutely i know on level 65 r we had definitely included more about vibration um then is included here in this paragraph i don't recall where it was specifically in there um but if you could put if you don't mind putting together notes on this that would be helpful so mr chairman it's i wonder if mr four could just just say which day it was that that yeah i have march 11 2020 and if we stumble across um other things about vibration we can come back and discuss that as well okay i just can't recall if it occurs elsewhere but thank you for bringing that back up um those 17 is more about um site maintenance uh it's what add on site to be that their material shall be stored or stockpiled on site so that they're not stored in stockpiled elsewhere 18 no building areas we left open unstable life condition in 19 all dumpsters are in the project shall be enclosed and covered with the exception of construction dumpsters you during um the board shall review the dumpster location as part of the approval of the final plans so they've been very clear that the dumpsters are going to be internal to the building um and so they would be enclosed and covered for this requirement with exception of the construction dumpsters so i think this is fine as it is d20 is about retaining walls um and it's just changing building commissioner to director of inspectional services 21 snow so snow should be stored within the areas the property designated on the approved plants the extent snowfall exceeds the capacity of the designated snow storage areas the avalanche shall truck access snow sites snow may not be placed in or adjacent to resource areas the reason i flagged this is i know we had discussed prior snow that falls around the backside of the building which is in the resource area that as long as it is clean or meets certain requirements from the um the conservation commission to put forward they were okay with it remaining in or adjacent to resource areas so i wasn't sure how we should address that here um and what it may just be is snow may not be placed in or adjacent to resource areas except as um outlined in and then give the section where we discussed that mr chairman yes did there's a distinction between between placing the snow in or adjacent to a resource area and leaving it there and i'm wondering whether the conservation commission was really happy with having people with having them clear it from someplace else and put it in a resource area or whether they were just saying you didn't have to clean it you could leave it where it is well i think the thought was that the the access way behind the building would have to be cleared yeah so effectively there would be snow in the storage in the i guess it's snow that is existing in the resource area would be moved within the resource area but would not be moved to the resource area right i'm just worried about the word placed which suggests something more than that okay uh perhaps we could say that snow may be plowed from the access road to the rear of the multifamily building or something along those lines snow within the resource area i think that definitely in section i somewhere we'll find out d-22 um construction activities forward d-23 after responsible for moving snow sanding internal roadways applicant is responsible for the sweeping removal of snow and sanding of the public sidewalk along Dorothy road for local bylaws one that um our transportation planner had flagged as a question before that d-24 maintain for all forces of any public road whether state or local access to property free from soil mudder debris so we do mention soil mudder debris somewhere else as well but i don't think it's a problem to mention that mr chairman yes sir so as i was reading that it just brought to mind the question as to whether or not there would likely be any damage to the roads especially you know the main road Dorothy as a result of repeated uh you know construction traffic and so i i don't know really i don't recall what they said in terms of what the length of time the construction would take or how many vehicle trips there would be i do know that they talked in terms of the number of um uh what do you call them the not components but the mod modules yeah and it seemed like there's a fairly high number of trips so i don't know whether those streets are designed to be able to withstand that type of traffic and so that raised the question in my mind about well what if it digs up the streets and i don't know whether there's any general requirement within the town bylaws saying that if you do damage to streets you're responsible for you know remediating the problem so just a question sure is that if i could ask mr haverty is that a condition that he's seen before the addressing of damage by construction on public way don't recall whether i've seen one that specifically required it but it's certainly not problematic and developers should be required to pay for any damage that they're shown to okay and certainly any you know anytime they're going to be doing excavations in the streets and whatnot they're going to have to go back and patch and repair all of that as well mr chairman yes sir i'm wondering when you think about all of this weather i mean obviously the heavy vehicles on the street could will cause potholes and things like that and um but what i'm wondering there's there was testimony as i recall that there are various street trees that are that extend out into the right of way uh and i wonder if if the principle is that the applicant should be responsible for uh fixing any damage that they do that that probably ought to include inadvertent damage to trees as well and there may be other things that we haven't thought of that um that will fall into the same category and i it seems to me that the principle that mr haverty suggests that that they should basically internalize the cost of the damage they do is the principle that it's fair for the town to impose on them and the town owns the street trees as much as it owns the pavement um and again i there may be other things i'm not thinking of that fall into the same category but i'd like i'd like to be as broad as the principle permits okay all right so we can do some further work on that one d25 is about permits for curb cuts uh d26 um the earth removal plan um and then at 1165 we had included a copy the plan will be kept on file of the job site we're just adding that um prior to commencing any earth removal the applicant shall provide the board the results of a phase one site assessment pursuant to mgl 21e which they should have done in any ways under the prior conditions um i'll catch basins shovel oil water separators as shown on the plans uh mr chair yes sorry uh just to go back to d24 um so regarding one just perhaps making making a note of this to look at later but uh title three sections one and two of the town bylaws uh deals with you know construction and public ways and bonding the applicant requested a waiver from this i believe it was a way for request number one in which we denied okay there may be there may be coverage for this not okay but we should check all right whatever is d29 um the sidewalks and pathways walkways shall be compliant with the requirements the ada and aab um and then d30 conference of permits master permit issued in lieu of all others and just here was just changing building to um inspectional services department that was all of d there's a couple things there to come back for but not too too much section e which was prior section d um prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure the applicant shall um submit engineers interim certification of compliance with the utilities plan and profiles for such phases applicable to the director of special services by the letter to the board signed by the civil engineer certifying structure supporting infrastructure has been constructed in the plans for the final plans can acceptance from the fire department of testing of all fire protection systems fire alarm systems fire sprinkler systems local smoke alarms sewer connection signoffs um submit a request for legal addresses for all new buildings from the engineering division public works department um and mr chairman yes going back to the inspectors signed off by the fire department etc etc um can we add something along the lines of adequate site access to the um larger building does the fire department approves they have adequate access yeah that would not be in the dwelling units yeah it doesn't involve the other six but the major just a shorthand for the moment yeah you get the idea that uh and then f in the again this is the last section of the of the mou conditional conditions in the absence of a signed memorandum of understanding between the applicant in the town of arlington regarding the final disposition of the conservation parcel the applicant dorses an agreement to provide an annual contribution of $25,000 to an escrow account under the control of the department of planning and community development for a period of 10 years for improvements slash maintenance of the conservation parcel for passive recreation by residents of the town of arlington if there's a signed mou the terms of that mou shall supersede this condition and so that was the last of the monetary stuff that the applicant had agreed to in the hearings mr chair yes this is sort of a broader question but um condition e1 is a contains a list of things uh require or a list of things that are required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure yeah and e2 contains a list of requirements that have to be satisfied prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project and i'm wondering so i just and i'm it's just because i'm a little unclear about this do we phase certificates of occupancy um so the the inspectors the building inspector can issue temporary certificates of occupancy um prior of a final certificate of occupancy so and then they can they would be able to i believe issue certificate of like the certificate of occupancy for the apartment building is going to be harder to achieve than the certificate of occupancy for the duplex buildings and so it's possible that like the duplex buildings will could be have their cvo's issued earlier and or they may issue you know they may try to get a few of them get the cvo's issued so that they can sell them and get the you know for get the money flowing and so i e1 is really there for you know before anything gets permitted and then e2 you know gets the certificate and then e2 is really before the final final cvo oh okay okay i see here's what we need to do no that makes sense thank you for the clarification absolutely mr chairman yes um i wonder if it would be clearer if if we said something along the lines of prior tuitions of the final certificate of occupancy or possibly the the final one for the project as a whole or some some such thing because some people reading this including me until just now we're not clear on what the distinction was for digital files in digital format so just both getting things in autocad format and in pdf and then cad delivery shall include this information they had requested um i had added subsurface features and flood boundaries which were not included in the original so mr chairman i i don't think that there is any provision for a final certificate of occupancy for an entire project i think it's based upon structure okay so the way that i read these and i intended i originally drafted them so what my intent was at least um e1 really addresses co's per structure means that all of these have to be completed for any particular structure that's seeking the co whereas e2 and i i didn't add subsection b but e2 is something that's supposed to be applicable before any certificate of occupancy for any structure ah the opposite yes although looking at this again they may not have final as built plans this really should say before the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy because that's when you're going to get the final as built okay subsection b doesn't really tie into that first one i'll say prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any structure right and then the second would be a prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy correct okay i would actually just take subsection b out and maybe make it e3 where would you where would you install it i would just make it e3 rather than e2 subsection b ah okay just scoot it over traffic traffic safety conditions and sidewalks uh access and egress the projects may be a Dorothy road and or level John street consistent with improved plans uh operative a senior living is required to include within its vendor contract requirements of vendors um so this is a question the smaller delivery trucks um so i was trying to figure out how to make it more descriptive so small non-articulated delivery vehicles would sort of be you know small straight trucks nothing that you know would be a two-part truck so no 18-wheelers no yeah sort of things along those sizes um operator show use all reasonable efforts to schedule vendor deliveries during off peak hours vendors are to adhere to all local traffic requirements and that's basically just to reiterate all the signs about when you can access certain streets if um if there's no objection um after non-articulated vehicles perhaps uh say i.e no tractor trailers just to make it really clear yeah do we want us like i was struggling with like weight limits and length limits and there doesn't doesn't seem to be a right yeah i mean i thought of weight limits and the number of axles how's that i think that's good it's okay uh see all your living residents will own or lease a van to provide complimentary jitney service to the senior living residents and staff available seven days a week to provide access to and from MBTA and other local destinations service shall operate on demand and for such sufficient operating hours to provide reliable transportation service for residents and staff so i in the last hearing there original thought was that it might run for four and a half hours a day which just is not sufficient and we had pointed that out to them at the time that that was insufficient um and you know they had agreed to look into to longer hours so i'm sort of struggling to figure out how we could you know what we could put in um i was curious if you know what people think about this language for the hours because really the reason what we really want the jitney service to do is to reduce the demand for cars and and for taxi rides and for you know uber and lift so really if it's not providing a reliable transportation service then it's not really working mr chairman yes sir um i think you have to distinguish here between the transportation service that's being provided and the utility of the jitney in avoiding parking requirements if you take on demand to its logical conclusion it's on demand the way uber is on demand it doesn't result reduce the number of auto trips at all it does mean you don't have to have your own car so you don't have to put it in the parking lot but you've got the same number of trips coming in and out that you had before you you might actually even have more so making it on demand sort of cuts against the transportation advantage of the jitney service except that you know by anything that makes it easier to get to al wife means that somebody isn't going to be driving in from from Worcester or someplace so uh you know it has that effect but to the residents not so much so i just i'm not quite sure what to make of that but i think that we should not be overly enthusiastic about the jitney service if if it were a regular bus service where people would would uh where a number of people would get on at one time uh it would have a bigger effect what's a good question is should it be operate on demand or set schedule mr chairman yes sir i would see this being more efficient if it was a set schedule and be sensitive to the needs that a lot of these seniors are going to be needing to get to possibly public transportation for medical uh appointments and they can certainly schedule the medical appointments towards the day but i would say a schedule that would include say a route that hit several common shopping areas say mass avenue in the location of capitol square and then goes up to al wife can pick up and drop people off maybe over to bombard center and back to wilton center and come back to the site down mass avenue i could see a loop like that occurring i don't know five six times a day at least i mean it's about a five mile loop just off the top of my head a six mile loop now mr chair i i would actually like to i would be more comfortable striking the words or on demand or set schedule um and just stating the the sort of functional goal of to provide reliable transportation service for residents or staff because i i think it's quite possible that you know the needs of residents or staff could change over time in ways that we're not necessarily thinking of right now mr chairman maybe it would maybe it would be helpful the sentence the way it's written now focuses entirely on operating hours and what we also want to do is have them be considering motive operation or motive operation i.e. on demand or scheduled service in order to at least attract their attention to the issue because otherwise they won't pay attention to the issue at all they're just going to do it just the way they always were planning on doing it and there's nothing in here that would force them even to think about doing it in a different way you recommend keeping those in well i you know you could say or for hours or what i was actually thinking of is is saying for operating hours and for such sufficient operating hours and motive operation and then parentheses i.e. on demand or set schedule and parentheses so that so that it's all said there what was that again to the service show i was going to say that for such sufficient operating hours and motive operation and then and then explain motor operation with the parenthetical phrase on on demand or set schedule so i wonder if as long as i'm on a roll here if we could may include to provide reliable transportation service and effective demand management or something of that kind because part of the point is not just providing reliable service i mean uber does that part of it is to attempt to reduce the number of trips that are necessary yes i think though mr chairman yes sir how we have how are we going to be able to assert that this service as they implemented actually does meet these requirements i mean it's nice to make suggestions for requirements but i don't see any backbone of how we would actually monitor to actually see it is functional it is meeting its design goal of reducing traffic i'm just posing the question i don't have any answer not to good question is that i mean is that something we should request some monitoring of what i'm also suggesting is uh cocketing to mr revelax comment that we really don't know the situation is this something that we can control or change the conditions of later on that they can report back to the board and we can monitor how things are going and possibly enforce some later changes or work with them to define a moment you know once we actually see how many people are coming back at what time it may say oh well then there should be a couple of schedule runs here so people officially know they're going to be picked up if they take this train and they get the elevator at this time that the jitney is going to be there waiting for you know they just you know i mean i think some kind of schedule needs to be in place and then we need to see if anybody's actually using this and if they're not how we can improve what they're doing right i mean these are all questions i mean i really feel for the neighbors in the traffic situation oh absolutely i mean i know at 1165 we had included that the the management company would because they were sort of trying to allocate their parking between you know between guests and the residents and the work bar and so we had said you know quarterly they need to evaluate that allocation and go back and reallocate it and so i had i had sort of added in when we get down to it about the parking that i included similar language here because i'm a little concerned that they would you know the possibility of selling too many parking spaces and then not having enough parking remaining for staff and um so you know that is something we could consider here too of saying that you know they should you know how do we encourage them to because i don't think it's to be the board that is you know constantly telling them they need to redo their jitney service but how do we include something in here that you know can sort of be self perpetuating on there and that they need to be um you know providing they need to be evaluating the service they're providing and making sure that it meets the needs of their residents and staff mr chairman i'm i'm not so sure that we that there's much need to work the meeting the needs of their residents is something that they are probably going to be wanting to do anyway um if they if they're thinking about it it's unfortunately a little late in the game for us to be thinking about this because when the the place where it comes up a lot is going to be an access from staff and what you're going to want to be your aim is to encourage this is in addition to a residence it's an employment center and just like a commercial office building it attracts traffic and what we want is this is is for this to operate as a TDM to reduce the number of automobile trips that happen because making it easy to get from the subway station to the premises is one way of doing that and if we were thinking of it in that way there's probably a process that's already in place where the department of planning and community development follow these things along and ask for monitoring and work with the applicant if if certain standards aren't met and i think that one of the problems we have is that when you're at the point where you're not even sure whether you prefer on-demand or scheduled service it's a little hard to define what the criteria are that somebody is going to look at to see whether or not whether or not it's working to reduce traffic and like mr mills i don't really actually have any answer to that the condition as it is is more or less unenforceable and is really primarily aimed at making sure that people think about it but i without knowing without being able even to resolve for ourselves whether we think it's better to have on-demand or a set schedule how are we going to how are we are we going to make this enforceable by establishing enforceable conditions not a good question i mean really the oh go ahead i was going to say in terms of enforceability the i mean really the first sentence that's i mean that's something that i think is you can you can put down as a as a as a require you can say that's a requirement that has or hasn't been met you know that the last three lines are much squishier i believe yeah sorry go ahead go ahead mr depot so it also caused me to think when i read the first sentence where it prescribes that they will own or lease a van i'm wondering if they necessarily have to be the parties to actually own or lease the van and provide you know the drivers and all of that themselves and the reason i say that is i was a alewife today dropping off my son and i noticed that they had these you know 128 you know vans bringing people from you know different companies around the area to alewife and i'm i'm wondering if in the long run it might be better for them to enter into an agreement with some sort of a carrier to provide that service you know somebody who is who knows what they're doing and so i wouldn't necessarily prescribe that over the other option but you might want to include that they'll own or lease a van or enter into a contract with a you know a carrier to provide complimentary journey service because i i just wonder if these people are equipped and experienced enough to be able to actually do that themselves well they were i mean i thought they were fairly adamant during our discussions that they were it was going to be their own van okay yeah um and certainly you know in the future if they wanted to switch to you know a more of a management model or something or leasing from somebody else then they could um you know request a change you know a change from the board okay mr chairman i'm sorry go ahead steve i was going to say it i mean i think you could miss it may be possible to address mr dupont's point by just simply saying the senior living residents will provide complimentary dittany service right that gives them a flexibility to do it however however sounds so so mr chairman yeah mr chairman yeah um one thing i think we should look there was there was an interchange between beta and the applicant uh where beta relied on the fact now i've now forgotten exactly what it was that beta was concerned about but it it it had to well i've forgotten what it was but whatever it was the they the assurance that the operator of the senior residents would be using its own equipment uh was something that led beta to back off whatever its point was and i can remember where the correspondence was but as is always the case i can't remember exactly what it was about but i just wanted to raise that that this is something that was addressed in the record between us and we ought to just check and make sure that we're not inadvertently giving away something that um that we ought not to but that being said i think that i mean i don't see any reason why we should i don't understand why we should care whether they own or lease it subject to whatever beta says to the contrary and if there's no reason to regulate it then there's no reason to ask somebody to come back for an amendment to the permit we should just give them the flexibility well see if we can was that something that you think came up in a meeting or was it something that was in correspondence it was in the correspondence it was the back and forth on comments it was t something or other and it and it as i recall it was in the comments that were exchanged in august okay right well we can try to find that f4 is about emergency vehicle access f5 should provide 28 long-term bike parking spaces that are covered in secure and then they'll provide up to eight additional then as we had done at level six five so bicycle storage fixtures requiring the lifting of a bicycle off the ground shall be provided with mechanical lift assistance and this is specifically if they want to install two-tier fixtures because they find they need more space then they can do that but they need to have some kind of mechanical assistance and then you have to provide two outdoor short-term bike parking racks each capable of parking up to six bicycles parking racks should be in the approximate areas shown on the proof plan so you have the main entrance and this bike rack shall be capable of securing a standard bike frame and one wheel using common u-type security lock without the need to remove by the wheel just to make it a little clear so what's equivalent is an acceptable type of temporary rack the application should provide new residents with transportation information packets including but not limited to the following information so originally it was just information packets with information on getting around Arlington sustainably but i think it's important to information of getting around Arlington sustainably information regarding the existing weekday peak hour turn restrictions from lake street onto wilson little john and homestead information regarding local parking requirements bylaws information on the chutney service information on the council of aging shuttle service information on the nth meter bikeway information on the nbta and pass services is there anything else that people think should be included in this packet mr chairman yes um i would say information about getting around Arlington and surrounding community sustainably these people are living really close to belmont really close to cambridge a lot of the you know technically the way it's written would mean that they wouldn't have to give any information on how to get to the whole foods and fresh pond and even more they wouldn't be able to get to eggy's store and on faucet um so there's that um and i wonder whether we shouldn't be a little vaguer about i mean in 10 years we it may very well be that the existing weekday peak hour restrictions are different from the way they are now and we'd want the information to be accurate given whatever the circumstances were at the time the information is given and it may be that there's peak hour return restrictions on other streets than this where they you know generally whatever the restrictions are they should be given the information as to what they are and we shouldn't be so specific in tying it into to what the current restrictions are so maybe just ending it at lake street or from lake street yeah restrictions from lake street and then remove everything after yeah i think that would do for me i think okay anything else on this one eight at the 95 parking spaces um just cleaning up the way we handle numbers uh two handicapped spaces meeting the requirements of the adna pv parking scene residents love the traditional monthly fee at market rates separate from rent in order to discourage motor vehicle ownership of the project um i don't think we included anything i'm pretty sure this is the language in the final 1165 r i know we had discussed whether you know how this applies to units that are affordable um and i believe as you had said before that that in that case it would still be under the restriction to not exceed 30 of the of their income is that correct or 30 of the 80 percent need for sorry the affordability is based upon uh somebody qualifying at no more than 80 percent of area median income spending not more than 30 percent of their income on housing um the units will be required to be affordable in perpetuity so long as the project doesn't comply with the underlying zone irrespective of whether any other restrictions expire but as far as uh renting a parking space it has to be it's part of the calculation okay good so they they factor in all of the costs renting the space okay so what it would do is it would basically drive down the allowable rents in order to allow them to purchase or rent the space okay uh f10 it's about the electric vehicle charging um mr chairman yes so mr hamlin's point about what like things might be like continues do you want to say in f10 before 10 garage parking spaces in addition 10 additional at least so it's not a cap so stations for at least 10 garage parking spaces where it first is okay instead of up to at least oh in the first section it says for 10 garage parking spaces you want to say at least 10 garage parking spaces which i'll provide where ampere's needs will allow for an expansion of up to say and at least it's good um so the first part of f11 was originally as was moved and put into that 10 information package um the parking for residence staff and guests of the senior residence building is to be accommodated primarily on site the property manager shall review requests for parking quarterly and shall adjust parking space allocations as required to properly allocate available parking in residence staff and guests to minimize the impacts on the adjacent neighborhood um so obviously we can't tell them that people can't park on the street because it's a public way but i think we want to emphasize to the applicant that you know that they have said they can that the parking that they are providing meets their requirements and you know beta has concurred and so i just want to make sure that we're saying to them you know you need to be keeping an eye on this and if it's a problem you need to do something to address it and i know that they have specifically said you know if we find we need more parking we can we have available land on the site that we were going to be doing is sort of you know outdoor recreation space we could convert that into additional surface parking if required um but i was sort of proposing this as a way to sort of start that conversation and i just wanted to see what people thought about this approach Mr Chairman um there's no overnight parking there i assume correct on those public ways that's correct is that something we want to put in the informational material to residents that there's no overnight parking on the public streets um so i did say information regarding local parking requirements and bylaws okay so hopefully that would cover it mr chairman yes sir um i would include something like including without limitation the famous lawyerly words overnight parking restrictions because people don't assume that those exist and i have just in other circumstances heard a whole lot of stories where people rent apartments and then they discover and they then discovered the overnight parking they were never told so it might be useful to draw attention to that without being overly specific because the town may change it at some point what was your lawyerly oh including without limitation restrictions and overnight parking like that yeah okay limitations or limitation sorry well right now it's a limitation but i'm not so sure that if you went if you went out further that it wouldn't be a more complex picture uh you know a town meeting can do lots of things and parking is something that that's interested in doing so i'm not a hundred percent and obviously the parking restrictions as themselves are a select board sort of thing so i wasn't the reason i chose the words restrictions is that it might be there might be exceptions for example for certain kinds of housing i think we'll see proposals this next time meeting for something like that and i just wanted to be broad enough to include whatever you know to include whatever may be adopted eventually ready to move on to g it is 943 g is not very long there is something we would possibly want to discuss so i wasn't quite sure if you want to stop here for tonight or if you wanted to go on for a little bit longer i'm good let's finish up g okay police fire emergency medical conditions um applicants shall provide professional senior housing operator property management and maintenance personnel on the premises during typical business hours and provide an emergency contact name and number for tenants in the airline complete department this thing property was in the wrong place originally it's another verb uh it's a g2 is when we've discussed several several times but stairwells and garages must be a minimum to our fire rated and residential units must be a minimum one hour fire rated or as required by state building code that should hopefully cover everyone's concerns about that requirement forestry residential structures shall be fully sprinkled per nfpa and state fire code regulations compliance with all state building code and nfpa requirements related to fire access safety and egress shall be met um all elevators must have emergency generator oops what did it just do more battery backup for state elevator code they remember there was a question on 1165 i think it had said generator and they said change the battery because we're going to do a battery but just leave that either way here uh product shall provide and maintain fire access sufficient to comply with applicable state building codes fire shall provide adequate external lighting that should be external exterior for the requirements of local regulations and outdoor codes we do sort of have that in here now twice um as proposed by the applicant the project shall have an access system and shall have staff on site to address security concerns of the police department so this was from the original um where they were going to have card access and somebody at the door all the time and then now that it's this that we were sort of discussing well or you know are you even going to have to have a card swipe to get into the garage or to get into the elevators from the garage and so all this sort of security side of things i think was you know they had indicated they were going to do things but i don't think we had a specific commitment for a specific course of action um so i wasn't sure how specific we should necessarily be except that they need to control access i mr chair i would suggest uh changing access system to access control system but otherwise i i think that you know gets to the you know what you're trying to provide without being prescriptive in how it's provided okay so if we just reduce it to that project you'll have access control system and you'll have staff on site to address security concerns with the police department let's leave it at such mr chairman yes sir what exactly do we mean by staff on site to address security's concerns with the police department means there's supposed to be someone there 24 hours a day on site to do this or i mean but i'm not quite sure what we're envisioning here that is how i interpreted it as there will be at least there would be at least one staff person on site at all times but it doesn't have to be a professional senior housing person because those people only have to be there during normal business hours right i think like you would want to have somebody on site so that if you know somebody if a resident locks themselves out that somebody can let them in well i don't think that g8 is addressing that that's addressing security concerns with the police department okay and if the problem is merely calling the police i'm not quite sure why they necessarily have to be on site so we could say she'll have staff on site to address access and security concerns period that would be fine as i was reading this i was also thinking well maybe the concern is the police department's concern and the the person on site is supposed to be doing something because the police department tells them to or something like that it's a little vague okay i like that g9 during times of construction the project including all structures shall be accessible to fire department and other emergency vehicles additionally all hydrants shall be operational in accordance with NFPA standpipes and operational on each floor during construction is required by building code in the fire department and then g10 the applicant shall consult with the fire department prior to the commencement of construction to provide an on-site emergency plan that which shall be updated as necessary throughout the construction process is there anything else in regards to police fire or emergency medical conditions i'd love to say that you know emergency vehicles can't use their or should not use their sirens when approaching the building um but that's operational within the fire department that's not something we can condition my own experience oh go ahead no chief go ahead i was going to say in my own experience um you know the fire our emergency services are generally pretty good about not turning on sirens when they don't need to i think that's true okay all right so that brings us to the end of section g um that's 950 so we can stop here um before we get to water and sewer um obviously section after that is wetlands flood planned environmental concerns that's a big one um there's a lot to it and then j is the next one which is just other general conditions which is much more sort of regulatory um than anything else and then we're done with conditions now we can move on to uh reviewing the findings mr chairman in light of you know mr dupont's suggestion earlier on that we should avoid going too late it's now 10 minutes to 10 yeah and uh well we might be able to do this really recently quickly we'll be quick about it tonight or tomorrow night too and i think two and a half hours is long enough i concur okay so we would be picking up next time with each and so the save this where'd you go okay so we just had our november thursday our next um date november ninth next tuesday we have two hearings um so thursday the 11th is the when we would be continuing deliberation when we had set these dates i it had kind of slipped my mind that of course november 11th is armistice day and veterans day and i don't know if that poses any concerns or issues for anybody in terms of making it having a meeting that evening but seeing none um i would i could have a motion to continue tonight's deliberations until thursday november 11th 2021 at 7 30 p.m so moved let's second and mr mills uh vote of the board um mr dupont hi mr hanlon hi mr mills hi your work hi your board hi your chair votes aye so we are continued until 11th and then just look at just back at the calendar uh so then we would be trying to finish on the 16th if possible um if not we'll have to consider whether we want to try to squeeze in some extra time obviously the 23rd is already pretty booked um and the 25th is thanksgiving so we would need to figure out how we want to address that um but we can discuss that at the meeting on the 11th because i think that'll give us sufficient time if we need if we think we're we're going to need to um either try to fit another meeting in or really take advantage of the the 30th uh for the final meeting so that is our calendar anything further tonight well thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the arlington zoning board of appeals i appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting and i especially wish to thank rick valerelli vincenly and tele lana for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings it's our understanding the recording made by acmi will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days if anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zba at town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website to include tonight's meeting i would ask for a motion to adjourn so moved mr handlin a second day uh vote of the board mr dupont hi handlin hi melz hi your work hi rebelak hi board hi the chair votes aye we are adjourned thank you all very much Paul thank you so much good night mr chairman good night good night good night good night gentlemen