 Good evening everyone my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals I'd like to call this meeting for Tuesday October 13th 2020 to order I apologize for the Delay in starting we were having a couple of technical difficulties and a couple of counts, but we all seem to have that all worked out As we begin I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present So members of the zoning board of appeals might call your name if you could just let me know you're here Roger Dupont You're on you're on mute Roger Thank you Patrick handlin here Kevin Mills. Yeah Aaron Ford here Stephen Revlach President unable to hear you excellent Sean or work will be a couple minutes late, but he'll be coming Actually, yeah, Christian. Oh, you are here wonderful She's kicking in perfect. Thank you very much So town officials Rick Valerelli Clare, thank you perfect and Jennifer rate the director of planning and community development is here as Is Emily Sullivan who is the The conservation commissioner Council representing The so Paul Havarty Paul here Paul is here And Stephanie Kiefer you here. I am you're here. Perfect. Thank you and Barty Nova from beta group. Are you here? I am here perfect Okay, this open meeting of the You are not on please mute yourself. Thank you This open meeting of the Arlington's Uning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12th 2020 the order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible Physical location further all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded So that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting an opportunity for public participation Will be provided during the public comment period indicated on the posted agenda and there was a Detail breakout of the agenda that was added to the online agenda if you if you look at Novus One of the last attachments is the detailed agenda for discussing Thurndike place That would be a detailed agenda for this evening for this meeting the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference We had a zoom webinar app with an online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted on the town's website Identifying how the public may join this meeting is being recorded and it is being broadcast by ACMI Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means some attendees are participating by video conference Other participants are participating by phone accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you your screen name or another identifier and Take care not to share your personal information Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background and remaining muted when you are not participating All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website Unless otherwise noted the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda as Chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting Okay so for the Start of this meeting on the first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the October 6th 2020 meeting Members of the board are there any Further corrections to the minutes Seeing none. Can I have a motion to accept the minutes? So moves to Mr. Revilec, I think had something that he wanted to say Mr. Revilec. Yes, sir. Yes, I did have a correction I would like to propose a correction to agenda item 5 update on residential design lines development Okay, so there is a sentence in there that reads mr. Revilec asked if the group had addressed the ARB report with respect to floor ratio In what area per dwelling unit? Okay, I would ask that the board consider changing this to Mr. Revilec asked about trends in FAR and area per dwelling unit shown in the residential design Guidelines working group report to the ARB and how the working group sought to balance the needs of different stakeholders Okay, was that is that consistent with the email you had sent earlier? That is that is read directly from it. Okay, perfect Okay, so the motion would be to accept the minutes including the The proposed amendment by mr. Revilec So moved Thank you All right Asking for votes for the board mr. Mills Approve the minutes. Yes, mr. Dupont. Yes, mr. Revilec. I Excuse me mr. Ford. Yes Sheriff says aye. That's a affirmative vote Chairman I I didn't vote yet. Oh, I beg your pardon mr. Hanlon, but I vote aye just like everyone else Mr. O'Rourke I know was not present at the meeting so Then the next item on our agenda is approval of decisions from the October 6th hearing We have decisions on Two of the items mr. Hanlon. Do you want to just say a brief word about that? Mr. Chairman We've got drafts that have reflect the corrections that have been made by various members of the board and I believe that it has accommodated everything at least I've intended to do that One of them is the 72 74 graft in place case and the other is the 21 Oakledge case and I So I'd like to move each one of them sequentially so we get a separate vote on each one So I moved that the board except and approve the proposed final decision in 72 74 graft in street Second second for mr. Mills Okay for a vote Mr. Mills. Hi Mr. Dupont hi Mr. Revilec I Mr. Hanlon hi and the chair votes aye Chairman I moved that the board except and approve the proposed final decision in 21 Oakledge Street We have a second second Vote from the board mr. Mills. Hi, Mr. Dupont Mr. Revilec hi, Mr. Hanlon. Hi And the chair says aye That is approved as well Thank you very much for preparing those mr. Hanlon you're welcome Okay, so that brings us up to Item four and five which is both the same for thorn dyke place Before opening the comprehensive permit hearing for thorn dyke place I want to take a minute to review some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business I will ask the participants to introduce themselves and make their presentation to the board I will then request that the members of the board in consultation with our outside counsel and consultants Ask what questions they have on the information that has been presented after the board's questions have been answered I will open the meeting to public comment Public questions and comments will only be taken as it relates to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board For the purpose of informing our decision Due to previously demonstrated interest in this project and to provide an orderly flow to the meeting the chair strongly encourages Individual public speakers to limit their comments to three minutes each and use their time to provide comments related to the topics Discussed at this hearing. Please note that there are multiple hearings scheduled for this project Each hearing will have an opportunity for public comment The chair also encourages the public to provide written comment to be reviewed by the board and included in the record The chair will first ask members of the public who have previously identified themselves by logging in through zoom Wish to speak digitally to digitally raise their hand using the controls and the zoom application You'll be called upon by the meeting host your audio and video will be unmuted and you'll be asked to give your name and address And you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions should be addressed through the chair Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps generate accurate minutes The chair will then request that those calling in by phone Please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak when called upon your line will be unmuted Please identify yourself by name and address You'll be given time for your questions and comments all questions are to be addressed through the chair Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps generate accurate minutes once all public Questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time has been expended The public comment period for this evening's hearing will be closed as noted previously There are multiple hearing scheduled for this project and each hearing will have an opportunity for public comment The board and staff during your comment. Please ask us to do so Board will then discuss topics for the upcoming hearing and propose a continuance to a date certain So the first sub item under the Comprehensive permit discussion for this evening is a discussion as to the status of the 100 day hearing schedule By state law From the start of the hearing to the close of the hearing has to be 180 days unless additional time is granted by Ascent of both parties so Today is day 49 By that schedule day 180 will be February 21st 2021 And I had wanted to ask the applicant I know that one of that the intention is after this hearing that we will be The applicant will be spending several weeks preparing additional documentation And then there will be time given to the Excuse me the board's consulting engineers to review and I wanted to ask if the applicant would be willing to consider that time To stay the clock during that review period Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Um, so you're suggesting the time period from I think we suggested November 3rd through November 24 From the period from today until November 24th. Oh, okay. Okay. I understand. Um, I So we're talking I believe it's 42 days. I think right approximately. I think it's 42 days. Yeah Okay, um, I just to clarify the We've already agreed to extensions before so the 180 days we Start the clock and then um when I notice to your notes not trying to dodge your question But just to give a little clarification The board is to make this decision within 40 days of close of the public hearing. So I wasn't certain if The the board fully appreciated that so There is that time period in terms of Whether or not we can agree to a 45 day tolling if you will right now I I would like to just confer with my clients on that. I probably I don't think it's probably going to be a problem Or you know, who don't do it at this point as we get into it more If we agree to that because I think that part of this and we recognize That what we're going to be presenting this evening is a revised concept plan. So we recognize that, you know, there may be a need to Further extend time periods. So I don't know if we want to talk about that right now or If I can take that under consideration with my clients and then get back to you to confirm whether you know, we agree to uh Kind of a suspension right now the next 45 days or whether we just agreed to an extension You know, they already extended 180 days, but I think that we can work out is what I'm saying And I'm not trying to be cute in any way. No, no And I mean my my concern is also that obviously we're getting into a Period of time where there's a lot of holidays And we're probably gonna not be able to schedule a couple of meetings Because of conflicts and so I just want to make sure that we don't end up heading into february without a plan for For completing things Okay. Okay. Um if we could just put a Pin in that for the moment. I know you want to get on with the hearing and We can either confirm by the end of the hearing or I can confirm by an email tomorrow if that 45 days is okay. If that's okay with chairman. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you The next item Is a discussion as to the completeness of the application before the board so we at the past meeting we had voted to request that the applicant Revised the the state of the completeness of the project and either provide or request a documentation Or provide a schedule for the delivery of that To a great extent that is become That is going to be drawn out now because we are of the The nature of the revision to the plans that we will be discussing this evening And so with that in mind I would I like to propose to the board that we Effectively suspend the review Of the completeness of the application until after the november 24th hearing at which point we will have Um Much more detailed Documentation which I believe has been a major portion of the requested documentation. Mr. Ravillac Yes, I just wanted to follow up on with respect to documentation one item I wanted to follow up on in response to the working meeting with the conservation commission I was curious if bse had provided their field sheets to beta for the purposes of verifying the wetland soleniation. Thank you Um, I understand is that my understanding is that has not been delivered today? Um But that is something that we will we can certainly bring up in the in the board discussion So specifically Uh, sir, was there another mr. Chairman. I if you're ready for a motion I can I can make one Certainly, if you wouldn't mind Chairman I move that the zoning board of appeals Uh hereby suspends the review of the completeness of the comprehensive permit application for Dyke place until the applicant has completed the detailed design documentation to be provided on november 3rd 2020 That has been received and the hearing has removed on november the 24th Thank you very much. Mr. Handlick. I have a second Second thank you, mr. Mills Mr. Chairman if I could address that just for a second I you know We keep on pushing this off and I understand why if this is really part of not just 40b But part of the planning process but as we look at the overall schedule even with the tolling that we've talked about earlier Time is getting shorter and shorter and shorter The conservation commission still has lots of questions We still have not addressed transportation and there are lots of other issues that Need to be addressed and we're at the point where We need to we need to get a lot of the answers sooner And so I think that we've generally been pretty I wouldn't say relaxed exactly but we've been understanding about the nature of this process, but I think the applicant needs to understand that we're pretty getting pretty close to the point where the information has to be Has to be provided and to their credit. They've suggested that they will do that but i'm hoping that By the time November 24th comes around We will have made major progress and have many fewer comments saying we need more information before we can evaluate this Thank you, mr. Hanlon So vote of the board Mr. Mills I Mr. Dupont Mr. Ravillac I Mr. Ford Hi Mr. Hanlon Hi Mr. Orwork Mr. Orwork you have a vote Sorry, I said aye maybe Thank you And it shares his eyes well So that Will bring us up to item number three review of the The peer review funding under chapter 44 section 53 g So these are funds that are provided by the applicant for the peer review of the applicant's documentation by A consultant hired by the board The board's consultant disregard is beta group And they have been reviewing the documentation provided so far the current funding The board has requested and received at their December hearing a sum of $10,000 Going forward for the hiring And that's part of the work by the consultant and at this stage We need to go back and to To allocate some additional funds for that purpose And so with keeper we would like to request an additional sum of $30,000 To continue the work of the the peer review consultant at this time Mr. Klein could we also receive a The invoices or the the summary of what what has been completed and What those costs are as well as the projected scope just so we have an understanding of What that request is responsive What what to and what it's yeah exactly. Thank you. Yeah, no exactly certainly So so far the the billing has been running through the through the legal department And dug times not here this evening so But I will make that request of him in the morning to have that I have worded to you but If I can have a vote from the board in regards to the request And mr. Chairman Yes, mr. Handing I move that the zoning board of appeals request the applicant to transfer an additional amount of $30,000 to the appropriate town account to continue retaining peer review consultants Second Thank you. And to that I would just add that the the board will provide um I guess the requested background information on the on the current billing To the applicant handlin that was seconded by mr. Mills So then the vote of the members of the board mr. Mills. Hi DuPont. Hi You have a lack. Hi board Mr. Handlin. Hi And mr. Orwork Hey And mr. Klein's votes I Thank you. Also, that brings us to item number four presentation of a revised project by the applicant um so miss keifer, um Will will mr. Hessian billy? um Who will be presenting on behalf of the applicant? Yeah uh, mr. Chairman if you will I will just do a brief introduction but Bsc john hessian will be doing the the lion's share of our presentations this evening And at the at the end of his presentation, there'll just be a quick follow-up. Um, just to update the board on traffic So um scott Thornton from finesse. Oh, perfect. Thank you. Yeah, you got it. Um, good evening, mr. Chairman and members of the board Uh, we're pleased to appear before you this evening and pleased to present our revised concept design for the for the project which um as you know at the last hearing in august on august 25th we um We had an ability to take in the comments from the peer review from beta group um Emily solomon from the conservation commission as well as the board and members of the public that commented on on the project design that um as As had been like slightly updated in march of 2020 But it was essentially the the same design that we came in with um, and so after that august hearing We went back and evaluated the comments and um And from there we uh, we reached out and we had a uh a coordination call with um the planner um Yourself town council just to um, and we said that we were looking to revise our concept And we were working on a coordination of how to present that to the board get it to peer review And also loop in conservation commission And during that call it was agreed that we would submit our revised concept um to the board and peer review by the end of september so september 28th We submitted that and then on october 1 We conducted a work session before the conservation commission presented the revised concept plans to them um, and so With that information, we're we're now back before you this evening to present it. Um, and the assi will be doing the lion's share Of our revised concept plan, but um Just briefly as I think that this board was um, you know a quick overview at the last public meeting by you, mr. Klein um The project has been revised to um, really minimize um Impacts to wetland resource areas and getting it out of the buffer And the local bylaws the call it's aura and then there was concerns that there was an isolated wetland Over to the east and so what we've done is we revised the project shifted it um a bit north we removed the townhomes and and also Reduced the footprint of the multi family building I'm not going to get into all of that because john doesn't much more athlete than I do And I will leave that part of the presentation to him um But just quickly our goal for this meeting is that this hearing be an iterative process And um similar to the feedback that we receive when we report the commission at their work session on the first october Get feedback so as we move to Refine our plans and give them greater detail and and and more informative We've also gotten feedback from the board from peer review from the public And and we'll work with that and incorporate How we can to fit that into our design And as I stated Before I pass this over to john at the end of john's presentation um Scott Thornton from finesse um will be getting the board an update on the traffic And unless the board has any questions at this time i'm going to pass it on to To john from bsc I'll please proceed It's all yours john Thank you. Good evening Am I all set up to share my screen? The host john you're good to go All right, let me try that again They ask if somebody could confirm that you're seeing a slide that says march 2020 That's Thank you. Okay. Great. Um, thank you stephanie Mr chairman and members of the board. Thank you again for the record. My name is john hessian. I'm with bsc My goal tonight is to walk you through Uh What we consider to be significant revisions to the to the site plan for thawndyke place that the applicant has undertaken You know really in response to As as stephanie mentioned At the last hearing in august we had received, you know beta groups Pay review comments on this plan that's on the screen before you We had received a july comment letter from the conservation commission and A lot of the feedback we received from this board and and members of the public at that august 25th hearing Really focused on you know the wetland resources and I know that the zoning board of appeals has broader You know scope review, but we really focused our efforts and and the applicant focused their efforts in on What we felt were kind of the the The the biggest issues were the the wetland resource area Potential impacts and and you know looking to try to minimize those Those impacts so after that august 25th as stephanie mentioned We started to go back to the drawing board Had that coordination call like I believe it was september 11 And really from there from the 11th to the 28th Worked with the applicant on a revised plan to do just that and I'm teasing you You're looking at the original plan, but I'll show you the the revised plan in just a moment Put a little bit of background. I think It was really those the beta comments the concon comments and others Feedback that we had received at that august 25th that that drove the The redesign if you will so with that as a backdrop, uh, the plan that you see before you is the Slightly revised plan that was submitted in march of this year It really is very similar to the plan that was originally submitted in 2016 Um, we had gone out the s. He had gone out in january, which I will acknowledge Was not the appropriate time of the year to do an updated wetland delineation But we were under a some schedule constraints, uh with this board to get that work done We are I will update everyone. We are scheduled to go back out in the field this thursday To confirm or adjust that delineation from january There was a question asked earlier about the field data sheets I will have to admit that I am not a wetland scientist But our wetland folks who did the delineation in january Educated me in the last couple of weeks that those data sheets Essentially are not worth submitting from january or not worth submitting to data because they would be deemed incomplete because there's certain information that could not be collected in the winter conditions But on this thursday, we will be back out there reviewing the wetland line Um completing those field data sheets And hopefully by you know the end of day friday data will have those And they will be at their prerogative To to go out and review the line in the field. We are happy to have our wetland scientists join them or if they prefer They can go on their own and follow up with any questions or comments. So You know, that's the update on the wetland delineation We're fully acknowledge the commission and data's request to get that work done in the growing season and that's underway Um But What I mentioned at the hearing back in august and you can somewhat see at the scale of this plan There's there's two different dash blue lines. If you can see my cursor pointing to this wetland area Um because it was a winter delineation we looked at Our delineation and the delineation from 2009 that was part of the original application and for planning purposes um We took the the the most conservative wetland line to establish The the local bylaw 25 foot no disturb and 100 foot buffer, which is um the adjacent upland resource area um That will go back to a single line After this thursday once though and after beta's review once that delineation has been reviewed and confirmed so What's shown on this exhibit is you know, the blue dash lines or the wetlands This white dash line is the 25 foot no disturb The white dotted lines represent the 100 foot buffer 100 foot Adjacent upland resource area. These are the two isolated vegetated wetlands and their respective buffers Um And this orange line represents the 100 year fema flood plain, which is elevation 6.8 so for the For the working session we had with conservation on october 1st And actually the zba received the same information a transmittal letter and these two exhibits um we had looked at the Potential impacts within these resource areas under this plan and and we had summarized that in a in a table form And we broke it out by both Regulated resource areas under the wetlands protection at the state wetlands protection act in as regulated under the local arlington wetland bylaw and Again, it's been it was pointed out in the in the conservation commission's updated letter that they submitted after our working session We acknowledged that flood floodplain impacts are In a volume impact but just for comparison between the plans we look just at the The area the footprint of floodplain that work was proposed within And we also looked at What the impact was was it building so the columns are building was a pavement parking lots parking spaces sidewalks Or was it other the other impacts would have been just grading landscaping things of that nature and also we had the Um The the trail or path that the entered through the the wetlands on the remainder of the property in those numbers um So those numbers are there for comparison purposes, but you see definitely impacts to the um In the floodplain to the isolated wetlands No impacts on the original plan to uh ordering vegetated wetlands under the wetlands protection act and under the local bylaw Some work within the 25 foot no disturb um, I mean To the isolated wetlands no work within the 25 foot no disturb to the bordering vegetated wetlands and then work within the buffer to both the isolated and bordering vegetated wetlands So As I as I mentioned, you know from basically that september 11th conference call to the 28th when we submitted these revised plans the applicant um Yeah, really went back to the drawing board and looked at Pulling the development footprint You know out of the wetland resource areas um, you see there's some still some floodplain impact, but Essentially the building is entirely outside of any um any wetland resources regulated under the the wetlands protection act or um The local bylaw bordering vegetated wetland the aura the 25 foot And the isolated vegetated wetland Acknowledge we still do you know the floodplain is a resource area and we still do have some impacts in the uh floodplain What I will point out though is that these kind of two fingers of the floodplain Are at the extreme upper limits of the floodplain and the the existing flood storage in those Fingers, if you will is very shallow and the We do not see it as a As a challenge to mitigate or provide compensatory storage for those You know minor impacts to that floodplain The for comparison I guess I should while we're on this plan um, so the original plan included six Six duplex townhomes so 12 townhome units located along Dorothy road and Six times To 18 so 201 Units dwelling units in this multi family building That's labeled east wing and west wing it's more to the to the southern portion of the site um, the new plan Has eliminated the townhomes as Stephanie mentioned. We really pulled the development You know further to the north closer to the to Dorothy street And in doing that eliminated townhomes And reduced the overall footprint of the multi family building and As you could expect we're still refining it at the Conservation commission working session a couple weeks ago I presented that we were in the we were looking at about a 20 or 30 unit Reduction from that 219 On the original plan 219 dwelling units a reduction of 20 or 30 and As the plan continues to refine the architectural layout the interior of the building Um, it really looks like we're closer to um, you know, maybe 175 to 180 total units in this building And you'll also notice that there's you know, very limited Surface parking shown on the plan And there's a there's a little dialogue box on my screen that's blocking my view But up in the northwest corner, we had shown, you know potential additional Parking we we believe that we are not going to need that with the reduction in the number of units that will be able to meet the zoning requirement for parking for You know that 175 to 180 units with parking under the building and that small kind of visitor parking on the west side and one of the conservation commission members actually kind of recommended that we look at the area that we were reserving for that potential additional parking as a location for compensatory flood storage or or potential option for compensatory flood storage So I'll I'll just jump ahead to you know for the table of comparing the impacts and and really what Should jump out is all the all of the zeros that are shown in this table I acknowledged earlier that we do still have some floodplain impacts, but we're confident that we can provide that compensatory storage I will mention that In our working session with the conservation commission We discussed a little bit whether we would meet the commission's two-to-one compensatory storage requirement um or the state wetland protection act one-to-one and part of the decision making on that is going to revolve around a functions and values assessment of the adjacent upland resource area where we would do that compensatory storage in order for the commission and The applicant to make an educated decision on which Which provides the bet you know the the highest and best value the compensatory storage or The the values of the aura as it exists today Um, but again, we eliminated the isolated wetland impacts the Impacts within the 25 foot no disturb to the isolated wetlands the impacts to the 100 foot buffer to the isolated wetlands and them, you know the the very minimal 1203 square foot Impact to the 100 foot buffer to the ordering vegetative wetlands Is not building. It's it's actually The emergency vehicle access for the fire department that is within that buffer and working with the fire department our goal would be for that to be a Pervious material a grass creed or something acceptable To the town and to the fire department for that use um So With that I just wanted to um again You know our goal and I wanted to actually thank um The conservation commission our goal for that working session was to get You know feedback on this revised plan Um, I think we felt that we succeeded in that goal. We got some great feedback some great comments um that are further helping to Kind of drive the design of this project in the in the right direction And we're looking forward to hopefully a similar dialogue here tonight through Any questions and comments from the board and with that as Stephanie had mentioned Scott Thornton has some brief comments very brief comments to update everyone On the status of the traffic study John quickly before we get to that Um, could you just walk the board through with the proposed building being closer to the street the multifamily? Um, how we've scaled back and stepped back the roof height. Oh, sure. Sure. Sorry. I forgot to do that Stephanie So in order to achieve the density the 175 to 180 units but to also um Try to mimic what Was trying to be accomplished with the townhomes of a smaller scale adjacent to Dorothy street the These three tabs of the building um That are you know closest to the street would be three story three story multifamily The main spine of the building and the three tabs to the to the south It steps up to a forest story so and and these areas between the tabs on On along Dorothy street would be you know courtyard areas So there'd be further set back of the building that forest story building would be set back and there'd be some opportunity there for some You know landscape and hardscape features to soften that architectural elevation and But yeah three stories along the street And stepping up to four stories at the main east west spine of the building And I I think with that if Scott if you want to briefly provide an update to the board on the traffic Sure, sure. Thank you, Stephanie um, Mr. Chair members of the board my name is Scott Thornton and with VA I and um um Just to give you an update on where we are with the traffic study We met with The town's consultant beta group and with town staff to discuss a methodology for moving forward with the development of the Traffic volumes and proceeding with the preparation of the traffic study We have a mix of historic data Older traffic counts at some The intersections in the study area We also supplemented this with data collected last month at some of the locations requested by beta because there was there was no or extremely limited traffic count data At some of the intersections along lake street that beta had requested we study That means include locations like wilson av and homestead road and margaret street birch street and brooks avenue Which were locations that were requested to be studied by beta? so we got traffic counts at those locations and and you know to to Adjust those volumes up to Appropriate conditions We developed covet adjustment factors seasonal adjustment factors um also factors for For passage of time and and annual growth based on existing continuous count station data maintained by mass dot and in general where initially We have been doing you know traffic everyone everyone's aware of the traffic volumes have decreased substantially particularly in the few months after the Um Sort of the announcement of the covid pandemic But traffic volume everyone has probably also realized the traffic volumes have started to spring back up and um, we had been doing traffic counts and and monitoring traffic volume uh changes In the region and we had noticed that in say april or may traffic volumes were down by 70 to 80 percent from typical conditions But lately in the last month or two traffic volumes have picked up Not still not back up to pre covid conditions, but we observed traffic Volumes in general being in this area being off about 26 percent For the month of september. So you know, we had we had developed these adjustment factors. We we We balanced the traffic volumes out for the study area network And provided our baseline traffic volumes to beta and the town Last friday for review Once they'd had a chance to look them over and get back to us with any questions or comments and we've agreed upon the the methodology and the And the use of those traffic volumes will prepare the remainder of the traffic study Um, and you know, there's there's other adjustments that that are to be made to the project Uh trip generation There's we have information on the bike path and the volumes on the bike way. We have Information on the proposed signal improvements at brooks have and at the bike way So I think we're in pretty good shape to once we get Concurrents on those baseline traffic volumes. We'll be able to get the traffic study put together in pretty short order Uh, but but that's that's about where we stand right now So I guess I'll turn it back over to Stephanie if there's any any questions All right. Thank you scott. Um At this point, I think we probably have pretty much, um finished our presentation of the revised concept, but uh, just um one one thing hit me when When john was talking about our presentation to the commission, um, and I just wanted, um, Make certain that this is that this is clear. Um with the, um reduce scope of the project and and um and Having it focused more towards the north and the kind of west of the Here, um the rest of the the site it looks very open. Um, there is no phase So in case there's any concern about that I'm sorry. Is anyone hearing other feedback? Yes Awkward silence. Show your screen. I dare you mr. Chairman should be Keep muted the moment You need to proceed It is okay to proceed. I think so. Okay. Thank you Um, as I was explaining the uh, the project footprint, um Um is and and well, we're excited about this revised concept design that it is much smaller But just to allay and if there is there is no phase two that's coming to the east. So, um I think with that said, uh, we're happy to address any comments or questions that the board may have Thank you Thank you. Um So next up is um discussions and questions from the board before the Board begins. I would like to ask um Susan Chapnick who is the chair of the conservation commission could just speak briefly in regards to Um, they're hearing from october 1st and their comment letter Sure. Can you hear me? I can. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um Let's see Trying to find my there we go Okay. Um, thank you chairman Klein for the opportunity to summarize the conservation commission's comments From our third set of comments on the full indict place the middles which was dated october 9th Um, we focused our comments on the working session that the commission had With the applicant and a beta team the peer reviewer Um at our public meeting on october 1st 2020 Some of those comments So i'm summarizing them here some of those comments. I'm going to change Ad living just based on a few revisions that were presented by um john just a few minutes ago So we will say um that the conservation commission is pleased that the revised conceptual site plan And we want to stress its conceptual Um is responsive to several of our prior comments and that it appears to move the proposed Project outside or further from wetland resource areas We're also pleased that the direct access to route two which would have gone Right through the bordering vegetative wetlands has been eliminated from this revision I want to stress that the conservation commission's prior comments Concerning the value of the wetlands resources vegetation replacement floodplain stormwater, etc I'm not going to reiterate But they're still valid We have we have comments in four different areas mainly wetland delineation floodplain and compensatory storage stormwater management and evaluation of wildlife habitat and and vegetation and i'll briefly go through these Um wetland delineation as john has acknowledged Um, there's no It's problematic in a winter People that is my dad Somebody else's zoom bomb and you can't figure out who that is Parker you want it? I'll continue but uh, i'm going to stop if it happens again um, there is no current legally valid delineation under Either the state wetlands protection act or the town of arlington bylaw as we know Based on john's presentation just now. We now understand that a new wetland delineation is planned for this I heard that there was a hacker. I'm police Just is there a co-host or co-host who can mean all except for maybe me and the board And not let them unmute or I don't know what the protocol is Rick are you monitoring the the chat that's not the chat excuse me the I think it might be hind match Is that it Okay They off Trying to find their name Shannon Klein should I continue? I I don't know what to do Just hold on once Okay, is that name still attached to the List of names i'm just scanning down Okay, oh, okay. Thank you. Please do proceed. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, so, uh, we understand It's going to be a new wetland delineation this thursday um, which Though not as not problematic as a winter delineation. I just wanted to mention that we are in a drought Um, as as I'm sure the the wetland scientists understand Uh, that said we're looking forward to beta group. Um being able to review the new wetland delineation based on field data forms and real data So we'll hold any comments on that until data does so review In terms of floodplain and compensatory flood storage Um, though the revised conceptual plan shows a reduction of buildings and other structures within the floodplain Compared to the march plan Um, the applicant is still not provided sufficient information To verify the calculation of a flood storage volumes that will be lost under the revised configuration and calculations of compensatory flood storage at each elevation They understand that they said they're waiting after the conceptual Plan to provide these but that makes it difficult then for us and beta group to evaluate um The changes because we're just Then trusting the applicant's word on the potential advantages of the revisions based on the middle data A transmittal letter table which john had up before which does show a significant reduction of impacts from approximately 97 000 square feet in march to 17 000 square feet in terms of floodplain however We all need to understand that flood storage is measured measured in cubic feet not in square feet So this compares then in terms of flood storage impacts Is is not totally useful at this point um The conservation commission strongly recommends that the zba require the two to one compensatory storage Not the one-to-one of the state wetlands protection act and the reason for that is twofold one to be um consistent and compliant with the town I guess we have another one But even more importantly also in consideration of increased precipitation and extreme weather events anticipated due to climate change which must be addressed based on zba's own um bylaw and regulations To accomplish this the conservation commission has seven recommendations To the zba's time and to the applicant the consideration of the northwest surface parking area as john recommended As a potential location for compensatory flood storage, which is outside Of the aura and buffer zone to any wetland resource area um Consider opportunities for flood plain restoration um based on wildlife habitat evaluation to evaluate compensatory flood storage within ura And if the applicant can't provide two-to-one compensatory storage based on this conceptual plan um That is hydraulically unrestricted without negative impacts on resource area values in the aura Then they should look at alternatives and alternatives may include reducing building impacts in the flood plain if two water can't be achieved um The third issue is storm water management um As we've said previously in other comments the conservation commission can't determine whether the revisions meet the storm water management standards because The necessary detailed storm water analysis and calculations have not been provided um as the applicant acknowledges Um and the fourth issue concerns the evaluation of wildlife habitat and vegetation um Due to the importance of adjacent upper resource areas That's the aura and buffer zones to the values of the wetland areas on the site um The conservation commission recommends that the zba require a wildlife habitat evaluation and vegetation evaluation to provide a better understanding of the potential loss of habitat within isolated wetlands and aura zones um And to help inform beta's group review of compensatory flood storage locations opportunities potential opportunities for flood plain restoration And to better evaluate alternative analysis So that summarizes our comments Um to date based on our letter and what was presented this evening. Thank you for the opportunity to summarize that I think you muted christian. I am. Thank you so much christian um to questions from the board um In regards to the presentation I know there was a question that was raised um In the chat in regards to the uh Are there um mr. Hessian are there Calculations for the square footage of the original versus the proposed Um, can you clarify? Yeah footage of what um, I think both um the The footprint of the building and the gross lawyer of the building I don't have those numbers. Um, I don't have those numbers in front of me. Sorry But there is a reduction in the total With the elimination of the townhomes and the reduction from 201 Units in the multifamily to 175 178 it is a reduction in footprint and Gross floor area But we we could provide that we those numbers will be provided with the revised Can be provided with the revised plans as they're developed And is there has the number of floors of the building been determined for the new proposed Yes, I I presented that um Previously these if you can everybody still see my screen. Yep. Yep. So these these three to the three tabs of the multifamily building closest to dar at the Are proposed as three stories and from The main east west spine of the building from including that spine And the three tabs to the south are proposed will be proposed as four stories Okay, thank you for reiterating that no problem uh Are the questions or comments from the board mr. Revelak? Yeah, uh, thank you, mr. Chair. I have uh three questions and comments. Um, which I'll I'll I'll go through So my first question is what uh, if I'd like was wondering if mr. Hessian could provide an estimate for what the first floor elevation would be in the revised design right now the The design and it's still a little bit in flux, but the first floor Would be at approximately elevation 12 Okay, thank you. So my my reason for asking is um last meeting I rate I you know asked a couple of questions about Cambridge's research Uh in study into you know, there are 2070 projections um, and I was actually I was able to find elevations for Uh, the 100 year slr ss in the alewife area and I think 12 feet is going to be above it So I'm I'm very encouraged to hear that um with respect to traffic Uh, and this would be Probably for mr. Thornton Be given the area's proximity to the alewife t station The pretty large pretty large transit center and the minute man bikeway. How does would? You know that proximity factor into the traffic study So we would uh, the main way it would be factored in would be Um adjustments to The vehicle trips that we would expect to be generated by the project Where we would expect a number of those trips to be made by Instead of people using personal vehicles We would expect them to be made by walking or bicycling to to the alewife T station or getting on the The bikeway and connecting to any of the other Bike paths in the area and there's so So there would be adjustments that we would make to the project trip generation to account for that fact Okay, thank you. Uh, my final question has to do with parking And this this question was inspired by a discussion that took place during the conservation commission's october 1st working session um, my if I recall correctly, uh Thinking was to provide somewhere along the lines of 1.4 spaces per unit Is that correct? Yes, that's correct So, I mean one thing I'd like to an idea I would like to throw out to the to the to the my colleagues on the board um, you know considering the You know the the purpose of 40d You know to encourage Production or construction of low to moderate income housing in cities and towns where local regulations hamper such production um I mean in some ways our parking Right our parking require our parking requirements do border, you know do wander into that realm I think particularly in the set in the way that you know, we require one space for a single Two or three family home, you know per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms But for an apartment, we tend to have higher requirements um, I would be curious to hear Uh thoughts from my colleagues as to whether you know, perhaps it might be worthwhile to go with a lower number of parking spaces Uh to facilitate More compensatory flood storage That's that's the end of my questions and comments. Thank you Thank you, mr. Revelak Other members of the board with questions I can only see a limited number of you on the screen at a time. Mr. Ford. Mr. Chairman. I have a question a couple questions. Um Uh, when will we be able to see some revised elevations? Uh, without the townhomes? involved one of the When we were presented the original elevations and renderings it really highlighted the Trying to have these low townhomes buffering the large residential development. So now that everything's kind of pulled closer to the edge Townhomes are out I'm I'm really interested in seeing the impact on the neighbors So that's one question if you don't Maybe you Already gave that and I missed it. I apologize I'll I'll try to answer that we didn't well the short answer We didn't provide that information But again, I think as the design continues that would be part of the Uh information we would be looking to submit in november You know with with the feedback we've received from conservation and any additional feedback or or comments we've received tonight might You know might dictate some changes In in the plan as it develops further Okay, so so we can expect to see something in november Then I would I guess this the second question is also similar in to seeing what the revised Parking counts would be. I mean mr. Rivill. I can understand you're proposing potentially having lower parking counts but I would be really hesitant on that given the Parking challenges in this area and that have been kind of brought forth. So maybe the question really wants to start Mr. Hissy and with you and when will we be able to see? revised parking counts Relative to the requirements well, I I did mention it in my presentation that with the reduction in the number of units, we believe that we will be able to meet the zoning requirements for parking for multi-family which is um, you know one space for an efficiency unit 1.15 spaces for a one bedroom 1.5 spaces for a two bedroom and Two spaces for a three bedroom or more So we were looking at that 1.4 parking ratio, but as the As the design continued to evolve and and we were looking at where the number of units Was ending up and and where the parking count was ending up. We we believe we will be able to meet those parking requirements You know if there was a reduction in that That would be great, but at this point we believe that we will not be needing to Request a waiver from the parking requirements Okay, great Thanks That's all I have mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman, I have a question for mr. Thornton please So mr. Thornton as a matter of process When a traffic study is conducted. Is that a 12 month? snapshot of traffic on on lake street You know down in all of the adjoining streets So it's a um So in general we try to get conditions that are representative of an average month time period and then The traffic study Impacts are calculated based on the peak hours of the proposed project That coincide with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic So in this case, we would be looking at the weekday morning peak hour Occurring between seven and nine and the weekday evening peak hour occurring between four and six so No, that's fine. So I was just going to add that that we're looking at conditions at Six or seven intersections along lake street As well as headed down to the route to Interchange with lake street and up to route 16 And over to lake street at the mass av intersection. So so it's a pretty um, it's a pretty comprehensive area to be Looking at traffic impacts for the project But does that include saying peak usage at form by field? um it It we can we can look at some Usage of the field it doesn't expressly take that into account unless it unless that usage occurs during During the I would think the the evening peak hours Because it's it's considerably The problem itself in terms of traffic on lake street is Certainly enhanced when people are using point by field And that's certainly the true in soccer season. And so I just wonder because that's been You know to the naked eye that's been one of the things That seems to have been a stressor On those streets off of lake street, and I think that it's appropriate to consider that Okay. Yeah, I mean that's that's something we can we can discuss with the town has has that has the town looked at any Traffic mitigation to address the impacts of the activities on thornbite field I'm not aware of any. I don't know if anyone else can speak to that Okay, that's fine. I mean we can ask the question of the of the town planning staff I mean that so And I would guess that we You know, it may be it may be an anecdotal type of Type of review because I'm sure we're you know, the the the type of activity That's there now is not representative of the typical activity, but but it's something that we can look at Thank you Any further questions, mr. DuPont? No, I'm also thanks. All right. Thank you Thank you Checking on there's anyone else on the board who has questions. Mr. Hanlon. Do you have a question? Christian, I have a quick question if I may. Oh, please. Mr. O'Rourke. Yeah What is this? What in the process regarding the recommended action by the conservation commission and their various items when in this process would we be talking about those and Having a you know full of discussion in vote Is that going to be at the wetland impact in storm water management meeting? Or should we be talking about them soon because I don't want to do it I'm not giving the applicant time to prepare either sure That's a very good question because um I know that we have Currently in our schedule. I mean essentially after this meeting we're looking to have the The applicant um To work on addressing that The issues, but I don't know we don't have a specific Meeting in place to discuss um The specific items raised by the conservation commission until we are looking to review the packet um Are you thinking it would be helpful to have? Either a working session or some other kind of Meeting to sort of go point by point through their concerns I don't know. That's why I asked the question I don't know what's appropriate tonight or not because I don't think I'm sure they want to address some of the recommended actions But there are things I'm just in the interest of time and in keeping the whole process moving along You know, let's let's say for example, we talk about these at the November 24th meeting But then we take a vote requiring more items. Is that going to be slow things down? I don't know I mean, I think most I think most of the items um And I don't know if mr. Hedgeman can can address this question at this time or not. I think most of the um Most recommendations that came from the conservation commission are things that would be a part of the next phase of your work at this stage. Is that correct? That's correct um The only piece that had scooted out to me was the evaluation of the habitat and the wildlife is that something we'll be undertaking Uh, yes, we will be you know at at the commission's recommendation. We will be looking into that Okay, and as I mentioned our our folks that are going out um This thursday for the wetland delineation Although they aren't diving into that habitat and vegetation assessment. They're looking they'll be looking with like an eye towards that to To flag any you know critical areas or important things that when we do go back out for that work Mr. Chairman yes, please This is this pat I just noticed that I as i'm sure you were referring to The november 24 schedule is wetlands impacts and storm water management And I I think that it's fair to say that that The thought behind that is that all of the matters that have been raised at the very least in the letter we now have from the conservation commission because we have not Really gone back and looked at the various other recommendations. They have that may be still outstanding But at the very least the ones we've received now I think all would fit or should fit there and we should and the applicant should assume that that's That's the time when we all come together to to talk about this and Ideally, we would not be in a position then of saying that this is still an ongoing process. We'll be ready to address Address the issues that have been raised and be able to say that we've got the best information we can and we're gonna have to go with that and certainly before then The beta group will have had an opportunity to Review the preliminary information and the the final package coming or not see that the final packet But the revised package that we're expecting from the applicant in November Mr. Chairman if I may yes, please Hi, it's definitely people again. Um With response to kind of this Uh train of discussion that we're on here. Um, I do think that it's going to be submitted within our next submittal package In november and then the intent as you mentioned is that beta then has time to review the information And to the extent that and this often happens in these types of projects So the peer review they review And then they provide their comments and then at that point there's sometimes some level of back and forth. So um, I think somewhat the the Faster turnaround that beta can do with peer review that gives Bsc then an opportunity to follow up, you know, with if it's additional information or clarification or or whatnot And it is often what happens is so we have a hearing that's dedicated to a topic, but it may need to be the case that You know, there were questions that were raised then or that the beta review there wasn't sufficient time to um have Kind of a working session between bsc and beta to kind of iron out The areas that sometimes there's like a a catch up Maybe a follow-up hearing or the hearing after that you set aside a limited time to that hearing. So, um, I just offer that out there to kind of Answer or be responsive to that line of thought as to, you know, if we get everything then we have this hearing What if there's additional questions or what if? The peer review and the project engineer, um, haven't had that that work session off completed. So There's always an ability to say, you know, whatever hearing is going to be dedicated to let's say architectural but we're going to carve out, you know, and do a catch up of 15 minutes of Stormwater or what have you? Thank you Um, I did myself have a few questions. Um In regards to the traffic study does that does the traffic study take into account? Um, the increased use of delivery services Whether it's for goods or for food delivery. Um that tend to have very spiky Times when they arrive If they're to the extent that they're included in the traffic counts, then yes It's and I and I understand that a lot of those A lot of those types of deliveries occur Uh during the midday, which is not the peak time period for this use or for the adjacent streets But but to answer your question if if those if those types of vehicles and deliveries are included Are captured in the traffic counts, then yes, they would be included Okay, but there's not like a specific factor looking at You know Friday evening there tends to be a rush of food deliveries and that would Cause an additional impact No, no because because it wouldn't it still wouldn't rise to the level of the peak traffic generator of of the use or of The adjacent street traffic All right, thank you. Um Mr. Hesse and I believe you already addressed this but a habitat and wildlife study you'll be um Keep you'll have that in mind when you're out there thursday, but that's something that you'll have a follow-up on All right. All right. Thank you um I know this was addressed briefly, but the the remainder of the site that's outside the area of the building um Is there at this stage? um A sense as to how that space will be utilized or will it be Remain as is is the intent to to hold on to it is the intent to um I Either put it under conservation control or what is the intent for the remainder of the property? I think that the uh the intended and um, what what the area is and how we finalize the uh the concept plan We'll determine that but um, there hasn't been a change from our position that we want to just have it preserved open space or or the majority of it and what that area exactly is I think we'll be better defining at our next hearing before the board. Um So, you know leaving some amount of like open spaces associated with the project and then to say and then there's going to be this Chunk of it that that's going to be Protected open space Okay, are there any additional Questions or comments from the board? Steve, I don't know if your hand is up new or old That was an old hand. Uh, let me uh Let me fix that for you Kevin melz. I have a question. Yes, mr. Melz Um, I note in the new plan the footpaths have been removed From the site and I imagine that's to lessen the impact on the wetlands But I would think at least one footpath from the development over towards l wife to facilitate foot traffic Towards l wife and keep the foot traffic off the neighborhood That would encourage the people to use l wife more. I would think Uh, are there any thoughts about replacing at least that one footpath? I'll take that. Um You're correcting your first assumption. Uh, mr. Melz that the the Trail system was removed from the revised plan because of the impacts the additional impacts that had on wetland resource areas and as Stephanie just mentioned that How the the space remains is open space. I think that's something that we're I'm sure the applicant is happy to work With the board with the conservation commission If if there's a viable location for that that doesn't You know put the project into additional environmental You know resource impacts that Can't be overcome if I I think ideally if it is preserved as open space It just it does have that similar trail network that was originally proposed But that would be That's not part of the current proposal Thank you. Further questions, mr. Melz Yes I would think that in the absence of a footpath People will find their own way across the property and actually do more damage So a well designed path that could be maintained You know a surface that could be plowed be steady in lit would encourage Foot traffic and minimize people trapping all over the place creating their own paths and doing more damage Uh, it would be a compromise of course with the conservation commission because there's no way you're going to do it without touching something That's right. Well, we'll we'll take that Suggestion and see what we can work into the Thank you the design as it progresses. Thanks. Thank you Anything further mr. Mills no more set. Thank you. Thank you any further questions from the board None Okay with that Then I will open the meeting up to public comment um This is able for if you would please raise your hand um Which you can do from the participants tab And the first hand I saw is uh, chlorissa row Clarissa if you want to go ahead and unmute yourself Thanks christian, uh I appreciate all the care that the zoning board of appeals is giving to this I am concerned about the open space land because um, I think it needs to have money to Take care of it at present. There's a lot of dumping I understand that the homeless population has diminished substantially But there are lots of um, there's a lot of debris in there And we really think that it's important that the um owner of the land come and do a cleanup of the Area because um, it's full of invasive vegetation. I think there could be ways of having the boardwalk through through the um the wet areas that would um allow chlorissa, I'm going to ask you to pause for one second. Um if For those who think we're on the call for not actively speaking if you could please mute yourselves My apologies mr. Off you could continue Okay, that's all right. Um, I just would like to have a lot more thought given to the open space come up with a series of Pathways, I know that they're thinking of possibly using the the bridge over route two to get over to L life That bridge is in terrible shape And I think they need to work with mastot To repair the bridge or get it torn down I think there's a lot of value to having the open space as it is But it it open space needs to be cared cared for and maintained and I would ask um the design team and the owners to please Step up in their um thoughts about how to handle that and the Arlington land trust. I think we lost you Oh Can you hear me now? We can yes, okay the Arlington land trust is more than willing to sit with the owners and Though through a really careful program once all the building considerations have been approved by the neighbors, but um, you know, this is this is a very controversial project But you can't just leave that number of acres Just as open space without any kind of care. Thank you for your consideration Thank you. Ms. Rowe The second hand I saw was uh, mr. Seltzer Thank you, mr. Chairman. Uh, Don Seltzer Irving Street Um, I have a question regarding the 100 year flood plain When I look at the September plans provided by Thorndyke Place And compare it with the official FEMA map. I find significant differences Particularly in the location of the proposed building I sent the board some simple diagrams that I drew up to show this I don't know if they can be put up on the screen at this point Um working on that the moment Um, the plans that you saw earlier Show the flood plain as being Too narrow, um, fingers that extend over the building Um, in looking at this, I found that the FEMA flood plan, the second figure, is a lot more extensive than this Uh, and if you go to the third diagram On this, yes, this kind of outlines where the differences are The blue area are the differences between the FEMA map and the Thorndyke plan Everything to the lower right is flood plain The FEMA definition of flood plain Basically covers about half of the area of the proposed building It also covers The potential parking lot up to the northwest corner I understand that Thorndyke has done their own survey And that's where they think the flood plan is. I just don't know the legalities here As to whether you can use their survey or whether you have to go with the FEMA map And the difference is that, um With the FEMA map, you'll find that their plans Fill in roughly around 50,000 square feet of flood plain, not the 17,000 That was, um, stated in the september 28th Was, um, stated in the september 28th plan So I just want to call it to your attention Thank you very much Other, uh, further comments, Mr. Seltzer? No, that's all I have to say All right, thank you. Um The next is, uh John Yorowitz, I If you could correct me with the pronunciation of your name. Thank you and you're still on mute Can you hear me? You can. Yes. Thank you. That's good. Thanks. My name is John Yorowitz I've lived at the corner of Martin and Little John Street for 35 years My I have two questions and one comment My first question I would like to know what the floor grade is for the lowest Under parking garage level in the building with regard to Dorothy road Number two, I would like to know if the 38 auxiliary parking spaces On the west end of the building near Little John Street are counted in the 1.4 space per unit ratio And my comment, this is directed to us, Mr. Thornton He mentioned 26 percent of, uh Right now 26 percent of the traffic volume As to what it was pre-covid If Mr. Thornton had come out here during the hours of 330 to 630 quarter 7 p.m And 7 o'clock in the morning, so 9 o'clock in the morning, Mondays through Fridays He would have seen that the traffic was backed up from Approximately the bike path To route 2 Especially at evening rush hour And in the morning coming from Mass Ave It's backed up to perhaps Orbus Road Down Mass Ave to Lake Street at the bike path at Brooks Ave These traffic volumes cannot be assumed to be the same as they were back then due to Some repair to COVID But once they get a vaccine, perhaps this Traffic volume is going to shoot way back up close to what it was back then. Thank you for your time I appreciate your effort Thank you very much If I could ask Mr. Hessian Do you have a proposed elevation? I know we have a proposed elevation of 12 foot for the first floor. Do you have one for the garage? Yes, mr. Chairman that um as I uh mentioned earlier the first floor is approximately elevation 12 um Dorothy road is currently the existing street is at about 11 elevation nine And the lowest floor of the garage. It's a one level garage Is at will be at approximately elevation one about eight feet below The paved surface on Dorothy okay and there was a secondary question about Whether the 38 spaces that are on the surface are included in the the required parking for the bylaw um the The Spaces closest to the building are included in that count the Spaces that are labeled potential future parking. I believe there's 14 spaces out of that that are not needed to meet the Parking requirements under the bylaw If that makes sense. Yeah, very good um, I am looking at the list of participants and I am not seeing any further public Looking to ask questions or provide comments. So I'm just going to ask one more time. Um If you're interested in asking a question or providing comment if you go to the participants tab and next to your name enable the raised hand Yeah, so you're at you if you want to continue please I'm just going to ask a general question Will there be future times when The neighbors in the in the neighborhood Can have access to to make a full blown commentary at a public meeting Um, it's a pretty serious deal as far as we're concerned down yet I've been in engineering architectural business for over 40 years And I'm kind of like the liaison for the neighborhood And we really have to get together on this. It's a it's a huge opportunity for us to have to have thank you again I welcome I have a question Can you hear me? Oh, I I I see you are calling in I'm calling in. Yeah, I didn't do it on my phone. So I wasn't able to raise my hand My name is Aaron. Okay. Do you just identify yourself please first and go ahead. Sure. My name is My name is Aaron freeburger. I live on parker street I've lived here for 16 years and I've I'm aware of two safety issues that I didn't hear addressed tonight I wanted to bring them up The first one is that there have been fires happening on the property The Arlington fire department has had to come multiple times based on smells of smoke visuals of smoke visuals of fire And they've had to come and put those fires out So that is a current concern that is happening on the move our property with people who are living there The second is that there are rats now in east arlington and my understanding is that there are rats happening in different parts It's gotten to the point where we've had now 26 neighbors have communicated With each other to understand what is happening in our neighborhood People have put on night Motion sensor cameras overnight. We've had The board of health come the inspector come to help us understand this better because it's that the town has signaled that this is a significant issue and we've also brought in private A private firm to come and help us as well And we have multiple sources saying that Based on the cameras and the findings that they are coming from the mugar property So none of the 26 houses where that we had inspected had the Had a housing for the rats. They didn't have the the boroughs However, there are tracking that there is evidence that they are Coming through our our homes yards and neighborhoods and they're coming from move our property so That is the background and my question is at what point if there is a point does the safety concern cross a threshold in which the mugar would become responsible for the What's on their property and the safety of the neighbors surrounding it that are affected by their negligence of their property well, I think in regards to the status of the current owners Let's say I'm not entirely certain who's responsible Who's responsibility that is Um, I think that's something that um, I don't know that that should be raised specifically True well, I would find it relevant to this because if our camp is responsible, right for the current situation I don't have any faith that they would follow through on the the obvious outcome of what's going to happen when they do build on this land and so How they respond to the current concerns? Shows a lot about how they're going to respect and understand our concerns for You know, what's inevitable for what they're trying to build here Okay, I understand So I I know that it was it was raised um as well that That we need a a significant plan for how the property is to be managed Um going forward and we'll certainly Take your your comments and your concerns into account and we also The fire department is a part of the the ongoing conversation So we'll make sure to follow through with them as well. Okay. I have no further questions Thank you very much. All right. I see no other hands raised Going once going twice All right, so I will close the public comment portion of this meeting um So just to turn back to the board um So moving forward from this point um Is anticipated that the uh the applicants will work on The basis of the plan that they have uh display this evening um To come up with a more complete plan and a more uh a more detailed plan both involving The building itself, but also The area around the building Taking into account all the comments from the conservation commission From the board and from the members of the public this evening um Just one last opportunity to the board. Are there any other? um specific concerns that the board would want The applicant to take into account as they move forward with this um With this next stage of their Uh review review of the project Um, mr. Revillac the This is actually slightly somewhat in response to the uh into uh one of the public comments but uh one on mr. Hessian's plans there is a There's shown a uh an access Way around the building which I believe is to facilitate um fire department access If that helps to allay any concerns Um aside from that I you know for myself, I'm I will wait for the uh for the more detailed plans to arrive Um Mr. Chairman I'm sorry go listen question Please yeah, so um So relative to the comments in the memo from the conservation commission Uh, you don't feel that it's necessary for us to make a formal request that they respond to those for recommendation and that we will just um We will just proceed as if those are going to be addressed um, I mean we can If you feel it's necessary if you feel it's necessary we could um Put together a vote specifically requesting that um That the applicant as a part of their next phase address the questions that are raised um By the by the conservation commission, um, certainly it's within the the applicants um You know ability if they don't want to specifically address a point they can request a waiver from The specific requirements of the of the local ordinances But if we would like to reiterate to the applicant that we think it's important that they specifically do address the points raised um By the conservation commission we can certainly Do that through a motion I I would I would like to see that done Okay Before going to that are there any other comments from the board I have one further comment too and it's relative to the last comment that was made by the caller about the rats Yeah, so it strikes me and I don't know too much about it, but I'm not going to be surprised if there's rat habitat there and I would think that in the process of construction And I don't know whether this falls under the board of health that that's something that would necessarily be addressed Because if you're displacing A lot of rats Then they're going to have to go somewhere. So It's really more of a question in terms of is there some process In place to take care of that because as a homeowner nearby I would certainly want to know that there is a contingency in place for if there's farming start to travel So is there something does board of health have oversight over something like that that we know um Actually ask that question of mr. Valarelli if he knows is there a specific um set of regulations in town that require um Yeah, road and control during construction operations Uh, there is mr. Chairman that is usually handled co Actually, it's shared by in special services and the board of health Okay Thank you And the only other comment I had um was something that mr. Revolac had raised um is that Cambridge has done some extensive studies recently looking at um 100 year storm projections looking at climate change and it's is very specific to the Areas in Cambridge that abut this property and so I would just encourage um The development team to review those documents and take them Under advisement as they proceed with their uh with their next round of Development, um mr. Chairman. Yes, please um one of the person people in the cat and the chat did raise the question that the the level of the Parking garage is lower than the The floodplain I'm sure the applicant has thought a lot about that, but it would be useful to have an explanation for What the implications are of that when you have a high when you when you do have flooding as in this area You will certainly have from time to time um What's going to happen to that parking and what's going to happen to the building and what's going to happen to The people who need to get in and out um That's part of what the Cambridge people are also looking at at the proposals that they're making or in for the plans on nearby and Sort of stepping back and looking at the contingency planning would produce at least a discussion that I think both the citizens and I would find interesting right, thank you um Mr. DuPont did you want? Oh, sorry, mr. Areas. I missed you very go ahead Mr. Hanlon just reminded me of something so, um, you know Because I happen to also live in a hundred year, you know a 1 special flood hazard area Um, you know floodplains are something that vary that very much interests me and you know just in terms of FEMA general guidelines for Building and floodplains, you know, I think the underlying idea is allow the water to go in allow the water to go out And you know minimize the time time and effort and cost repair but one thing that's I think would be relevant to planning especially with the garage is far below grade as We understand it to be uh would be pumping infrastructure So I that I would like to see that included in a future plan okay, mr. DuPont did you have a draft for a motion? so I move that the recommendations the four recommendations that were outlined in the memorandum from conservation commission dated october 9th 2020 be included in the requests uh that we make of the applicant going forward in the supplement supplementation of their plans And I'm happy to take any edits to that I think it could be worded more essentially Mr. Chairman yes, please. I wonder if it could be We are going to get to a schedule Which I think we had discussed earlier calls for this to be addressed on the 24th Ms. Kiefer has pointed out that you know a question sometimes come up and sometimes The there has to be a further discussion later on But I think that it would be helpful to amend the motion to say that the These questions should be addressed as an initial matter at the meeting that is currently scheduled for the 24th I'm acting for the amendment okay Apologize I don't understand what the amendment means then because are we trying to avoid getting to the 24th? And then requiring more information from the applicant, which I don't think we want to do Mr. Chairman, please. I'm basically it was earlier that was suggested that all of this should be dealt with on the 24th And the purpose of the amendment is just to is just to include that date So then the the vote would be That the The recommendation that the the board would find that the would excuse me move that the recommendations of the conservation commission dated october 9th um be included or in the requested considerations Uh for the revision of the plans to be addressed on november 20 at the november 24th hearing is that essentially the Yeah, that's essentially what I had in mind Okay And that would just also include in that that Um the comments from this session Okay So the the recommendation of the conservation commission dated october 9th as well as the comments from this hearing of the zoning board appeals Be included in the requested considerations To be addressed By the applicant at the november 24th hearing Yes Yes, we have a second on that second second for mr. Handlin um Mr. Dupont, how do you vote? I? Mr. Mills Mr. Mills, how do you vote? Oh, is that an eye? Oh, you're still muted sir. Hi Thank you. Mr. Revillac Hi, mr. Ford Thank you. Mr. O'Rourke. Hi Mr. Handlin. Hi Chair votes, aye Thank you But then the the next item on the is the tentative schedule for subsequent hearings um So I guess a question more specifically for mr. Thornton, um The we have on our schedule discussing traffic flow and safety on november 10th um, we just want to ask if that Date it would work works for you if if there's materials so will be available for a substantive discussion on that date Yeah, mr. Chair. I would think that um I would think that november 10th. We may have uh, we may have the study uh, complete into beta, but i'm not sure if uh, they will have had an opportunity to To complete their review. Okay and and i'm not sure if if your purpose for For the traffic for the for the meeting the traffic's discussed is for for traffic to be presented from the applicant side and then from the peer reviewer side and And that'd be the end of the traffic discussion If that's the case then, you know, we may need to May need to a little more time another another week or two or Conversely, if if We can present The traffic study and then wait to get Peer review back from beta at a later date Then the the november 10th would work. Okay um I'd ask miss nover does that make sense to you or should we Hold off on the hearing regarding the traffic until It is had an opportunity to really review the documentation Well, it sounds like I'm already over with the beta group That sounds like we're not going to be able to get our written comments to the board for that november 10th meeting We received the baseline traffic volumes You know, basically after close of business friday So and we had a it's a short week. So we're not going to be able to get back To them our our initial comments on that until probably this friday. So and then they're going to start there You know, they're updated Report, so it's really up to the board how you want to hand But we're not going to be able to have Much of any comments ready for the 10th Okay, how much how much time would you need to review the documentation provided by the applicant in that regard Well, we would need a solid two weeks to get our Written comments to the board and then of course you're going to need some time to look at it before Okay To discuss All right, so it sounds like that november 10th date. It's probably not going to be um Not going to be substantive So we may want to go ahead and Cancel that date maybe and I meant the next date that's on the schedule is november 24th, which would be wetlanded backs and storm water management Which I anticipate is going to be a rather lengthy discussion so possibly We could put traffic on with general civil engineering At least for the moment on december 8th Which would give sufficient time for the development of the materials and for the For proper review By our consultants Mr chairman. Yes, please In the process of of doing all of this at what point do the relevant reports Uh go up on our website. The reason I'm asking is for transportation in particular Everybody is an expert All you need to have is a driver's license and not even then necessarily And it seems to me that that there will be a lot of public interest There and that a lot of people in the neighborhood will know things about traffic in the neighborhood that That probably the experts won't know because they live there And I'd like to make sure that the technical analyses that are done Are not only before us so that we can study them But also before the public so the public can study them so that we can have a hearing That is as useful as it possibly can be in getting all these issues out on the table and putting them in a condition that they can be resolved so certainly that What we we try to do is as these documents come in that we distribute them to the board and we distribute them to the website at the same time um And sometimes there's a little bit of a lag going on to the website But we're trying to we're trying to address that and we're also trying to Address the the condition of the documents that are on the website to make it a little easier to navigate and find what people are looking for I understand at the moment things are A little difficult to to find on the website, but we are going to make an effort in the coming weeks to address that but certainly as that when we receive the documentation from the applicant as it goes to The peer review consultant it will go to the public as well. All right, so if so I guess just to ask miss kiefer so if we were to pull the november 10th date out of the Out of the hearing schedule then I believe the intent from um The from the No, mr. Hetzin is that we would have revised documentation to review honor around november 3rd Which would give three weeks for the review by the peer review ahead of the november 24th hearing And from mr. Thornton it sounds like they're anticipating that they'll have their Their documentation may be running a week behind that schedule Does So with that in mind we would keep the november 24th for wetland impacts stormwater management. We would Have general civil engineering and traffic scheduled for december 8th, and we would leave the remainder of the Dates as they are Just does that sound Appropriate to you. I think that does um just one question You and you may not know this um, do you have any sense of when you are going to be Live if it's going to be in 2020 or will you anticipate that all hearings? To the end of the year will be remote. I just ask that because I know that one of the hearings is like december 22nd or 23rd and I know that Quorum purposes and whatnot that might be And public participation and and project team that might be tricky So I don't know are you Anticipating I have not heard anything um in that regard and obviously that directive is coming more from the state than it is locally um But I I will Check into that um and see if there is some direction on that Mr. Chairman yes, brief just as a technical matter. It seems to me that When we when we put out the next the schedule In light of the motion that we carried a little bit before we ought to probably you know Say wetlands and we use the issue headings that the Conservation commission has so that it clearly delineates what all of the things that'll be coming up at that meeting Okay, we'll do um Just checking with our other Um Is there any other Questions or comments from from your perspective? I don't have any more. Okay All right. Thank you. Mr. Haverty. Do you have any Comments or questions? I do not have any questions. Mr. Chairman the one thing that I did have a concern about was the statement of regards to the compensatory flood storage and the potential for Removing some of the parking um in order to create additional flood storage area And I was wondering you know given the fact that the applicant is stating that with a reduction In the number of units that they're going to be able to meet the parking requirements Would it make sense for the board to request that the applicant do a parking study? To determine whether or not it actually needs as many spaces as the Bylaws would otherwise require Given the fact that there does seem to be a very significant concern With regards to this issue. I I don't think that's a good idea to be paving any spaces That would need to be paved Thank you for that. Um No, this is a good recommendation. Does the um has that I don't know if that's a question for mr. Thornton or mr. Hessian, but that has the um, have you taken a look at the Or at the anticipated parking requirements In relation to the requirements, uh, put forth in the zoning bylaws So, uh, scout Thornton, I'll take a crack at it. Um We we have noted noted that In general in this area, um some other Similar residential developments are providing parking at a lower rate than Than what is required under the bylaw and in and so There may be a need or may may be less of a need to rely On the bylaw for for guidance in this case um, however, I think that that you know the intent was really to to Look at how we could comply with the bylaw and not Not look at the the need for a waiver for for parking I don't know if john has any other comments to add Just add scott to what scott said. He kind of nailed it but We we started looking down that path when the number of units was You know greater in the the conversation Back in august was asking about the parking ratio being proposed but as the The the size number of units of the project has been reduced You know it it we're able as I said earlier. We're able to meet the parking ratio Doing a parking study to request a lower ratio would put us in a situation where we would be requesting from this board a waiver From the parking requirements under the bylaw. So it's You know feels a little bit like a and there was actually discussion amongst the board members about Whether there it should be a lower ratio But then you know, there's parking shortage in this neighborhood. So it's Stuck a little bit in the middle. It feels like But I think we've started the work To substantiate a lower or to justify a lower count If that's a direction the board would you know like the applicant to to to move in Mr chairman Yes, please I I would suggest that it might be useful for the applicant to think about it in a somewhat different way There There are a lot of competing values here And parking is not an absolute I'm all in favor of having adequate parking in the area and it's an important consideration But my understanding is is that there may be trade-offs between there and having higher environmental protection and I just think that knowing Having more information about what what the underlying facts might be or what you might expect Would ultimately provide more flexibility to achieve the the optimum solution to All of those problems together So I I get it that that the applicant sort of once is concerned about being Dragged every which way, but so is the board and figuring out the best way to proceed if that's where we are at the end of this process It may it may be helpful just to know what kind of flexibility there is And mr. Chairman it may be a move point if the applicant is able to comply with the two-to-one Ratio that the conservation commission has requested I'm just presuming that that might become an issue for them And if that's the case then this might be a way to help address it Very good. Thank you Other than that mr chairman, I do think we really do need to get a little bit more Information in terms of the number of total units that are being proposed Yeah, that does impact the number of parking spaces that are going to be required it impacts You know the trip generation for the traffic report So, I mean, I know that they've got it down to a fairly Small difference in terms of the one the 75 to 180 that avert might be but getting that specific number Would be helpful and obviously I think you know the board is going to want to see You know the architectural Drawings sooner rather than later so that they can get a sense as to what that's going to look like and what the impact It's going to be on the neighboring properties No, absolutely, and this especially the tabulation of the the size of the units um You know what the what the breakout of that is In a comparison also of the previous areas From the original proposal and the revised proposal would also be helpful Other than that, I think the board covered a lot of good ground tonight Thank you Well with that in mind um The last sign will be to continue And it sounds like we are going to bypass the november 10th date um So mr. Handlin if I could ask For a motion to continue Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing in this case be continued Um to a date certain of november 24th uh 2020 Thank you. Do I have a second? Second Thank you Mr. DuPont going around. Mr. DuPont, how do you vote? I Who else? I The rebel act? I The board? I The row work Mr. Handlin I Chair votes I So we are Adjourned on the Throne Dice Place hearing which brings us to the conclusion of our main hearing Um, thank you all for your participation tonight's meeting of the arlington zoning board of appeals I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting Uh, I wish to thank mr. Valarelli, mr. Hyman, mr. Lee for all their Assistance in preparing for and hosting this meeting online Uh, please note the purpose of the board's recording of the meeting is to ensure the creation of accurate record of the proceedings It's our understanding the reporting being made by acmi will be available on demand at acmi dot tv within the coming days If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zba at town dot arlington dot ma dot us That email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website To conclude uh tonight's meeting Ask mr. Handlin for a motion to adjourn Motion to move to adjourn second Second mr. DuPont All those in favor, please say aye. All right. All right closed We are adjourned. Thank you all very much for attending this evening. Thank you Take care. Thank you